August 29, 1988

NDP

James Douglas Manly

New Democratic Party

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):

The

second petition calls upon Parliament to act as responsible guardians and see that all development on the irradiation of food be stopped. They say that governments at all levels must take immediate steps to stop their agencies and Crown corporations from promoting and encouraging such development.

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   IRRADIATION OF FOOD
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Axworthy

Liberal

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting on behalf of a number of residents of Grand Centre, Cold Lake, Medley, and Bonneville, important communities in the distinguished province of Alberta, who say: Whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return; whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the free trade agreement. I see the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in the Chamber. I am glad to know that many of his constituents are interested in this matter.

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister; Minister responsible for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs; Vice-President; President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Do you know where Grand Centre is?

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Permalink

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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, I request that all questions be allowed to stand.

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

John Allen Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Shall the questions stand?

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

I think the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was seeking the floor?

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
NDP

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap

New Democratic Party

Mr. Heap:

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to give notice that I wish to withdraw a Bill of mine concerning Central America. However, I would rather discuss it first with other people concerned and I will rise later, please.

Topic:   CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved

that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, i am very pleased and proud to be moving third reading of this historic piece of legislation which will lead to implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement negotiated last fall and which has been before us since December of last year.

I am a proud Canadian, although I only became one in 1949 as a result of a campaign in Newfoundland to decide the future of that province. I stand in a line of proud Canadians who have sought to secure for the people of Canada the benefits of free trade with the U.S. This is not something that has just occurred in the last year or two or three. This is part of Canadian history, the process of securing freer and freer trade with the United States of America. It is not something new, it is not something startling, it is not something unusual, it is not something revolutionary. It is part of a continuing process since Canada was formed in 1867.

For over a century leaders of Canadian Governments have sought to secure the kind of benefits that can come from free trade with the U.S. Down through our history, up until now, the opposition of the day, whatever opposition it was, always rose in a chorus to say that Canada's sovereignty, Canada's very nationhood would be imperiled by a free trade agreement with the U.S. Whenever this topic has come up, that has always been the cry of the Opposition, no matter what Party

August 29, 1988

the Opposition was. Our sovereignty is imperiled, gone or endangered. Our nationhood is going to disappear because we are going to have a different commercial arrangement with the U.S. That was the call.

For those who opposed Canada-U.S. free trade, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had a name for them in 1911, and 1 quoted him at second reading. 1 noticed that several newspapers got the quotation wrong. They attributed to me what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said. I would have been glad to have been his speech writer in 1911 so long as I could still have been here today. Sir Wilfrid Laurier called those who opposed Canada-U.S. free trade in 1911 and I quote him: "The freaks of unreasoning passion". That is a perfect description of those who oppose Canada-U.S. free trade today, freaks of unreasoning passion. They cry out that you are not a true Canadian. How often have we heard that in the last few months? You are not a true Canadian, you are somebody who is willing to sell out your country if you are for Canada-U.S. free trade.

The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) calls the legislation we are debating today the sale of Canada Act. That is the best he can do in his cheap jaunts across the country spreading misinformation about this legislation. When he says it is the sale of Canada Act, he is not just accusing Members of Parliament on this side of the House, the Government, of being traitors to their country, people prepared to sell out their country. He is accusing prominent members of his own Party. That includes Premier Bourassa. Of course, that accounts for his cool response to the importunities of Mr. Turner who went to see him on August 17, and we cannot say he got a rapturous embrace. He was hoping it would be indecently close but it was not. No criminal charges could be laid as a result of that visit.

Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, another prominent Liberal, who said the free trade agreement is in the national interest and in the interest of his province, is being called by his national leader, just as we are, a traitor to Canada, a person who supports the sale of Canada Act. If you are willing to sell your country, does that not indicate you are a traitor, you are a sleeveen, you are a less than desirable person, that you are unpatriotic.

It indicates to me that you are guilty of treason. Yet, this is the kind of statesman-like utterance we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and their lieutenants for months now.

