March 21, 1988

THE LATE HONOURABLE RICHARD BELL, P.C., Q.C.

PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Minister of State (Seniors))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Seniors):

Mr. Speaker, it is with both sadness and great sorrow that I learned early this morning of the death last evening of a former Member of this House and Cabinet colleague, the Honourable Richard Bell.

My personal friendship with Dick Bell was firmly established over 40 years ago and continued to grow in strength year after year.

He served with distinction in the Cabinet of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

As Hon. Members know, Dick Bell was a totally dedicated parliamentarian who served Canada with compassion, honesty, and indeed with a great deal of vigour.

He will be sorely missed as a friend and confidant, and on behalf of the Government of Canada and myself I extend to his wife Ruth and daughter Judith heartfelt condolences.

Topic:   THE LATE HONOURABLE RICHARD BELL, P.C., Q.C.
Permalink
LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I would like to express words of sorrow on the passing of the Honourable Dick Bell. He had a very distinguished career, beginning as a secretary to the Minister of National Revenue in the Conservative Government of the 1930s. He continued as a private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, also in the late 1930s and 1940s.

He went on to serve with distinction as a member of this House and as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.

I remember him as a person of good humour and goodwill, who never let his very strong commitment to the Conservative Party interfere with his very good relationships that he had with people on all sides of the House.

He was also a very distinguished citizen of Ottawa, serving in many charitable endeavours. He will be sorely missed, not only by his friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party, but by his many friends who remember him in the House of Commons and in the city of Ottawa.

I am pleased to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State for Seniors (Mr. Hees) in expressing sincere sympathy and condolences to the family of the late Mr. Bell. He will be sorely missed in this city and this country.

Topic:   THE LATE HONOURABLE RICHARD BELL, P.C., Q.C.
Permalink
NDP

Nelson Andrew Riis (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that this morning we learned of the death of Dick Bell. He served this House and Canadians well for many years. He was a crucial player in the development of the Conservative Party of Canada, and had a distinguished career in the House of Commons, serving the Government of Canada and Canadians for so many years.

It was with great sadness that we learned of his passing. On behalf of my colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), and other colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I extend condolences to his wife and daughter.

Topic:   THE LATE HONOURABLE RICHARD BELL, P.C., Q.C.
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

BANK OF CANADA

PC

Thomas Hockin (Minister of State (Finance))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(4) I have the honour to lay upon the table copies in both official languages of the Annual Report of the Bank of Canada.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   BANK OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT
Permalink

WAYS AND MEANS

PC

Thomas Hockin (Minister of State (Finance))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(2) I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of Ways and Means Motion Nos. 14, 26, 27 and 28.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Sub-subtopic:   DESIGNATION OF ORDER OF THE DAY
Permalink

PETITIONS

PC

Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Minister of State (Government House Leader); Minister of State (Treasury Board))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order

March 21, 1988

Statements by Ministers

106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-3781, 3323813, 332-3815, 3332-3854, 332-3855, 3323-4003, 3332-4030 and 332-4048 to 332-4052 inclusive.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Permalink

GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

PANEL DECISIONS-GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL

PC

Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):

Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently involved in three disputes under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT. Two of the cases involve decisions by GATT panels against Canada. One relates to Canada's export restrictions on Pacific salmon and herring. The other deals with the practices of provincial Governments affecting the import of alcoholic beverages.

A third case involves a request which we will be making for a GATT panel on Japanese lumber tariffs. All of these cases will be addressed at the GATT Council tomorrow, March 22.

I want to take this opportunity to inform Members of the House of the Government's approach to these issues. We are all aware of how vital the GATT and international trading system are to Canada. International trade means jobs for Canadians.

More precisely, three million jobs in this country and one-third of all we produce depend on export markets. The GATT rules are the best protection for keeping channels of world trade open and protecting Canadian jobs. Without these rules, Canadian industries and Canadian workers would be exposed to indiscriminate action by trading partners. The law of the jungle would prevail in international trade. An export dependent country like Canada would be highly vulnerable.

Members of the House from all Parties recognize this reality. We all agree that the GATT system works in the interest of all Canadians and protects their employment and economic well-being. But the system is only as strong as the will of Governments to respect it. To enjoy the benefits of membership in the GATT, Canada must also be prepared to fulfil its obligations.

[DOT] (mo)

Let me turn first to the GATT panel report on salmon and herring. This emerged from an investigation under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act. This section allows U.S. industry to file complaints about alleged unfair trading practices. What the U.S. industry alleged was unfair, in this case, was that Canadian processors were buying up substantial quantities of Alaskan salmon and herring while U.S. processors were prohibited from access to unprocessed salmon and herring from Canada. Therefore, the U.S. took the issue to GATT, where a panel made a clear finding that Canada's export restrictions violated international trade rules.

