Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State and Acting Minister of the Environment):

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves again in this Chamber after Canadians have unequivocally renewed their support for this Government. Of course, this support was first and foremost given to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the policies put forward by his Government and to the vision we proposed to Canadians.

The election campaign that we have just been through was based mainly on one issue that gave rise to heated exchanges. This debate also gave Canadians the opportunity to consider two options for the future, to look at themselves in terms of their true identity and to choose the one that they considered most promising for the development of the country. The electorate showed that developing the national identity was not incompatible with openness to the world-far from it. Now that the people's verdict has democratically decided the question of free trade with the United States, it is up to us legislators to carry out the will of the people. On this side of the House, we want to do so calmly and respectfully, by once again explaining our choices, the underlying principles and the reasons why we believe that this treaty is an act of maturity, far-sightedness and deep faith in the future of Canada.

Our country's economy, whether in metropolitan areas, towns or outlying regions, is heavily dependent on exports. We are 25 million people on a vast territory, and most of us live on a narrow strip along the American border. Throughout our history, this geographic and demographic reality has forced us to be competitive, to be better than the rest if we hoped to succeed. We still

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

want to meet this challenge that we face every day, which we have always faced until now, so much so that our people do not just sell raw materials in the United States, Mr. Speaker. They invest, they create jobs and make profits there; they go after their share of this huge consumer market.

Furthermore, we live in an era when the economies of the whole world are tending to band together in increasingly close-knit and powerful blocs. This is true of the twelve European countries that in 1992 will constitute a unified body of 350 million people. It is true of the Asian countries that are beginning the same kind of process, while respecting the national independence of individual countries. Confronted with the rise of these major economic powers and the liberalization of international trade, Canadians have to choose between a week-kneed and so illusory recourse to protectionism, on one hand, and the challenge of openness and confidence in our abilities and talents, on the other.

We never claimed, Mr. Speaker, that free trade with the United States would be a rose garden. But we said, and we continue to believe firmly, that Canada's best development opportunities are in that direction. This message that we have been conveying to Canadians for many months was understood, as the results of November 21 attest. When the benefits of free trade will begin to be felt, more and more Canadians will realize that the Agreement is the road to our future. Not only will we provide guaranteed and stable access to U.S. markets, and, in the process, maintain and create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few years, but we will have done so at no cost to Canada's identity.

Canada is a country of great resources, a trading nation whose people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is also a country which has, over the years, developed one of the best social systems. We are a caring society and we believe that government will and must have a role to play in reducing the disparities between the rich and the poor, men and women, regions rich in natural resources and regions with few natural resources.

In the last few months, and especially in the weeks before the election, defeatists cropped up everywhere and predicted nothing less than a national catastrophe if Canadians said yes to the Free Trade Agreement. Some people believed these prophets of doom and gloom. As we review this Agreement which is again before us, our role is to provide reassurance and information to stay any fears that may still remain about free trade.

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

We said it before the election and again after the election: Canada's social programs are here to stay. If we had had the least doubt in that regard, we would not have signed the Free Trade Agreement.

Besides, why would our social programs be threatened? Starting in 1935, trade tariffs were gradually removed and now 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is tariff-free. During that period, Canadian trade with the United States continued to grow. Nevertheless, it is in the last 53 years that the bulk of our social programs has been established. That never affected in any way our capacity to compete. Why should things be any different today? Why should continuity in our trade relationships bring about a break in our social and cultural traditions?

The villifiers of free trade are especially worried about those five to seven years during which we will define with our American partners what is a subsidy and which subsidies will come under the new rules developed by the task force.

According to them, that period of negotiation will result in the abolition of almost all our social programs, from old age security to unemployment insurance benefits through regional development assistance. They either ignore or forget to mention that we already have sure indications of the way those negotiations will go. Already, under the auspices of GATT, Canada and the United States recognize that internal subsidies are legitimate means to promote, for instance, economic and regional development. GATT does not limit the right of its members to use internal subsidies to reach such goals. What that clearly confirms is the capacity of Canada, within the free trade framework, to keep on fighting against regional disparities and allocating as many billions of dollars as we are putting into it now.

On the other hand, in 1985, the American Trade Department had rejected the claim of East Coast American fishermen that unemployment insurance benefits paid to Canadian fishermen were subsidies liable to countervailing duties.

Invoking more or less the same arguments, and taking advantage, it ought to be pointed out, of the Canadian people's interest in the issue, the opponents of free trade have tried to make us believe that the agreement would be a disaster for our environment. As the Prime Minister has entrusted me temporarily with the environment portfolio, it behooves me today to respond to the assertions made by certain groups opposed to the Free Trade Agreement. By signing the agreement, we have not

given up an iota of our sovereignty either in the field of social programs or with respect to our ability to maintain strict environmental protection programs.

During our first mandate, we passed environmental protection legislation which ranks among the most exacting in the world. We took vigorous measures to reduce chemical pollution. We invested millions of dollars for cleaning up our waterways, whether it be the Great Lakes, the Saint-Lawrence or the port of Flalifax, to name only a few initiatives.

Canada has adhered to the concept of "sustainable development", which entails that economic development must be subordinated to environmental considerations. We set up a task force on environment and the economy, further to the suggestion made by the United Nations Commission on Environment, whose Chairperson Mrs. Brundtland, Premier of Norway, underlined Canada's contribution as a world leader in the fight for the protection of the environment.

All those actions were actions by a sovereign nation aware of the gigantic steps that remain to be taken for its citizens to have purer air and cleaner water.

To suggest that the Free Trade Agreement with the United States will affect our ability to do that is sheer speculation and, as much as I regret to say, demagogy.

Some groups also stated the Agreement would force Canada to harmonize its environmental standards with those of the United States. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Quite the opposite, the Agreement recognizes our right to maintain and create environmental conservation policies. As a matter of fact, the Agreement includes no requirement of any kind for the harmonization of standards.

Others further submitted that under the Free Trade Agreement, Canada could no longer provide financial assistance to industries wishing to reduce their emissions of pollutants. That is false! Because the GATT, Mr. Speaker, recognizes environmental protection as a legitimate goal governments may promote through subsidies. Therefore governments, both federal and provincial, will continue to financially support industries undertaking clean-up measures.

One of the most evident signs of ignorance and bad faith exhibited by some critics of Free Trade, Mr. Speaker, deals with that alleged treaty obligation for Canada to export our water to the United States.

Those absolute lies are still being propagated even after the Minister of International Trade had an

December 19, 1988

amendment passed to Bill C-130 to specify the Free Trade Agreement did not apply to water.

In that area also, the Agreement is in line with provisions under the GATT that allow a country to take necessary steps to protect the environment. Section 1201 of the Agreement is clear on that.

In fact, the only provision in the Agreement that deals with the matter of water concerns the elimination of tariff on water which we import from the United States.

Our lakes and rivers are not for sale, and Canadians know it. That type of export on the other hand is specifically excluded both by the federal water policy and the Canadian Water Preservation Act.

Canadian sovereignty in that crucial sector-as in all others-is altogether unassailable.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental question underlies the notion of sovereignty. Had the Free Trade Agreement in any way restricted our freedom to act in this field we would not have signed for any consideration whatever.

Over the next few years there will be an unprecedented number of new measures to protect our environment. This happens to be one of the basic commitments we made to Canadian men and women during the election campaign. You may rest assured that this Government will live up to them.

Whether we are talking about cleaning up our rivers or fighting against the depletion of the ozone layer and against every type of toxic emissions, free trade or no free trade, the Canadian Government can take action in all fields related to environmental protection.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister also promised that before the expiry of his second mandate he would sit down with the United States and negotiate a comprehensive agreement for a common effort in fighting acid rain. The new American administration has already indicated it is prepared to undertake such negotiations. Canadians can be assured that, as in the case of the free trade deal, this agreement will be negotiated in the best interests of this country and its citizens.

In our societies, never has so much concern been expressed over our environmental heritage. The United States has responsabilities in that respect, we have ours. And we share common responsibilities. And Canadians can rest assured that we will live up to them competently and energetically, while asserting our full sovereignty.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House for my first address. It is with a great sense of pride that I stand in this place as the representative of the people of Winnipeg-St. James.

At the outset, I wish to thank the people of Winnipeg-St. James for the trust they have placed in me in choosing to have me represent them in this the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I shall endeavour to be worthy of that trust, and I promise to serve them to the best of my ability.

Might I also take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your re-election to the chair of this House. I am certain that Members may rely upon you to continue to preserve and safeguard the great traditions of this House.

The constituency of Winnipeg-St. James comprises the western-most portion of the City of Winnipeg, north of the Assiniboine River, and is predominantly urban.

If one travels to Winnipeg by air, one lands at the Winnipeg Airport, which is located within the boundaries of the riding. The Winnipeg Blue Bombers, the Grey Cup champions, play their games in the Winnipeg Stadium, which is located within the boundaries of the riding of Winnipeg-St. James. As well, the Winnipeg Jets-who I am confident will one day, in the near future, win the Stanley Cup-play their home games at the Winnipeg Arena, which again, is located within the boundaries of Winnipeg-St. James.

Like the Prairie people in general, the people of Winnipeg-St. James have a strong belief in fairness, a strong belief in what is right. They are willing to place their trust in others. However, when that trust is betrayed, when that trust is violated, when that trust is left in tatters, they do not forget. While they may not show anger, they will get even. This Government learned that lesson on November 21 last when its shafting of the people of Winnipeg-St. James in respect of the CF-18 maintenance contract came back to haunt them.

The theft of the CF-18 contract was a gross injustice. It was an attack on the voters of Winnipeg-St. James; an attack on their integrity. In fact, it was an attack on the integrity of the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba.

I note that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) spoke a few moments ago, a man

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

from my home Province of Manitoba, he did not say one word about that act of grand larceny, the theft of the CF-18 contract-and that is exactly what it was. And it was done for cynical political purposes.

The people of Winnipeg-St. James can rest assured that I shall never betray their trust, as this Government did in respect of the CF-18 maintenance contract. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this Flouse to oppose the Free Trade Agreement.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Harvard:

The people of Winnipeg-St. James have entrusted me with the task of fighting this deal, and to fight it every inch of the way. I cannot betray that trust, and I will not. I know that Hon. Members opposite would like us to come into this Chamber and simply roll over and play dead.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know too much of what has happened in the past. Where I come from, they say: "I did not come down the river on a bale of hay." In other words, one is not naive.