This is not new. Sir Wilfrid Laurier suffered from the same, what he called, freaks of unreasoning passion. Were these leaders of the colony of Canada before Confederation any less Canadian for entering a reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1854? This goes back as far as 1854. Who would claim that Canada was diminished or weakened as a result of that initiative? The opposite, of course, is true.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Were Sir John A. Macdonald and, after him, Alexander MacKenzie, failing to serve Canadian interests when they sought to renew reciprocity with the United States in the 1870s? They wanted a continuation of the reciprocity arrangements. Were they traitors to Canada? Of course they were not, and no one would suggest that they were.

Was Sir Wilfrid Laurier putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he campaigned in 1891 on unrestricted reciprocity with the United States? Was he putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he reached an agreement for this in 1911? No, of course he was not putting in peril the very idea of Canada, and his descendants, those people who say they belong to the same Party as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, are today saying that this U.S.-Canada free trade agreement puts in peril the very idea of Canada. What specious nonsense, what malicious tripe. One is statesman-like to keep one's language so moderate when one thinks of the nonsense we have heard in the House on this.

Were Canadian governments doing anything other than acting in the national interest in the 1930s when they entered into two Canada-U.S. trade agreements to reduce tariffs? Were they then acting contrary to the Canadian national interest? Of course they were not. Did Canada become any less Canada as a result of these two treaties of the 1930s? Of course it did not.

In 1945 Mackenzie King had a negotiation proceed between Canada and the United States for free trade. Simon Reisman was then a young man entering the government service. He was one of the secret coterie of people appointed by Mackenzie King to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. Was Mackenzie King then a traitor? Was he putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he had that negotiation initiated?

Of course we all know that he did not go through with it. He got cold feet in the end. No one in the Cabinet knew what he was up to and his descendants in the Liberal Party today complain that there was not sufficient consultation when the Cabinet was not even consulted in those days. I have suggested before that he consulted only his mother, then in the afterworld, in reaching that decision.

When Louis St. Laurent led the Government in the late 1940s and 1950s and arrangements were entered into with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, were they then betraying their country or endangering the very idea of Canada simply because we were going to get a more sensible set of rules for international trading, Canada being an international trader? Of course they were not, as Mackenzie was not. There was very little consultation of course. The public was not consulted. The public was not asked to vote on whether or not we should join GATT.

Lester Pearson was denounced in 1965 for selling out the auto industry. Who denounced him? Why, the precursors of the New Democratic Party, the swivelling socialists. You don't know where they are going to swivel to next. They denounced

August 29, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Lester Pearson as betraying this country because he entered into the Auto Pact. Today they have the Auto Pact wrapped around their bosoms so closely that they have in-grown chest hairs. You cannot touch the Auto Pact, according to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who represents Oshawa.

Oshawa has tremendous prosperity as a result of the Auto Pact. There is not even a blip on the unemployment screen in Oshawa. There is full employment. General Motors has invested $10 billion in Oshawa over the last 10 years because of the Auto Pact, which is basically free trade in the automobile industry and is the main reason for the tremendous prosperity of Ontario today. There is full employment in the southern part of Ontario.

However, in 1965 Pearson was said to be selling out the auto industry. He went ahead anyway and signed the Auto Pact. He did not go to an election first. He was not asked to go to an election. It had not featured in earlier elections. The Canadian electorate had not been asked to give their opinion on this subject.

When opinions were given the unions and precursors of the NDP were against it, of course. They are against everything. They are against every change in the status quo. They do not want anything in Canada or the world to change. The NDP policy is the policy of Clement Attlee of 1945. We all know that his policies got the United Kingdom autarky. We can live in Canada with our little market of 26 million people and prosper and increase our national wealth by trading back and forth with one another.

Lester Pearson went ahead anyway. Lester Pearson understood the difference between opposition politics of calculated hysteria and Canada's national interest and he went ahead. Who gained? Oshawa gained, Ontario gained, and Quebec has gained from the Auto Pact.