We have made it clear from the outset, including statements in the House, that we would be seeking a solution that would be consistent with the GATT and would also protect the longterm interests of the fishing industry. We have consulted closely with all interested parties, the processors, the unions, the fishermen, the B.C. Government and, as promised, we have pursued a three-pronged strategy; first, raising our concerns in the GATT; second, exploring a possible bilateral solution with the United States and, third, considering alternative measures to ensure the integrity of Canada's West Coast fisheries conservation and management regime.

In raising our concerns in the GATT, we have not received support from other members who clearly consider the panel's findings to be valid. While discussions with the U.S. have been useful in airing the issues, we have made little progress in reaching a bilateral solution. Therefore, we will now be pursuing a Canadian solution, one which reflects Canada's GATT obligations but which also addresses fisheries management and conservation needs and protects the future viability of the industry. It is the Government's intention to allow adoption of the GATT panel report and to dismantle the GATT inconsistent export restrictions by January 1, 1989.

At the same time, we intend to enact new regulations which will require that salmon and herring caught off the Pacific coast will be landed in Canada in order to ensure accurate catch reporting, inspection, grading, and quality control. While Americans will have access to unprocessed fish landed on shore at designated landing stations along the coast, they will not be allowed to buy fish directly from Canadian fishermen "over the side". Over-all, the landing requirement will improve management of the fisheries while preserving the livelihood of the coastal communities. Of course, Canadians will continue to be able to buy unprocessed American fish from Alaska.

My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), will be consulting closely with all interested parties to develop the details of this landing requirement. It will be consistent with the GATT as well as with the Law of the Sea which specifically provides for such measures. In developing the new regime we will, of course, be examining carefully the principles and practices which the U.S. itself employs in the fisheries area through such legislation as the Magnuson Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is also announcing today his intent to bring forward a national plan for a landing requirement, including provisions for inspection and quality control, to be applied for all species on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

There have been calls that Canada should simply block adoption of the GATT panel report and maintain the status quo. Frankly, this is not a viable option. It would expose Canadian workers to the threat of U.S. trade retaliation which the GATT provides. This could hit East Coast fish processors, fishermen on both coasts, or any other number of Canadian industries. Of all sectors, the fisheries industry is particularly conscious of the need for fair international trading rules to be respected. More than 80 per cent of Canadian fisheries

March 21, 1988

production is dependent on export markets. If we are not prepared to play by the rules ourselves, we can hardly expect to use them to protect Canadian export interests.

I would like to point out that since the GATT began in 1947 there have been 58 panel reports submitted. Only three have not either been adopted or resolved, and two of them are the Canadian cases about which I am talking today. The third is a panel report on the U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua. So I think you can see, Mr. Speaker, that adopting the panel report is thoroughly consistent with international practices. I repeat, the solution we have chosen on salmon and herring will respond to Canada's GATT obligations and will also safeguard the essential interests of Canada's fishing industry and the people who work in it.

Let me turn next to the panel report on liquor boards. Three years ago the European Community took Canada to the GATT alleging that Canadian liquor board practices are unfair. The measures in question here are provincial practices. The panel found that these provincial practices on pricing, listing, and distribution discriminate against imports of alcoholic beverages and are inconsistent with GATT rules. Canada has been asked to have the provinces bring their practices into line with international trade rules and to report back to the GATT before the end of this year.

Canada will not stand in the way of adoption of this report at the GATT Council meeting tomorrow. However, we recognize that the panel's recommendations, while not posing problems for the distilling industry, do cause severe difficulties for the Canadian wine industry. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the free trade agreement with the United States has provisions covering imports of wine from the United States which provide for a seven year phase-out of differential markups. In 1986 exports of wine from the U.S. to Canada amounted to about $10 million. By comparison, European exports to Canada are 24 times as large. They are in the order of $240 million a year. So, of course, they pose a very serious threat to the Canadian wine industry.

For this reason we attempted, in consultation with all the provinces and the industry, to negotiate a bilateral understanding with the European Community. These negotiations were unsuccessful because the Europeans set conditions which we could not accept. We will now be working with the provinces to find ways to respond to the panel's recommendations while addressing the adjustment concerns of the industry.

The Government will also be reviewing the petition submitted by the Canadian wine industry regarding European subsidy practices on grapes and wines and their impact on the Canadian market.

