1993-03-31

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the mining exploration industry in Canada can play an important role in the economic recovery, especially in the resource regions of Canada. I ask the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Finance in Ottawa to take seriously the demands made by the Quebec prospectors association in December 1992.


ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES DAY
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, today is Aboriginal Languages Day, a proud occasion to celebrate the survival and richness of the 53 aboriginal languages spoken in Canada.
I am proud to say that the Northwest Territories has six official aboriginal languages: Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich'in, Inuktitut and Slavey. All six languages have equal status, rights and privileges with English and French within the NWT, including use in government services and communications.
Statistics show that 50 of Canada's 53 aboriginal languages are declining, endangered or facing extinction. In this year of indigenous peoples this government should provide the funding needed to promote language awareness and the revival of aboriginal languages in communities which are most threatened.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Slavey, translated as follows:]

The Dene language is a gift from the Creator and we must work to preserve it.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, through a number of legislative initiatives which all opposition parties have attempted to derail, the government has restrained public spending in five major areas.
It has done so by reducing the rate of growth of transfers to provinces, for instance Bill C-32 and Bill C-60; by streamlining the operations of government, for instance Bill C-20, Bill C-21, BUI C-56, BUI C-63, BUI C-69 and BUI C-93; through the privatization of Crown corporations, for instance BUI C-8, Bill C-13, and BUI C-38; by restraining the salaries of public officials, for instance, BUI C-26, Bill C-55, BUI C-76 and BUI C-113; and by restraining grants and contributions to organizations.
The result of our ongoing efforts is that since 1987 we have run the operations of government in the black.


DISABILITIES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, using the most recent figures avaUable, the Roeher Institute estimates disabUities cost Canada and Canadians some $19.5 bUlion a year. That is a lot of money and the bUl goes up each year.
For this reason alone all levels of government, as well as business and labour, should be finding ways to co-operate in order to deal with and address these costs and the effects of disabUity in our society.

March 31, 1993
However we must never forget that disabilities affect Canadians where they live: in their families and in their communities. The Canadian Association of Community Living is working to ensure that mentally handicapped people can live at home, go to the local school and take a job. Allowing people with disabilities to take their rightful place as full members of our society ought to be our goal.
Independence and integration of persons with disabilities makes not only good economic sense but it respects the rights of citizens and promotes social and political values that will benefit us all.


THE LATE CLAUDE MOUTON
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians and all my colleagues in the House and in my own name, I wish to pay tribute to a great Canadian who died last night at the age of 61.
Mr. Mouton's contribution to the sporting and social life of Quebecers can never be forgotten. Last Saturday night, he was still behind the microphone in the Forum. When I saw him there I remarked to my wife how courageous he was.

It is with great admiration for him and for what he did that in the name of each and every one of us I thank him.

I speak for everyone in the House in offering his wife and children our deepest sympathy.


THE PREMIER OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate a former colleague in this House, Catherine Callbeck, who on Monday made history by becoming the first woman elected premier in Canada.
Under Premier Callbeck's leadership the Liberal team won 55 per cent of the popular vote in the election and won a landslide victory with 31 seats in the legislature. In
a campaign based on positive ideas and a concern for the future the Liberal Party distinguished itself.
I wish to congratulate the many fine members of the Prince Edward Island legislature. After seven years of fine Liberal government Islanders can look forward to four more years of a strong Liberal administration.
The mandate from the people is clear, and I know that Premier Callbeck is up to the task.


NATIONAL DEFICIT
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago we in the Reform Party of Canada released our plan to eliminate the federal deficit in three years and save Canada's social programs from complete collapse.
This plan has met with favourable editorials across the country. Our zero in three plan is based on: first, fairness, that federal spending reductions should be distributed fairly across all major areas of federal expenditure; second, the principle of leadership by example; and, third, the principle of priorizing social spending.
The debt has increased under Tory mismanagement from $180 billion in 1984 to $460 billion today. Thirty-two cents out of every tax dollar is being spent on interest, leaving only 68 cents for funding government programs and services.
Yet the government says its hands are tied, that there is nothing it can do about it, and deficit reduction requires constitutional amendments. The fact of the matter is that neither the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, nor the New Democratic Party have any plan to reduce the deficit. In fact they plan to increase spending and increase the debt.
The Reform Party is the only party that can stop the haemorrhaging and save our social safety nets.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has just scored a coup. Canadians should take pride in Monday's announcement by the Financial Network Association that it had chosen Ottawa for its one-stop shopping financial data network.
March 31, 1993

The expertise of Canadian telecommunications is world renowned, and for this reason Canada is quickly becoming the nerve centre for financial information.
Telecommunications is one of the engines of growth in the Canadian economy, and the implications of this announcement are enormous. We have just been elevated to the forefront of this $30 billion a year industry.
This is good news for all Canadians and speaks well of our country's good standing within the international community.


THE LATE CLAUDE MOUTON AND DANNY GALLIVAN
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, last night, the Canadiens hockey team lost another of its spokesmen. Claude Mouton, the well-known announcer who worked in the Montreal Forum for the Canadiens, died at the age of 61. How can we forget Claude Mouton, in his well-known style, welcoming the Canadiens onto the ice?
Indeed, for over 21 years, Claude's voice stirred the Forum crowds.

Recently another legend at the Forum, hockey broadcaster Danny Gallivan, passed away. Together these two men were institutions in Montreal, and their association with sport and particularly the Montreal Canadiens was enjoyed by hockey fans across Canada.
It is only when people like Claude Mouton and Danny Gallivan leave us that we realize how much they meant to the game of hockey and to those of us who grew up listening to them.
As a former NHL official, I have fond memories of these gentlemen. I will always remember their contribution to hockey, their love for the game, the pride they took in their work and, most important, the enjoyment they provided to the fans.


FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, again I am urging the Department of Agriculture to accept the formula outlined by the Atlantic Farmers Council when the 10 per cent reduction is applied to the Feed Freight Assistance Program.
The current proposed formula contradicts the Feed Freight Assistance Act by abandoning the primary principle of the act, which is to ensure fair equalization of feed grain prices throughout Canada.
The impact on Atlantic Canada is 50 times as much as it is on Ontario under the present proposed plan. Also any change in the Atlantic subsidy should not take place until the same reduction takes place in the west.
The provinces do not agree with the present plan; the industry is against it; and it contradicts the principle of the act. I respectfully request that this plan not be implemented, and that it be replaced by one that is fair to all farmers.


ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES DAY
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Tansi. Mr. Speaker, today, March 31, is Aboriginal Languages Day.
In March 1989 Canada's chiefs attending a special meeting of the Assembly of First Nations unanimously passed a resolution declaring March 31 of each year Aboriginal Languages Day.
The chiefs did so to promote and enhance an awareness and revival of aboriginal languages and to celebrate the survival and richness of the 53 aboriginal languages spoken in Canada.
The Assembly of First Nations is calling for the recognition of aboriginal languages in Canada during 1993, the International Year for World Indigenous Peoples.
It is time for Parliament to accept the AFN proposal and recognize the unique contribution these languages have made to Canada, as well as the essential role language plays in the maintenance and development of culture and well-being among First Nations people. Tenake.

March 31, 1993
Oral Questions



Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your simply outstanding presentation this morning at the national prayer breakfast. Kinanaskomtin Daytapewkimaw.
In 1989, recognizing the need for a day to draw attention to the fact that aboriginal languages were at risk, the chiefs of First Nations in assembly declared March 31 Aboriginal Languages Day.
As our colleague, the member for Western Arctic, said today is a day when First Nations celebrate the survival and richness of the 53 aboriginal languages spoken in Canada.
I ask this Elouse to recognize all aboriginal languages in this International Year for World Indigenous Peoples. I also call on all First Nations to continue their dedicated efforts to ensure the survival of our languages.
The manifestation of our spirit, mind and body, the development of our positive self-esteem and pride is through the use of our own languages.
[[DOT]Editor's note: Member spoke in Cree, translated as follows:]

Let us teach each other and use our languages the Great Spirit gave us.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today the headlines are shouting what the Liberals have suspected all along, that Canadians are paying higher prices for drugs than most industrialized countries.
What a coincidence that this damning evidence was released after the government forced Bill C-91 through Parliament. What a coincidence that a public forum to look at this evidence was held five days after, and not before, Bill C-91 was given royal assent. What a coincidence.
I have a message for this government. Its mandate is to protect the people of Canada and our health care system. Drug companies work for profit, for the bottom line.
I urge the government to roll back drug prices, to start working for Canadians and for medicare, and not to let drug company bottom lines call the tune to which the government dances.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of filing a petition with 150,000 signatures requesting that this government deal with the issue of penalties for child molesters and child murderers.
These individuals believe that the people's voice to reinstate capital punishment should be heard. This government has avoided dealing with criminals who commit such heinous and immoral crimes.
Mrs. Barbara Wiebe of Calgary and her friends and colleagues have done an extraordinary job in co-ordinating and collecting signatures. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Wiebe and all those involved in this massive effort.
In memory of Shannon Dawn Morrissette-Bird and all children who have suffered at the hands of others, I urge the government to introduce legislation to deal with these criminals.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 1992, just a few days after the Westray coal mine blast claimed the lives of 26 men, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism stated: "What we will do of course is bring forward all the appropriate information as soon as possible". All the information. That is what the minister said then.
March 31, 1993

Yesterday senior legal counsel to the judicial inquiry in Nova Scotia was compelled to state publicly that this government, this minister, had declined to release the documents.
After almost one full year of stonewalling Parliament and hiding vital information from Canadians, will the minister now stand in his place, do the right thing and admit that he misled Parliament?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker,
I am going to stand in my place and make it very clear to this House that the hon. member has misled Parliament.
Yesterday the commission counsel made the following comment: "The inquiry does have an incomplete copy of the CANMET report which is obtained from a source other than the federal government". I stood in the House and said that this was not the case and that they in fact had received the CANMET report in its entirety.
I have just received a letter from the commission counsel. I will read it to the House: "I can confirm to you that the report identified by our file is the document which has been referred to as the CANMET report and that it was received from your client as part of the delivery of documents in June 1992".
I accept his apology and I hope to have the same from the hon. member.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on June 9, 1992 when asked about the disclosure of the Westray mine documents the government House leader stated: "The government has been forthcoming with all of the background documents necessary for people to examine what has occurred and reach their own conclusions".
On December 1, 1992 the Prime Minister stated: "The position of this government will be to a full and complete co-operation with the public authorities in Nova Scotia".
Senior legal counsel yesterday said: "The inquiry does not have a copy of the memo to energy, mines and resources minister Jake Epp entitled 'Federal Funding of the Westray Coal Mine'".
Oral Questions
Will the minister stand in his place and tell the House that he has a second letter, that the inquiry has received that document and he is now going to disclose that to the Canadian public?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we must remember. We must put this in perspective. We have to have a reality check here.
First of all the regulation of mines is a provincial responsibility. That is why there is a provincial commission of inquiry looking into it. Second, the federal government's role in this was only to give a loan guarantee. It is not to inspect the mine for safety but to give a loan guarantee which of course was our only participation.
What disturbs me is what the hon. member did yesterday. He brought documents in here. We are talking about the death of 26 miners. To get to the bottom of why they died is very important to everybody in Canada, including this House. The hon. member brought documents pertaining to this into this House. He has had them for three or four months and did not reveal it to the House until yesterday. If there is a cover-up, it is a cover-up by the hon. member.
The situation is this. We have co-operated with the commission and we are going to co-operate with the commission fully. We are going to co-operate fully because we want to get to the bottom of this matter. We want the Canadian people to know why these miners died. I think the hon. member should help us in that task.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from the minister responsible and all members of the cabinet are answers to the questions which have been plaguing Nova Scotians and particularly the families of the deceased miners.
The minister will know that 26 men have lost their lives. The inquiry has been suspended. Curragh has closed the mine. The taxpayers in Nova Scotia and in Ottawa have lost $12 million and $80 million respectively-
I ask that the minister make available to the public today the document with regard to the Westray funding

March 31, 1993
Oral Questions
and all of its contents to date so that Canadians will know that this government is trying to protect the political hides of the federal cabinet and the premier of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am as willing as all members are every day to be partisan back and forth in this House. But when it comes to the death of 26 miners, the hon. member has gone far beyond what is appropriate.
He knows very well first of all that his facts are wrong and that $80 million has not yet been lost. The federal government holds title to the property that can be disposed of, certain funds of which could come back to the Crown.
More important, financial matters are not as important as these miners. What we want to do is get to the bottom of why they died. The commission of inquiry is going to do its work. It is going to be resuming its hearings in a matter of weeks. We will be tabling all of the relevant documents we said we would with them at that time.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister and concerns the Westray Mine case. On May 9, 1992, 26 people lost their lives in the tragic explosion at the Westray Mine. Nearly $80 million in taxpayers' money has now been lost.
If what the minister says is true, is he prepared to table the missing pages in the House today? Is he prepared to do so, yes or no?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this government has co-operated with the commission from the beginning and it will right to the end of its inquiries.
What I want to know from the hon. member is whether he and his party are going to apologize for raising an accusation yesterday in the House which was totally false, which has been confirmed by the commission counsel.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister just told us that he was prepared to co-operate with the inquiry commission. How does he explain the fact that yesterday, March 30, 1993, commission member John Merrick stated that the government had not released to the commission all the documents dealing with the Westray mine case.
Who is telling the truth, the minister or the Nova Scotia commission? Who is the minister trying to protect? Himself, his cabinet colleagues or the Premier of Nova Scotia who is in trouble?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the commission lawyer had the courtesy and good grace to apologize for making a mistake. The hon. member does not seem to be willing to do that.
The hon. member has also asked for us to table further documents with the commission. We will do so as soon as it resumes its hearings.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A major study today of seven industrialized countries has found that Canada's drug prices are among the highest in the world. They are 56 per cent higher than the international average. The evidence is clearly contrary to what Canadians were told during the debate on the drug patent legislation. Clearly something has gone very wrong.
Given the figures that have come out today, will the Deputy Prime Minister announce an inquiry into drug prices in Canada which will include why the prices are so high, the effects of the high prices on provincial and territorial budgets, and indeed the effect of the North American free trade deal on making it impossible to change this legislation if it is implemented?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have to be aware of what has happened with drug prices since 1987. Before BUI C-22 the increase in prices in Canada was 7.9 per cent per year. They have decreased to 2.6 per cent, which is
March 31, 1993

lower than the inflation rate. That is exactly what we said we would do in 1987 and it is exactly what we did. However at that time we did not have full control on the entry level prices with Bill C-22.
Bill C-91 had two specific purposes. One was to give protection in terms of intellectual property and development research and also to enforce the capacity of the PMPRB to control the price on entry and to control all prices.
We did exactly what we said we would do. The prices the member is referring to are prices which would be much higher if we had not done what we did in 1987 and 1991.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I wonder if the whole government is inhaling.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The head of the government's own prices review board has said that these higher drug costs "are not consistent with the principle articulated in our mandate". Just last fall the government was told by Green Shield Inc. that the average cost of a claim for drugs after the government first protected the multinationals was more than double than before they did so. This change in legislation by this government is going to cost the provinces over $4 billion.
While this government is telling the provinces and territories to expect less and less health care and giving more and more profits to the multinational corporations, will the minister institute an inquiry into these unreasonably high drug prices?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not comment on the premise that it is not the best question a member has asked since I have been in the House of Commons.
The hon. member is talking about an inquiry. She should first understand that the PMPRB is the board with the responsibility. It now works with the provinces to consider the prices of drugs and to act with regard to any price which is considered as unreasonable. That is what it did. That is what it will continue to do because its powers have been increased from what they were before.
Bill C-91 is a good bill. With regard to the question of the costs to the provinces, the hon. member should know
Oral Questions
because we have said time after time that patented drugs are 3 per cent of the volume of all drugs paid for by the provinces. If she would use the Conservative figures instead of the NDP figures maybe she would understand for once.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the final fact is that it is not working. Canadian drug prices are too high and are higher than international drug prices. That is a fact.

With the North American Free Trade Agreement it will be impossible for the Government of Canada to change this legislation. In that case, people have the right to expect this government to backtrack. Otherwise it will be too late.
Will the government order an investigation to determine the long-term impact on the price of drugs and on health care budgets across the country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I said in English applies in French as well. We have no intention of conducting an investigation into the price of drugs, since we have the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that prices remain at reasonable levels for Canadian users.
As for health care costs, all provinces, including those with an NDP government, consider that the amounts invested in their health care systems are adequate. In fact, today, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have cut the amounts allocated to health care, because the amounts invested are sufficient. I repeat, we are not considering an investigation into the cost of drugs.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
On June 8, 1992, recognized in Hansard, page 11571, the minister at that time stated that all the information necessary was tabled in the House.

Maxell 31, 1993
Oral Questions
Today we have the minister admitting that the key document outlining the federal role in the funding of the Westray mine has not been made public. It has been withheld.
I want to ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism why this key document has not been made public and withheld. Why has the government stonewalled on this key issue outlining the federal responsibility and role in the Westray mine disaster? Why has it stonewalled for 10 months? Who is the minister trying to protect?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member and his colleagues have been playing politics with this issue through the whole of Question Period.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Hockin: He knows very well that we have already tabled 7,000 pages with the commission. We will be tabling thousands more when the commission reconvenes. We have committed to do this and we certainly will do it.
The only admission I have not heard is an admission from them yesterday that they were wrong when they said that we had not tabled the CANMET report. In fact, as their own commission's counsel said today, not only did we table it but they received it months ago. They apologized for making the mistake, but no apologies from the hon. members opposite.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to this minister or the acting minister.
I think they both understand that in a mining accident of this severity where lives were lost and safety was compromised, any government or agency involved has the utmost responsibility for accountability.
Ten months ago the government was asked to produce all the documents. It did not do that. It has withheld a key document outlining the federal role in the funding of the Westray mine incident. Even now with the threat of a federal commission of inquiry the minister still says: "Well, we may or may not put it forward. We haven't put it forward". They rejected, stonewalled, stopped the opposition.
Who made that decision? Was it this minister? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the former Minister of Justice? Was it the minister of energy? Who is responsible for the cover-up?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the only cover-up the House has heard in the last two days is material that the hon. member's colleagues had yesterday that they kept to themselves for three or four months. It affects the lives of these 26 miners. If they cared about it, why did they not release it before yesterday?
The other point is that the hon. member makes the premise that there was a safety problem. We do not know. That is why the commission was struck by the provincial government, to look into whether there was a safety problem and, if so, who was the cause of it, what was the cause of it.
We want to co-operate with that. It is provincial jurisdiction. It is a provincial inquiry. We are going to co-operate fully with them as we have in the past and will in the future.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Eleven days after the blast that killed 26 men at Westray the minister said in this House, and I quote him: "These Westray documents are coming together very quickly. I hope that we will be able to get them before the public shortly". That is what he said.
As we know nothing has been put before the public, although we do have a document with everything wiped out, censored, except the title and we have another one that was obviously censored by some Tory in a back room.