Last year 89 per cent of all of Ontario's exports went to the United States of America, a tremendous proportion of them being automobiles and parts, compared to a national percentage of 76 per cent of our exports going to the United States of America. The part of Canada which is the most dependant on the United States market for its prosperity is Ontario. Is it not peculiar that many people in Ontario do not understand that? However, there is beginning to be a much better understanding of that. Perhaps that is because the Ontario provincial Government has not taken the lead. For some reason it has appeared to be against this agreement.

Over one-quarter of the gross domestic product of Ontario, 27.4 per cent, over one-quarter of the wealth generated in Ontario every year, comes from exports by Ontario to the United States and hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to put that at risk. The people of Ontario would be 27.4 per cent poorer every year if they did not have this trade with the United States which we are trying to protect for them. In Canada as a whole 18.7 per cent of our gross domestic product comes from trade with the United States. The national average is, therefore, much lower than the average in Ontario. We on

this side of the House are fighting for the strength and prosperity of Ontario, whether or not they know it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

All the Canadian leaders I have cited sought the same thing, they sought to give Canadians the opportunity to sell freely abroad and thus build prosperity at home. That is what we are attempting to do. We want to give Canadians the opportunity to sell freely in the United States and to continue to build prosperity at home, which is what we have been doing since 1945. In 1945, only 36 per cent of Canadian exports went to the United States. Today, 76 to 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States of America. That is where our opportunities are. We are trying to enlarge them, secure them, and protect them.

To my astonishment two national Parties are fighting this tooth and nail, and the labour movement is doing the same. No amount of obfuscation or misrepresentation will satisfy the two Parties I have mentioned and the Canadian labour movement, which are all against this agreement. All we are doing is trying to protect how well we have done and to increase our opportunities in the future.

The effort of successive Canadian Governments to strengthen Canada by putting our trade relationship with the United States on a secure and equal footing is not new. The Opposition strategy that tries to obscure this objective by encouraging unfounded fears about a loss of sovereignty is not new either. In fact, our sovereignty is enhanced by this agreement. We become more sovereign, we become more powerful. We become better able to defend and protect Canada as a result of this agreement.

For example, if this agreement is carried into effect in future disputes, we will have binational panels to decide these disputes. In the United States, a binational panel including Canadians will sit with Americans and decide what action should be taken as a result of a complaint made in the United States under American trade law. That is an extension of Canadian sovereignty. We do not have that right or any protection in that line now. We can be subject to the most political kind of decision.

We are enhancing the sovereignty of this country, yet there are people sitting opposite who are so blinded by their desire to be in power or see someone else out of power that they will not grant one virtue to this agreement. I have not heard one of them, once in this debate, say one positive thing about the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement. All they have done is try to encourage fear.

When trade barriers between Canada and the United States have been lowered, we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that Canadians will have been hosed, harmonized and homogenized. The Leader of the Opposition does not have very many good lines, that is why he uses this one so often. He

August 29, 1988

should get some other speech-writers. The Leader of the Opposition says that we will be hosed, harmonized and homogenized when the barriers come down on January 1, 1989. I say that he should add that he is attempting to hoodwink the Canadian people when he says they have been hosed, harmonized and homogenized. He is an attempted hoodwinker.

If the Leader of the Opposition happens to be correct, which of course he is not, then he is saying that Premier Bourassa is hosing, harmonizing and homogenizing the Canadian people. That is a very rare thing for a premier of Quebec to do. I see a premier of Quebec hosing us, but I do not know about harmonizing or homogenizing the rest of us. He is saying that Premier McKenna, a member of his own Party, is prepared to hose, harmonize and homogenize. I suppose it is safe to say that, now that the United Church has met in British Columbia.

He is saying that Gerry Regan, former Premier of Nova Scotia and former Minister for International Trade for Mr. Trudeau, is to do the same. He is saying that Donald Macdonald, who was appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau to head a royal commission on Canada's economic future and prospects, and which brought in a report, and that all the people sitting with him, including Michel Robert, President of the national Liberal Party of Canada, are out to hose, harmonize and homogenize Canadians. It just shows how foolish, juvenile and inaccurate is the statement by the Leader of the Opposition.