Our dispute with the European Community on liquor board practices has centred on wine and spirits. The European exports of beer, which account for less than .5 of 1 per cent of the Canadian market, do not figure prominently in the complaint. In view of this, and given that discussions are now under way with the provinces to address interprovincial

Statements by Ministers

barriers to trade, the Government is not prepared to implement any changes with respect to beer marketing practices in the foreseeable future.

Finally, I want to advise the House that tomorrow Canada will be requesting that the GATT Council establish a panel to consider a Canadian complaint against Japan. This relates to the Japanese tariff which discriminates against Canadian lumber in favour of lumber from the U.S.A. The tariff restricts Canadian access to a rapidly expanding market which we pioneered. This is a long-standing issue which we have raised with Japan at the highest levels for many years. Specifically our exports to Japan of spruce-pine-fir dimension lumber are assessed at 8 per cent tariff while exports of competing species, mostly from the United States, are allowed to enter duty free. We do not feel this is consistent with the GATT requirement to give the same tariff treatment to "like products".

We have tried to settle this issue on many occasions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), my colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), and I have all raised this issue with our Japanese counterparts. Japan has offered us limited tariff reductions but would not agree to provide Canada with the same access provided to the U.S. Therefore, we are taking this issue to the GATT.

As we have done in the past, we will be using the GATT to defend Canadian export interests and Canadian jobs. Clearly, Canada expects other countries to live by GATT rules, but we cannot do so unless we are prepared to respect these rules ourselves. The decisions I have announced today reflect this basic principle and protect Canadian jobs.

Topic:   GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Subtopic:   PANEL DECISIONS-GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Axworthy

Liberal

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Minister's statement I would like to underline and reinforce the strong and important commitment that this country has to the international trading system and, in particular, to GATT, and to endorse the spirit that the development and enhancement of the international trading system are essential to our own economic and international progress.

By way of example, of the nine cases that Canada has initiated under the GATT we have been successful in gaining favourable judgments in eight of them. This shows that, generally, not only have we been a beneficiary of having an international system of settling disputes but that we also have been a close and honest adherent to that system. That was the case until the Government got its wires crossed, and began to pursue obsessively a trade strategy that ran counter to that basic support of the GATT. It tried to negotiate a special deal. It tried to gain exemptions. It tried to follow a so-called two-track theory. That is when we began to go wrong. That is when we began to find that our ability to pursue successfully negotiations through the GATT system caused us to take a wrong turn.

March 21, 1988

Statements by Ministers

Certainly no more serious mistakes have ever been made in the history of trade relations in this country than the refusal by the present Government not to pursue the softwood lumber issue in front of the GATT. Not only did we have a very clear case but we had the right to challenge a law that will come back to haunt us. It is this very principle that the Americans are now incorporating in their omnibus Trade Bill. It is something we could have challenged successfully, ensuring that it never applied to further Canadian softwood lumber exports.

However, the Government, for pure and simple political reasons, not wanting to disrupt its relationship with the United States during the time of negotiations, refused to pursue that matter. It has been seen clearly as not a major player in the GATT system in the last three or four years. It is evident that its mind, its interest and its energies have been elsewhere. We are now paying the price.

We have in front of us decisions which will have devastating effects on a number of Canadian industries. I refer in particular to the fishing industry on the West Coast. It has been seized with an incredible sense of fear because of a ruling initiated by the United States using the GATT system which, from the point of view of U.S. injury might have amounted to $2 million or $3 million, but which will impact on the West Coast industry to the tune of $150 million or more.

Why did the Government take the actions it did? Why did it sacrifice the West Coast fishing industry? How has it done that?

First, is it not strange that the Americans were able to gain from Canada a concession to grandfather the softwood lumber decision and have it written into the agreement but Canada was not able to negotiate successfully an American withdrawal of its application against the West Coast fishery? In light of the reasonably small impact that this had upon American fishing interests one would have thought that the great negotiator might have been able to succeed in having his American counterparts withdraw that application under the Canada-U.S. proposal. All the protests and promises we have heard that the Canada-U.S. agreement will protect Canadian interests fall hollow when we see the lack of success the Government has had in gaining the slightest concession from its American partners. That failure pales in comparison when one considers what the Government has surrendered.

Under the Canada-U.S. agreement we have abandoned our right to employ an export tax. The fact of the matter is that under GATT we could have taken the type of regulations which are presently applied to the processing of fish and replaced them with an export tax. That would be perfectly acceptable and allowable under GATT rules. But the Government negotiated away the right to impose an export tax in its relationship with the United States. Thus it took away one of the alternative means that could be used to protect Canadian industries successfully, in this case the fish processing industry. The Government negotiated away, gave away, conceded away,

one of the most important defensive instruments this country has that would be essential to protect the West Coast fisheries in this case.