Mr. McKnight:: Order. Withdraw.


Roger Simmons: What I want to ask the minister is this. When will he release untampered documents-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Roger Simmons: -so that the Canadian people can see if the Prime Minister is interested in miner safety or the careers of his justice minister and his good buddy, Donny Cameron?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes two mistakes. First of all he is politicizing in a very big way what is basically a human

Oral Questions
tragedy. Second, he has failed to do his homework. He has failed to do 7,000 pages worth of homework. We have already tabled 7,000 pages on this subject and we have thousands more to come when the commission reconvenes.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows politics is written all over this one. That is the point he is trying to skate around.
My colleague, the House leader, wrote the government just four days after the tragedy advocating that every document which may touch directly or indirectly on the Westray case be preserved and protected. Now a federal judge tells us that the federal Department of Justice had deliberately and consistently withheld information about Westray from the provincial inquiry and that documents had been censored and altered in back rooms.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did he or his predecessor think it necessary on this case to muddy the waters, to fudge the record?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, members of the party opposite are having a terrible time listening to my answers. They are having a terrible time dealing with what I have already told them: not only have we co-operated with the commission fully but also the allegation he just made is patently false.
Let me read again the letter that I have just received from the commission counsel. It states:
I can confirm to you that the report identified by our file 1ST 9 is the document which is being referred to as the "CanMet" Report and that it was received from your client as part of the delivery of documents in June of 1992.
The hon. members opposite said we never sent the report or if we had sent it we only sent part of it. The commission counsel is now saying they were wrong and we were right.
opposition is confused, we are confused, and the public is confused.
We have to get something straight. Yesterday the commission counsel for the inquiry said in a prepared release that the document they had called the CANMET report was not supplied by the government.
Today the minister quotes a letter, part of which reads:
In the Fall of 1992, we became aware of a document identified as a "CanMet" Report. On checking our documents, we found no reference to CanMet. We subsequently obtained a copy of a Report from another source which had a title page identifying it as "CANMET REVIEW".
The person who supplied the report to the commission of inquiry in Nova Scotia was Alexa McDonough, the NDP leader of the party in Nova Scotia, not the federal government. We have that from two independent sources within the commission.
I ask the minister to finally try to get the answers straight. Did the government supply the report to the commission or not? What report did it supply? When are we going to get to the truth of this matter? Will he table his letter?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the tone of my hon. friend's question. His party, to some degree, has not played politics with this issue as the Liberals have. Now he is doing that by mentioning names of prominent political people in the provincial legislature.
Let me tell the member this. If he reads this letter, and I invite him to read the letter, the commission counsel is saying that the reason they made the mistake is they did not get the title right. They now admit they had the document all along and they apologized for it. If the hon. member wants me to read all five paragraphs of the letter I will be glad to do it.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I thought the usual practice in this place was for a minister, when he read from correspondence, to immediately table that correspondence. Since he has not yet done so I hope he will very soon.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The last thing I want to do is play politics with this
Mr. Speaker, the only thing certain about this whole issue, especially since 26 lives were lost. As I stated Westray episode is that the government is confused, the before, on a very brief supplementary, there is a lot of

March 31, 1993
Oral Questions
confusion and most of all the confusion is among the public, the miners and the people of Nova Scotia.
Last June my colleague from Edmonton East asked the minister that in view of the fact he agreed the commission of inquiry had no power to compel the federal government to supply documents and seeing as that has become one of the most uncertain and confusing issues in this whole affair, will the minister and the government now agree to hold a federal inquiry that will have powers so we can get at the truth? The government has the power to seek and demand the truth. Can we get this matter clarified, put politics aside and get safety in the mines of Nova Scotia?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs a reality check again.
What we have here is a provincial inquiry into a matter of provincial jurisdiction which is safety. Regulation of safety in mines has always been provincial. That is why, in fact, the provincial government quite properly is having an inquiry. We want to co-operate because I believe the commission can get to the bottom of this. We have already sent them 7,000 documents. We will be sending them thousands more when they reconvene.
Not only that, but the federal government's role in this was simply as a loan guarantor. This is very far from safety in mining, but as a loan guarantor we want to participate fully in the inquiry. We look forward to co-operating with the commission.


COMMUNICATION-QUEBEC
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services or whoever answers for him.
The minister announced in February that he had asked his officials to end, at least for now, the interruption of the system whereby Quebecers can obtain information on government services from a single source. We know that this system is very convenient and practical for Quebecers and lets them obtain useful information on the services of the Quebec and federal governments all in one place.
Now that the minister has surely had time to consider this important matter, I ask him to tell us whether he can assure the House today that this single source system will be maintained permanently.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact there is a mix-up in some of the information. A person from my department met with some public officials in the province of Quebec in December who made this request. The minister in Quebec, Mr. Cannon, made this a public matter at the end of January.
I have talked to my officials and an approach has been made to his department to see if we can extend the present arrangements, at least for another year and a half while we negotiate. We are not really thrilled with the idea that we go along with him, that we should increase our payments by 10 per cent each year for the next three years for a total of 30 per cent. We think we had better negotiate some of the cost factors involved too.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the answer and I am not sure whether the services will be maintained or not. This is the most popular service there is. It is one of the few successes in federal-provincial harmonization and I ask why the minister does not tell us today, clearly and frankly, that he will not end this single-source system but maintain it and make it an example for all the departments concerned.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear what I said.
I said that I have contacted him within the last little while to see if we cannot extend the present services. That certainly seems like a continuation if we are going to extend.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

March 31, 1993

Senator David Pryor in a letter to U.S. trade representative Mickey Kantor indicates that the government sacrificed the Canadian generic drug industry solely at the request of President Bush, and I quote: "The previous Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the Canadian government to abandon their system of generic drug licensing", a move that will cost the Canadian health care system over $4 billion.
Why did the minister cave in at the negotiations? Why did he put the political interests of the President of the United States ahead of the public interest of Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: First, Mr. Speaker, as we already said and will repeat again, there was no pressure by the United States on the health care system and there is no pressure from ourselves either on the health care system.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me try it again. My supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade, the individual who negotiated this deal.
Today the government's own watch-dog, the PMPRB, reported that as a result of the government's drug patent laws Canadians are paying some of the highest pharmaceutical costs in the entire industrialized world. Yet the Minister for International Trade will get up and defend the clause he agreed to in the NAFTA that will lead to even higher drug costs for all Canadians.
Given the report of the PMPRB, does the minister of trade now agree with Senator Pryor and will he agree to have these offensive clauses removed from the proposed NAFTA deal?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the member referred to the patent drug legislation. All the countries which are supposed to have prices lower than Canada do not have any kind of compulsory licence system.
All the countries the member is talking about do not have a compulsory licence system. They have a mechanism to control, as we have in Canada. I said before, as he knows, that we have reduced the prices under Bill C-22 and that the PMPRB has all the authority to do the
Oral Questions
same if it considers that prices are not reasonable under Bill C-91.
We accomplished exactly the purposes we had in mind when we decided to put Bill C-22 and Bill C-91. He should read the bill very attentively and maybe he will understand.


CIGARETTE LABELLING
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Liberal Party is not against the proposed new regulations regarding the labelling of cigarettes, but the pending new regulations are causing great havoc in the packaging industry.
Can the minister give me assurance that two concerns of the packaging industry will be met; number one, that the industry will be given adequate lead time to refit its production lines and, two, that the industry will be given adequate transition time to fill existing orders and dispose of current inventory in its warehouse?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct something which appeared in the newspaper this morning in terms of the uncertainty about the law. There is no change in the law.
I said last week or the week before that by September 1 normally the companies would be ready to make the change because technically the drums used by the company to print the packs have to be changed every three months. They have five months and within that period they will have the opportunity to do what should be done. We gave enough time so that the companies would not have to pay more money to apply the regulation that the government decided on.
I believe it is fair and I believe it responds to the concerns we have about the tobacco problem.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, with layoffs affecting 200 to 300 employees at a packaging industry in eastern Ontario, announced just yesterday, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the communities affected.

March 31, 1993
Oral Questions
Will the minister give me assurance that he will consult immediately with the packaging industry to work out a mutually agreeable time at which the new regulation will take effect so that the 200 to 300 employees who are now unemployed can get back to work?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the rationale of the company to have laid off people yesterday or today because it is not sure about what will happen. It should know. I was very clear about the date, September 1, and it was presented to the companies previously.
We consider it reasonable to believe it can be done. If there are many other reasons I do not know about to lay off people, that is fine, but it is not because there is uncertainty because there is no law which needs to be changed. It is regulations that have been passed by the government. They are ready to be applied. Everything is well known. The companies should know that.


COMMUNICATION-QUEBEC
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.
On February 1 and 2, I spoke in this House for maintaining the excellent service provided by Communi-cation-Quebec on federal programs and services for the federal government.
Can the minister tell us today if his department is implementing a new Info-Centre Canada service in Quebec and whether this service that Communication-Quebec provides for programs will be eliminated by Christmas 1993?
If so, that is no gift.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I believe the government announced back in the fall of 1992 that it was looking at a system of centralization for all federal information across Canada and that it was setting up some pilot projects to look at this.
I understand there are some pilots in place.
At the present time I am inquiring through Communications Quebec as to whether or not we can maintain the same arrangement we presently have, subject to price and availability, at least up until the end of December 1994 so that these things can be finalized one way or the other.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for small businesses. It has to do with the changes passed in this House to the Small Businesses Loans Act. Incidentally they were much needed changes. My question is simply this. Can we expect more and better co-operation from the banks in relation to this act?
The second part of my question is: When can we expect implementation of the working capital provision within this act, which is probably the most important provision within this new act?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for his question. The new act is so different from the previous one that we should almost change its name to the super-duper loans act because it is a lot better than the previous one.
The banks, because of the increased guarantee and the increased commission, are very keen to promote it. They are already producing brochures. We are going to be producing our own brochure. Over a thousand will be sent to hon. members in the House of Commons and in the Senate to distribute.
We also are making sure that they are training their loan officers. Because they are under this act, the financial institutions will be limited on the amount of personal security that they can take against an SBLA loan. There will be many more funds left for working capital. That is the big advantage of these new changes.


WYETH-AYERST
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of industry.

Just months after the brand name drug companies promised more jobs to Canadians if they were given new patent privileges, one of the giants of this drug industry, Wyeth-Ayerst, yesterday closed its factory in Windsor, cutting 219 jobs.
We have now discovered that the Canadian operations of this empire received $4 million from the department of industry. I want to ask the minister if he will insist on getting that money back from this company given that it has broken its promise to Canadians and left long-term employees with a jobless future in a tough city in which to find a job in 1993.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend did not do this deliberately, but he did neglect to say that Wyeth has merged with Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison as a result of a world-wide merger. The business of the combined companies will be concentrated in Montreal in their much larger Ayerst operations.
I am sure my hon. friend would want to correct the impression he left with the House that Wyeth was pulling out of Canada altogether. It is consolidating its operations under one roof in Montreal and creating a good number of jobs in Montreal as a result of that.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
When debating Bill C-91, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that Bill C-91 would help provide new jobs, attract new investment in R and D, and provide new export opportunities. I do not think he said that they would be in Montreal. We received a number of letters in my office from employees of Wyeth expressing support for Bill C-91.
My question to the minister is: Would he blame those employees who have lost their jobs today if they regard the promises of Wyeth, of the PMAC and of this government as nothing but lies, lies and more damn lies, or does he have any solution for these people who have lost their jobs in Windsor? They do not care how many jobs are produced in Montreal.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Domm:: No NDP in Montreal.
Oral Questions


Mr. Della  Noce@: That's a good way to elect PCs in Montreal.


An hon. member:: Montreal doesn't have a socialist government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the only point that I would make to my hon. friend is that I hope he regrets the statement that he just made. Montreal is a part of Canada and there is a combination of operations within Canada.
Jobs have been created in one part of the country. Yes, it is unfortunate that jobs were lost in Windsor. I am sure that my hon. friend would reflect on the fact that $1 billion of investment has gone from Ford into Windsor and that Chrysler had put $450 million worth of investment in the Windsor area. These are all things that are positive to the Windsor economy.
The last point I will make to my hon. friend is this. The point by him and his colleague from Windsor about this action on the part of these two companies having something to do with Bill C-91 is totally wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-91.


INTERNATIONAL AID
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Since 1989 the government has cut $4.5 billion from international aid budgets. Besides the devastating impact that this has had on the world's poorest people, one of the key affected groups in Canada is the non-government organization committee.
For three years this community has been trying to meet with the minister to discuss the cuts. Why has the minister not met with this community? Will he meet with its people now before the minister comes down with his budget in April?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been engaged in pre-budget consultations for the last two to three weeks.
I have had seven meetings right across the country plus a number of bilaterals. We usually have 15 or 16 groups that come before the committee. They would certainly be welcome to come before that committee. I will see them whenever I get an opportunity. Obviously they meet with the minister responsible.

March 31, 1993
Oral Questions
I simply want to tell the hon. member that if she looked at the growth in foreign aid, ODA, she would find that the growth in that particular sector has been greater than the over-all program expenditures.
I think she should be the first one to understand that when we are engaged in fiscal restraint, all areas and all sectors are going to be affected. This sector has not been affected as negatively as many other sectors, I remind the hon. member.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Prime Minister on another foreign aid issue. In his absence I will direct it to the House leader.
Yesterday the Prime Minister met with ex-Soviet President Gorbachev and restated his position that the west must move quickly to help Russia. Today he announced that an aid package will be announced as part of the Yeltsin-Clinton summit this weekend in Vancouver.
We would like to know if the government will follow through on the commitment made here last week by the Prime Minister that would allow us to have a parliamentary debate on this subject either tomorrow or Friday so that a strong statement of support can be made by the Canadian people through Parliament before President Yeltsin arrives in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure through the negotiation process of the House leaders such a debate can be arranged.
The hon member, since she is so interested in this subject, may want to suggest the use of a Liberal opposition day for this purpose since the House time is being very compressed. I think that is clearly an opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal members can seize upon.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The green plan promises that there will be an environmental assessment of every policy that goes to cabinet
for a decision and that the environmental implications will be released at the same time as the policy.
As the minister knows, the major policy statement of any government is its budget. Is the government making an environmental assessment of the budget? Will the environmental review be tabled at the same time as the budget in April, as promised by the green plan and by the Minister of the Environment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously any policy initiative undertaken by the government takes into account the environmental impact. That is a general across the board policy of the government.


Marlene Catterall: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
The green plan is very clear that the environmental implications will be made public at the same time as the policy. It was not done for the 1991 budget; it was not done for the 1992 budget. I ask the Minister of Finance to be very clear. Will it be done for the 1993 budget, the last budget his government will release before it is defeated at the polls?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.


LESLIE JAMES BENNETT
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
On last night's Fifth Estate program Mr. Leslie James Bennett expressed dissatisfaction with his treatment by successive Canadian governments with regard to allegations that he was a Soviet mole. Could the minister clarify the government's position on this matter?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Mr. Bennett and the House that the Government of Canada believes that Mr. Bennett was never a KGB mole. I was struck by his request that we make a categorical denial or statement to that effect and I am pleased to have this opportunity today to put that on the record.
March 31, 1993


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
I would like to know the status of the European Common Market non-tariff barrier against the importation of Atlantic and Quebec softwood lumber into the European market which is slowly being taken away and is going to cost future jobs unless the government gets off its duff.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had posed the question to me privately I would have told him that we were off our duff a long time ago.
We have been working on this issue with the European Community as recently as a meeting that I had with Sir Leon Brittan in Washington about a month ago when I raised it with him. I have since written to every trade minister of every member of the European Community. My colleague, the Minister of Forestry, has done the same with his counterparts in the community.
We have expressed a great deal of concern not only with the action but the timing of the action. This matter has the potential to cause a disruption in trade that could have an impact on the industry. So we are right on top of that one, Mr. Speaker.


POINTS OF ORDER
Alex Kindy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I face a dilemma. I have 150,000 petitions that have to be filed during this session of Parliament. However it takes two days to have 600 certified. I would like to have your advice as to what I should do. You really could be helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the matter.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Routine Proceedings
I wish to table a letter which I quoted from earlier during Question Period, a letter to a Mr. Colin L. Campbell from John P. Merrick, the commission counsel for the Westray inquiry. I wish to table this letter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 80th Report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the membership of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-115.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth and seventh reports of the Standing Committee on Transport, in both official languages. They deal with Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance, and Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 31, 1993
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition from a fairly large number of my constituents calling on Parliament to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.



PHARMACEUTICALS

Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.
The first one is with respect to Bill C-91, the patent drug act. The petitioners from various places in the province of British Columbia, from the north to the south to the coastal regions, are petitioning Parliament to repeal Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and provide less coverage.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my second petition requests Parliament to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend that government use its termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.



SERIAL KILLER CARDS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton) Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present four petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 which have been certified as being correct in form and content.
Hundreds of petitioners from across my riding of Sarnia-Lambton call upon Parliament to enact legislation to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of serial killer cards.
As well, they say that producers of these cards should be advised that if their product is destined for Canada it will be seized and destroyed.

Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to present this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
It is submitted by a number of residents from the town of Ajax and has a number of clauses dealing with the incidence of violence against women and children and the many problems experienced by these individuals because of that violence. I therefore submit their recommendations.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children; encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse; provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse; provide relief and support to women as mothers to protect their children; emphasize the need for abuser rehabilitation; concentrate special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers, and judges to help them become knowledgeable about women and child abuse; and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.



GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have over 1,000 names on a petition calling on this House to urge the government to take immediate action on gasoline prices in our region.
They are joining those who are calling on the government to make sure that any inquiries taking place be open to the public.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition deals with the Canadian Forces base No. 5 supply depot in Moncton and urges the government to reconsider its untimely decision to close these military facilities as they have so capably served the troops and militia in bases throughout Canada and overseas over the last 52 years. They are calling upon the government to change its decision.



GASOLINE PRICES

George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, the second petition helps the member for Ottawa Centre on his gas price problem because we have a similar problem in Moncton.
March 31, 1993

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners call upon this government to correct the injustice associated with gasoline prices here in Ottawa as well as in other parts of Canada.



COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition in which your petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure no inappropriate language is used or acts of violence are displayed on radio or television. They say that often what they see and hear undermines the way they are trying to raise their families.
They also stressed it was unnecessary to use inappropriate language or to encourage acts of violence in order to inform people, in either official language.



CANADA STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM

Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from petitioners in Saskatchewan who are part of the Canadian Federation of Students which represents over 450,000 students across Canada. They ask the government to remove the 3 per cent tax on student loans and not to permit Bill C-76, which would add 6 months interest, to go through.
They also ask the government to be particularly cautious about transferring the student aid program to banks. They would like to have a role to play in it. If that is going to happen they would actually prefer to see it abolished.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Ron J. Duhamel: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have another petition that asks the government to seriously consider the withdrawal of the GST on books and reading materials.
They point out that there has never been such a tax and it is contrary to what we want in a democratic society such as ours. As well it runs contrary to objectives such as increased productivity and competitiveness.



VIOLENCE

Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Amos, Saint-Felix, Saint-Dominique-du-Rosaire, Senneterre, Ri-viere-Heva, Saint-Mathieu and Val d'Or, in the riding of Abitibi, who say that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they act as a stimulus for violent behaviour.
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. It is also pointed out that the repeated broadcasting of news about acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio may act as a stimulus for further identical violent behaviour.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.



BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a duly certified petition from Egmont residents concerned with the oppression of Bosnian women.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to initiate an international team to investigate the atrocities of rape camps and to ensure that all such camps be dismantled and that a series of rehabilitation programs be put into place by the Bosnian government to assist the victims of rape camps.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour and privilege to present six petitions today which include the names of hundreds of constituents in and around the riding of Elk Island, from such places as Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, Edmonton and the surrounding area.
In excess of 3,000 people have signed petitions asking Parliament to strengthen or replace the Young Offenders Act with legislation that will be a stronger deterrent to youth crime.

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
These citizens generally want laws that make young offenders accountable for their actions. They are most concerned with repeat violent young offenders and recommend harsher penalties including work camps, and in cases dealing with theft or property damage they suggest financial repayment to the victims of crime.



GASOLINE PRICES

['Agreed.']
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table this petition signed by residents of the Outaouais region. It concerns the difference between the price of gas in that region and in other regions in Ontario.
The petitioners wonder whether there could be a public investigation of the reasons behind these price differences.



Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your willingness to hear me at this time on the appropriateness of the time allocation motion just moved.
My NDP colleagues and I are outraged that the government is bringing in time allocation on Bill C-115 after only a limited time of debate at second reading. As I did in a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, on March 25, we are now calling on you to use your personal and procedural authority to stop what we regard as an abuse of Parliament.
Bill C-115 is the implementing legislation for the North American free trade agreement-


Some hon. members:: Debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I would hope that hon. members would extend the courtesies that are traditional in this place and allow the hon. member to put his argument. He is not proceeding on a question of privilege. He is proceeding on a point of order. It is a point of order that has been taken in the past and I have heard it. I am not anticipating what I shall do, but I am certainly going to hear it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-115 is the implementing legislation for the North American free trade agreement. NAFTA, as it is otherwise known, is a major development in Canadian political and economic history
March 31, 1993

by anyone's standards, regardless of their view on the matter, and needs to be debated adequately in the Elouse of Commons, especially at second reading where the principle of the issue is to be debated. To dispose of second reading after only a few hours of parliamentary debate last Thursday and today is clearly an abomination.
As you said on April 14, 1987:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
NAFTA is certainly a controversial issue and should therefore be debated at reasonable length. It is, as the Action Canada Network said in a press release this morning, an international treaty which Canadians, through their elected members of Parliament, must have an opportunity to analyse and debate in an open public forum.
In your decision of April 14, 1987 you said:
The fundamental rights of members can be violated by the tactics of obstruction as well as by the unreasonable restriction of debate.
I agree. On that occasion you were concerned about the deadlock that had been produced on Bill C-22 as a result of certain opposition tactics.
Today we are faced with the other danger to the fundamental rights of members that you correctly identified in that decision, an unreasonable restriction of debate. For if a day and a half at second reading on something like NAFTA is not unreasonable one has to ask the question: What would be called unreasonable? Would just a day be called unreasonable but a day and a half called reasonable? Both are an unreasonable restriction of debate and should not be tolerated. This is why we appeal to you as the guardian of the House, which you are, Mr. Speaker.
Since 1988 we have seen closure used 17 times, almost as many times as in the whole history of Parliament, and time allocation, which I am objecting to today, used even more often than that. Indeed, thanks to the unilateral changes in the rules of the House in April 1991, time
Government Orders
allocation, which used to be regarded as the more moderate way of limiting debate, is now more convenient and easy for the government than closure itself, and the practice of using time allocation has accordingly become more attractive.
Surely there is a limit, a line beyond which the rights and responsibilities of Parliament itself are abrogated when important issues are immediately time allocated, without the opposition having time to debate such crucial issues and to take whatever political responsibility there may be for a certain amount of delay. The expectation of the Canadian people is that time allocation is something that governments enact in exasperation over a prolonged debate, not after a day and a half.
To enact time allocation without even allowing a reasonable debate on NAFTA violates every legitimate perception of how Parliament should work and the occasional need for governments to bring an end to debate.
I am fully aware that I am asking you to do something out of the ordinary, something new. But you are a new Speaker, new in the sense that you are the first to be elected by the whole House by secret ballot. You are a creature and servant of the House in a way that no previous Canadian Speaker has ever been, no matter how good previous Speakers may have been in their own right. You have the authority, I believe, if you choose to use it, to do what might otherwise be seen as unacceptable, at least by some.
The situation cries out for your intervention. Indeed, as you said yourself, in the decision of April 14, 1987: "there comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities" and permit what in previous circumstances might have been ruled unacceptable by modifying or varying an earlier decision. I might add here, modifying or varying an earlier tradition.
An eminent parliamentary authority, Josef Redlich, which you have quoted yourself on occasion, has said that it is the duty of the Speaker to serve the majority and the minority "by maintaining the rules and the usage of centuries and by taking care that both majority and minority are not impeded in the use of the forces and the weapons which the order of business provides for the

Government Orders
strong and the weak. Protection of a majority against obstruction and protection of a minority against oppression are both alike functions of the Chair".
In Parliament, as it now stands, the opposition is perpetually and chronically weak thanks to the unilateral rule changes brought in, in April 1991, and protection of the minority against oppression should now be your major concern. I submit to you that this time allocation motion is just that kind of oppression which you need to protect the minority from.
Mr. Speaker, in 1987 you asked the question reflecting on the manner in which you were elected as to whether or not the House of Commons had matured "enough to confer upon its presiding officer the discretionary powers necessary to control abuse and resolve deadlocks that the British House of Commons gave its Speaker over a century ago". You said then that you believed the Canadian House of Commons had matured to that point. On that basis you acted to break the deadlock.
I now ask you to act on the same basis to control abuse in a Parliament that has seen more time allocation in which the opposition is weaker and in which the idea of giving the Speaker such discretion has come into its own. Indeed, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on House Management recently recommended to the full committee that such discretion on the part of the Speaker be part of the full committee's report to the House on parliamentary reform that could be tabled any day now.
There is a recognition that with increased government powers must come some other form of checking abuses of power. This checking mechanism used to be the role of the opposition but which is no more thanks to the rule changes that I mentioned before.
The time allocation now before us on NAFTA is in my judgment and that of my colleagues just the sort of situation in which the Speaker's role is crucial. Indeed, if this is not the kind of situation that demands the intervention of the Chair, it is hard to imagine what would be and therefore what meaning there might be in having the Speaker exercise such discretion.
Mr. Speaker, Parliament is in your hands. On April 14 you said: "Notice of time allocation motions after only a few hours of debate at any stage of a bill can also be an
abuse". This is exactly what we have before us this afternoon. If the North American free trade agreement can be rushed through the House of Commons with just two days' debate then Canadians will have just cause to despair about their Parliament as a place where important issues are adequately debated. We in the NDP caucus call on you to exercise your discretion and refuse to entertain, or to call the vote, on the time allocation motion on Bill C-115 until you are satisfied that there has been adequate debate on second reading.
Finally, I appeal to that which you have often appealed to yourself, and that is common sense. It is that profound sense, as you once described it, of what is appropriate under certain circumstances and what is acceptable to reasonable people.
May I ask that at the very least, given what I believe to be the historic significance of the judgment you are being called upon to make not in terms of the North American free trade agreement but in terms of Parliament, that you take whatever time is necessary to reflect on the issue before you and ask the government to withdraw its motion until you have had ample time to consider the matter.
[Translation\


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I endorse what my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona said.

He has made a very eloquent plea based on a past ruling of yours in another sense on another subject that I think is relevant to the debate today.
In 1988 when I was first elected to this House, the House of Commons spent almost two weeks debating a free trade agreement. This new agreement substantially modifies the original free trade agreement and in fact is a replacement for it.
The legislation this time is even more voluminous than what it was in 1988. In 1988 we had a lengthy debate in this House on free trade and closure was used by the government at every stage. The argument that was put forward to justify the use of closure at that time, as you will well recall, Mr. Speaker, was that there had been adequate debate on this bill before: the subject matter had been debated in the previous Parliament and then there was an extensive public debate throughout the election campaign. This time there has been no previous
March 31, 1993

debate in this House on NAFTA except on opposition days when we have had the odd day.
There has not been a debate on this bill before in this House as there was with the previous bill. While we objected strenuously to the use of closure in 1988, the argument was not advanced that it was improper for the government to make use of it at that time in part because the government said there had been extensive previous debate. That is true.
This time there has not been. There has been one morning of debate on this bill and not even a full morning.
Now we have the government coming before the House again with time allocation. We have become accustomed to this abuse because it has been used repeatedly. It was used yesterday, it was used today, and it will be used tomorrow. It is constantly being used after very short debate. The government has frequently called a bill on a Friday morning for an hour and then applied time allocation so there is one more day of debate, in other words one day plus one day.
The hon. member scoffs. That is true. He can look at the record. He can look at last Friday and see what happened then.
I plead, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona has, to look at the question of fairness in this case and whether the government majority is not abusing its position by using time allocation day after day, after very short debate on major bills of considerable public importance and debate.
Surely there should be an opportunity for this House to have a reasonable discussion on the principles of the NAFTA deal before this bill is approved. Yet we are being denied that opportunity by this motion. We are being limited to one morning plus one Wednesday afternoon. That is the effect of this motion.
I submit that is an abuse of the rules of the House. The government House leader should be hiding his head in shame at this abuse. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to use your power to rule this motion out of order today
Government Orders
without prejudice to the government's right to bring the motion in at a subsequent time.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the question of order, of course it should be pointed out that attempts were made with both opposition parties to seek agreement under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) for some appropriate time of debate and it was denied on both counts.
Second, the requirement of Standing Order 78(3) in terms of having the bill currently under consideration was done. Notice was given the day before as required under Standing Order 78(3). No less than one further day for completion was the requirement of Standing Order 78(3) and that is part of the motion. All of the requirements of our Standing Orders and in fact of this motion have been followed very clearly. It is very clear the motion is in order and should be proceeded with.
I want to comment on some accusations that have been made. For example, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands just talked about his experience since being here and what it has shown him about time allocation and so on. I thought he would be interested to know that from 1988 to 1992 time allocation was used on 13 bills; from 1984 to 1988 it was used on 16 bills; and from 1980 to 1984, when there was a Liberal government before his time, it was used on 18 bills. Therefore any accusation of escalation is in fact fallacious in terms of the record.
In terms of whether there has been adequate debate on this particular subject, the subcommittee of external affairs and international trade has been considering the NAFTA treaty since last November. It has toured the country and heard from some 119 different witnesses. The witnesses who were there did not laugh. It has been the subject matter of Question Period almost every day for months and months.
We commenced second reading debate. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who was the spokesman, under the rules provided for 20 minutes and 10 minutes. The House unanimously agreed to extend that to 40 minutes. On many occasions I offered to sit through the noon hour or the evening to discuss it but it was turned down on every occasion.

Government Orders
We are proceeding with second reading at this time in order to get it to committee. It is a very substantial bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade and my parliamentary secretary each put a motion to the House asking that the bill be referred, prior to second reading, to a committee so it could be examined. It was turned down on both occasions by the New Democratic Party on the floor of this House.
The apparent anxiousness of the New Democratic Party members to discuss this bill is a little bit inconsistent in their argument because when we provided an opportunity they chose not to take it.
I have to repeat that the Standing Orders are there. They are being applied properly and in the proper tradition. The question is: How much debate is enough? I have never been able to get a response to that question when I put it to the opposition repeatedly over the last month.
I would remind the House that the mother of Parliaments, Westminster, was able to conclude a vote on second reading of the Maastricht Treaty legislation, surely very profound legislation, after just six hours; but apparently this House is incapable of dealing with something like NAFTA in anything less than an unlimited amount of time, which is really not very credible when we think about it.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, for us in the Bloc Quebecois, it is not a matter of settling scores with the Official Opposition or the NDP, but we were not consulted by the government. Even if we agree with the principle of free trade with the United States and Mexico, we think that we must have the time required to debate the issue in this House.
I find this motion premature and I strongly endorse what my colleague from the New Democratic Party said to the effect that the Speaker should consider the great significance of this bill and give this House the time it needs to deal with it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the government House leader and know from whence he came. He and I shared the same
side of the aisle in terms of Parliament, decorum, bills, debate and some of the figures he read out here about closure being used and/or allocation of time in a former government. I fully believe governments have the right to allocation of time, and certainly this government has been doing very well at exercising that right.
With this putative order that is before the House, the member for Winnipeg Transcona has so ably raised points in objecting to having it even put. As the member for Hull-Aylmer points out, the interpretation of that order in something so fundamental will actually limit the possibility of members or even registered parties being able to participate. It will certainly limit any independent member or any member of the Bloc Quebecois in speaking because of the way the House provides and/or rotates the time for speaking. That is not really my point.
This is a fundamental bill, and having listened to the government House leader talk about this issue being debated in the country, it shows the reflection he has about the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I think I have given a lot of latitude. I said I was going to hear this point. I do not think we need to get personal about it.
I have to make this decision on what the procedural law is and that is where I need assistance.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short. The member for Winnipeg Transcona quoted some reasoning to you that was very interesting and very just on earlier decisions. He quoted all the points. This is beyond the letter of the law or beyond the technicalities of the rule for allocation. There is the letter of the law, the rule of law, and the intent.
Mr. Speaker, you are a member of this House of Commons and know the reason for allocation of time. The debate started on Thursday and you were not in the chair, Mr. Speaker, but your deputy was so you may not recollect what happened. The debate started at 10.50 Thursday morning. It then became embroiled in very controversial discussions and statements so there was no debate.
It finally got back on the rail and after hearing only three speakers, the spokespeople for the three parties, the House rose at four minutes after one o'clock. The debate lasted two hours and 14 minutes. There is not a member on the government side who ever sat in opposition who feels comfortable with a government leader
March 31, 1993

today moving an order to cut off debate with one more debate on something so fundamental.
Mr. Speaker, why did the member for Winnipeg Transcona appeal to you? You are the first among equals and the defender of minorities in this House of Commons. I totally agree with the member for Winnipeg Transcona. It is time to exercise your discretion, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the issue on behalf of all Canadians regardless of how we vote on this bill. I do not yet know how I am going to vote on the bill myself. I can tell you, though, I know how I am going to vote on this motion if it is ever put. If this is not the exceptional case that exercises the discretion of the Chair then we might as well throw away the rule book.
There have been some other rulings made here very recently that certainly caused disrepute to this House as far as this member is concerned.
I am winding up. Normally I would not get into this type of thing because I think the government has the right of allocation of time, but not on one of the more fundamental issues that is going to confront this country and should confront this House but which will not confront the House when in effect there is this type of guillotine hanging over one's head.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear a short intervention from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. Please make it short.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the intervention by the member for Winnipeg Transcona. He brought the real arguments to you and I do not want to repeat them. I think it is extremely important to have debate on this important issue. This is an important bill.
People in Canada today look at NAFTA and they ask themselves what it is going to bring. It is a big bill, a couple of thousand pages, and I think every member should be able to express the opinions of their constituents on such an important issue that brings changes to Canada in many ways.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you are going to make the wise ruling that I know you are able to make.
Government Orders


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted a few more comments that I hope will be helpful, having listened to what the government House leader said.
The opposition is under no obligation, it seems to me, in the rules or anywhere else to accept packages for dealing with particular legislation. We are under no obligation to accept those and therefore it is not a justification for time allocation that we did not agree to certain things.
Time allocation comes, if it comes at all, because there is a feeling that the House must now divide and that the decision must be taken. It is not because the opposition did not agree with the government House leader on certain things.
In case the government House leader has not realized it, we are not all on the same team. We have conflicting views of what is appropriate. The opposition is not here to be punished by time allocation because we have not agreed to the government House leader's predetermined idea of how long things should take.
Finally I would just say this, Mr. Speaker, if it is relevant to your decision at all, which it may or may not be, the government House leader has repeatedly used the members of the British House of Commons as an example in so far as the way it dealt with Maastricht.
As I tried to point out to the government House leader the other day, with obviously no effect, yes, the members did deal with second reading very quickly. They have a tradition of doing that there, but they also have a different tradition with respect to committee. Their committee process can be much more lengthy. In the case of Maastricht which they regarded as a quasi-constitutional issue-many of us regard NAFTA as a quasiconstitutional issue-they dealt with it on the floor of the House of Commons in Committee of the Whole.
I know that at least on March 11 the members had already spent 14 days on Maastricht in Committee of the Whole on the floor of the House of Commons and expected at that time to spend at least another week or more on the floor of the House of Commons in Committee of the Whole dealing with that.
It is quite misleading for the government House leader to suggest that somehow the example of the British House of Commons should be followed and something like Maastricht was only dealt with in six hours and therefore we should be satisfied that NAFTA should be dealt with in six hours. It is comparing apples and