We do not trust this Government, Mr. Speaker; we do not trust this Government any farther than we could spit upwind. That will not change. There is simply too much at stake. The future of this country is at stake. We are going to watch this Government. We are going to watch every move it makes; we are going to listen to every word it speaks. That is our responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we will live up to.

My quarrel with the Free Trade Agreement, as it was throughout the entire election campaign, is based on the fact the vast majority of trade between Canada and the United States is free of tariffs, free of duty, without this agreement. We on this side of the House believe in freer trade among all nations. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that successive Liberal Governments consistently worked toward the reduction of tariffs.

I know that during the last election campaign Members opposite endeavoured to spread falsehoods about the position of the Liberal Party with respect to trade. We are not against freer trade; we are not against lower tariffs. We have worked toward that goal for many years. What we are against, and remain against, is this rotten, abominable deal.

While we desire freer trade with the U.S., we also desire freer trade with other countries. We are concerned that in getting the tariffs and duties removed on the remaining 20 per cent of trade with the U.S., we

have given up the ability to run our own country in the way that we want to run it. In other words, this trade agreement jeopardizes our sovereignty, undercuts our sovereignty.

We know all about the supposed special relationship between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Mr. Reagan, the outgoing President of the United States. That special relationship got us nothing in a period of four years but photo ops and a silly sing-song in Quebec City.

The Prime Minister was desperate for something to show for this special relationship, and perhaps that is the reason for his conversion to free trade. After all, it was in 1983 that the Prime Minister said: "Don't talk to me about free trade during the leadership campaign, or at any time in the future." Why did he change his mind? Why at this point does Canada wish to become tied more closely to the economy of the U.S.?

We should stand back for a moment and consider whether it is not more prudent, while seeking freer trade with the U.S., to continue to pursue the policy of tariff reduction through multilateral means such as the GATT. Instead, this Government has chosen to put all of its eggs into the American basket. It has abandoned the policy of a multilateral focus to trade policy. We are now faced with the uphill struggle of further negotiation and dispute settlement on a bilateral basis with an opposing party that is 10 times our size, with 10 times the economic strength. Hardly an even match.

Let me turn now to the question of subsidies.

Under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement, what constitutes an allowable subsidy will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. This phase of the negotiation is of greatest concern to me. Canada enters the negotiation without any parameters in place in respect of the definition of a subsidy. In the past, the Americans have claimed that our regional development programs and social programs constitute unfair subsidies. I repeat: unfair subsidies. We have no indication that they have changed their minds on that score.

When these programs are raised in the negotiations, will this Government defend them? Or will they buckle under to U.S. pressure, as they have done so frequently in the past? Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker.

Here is the danger, as I see it: The Americans will claim that goods and services being imported from Canada enjoy the benefit of unfair subsidies such as unemployment insurance and pensions. As a result,

December 19, 1988

under the threat of countervailing duties, Canada's social and regional development programs will come under pressure.

We on this side of the House believe that this will lead to a gradual erosion of these programs. That is the greatest threat of all under this agreement. If the Tories had any brains at all, they would have sought a specific exemption to make it absolutely clear that social and regional development programs were exempt under the agreement, especially when we look at historical claims by the Americans that these programs amount to subsidies.

Looking at this agreement from a Winipegger's perspective, perhaps one should not be surprised that the Tories would sleep while regional development programs are eroded. After all, regional development in the Government's eyes is just another cynical means to buy votes. We in Winnipeg know about the Government's lack of commitment to regional development. Again I refer to the CF-18 maintenance contract. We in the Province of Manitoba, particularly in the City of Winnipeg, had the opportunity to strengthen the aviation industry on the Prairies, to develop a diversified industrial base in a part of the country which suffers the effects of the boom and bust cycle inherent in a resource and agricultural based economy. The Government turned a blind eye to that opportunity. That was the case even though the Winnipeg contractor concerned won the contract on an equal footing with its competitors. With the lack of commitment to regional development shown in the CF-18 contract, little wonder regional development was not specifically exempted under the trade agreement.

On the question of social programs, we know all too well the Government's lack of commitment to pensions, unemployment insurance and medicare. As you know, we watched the Government try to deindex pensions during its first term. That reflects its commitment to social programs. Those who fear the erosion of these programs may rest assured that we will defend them at every turn. We will watch over the negotiations on the subsidy definition very, very closely.

We should also ask ourselves why the Government did not get specific exemptions for social and regional development programs. Maybe we should not be surprised that the Tories would place the fortunes of the brewing industry above those of seniors struggling to make ends meet. Not that I was unhappy to see the

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

brewing industry exempted, but I think seniors deserve a better break from the Government.

We on this side of the House insist on a specific exemption for social and regional development programs. It is our duty to do so, placed upon us by the millions of people who supported us and oppose this deal. We cannot stand by while the Government endangers the social safety net which we on this side of the House have worked so hard to construct. We do not wish to see the erosion of social programs as we have witnessed in the fiefdom of the Prime Minister's ideological mentor, Mrs. Thatcher, who so eagerly rushed to his assistance during the last election campaign. In fact, it was interference in Canadian affairs.

Is this agreement another step by Canada away from the caring society that we on this side of the House built toward a Thatcher Britain where two countries now exist? On the one hand you have the wealthy region surrounding its largest city in the prosperous south, and on the other the impoverished north. Is this our model of the future, regional disparity and a growing gap between rich and poor? We on this side see the warning signs. We do not like them and we are going to fight on.

Again on subsidies, what will be the fate of such programs as PFRA, ERDA and the Agricultural Assistance Act as well as the Western Grain Stabilization Act? Those programs are of specific concern to westerners whose economy is still to a large extent reliant on agriculture. All those programs are in the annex to the agreement. All will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. Our support systems will be brought into line with theirs. Our supply management system will be endangered.

From a westerner's perspective, we are concerned about the question of resources in general, including the question of energy. Producing provinces have always held dearly control over their resources as a means to enhance development of their economies. Indeed, the transfer of control over resources to the western provinces was one of this country's first regional development programs. We in the West are certainly not keen on guaranteeing the supply of our resources to the Americans. Indeed, it is surprising that the Americans were given secure supply over energy without anything in return. The United States of America will merely take all the oil and gas Canada can supply, provided it cannot get it cheaper elsewhere. Furthermore, we have virtually abandoned the goal of energy self-sufficiency by committing ourselves to share our oil and natural gas even as our supplies become depleted, this with no

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

obligation to buy from Canada should cheaper supplies be available elsewhere. The bottom line on energy under this agreement is that we have become an energy reservoir of the United States.

Time does not allow me to touch upon all the concerns flowing from this trade agreement. However, I would like to briefly repeat my concerns. We have not gained secure access to the U.S. market, as my colleagues have outlined in some detail. Our social and regional development programs are indeed threatened. People who do not believe that, particularly Members opposite, might as well believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, I have several bridges that I could sell them right now if they do not believe that. Have they not heard of harmonization? Have they not heard of the integration of the two economies?

I said it during the election campaign and I will say it now. What is the point in consummating this agreement if things are just going to be the same afterwards? The fact of the matter is that things are not going to be the same. We are going to have a continental economy. We are going to have a continental energy regime. There will be harmonization, and I can assure you that they will not be harmonizing with us. We will be harmonizing with them because it comes down to a matter of power and size.

The Americans are aggressive. I can assure you that in the tough days that lie ahead it will be Winnipeg bending toward Minneapolis. It will be Toronto bending toward Washington. It will be Vancouver bending toward New York. That is the lesson we have to learn from the trade agreement. It is a lesson that has been learned on this side of the House, but it has yet to be learned on that side of the House. Will they never wake up?

I also would like to point out, as I have already said in some detail, that our agriculture sector is threatened as well. We have given up the ability to conduct an independent energy policy. It is for those reasons and many, many more that when the time comes I will stand up and vote against this trade agreement.

Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to first congratulate you and your colleagues on your election to this House. It is indeed a great honour and I think you and your colleagues, as you have shown in the past, will show in the future that you justly deserve it.

I rise today to speak on the great and historic free trade agreement before us. With your permission,

however, I would like first to speak of my constituents in St. John's East. I would like to thank them for the confidence they have placed in me by electing me to this place and assure them that I will serve them with dignity and distinction.

In this election campaign my constituents were asked to consider many things. I believe in the end they made the decision based on those that were important to them, things that mattered to them, to their children. It ultimately was a decision that involved the future, a decision based on opportunities, employment and leadership, a better tomorrow for all Newfoundlanders and, indeed, all Canadians.

I am well aware of the honour bestowed upon me to stand in my place in this House. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to mention four others who have gone before me representing my province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in this place. First I mention the Hon. W. J. Browne who was a Member of Parliament here many years ago, known variously as Judge Browne or Billy Browne. Today, at 92, as the dean of my Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, he remains active and involved. I would like to mention the Hon. James A. McGrath, a man known to many Hon. Members, a distinguished parliamentarian, a great reformer in this House, a great representative of his constituents, and today the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador. I mention the Hon. Don Jamieson, a renowned broadcaster, parliamentarian, and diplomat who to many of my age is remembered particularly at this time of year. Also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) with whom I came to this place some 12 years ago and with whom I served for five years. I would like to say it is indeed an honour to serve in this House with him today.

My constituency stretches from the Town of Cupids on one end around Cape St. Francis to St. John's. Cupids is the oldest English speaking community in North America. Georgetown and Brigus, the home of one of the world's greatest explorers, Bob Bartlett, are new to the constituency in the riding of St. John's East. I would like to welcome them and pay tribute to them.

Mine is a district of fishermen and of fish plant workers, a district of ironworkers, boiler makers, and other skilled tradesmen who have worked on every major project in North America and built most of the major buildings in Canada and the United States. Mine

December 19, 1988

is a constituency of entrepreneurs, owners, and operators of small business, people who create jobs and who lead others to create jobs with them. Mine is a constituency of people who serve through the Government, through the utilities, and through the service sector in a vibrant capital city. These are the people to whom free trade matters. These are the people who said to me: "Go to Ottawa and speak on our behalf for free trade".

Many in the district of St. John's East continue to struggle with unemployment, continue to struggle to create the opportunities that they need for work, to be able to live in Newfoundland with their families. I mention particularly the people of Bell Island where, 25 years ago, the iron ore mines were closed. Since then they have struggled with minor success to find the real opportunity which will provide them with the employment that is so important to them.