If those who support this agreement are hosers, homogeniz-ers and harmonizers, and traitors, then there are an awful lot of Liberals in this country in exactly the same boat, including Senator George van Roggen who had the courage, gumption and backbone to resign his position as chairman of the foreign affairs committee.

Historically, we see that the exact opposite is true. Since World War II, successive Canadian governments have pursued policies that have decreased trade barriers. Those same governments have created the modern social safety net that we enjoy today. They have pursued regional development and supported our culture and industries. We followed in that tradition of Diefenbaker and, to be fair, the tradition of Liberal governments in doing this.

In fact, we introduced our own Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which, already in one year, is astoundingly successful as we continue to pursue regional development.

Our colleague, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), and her predecessors have supported cultural industries with might and main.

We are bringing in child care with legislation that is before the House, adding to the modern social safety net. One can argue the details about whether it does enough, does not do enough, or spends enough or does not spend enough. We are bringing in free trade and child care. Surely that gives the lie

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

to the people who run around Canada trying to mislead and frighten Canadians and senior citizens about what this means. I do not know how they can look at themselves in the mirror every morning. They are a hard looking crew in the first place.

Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, and Lester Pearson did not see any contradiction between tariff reductions, increased exports to the United States and domestic social and regional development policies to build a strong and unique Canada. None of them saw any contradiction because there is no contradiction. That is why we are able to take these steps. It is because of the prosperity in Canada as a result of our international trade and trade with the United States of America.

In terms of 1986 dollars, from 1947 to 1986, merchandise exports to the United States grew from just over $7 billion to almost $94 billion, an increase of over 1,225 per cent. During the same period, the welfare of Canadians went up tremendously. Per capita, Gross Domestic Product in 1986 dollars grew from $7,400 to almost $20,000, an increase of almost 170 per cent. Total employment in Canada grew from 4.8 million to 12.3 million, up 155 per cent, with employment in manufacturing rising by 88.7 per cent.

I might point out that in the last four years, employment has gone up 1.292 million. Let me also point out that in the last four years, 728,000 more women are working in Canada than were working four years ago. Yet we listen to this silly and vicious opposition day after day. There has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of women in managerial administrative jobs. Youth unemployment has gone down by 240,000 in the last four years. It increased 141,000 from 1980 to 1984, when Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals were in office and the pitiful grump we see here today had a majority. Youth unemployment went up, but where was Senator Hebert when he was needed? He was in the Parliamentary Restaurant having pate de fois gras when the unemployment figures were going up. The Opposition critic sitting over there today was the Minister.

In the same period, 1947 to 1986, public spending on education went up from $147 per capita to $1,237 per capita in 1983-84 in real terms. Spending on health care increased from $54 per capita to $1,211 per capita by 1985 in real terms. All this took place while we were becoming more and more dependent on the U.S. in our trade.

Direct financial benefits under social security programs rose to almost $50 billion in 1985, from $3.8 billion in 1947, for all public welfare programs, including health. This took place all the while we were becoming more and more dependent on the U.S. market.

More open competition with the United States led to economic growth and it led to a dynamic, distinctive Canada. The past four years in which we were getting closer and closer to free trade with the United States has made us no less compassionate as a society, no less progressive as a nation, and no less Canadian. That is the fact. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will sustain and strengthen that growth and

August 29, 1988

Canada-XJ.S. Free Trade Agreement

development if it is not sabotaged by the Opposition Parties and by the Canadian labour movement, that mindless organization that seems to be opposed to every change that anyone proposes in Canadian society today.

History and statistics, the plain facts, are not of much interest to the Opposition. We know its technique; level a charge, sometimes directly, sometimes by innuendo, that if one is for free trade, one is selling out Canada's sovereignty. The sale of Canada Act, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition calls it, is really for a brighter tomorrow Act. It is for our future, for our brighter tomorrow.