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
oranges, and I think that is something that everybody should understand so that we never have to hear this specious argument again.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to which I would like to add without repeating anything. In fact while we are concerned about the time allocation, a second reading debate is imperfect at this point simply because all three sovereign administrations have not completed their negotiations on the parallel accords that make fundamental changes relative to the debate at second reading.
We may find ourselves in a situation where we are debating something that is incomplete and as a matter of fact is complete at this point.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I am going to respond very carefully to what has been said. The facts of the matter are clear, and that is that the bill is a very important bill. All members of the House agree with that and probably the country does too.
There have been suggestions that based on another time a few years ago when I had to exercise some discretion in a difficult situation I might be able to do it again in this case. I made remarks then indicating that as a parliamentarian it was important that matters were debated for a reasonable length of time. I think that is an appropriate attitude to take.
I do though have to remind the House, and I ask the House to have some sympathy with the position of the Speaker on this, that I also have to make decisions according to the law. Sometimes it is not always understood that the Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed.
It is not surprising that sometimes some hon. members, or even members of the public, feel that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important I think that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.
I do not want to refer to what is in a committee report that I have not yet seen as tabled in the House. The hon.
member for Winnipeg Transcona suggested-in fact he stated-that there is a committee report coming that may be tabled in the House and may be dealt with by the House that addresses this question. I think he was suggesting that maybe in that report there would be some recommendation to give the Chair more discretion than the Chair has at the moment.
There have been suggestions made that in the British House under circumstances like this the Speaker does have a discretion, but it is my understanding that discretion, that power or that right is spelled right out in the British rules. The hon. government House leader has come back and reminded us of something which is also a fact, and that is that in the British House the time for debate is generally probably more brief than in this House. However, that is a matter of argument I think and is not very much assistance one way or the other to the Chair.
The rule that I have to consider is of course Standing Order 78(3)(a) and members are familiar with it. I think that it was passed in April 1991 by this House. The government House leader is correct, as I understand it, when he says that the government has followed exactly that rule. I think he is correct in that.
I should bring to the attention of the House a ruling I made on December 9,1992.1 am going to read it because again I was faced with the same difficulty that I am faced with today. I said:
I know that the House would want me to respond to the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who have raised an issue here which is, to put it simply, that it is inappropriate for the government to move now for time allocation. Some comments that I have made in the past have been quoted and I have listened very carefully to what I once said.
The difficulty it seems to me that those proponents of the motion are in is that, as the hon. House leader points out, there have been changes in the rules and the government has followed exactly the course it must follow under the present rules which govern us.
There has been some suggestion that when the present rules were passed it was without the full consent of all the members in the House and that may well have been the case. The Speaker's area of manoeuvre and acting on discretion is always somewhat circumscribed and in this case it is clearly very much constrained.
I have to advise the House-
March 31, 1993

Government Orders (.Division No. 454)
Then I went on to deal with that point. My situation at that time was that whatever I may have felt personally about the situation, I felt that I had to follow the rules that we have. If the House, which it has not done, were at some point to grant to the Speaker-any speaker-the power to judge the reasonableness of the use of this rule then I would have no hesitation in doing so. I hope I would do it on the basis of common sense on the circumstances.
Also I think I would reach back to over 20 years in this place and apply some of my experience in that manner. I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.
I have listened to this debate. I have listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and others. For very real reasons it is a matter that should have been discussed in the House today. This is especially because the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona was one of the active and very helpful members of the reform committee that was set up consisting of all parties some years ago and has taken a great interest in the reform of our rules.
I have to say, with I hope some sympathy and I hope some understanding from the House, that I feel I am not in a lawful position to unilaterally exercise a discretion in the face of the rule that is in front of us.
Therefore I have put the motion and I must ask the House.


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-115
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)	Hopkins
Jelinek	Kaplan
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Milliken
Rompkey	Wood
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 25, 1993, 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 second time and referred to a Legislative Committee in the Departmental envelope and the amendment of Mr. MacLaren (p. 17560).
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague, the Minister for International Trade, before this House and throughout this nation has made a solid case for the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is the vision and the courage of the Prime Minister, and that of my colleague the Minister for International Trade, and all in our government, that has opened a bold opportunity and a new window for Canada in this hemisphere.

Let me say at the outset that it is regrettable that our friends on the other side, especially the NDP members, use every trick in the book to try to prevent debate on the real substantial issue of the North American free trade agreement.
I saw last week and earlier today where time was lost on procedural arguments instead of debating the substance about which I am sure Canadians want to hear, that is the NAFTA agreement itself.
This agreement will allow all Canadians to realize the rich potential of the world's largest trading market. It will further a regional alliance which shall grow even further in the future, to include other nations, serving our national interests and those of all others in this hemisphere and all in the global trading system.
Over the last eight years, our government has taken the right steps at the right time, from the outset of our mandate in 1984 to lay the foundations for economic growth. Inflation is beaten back, interest rates are at a 20-year low, exports are surging, and business has become increasingly competitive with our access to the global marketplace. And now we are taking one more step forward in a consistent, coherent, and, yes, courageous way with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
NAFTA will help us improve our economy in two ways: it will create more new and high paying jobs here than any low wage jobs it costs, and it will protect Canada's place in the U.S. marketplace, our most important customer. I especially rise in this debate to address the issue of labour adjustment. That question has become the focus of a great deal of attention, in some ways sidelining other issues which are also of great importance. As Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am aware of the tragedy of unemployment, and the personal trauma of finding that technology has made
March 31, 1993

obsolete the hard-earned skills which served workers well in another era and generation.
Now technology and knowledge are replacing traditional industries as the building blocks of prosperity. You hear it everywhere, but it is a reality. Since the industrial revolution, old technologies and infrastructure have been forced aside by new technologies and the opening up of new markets.
Some industries decline, while others emerge as growth generators. As this happens, we see unemployment of displaced workers while employers in the new sectors complain they cannot find enough workers with the necessary skills. This is not a new phenomenon. The only difference today is that the change of pace has picked up dramatically.
By the year 2000, almost half of all new jobs will require more than five years of education and training beyond high school. Highly educated workers will be at a premium. These highly productive workers will receive high wages.
That is what we should be preparing ourselves for.
We should not be worrying about lower paying jobs moving to Mexico, because Mexico has not moved as rapidly along the path of development and industrial change as has Canada.

There is only one way to compete in this new age for jobs or business, and that is through learning, education, training, skills development and entrepreneurship on a lifelong, never stop basis.
Our economic success depends first and foremost on the cutting edge skills and forward thinking attitudes which people bring to the work place. We use technology to improve productivity. We have to be sure we have guaranteed access to a growing market for our goods and services.
As the world is forming trading blocs, access we have counted on in the past may not always be there. It only makes sense to reject the pleas of those who lack confidence in Canada and its workers, to put ourselves in a position to seize this unique moment and to move forward.
Government Orders
I am not saying NAFTA will not require changes in the way we do business in Canada, but I echo the sentiments expressed in the report of the Economic Policy Council of the United Nations Association of the United States. That distinguished labour-business forum explores the implications for business and labour on an increasingly interdependent world economy.
Its report entitled The Social Implication of the North American Free Trade Agreement states: "NAFTA will be only one of many factors causing structural change in the economy". I agree with that, and that is why I also concur with the EPC in opposing the creation of special NAFTA adjustment programs.

Moreover, the report urges consolidating existing adjustment programs as well as expanding these programs to cover most displaced workers. It points out that only a small fraction of eligible workers benefits from these programs today.
It says that adjustment assistance should provide health benefits and enough income support to enable displaced workers to enter retraining programs.
Finally, it recommends only business-labour certified retraining programs be eligible for government subsidy. Long before NAFTA was on the horizon, we began to make a number of moves in response to recommendations of the Advisory Council on Adjustment headed by Mr. Jean de Grandpre.

The Labour Force Development Strategy was established in part to respond to the key recommendations of the de Grandpre commission. One of the most significant moves was to begin the shift away from using our now $20 billion plus a year unemployment insurance program as a passive income assistance system to a more active investment program to access employment and training.
We must continue to move in this direction using all our social programs to empower people with solutions, knowledge and choices.
We talk about the need to create an opportunity society that offers the chance to be productive at every stage of every person's life. We are already dedicating vast resources which could be reoriented in this way. Our UI program is more comprehensive and generous than

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
that offered in the United States, and 80 per cent of Canada's unemployed workers receive benefits as compared to 35 per cent in the United States. We spend three and a half times more on UI per capita than the United States. Government spending on training in Canada is twice that of the United States.
We now need to lever Canadian employers to increase training expenditures by dramatic proportions to at least match U.S. private sector levels.
The Canada Labour Force Development Board and regional and local boards are beginning, in partnership, to strongly encourage private sector training. In 1993-94 the government will spend $3.8 billion on labour market programs. That is 80 per cent more than we were spending in 1989-90. Training and adjustment, supported by the UI program in 1993, will account for $2.21 billion, four and half times the 1990 level.
We have a way to go. Canada is still spending more per capita on passive labour market measures than any other G-7 country. We rank 15th among all OECD countries.
Through our national sectoral human resources planning initiative we are furthering partnerships of workers, employers and other stakeholders to develop comprehensive development strategies. Over two million workers in Canada are benefiting from more than 900 planning agreements.
We are also implementing a new initiative aimed at providing training opportunities for workers with a demonstrated longer term attachment to the labour force. That is a first in Canada. No government has ever targeted these displaced workers to give them the kind of tailored programming assistance they need to reintegrate into the labour market. Of course no one on the other side wants to talk about these initiatives for longer term attachment of people to the labour force.
We have a program to promote the swift reintegration into the work force of workers displaced by economic changes of any kind. For non-UI recipients we have the Canadian Jobs Strategy which spent $1.6 billion to
provide a wide range of services to help Canadians enhance their employability.

In short, we are using new skills, innovative approaches and new dollars so workers can rebound quickly and liberate their own potential, rather than creating safety nets which trap for life so many of those who land in them lost to the numbing grip of dependency. There could be nothing we could regret more than to let the NAFTA opportunity founder and then watch Canada sink behind, cut off from the potentially explosive growth of the nations of Latin America.
I invite my hon. friends, the members opposite, to reject short term political considerations, to reject appeals to unfounded fears, to face squarely the reality and opportunity of these times.
Join with the government in taking credit for having supported a progressive trade agreement which enhances the future for all workers, all Canadians.
On March 28 The Toronto Star quoted the hon. Leader of the NDP as calling for members to "kick butt" in opposing NAFTA. Honourable members will know that this is not the kind of language I usually choose to use, but if that be her call and those of her fellow travellers- the Maude Barlows and Bob Whites, et al-I suggest they have chosen the wrong butt.
Targeting the FTA and now NAFTA may gain a quick sound bite and a fleeting image of commitment to the unemployed or those fearful of losing jobs, but the evidence is simply not there to support these wild allegations.
I remember that Canadians heard during the 1988 election campaign prophets of doom who used absolutely every possible means to scare people in the different regions of the country, and particularly in my province of New Brunswick and in all of Atlantic Canada, among other things telling our seniors that they would lose their social safety net, predicting the sale of schools to Americans, telling people back home that their children would be drafted by the American army. It was unbelievable. Now they are at it again, trying to scare Canadians with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
March 31, 1993

Engaging in a phoney war in an attempt ot make political hay on misplaced fears and insecurities will back fire in the face of the facts and the only thing that will get butted, to use the expression of the NDP leader, is the purveyors of such distorted logic.
The window of opportunity today is momentarily open. Let us go ahead and use the solid agreement that we have, as well as the assurance and the confidence flowing from this new trilateral partnership, and also our own strength and our own ability as Canadians to face new challenges as well or better than anyone else in the world.
My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, demonstrated on several occasions in this House that the economic recovery and the current growth are the results of our exports. Yet these people would still want to isolate Canada, put up smoke-screens around our country and keep us here because, according to them, we are not good enough to be competitive.

We are not good enough to compete. We are not trained enough. We are not trainable. We should stay here. The island of Canada should close itself to the world. That message of our friends on the other side is a great misunderstanding of the Canadian population.
Canadians are a hard working people who have faced many challenges in the past. We were able to meet those challenges because we were there. We did not shy away from the challenge. I know that for business, labour and all those communities across Canada that want to move forward the North American free trade agreement will be a great success.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, let me say first that if this was not such a sad and shameful day in the history of this country I would be amused by the hon. minister's remarks.
This is a minister who says that things are coming up roses in Canada but as minister of employment does not acknowledge that there are 1.6 million Canadians unemployed. Next to Spain, that is the highest unemployment rate in the entire OECD community. He says: "Look, it is all these phantom fears that are out there. People are happy. They are thrilled at the opportunities being
Government Orders
provided by this government under the free trade agreements".
The fact of the matter is there is not a household in this country that has not been severely injured and hurt by the policies of this government. It is the highest unemployment rate in the OECD world. Of course the problem is that we have ministers of the Crown who do not understand that. They never talk about it. It does not exist for them. What did the minister say? He said: "It is a smoke-screen out there".
There is no understanding of the real issue which is that people want to work. They want to do so with a certain sense of dignity and honour. This is what the debate is really about. It is giving those people a voice, tiying as hard as we might to ensure they can be heard and to break through the wall and cloak of silence that has been put upon them by this government.
Madam Speaker, do you realize that with the vote this afternoon closure has been used in this House 25 times since 1988? That equals the number of times closure was used from 1913 to 1988. In four years this government has used closure more often than all the other governments going back to 1913.
That is a direct demonstration of the kind of disdain the Minister for International Trade and his colleagues have for the Canadian people. They do not want to give them a chance to be heard. They do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate. They simply want to close the door so that they cannot hear the real voice of the Canadian people. The real voice is saying that these kinds of arrangements concocted in the back rooms, in the wealthy eating clubs the Minister for International Trade frequents, are not working in the interest of Canadians. They are not working in the interests of other working people around this continent.
I found it interesting when I went back and read the remarks of the trade minister. It was fascinating how he attempted with all the skill of his public relations manipulators to try to put a gloss on what has been taking place. He said that exports in 1992 reached a record high of $157 billion. What he did not say was that imports also reached a record high. In fact our global trade surplus in 1992 is the smallest going back to 1981.

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
Our trade surplus in 1982-this minister loves to talk about the difficult times of 1982-was $17.7 billion. The trade surplus last year was $9.5 billion. Let us look at some other figures. The real imbalance-


An hon. member:: You did not take the time to debate the matter.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, the thin skin of the hon. member.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to caution my friend. We are talking about the NAFTA. He is using figures that relate to our total trade and not to the Canada-U.S. trade. If he used the Canada-U.S. trade figures he would know quite clearly that-


An hon. member:: That is debate and not a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. members on my left will want at least to let me hear a sentence before declaring that it is not a point of order.
Probably the hon. minister will want to take the opportunity of question or comments to rise and put on the record whatever he wants on the record.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I hope you will not include the time taken up in this frivolous intervention of the thin-skinned minister who cannot stand to hear the truth as it comes out in this House.
Let us deal with something he talked about in the United States. Let me just go back to the figures from Statistics Canada that relate to our trade with the United States.
Our cumulative trade surplus for the four years before the free trade agreement was $69.1 billion, which was 14 per cent higher than the four years after the free trade agreement. Here is the minister saying what a great accomplishment it is, but the fact of the matter is that our trade surplus is far less after 1988 and the free trade agreement than it was before.
The minister is leaving the House. We now finally have won the debate and he retreats from the field because he cannot stand the heat. He cannot stand the heat because he knows that the figures provided by the agency of the government, Statistics Canada, totally refute the absolute nonsensical figures that he has tried to display in this House during this debate. He is certainly a stranger to the truth, a stranger indeed.
The minister tries to suggest that the global trade surplus does not matter somehow. What he does not want to recognize or acknowledge is that since the free trade agreement we have run a decline or a net deficit with every other trading area of the world except the United States. He has forgotten that Canada as a nation of international traders must have a diversified trade base. We must trade with the Pacific Rim, Europe, Central America and Latin America, but the fact of the matter is that our trade is going down with the rest of the world.
We have less of a surplus with the United States. Our trade is going down around the world and we have a Minister for International Trade who walks around with rose-coloured glasses and says that things have never been rosier and things have never been better.
Try telling that to 1.6 million Canadians because they are the living evidence of just how wrong this trade policy has become. The reason this government has used closure 25 times-more than in the entire history of Parliament-in the last four years is that it is the only way it can use its bludgeoning majority to get its neo-Conservative legislation through this House. It knows the Canadian people will not stand for it otherwise. Just like the minister who retreats from the House, it cannot stand the heat. It cannot stand the truth. It cannot stand to deal with the real facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Please, the minister is in the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: He is sitting in the back row, a position he will be occupying for the next four years once the election is called. He is just practising. He is warming up his seat in the back row where he will be sitting for the next four years. That is the best case scenario for this minister. If the people in his riding have a chance, he will not even be sitting in the House.
It is also important to point out something very important. This example of misuse of figures is an attempt to use the propaganda machine of the government to mislead Canadians. It is another example of how
March 31, 1993

the NAFTA bill is really used to masquerade the kind of programs that only this government is left implementing.
Around the world governments are changing because they realize there has to be a more activist, public minded, public interest form of government. Their cronies in the old administration in the United States have now been booted out, which will soon happen here. That is the reason the government is rushing the legislation through. That is the reason we are into this crazy acceleration of legislation when the other partners to the agreement have not even begun to look at it yet.
Is it not interesting, is it not fascinating that the present U.S. administration said that it must begin to look seriously at questions dealing with labour standards and environmental standards to protect the interests of American workers, American plants and American businesses? Our own government is not prepared to stand and say the same for Canadians. It is not prepared to get up and say that it also thinks there should be serious safeguards on labour, serious safeguards on the environment, serious safeguards against the countervail duties and the harassment by the United States.
It says there is no need to think about changes. It is all driven by that maniacal desire to get this legislation through as the last cornerstone in the crown of this discredited Prime Minister, who is being booted out by public opinion in Canada because he is afraid to stand and take the heat just as the Minister for International Trade is afraid to take the heat.
What we are putting in jeopardy and danger once again are the interests of Canadians because we have no policy and no program to make sure they are properly incorporated in these trading arrangements.
What further evidence do we need than the kind of information now coming out in the United States on the question of the drug patent law? A senior senator of the United States, David Pryor from Oklahoma, has written to his trade representative and said they should not do NAFTA because within NAFTA are prohibitions to bringing in compulsory licensing arrangements that will allow them to keep our drug prices at a respectable modest rate.
Yet within this NAFTA bill Canada, which already has compulsory licensing, is taking it out. We see a report in today's paper that Canada presently leads the world in
Government Orders
high cost drugs in 40 to 100 items. Is that something to be proud of?
I want to say this to members opposite. Are they really pleased when they go back into their ridings and speak to the seniors who have to use more drugs? Are they pleased when they speak to people on lower incomes who have to pay more for drugs? Because of this legislation, because of their initiative, they are now forcing people to pay prices which are the highest in the world.
Government members are going to vote for a bill that will entrench that in an international agreement so that a future government, a few months from now after the election, is going to find it more difficult to renegotiate. They are going to rush it through and hammer it through by means of closure and time allocation. Is that something that they can be proud of? Do they want to put in their householders that drug prices have escalated by 30 per cent or by 40 per cent and that they are going to entrench and prohibit any remedial action even though our partners in the United States are saying they had better start doing the same thing?
Senator Pryor is saying to the trade representative, do not sign the agreement the way it is because it will prohibit us from bringing in the kind of measures that the Canadians used to have. What a strange way of turning logic, truth and rationality on its head. What a terrible transgression this government is committing against the people of this country by pushing through this bill without any consideration of their interests.
It is fascinating watching the Tory leadership campaign. They are all out there saying they must bring down the cost of government and health care has to be amended, so let us bring in user fees. Yet by this very action alone, the vote they are going to take tonight on NAFTA, they will be pushing up drug prices and therefore causing every health care scheme in every single province in this country to pay 10 per cent to 15 per cent more.
Yet these are the same people, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment, who are out there with all the fervour at their command saying they have to do something about health costs. The most important thing we could do about health costs is defeat this bill and defeat this government so we can at