What has the Government replaced this with? It has been replaced by a new kind of landing requirement that will now have to be applied to the East Coast fisheries as well. There goes all the protestations that we have heard from Members opposite that in no way will the East Coast fisheries be affected.

We now have the Government recognizing that by accepting this decision it will be setting a precedent. Under the free trade agreement Americans could use this precedent to go after the East Coast fishery. It is now attempting to wriggle its way out by applying a measure that will impose new standards and new restrictions upon the East Coast fishery. Not only have the West Coast fishermen been put in jeopardy but the Government has now taken a measure that will have a major impact on the East Coast fishery, in fact on the entire fishery of Canada.

Putting itself in a box in the first place as a result of the Canada-U.S. agreement the Government is now trying to find a way to work its way out. But by working its way out it is putting itself in new boxes. It is like a maze. It is like the weird garden in Alice in Wonderland where Alice kept running from the Queen of Hearts only to find herself trapped.

The Government has trapped itself not only in the West Coast fisheries but in the East Coast fisheries as well. It is an incredible state of affairs into which the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has put the fishing industry of Canada. It is quite incredible that there would be such incompetence and such tomfoolery with such a vital industry. It is really quite astounding that the Government would put itself in this type of position.

Because the agreement is not yet in place the Government could be using its leverage to say, "We will use an export tax to protect the Canadian fish processing industry," and not get itself caught in the type of trap that it has put itself into in this case. It is not a matter of simply accepting a GATT ruling, it is a matter of being able to use what is available under the GATT and putting it to work for the Canadian interest. But the Government is afraid of doing so. It is scared of doing so because it does not want to jeopardize what has become the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) great salvation for Canadian interests. This is the type of salvation which continually puts Canadian industry in jeopardy.

In saying what I have just said I must now ask what happened to the brave words of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Last November when the Americans imposed an embargo on certain sizes of Canadian fish he said, "We are going to take them to the GATT". The Minister on behalf of the Government said that it would use bargaining power and trading power.

March 21, 1988

Has the Minister made a statement that the Government will utilize an application to GATT against U.S. actions? On November 26 the Minister of Transport who, I presume, speaks for the Government, was quoted as saying, "We are going to challenge U.S. actions in front of GATT, dealing with a new embargo on smaller sized fish".

Once again it has backed off. We know why it has backed off. It is absolutely paralyzed when it comes to taking any kind of trade action against the United States. It realizes that in terms of the type of sellout it has negotiated with the Canada-U.S. agreement it cannot defend and protect Canadian industries legitimately for fear of having that unravelled.

[DOT] (M30)

On the second issue that we have had brought forward, dealing with the protection practices of the provincial liquor boards, once again there is a curious circumstance. In its "negotiations" the Government put itself in a box. The Americans were quite happy to leave some of those things alone because they knew there was a GATT ruling being considered. Now this opens up even further access for U.S. wines and spirits than they had before, and they did not have to give anything away in the negotiations to get it. Nothing is exempt on this issue.

Once again we are putting ourselves in the position on wine and beer where, rather than taking action, the Government states that it will review the petition from the wine industry. Why does the Minister not simply accept it and go to work on it? There is a decision due tomorrow. Have the officials put their petition down? Let us get tough on bargaining for Canadians. Let us use the GATT rules the way they are supposed to be used, not in some tippy-toe, passive, piecemeal fashion, but do so under a coherent, effective, strengthening of the rules.

The fact of the matter is that once again we have put ourselves in a bind because of the Canada-U.S. agreement, which points out the fallacy of the so-called two-track theory. The tracks keep getting crossed and the train is derailed. That is the problem with this trade strategy followed by the Government. The trains keep bumping into each other because the tracks do not run parallel but cross each other.

The final issue I wish to comment on, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to give you some notice that this will not be the last comment we have to make as we look forward with interest to Question Period, is on the application against the Japanese on dimension lumber. There is no quarrel with that; it is a useful initiative. But I wish to point out the interesting contrast as to why the Government was not prepared to do the same on the softwood lumber issue with the Americans. Is it not an interesting contrast between the two?

In fact, accepting the U.S. export tax and replacing it, as is now being done in B.C., with a new tax on the wood itself, by the new stumpage fees, our own exports to Japan are increasing in cost. The stumpage fee will apply to all exports. We are

Statements by Ministers

beginning to price ourselves out of the market in any event in this respect, simply because we accepted a bad decision. If we were prepared, as we should be, to challenge Japanese rules, we had equal right to challenge American rules, except for the fact that this Government was not going to to anything to get off its knees when it came to dealing with the Americans on trade.