Mine is a district of communities faced by the tremendous burden of debt but also challenged by the increasing cost to provide the very basic services that the residents demand.

Despite hardship and adversity, the constituents of St. John's East are focused on the future. The constituents of St. John's East are most concerned about the opportunities that will give the jobs that they need. They are most concerned about the opportunities that are provided under the Free Trade Agreement.

We have a growing but small high-tech industry, a high-tech industry that knows the opportunities provided by free trade.

In the district of St. John's East and in the City of St. John's we have three post-secondary education institutions. Memorial University and the Marine Institute are world-class centres for research, centres that focus on the opportunities provided by the sea, the sea that we have lived by and from for so many years. We also continue to await the benefits of the offshore oil and gas resources below our shores.

Those are the opportunities that face us in the future, but we have had a history of ups and downs in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador-minor successes and major failures. What we as Newfoundlanders have always asked, the only thing that we have demanded, is for the opportunity to create for ourselves, our families, and our communities the opportunities that will allow us to build a better tomorrow so that we can live and work in our homes, the opportunity that we have not been provided in the past.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

My hon. friend talked earlier about what we as Newfoundlanders want as the ability to control our own destiny, but without the opportunities to do that we have not the chance. He talked of ships of state and charting our own course. What we have with the Free Trade Agreement, what we have with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, what we have with the Hibernia understanding is the ship that he wants to get into and chart his own course. Without those opportunities there is no ship. The Free Trade Agreement is a part of an attempt for the first time to develop an economic program that allows Atlantic Canadians generally, and Newfoundlanders in particular, to make decisions for themselves, to create the opportunities for themselves, to say that we can and will have the tools that we need in our hands to do exactly that.

Too long we have been forced to take what we can get. We have been forced to have our resources exported from our shores with the minimum of production, with the minimum of value added to them. Too long we have been exporting cod blocks and frozen fillets. But why? Because of tariffs. We have been unable to get to our natural market in the United States, except with the barest of resources, because of the burden of tariffs. If we want to take a piece of fish and for some unknown reason we want to add a few corn flakes to it, or we want to put a little cheese on it-I cannot imagine why we would but people in this part of the world like to do that-we could not do that because there is a tariff on it. Our exports are of raw product, fine, there is no tariff on it. But on anything else there is a tariff. We are in an immediate disadvantage.

With the Free Trade Agreement that burden is removed. The same applies to our forest industries. The same applies to our minerals. Instead of exporting the bare bones, now, with the tariffs gone under this agreement, we have the ability to create the jobs in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic Provinces so that it is our people who are putting bread crumbs on fish and not people in Massachusetts who are putting bread crumbs on fish. It is our people who are taking wood products from wood and turning them into windows and doors, not people in the United States.

Those are the opportunities of free trade. Those are the things that will be our future. Those are the things that we have wanted for so long, that chance to create the jobs and the opportunities for ourselves.

I would like to talk briefly about social programs. Medicare will not be threatened by this deal. Pensions will not be threatened by this deal. Unemployment

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

insurance will not be threatened by this deal. Despite what others have said in the last couple of months, it will not cost women between $5,000 and $15,000 to have a baby under the Free Trade Agreement. Despite what has been said in the past about whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, not voting for the Government will not cost you your old age pension. The unemployment insurance for Atlantic fishermen has been challenged before. It was rejected by the United States Department of Commerce. We have been through that.

Unfortunately, what many people in Newfoundland voted against-and I regret that my hon. friend from Humber is not here, he did his own analysis of the election results-was a Cronenberg horror fiction that had been created by the Liberal opposition during this election campaign.

They did not vote against free trade because, unfortunately, they were not given the full opportunity to vote against free trade because the whole issue was clouded by doom and gloom, horror fiction, and negative views of a situation that will not exist in this country.

The ultimate difference between the Government and the Opposition is a difference of attitude. The federal Government will not roll over and die when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. The provinces will not roll over and die when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. GATT does not cease to exist when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. If we continue to focus absolutely on the negatives we will not see the positives.

Our Government and our Party chose to maximize the benefits of this agreement and to ensure that the negative effects are minimalized. We are told that we cannot compete. We are told that under the Free Trade Agreement we will be swamped because of lower wage rates and economies of scale. My constituents do not believe that we cannot compete. All my constituents want is the opportunity to compete.

I suggest to the House that if we cannot compete with the barriers down we will never be able to compete with the barriers up. I know that Canadians, with the imagination, entrepreneurship and ability to be productive and compete, can take on any American company and any American product and do well, can increase their ability to do more and the opportunities that go with that.

We can do better. We will do better. We are faced with a world that is changing very quickly. We are faced

with a world that is not strictly focused on the United States, but a world that is becoming more technically adept, that is trading 24 hours a day, and that tells Canada to keep up or be left behind.

What I resent most about those who are against the Free Trade Agreement is that they speak of the status quo. As a Newfoundlander, and I am sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will agree, the status quo is not something that has served us particularly well. I fear in this world that status quo is in a sense a fallacy. If we do not move ahead we will fall behind.

Canadians have a certain standard of living and quality of life. We expect the level of services provided by our Government to be of such high quality that we must keep up, we must continue to move ahead. It is with the Free Trade Agreement, with progressive and imaginative economic policies of this Government which we have seen in the last four years that we will be able to keep up.

The status quo was something that has hurt many of us. The status quo is something that we cannot accept. The Free Trade Agreement is an opportunity for us to enter a market under conditions that are predictable and secure, to enter a market ten times our size, knowing that if we run into difficulty we have a mechanism we can participate in for the first time to solve our problems and deal with our conflicts, under a code that is predictable.

I certainly speak for my constituents. I suspect that at the end of the day I speak for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The Free Trade Agreement is something we must have. When we consider the nature of our resource based economy and the nature of the opportunities before us, if we are denied the opportunities under the Free Trade Agreement, we may never see them again. Canada will fall behind and I suggest the country will have missed an opportunity that we can never replace. I think we can all stand in shame if opportunity is not taken now. We should move ahead to ensure the benefit for all Canadians.

Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I make my first speech to this honourable Chamber as the Member for Timmins-Chapleau. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I also want to thank the people from my riding who supported me. I express to them my total commitment to work on their behalf for this term and many terms to follow.

December 19, 1988

It is very fitting that the subject of this speech be the Mulroney trade deal, as it is the voters in Timmins- Chapleau who sent me here to oppose this deal, which was the primary reason for my victory and the Conservative loss on November 21.

Timmins-Chapleau is the third largest riding in Ontario by area. It stretches from Iroquois Falls in the east to White River in the west, from Timmins in the north to Gogama in the south. It is a riding of miners, trappers, loggers, railway workers, and many others. It is also a riding of hard-working, honest families who love their country.

The communities which make up our riding are resource-based communities. When the mine closes or when the mill lays off workers, when the railway becomes automated, or there is a slump in demand for our forest products, the economic heart of our communities die. Resource-based economies are the ones which suffer first during an economic downturn. They are the ones which are the last to recover, if they recover at all.

That kind of area needs the support of the federal Government through regional development programs. However, over the long run we need to diversify the economies of these communities to offset the boom or bust cycles which have devastated all northern areas of our country during bad economic times.

In order for this to happen, the federal Government must have the ability to direct public support to these areas. It must have both the political will and the required legislative tools to give support to the North. This deal takes those powers away.

With the FTA in effect, over the next decade the Government will have to find levers of economic power but will not be able to use them. Under the Free Trade Agreement, if the mill in Iroquois Falls were to close, the Government would not be able to bail it out, keep the workers working and the families prospering. The Government would be bound by this deal under which regional development is likely to be considered an unfair subsidy. Those workers in Iroquois Falls would be sacrificed to the Conservative ideology of keeping the Americans happy at all costs.

This deal will not produce a high-tech manufacturing boom in my part of this great country. The deal does not have a lot of winners in Timmins.

The Free Trade Agreement is already causing victims. Late last week Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie announced lay-offs. I believe these lay-offs, like the lay-

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

offs at Gillette, Northern Telecom, and Pittsburgh Paints, are a direct result of the corporate plans to streamline operations in preparation for the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement.

The iron ore for the specialty steel produced for Algoma is mined in Wawa, Ontario and railed or shipped down to Sault Ste. Marie. As Algoma lays off workers, lay-offs can follow in Wawa. This deal will mean further lay-offs in Timmins-Chapleau when the current subsidy for the Algoma Central Railway is also terminated as an unfair subsidy. Rail lay-offs will inevitably follow in Wawa and Hawk Junction.

All that this deal does for the North is make victims. The Government likes to use fancy words like "streamlining" or "downsizing" or "winners and losers", as the Liberals first said under Pierre Trudeau. These are all statistics for the economists in the Department of Finance or the bureaucrats in External Affairs. However, they are all people who are losing their jobs, and their families cannot be fed on fancy words of reassurance from the Conservatives about adjustment programs or the unemployment insurance program.

The victims have received a very cruel present from Prime Minister Scrooge. They have lost their jobs, only to be given vague promises about how they will benefit under free trade. I would never put vague promises under a Christmas tree for my kids.

Another aspect of this deal which I find unbelievable is this notion of an unfair subsidy. I do not need to have some American bureaucrat tell me what he or she thinks is fair and unfair. I know what is fair and what is not. Creating jobs in my riding is fair, and this deal, costing the good people in my riding their jobs is unfair. One does not have to be a lawyer or a high-priced consultant to figure that out.

The Americans want to keep their jobs and capture our markets. With this deal, we walked into a trap, and I fear that it will be working people in Timmins- Chapleau who will suffer from the Government's misguided policy.

Our Government has been manipulated by the Americans into walking into an ill-advised negotiation with a list of concessions, not a list of bottom line protections. I cannot imagine going to buy a car with a list of options that I am prepared to give up drawn up before I go into the showroom to see if the car is safe and comfortable. This deal is like a car with no engine

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

or brakes. The strangest thing of all is that this Government has bought that car.

During the election campaign, I knocked on thousands of doors in my riding. The overwhelming message that I kept receiving from the people to whom I talked was that this deal has got to go, we do not trust this Government with our future, we love our country, and we do not want to see Canada Americanized.

The people in northern Ontario are a tough bunch. The climate is not the most hospitable. As a matter of fact, White River has had the coldest temperature in Canada, and that was -72F. We have come there to work and we are good workers. We have stayed and we have built ourselves strong communities of which we are proud. We are proud to raise our children in the North. We are proud to raise them as Canadians. We have fine traditions and community spirit and are tolerant of others.