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
least keep drug costs down and not have them escalating to $300 million, $400 million or $500 million a year.
What a terrible travesty of justice and truth is being committed. How can anybody take this new politics seriously? The new politics is simply a smoke-screen for the old slimy, sleazy way of dragging and pushing people into the ground. That is what this bill is all about. Those members on the government side who have a scintilla of integrity left have only one choice, and that is to vote against this bill for the sake of the people in their own ridings.
The people opposite, and I heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration, like to say that they think Canadians can be competitive, they think we can run globally, and it is the other side who is trying to be protectionist. Not so, that is not the case at all. Mr. Speaker, do you know what this bill also does? Do you know what is contained in NAFTA? There are a number of discriminatory clauses in the NAFTA bill that prohibit and set up discriminatory clauses against other countries with whom we want to do business.
I come from western Canada. We are now beginning to do more trade with the Pacific Rim than with the United States. Yet it was not so long ago when I was on a trip to Japan and met with senior officials of the Japanese government who said to me directly that in the NAFTA arrangement there are at least five or six major areas that discriminate against other countries. We are trying to diversify our trade at a time when the world is changing so rapidly, with so many opportunities out there to trade with a wide variety of countries, and what are we doing? This government is bringing in a bill that builds a wall around the continent and sets up discriminatory trade arrangements.
I will explain what the result will be. This kind of trade bloc mentality will force other regions of the world to do the same. We will end up with a war between trading blocs, which is the worst kind of circumstance that we could possibly have.
Textiles, financial services, banking, and content rules all basically say to other trading partners in the Pacific Rim that they are not as equal as the Americans or the Mexicans. How do we go and present ourselves as an honest, open international trader when we are discriminating against those potential trading partners?
Contrary to the arguments, we are trying to say that the future of this country does lie in an international trading arena and in making sure there are fair, open trading rules that apply equally to all countries. We should not set up discriminatory trading blocs that compete with one another. As Canadians we should be looking to the wide world so we will not suffer the kind of trade decline in which we have a net decline with every other trading region in the world and our trade is decreasing.
That is why we have said time and again, we said it during the debate on the free trade agreement and we say it now, that the most important trading arrangement that Canada belongs to is the General Agreement on Trades and Thrifts. It is an international agreement. It sets out rules that apply to everybody equally. It has a dispute settlement system that is based upon a definition of subsidy that is not unilaterally decided by one country, as it is under the FTA. It resulted in Canada being able to lower tariff barriers, to escape from the kind of harassment that we have had for the past four years, and to ensure that there is equal treatment for north, south, east and west and countries around the world.
I cannot and would not want to represent the views of the NDP but I can tell you what are the views of this party. We are true international traders. We believe that the future of this country exists in broadening, diversifying and opening up all kinds of new trade options. One of the reasons why NAFTA does not fit the bill is because it closes off options and replaces the GATT with a regime that is not nearly as good. It sets up, as we have just seen with the drug patent law, prohibitions and restrictions on the rights of Canadians that do not exist under the GATT.
The true protectionists are these continentalists across from us who are trying to draw the Canadian trading option into one region, one area, one place and forgo the opportunities that exist around the world.
The real secret to Canadian economic prosperity, to recreating the opportunity for jobs and growth and development is to see a horizon that circumvents the entire globe, that sees the opportunities in the Americas, not through the kind of agreement that restricts but one
March 31, 1993

that takes in the entire hemisphere, that opens up our opportunities in the Pacific Rim where we want to be honest, open and fair traders and not discriminate against them.
That is the real choice for Canadians. That is the choice that will be coming from the electorate. I say that NAFTA will not be a fait accompli because the Americans are not going to complete it by then. The only country that is having it rammed through its legislature is this country by this government. The rest of them recognize that their own people need time for debate, time for dialogue, time for proper examination. That is what we want Canadians to have. We think that if we had that time and that opportunity, we would have a trading policy and a trading strategy which would give Canadians that opening to the world we so desperately need.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and I am not accustomed to his using such intemperate language. When I hear him talk about slime and sleaze on this side of the House I cannot help but wonder if he was at Question Period today when some of his colleagues tried to take advantage of the deaths of 26 miners for their own political advantage.
But let us talk about trade, that is what the debate is about here today. My friend quotes statistics with reckless abandon. I might say he uses statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post, for support instead of illumination. Let me give him some statistics. This is the result of the FTA. Increased merchandise exports to the U.S., up 19.2 per cent; record setting merchandise exports to the U.S.; increased share of the U.S. market; increased foreign direct investment in Canada; increased capital investment in Canada. These are the results of the FTA.
We have used NAFTA as an opportunity to accrue even greater benefits, an improvement to the fair and objective dispute settlement mechanism. It will facilitate greater business travel, security against new U.S. protection laws. I could go on, but I think the point and the facts are there. NAFTA is compatible with the GATT and I am sure my hon. friend with his knowledge of trade is perfectly well aware of that.
Government Orders
Nothing in NAFTA is going to prevent the initiatives that the government has taken to increase trade in Asia, the Caribbean and in other parts of the world.
I say to him, very simply, we know where this party stands; four square behind NAFTA. We know where the NDP stand; totally against it. Who speaks for the Liberal Party, that is my question to my hon. friend. Is it him, the isolationist; or is it his friend from Etobicoke North, the free trader? Who speaks for the Liberal Party? Or is that why the Liberal Party's position on this trade deal is wishy-washy, somewhere in between?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I guess that is a question.


Lloyd Axworthy: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that among that pile of voluminous verbiage we just heard, there may be a small inkling of a question and I will do my best to try to discern it.
Let us begin with the question of statistics. I hope my hon. friend will remain to hear this. Perhaps he was not in the House when we first spoke. I want to point out to him that if he looks at the trade performance with the United States prior to the free trade agreement and after the free trade agreement, he will see that we had a higher trade balance with the United States before the FTA than we have today.
If the FTA is so great, we should have been able to exceed that performance, but we did not. In fact, it is lower than it was in the four years prior.
Let me also point something else out. I do not think it is an inconsequential factor. I know the Minister for International Trade dismissed it because this is not a minister for international trade but a minister of continental trade. He does not care about what is happening internationally. I want to point out to him that once again our global trade surplus in 1992 was the smallest we have had since 1981. In a 20 year period ending 1992, we had the smallest global trade surplus of any year because we lost our trade option around the world.
Let me also point out, and I think it is very important to note, that most of our trade balance that the minister likes to talk about as being so exciting in 1992 was driven by the automotive trade which had nothing to do with the free trade agreement. That goes back to the Canada-U.S. auto pact which our government negotiated way

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
back when. It was not affected by the free trade agreement, by the acknowledgement of their own errors.
I simply want to point out to the hon. member that when we use figures in the House, we use the real figures, not the kind of dream figures that the Minister for International Trade wants to use.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, it will be a comment with a brief question.
I would like to give the House the benefit of what is happening in Chesterville in the riding of Stormont- Dundas presently which I think is very relevant to today's debate.
Nestle Canada has a plant located at Chesterville in my riding of Stormont-Dundas. Last Saturday the company locked out its production line workers, 220 of them, after their union rejected a proposed contract offer from the company which included a continental work week.
The company states that its employees must accept a continental work week and give up premium pay for working on weekends if the plant is to be competitive in the North American marketplace.
The Chesterville plant exports 70 per cent of its products to the U.S. and it faces competition from other Nestle plants both in the U.S. and Mexico. In addition, those products made in Mexico are usually cheaper to produce, given the much lower wages paid to their employees there.
The Nestle situation is an indication of what is to come for Canadian workers if NAFTA goes ahead without any safeguards to protect Canadian workers. The current recession has crippled the Canadian industry. The Cana-da-U.S. free trade deal has taken its toll and now our workers will have to face NAFTA.
Workers at Chesterville are being told that unless they accept significant changes to their work schedules and give up weekend pay rates, they will not be able to compete with their own plants in the U.S. and Mexico.
It is obvious that with the precarious state of North American trade and the inequality that exists within free trade deals like NAFTA, companies like Nestle have no choice but to pit one of their own plants against other plants of their own.
For Canadian plants this means paring down employee wages, benefits and working conditions. Moreover, no matter what happens, it is highly unlikely that Canadian plants like Chesterville will ever have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with plants in Mexico, given the low salaries and lack of benefits provided to workers there.
I want to ask my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, if he can explain why the present government is pursuing NAFTA with such a vengeance and why the government is enforcing time allocation, forcing a vote on second reading of Bill C-115 today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, your generosity is much appreciated.
I say to my colleague from Stormont-Dundas that we should not be surprised if the government uses closure on this bill because it has used it 25 times since 1988. It has used it more often in the last four years than it had been used in the previous 70 or 80 years.
It has become a way of life. They are narcotic. They know that they cannot take the heat and the pressure of an ordinary proper political dialogue in the Parliament of Canada so they shut the place down. They use it like a hammer to bludgeon Canadians into accepting without any opportunity for a response.
I want to say to the hon. member that I think he makes a very important point about what happened in his riding.
It is a point that all members of this party have been making unanimously, with one voice. We need to renegotiate this agreement. We need to find ways of ensuring that this kind of disparity in labour and environmental standards will not be used to provide for major transferences of companies from one area to another.
The companies will not have that kind of sink-hole to use to say: "We will move to a place where we do not have to make sure the water is clean, the air is fresh or that the workers get proper protection. We will go where anything goes".
You would have thought after the horrible experience of the free trade agreement when we had a haemorrhaging of jobs across the border that the government would
March 31, 1993

have taken the opportunity offered to it by the Clinton administration to do the same thing.
Instead, the minister of trade gets up and says to the Prime Minister: "It is not in our interest to do that". No. They define their interests narrowly according to the very small group of power brokers who run this party across from us. They are dictating the economic life of this country. They do not understand that there is a broad range of Canadians out there who also have some rights, the right to prosper and the right to have a job.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a short time on the objectives and overview of NAFTA.
On August 12, after 14 months of negotiations, Canada reached agreement with the United States and Mexico on the North American free trade agreement.
This trade agreement creates the world's largest free trade zone. Contrary to what the opposition would have Canadians believe, it will make Canada more competitive and help secure Canada's prosperity.
Canada could ill afford to be excluded from a free trade agreement within the United States and Mexico. Some say we should have stayed away from the table, ignored what was going on around us, buried our heads in the sand. I ask these people, would our interests be served by letting the United States and Mexico go it alone? They would not and Canadians know this.
Canadians do not stand still and watch the world go by as some people would have us do. No. Canadians protect their interests, pursue opportunities and rise to new challenges.
Some say involving Canada in the North American free trade agreement comes at the price of missing other opportunities to expand our exports. This is simply not true. Quite the contrary. Participation in NAFTA extends and improves these opportunities. By competing successfully in an expanded and dynamic North American market, Canadian companies will be better positioned to compete in the markets around the world.
The NAFTA goes to the heart of Canada's fundamental interests as a nation that depends on trade. If Canadians did not sell the goods and services we produce at home to buyers in other countries, one out of every
Government Orders
four Canadian jobs would disappear. It is as simple as that.
Canada got involved in the NAFTA to protect those interests and to take advantage of opportunities that will strengthen our global trading position. Globalization is something we have been hearing about for a while now. While it has become something of a buzzword its meaning is quite clear. Simply put, globalization describes emerging production and marketing techniques that take advantage of the best of the world. For example, a single aeroplane may be designed by engineers in the United States and Germany, use parts made in Ontario and Korea, be financed by banks from Tokyo and London and be marketed around the world.
By participating in the NAFTA Canada is signalling its willingness to take advantage of globalization. The NAFTA shows we are willing to continue changing and it shows we are looking to the future, ready to face the challenges and opportunities presented by the new economic climate in Mexico.
The North American free trade agreement will benefit all three participating countries by increasing trade and prosperity. In particular, the NAFTA will help the Mexican economy develop. It will allow Mexico to attract investment and it will provide new opportunities for the Mexican people.
The NAFTA ensures that Canadian knowledge and expertise will help Mexico achieve a higher standard of living while increasing Canada's own export trade.
The fuller integration of Mexico into the North American economy will reinforce economic, trade, monetary and fiscal reforms already undertaken by Mexico. This will result in a more prosperous Mexico, a Mexico better able to manage its debt and in a better position to import Canadian goods and services.
Mexico offers a market of over 85 million consumers. As Mexico's economy expands and its prosperity grows, so will its demand for increasingly sophisticated imports.
When we told Canadians we would participate in the NAFTA negotiations we set out three objectives: better access for Canadian goods and services to Mexico; strengthening the benefits of the Canada-U.S. free

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
trade agreement; and improving our access to the world's single richest country. This guarantees Canada's status as a highly desirable location for investors to serve the North American market. We met these objectives, each one. What we did in the NAFTA is what we said we would do all along.
Mexico is one of the fastest growing and most promising markets in the world. But in the past it has been a very difficult market for Canadians to penetrate. When Canada got the opportunity to secure access for our exporters it was only logical to pursue it.
NAFTA removes the tariffs and other barriers which made selling to Mexico tough. As a result Canada now has guaranteed access to 85 million Mexican consumers and their growing spending power. This means benefits and new opportunities for Canadians and Canadian businesses from coast to coast.
When Canada got involved in the NAFTA we were determined to build on the benefits of the free trade agreement without giving up any of the advantages we already had and we did that.
The NAFTA clarifies rules of origin and improves customs operations. This will prevent any unilateral interpretation of trading rules such as what happened in the Honda dispute. As a matter of fact, the NAFTA resolves the problem we had with exports of the Honda Civics produced in Ontario.
The NAFTA covers many services that were not in the free trade agreement. It makes it easier for business people and professionals to travel for work to the United States. NAFTA enlarges the quotas for Canadian textiles and apparels shipped to the United States. The NAFTA strengthens and makes permanent the free trade agreement's dispute settlement mechanism so that Canadian exporters will get fair and unbiased treatment if they are the target of a trade complaint.
These and other improvements mean we now have an even better system to ensure that Canadian businesses can compete with those in the United States. And we did it while protecting important Canadian interests such as cultural industries, agricultural supply management, medicare, social programs and the environment. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said the environment.
Since 1984 the Government of Canada has worked diligently with all sectors of the Canadian economy to renew and strengthen our economic position. The government undertook a plan that looked to the future rather than to the past. We were determined to confront the emerging global business environment and maintain our position as a leader in world trade.
New patterns were arising. Companies were not just doing business in different countries, they were spreading their operations across continents and around the world. This brought new challenges to Canada. If we could not be competitive there were plenty of other economies ready and waiting to do business.
The government saw these changes and realized it could do two things. If we ignored them, they were threats to the society that makes Canada the envy of the world, but if we accepted them and used them to our advantage they would ensure the future prosperity of all Canadians. Canadians are already part of the global economy.
As a nation Canada was founded on trade. Our success in selling goods and services to other countries has helped make Canada one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It has paid for infrastructure and social programs that are the envy of the globe.
Today our prosperity still depends on the sale abroad of more than 25 per cent of all we produce. As a country with a relatively small population, we must continually look beyond our own borders for new markets and opportunities. Success does not happen overnight. Building our competitiveness will be a painstaking process requiring concerted efforts from all sectors of our economy.
It will not be an easy task, but it is a vital one if Canada hopes to maintain its secure position in the global marketplace. It is a task we are confident of achieving by building partnerships with all sectors of the economy.
Canada has not been immune from the global recession. We have endured tough adjustment to technological development and to the globalization of production and market. But studies by independent organizations such as the University of Toronto indicate that the free trade agreement has helped stimulate growth, lowered the rate of inflation and cushioned the severity of the

recession in Canada. Without the free trade agreement the economic effects of the recession would have been much more severe.
The free trade agreement is providing Canadian business with the incentive to restructure, to prepare to meet global competition and to create the basis for our continued prosperity. The North American free trade agreement strengthens the foundation for global competition laid down in the free trade agreement.
Exporting is one of the main engines of growth and job creation in the Canadian economy. Exports account for one in four or over three million Canadian jobs. It is therefore essential that Canadians be able to compete effectively in international trade.
We guarantee our future not by running from global competition but by meeting it head on, by equipping ourselves to compete with the best by ensuring that we have in place the economic conditions needed to be competitive and by making world markets accessible to our products.
So the cornerstone of our plan was to ensure Canada became more competitive. This is happening. Lately Canada's productivity has seen remarkable gains and our ability to innovate and find smarter and better ways of doing business increases all the time.
Part of being competitive means having access to foreign markets and to be frank, it also means having to face competition. This is nothing to worry about because it will improve our performance. If you want an example, just take a look at the Olympic athletes. Any sprinter will tell you that the fastest times happen not in isolated practice sessions, but in the final heat when the world's best are racing side by side. By competing with other producers, Canada's industry will become better, stronger and more innovative.
I am confident that Canada can compete successfully in any arrangement that has fair and clear rules. That is what NAFTA is all about. By giving us access to foreign markets and establishing the rules of the game, NAFTA will help Canadians succeed and prosper in North America and around the world.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber today will remember what I choose to call the great debate of 1988, when one
Government Orders
of the things that seemed to be at issue was that we were going to lose all of our water if we proceeded with the free trade agreement. You will remember that all of our water was going to be diverted. The Americans could hardly wait to get their hands on it. All of our rivers and lakes, we were going to pump it all down to California. Remember, within a few months it was going. We know what nonsense that was.
I wonder if I might ask my colleague who has just spoken if she has some thoughts on whether the North American free trade agreement will protect our water the same as the FTA protects our water, the same as the Canadian water policy protects our water.
We have had this raised in the last few days. Can we not put it to rest?