Is the Opposition suggesting for example, that Brian Peckford or John Buchanan would sacrifice their people's future or sell out their province or their country? How about Frank McKenna? We cannot mention a NDP Premier because there is not one. We cannot even mention them anymore because they are a vanishing breed. What happened to Pawley? Or I should I call him A-Pawley?

Is Robert Bourassa a man who is willing to deliver the future of Quebec into the hands of a foreign country? What an insidious and insulting suggestion made by the Leader of the National Party about the Premier of Quebec. He is saying in effect that Premier Bourassa is willing to deliver Quebec to a foreign country. Are the four western Premiers men who would falter when the good of their province and country hangs in the balance, Frank Devine or Don Getty and the others? Are these eight Premiers not sincerely seeking the good of their country by choosing to support the free trade agreement?

Is the suggestion that eight out of the ten Premiers of Canada are insincere traitors to their country? Is that the suggestion? That is the innuendo. That is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party go about this country suggesting. They are saying that not only this whole Party here but every Premier of Canada, except two, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, are traitors to their country. What a scurvy, scurrilous kind of campaign is being waged against this commercial arrangement.

The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition goes from one end of the country to the other saying it is the sale of Canada Act, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party repeats the charge that the very idea of Canada is imperilled.

The issue of free trade with the United States is not about who is or who is not a good Canadian. It is not about whether or not you sell out your country. It is not about imperilling the very idea of Canada. It is about the rules of commercial trade. This is what it is all about. What are rules of commercial trade between Canada and the United States going to be? How can we change them to our advantage? That is what it is about. But the opposition Parties do not want to debate or discuss it on that level. They want to discuss it in a cloud of insinuations

and innuendoes to arouse the fears of people, for instance, that the social security system is going to fail. Imagine, Madam Speaker, going around trying to disturb senior citizens in Canada by feeding them those malicious lies? Mr. Bourassa said with respect to that charge:

Mr. Broadbent should know we're not talking about the sovereignty of Canada ... How could you seriously say that Canadian sovereignty is at stake when we want to protect Canadian markets in the U.S.?

That is Premier Bourassa's answer. I would like to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party go to Quebec and debate face to face with Mr. Bourassa. Is Mr. Bourassa a traitor or not? Is he giving up Canadian sovereignty or not? The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should have some backbone and meet Premier Bourassa face to face to make these charges and debate them with him. Gerald Regan said:

1 believe the greatest assurance of protection of our sovereignty, of our culture, is the maintenance of a strong economy, and free trade with the greatest market on earth gives an opportunity to strengthen our economy that any other country on earth would give their eye teeth to have.

That was said by Gerry Regan who for two years under former Prime Minister Trudeau tried to negotiate sectoral free trade with the United States and got nowhere. He is honest enough and patriotic enough to give his views now, as he is doing. He is still a Liberal but no longer in active politics. That is his answer to those statements.

What about business, the exporter, the resource and manufacturing and service industries, which are the creators of wealth and employment in Canada? Where do they stand? They stand almost unanimously on the side of the free trade agreement. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports free trade. The Quebec Conseil du Patronat supports free trade. The Consumer's Association of Canada supports free trade. The Canadian Council for International Trade supports free trade. The Canadian Export Association, does it know something about exports the Opposition does not? Yes, it does, and the answer is, of course, that it does support free trade.

Mining associations, forestry associations, fisheries associations, agricultural associations, energy associations, service industry associations, and manufacturers associations, scores of them from coast to coast, support free trade. The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Canadian Meat Council, the Manitoba Farm Business Association-Manitoba-the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Saskatchewan Pork Producers Marketing Board, the United Grain Growers, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and so it goes, the people in the market-place competing every day, seeking new opportunities, those who understand the realities of international trade, those with the practical experience, all support free trade. Do they want to sell out Canada?