These values are valuable, but for our communities to survive and flourish, we have to keep our economic base strong. We cannot survive government policies which throw us into the deep end just to see if we will sink or swim. In this deal, we as a country have given up far too much and have received far too little in return.

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I too would like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents who voted for me on November 21, 1988 and also to thank all my colleagues who were elected. Now we Conservatives are the only party in Canada to represent all parts of this great country. The other parties have become much more regional. So congratulations to all our colleagues who were elected. Thanks to those who put their trust in us and who appreciated our management over the last four years.

I now want to stick to today's subject, namely the new debate on free trade that has been made necessary because the Liberal and socialist politicians have not kept their word. We are forced to start over what we spent months on. We discussed free trade here for 350 hours, but we have to start again, Mr. Speaker, because they do not keep their word.

So, once and for all, what does free trade mean, so that Canadians can understand it exactly? Where does free trade fit in? What does it mean for the 27 million Canadians who live here? What does it mean for the 12 million Canadians between 30 and 65 who are in the labour force, who work, compared to younger Canadians, to older Canadians on pension, to Canadians who

cannot work because of certain circumstances like illness or injury?

Twelve million Canadians work and what they produce every year is called the Gross National Product. In 1987, it was S500 billion. That is the sum total of Canadian products. It includes a pencil, a piece of paper, an automobile and an airplane. It includes medical services which are provided each time a health insurance card is used. All that amounts to $500 billion. And Canadians export one-quarter of that-that is $125 billion of Canadian goods and services. That means that 3 million jobs out of 12 million, one out of four, are linked to exports. But it goes further than that-84 per cent of Canadian exports go to the United States, in other words $95 billion of our exports go to the United States. This means that in Canada one Canadian out of five has a job because we are able to sell in the United States. This is what the Free Trade Agreement is all about. It means work for one out of five Canadians who are now employed, because we sell to the United States.

What parts of Canada do those goods originate from? There are $60 billion out of $95 billion-a significant proportion-$60 billion that come from Ontario, a province that fought free trade, especially the Liberals- Ontario Liberals opposed free trade. Well, their share of our total $95 billion worth of exports to the United States is $60 billion.

The second largest exporting province is Quebec, with $16 billion. You see the difference-$60 billion's worth of exports to the United States come from Ontario, as against $16 billion's worth coming from Quebec, and another $19 billion from all the other provinces together.

What province fought free trade? Ontario. Ontario Liberals, who paid for part of the Liberal Party of Canada's election campaign.

And why was that Agreement needed? It was needed because since 1985 the Americans, faced with an enormous trade deficit, were becoming very protectionist-they were blocking, restricting their purchases from other countries. And as suppliers to the United States, we were affected. Then there were some disputes. For instance, all Canadians heard of the difficulties encountered by a number of producers-hog, hog carcasses, fish, shingles and shakes producers. In each and every case the Americans said: Now, let us restrict those Canadian exports. Let us put up barriers, temporary tariffs, temporary taxes, red tape hassles.

December 19, 1988

The Americans could tell us, for example, that the pork and the hog carcasses we sell them must no longer contain growth hormones.

That was a way of stopping our pork exports to the United States. The Americans were then taking all kinds of measures to reduce our exports, thus jeopardizing our industry.

It must therefore be stressed that the Free Trade Agreement aims at stopping the Americans from taking protectionist measures which were reducing or would have reduced Canadian exports to the United States.

The other advantage of the Free Trade Agreement is of lesser consequence because 80 per cent of the 95 billion dollars worth of Canadian exports to the United States is presently free of tariffs. There are tariffs on 20 per cent of our exports.

The Agreement therefore provides for the phasing-out of all these tariffs over a 10-year period. For about a third of these products, the tariff will drop to zero starting on January 1 1988. For another third of these products, those of industries which need a little more time to adapt to the competitive situation created by free trade, the tariffs will be phased out over a five-year period and, in all other cases, they will be phased out over a 10-year period. The second advantage of free trade is therefore elimination of tariffs.

The first advantage of the Free Trade Agreement, I repeat, is the protection it affords us against American protectionist measures. The second advantage is the phasing-out of tariffs on approximately 20 billion dollars of our exports to the United States.

Another major benefit will be the dispute settlement panel. That is one of the most important elements of the Agreement. What will this dispute settlement panel mean? Let us take the situation which existed for our lumber exports to the United States in 1986, where the Americans claimed that we, as Canadians, were unfairly subsidizing lumber producers through stumpage fees which were insufficiently high, where the Americans claimed that we were subsidizing them. So they said: "You are subsidizing them; that is why we are going to impose a tax on your imports". They called them compensatory duties against our lumber exports or other items. "From now on, we are going to charge a 35 per cent duty on your exports. We are doing that because we feel that you are involved in unfair competition. You are subsidizing these corporations". In the case of softwood lumber, it was a 35 per cent duty.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

What could Canadians do when Americans decided to impose such a duty? The remedy which was available to Canadians was to appeal to the United States Trade Tribunal. It meant that a Canadian firm with its head office in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City or Levis, had to call in its lawyers and tell them to go to the American Trade Tribunal to defend its position and demonstrate to the judges that the American Government was wrong to impose an "x" per cent duty on its products. So its lawyers had to go to the United States to appear before an American tribunal and defend its position on the basis of American legislation. The burden of proof was enormous, the more so because the judges on this American trade tribunal were themselves American.

Whenever the courts are called upon to rule, it is because something is questionable and unclear. There is a gray area. So whenever they appeared before the tribunal, each party had to make representations, but the ruling belonged to the American judges who, even when they wanted to be absolutely fair and objective, used to rule more often than not against our Canadian firms.

What is the nature of the change? Now, Canadians no longer have to deal with the American Trade Tribunal when a dispute occurs. There is a new dispute settlement panel which is now made up of five individuals, including two Canadians, two Americans, and a fifth individual accepted by both parties. That is the main difference. Essentially, the other procedures remain the same, but those who disagree with an American decision aimed at blocking our exports would no longer be required to appeal to an American tribunal, but to a binational panel made up of two Canadians, two Americans and a fifth individual acceptable to both. Which means that the ruling would not be at the mercy of five American judges. Under these conditions, the fact you are American or Canadian will be less significant, and that really is the big difference in the dispute settlement body: This binational panel will be there to ensure a better interpretation of the applicable legislation, both in the case of Canadian exports to the United States and American exports to Canada.

In short, the Free Trade Agreement will reduce American protectionism, eliminates the remaining duties and taxes, and ensure a much more secure access to the American market. During the election campaign, representatives of the Opposition parties did not provide this information to the Canadian public. They went from door to door, visited Golden Agers' clubs, one after the other, wherever they could find people who might be

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

receptive to a message of fear.The Liberals and Socialists were there to tell pensioners in all the homes for the Aged: "If free trade passes, you are going to lose your pension."

We saw former Ministers from the Trudeau era say the same thing and meddle in that scare campaign. Fortunately, we got the best of them because we told people the truth and proved to them that we were right. We told them: "It is your children or your parents between 30 and 65, the people who work and pay taxes in Canada, the industry, trade or business people who are aware of the need for access to the American market. It is those people who want free trade and you, who are older, younger or weaker, do not trust them. It is those people who pay taxes and give the country the money it needs to pay for your pensions." How do you think we can keep telling the needy that the country can pay for their pensions? A nation can pay for pensions in two ways. Together with the Socialists, the Liberals have found an original way to do it.

Their original solution was to borrow money and today our country owes $335 billion because of the Liberals' mismanagement and their co-operation with the Socialists. So in order to pay out benefits, they took out loans. It is not politically dangerous to borrow money because those who are going to pay won't be voting on election day. Those who are going to pay are our children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. Because the Liberals have always understood that principle, they were able to get elected. They understood that if you can make others, but not voters, pay for your mistakes, you can get re-elected and continue to spend.

But our message appealed to reason. We proved to Canadians that, together with members of the workforce, we could and should continue paying for our pension systems because sooner or later we must set a limit on collective debt. It was necessary that our businesses made money. And we told people: Those who are employed must make money. It is not a sin to make money. It is important. When you make money, you pay taxes, with money earned not money borrowed. People understood, they got our message. They understood also the message of the men and women who supported us during the campaign, because free trade is a collective issue that concerns Canadians and not the issue of the Conservative Party only. It is the issue of Canadians. It is, for instance, the issue of the Prime Minister of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and his team who say that

free trade is crucial for Quebec. The Quebec Government took position in an official manifesto in favour of free trade in all its aspects.

We also could count on the support of the Desjardins co-operative movement. And I am proud to talk about those things specifically, because the Desjardins movement was born in my riding 88 years ago. It is not a capitalist movement. It is a co-operative movement that today manages $35 billion in assets. Two Quebecers out of every three, for million out of six million Quebecers are members of that movement. In a March 1988 manifesto, it formally took position for free trade and declared the signed agreement in particular a good one for jobs, for Quebec, for businesses, for social programs.

We also received, on the free-trade issue, the support of the Chambers of commerce of Canada and their

170.000 members, business people who sign pay cheques.

We also got for free trade the support and endorsement of a reliable body par excellence, the Economic Council of Canada. Closer to home, in the province of Quebec, we have received the support of the Dutil family and CanamManac in Beauce County, of Laurent Beaudoin and Bombardier and of former ministers from another political party. There are two political parties in Quebec. We have received the support of Bernard Landry and Rodrigue Tremblay, former ministers in the Quebec Government. We have received the support of Herve Pomerleau, an extraordinary entrepreneur in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, and Bernard Lamarre, who manages businesses worldwide and who is glad to be exporting to the United States. There are those who talk about small and medium-sized businesses. There are

80.000 small and medium-sized businesses that belong to the Canadian Federal of Independent Business.

In June 1988, the CFIB surveyed a number of small and medium-sized businesses-the corner confectionery, local gas station and small manufacturer-to identify their position on free trade. Because the Liberals and the socialists will say that small businesses are penalized.

In June, 80,000 questionnaires were sent out and

18.000 replies received. This is an extraordinarily large sample, considering that Gallup polls in Canada are based on a sample of 1,200 Canadians out of 27 million. We obtained 18,000 replies out of 80,000, and of these 18,000, 4.7 per cent were against free trade.

So I will tell those who say to us that small business is against free trade that they are wrong!