Edna Anderson: Thank you very much for the question. The large scale export of water is not covered in NAFTA and it is not covered in the free trade agreement. It never has been and never will be because that is not a good to be transported. It has never been an issue at the GATT and there is nothing to force Canada to construct a canal. Since we do not sell water now there are no terms which would be subject to dispute.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-115, the North American free trade agreement, is before this House today. Today also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two 10-minute speeches. The next was the Minister of Transport. I regret the hon. member for Mount Royal. I will recognize her next. The Minister of State for Transport.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend across the way for ceding the floor to me.
Four years ago when Canada entered the free trade agreement with the United States what we were actually doing was creating the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world.
Today there is clear evidence that the foresight shown by this government, and indeed it was foresight, has been of tremendous benefit to Canada. These benefits were confirmed in a study that was released by an independent group in October 1992. That group, the C.D. Howe

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
Institute, said that Canada's merchandise and service exports have thrived in most sectors that were liberalized under the FTA.
Canada has gained the most in exports of non-resource-based, high value-added manufacturing products to the U.S. These are the areas in which our future lies.
This government has taken the country out of its shell and has prepared it for the 21st century. All of the success has occurred during a world-wide recession. Just imagine what we can achieve during the recovery period in which we are now entering.
That is the reality of the situation. During a worldwide economic downturn Canadian exports to the U.S. grew not 1 per cent or 2 per cent and not even 9 per cent or 10 per cent, but nearly 20 per cent in the short time since the FTA has been in place.
Last year Canada enjoyed an all-time record in merchandise exports to the U.S. of $122.3 billion. In December 1992 the trade surplus-that is right, trade surplus-with the U.S. was $2 billion. That is an increase of over 26 per cent over the previous month.
Canada's exports to the U.S. even outperformed Japan. They are considered an economic powerhouse by eveiyone, even in the opposition, but Canada outperformed them and that is because of the FTA.
Like a great architect, this government knows that one must have a solid foundation before one can build a house. That is what the North American free trade agreement will do. It will add and build on the success of the FFA. It will not diminish what we have worked so hard to obtain but rather it will complement and strengthen what can be.
NAFTA incorporates many of the elements of the FTA and adds to them. Every decision in the deal is not perfect and we realize that in the end even politicians are human.
After four years of the FTA, the government identified certain mutually agreeable improvements and included them in the NAFTA. Each one of these went through the ultimate test: Will it benefit Canada? In every case the answer was a resounding yes. Some of the improvements that were made are the inclusion of fairer and more stable rules of origin, intellectual property rights, a significant expansion of the government's procurement opportunities and of course the inclusion of Mexico and giving Canada access to one of the fastest growing markets in the world.
When we entered into NAFTA talks in 1991 we had three broad objectives: first, to give Canada better access to the Mexican market; second, a trilateral agreement that would provide greater security for Canada's access to the U.S. market while maintaining the benefits that we achieved under the FTA; and third, it would be in Canada's interest if it preserved our status as a preferred location for investment. All of the objectives have been met.
The one thing that must be pointed out at the veiy beginning is that Mexico was already enjoying free trade with Canada but it was only one way. Roughly 80 per cent of Mexican products enter into Canada duty-free but Canadian exports to Mexico face an array of tariffs and other trade barriers. This is something many Canadians do not realize. They must know that the government was working for them to correct this imbalance, and we did.
As a result of the hard work undertaken by the trade minister and his staff Canada will be able to rebalance its trade with Mexico, especially in the automotive sector that is so very important to my province of Ontario.
Mexico has the fastest growing automobile market in North America. Due to the NAFTA Mexico will eliminate its protectionist auto policy, which has in the past restricted the importing of vehicles and forced parts and assembly operations to locate in Mexico, over a 10-year period.
This will go a long way in ensuring a viable future for the auto industry in Ontario. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent announcement by Chrysler Canada to put $600 million into its plants in Windsor, Ontario. If Chrysler believed the rhetoric that comes from the parties across the floor would it be investing $600 million in Ontario?
The auto industry and its workers are not the only winners in the NAITA. There is a virtual plethora of opportunities in a number of different sectors.
Ontario's machine producers will gain from the NAFTA. Why? They will because Mexico relies heavily on imports to meet its capital goods requirement and
March 31, 1993

Canadian products are already at the front of the line with Mexican buyers.
As Mexico continues to develop economically and upgrade its facilities opportunities for Ontario machinery and industrial equipment producers will increase. Mr. Bemie Halligan of Novenco Fans Canada Inc. in Cambridge said: "Free trade with Mexico is long overdue". His company makes large industrial fans and a 15 per cent to 20 per cent duty must be paid on their entry into Mexico. The trade deal will in time remove those duties and Mr. Halligan says this will help them a great deal.
Ontario's telecommunications and information technology is another sector that will enjoy expanded opportunities due to the NAFTA. Mexico is striving to modernize its economy and the government is dedicated to developing a more sophisticated telecommunications infrastructure. The Mexican government is also deregulating and privatizing its telecommunications sector. Who but Canada has better knowledge and expertise in telecommunications?
Put these factors together and they add up to fantastic growth in Mexican demand. By the year 2000 it is expected that Mexico will import 42 per cent more telecommunication products and demand for imported information technology will increase by more than 30 per cent in the next five years.
Ontario based companies such as Northern Telecom and Telesat are already active in the Mexican market. Systemhouse, an Ottawa based company, has already signed a $500 million contract with the Mexican government in the anticipation of growth. Yet the members opposite from both parties want to prevent these companies from taking part in that growth market in Mexico.
As well, the NAFTA improves Ontario's ability to attract investment dollars because it gives companies thinking of locating in Ontario the knowledge that they can sell their products to a market of 360 million consumers in North America.
These accomplishments were achieved while ensuring that important exemptions under the FTA will stay in place in the NAFTA. For instance, the auto pact was preserved as well as the supply management system for dairy and poultry products. Both of these exemptions were critical for Ontario.
Government Orders
The NAFTA also safeguards Ontario's fruit and vegetable growers by allowing Canada to take measures against any sudden surges in Mexican imports, which is very important for the farmers in my constituency of Lincoln.
The people of Ontario have more concerns than just the economic benefits that are afforded to them by the NAFTA. That is why it contains more environmental provisions than any other trade agreement and it forbids countries from lowering their environmental standards in order to attract investment.
Just as I must watch out for the implications of the agreement to my riding and province, as Minister of State for Transport I must think how this will affect the portfolio for which I am responsible. For the first time in any international trade agreement transportation modes are included.
In transportation services, the trucking industry has been opened up to allow greater freedom for Canadian shippers to carry cargo to other countries. Under the NAFTA an important issue was the ability to take on cargo in the U.S. for onward transportation to Mexico.
It also allows them to make the return trip, picking up cargo in Mexico and delivering it to the U.S. or Canada. This right will open up over a six-year period but Canadian carriers will maintain the exclusive right of carrying goods from one Canadian point to another Canadian point.
The North American free trade agreement is the most progressive in surface transportation, with provisions for bus, rail and truck modes. It provides detailed schedules for opening up Mexico's closed market for international bus and truck services. The standards regulating safety will be harmonized, also under a detailed schedule, to make sure that Canada's high standard of safety in transportation will be maintained.
As minister, I am keenly aware of the truckers' concerns and I know that Canadian truckers welcome this opening and are anxious to work the U.S. and Mexico border as soon as possible. Toronto is closer to Nuevo Laredo than it is to Edmonton or Vancouver. Imagine how Canadian truckers would feel if the Alber-ta-B.C. market swelled overnight to 85 million consum-

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
ers from 8 million. Eighty per cent of freight shipped across the U.S.-Mexican border is carried in trucks. With the surge of trade between Canada and Mexico the truck traffic will also increase. As Mexico develops and purchases more goods from Canada, Canadian truckers will benefit.
With respect to railway transportation, one of the NAFTA's key advantages is the guarantee of no more restrictions at any level of government. The current degree of openness is locked in. Our major railways have become truly North American in trackage and international in outlook. This has happened in a logical response to shifting market realities, a reality that is confirmed by the NAFTA. I am pleased to see that our railways have recast their operations and are preparing themselves for an integrated North American market.
Transportation in Canada is undergoing historical changes which can only help it face the realities of the North American transportation picture. There is no question that the foundations of a fully integrated North American market with strong Canadian companies taking the lead were laid long before the NAFTA. The NAFTA builds on those foundations and opens up exciting new challenges for the transportation industry and Canadians in general. These are prospects that we should all look forward to.
I am not saying that the NAFTA will revolutionize the economy of Canada. What it will do is open new doors and take the tariffs off some of the old ones. Companies in my home province of Ontario are already looking into the Mexican market so they can hit the ground running once the NAFTA takes effect. In the end, Canada will be stronger.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a small question.
Approximately 30 years ago the Canadian government signed the Columbia River Treaty with the Americans. At that time we were told how wonderful it was going to be, how it was going to create these great lakes at the back of the dams and so on. Now, 30 years later, we have a situation where in my riding of Kootenay East the Americans are taking this water faster than it can run in. They are opening their dams. They have increased the flow on their dams below from 4,000 cubic feet a second to 22,000 cubic feet a second. Fish and everything are going through the turbines and are being chewed up. Dust bowls are created in the reservoirs behind.
At the time when the Columbia River Treaty was signed we told them that this was going to happen. They are now talking about diverting the Thompson River in Kamloops into the Mica reservoir to create some more water for those greedy Americans who are after our water. It was supposed to be for flood control and hydroelectricity. It is now being used by the Americans for many other uses, such as irrigation, fish enhancement, tourism and other things and we are paying the price with dust bowls and other kinds of things behind the reservoir.
My question is with regard to the water issue. What is to stop the Mexicans or the Americans 10 years from now from saying that it is unfair competition because Canada has all this water and it can create these kinds of fruits and vegetables and these kinds of things? What is to stop them from saying it is unfair to them that they are starving for water?
They have excluded raw logs. Why was that phrase, excluding Canadian waters, not put in there to ensure that there would not be that kind of a debate after we have signed the treaty, 10 years down the road, after everyone has made their changes with regard to their industrial structure and so on?
Then all of a sudden they will say they are going to take our water and I would like to see how we could stop them, because we cannot stop them now under the Columbia River Treaty. I would like to know how we will be able to do it under this treaty.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Columbia water treaty was a water treaty. This is a trade agreement. In this trade agreement water is not considered as a good for trade. Therefore there is no danger in this trade agreement of opening it up for water. We are trading goods, we are not trading natural resources.
The agreement that the hon. member mentioned is one that was not a trade agreement but a water agreement. I think he is mixing apples and oranges, or perhaps beer and water.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. While the subcommittee was hearing on transportation issues, Donald Reimer, chief executive officer of Reimer Express Enterprises Limited
March 31, 1993

and chairman of the Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade for Transportation Services, appeared before the committee. He explained that to complete the competitive picture, efficiencies not only have to be achieved in the production process but also in the transportation links in servicing the customer.
He pointed out that the NAFTA is the first international agreement that attempts to deal with transportation services. He also said that while the agreement also deals with the national treatment of investment and cross-border services, the biggest gain for the transportation industry was increased access to a market that currently totally forbids foreign ownership and operation of transport services.
It should not come as a great surprise that he is supportive of the NAFTA. I would like to ask the minister if she could add to those comments because I am sure they do not come as a great surprise to her.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reimer is recognized in this country as being one of the leaders in the transportation industry. We see his trucks from coast to coast, across the border and down into the U.S.
Mr. Reimer is right in saying that this is the first time that we have had transportation included, both from an investment standpoint and a carrying standpoint. It is definitely going to be an advantage as far as Canadian truckers are concerned.
I might also add that it is not only on the carriage of goods but also the investment and working within the transportation industry. In fact, I was reading today that AMF, one of Montreal's largest manufacturing employers, which dismantles and remanufactures locomotives, has recently signed a $5 million contract with Mexico state-owned railway to remanufacture 23 engines with the promise of other components on the horizon.
This is another firm, this time in the province of Quebec, that also sees the opportunity in Mexico for additional business, which means additional jobs in Canada. That is another reason that this deal is good for Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-115 that is before us tonight, on the North American free trade agreement, stands before us just after we put into place a few hours ago a time allocation for discussion on this very important next initiative in the free trade agreement.
Government Orders
The question really is: Are we facing a democratic process? Are we allowing the voices of the people to be heard and their concerns considered in the light of this Draconian move to close down the discussions in this House and summarily silence the voices and views that need to be heard with respect to the concerns, and they are many, that we find with regard to the free trade agreement being extended not only to the United States but also south to Mexico.
I would like to recall to members of this House that it was in the dead of winter after a long election campaign in 1988 that we sat late into the night while the government again pushed its agenda through at that time. The question is how many times are we going to have closure and how many times will the government stifle debate when it is determined to get its agenda on the Canada-U.S. agreement approved by Parliament? I do not think that that is the way democracy should work.
We have had closure 25 times. Closure stifles exchange, debate and hearings on major issues of concern that are affecting small, medium and large businesses in this country.
If one looks at the number of times that we have had closure I can say that we have had closure more often than we did since 1913 in this country.
We had this special session that I referred to on the free trade agreement. Little did we think back then that we would be here again today witnessing the same Draconian closure measures on yet another trade deal. It reminds me of that old expression: "The more things change the more they stay the same".
It is that I stand here with the Conservative government opposite shutting down debate, cutting off discussion and abbreviating the democratic process.
With respect to this NAFTA agreement, it is not that Liberals are not open and are not free traders. It is when the deal is right, when it is in the best interests of Canada and when it answers the questions we want to have answered that we support agreements that would enhance trade. I just remind this House that the automotive trade was a very good deal for Canada and it was carefully negotiated in a sectoral agreement and it has been in our best interests. We just heard the minister talking about how wonderful the automotive trade pact has been.

Government Orders
However, that is not the case with the free trade agreement. Unfortunately, this is not in Canada's best interests. It is not just some of the workers who are not going to benefit from this, it is most of the workers in Canada and not just the lucky few.
We said the deal was not needed in 1988 the way it was drafted because it was not the right deal. We said we needed adjustment policies and programs to ease the way into this new global economy. Little did Canadians realize that the trade deal was the government's adjustment program. That is a rather sad comment. It introduced its sink or swim approach to the economy without the benefit of help or assistance for anyone, without helping businesses succeed and most importantly without helping workers prepare for what was ahead. Survival of the fittest it professed. Sink or swim it said. Good luck it said. Canadians have suffered all these years since 1988 as a result.
Yes, there have been some success stories and some winners. However, they are very few and far between and not to the extent that was promised in the high and extravagant words that accompanied this deal with the government. They were not realized by the business community of Canada.
So I say again that we are free traders but on proper terms. The terms of this deal are not right. We say today that the NAFTA deal needs improvement. It needs amendments. It is not complete and it should not be approved in the way it stands.
Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that the minister has made some rather extravagant statements. He claims that Canadian exports prove the benefits of the free trade agreement and that the government's economic policies have been right. It is the trickle-down philosophy. I believe he said some things which I think we should examine a little more closely.
Let us take a closer look. The truth is that Canada's trade situation has been steadily declining under the Conservatives and particularly since the free trade agreement came into effect. The minister said that merchandise exports in 1992 reached a high record of $157 billion, 11 per cent higher than in 1991.
What does the evidence show? What is the hard evidence coming from Statistics Canada? It says that our merchandise trade performance is measured by the balance of exports minus imports.
The global merchandise imports for 1992 also reached a record high of $148 billion. As a result, our global trade surplus for 1992 which is $9.5 billion is the smallest in any year dating back to 1981.


Mr. Danis:: So what?