Topic:   GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Subtopic:   PANEL DECISIONS-GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL
Permalink
NDP

Steven W. Langdon

New Democratic Party

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the Minister for her early circulation of the document which we are looking at this morning. Second, I would like to make the point, on behalf of our Party, that presently a GATT negotiation is taking place which is looking at the entire range of GATT issues, both questions which had to do with what is a subsidy, questions which had to do with fair trading practices, and so forth. Especially with this GATT negotiation that is taking place, with our strong support for Canada's participation in that negotiating process, we feel that the Minister is making a serious mistake by rushing into acceptance of these two panel decisions.

In many respects I think that the set of statements made by the Minister this morning reflects the approach of this Government. It pretends to take the high road, and at the same time it applies restrictions and undercuts what it is pretending to do. It attempts, in short, to have its cake and to eat it too.

In the West Coast case it adopts the report of GATT, thereby showing itself to be the good boy scout that Canada is supposed to be. At the same time it puts into effect restrictions which will have the effect of undercutting much of what that GATT panel report aims to achieve.

The same thing is true with respect to the liquor case. It accepts the report and states, "We will not stand against the adoption of this report". In that sense it pleads guilty to the points which have been made by the Europeans with respect to our practices in this industry. At the same time the Government states, with respect to the politically powerful brewing industry, and I quote from the Minister's statement, "the Government is not prepared to implement any changes in respect of beer marketing practices in the foreseeable future".

On the one hand the Government says, "Yes, we are for what GATT has said", yet it turns around and at the same time it states, "We will not implement what GATT has told us to implement". Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to represent what this Government has far too often done in the past, refusing to be frank and open with the Canadian people. In addition we receive a little spoonful of honey to make the medicine go down. We get the announcement that is strategically timed for today to make things somehow look a little better for the Minister's West Coast constituents, that there will be action taken with respect to dimension lumber, an area which on every trip to Japan we were told the Government had solved.

I think, and we think as a Party, that Canada should have been honest, and open, and stated that we think the vote

March 21, 1988

Petitions

should be postponed with respect to each of those panel decisions. For instance, the European Community postponed vote after vote with respect to pasta subsidies. In the 1970s the United States postponed vote after vote with respect to its DISC program. Canada itself has postponed votes with respect to the cattlemen's countervail which the Government has been very anxious to put off. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, an honest, up front approach saying, "Yes, we intend to postpone this vote", is what the people of this country would much more clearly have appreciated.

First, it would have saved far more jobs in the salmon and herring industry on the West Coast. That particular case dealt with a narrow dispute with Alaska, a narrow dispute that perhaps involved a total value of $3 million to $4 million. As a consequence, a fishing industry of $150 million to $160 million has been put at risk.

In respect of the decision which the Minister has taken, she could have, if she wished, tried to wriggle out of what she said a few minutes before she accepted the panel report. She could have used an export tax. There is nothing within GATT and, contrary to what the Flon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said, it is quite possible for us at this stage to take action and put an export tax into effect. The Government should have done so.

I must say that the liquor distribution issue is even more surprising. Here we have the extra complexity of the Canadian Government being faced with an application from the wine industry for moves against the Europeans in respect of their subsidies. Surely it is a perfect reason to say that we will postpone adoption of this report until such time as these issues can be sorted out as they should be sorted out together.

I think that the Minister, with her statement that the Government will not take action in respect of the beer market, has left the country open to the very retaliation about which she complains she is concerned in following GATT by adopting reports.

In conclusion, I think that honesty and jobs are the issues facing us in this case. There are 20,000 jobs which are at stake. We should have been honest and straightforward and said that we wished the vote to be postponed as we wished the vote with regard to the countervail on cattle to be postponed. If we had done that, we would have proved to people across the country that at least the Government was prepared for once to stand and protect the interests of the country, instead of giving in, and giving in, and giving in.

That kind of direct, open, and up front position taken by a Government would have permitted further negotiation and would have led to a solution to these problems instead of the cop-out the Minister has given us.

Topic:   GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Subtopic:   PANEL DECISIONS-GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL
Permalink

PETITIONS

NDP

Nelson Andrew Riis (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, on behalf of a number of constituents who are concerned that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.

They believe that the negotiated trade deal threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty and therefore ask Parliament to dissolve to give the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.

Topic:   GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn

New Democratic Party

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):

Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of the same Standing Order, to present a petition from several persons in my riding, mainly in the city of Brantford, who are totally opposed to the Government's trade deal with the United States.

They call upon the Government to call an election immediately to have the matter settled once and for all. They fear that the trade deal will reduce and in the long term eliminate our sovereignty.

Topic:   GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Permalink

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

March 21, 1988