August 29, 1988

Every time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says it is the sale of Canada Act, he is accusing these people of being traitors who want to sell out Canada. He is not only accusing members of the Government and every one in the Cabinet, and Premier Bourassa, Premier McKenna, Gerry Regan and Donald Macdonald, but he is accusing pork producers, the Cattlemen's Association, John Bullock, and all the rest of them, of being traitors and wanting to surrender Canada.

The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was asked by the New York Times about business people who are saying: "John, you are on the wrong side of history". He is not only on the wrong side of history, he is on the wrong side of the street. He is on the wrong side of everything one can conceive. He is just wrong. I quote Mr. Turner's reply:

The business organization that has been most vocal in strongly supporting this trade deal has been the Business Council on National Issues, and a considerable percentage of their members are American-owned.

Can you now understand the answer, Madam Speaker? Do you see the innuendo: "These jerks cannot be true Canadians if they support free trade". That is the suggestion of Mr. Turner's answer. He says a considerable percentage of the the members of the National Council on Business Issues are American owned, so how can we trust what they say? This is a man who used to sit with them and sup with them. He used to send his bulletins out to them, the McMillan, Binch bulletins. He got back into public life in 1983, and we were a long time waiting for him. He was just there at the right time. But Mr. Turner supped with these people, he was retained by them. He took their fees. He lived with them. And he said we cannot trust their views because a very considerable percentage of them are American owned. That is the innuendo, we cannot trust them. Well, he was wrong, as he has been wrong so often in this debate.

The Business Council sent him an open letter saying that over 90 per cent of the assets and about 75 per cent of the control of member companies of the Business Council on National Issues are in Canadian hands. Who signed the letter? David Culver, the Chairman of Alcan, the very respected Canadian business leader, Chairman of Noranda, Alfred Poulis, and Thomas D'Aquino, in their capacity as officers of the Business Council, signed that letter and they pointed out the following:

By embracing the rule of law, the (free trade) agreement offers Canadians greater security and opportunity... In our books that is a plus for sovereignty.

These are responsible spokesmen for Canadian business and they deserved to be treated as such. They do not deserve to have it suggested that they are unpatriotic, that they are dictated to by Americans, that they are not even Canadian owned, when the fact is that 90 per cent of their assets and 75 per cent of the control of those companies are in Canadian hands.

Let me add one other quote from a respected business leader, Mr. Laurent Thibault of Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He stated:

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The Canadian Manufacturers Association's support for the free trade agreement represents a dramatic change for this association. Historically, Canadian manufacturers have been among protectionist voices. However, the world economy has changed dramatically and we must change with it. The new trading environment created by the FTA obviously poses great challenges to Canadian manufacturers, but the consensus among our Members is that the FTA is a necessary strategic step that will help achieve our long-term objective of becoming globally competitive.

That is the position of members of the CMA which, historically, have been protectionists. That is why Sir John A. Macdonald's policy was developed. It was to protect manufacturers. In other parts of the country for 100 years the woods have welled with the voices of those protesting the tariff policy that protected Ontario and Quebec and exposed the rest of Canada which was cut off from its natural north-south trade. This is being changed by the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.

[DOT] <1150)

The CMA recognizes that the world economy has changed dramatically. We must change with it. Who does not recognize that change must be dealt with? The Canadian labour movement does not, nor does the New Democratic Party. The people who now say they control the Liberal Party but who won't control it much longer do not. After the deluge in the next election they will be washed out to sea.

What the free trade agreement is all about is Canada becoming more competitive in all export markets. Why is free trade with the U.S. important for our position as an exporter globally, not just to the U.S.? As Donald Macdonald's commission pointed out, we are the only major industrialized country without secure access to a market of at least 100 million people. We have secure access to no market but our own-26 million Canadians. That is the only secure access to a market that we have. We have a chance to have secure access to the U.S. market under this agreement. The United States has access to its own huge market. Japan has access to its own burgeoning market. The countries of the European Community have access to the huge European Community of 320 million people. If Canada is to continue to develop world-class enterprises, we must be capable of competing and winning against the best in the world. Bell Canada and Northern Telecommunications come to mind as two such enterprises.