Sheila Finestone: Our trade surplus in 1982, $17.7 billion, was nearly double the figure for 1992.1 hope the Minister of Labour can understand the difference in the figures. That is the "so what". We did much better before than we do today.
Second, the Minister for International Trade said that merchandise exports to the United States in 1992 reached a record high of $122.3 billion. He said that that was 13.6 per cent higher than in 1991.
What are the facts? The facts are that imports from the United States in 1992 also reached a record high of $104.6 billion. Our trade performance with the United States was undeniably better before the free trade agreement and before Tory economic policies came into full effect.
Our cumulative trade surplus for the four years before the free trade agreement was $69.1 billion. It is 14.4 per cent higher than our trade balance for the four years following the free trade agreement which is $60.4 billion.
I would suggest that before such extravagant statements are made, this government should give serious thought to the 1.6 million Canadians who are out of work, which is the highest number among the OECD countries-or perhaps the second highest. Second, it should put into place the kinds of promises about concerns for the work force and concerns for the industries so that they could adapt to what could be a proper trade agreement on a fair and level playing field.
My colleagues from Etobicoke and Winnipeg said that the government should take advantage of the parallel talks that the government is in the middle of right now on environment and on labour standards to press the United States for something that Canada needs badly, which is a definition of trade-distorting subsidies to head off trade disputes with the United States.
March 31, 1993

They recommended to the government that it could just take the GATT wording, insert it into the North American free trade agreement and that should work quite well. It is not such a difficult thing.
The NAFTA has failed to include a subsidies code. It means that we will continue to suffer U.S. trade harassment despite the government's rhetoric now on the two trade deals that were supposed to deliver secure U.S. access.
That certainly takes away from the "free" in these trade deals. It is certainly not the perfect world sold to the voters by the Conservatives or the massive third-party, big-business advertising in 1988.
Now, later, we have learned about these tricks, the trompe-Voeil and the use of your big-business friends. Now when Canadians see a NAFTA campaign coming up they know to look beyond the slick packaging at the real substance.
To improve this trade deal we made it very clear. We have to have an anti-dumping safeguard put into place. This is another serious shortcoming of this agreement. One adds that to the need for a subsidy code.
Another issue raised of significance by the Liberal trade critic for making a proper trade deal was that we would need parallel accords in place on labour standards and on the environment before this House gives approval to this incomplete NAFTA agreement.
Can one imagine buying a house from a home builder who says: "Do not worry, I will finish the roof next week. Just pay me now." I think a lot of us would do far better than that. We would say: "I trust you, perhaps, but I will have a signed dotted line, thank you", or "I will have the completed house before I sign on that line".
That is just not good enough as one can well understand for Canadian people to buy essentially a pig in a poke. We are free traders. I have said that the terms of this agreement leave some pretty large holes on a subsidies code and on labour and environment standards. These make serious shortcomings in this agreement. I would like to briefly turn to the subject of culture and paint a bit of the picture which I have witnessed over the last four or five years in terms of how this Conservative government and the direct and indirect effect of its trade policies and trade deals have affected a precious Canadian resource that is not energy or minerals, although
Government Orders
they are important, but culture which defines us as a people.
I find the NAFTA cultural debate a bit of a dejd vu because once again we hear the government itself asserting that it has protected Canada's cultural sovereignty. This is a country where three out of four books sold originate outside of it, where three out of four dollars earned through the film production industry and the distribution industry end up in foreign owned coffers, where more than three out of four magazines sold on the news stands originate from outside of it and where nine out of ten recordings bought are made from imported master tapes. This is not a culturally sovereign country. I would say that it is a culturally occupied land.
We ought to be speaking and protecting our right to become culturally sovereign to ensure that Canadians retain the tools to develop in that direction. Canadians must gain control of the production and distribution of our cultural products.
A couple of years ago on Momingside Peter Gzowski conducted an informal survey asking for the equivalent of the well-known phrase: "As American as apple pie". The winner was: "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances". The answer may be amusing but it answers somewhat and points out the fragility of Canadian cultural expression and that government policy and programs are crucial to its development.
The problems are structural. Films, books, magazines and sound recordings are the key instruments in letting Canadians gain access to their culture. In the face of technological changes and market advantages of foreign multinational companies our home-grown industries face an increasingly difficult task in gaining access to our Canadian audiences. As a result, Canadians are not able to gamer a fair share of the Canadian market sufficient to reinvest in the production of more Canadian materials.
While Canadians are filling more of their leisure time with cultural activities, the cultural products that they are consuming are from foreign countries.
It is unfortunate but foreign owned multinationals clearly dominate the most lucrative sectors of the Canadian cultural market. Through vertical integration of their corporate structures they often control both production and distribution. In short they have a bloc on the market and in the larger sense they see Canada as the backyard. The only tool that we have that can crack the

Government Orders
lock and allow Canadian artists and consumers access to their own markets is government policy and partnership with business.
Canadian governments at all three levels have created a handful of government policies and programs that have significantly helped Canadian artists and companies to gain access to their own domestic markets.
I am not going to outline all the initiatives. We all understand the importance of Bill C-58, its impact on the magazine industry concerning Sports Illustrated and the whole argument that is going on about that. It underscores the sensitivity that there is to the undertaking through Bill C-58 which has helped us grow as an industry.
If we believe that creators play vitally important roles in our society, that they help us to see ourselves as we really are, warts and all, that they also stand as role models for future generations, then their success and the importance of promoting our young artists and encouraging them to blaze new trails and chase new artistic visions is veiy vital.
It is not that we want to silence other voices. We do not want to close ourselv.es off. We want to be open to the world but we want to have a choice. We have many, many artists crossing the borders and we need that. We want the flow back and forth. We are delighted with our neighbours but we insist on the right to be able to be present and be accountable for and to be perceived in this country. Is that so unreasonable?
What concerns me about this NAFTA text is that with respect to culture it is virtually a repeat of the Canada-U.S. text. The cultural exemption for cultural industries found in the free trade agreement is also in NAFTA. In addition, the definition of cultural industries has been expanded to include persons working in those industries, such as performers and writers.
I say to you, the case in the Canada-U.S. agreement, the cultural exemption, was not complete then and it is not complete now. It held its infamous notwithstanding clause, like a sword of Damocles over our heads then, when each country reserved the right to take measures
of equivalent commercial effect in response to any action regarding cultural industries and that remains.
I want to talk about the dumping below the price it cost of films, videos and sound recordings into this country, but I think that is pretty obvious to all of us.
Five years after the FTA there are still many unanswered questions concerning that notwithstanding clause. For starters, how will commercial effect be measured? Will measures of redress taken by the injured party be directed solely to the cultural industries or possibly to other sectors?
Who will decide what actions are inconsistent and result in negative measures? Does this mean that Canadians will not gain control of their movie screens through much-needed film distribution legislation? What about raising the level of Canadian content on television and radio? What about buy Canadian textbook policies in our schools? Could all future cultural initiatives fall victim? Will our culture become stagnant and not be allowed to grow?
The government points to its success in keeping culture off the trade table, but the true measure of the cultural success of the government can only be in its cultural outputs and Canada is still a culturally occupied country. We incur an annual cultural trade deficit in excess of $1.1 billion to the United States through the importation of films, sound recordings, books and magazines.
There are initiatives that we can take that would be very helpful so that we have Canadian owned and controlled companies. We create our own distribution system separate from the Americans for the dissemination of cultural products and we can see other measures.
You are indicating that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say to you that Liberals are free and fair traders, but I would like to know what this government's hurry is with respect to getting NAFTA done now rather than getting it done right. Is it prudent to push NAFTA through the House before the other signatories? The United States and Mexico, in particular, have signed off on it.
Is it not asking too much that our legislature deal with this agreement before the Clinton administration even
March 31, 1993

submits it to its Congress? It is asking questions about the drug bill that is in there and the constraints of drugs.
Quite simply, this is not a done deal. It is not complete in terms of substance, in terms of process on both of these counts. I agree with my Liberal colleagues who have spoken in the Elouse that the NAFTA legislation should not be approved at the present time and in its present form.
There are some serious worries in here and I would really like to ask the government to put this aside for the moment. Let us see what the Americans are going to bring in, what the Mexicans say.
On behalf of all my constituents I can promise them not only north-south trade, but east and west trade. It will be the best kind of trade with a well prepared work force, a well prepared industry, so that we can truly move forward in the interests of our people and certainly give some hope to the youth and the 1.6 million who are out there unemployed today.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of trilateral free trade. However, something is bothering me in this whole matter. Why is government in such a hurry to sign this free trade deal, NAFTA, when we know that the American President Bill Clinton has requested a little more time to negotiate with Mexico in particular on the issues of labour standards and the environment? Why is this government in such a rush to ratify this agreement? It would put the US government in an awkward position if one of its partners had already ratified the agreement, as it were. I think that the US government would be in an uncomfortable position to negotiate with Mexico if we were to pass this bill as is without having had the opportunity, as Canadians, to negotiate the environmental and human rights issues. I say it would be rather embarrassing for the Americans.
To have a North American economic pact, I am all for it. But let us give the Americans the chance to negotiate or to bring pressure to bear on Mexico in the future regarding the environment and human rights.
We cannot interfere in Mexican government business. They can settle their own disputes. However, we can now
Government Orders
pressure Mexico into gradually doing better in terms of environment and human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Mount Royal why she does not come out and say straight out that she is for free trade, but that her support is conditional on the respect of human rights and the environment in Mexico. Why say that she is for global trade liberalization? Why not say straight out that she is against trilateral free trade, against having a strong North American deal allowing us to compete with the European Community and the ASEAN for instance? I think we need such a North American economic pact to compete with other economic pacts, I put the question to the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but maybe the hon. member for Longueil arrived late while I was making my speech. What I said was that the Liberals have always been in favour of free trade, a free trade with equal treatment and fair play, and that we wanted arrangements to be made with Americans and Mexicans on the environment and labour standards and also on other issues that had to be settled before we could promote and pass this bill here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I totally agree that the Liberals have always been free traders. But I would really like you to be aware, if you are not already-and I will say it in my mother tongue of our global trade performance with respect to the way the Conservatives have managed our economy.

For the year 1992 we show a merchandise trade deficit with every one of our principal trading areas other than the United States. Our cumulative trade surplus in the four years before the free trade agreement came into effect was $47.9 billion and fell 26.9 per cent-that is 27 per cent-in the years following the free trade agreement to $35 billion.

The hon. member is absolutely right. We forgot our eastern and western trade partners, and we concentrated on programs that were harmful to Canada because we did not put in place the programs required to face global changes and to make our workers and our industries competitive.

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
I thank the hon. member who agrees with me. In its present form, the bill is not good. We must fix certain things before we can proceed.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I know others are looking to take the floor and I will not be very long.
First I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Mount Royal on her speech. I agree with a fair amount of what she had to say. A fair amount in Restigouche-Chaleur is about 99.9 per cent.
When I look at the NAFTA and when people out there look at the NAFTA they wonder if it can be simplified somewhat. Who can really say what is wrong and what is right with it.
The problem with the NAFTA is that there is no definition of a subsidy, no definition of dumping, it lacks environmental standards and proper labour standards. That puts it in its simplest form so that everyone can understand what is wrong with NAFTA. To me that is what is wrong with it.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she could maybe explain a little more of that aspect, whether she agrees with that comment or not and maybe to go on a little more.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are 99.4 per cent in agreement.


An hon. member:: No, I did not say that.


Sheila Finestone: I guess I did not speak clearly enough or else I have not expressed myself in the most succinct way. You said in the shortest and most succinct fashion exactly what it took me 20 minutes to say in my speech. I agree with everything you have said so I guess we are 100 per cent in accord.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the debate on the NAFTA today. For better or for worse, we certainly know where the Conservatives stand. It becomes much more complicated when one listens to the Liberals. Some love it, some hate it, but it does seem at base, most love it more than they hate and would like it mostly to remain the same.
Let there be no mistake, there is only one party and one party only in this country whose opposition to the
North American free trade agreement is unequivocal and that is the New Democratic Party. NAFTA is a bad deal for Canadians. It is impossible to renegotiate. No parallel accord can fix it. It must not proceed.
We are on record and I think have shown in our international affairs as well as nationally that this party is a great believer in fair trade. NAFTA is not fair trade and believe me NAFTA is not free for Canada. Anyone who believes that has been sold a bill of goods.
Let us look at the agreement logically. If NAFTA were simply a free trade agreement, the text of the agreement would consist of one line and one line only. There will be no tariffs between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Instead it is not one line, it is thousands of pages. It is not just a simple commercial agreement about tariffs. It is an economic constitution and it is changing the economic constitution of Canada and of North America. It is a constitution that diminishes the rights of Canadians, that exports our jobs, that sells off our resources at bargain prices and weakens the ability of our governments to do what they are elected to do, serve the people.
Canadians deserve a clear voice that says: "We do not accept these unfair trade arrangements and we believe they must be stopped".

What in NAFTA is really destructive for Canada? Since I have only 10 minutes I will keep the list short.
First, the changes in the rules of origin as they apply to textiles are going to play havoc in the clothing industry where tens of thousands of jobs are going to disappear.
Secondly, there is no Canadian content rule for cars, only North American, not Canadian. The Auto Pact does not mean anything anymore and jobs will move south.
Third, NAFTA is going even further than the free trade agreement in the elimination of price and export controls on our energy resources.
Fourth, there is a real danger that our water might be exported in great quantities. Water is not excluded from the agreement.
Fifth, NAFTA prevents the Canadian government, in the case of foreign take-over, from negotiating conditions such as, technology transfers and keeping Canadians as executives.
March 31, 1993



Sixth, NAFTA accelerates the destructive policy of deregulation that we have seen in the air industry but particularly in cross-border trucking and in telecommunications.
Seventh, NAFTA enshrines forever this government's bill that sold out to the multinational drug companies. The drug companies are in for a windfall while prices for consumers go up and we are told to cut back on health care.
Eighth, under NAFTA a Crown corporation set up by a province or federally to promote non-commercial objectives such as energy conservation or an airline service to remote communities could be forbidden. NAFTA restricts the government's ability to ensure secondary processing of our resources, an absolutely essential prerequisite to developing our regional economies and moving into the 21st century.
Ninth, the NAFTA restricts government's capacity to promote regional development.
Let us be clear what we are talking about. We are talking about a deal that takes the power out of the hands of people and their democratically elected institution and puts it into the hands of multinational corporations that are unelected and unaccountable to the Canadian people.
I say with regret that the government in power, the Conservative Party, did everything it could do to destroy government and to diminish the democracy in this country. This time it will not get away with it.
I briefly mentioned some of the objectionable elements in the NAFTA but equally dangerous is what is not there. There is nothing to prevent continued U.S. trade harassment. U.S. trade law will continue to prevail. There is no definition of subsidies or process to define them. There are no minimum labour standards. There are no minimum environmental standards. There is no addressing of human rights issues.

There is nothing in the agreement to keep firms leaving Canada from exploiting Mexican workers who work for starvation wages under horrendous conditions and in a life threatening environment.
Government Orders
The time has come to make it perfectly clear that people have not been put on this earth to serve commercial interests but rather that trade must serve the interests of the people.

We have to ask the question why the Conservative government is so intent on ramming through this legislation. It is not finished in the United States. Questions are being raised in caucus. Some of the signators have raised many questions-human rights in Mexico, rights for workers, the environment-and yet this government pursues and says in Canada we want to get this legislation through right now.
There can be only one answer: an outgoing Prime Minister wants a monument; an outgoing trade minister wants a monument. Mr. Speaker, we will build them a statue. It will be cheaper.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: It is absolutely ludicrous to proceed with this legislation when NAFTA is not even complete. There are discussions going on about parallel accords, some of which would fundamentally affect the NAFTA as it is now and yet the Canadian government is saying it is going to pass it in Canada. We are brave in Canada. We will not even wait until it is finished to pass it. We just rush right in and pass it. We do not even wait to see the finished product. That is bad business. It is bad democracy.
I would ask what kind of bargaining power it gives us with our partners in the NAFTA. We go to the table. They are negotiating perhaps parallel agreements or other changes to the NAFTA and we say it is okay because we have already passed it in Canada, but we would really like to negotiate this. It does not make any sense. It is ludicrous, not even logical. It is certainly bad bargaining. It is definitely bad logic.
Finally, I want to raise a question that is puzzling to me. Why does this government not want to allow a full debate on this issue?
I find it interesting that last week as this government was shutting down debate on the NAFTA legislation a candidate for the Tory leadership talked about the politics of inclusiveness. I guess that candidate felt that six hours of debate on the second reading of a bill is adequate. I should explain for those who are watching that second reading is the principle of the bill. It is

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
extremely important because people have a chance during that debate to talk not just about what is in the bill but the very foundation on which that bill is built, the
very ideology.
We know that the trade deal is there to entrench Tory policies. The Liberals agree so it entrenches theirs too and it is easier for them to have a Conservative government than to do it themselves. We understand that.
There really can be no reason for ramming through a bill which is so fundamental to the future of Canada. To talk about the politics of inclusiveness is a joke. As I said, we will have had about six hours of debate on this bill. We have had longer debates on bills that certainly were important, but not as fundamental to the future of this country and of our children and grandchildren than this bill. Yet the government says six hours. That is it; it is closing it down.
If these are the the politics of inclusiveness from a member of this government that has invoked closure and used time allocation to shut down debate more than any government in the history of Canada, it will not work and Canadians will not let the government get away with it.
This bill deserves a real debate. Canadians deserve the opportunity to see a full debate, to participate in a full debate, to have all the information and to know that their representatives have had the opportunity to express their views and had the opportunity to explore the alternatives, to explore on what the bill is based as well as the contents of the bill. It is not good enough to stop the voices and views of Canadians. There is no rush and we on this side of the House say, Prime Minister, step in, give democracy a chance.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to raise a couple of questions with my hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who I must in beginning my remarks compliment for actually debating NAFTA, unlike so many of her colleagues who, it would seem, would prefer to engage in histrionics and take up the time of the House debating parliamentary procedure instead of getting on with this important topic that we are here to discuss today.
She asked the question:"Why is the government putting this legislation through?" I am sure she has given a lot of time to studying the bill and she, along with her colleagues, realize that this is enabling legislation. This is enabling legislation that puts things into place such that the government can bring it into effect when they are ready to do so. This deal is complete. Both the Presidents-


An hon. member:: How can you say that without laughing?


An hon. member:: Pose your question, has it come yet?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing my hon. friends do not want to take this opportunity to be enlightened on the topic of NAFTA, which I am doing.
This legislation puts in place the procedures that mean when the agreement is ratified in all three countries, it can be declared. My hon. friends think that the Canadian public support their position on this. Maybe they will win the next election. If they win the next election, they do not have to use the declaration of this and bring it into effect, but it is there and it is ready. We will be ready, just as the Americans and the Mexicans will because they have agreed as we will that NAFTA itself will not be reopened.
My question that I would like to raise is this. My hon. friend says that her party supports trade and yet it wants to build barriers around this country and not provide us with the opportunity. Is she not aware of the fact that the world is changing? Is she not aware of the fact that trading blocs are developing around the world?
If we look at the outcome of the FTA-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the hon. member please put the question?