December 19, 1988

Mr. Speaker, I conclude, because time is flying. I would like to appeal to the intelligence-

That's impossible!

Mr. Fontaine:

Right you are. That's impossible. Thank you. I would like to appeal to the Liberals' and the socialists' intelligence to tell them that this Bill must pass because our businesses need to make money. I appeal to their intelligence, but also perhaps to their credibility, in a way, because the two leaders said before the campaign, "Call an election and we'll see!" We held the election and we won. The next day, they said, "All right. You won your free trade, we'll vote for it."

But there's a little guy, namely the president of the Ontario auto workers' union, Bob White, who sent a little letter to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) saying that the NDP leader had not fought hard enough against free trade and that they were mad at him for it. They forced the NDP leader and his team, who are the unions' lackeys, who grovel before organized labour . .. and they came back on the attack against free trade. This is costing Canadians dearly and you will have to answer to them. Besides, you are still in the Opposition, that is how you answer for it, and I hope you stay there forever.

Mr. Speaker, free trade is important and we will pass it despite the positions of the two Opposition parties. We will take the time we have to. We will spend night after night here. You can leave at 11 o'clock, but we will go on and pass free trade.

Ms. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address this urgent matter of the so-called free trade agreement, a deal that will cause hardship, loss of livelihood, and a way of life to thousands of Canadians in different sectors of our economy, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Northumberland for having put their faith in me to be their representative. I am honoured and proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for the riding of Northumberland. I will do all that is within my power to fulfil the mandate with which I have been charged. It brings me here today to participate in the debate on the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.

I am very concerned about the effect that the Mul-roney trade deal will have on the rural life across

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Canada, and especially on the riding of Northumberland on the shores of Lake Ontario, which I have the honour to represent. If this trade deal is approved in its present form, the effects will prove devastating for many of my constituents and thousands of others across Canada.

One of the hardest hit areas will be the agricultural sector. This Mulroney trade deal has not given sufficient consideration to the dangers posed to the Canadian farmer. I propose to discuss some of those dangers, in the hopes that Hon. Members of the House will realize the great harm that will be done to family farms and food processors in Canada if this agreement is implemented without the necessary amendments.

We in the Liberal Party are not, nor have we ever been, opposed to freer trade with the United States and other countries. However, we are opposed to the Mulroney trade deal because of the adverse effects it will have on our Canadian way of life, not only in the agricultural industry, but in energy, resources, health and social programs, and the environment. As my time is limited I will be addressing the profound ill effects this deal will have on agriculture, and I must leave those other issues to be debated by my able colleagues. However, whenever the occasion arises, I will want to speak to the other issues as well.

We all know that trade in agricultural products between Canada and the United States is quite substantial. The United States is a major market for Canadian producers of live animals, beef and pork, while Canada is an important market for American producers of fruits, vegetables, and oilseeds.

Both Canada and the United States have a long tradition of protection and support for agriculture but have done so by completely different means. Canada has relied heavily on the marketing board system, while the United States depends more on direct financial aid to producers. It should be noted that American farm income supports are among the highest in the world. The differences among government programs in both countries, the intractable problems farmers must face, and the fact that, to a large degree, agricultural problems are international, point against putting agriculture on the table. Yet, the Mulroney Government did so, buffet style.

I would like to emphasize that Canada, in my opinion, should never be dependent upon other nations to provide its essential food needs. European nations know this only too well. Here in Canada, despite some national and geographic disadvantages, we are able to feed ourselves.

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

We must not forfeit our agricultural independence in the false pursuit of illusory lower American prices.

Food prices will sky-rocket out of control once the American vertically integrated megacorporations put our family farmers out of business. With our farmers will go many of our rural communities and a respected way of life with its particular values and social and economic structures.

The United States has a major balance of payments deficit which the Reagan administration has been under tremendous pressure to reduce. The decline of American exports in the agricultural sector has been a serious domestic problem. Between 1980 and 1985, U.S. exports fell from $47 billion to $31 billion. By expanding opportunities for increasing food and agricultural exports to Canada, the American Government hopes to help solve both its balance of payments deficit and redress the problems of its agricultural sector.

The goals of the American Government in the bilateral trade talks are well known. First, it wishes to remove all tariffs in the food and agricultural area. The Americans are anxious to see a removal of duties on potatoes and onions, and seasonal tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables.

A second major goal is to remove non-tariff barriers to trade, both federal and provincial. This includes protections for the wine and brewing industries, provincial procurement policies, and provincial marketing boards for agricultural products. The Americans placed a high priority on the removal of import quotas from the Canadian supply management boards, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission, and the Poultry and Egg Marketing Boards.

The American Government demanded an end to various federal and provincial subsidies for agriculture and processed foods. These include provincial farm subsidy programs, assistance to food processing plants, and freight subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act and the Feed Freight Assistance Act.

The over-all aim of the negotiations in the agricultural area was to create a level playing field, eliminating or harmonizing government programs and income support systems. However, agriculture and the food industry in Canada cannot compete on an equal footing with American counterparts because of a shorter growing season, lower levels of population density, greater distances for transportation, and higher construction and energy costs.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Americans are having their way with our agricultural sector. Under this agreement, the Mulroney Government did not secure the supply management or quota system under which milk, egg, poultry, and other agricultural commodity productions are regulated in Canada. The supply management system guarantees fairer incomes through price stabilization. Removal of these and other protective tariffs applied to grain, fruit, and vegetable crops, will threaten the survival of many family farms, not only in the riding of Northumberland but in every riding across Canada.

If the Mulroney trade deal is passed without amendment, the agricultural sector in Canada will have to compete on a very uneven playing field, given the importation of lower priced U.S. farm products.

Further, in a recent Bush-Dukakis debate, Mr. Bush adamantly declared his opposition to any form of supply management programs in agriculture.

In Canada, the stable areas in farming remain those which have orderly marketing programs, with fair prices established on a cost of production basis, and that includes such sectors as poultry, broiler chickens, eggs, and turkeys.

Fair priced regulators are seriously threatened by this trade deal and may very well be wiped out.

In Canada, there are 2,000 egg producers. In the U.S., just two companies can out-produce the combined efforts of all their Canadian counterparts.

Dairy farmers want assurances that the milk industry will be protected from U.S. competition under the Free Trade Agreement. They want to see, in black and white, an agreement that allows them to have a supply management system in place controlled by marketing boards.

Quotas constitute a significant benefit for family farmers and they cannot be allowed to disappear.

I have met with dairy farmers from my riding of Northumberland, who have expressed their fears to me about the devastating impact that the Mulroney trade deal will have on their family farms.

Mr. Mulroney, on behalf of farmers like Glen Cole and his family, and Jim Tunney-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I would ask the Hon. Member to refer to Hon. Members by their riding

December 19, 1988

and not by name. If you are referring to the Prime Minister, he may be referred to as "the Right Hon. the Prime Minister"; or, in the case of the Hon. Member for Kamloops, as the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and so forth.

Ms. Stewart:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prime Minister, on behalf of farmers like Glen Cole and his family, and Jim Tunney, who are representative of the countless other dairy farmers in Canada, 1 implore you to put in place the necessary safeguards in this deal so that these farmers may continue contributing to our marvellous country by maintaining their way of life.

As well, fruit growers associations have expressed their concerns about the fact that, without a doubt, a part of the soft food industry is definitely going to be hurt. Fresh B.C. peaches and cherries will become a rarity. They will be supplanted by imports. Soft fruit such as cherries, peaches, apricots, and pears are covered by a 10 per cent seasonal tariff that protects production from less expensive U.S. imports. Seasonal import tariffs have protected producers from being swamped by cheaper U.S. products during the short Canadian growing season.

Canada's shorter growing season limits our ability to grow fruit and vegetables relative to the United States. Consequently, fruit and vegetables are generally in larger supply and can be obtained at lower prices in the United States than in Canada.

In horticulture, the southern farmers have a major competitive advantage. Because of the warmer climate and longer growing season, they can often get two crops per year, and up to a 40 per cent heavier yield per crop than can farmers in Ontario, thus cutting their cost of production below that of the Canadian grower.

An acre in southwestern Ontario can grow 19 tonnes of tomatoes in one year; in Quebec, it grows only 10 tonnes.

In California, the same amount of land will produce 31 tonnes. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island yield 11 to 13 tonnes of potatoes per year per acre; Quebec, 9 tonnes; and Manitoba, 6 to 7 tonnes.

In the State of Washington, the average yield is 26 tonnes per acre.

One does not have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that American tomatoes and potatoes are a lot cheap in the market than are ours.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The fact of the matter is that Canadians farm in the top half of the continent, the cold half. The Free Trade Agreement, left in its present form, will penalize the Canadian farmer.

A big loser in the trade deal is the horticultural industry. According to Article 702, the removal of all tariffs in agriculture and food products includes the 10 per cent seasonal tariff on fruit and vegetables.

It has been stressed that under this agreement, Article 702.1, for the next 20 years the Government may reinstate the 10 per cent seasonal tariff should prices fall below 90 per cent of the average monthly import price as calculated over the preceding three years, provided that there had been no increase in total acreage planted to the specific crop in question.

Surplus fruit and vegetables that are grown in the southern United States can be shipped to Canadian markets at far less cost than Canadian farmers can even produce them. Yet, experience has demonstrated that the lower cost of production for these products is not always passed on to the consumer. Moreover, because Canadian food processors pay higher prices for Canadian than for U.S. fruit and vegetables, by eliminating the tariffs on fruit and vegetables the free trade deal will put pressure on processors to relocate their operations in the United States, closer to the source of cheaper supplies.

The Canadian food processor associations have also voiced their concerns about the free trade deal. They have said that the "current free trade contract will negatively affect three-quarters of a million Canadians who earn their living in farm production and the food processing industry". They anticipate that over 150,000 jobs will be lost.

After surveying the member companies on the impact of the Free Trade Agreement, the vast majority fear that they cannot compete because of higher labour costs and the higher cost of Canadian farm products. They predict that under the Free Trade Agreement there will be a net loss of jobs in Canada, with many American branch plants pulling back across the border. Moreover, they indicate that future expansion by Canadian based food corporations would most likely be in the U.S.

Hence, the plants that are most vulnerable to the threat of increased American competition will be the smaller Canadian-owned plants. The larger conglomerate food companies have the best chance of survival, and the majority of these are American.