In the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement there is a breakthrough in services. All other GATT countries are watching Canada and the Canada-U.S. agreement to see how the services provisions will work. We are trying now to negotiate services provisions with the 95 nations that are involved in GATT. We have broken new ground. Madam Speaker, did you ever hear that mentioned by the Opposition Parties? Of course not. The Opposition is dismissive of the gains we have made in achieving more and enhanced access to the U.S. market, but those directly involved in the day-to-day business of exporting know better. What do they know?

They know that under the agreement tariffs will be phased out between Canada and the U.S. Better rules of origin will be

August 29, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

put in place. National treatment will be extended to Canadian businesses in the U.S. All we have from the hon. gentlemen opposite is words about national treatment being extended to American companies up here. Do they not realize that national treatment will be extended to our companies in the U.S. where the market is 10 times as large? This is astounding. All we have ever heard is them complain that we will give U.S. companies national treatment here. Did we ever hear them once say: "My golly, what a help this will be for Canadian companies. They will not be able to act in a discriminatory fashion against Canadian companies in the United States any longer". Do we ever hear mention of that? What is wrong with them? What makes them so vicious, so unfeeling, so unreasonable and so unscrupulous?

Non-tariff barriers such as discriminating products standards will be reduced under the agreement. Access to U.S. federal government procurement will be improved. I have heard Members opposite complain about the fact that the Americans will get a chance to get some procurement in Canada. Never once have I heard them say: "My God, Canadian companies will get a whack at U.S. government procurement". Never once have I heard that. What is wrong with them?

Certain service industries gain freer access. Communications is one of them. Temporary entry for business and service personnel is made easier. Exporters know that access has to be made more secure because the Auto Pact is reaffirmed.

Do you know. Madam Speaker, that only one year's notice is necessary to be given to cancel the Auto Pact? The Americans can cancel it on one year's notice. So can we. Yet the Leader of the New Democratic Party acts as though nothing can happen, nothing can change the Auto Pact. He does not even acknowledge that the Auto Pact was in serious danger of being challenged by the Americans a couple of years ago before we started the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Now that we have the Auto Pact reaffirmed, and the people of Oshawa know the facts, the hon. gentleman will be out in the next election and our candidate will be in. Exporters know that safeguard actions by the U.S. will not apply to Canada if the problem arises from a third country. What the experts call a new sideswipe we have achieved. If the Americans take some action against third countries it will no longer automatically apply to Canada if we are not the problem as is now the case. We have got no credit for that from Members across the way. The Hon. Member for whatever in Winnipeg-

Miss MacDonald. Fort Garry.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

-Fort Garry, or the Hon. Member from Windsor, who should be a firm supporter of this agreement since it does so much for Windsor, sit there knifing it every day. Safeguard actions against Canadian producers will be subject to binding dispute settlement. We have received no credit for that. Countervail and anti-dumping actions will be subject to binding dispute settlement. Other trade disputes will be dealt with through a formal dispute settlement procedure

under the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. We never get any credit for that.

Members of the Opposition say that binding dispute settlement is of no value and that we are better off without it. What do people in the business world think? The following is what Gordon Cummings thinks. He is the President of National Sea Products in Halifax.

At present we find that the U.S. political lobbyists have been hard at work;

that the United States Trade Commission is judge, jury and prosecutor in one;,

that we stand guilty unless we can prove ourselves innocent

That is the present position Gordon Cummings says. He is not a member of our Party. I do not know if he is a member of any Party. He goes on to state:

What the free trade agreement can and will do is stop the frivolous U.S. actions, the bullying and the prejudgment that has hurt the Atlantic fishery, and some other sectors I can't claim to speak for, like lumber, potash, pork and tires. I have no reservations in speaking for myself and for National Sea Products when I say we welcome the dispute settlement mechanism outlined in the free trade agreement. And nothing has shaken my strong impression that the rest of the Atlantic Canadian fishing industry feels the same way.