Peter L. McCreath: My question very simply is this. Does my hon. friend not have the confidence in Canadians that this government does? Does my hon. friend and her party not think that Canadians can compete with Mexicans, Americans or anyone else?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, we have confidence in Canadians. I just wish this government did. Does it have more confidence in Americans than it has in Canadians? We are not at all talking about
March 31, 1993

putting barriers up around Canada and the member knows that very well.
We are talking about having fair trade deals that will work in the interests of all countries that are party to them, that are not based on exploitation, that are not based on selling the ability and sovereignty of this country to care for its own citizens to develop our own regions. Now the member says it is enabling legislation. He has it wrong. It is a disabling legislation. That is what the problem is.
I have a final point on the hon. gentleman's question. He said that we are taking up time debating points of procedure. I want to correct that. We are taking up time debating democracy which this government has attempted to gag. We are standing up for democracy because we think that members of Parliament on all sides of the House have a right to put forward their views and the views of their constituents on this piece of legislation. If the government had real respect for the Canadian people and really honouring them it would say: "We will have all the debate you want. We are not afraid". Well, we are not afraid either. This government will not get away with this.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take the final five minutes left to me to put this on the record. The member from Winnipeg had talked about one of the impacts of the NAFTA.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers which represents some 7,000 farmers made a presentation before the subcommittee. It was interesting to learn that exports of agricultural commodities account for 50 per cent of their farm revenue. In the grains and oilseeds example they said that in 1991 they exported 62,000 tonnes to Mexico. It was only 62,000 tonnes because of restrictive import licensing requirements. But in 1991-92 the requirements were eased somewhat by the Mexican government. For crop year 1991-92 exports went up to 492,000 tonnes. What will happen under NAFTA is that the licensing requirements will be eliminated entirely and immediately-
Members may wonder what the duty rate is now on wheat going to Mexico. Currently, the maximum duty is 50 per cent. What will happen after the signing of NAFTA is that tariff rate will be reduced to 15 per cent immediately and will be phased out over 10 years. I was surprised that the Liberal member from western Canada would not be supportive of NAFTA when indeed it is
Government Orders
most beneficial for wheat farmers, as they indicated when the subcommittee was in Winnipeg.
I have a few other points I would like to put on the record. People should understand how important exports are to Canada, because Canada does not have a large population. The population of Canada is currently 27 million. Everyone talks about exports coming in from Japan, but everyone forgets that Japan has a large domestic economy. Therefore, in actual fact about 13.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product is exported from Japan because of its large domestic market. The United States with a population of 250 million obviously has a lot of consumers. Therefore only about 10 per cent of its GNP is as a result of exports. But in Canada, with only 27 million people, Canadian manufacturers produce more than we can consume. Therefore almost 30 per cent of Canada's Gross Domestic Product has to be exported.
The issue becomes on value added. Everyone says that the only things Canadians can export are the raw resources so why trade with the United States, why do we not trade with other countries, why do we not trade with Japan?
The facts are that of our trade with Japan, 5 per cent of it are finished goods and 95 per cent of it are semi-finished goods and raw materials. Japan is not a big consumer of value added products. About 25 per cent of our exports to the European Community are value added products and 75 per cent of it are semi-finished or raw materials, but to the United States a large amount of our exports indeed are value added.
My time is short and I wish I had the opportunity to give all the statistics. The C.D. Howe Institute did a study of Canadian exports from 1989 to 1991 which was the first three years of the free trade agreement. It looked at those areas that were not included in the free trade agreement and those areas that were included in the free trade agreement.
Exports to the United States in those areas exempt versus trade with the rest of the world stayed about the same. They decreased about 2 per cent. However, in non-resource based things, in value added, Canada's exports to the United States increased 34 per cent and during the same period for those value added goods to the rest of the world, our trade decreased 5 per cent.
If trade to the United States went up 34 per cent and down 5 per cent to Europe in those areas, one has to see

March 31, 1993
Government Orders
clearly that the statistics show the free trade agreement is working in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
It being 6.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
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. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Clark (Yellowhead)
Hopkins
Kaplan
Milliken
1brner (Vancouver Quadra)
Charest
Darling
Jelinek
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Rompkey
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to apply the vote we just took in reverse to the main motion.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill. We believe that every member in this House should stand in his or her place and vote on this bill.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Alt house Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Belair
Members
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare

March 31, 1993
Private Members' Business
Benjamin
Black
Blaikie
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Breaugh
But land
Campbell (South West Nova)
Chretien
Crawford
Dingwall
Duhamel
Finestone
Flis
Funk
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Heap
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Manley
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Mitchell
Nowlan
Pagtakhan
Plamondon
Prud'homme
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stewart
Taylor
Vanclief
Wappel
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)

Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Clark (Yellowhead)
Hopkins
Kaplan
Milliken
"Rimer (Vancouver Quadra)
Berger
Blackburn (Brant)
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brewin
Caccia
Catterall
Comuzzi
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Fisher
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Guarnieri
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Maheu
Marleau
McGuire
Mifflin
Nault
Nystrom
Parker
Proud
Riis
Rocheleau
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Whittaker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-94


MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Charest
Darling
Jelinek
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Rompkey
Wood


Marlene Catterall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that Canadians have the legal right to refuse postal delivery of advertising mail and flyers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We are now in Private Members' Business. Would those who are not participating please leave the House.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I presented this private member's motion because a growing number of Canadians have committed themselves to taking personal initiatives in their own environment to assist with solving the very serious environmental problems that face our world, not just our nation but our world. I wanted to address the issue this raises concerning our treatment of waste.
The green plan identified waste as one of the most serious problems facing industrialized countries like Canada, particularly, that have the luxury of being able to waste.
The first of the four rs is reduce waste. After we have	I
done all we can to reduce then we should reuse, recycle,	I
and recover.	H


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee in the Departmental envelope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
However the solution to Canada's environmental problems will not be solved by blue boxes alone. Canada produces over 30 million tonnes of garbage annually. That is more than a tonne of garbage for every man, woman and child in Canada.
We recycle only 10 per cent of our garbage and send most of the remainder to rapidly filling land sites. In Canada collection and disposal costs of waste exceed $1.5 billion annually.
The green plan gives a great deal of attention to the treatment of waste and to how we can reduce waste. It says that Canada's goal is to cut waste by 50 per cent by the year 2000. Managing waste inefficiently imposes an economic burden on Canadians. It goes on to say that Canadians are well aware of their poor waste manage-

March 31, 1993

ment practices. They recognize that one of the more important challenges we face in moving this country toward sustainable development is reducing the volumes of waste we produce.
In October 1989 the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment adopted as its goal the reduction of waste in Canada by 50 per cent by the year 2000.
We are getting very close to halfway toward 2000 since that target was set by all the environment ministers of our nation and we have not in fact made a great deal of progress.
This motion before the House asks us to take a strong position on a major component of the waste stream, and that is paper. Paper products account for 1.4 million tonnes of Ontario's annual residential waste. That was in 1989 so we can be sure it is significantly higher now. Newsprint, fine paper and magazines alone account for close to one million tonnes.
We are worried about our forests. We are worried about forests at home. We are worried about forests around the world. If we recycled 50 per cent of our waste paper then almost 50 million trees would be saved each year.
This motion addresses an important portion of the paper waste that goes into our dumps every year. It is an important portion of the tens of millions of trees that are needlessly cut and wasted every year. This motion addresses itself specifically to unaddressed advertising mail. Many people across this country call it junk mail because they do not want it in their mailboxes, they do not want to be left with the problem of disposing of it, they are tired of receiving material that they do not want in the first place and even with the greatest conscientiousness they cannot even recycle it. There were 14 billion pieces of unaddressed advertising that were distributed in Canada last year. That is 560 pieces-close to two a day-for every man, woman and child in Canada. That means several thousand pieces of unwanted unsolicited mail coming into Canadians' homes every day.
Not all of that is delivered by Canada Post Corporation. However, Canada Post Corporation is delivering 25 per cent of it and is the largest single deliverer of junk mail to Canadian homes.
Private Members' Business
We are not talking here about addressed ad mail or appeals from charities for contributions. That is not what this motion talks about. However, of the 14 billion pieces of junk mail delivered every year in Canada, 25 per cent or 3.5 billion pieces are delivered by Canada Post. Unaddressed junk mail counts for 36 per cent of all the mail pieces that Canada Post delivers but only 6 per cent of its mail delivery revenues.
The volume is going up by 500 million pieces every year. It has gone up from 23 per cent of Canada Post's mail deliveries barely four years ago to 36 per cent in the last full year of reporting. That is an increase that is very dramatic. Remember that every time Canada Post delivers one of these flyers to your home-and it delivers an average of 140 pieces a year for every person in your household-it means that trees have been needlessly cut down.
There was a previous motion in the House to deal with the issue of whether there should be a requirement for advertising mail to be both on recycled and recyclable paper. Regrettably, that was not a votable motion.
There is another aspect to this which perhaps is not directly related to the environmental concerns that prompted me to bring it forward. Clearly the growing intrusion of Canada Post into the delivery of advertising mail is becoming a serious problem for many smaller dailies and weeklies across this country which were receiving a substantial portion of their advertising revenue from delivering advertising mail.
Canada Post getting into this at such a massive rate has had an impact on them. It is taking away from private newspapers across this country, whether weeklies or dailies, and is seriously inhibiting the ability of many small dailies and weeklies to survive, to bring the news to their communities in a way that is responsive to local community information, local community events, as well as giving a local interpretation of regional, national or international events.
A second question I think we should be asking ourselves in this House is why is Canada Post still a public corporation, however temporarily, competing with private sector distributors in their own business area? One of the claims Canada Post made is: "We deliver your mail to your mailbox". Why is it going out and hiring

March 31, 1993
Private Members' Business
people other than the usual postal workers to deliver mail?
I am sure other members of Parliament have had the same complaints as I have had in my office about people walking across their lawn on a Sunday afternoon and dropping material in their mailbox, usually junk mail. They are astounded to find out that this is somebody who has actually been employed by Canada Post to deliver advertising mail to their home.
I want to quote a bit from the report on the first two years on the green plan that was issued just a few days ago by the Minister of the Environment. It states: "The office of waste management will continue to develop communications products to support the promotion of the four rs and the waste campaign under the umbrella of environmental citizenship. A primer on waste management and fact sheets will be produced. The office will work toward developing partnerships to promote the concept of environmental citizenship".
I think we all know that the green plan depends very heavily not only on government and private sector action to achieve its goals, but also on the involvement of citizens. It puts great emphasis on Canadians in all walks of life taking environmental responsibility in their daily activities.
This motion addresses precisely that desire of Canadians to be responsible for their environment. In growing numbers they are saying: "I don't want this material in my mailbox. I don't want the public corporation called Canada Post delivering advertising to me. I want to have the choice". The government talks about environmental choice programs and consumers are saying: "I want to have the choice. I want to be able to say do not drop this on my private property".
When I wrote the minister responsible for Canada Post well over a year ago, it was to ask that he consider amending the legislation to give Canadians that choice, to give them the right to put a sign on the mailbox that they provide for Canada Post's convenience saying: "I do not want any unaddressed advertising mail left at my home".
The minister did not reply but referred it to Canada Post. Of course, Canada Post said that the legislation obliges it to deliver every piece of mail that is consigned
to it by its customers. Of course it does. That is why I had written to the minister asking him to consider changes to the legislation to allow households or businesses to refuse delivery of bulk mail, unaddressed advertising mail by affixing a notice to the mail receptacle. The minister still has yet to reply to that request.
We adopted a national waste reduction plan several years ago. We have made minimal progress on achieving the objectives of that plan. We continue to cut trees unnecessarily because we refuse to use the legislative authority we have in this House to pass the kinds of laws that allow Canadians to exercise their commitment to good environmental citizenship.
If we as parliamentarians are not prepared to give Canadians the tools to act responsibly toward the environment, then I am not sure why we should continue with programs to encourage environmental citizenship. Far too often we do with one hand something to encourage a certain kind of behaviour or to discourage damaging behaviour with respect to the environment. Then with the other hand we undo all that effort by refusing to co-operate with our citizens in exercising that citizenship, in exercising the awareness that we have attempted to create for them.
This is not a revolutionary motion. It is not going to greatly disrupt Canada Post. I know some would say that 6 per cent of Canada Post's revenue is significant. What is more significant is whether this is generating revenue for Canada Post, generating profits, or whether in fact it is being subsidized by the first-class mail rates which we know have increased significantly in the last couple of years. Certainly some of the small community newspapers in this country would claim that Canada Post is competing unfairly by cross-subsidization within its other services.
The motion is to allow us to at least have a committee look at the various ways in which we could assist Canadians to do what they want to do. That is to be better environmental citizens and to control the amount of paper coming to them and to influence the market through their consumerism.
We talk about economic instruments. Consumerism, the power of the consumer, is one of the greatest of those economic instruments. However, if we continue with legislation that does not allow consumers to exercise those choices and therefore to influence business in a positive way to the benefit of the environment, then we
March 31, 1993

can hardly blame Canadians if the amount of garbage generated, if the amount of trees cut down every year continues to increase while our environment continues to deteriorate.
I ask for the favourable consideration of the House of this motion. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the subject matter of the motion referred to a committee of the House.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on a matter which is becoming very important for all Canadians.
We are becoming more and more aware of the environmental problems around us. We are more concerned about the state of our environment and what the future holds for us. Canadians are trying harder to improve the situation. Individuals, businesses and all levels of government have recognized their greater responsibility towards the environment. Canada Post acknowledges its responsibility and acts accordingly.
I would like to talk about initiatives Canada Post undertook to play a more active role in the protection of our environment. The corporation realized that the protection and conservation of the environment are crucial to the welfare of its employees, its clients and the communities it serves. That is why it came up with an environmental policy in 1990.
Needless to say, it was not easy for such a big business to implement that kind of program throughout the country. It represented an enormous task which could not be carried out overnight. Canada Post was able to instil more respect for the environment in its everyday operations. For example, paper consumption in its administrative services has been reduced by almost 30 per cent. Publications intended for its employees are printed on recycled paper, using vegetable inks, and its energy and fuel consumption has also been reduced.
Those are only a few of the initiatves taken by the corporation and they show how conscious it is of its responsibility toward the environment.
Private Members' Business
The media are warning us more and more often of the dangers threatening our environment because of our thoughtlessness, and that is starting to work. It is at our own risk that we ignore them.
The responsibility toward environment does not fall to only one person or one organization. All those who contribute to the problem must do their share to find a solution. Looking for a culprit among all those responsible will not help us deal with this crisis.
Just think of the convenience stores for example. They sell products intended for consumers in a hurry. They carry packaged products such as potato chips, chocolate bars and so on. We do not blame this type of retailer for offering too many packaged products; they are only selling them. The solution rests first with those who design the packaging.
The same can be said about a product Canada Post is offering to consumers. We sometimes blame it for distributing this kind of mail, referred to as junk mail by many. For Canada Post, it is Mediapost.
For its customers, Mediapost is an accurate and cost-effective means of transmitting their message. People like David Love, vice-president of the World Wide Nature Fund, stated that: "For charities, mail advertising is not junk mail but the most efficient, personal, ethically acceptable and important of all fund-raising methods."
Mediapost is an important part of postal activities with an annual volume of over 4.7 billion items and some $500 million in annual revenues. It is also an efficent and viable way to deliver a message whether it be from a small comer store owner or a national retailer or charitable organization like the World Wide Nature Fund.
Mediapost is useful, and studies also show that people like to receive direct mail advertising. Mediapost has interesting features. Let me list a few. It can be printed on paper that can be or has been recycled thanks to vegetable based ink. Mediapost is included with your mail so that the wind cannot blow it away. It is delivered directly in the mail box. It is also possible to target a specific group or area. In that way, it can be delivered only to those who should receive it, thus minimizing waste.

March 31, 1993
Private Members' Business
Direct-mail advertising is a big business in Canada. It is an effective and profitable means of communication which provides great benefits to the Canadian economy.
Judge for yourself, Mr. Speaker. Every year, direct mail generates $7.86 billion in sales in Canada. Canadian consumers spend $170 a year on average for goods and services advertised by direct mail. Direct mail accounts for $1.9 billion or 22 per cent of net advertising revenue. It employs over 200,000 Canadians. It is an industry that is growing at a rate of 8 to 10 per cent a year.
Direct mail is an attractive form of interactive communication with many commercial spin-offs. We have nothing to gain and much to lose by eliminating it. What we must all try to do is to find a balance between this economic reality and our environmental responsibility.
Canada Post is a distributor and only one link in a long chain, which begins with an advertiser, someone with a message to send. It could be a retailer, a politician or an organization seeking funds.
The chain continues with an advertising agency that designs the message, and a printer who reproduces it on paper made by a company that processes forest products. Then a direct mail house prepares the message for distribution. Finally, Canada Post, which is near the end of the chain, distributes the message.
Quite a few steps are involved before we can even start distributing an advertising flyer. After delivery it reaches the last link in the chain, the consumer who eventually recycles the flyer, or at least we hope so.
Canada Post is mindful of environmental issues. It has responded to the concerns raised by this kind of advertising in a way that takes into account both environmental and economic factors, but it cannot act alone. It needs the help of all concerned. To find practical solutions, Canada Post must work in co-operation with all advertisers.
That is why the corporation is trying to bring together all industries that have a stake in these issues.
It has set up a committee consisting of announcers, advertising agencies, paper producers, printers, publishers, direct mail advertising companies, distributors, recycling companies and municipal representatives. Together they are trying to develop responsible ways to use paper in advertising. By working together with the other players in this sector, they hope to get products and services that are environmentally friendly.
It is the kind of integrated and systematic approach we need to deal with that all important question facing us today: How do we protect and preserve the environment? If we are to meet the challenges of the future, we must take this comprehensive approach as solutions emerge. We know they will not be lasting solutions unless all parties are prepared to co-operate.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am totally opposed to this bill in its present form.
More and more businesses and industries are trying to find solutions to environmental problems by promoting civic-minded actions. The Canada Post Corporation is no exception. It is a leader among businesses committed to playing an active role in environmental protection.
Canada Post has implemented an environmental policy. It uses recyclable products and it is also engaged in recycling activities. It has reduced its energy consumption as well as the volume of paper used by its employees. The corporation has also limited its fuel consumption.
Those are only a few of the initiatives which demonstrate how serious Canada Post is about the environment.
I conclude by saying that environmental responsibility is up to everyone, including producers, suppliers, distributors and even consumers.
The involvement of individuals, business and all levels of government is crucial. In many instances, solutions to environmental problems are found in a co-operative approach committing all parties to maintaining the delicate balance which exists between environmental and economic factors.
A co-operative approach to the challenges ahead of us will mean that whatever effort we make today to protect our environment will help build a stronger foundation for the environment of tomorrow.
March 31, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Private Members' Business
It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 1, 1993