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The President of Quaker Oats of Canada, Jon Grant, has also pointed out that "there will be tremendous pressure on the Canadian agricultural community to reduce prices to compete against American products".

The free trade deal pits farmers against food processors. As tariffs come down, farmers will lose control over sales to the food industry, with marketing boards inevitably losing their ability to set prices as cheaper American imports move into Canada.

At this point, with the income supports from the boards in danger, the viability of the Canadian farming community will be compromised.

Indeed, this explains why the American Farming Bureau, the largest American farm organization, strongly supports this Free Trade Agreement. When Canadian tariffs are eliminated on processed goods, then baked goods, chicken, turkey, eggs and milk-based products can enter Canada more freely from the U.S., and Canadian supply management will be effectively undermined, leaving the Canadian farmer to rely upon the mercy of market forces.

It is interesting to note that while the U.S. can limit the imports of further processed products containing sugar from Canada, we cannot limit the import of most further processed products containing grain, poultry, eggs, horticultural and dairy products from the U.S. This is particularly difficult to understand when the export of U.S. sugar and sugar-bearing products to Canada has increased 500 per cent since 1983.

The Progressive Conservatives maintain that the Canadian supply management policy is left intact in the agreement with the U.S. They fail to admit to the realities of our supply management policy, which results in moderately higher prices for basic dairy and poultry commodities in Canada than in the U.S. As a result, Canadian food processors have stated that they will move to the U.S. in order to take advantage of lower basic commodity prices should this agreement be implemented.

It is extremely important to address the fact that not only do Americans produce chickens more cheaply but they have no government imposed cleanliness standards. Consequently, U.S. chickens are more prone to disease so antibiotics are routinely administered. They also use dangerous growth hormones which can have very harmful side effects, especially affecting our children. Under this deal product standards in both countries will be made the same, and I doubt very much that U.S. standards will be brought up to the Canadian level.

This trade deal will pit Canadian and American farmers against each other. They will be forced to undercut each other's prices and thereby lower farm incomes. The level playing field, as I earlier stated, is simply not possible in agriculture because of the unequal primary conditions between the two countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admits that his trade deal will cause some disruption and says new programs will have to be found to retrain displaced workers. The family farm is in great danger of being part of that disruption if the trade deal is approved in its present form. I say to the Prime Minister: Canadians do not want mere reassurances. They want guarantees in writing.

Finally, I would like to address the fact that the Government's attitude has been that we do not need a plan; let the market solve all the problems. However, we need an over-all vision with strong policies if the farming community is to survive. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has been mesmerized by the U.S. free enterprise economic development theory. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, if you have not noticed, Canada has never been exclusively a nation of private enterprise. The Canadian experience has balanced public policies and private enterprise, keeping to the tradition of serving the interests of the national community and the individual. Public policies and enterprise are in part a product of Canadian nationalism. In order for Canada to survive as a nation there was a need for large public investment, hence economic activity in Canada has taken place in a comprehensive social context rather than as a pursuit for gaining individual profit.

This country was not built on the motto of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on peace, order and good government. I put it to you that the Conservative Government is not living up to these responsibilities, not demonstrating good government, and is turning its back on the fundamental values which built this nation.

Mr. J. W. Bird (Fredericton):

Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members will understand, I feel a tremendous sense of honour, privilege and responsibility in standing to address this House of Commons for the first time. While I have had the good fortune on previous occasions to speak in other legislative forums, such as the city council of Fredericton as councillor and mayor, and the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick as a Member and Minister of Natural Resources, both experiences which I cherish with pride and satisfaction, at no other

December 19, 1988

time in my life have I been seized with such profound and mixed feelings of humility, potential, and fulfilment in being a Canadian citizen as I do today.

For the reality of being here I must again express my appreciation to the citizens in Fredericton and the surrounding area of York-Sunbury for their confidence and support in the recent election. 1 want them to know, each one, that I come to this House on their behalf with keen awareness of the responsibilities and opportunities which exist to be of service to them and to all Canadians. To the best of my ability I shall seek so to serve, to discharge those responsibilities, and to seize those opportunities as fully as possible at all times.

It is a special pleasure for me to have participated in the re-election of Mr. Speaker to the chair. He is not here this evening and I hope the Chair will convey these sentiments to him. I want to express my congratulations to him upon the well deserved honour and respect which he has been accorded by all Hon. Members. Hopefully he may recall another occasion, in New Brunswick, when I was privileged to participate in an event which honoured him. In that case it was for his contribution to management and conservation of Atlantic salmon. I want him and this House to know that he remains held in high esteem by New Brunswickers, as by all Canadians, for his long history of service to our country in so many ways.

Had he been here I was going to say directly to him that he would know from his own visits to the rivers of New Brunswick that our province is a land of beauty and serenity, containing a special quality of life which is becoming increasingly rare throughout the world and not easily found even in many parts of Canada any more. In my view it is that quality of life in New Brunswick, in fact throughout Atlantic Canada and abundant in my own riding of Fredericton, which is our most undervalued and underrated asset. I believe it constitutes a key resource for development and realization of our unique future potential.

Let me be clear. New Brunswick's quality of life is not just comprised of such features as its beautiful landscape and superb salmon fishing. It is much more than that. Indeed, first of all, the quality of life in New Brunswick springs from its human resources, its people.

Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members will recognize, New Brunswick is the best concrete example in Canada of an officially bilingual society living and working in harmony. Men and women of this province clearly

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

demonstrated that tolerance of and respect for one another can contribute towards the enrichment of the Canadian mosaic. The same qualities are reflected in our appreciation of the ethnic and cultural diversity enjoyed in New Brunswick.

With the new legislation on Canadian multicultural-ism, there now exists in New Brunswick a dynamic trend recognizing the richness of the various cultures found in our province. Furthermore, numerous discussions have taken place regarding the implementation of multicultural programs as proposed in the new legislation.

Those rich human resources of New Brunswick, coupled with its abundance of natural features, are the essence of our attractive way of life which is so well exemplified within the boundaries of my own riding of Fredericton, the capital city area of our province.

I want to emphasize that in New Brunswick, indeed the entire Atlantic region, there is an important correlation between our quality of life and our economic potential; between the attraction of living in our region and the prospects for prospering offered by free trade; between the desire of so many of our young citizens to make their lives in the Maritimes; and the increased opportunities which the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will bring to them to find productive carriers in their home area of Canada.

There is no region in Canada which has more potential to benefit from free trade than Atlantic Canada. While we have always possessed the human and natural resources to prosper, and in fact prior to Confederation the Maritimes was arguably the most prosperous area of Canada, during the subsequent economic evolution of our country, however, markets became centralized in Quebec and Ontario to the unfortunate disadvantage of Canada's extremities, particularly the Maritimes. In fact, Confederation itself helped to extinguish the flow and pattern of north-south trade on which the Maritimes had built its early prosperity.

Therefore, the Free Trade Agreement is an opportunity to rectify, or at least moderate, a major adverse side effect of Confederation, a side effect which has become an unfortunate and lasting phrase of frustration in Canada's economic language, "regional economic disparity".

At long last we have before us on the economic horizon virtually a new frontier, one which holds real promise for an eventual and lasting solution to regional

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

economic disparity in Canada. That new frontier is to be found in the Free Trade Agreement, as will gradually be expressed in the removal of tariffs, elimination of quotas, phasing out of countervailing duties, antidumping laws and discriminatory regulations, and the improved process for settlement of disputes. In Atlantic Canada these will encourage and should lead to restoration of original north-south trading patterns and dramatically increased trade with the vast markets of the United States eastern seaboard.

Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the opportunities to be contemplated in a market which is more than 20 times as large as the immediate domestic markets of the Maritimes themselves and which is less than 24 hours trucking distance away from any point in the Maritimes. For example, the population of Atlantic Canada is approximately 2.3 million people while the combined population of the northeastern United States, including the New York and Pennsylvania markets, amounts to 50 million people. These market population statistics are important to emphasize for the regions away from the centre of Canada, perhaps particularly for the Atlantic region.

While the U.S. market in total is 10 times larger than the Canadian domestic market, that differential is greatly magnified. In fact, it is doubled when applied to the U.S. markets which are reasonably accessible to the Atlantic region. Similar differentials exist with regard to the percentages of trade which are presently duty-free, and potentially duty-free.

While the amount of 80 per cent is frequently quoted as the proportion of all present trade between Canada and the U.S. now duty-free, and some people insist that that figure is really less than 75 per cent, it must be recognized that the percentage of duty-free trade in the Atlantic region is substantially less, perhaps no more than 60 per cent. Therefore the potential for growth by removing tariffs is proportionately much greater for the Atlantic region than is expressed by the Canadian average. In fact, these statistics of existing duty-free trade can be very misleading even on the national average. They tend to understate and underestimate the potential for increased trade which should result from the removal of existing duties over the next 10 years.

A recent special report from The Financial Post states that the amount of trade that is already tariff-free as a proportion of the trade we could have once all tariffs are gone is probably closer to 50 per cent or 60

per cent. That report suggests that the free trade deal gives us the potential for double the amount of tariff free trade than we have now-not merely 20 per cent more.

If that is the case for Canada on average then, again, just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the size of the potential for Atlantic Canada in terms of increased trade opportunities from our present base levels. Surely, I am not overstating the case to call free trade a new frontier on the economic horizon of Atlantic Canada.

Surely, also, it is not an overstatement to suggest that free trade truly offers a chance at long last to address creatively the chronic case of regional economic disparity in our country. For too long I believe we have reluctantly yet habitually accepted regional disparity in parts of Canada as a characteristic illness about which precious little could be done. To be sure, we have tried our best with special development programs to create economic growth in the Maritimes, for example, and we have met with both success and failure. However, we have not been able to do much more than moderate disparity, and up until now we have not been able to find a direction which might eventually eliminate disparity.

There are many reasons for this, but mainly we have never had adequate access to markets readily available for the products that we do manufacture, nor, more important, for the products we could manufacture from locations within Atlantic Canada. We have generally never been able really to contemplate a prospectus for economic equality because we have never been able to contemplate the reality of a market potential.

One of our most prominent and most successful New Brunswick industrialists has expressed the frustration for many Maritimers when he said recently, and I quote:

For as long as 1 have lived and for as long as any of us can remember, free trade with the United States has been a dream unfulfilled, an opportunity lost. It has cost Canadians dearly. It has cost us countless billions of dollars, it has cost us untold numbers of jobs, and it has cost us the chance to grow as a country-all because we have been denied access to that huge consumer market to the south. We have been cut off by unnatural trade barriers that have prevented us from even approaching our potential as a trading nation. We have been sent into a viciously competitive ring of international trade with one hand tied behind our back. And because of all this we have taken a beating.