That is the assessment of a senior spokesman for an industry which in recent years has faced six countervail actions and two anti-dumping actions. Other businesses agree. Do they know something members of the Opposition do not know? I would like to know how many countervail actions the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has been involved in. I would like to know how many actions the academic from Windsor has been involved in. The answer is that they have not been involved in one-not one single countervail action.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Steven W. Langdon

New Democratic Party

Mr. Langdon:

How about you, John?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

I have been involved in several. But the gentleman from whom 1 am quoting has been involved in six countervail and two anti-dumping actions. The only dumping actions that I have been involved in is dumping the New Democratic Party and dumping the Liberal Party. I will go on the rest of my life involved in anti-dumping actions against those Parties.

Binding dispute settlement was a key objective for Canada in the negotiations. It constitutes an important shield against U.S. protectionism.

The following is what Ambassador Allan Gotlieb had to say. He has done an outstanding job for the country in Washington. This might be an appropriate place to mention Simon Reisman who did outstanding work on behalf of his country. He came back from the private sector.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Gordon Ritchie is another man to whom a statue should go up in connection with this monumental task. He was Simon Reisman's deputy. Alan Nymark who is still with us in the TNO. I could mention, of course, many dozens of others. I should and I will mention my predecessor, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) who led the whole procedure.

August 29, 1988

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

As Ambassador Gotlieb has stated:

The U.S. political system is well adapted to allowing the 'losers' to seek protection .. . This is an age of special interests. The [U.S.] legislative agenda is now run largely by committee and sub-committee chairmen ... beyond the control of any President. They interact with highly motivated, handsomely financed special interest groups, seeking legislative fixes to their problems.

That is what we face in Washington. Those "fixes" for U.S. industry are protectionist measures.

We have heard the Opposition in the House, time after time in the last year or two, going on about these protectionist measures that U.S. congressmen implement, trying to blame them on us and the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, instead of blaming them on the U.S. system. How can they blame them on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement when we have not yet got it? Why don't they support the agreement which will help protect us from these fixes?

Ambassador Gotlieb further stated:

The free trade agreement will go a long way to substituting the rule of law for the politics of protectionism. For the smaller partner in the world's largest bilateral trading relationship, that will be a very significant achievement.

This is a man who knows. He has been on the scene for seven years. He was appointed to Washington by a Liberal Government, and continued on by our Government. We recognize merit when we see it. In addition, Mr. Gotlieb is a public servant. He knows the system, and his testimony is that it is a very significant achievement. That is what the free trade agreement is all about. Long-term solutions based on reciprocal principles, not raw political and economic power. We cannot win in the battle of raw political and economic power with the United States. It is ten times our size. If, by some misadventure, Mr. Turner got into office, or Mr. Broadbent, or a combination, say, Mr. Broadturn, or Mr. Benturn, or Mr. Turnbent, if a combination of those two parties got into office, can one see them taking on the United States with all its raw political and economic power? Can one see them engage in a battle?

While I think of it, Madam Speaker, I might point out that the Leader of the national Liberal Party suggested blithely that he will tear up the free trade agreement. This is the most irresponsible statement by a leader of a national Party since 1867. In fact, one would have to go back to Polybius in 50 B.C., or somewhere back beyond that to get a sillier statement. At different times he has said different things. He will negotiate a new free trade agreement, or he will negotiate a sectoral series of agreements, or he will take the trade personnel from External Affairs where Trudeau put them four or five years ago and put them back in the trade department. Imagine the astounding gall. The crowd that scrambled the eggs is now going to unscramble them and put them all back in

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

a separate Department, and that will cure all Canada's trade problems.

Ann Hughes, a member of the American Government in the Trade Office in the United States spoke in Canada. She was asked whether there was any chance, if Canada turned down this U.S.- Canada Free Trade Agreement, that another one could be negotiated. She gave the perfect answer to that. She said that it would be disingenuous for anyone to think that if we turned down this arrangement there will be another one for many, many years. Disingenuous is putting it politely. It is dishonest to even suggest that it could be done.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink

August 29, 1988