For the first time in my own life there truly will be light at the end of the economic tunnel for Atlantic Canada. Now, for the first time since Confederation, a location for manufacture in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia could well be a market advantage and not a disadvantage as historically has been the case. The free

December 19, 1988

trade deal opens the opportunities for dramatically improved access to 50 million people living in the northeast area of the United States, the largest single regional market in the world, and located only one full day of trucking from the Maritimes, a market that is larger, richer and closer. Now, with free trade, it is more readily accessible than any other domestic or foreign market ever has been to the Maritimes.

To quote again the words of that New Brunswick industrialist:

Now, the Government of Canada is about to knock down those trade barriers with a bold move that will change the economic face of Canada forever. In the process, some Canadians and some Canadian companies will be hurt in the short term. Some of our firms will face new and difficult challenges. But at least we will be unshackled-and for the first time in modern history we will have a run at markets where millions upon millions of consumers will be ready to buy our goods.

He concluded by saying that these are indeed exciting times, and we have unprecedented opportunities to make them even better. "Soon," he said, "we will see the borders opening up to trade that we have been denied for generations". While it may not be an apt analogy in a technical sense, 1 do instinctively believe that free trade for Atlantic Canada will eventually equate to the beneficial impact which the Auto Pact has had for Ontario.

That may sound like a great leap of faith, but free trade truly does represent finally a prospectus for success in our region of Canada. I am genuinely confident that over the next decade and beyond we shall see economic self-sufficiency emerge within the Atlantic region, and free trade will be the vehicle for such dramatic development.

Mr. Speaker, do not think that 1 am not taking any interest in my region. On the contrary, I take Atlantic Canada as an example because I want to show you that free trade could provide vast opportunities for all of Canada. If my wishes come true for New Brunswick and neighbouring provinces, just imagine what benefits the rest of the country could rake from free trade. For instance, if we succeed in stabilizing the Western economy by stimulating exchanges with the huge markets of the American Sun Belt and the Pacific States, just imagine the renewed balance the Canadian economy would gain.

It would be a sweet irony, I realize, if regional economic subsidies might eventually become reduced in

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Canada, not as expressed by the fears of free trade in a negative context but because the fruits of free trade have helped to eliminate regional disparity in Canada and consequently the need for such subsidies. That may sound like a dream, but Canada has been built on great dreams by people who had the courage and conviction to believe they could be attained. I want to say that I believe that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has expressed such a dream and is such a man.

To balance Canada's prosperity across this country eventually, and to bring an end to regional economic disparity ultimately, is really more than a dream. It is a vision, one which was placed before the Canadian people in the recent election. It is a vision which the Canadian people have strongly endorsed by returning the Prime Minister and this Government with a solid majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, our challenge and that of succeeding Governments in Parliament is: It will take time over more than one or two terms to fulfil that vision working together for and with Canadians.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):

Mr. Speaker, as you know this is not my first intervention into this discussion in the House. I had the opportunity to make several speeches on the subject before the House was dissolved for the election.

This afternoon, when the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) rose to answer a question, he once again reminded us and other Canadians that because the Conservatives won the election they could do just about whatever they pleased with respect to this Free Trade Agreement. His attitude was one that they won the election, never mind our positive proposals and suggestions, because they will do what they want.

Others have reminded the Government and the Minister, but I will remind them again that although his Party won the largest number of seats in this election they did not win the popular vote of Canadians. Some 52 per cent of Canadians rejected this Free Trade Agreement, while only 43 per cent supported it. I wanted to remind government Members of that because they have a tendency to forget it.

We know that the Government will ram this Bill through by using closure every day, but it would be worthwhile for it to be a little more sensitive to the concerns of the majority of Canadians. Not only did the Government not win the popular vote throughout the country, the Conservatives lost the popular vote in eight out of ten provinces. They got more than 50 per cent of

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

the vote only in the Provinces of Quebec and Alberta. They got less than 50 per cent of the vote in Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and all the Atlantic Provinces, while there was a tie in Manitoba.

The Government has become an expert at using closure, as it will do to ram this Bill through. While it has used closure more than any other Government since the Second World War, and will do so again to ram this Bill through much to our displeasure, I ask it to be more sensitive to the concerns of Canadians as expressed in this recent election. During the election campaign there was almost unanimous support, even among those who supported this Free Trade Agreement, to have special adjustment programs for workers and firms that will be hurt by this agreement. Yet, the Government is refusing to give us any special adjustment programs.

Not only was the electorate, including those who voted for the Government and the agreement in favour of that proposal, all 10 provinces during a federal-provincial conference last spring in the West requested special adjustment programs. There was somewhat of a dispute within the Conservative family between the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a western premier and the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister because he simply rejected any special adjustment programs for those to be hurt by this agreement.

Not only did all 10 provinces request special adjustment programs, the Macdonald Commission which started this whole thing, unfortunately, and asked us to make a leap of faith-

Mr. Winegard:

A good Liberal.

Mr. Allmand:

It was a royal commission made up of Liberals, Tories, and maybe even a New Democrat. I know the former Member of Parliament from my riding, who was a Conservative Minister under Diefenbaker, was also on that royal commission chaired by Mr. Macdonald. They recommended not to proceed with free trade negotiations unless special adjustment programs were provided. They had an entire chapter setting out special adjustment programs. They referred to the common market and other free trade zones which had these programs and suggested they should be in effect here.

Elowever, the Government ignored that advice. It plowed ahead, negotiated this agreement, and did not provide for any special adjustment programs.

The Economic Council suggested special adjustment programs, as did the C.D. Howe Institute. Nearly everyone who examined this subject with some sincerity and objectivity recommended special adjustment programs. Yet, the Government continues to reject any suggestion put to it for special adjustment programs.

Liberal Members of the House have been recommending these programs since we started these sittings. We have seen the example of Gillette and Northern Telecom. I believe those companies have closed their doors principally because of the agreement.

Members on this side have been asking the Minister for International Trade, the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), the Prime Minister, and others for special adjustment programs. They continue to refuse. They continue to be insensitive to the great majority of Canadians who voted against the agreement; even though those who voted for it but who wanted special adjustment programs.

Initially the Government said that special adjustment programs were unnecessary because of the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will be able to handle all the dislocation caused by the Free Trade Agreement. Already there are many examples where the Canadian Jobs Strategy cannot even retrain those who want to be retrained now. It cannot even provide training for those who now want to get into training programs.

During the election campaign there was television footage at an institution in Hamilton, where there was a long line of people attempting to get into retraining and upgrading, but could not do so because of a lack of resources. That was what was happening before the Free Trade Agreement.

The Canadian Jobs Strategy will not be effective. The Government cut employment and training programs by 32 per cent since it came to power in 1984. Before we left office in 1984 we had a budget of $2.2 billion for training and employment programs. This year the budget is $1.5 billion, a cut of 32 per cent since 1984. Yet, the Government is asking us to rely on such a program for the readjustment of workers hurt by this Free Trade Agreement.

The other answer given to us is that a blue ribbon committee has been set up under Mr. de Grandpre of Montreal. The Government tells us that this blue ribbon committee is studying the adjustment needs that will be required under the Free Trade Agreement. It will report to the Government and the House some time next summer, and then we will have some action.

December 19, 1988

That is too late. It will not help the people who have been put out of work at Gillette or Northern Telecom or other firms that are closing their doors. It is a bit sickening to listen to members of the Government telling us that new jobs are being created here and there in the country. That does not help those who are losing their jobs. Jobs will always be created, whether or not we have free trade. We need adjustment programs to help those being put out of work specifically because of this agreement. There will be many of these workers and the Canadian Jobs Strategy will not be effective.

The de Grandpre Commission is too late. We need something now, and I ask the Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister for International Trade to begin to have some sensitivity for those people who voted against this agreement and those who want special adjustment programs.

We in the Liberal Party also propose that there be an ongoing committee of the House to survey the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, to watch on a day-to-day basis what is happening in the implementation of the agreement. It could check alleged failures and alleged benefits.

For example, such a committee could call the union and workers from Gillette, as well as the management, to find out what really took place. The same thing would apply to Northern Telecom. We could also call some firms which say they are gearing up because of free trade.

We want a special committee that will survey the implementation of this agreement, in order to make sure it lives up to the promises made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the election campaign. They certainly made many promises with respect to this agreement. According to them, this agreement will give us heaven on earth. We have already seen the results, and they are not too pleasing.

When we predicted that the agreement would hurt regional development, the Government denied it. We said this agreement would hurt our environmental programs because there are subsidies involved in environmental programs. The Government said that the agreement would not hurt environmental programs. When we said that it would hurt our labour standards and unemployment insurance, the Government said that it would not. When we said that it would hurt our social programs, the Government said that it would not. We want them to put in writing what they said on the

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

hustings during the last election campaign. We know that the words of the Prime Minister are not enough.

During the election campaign of 1984, the Prime Minister said that social programs and pensions were a sacred trust, but within one year his Government was deindexing the old age pensions of senior citizens. I thought it was rather farcical during the election campaign when the Prime Minister had his mother with him at one of the meetings in Quebec and he said: "Would I ever do anything that would hurt my poor old mother and her pension?" He said the same thing during the election campaign of 1984. He said, with his hand on his chest, that social programs were a special trust and he would never touch social programs.

This election campaign was a replay. It was like a replay of a football game, something with which you are familiar, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, oh!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

The Hon. Member Notre-Dame-de-Grace has the floor.

Mr. Allmand:

The Prime Minister was doing a replay of 1984, saying that he would never do anything to hurt his poor old mother. He said the same thing in 1984 and then went about deindexing old age pensions. It was only because a mass of senior citizens came to Parliament Hill and accused him of breaking his word that he finally backed down and did not deindex pensions. Of course, we in the Opposition led an attack day after day, but when the senior citizens reminded him of his promises, he backed down.

We want the promises that the Prime Minister made during this election campaign, promises that the agreement would not hurt regional development, environmental programs, labour standards, unemployment insurance, social programs, and hospitalization, written in the agreement. We want the exact words of the Prime Minister in the agreement. He said them, let him live up to those words and agree to having them put in the agreement. If he really believed in them, he should not object to that.

I remember when we debated the earlier Bill on this matter last summer. For two weeks, we said that water was touched by the agreement and we asked the Government please to put a clause in the Bill and in the agreement which would exclude water. Day after day, the Prime Minister and the Minister for International

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Trade said that water was not touched by the agreement and that they did not have to put anything about it in the agreement. When the hearings started, more and more expert evidence was heard to back up our point of view. Finally they did put a clause in the agreement. However, it took weeks of debate.

It was bad enough last summer when the Government put on time allocation and rammed the Bill through. However, it did not do it as quickly then as it is doing it now. The point is that to make this impact in the House of Commons, it often requires days and weeks of debate to get through to these people and to impact on the public opinion which develops outside the House.

Just as we were successful to a certain extent in getting the Government to agree to exclude water from the Bill and, through the Bill from the agreement, though we would like to see it excluded in the agreement itself, we want the Government to live up to the statements it made during the election campaign and exclude regional development, the environment, labour standards, unemployment insurance, social programs, and hospitalization. Government Members say that these things will not be hurt by the agreement. Fine, let them put that in the agreement.

As I said, the Government will ram this Bill through in any event. We will vote on second reading tonight at 1 a.m. I suppose tomorrow we will go into Committee of the Whole, another closure motion will be put on that stage and government Members will ram it through in a day or two. Then we will get to third reading, and they will ram that through. This is from the gang that gave us parliamentary reform. They are the ones who said that one of their great achievements was parliamentary reform. As a matter of fact, it was hard to keep from being sick while watching the Prime Minister on television during that great debate claim parliamentary reform as one of his great accomplishments, while they had suspended all the rules of the House last summer to ram through all the Bills they wanted to ram through. They have done so again in this particular debate.

Whenever the Government cannot put through something it wants to put through, when it cannot play the game under the ordinary rules, it simply suspends those rules. It is too bad that the Toronto Maple Leafs could not do the same thing. They might win the Stanley Cup. They could change the rules to suit their own team and their own purposes. They should follow the example of the Government.

This is going to be rammed through in any event, but if we are to have it, let us at least have some wording in the legislation that will exclude the matters to which I have referred. Let the Government announce, before we have a final vote on this Bill, that it will set up special adjustment programs.

On the night of the election, the Prime Minister said that he had won the election, he had won a majority Government, and he was now going to work on reconciliation because the election had been a very divisive one. We have been waiting for the programs that would bring about this reconciliation. The Prime Minister can start by showing us a special adjustment program for the workers and the firms that will be hurt by this agreement.

Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on the historical Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I am almost tempted to tell my colleague, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) that the most obvious benefits we got from the parliamentary reform is the election of two Progressive conservative governments in a row, an event unheard of in the last hundred years, and which has been most beneficial to Canada. This is probably why the people of Canada has given us a second mandate. By giving us a vote of confidence on November 21, the population in general, and the farming community in particular, have undeniably shown their support for the decisions we have taken in recent years, all in the interests of Canadian farmers.

Our commitment to these people is very clear, and I am glad that it was recognized.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, how happy I was on November 21, the night of the election, to realize that the farming population of Quebec, with whom I have worked more closely in the last 15 months, understood and accepted our message. We won in all the rural constituencies of Quebec, except one, but I haven't lost hope there, Mr. Speaker! In some next election, we will get all 45 seats, and that would make me very happy.

In the last few days, the Opposition has often men-tionned that the Government has not received the mandate to go ahead with the free trade deal. I thought that was a bit cranky, so I looked at some of the figures,

December 19, 1988

mainly those for Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I simply examined my riding where the president-everyone knows that the leaders of Quebec's farm community were not in favour-and I did say the leaders-the leaders of Quebec's farm unions were not in favour of this free trade deal and they urged their members to follow them and not vote in favour of free trade. However, we could rely on a real army of candidates and Members who for weeks and months met with farm producers to tell them all about the economic benefits that would flow from the trade agreement. It was not easy!

I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues who toured the various provinces, particularly Quebec where I saw them meet farm producers at home and explain to them what it was all about. It stands to reason that farm producers were somewhat concerned because fears had been raised for over a year. Well, Mr. Speaker, I represent Bellechasse and was given a mandate by my constituents. My majority was 10,000 in 1984, but this time around it is in excess of 17,000 votes, which represent 65 per cent of the people. I am talking about 2,300 farms, the second riding in Quebec in terms of number of farms. The first is the riding of Beauce where the 5,000 majority in 1984 swelled to 22,000. Does the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) have a clear mandate? Does the Hon. Member for Bellechasse have a clear mandate? I can mention others. The region of Saint-Hyacinthe with its 1,900 farms had a 1,200 majority in 1984 and it is now up to 9,000. Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe have a mandate? They will have to stop distorting the facts. 1 could list them all, Mr. Speaker. Those were just a few examples to show that Quebec and Canadian farm producers have just given a clear and strong mandate to our Government.

As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture said, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a major aspect of the free trade deal, which goes to show that the federal Government is quite aware of the importance of agriculture in terms of the Canadian economy, not to mention our external trade. Canada's agriculture produces in excess of $20 billion in annual income and, this bears repeating often, it accounts for one out of seven jobs in Quebec. I do not have the statistics for all of Canada, but in Quebec, one out of every seven workers is employed in the agri-food industry. This key industry is absolutely vital to all constituencies, both urban and rural.

Quebec farmers and farmers across Canada will reap profits from the Free Trade Agreement through wider markets. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass on a few comments that were made to me. Some people might accuse me and other members of my party of

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

talking at length about our respective constituencies, so I will only pass on a few comments made to me by people working in the agri-food industry. At the outset, we made firm commitments to maintain marketing boards. And we have honoured those commitments. Marketing boards will be maintained to enable milk, egg and poultry producers to remain competitive and to protect their domestic markets.

1 have a few examples of this, Mr. Speaker. First, there is the Quebec Federated Co-operative. As you know, Quebec farmers have banded together in producers' associations and co-operatives. On February 26, 1988, the director of the Quebec Federated Co-operative said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." The Federal Government has already taken major steps to make sure that the Free Trade Agreement enures to the benefit of the agri-food industry in Quebec. The final wording of the Agreement contains an explicit reference to Section 11 of the GATT. As requested, yogurt, ice cream and certain other dairy products have been put on the list of controlled imports. We made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, and we honoured that commitment. We kept our word.

Also Agrinove, an important dairy co-op in Quebec, just as Agropur is, and its General Manager said: "Although UPA suggests the agreement threatens our farming industry, Mr. Forcier, General Manager, stated during a press conference that free trade is good for our dairy industry. There is nothing in the agreement that threatens the major Canadian and Quebec policies and programs, including milk supply management."

These are dairy people speaking, Mr. Speaker, not politicians! These are people who are engaged in the day to day sale, production and marketing of agri-food products. I think we can trust them.

Also, Quebec's Minister of Agriculture and Quebec's Premier went on record as totally supporting the Free Trade Agreement. As often happens at the provincial level, sometimes there are dichotomies or opposition between major partners . . . and also opposition parties in Quebec, including Mr. Jacques Parizeau who is still President of the Parti quebecois. I am quoting him on agriculture matters. Former Minister Jacques Parizeau "felt that the farming sector exaggerates the impact of the agreement doing away with farm tarrifs. Stating he agrees with Mr. Bourassa on that matter, he pointed out that all support programs dealing with that sector remain unchanged."

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Therefore, provincial support is of real significance when both parties within one legislature are in agreement, Mr. Speaker and this indeed should make the farming industry feel secure.

I have here a whole list of people from various sectors. I felt it would be useful to quote them, so as to avoid the accusation that we politicians are reveling in our own rhetoric.

Yves Saint-Vincent, Chairman of the Quebec Joint Committee on Slaughter Breeds, expressed support, Mr. Speaker. And I am quoting a Holstein producer, Mr. Louis Desaulniers from Saint-Boniface, who said something I remembered; I will quote his words because they come quite directly from the bottom of his heart: free trade is something that motivates me! Competition makes our product better, and when we have a superior product it becomes easy to compete with our American neighbors. When you play hockey in your own backyard, you feel you are good. If you compete with the big leagues, then you learn something. It is motivating. That is what free trade is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fortin, an economics professor at the Universite du Quebec in Montreal, on another aspect also said: "It's crazy to say that social programs are threatened. Just look at Sweden. That country is the most pro-free trade of all industrialized nations and it is also the most advanced in terms of social programs. The two are not contradictory; they go together." Mr. Speaker, that is yet another example from the academic community.

Another sector, Mr. Speaker, is very important. In many ways, it is considered a leader of Quebec's economy, namely the Caisses populaires Desjardins. The president of the Mouvement des Caisses populaires Desjardins, which has billions in assets, said this fall that the future of Quebec's agriculture was fundamental to the economic health of the province and that the Agreement in its present form would allow it to continue to grow.

The president said that after requesting a full report on the whole agri-food sector.

Mr. Speaker, I could give some more quotes, but what I want to stress above all is attitude. Yes, the attitude that our Government wanted to instill in Quebecers and Canadians, Mr. Speaker!

I listened to the new Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin), who probably had to read a speech prepared some thirty years ago instead of another one- perhaps he searched through some old records. I was

horrified by what he said. He dared to say that our Party had no vision. That is the most awful thing! I jumped in my seat! We know that for the past year and a half Members opposite have been taking a negative approach. Not satisfied with fighting among themselves, their most original recommendation to Canadians was to tear up the trade deal. But in our case, Mr. Speaker, we threw a challenge to young people, to women, and to agricultural producers who are not people who feel sorry for themselves and mope all day long, unable to face competition. No, Sir, over the years these people have turned their industry into a prosperous growth-oriented undertaking which is not afraid to tackle any market in the world. That is what we needed, Mr. Speaker, a Party with a leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who did not fail to instill in the nation a vision of the future and pave the way towards the 20th century. He did not look in the rear-view mirror, scared of his own shadow like Members opposite who would drag us back 50 years into the past.

I think we were able to. . . and Canadians did understand that last November 21. They gave us a fresh mandate. They gave a fresh mandate to Canadians who know where they are going. That is what we needed, that is what Canadians needed so badly. Mr. Speaker, 1 am convinced that we will reach our objective and do so with the Canadian people. They are with us, Mr. Speaker. That is what we need and I am sure that we will be able to get where we are going and that Canada's farm community, like Canada generally, can look forward to the prosperous future it deserves.