December 20, 1988

?

An Hon. Member:

Meanwhile, let them freeze.

December 20, 1988

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   MINISTER'S POSITION
Permalink

AIRPORTS

PC

Harry Chadwick

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport and it relates to the situation at the Pearson International Airport.

In the light of the announcement by the Ministry that flight patterns during peak hours at Pearson International Airport would be changed to effect a dual runway system effective May 8 of this year for a six-month trial period, I would ask the Minister to let us know the outcome of that trial. And further, will the system continue, and for what period of time?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS
Sub-subtopic:   PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-PEAK HOUR FLIGHT PATTERNS
Permalink
LIB

Sheila Maureen Copps

Liberal

Ms. Copps:

How long will the chaos continue?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS
Sub-subtopic:   PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-PEAK HOUR FLIGHT PATTERNS
Permalink
PC

Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):

1 thank the Hon. Member for his concern in respect of this particular matter. I can confirm that the trial system of which he speaks was put in place in order to increase runway capacity at Pearson International Airport. I can also confirm that it has been successful and will remain in place.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   AIRPORTS
Sub-subtopic:   PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-PEAK HOUR FLIGHT PATTERNS
Permalink

DAY CARE

LIB

Diane Marleau

Liberal

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Thousands of Canadian children have been neglected by the Conservative Government.

During their previous mandate the Conservatives attempted to create a day care system under which a ceiling would be set on funds paid to the provinces by the central Government.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister intend to introduce day care legislation which would not set a limit on funds earmarked for such services in this country?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   DAY CARE
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE BILL WITHOUT LIMITS ON FEDERAL FUNDS PAID TO PROVINCES
Permalink
PC

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, let me first make the point that this Government has not neglected children, and any

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

statement to the effect that it has is an absolutely incorrect statement.

The fact is, government moneys going to families with dependent children have increased over the life of the Progressive Conservative Government in this country.

We have heard the criticism that family allowance payments were partially deindexed in the past. However, the critics do not factor in the child tax credit. Once the child tax credit is taken into consideration, one finds that total benefits in 1986, as a result of budgets brought down by this Government, have increased. To cite some figures, family allowance payments amounted to $780.48, and that, added to the child tax credit, a credit which is fully indexed to inflation, translates into total benefits of $1,578. For 1987, that increased to $1,642.40; and in 1988, it increases to $1,714.16.

So, the argument that this Government has done nothing for Canadian families, for Canadian children, is patently false.

In answer to her question in relation to the bringing in of a child care program that has no limits to it, I say to the Hon. Member, with all respect, that I do not think that any Government will come in with a child care program that does not have some spending requirement and some spending projections. That is absolutely important for proper fiscal planning, whether it be by the municipal, provincial, or federal level of government.

It was an expensive program that we came forward with, and if she and others feel the only way to solve this issue is through unlimited funds, I do not think that is in keeping either with the fiscal framework of the Government or the fiscal ability of Canadian taxpayers.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   DAY CARE
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE BILL WITHOUT LIMITS ON FEDERAL FUNDS PAID TO PROVINCES
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

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


The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-2, an Act to enact the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act-Mr. Crosbie- Mrs. Champagne in the Chair


PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Assistant Deputy Chairman:

When the committee was interrupted at one o'clock p.m., Clause 2 of the

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Bill was under consideration and the Elon. Member for Winnipeg South had the floor.

On Clause 2-Definitions

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

Dorothy I. Dobbie

Progressive Conservative

Ms. Dobbie:

Madam Chairman, to continue, this free trade deal is vital for western Canadians. The agreement offers us the opportunity to escape from the limited role we have enjoyed for such a long time as farmers, loggers and miners. It does that while securing our agricultural marketing systems, including our supply-management schemes, for as long as we want them. The Free Trade Agreement allows us to develop our manufacturing base, confident in the access we have secured to the huge American market which is so geographically close and which makes so much sense for us as a place to access new customers.

In Manitoba there are literally dozens of companies who compete internationally and feel free trade will give them the opportunity they need for growth. That opportunity is simply not available right now. I know of a printer of lottery tickets, for example, who has just about reached his maximum potential for sales in Canada. Currently he supplies a small but growing international market, but his largest sales opportunity is south of the border. He claims he could double his size by accessing the Chicago market alone. He knows the sales are there because he has the only installation of its kind in North America and his product has proven absolutely secure and reliable. Yet without the Free Trade Agreement, that opportunity will remain unexploited. His product is currently barred from entering the U.S. This is an old and entirely reliable printing firm and it looks to the Free Trade Agreement for its future in spite of assertions that printing is an "at risk" industry.

There are many other similar stories. In the textile industry, another industry supposedly at risk, the president of a local Winnipeg firm tells me that over 90 per cent of his product is already being exported. Free trade will simply magnify his sales capacity, and his only regret is the lengthy phase-out period of U.S. tariffs on the products he produces. Outside Winnipeg, in the tiny community of Steinback, there is a window manufacturer, the third largest in Canada. He is currently expanding his plant, gearing up for greatly increased production. He, too, looks to Chicago as the natural target for his first sales expansion.

These are comparatively small businesses and we all too frequently hear this agreement is a deal for big

businesses, its benefits will accrue to the giant multinational corporations. This is simply not true as I know from first-hand experience. Last year I served a term as President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Over 85 per cent of that organization's 1700-member firms employ fewer than 15 people. Yet the membership is overwhelmingly in favour of the Free Trade Agreement and has been since the idea was first announced. .

Small manufacturers, small business, small service people, all see the opportunities for expansion if only to supply the medium to large-size firms that will access the trade opportunities in the U.S. on a first-hand basis. Everyone, from the fellow who supplies the ink to my printer constituent, to those who service his computers, can grasp the concept that his growth will magnify their own business potential.

I guess that is enough on business because we tend to overlook the consumer, the ultimate winners in this deal, the man in the street, our friend and neighbour, the worker, the everyday people our opponents like to talk about all the time. Those people are what this agreement is all about: a better lifestyle for all Canadians. That will be achieved through more jobs, lower prices, and access to a wider variety of goods of a higher quality as competitive market forces work their magic.

The source opportunity for price reductions will come from the removal of the tariffs themselves. On certain consumer products this can be a very substantial amount, 20 per cent to 25 per cent for clothing and footwear, for example. Yet the real savings will grow out of competition in the market-place. Business, which can readily understand the economies of scale, will find ways of reducing costs in order to meet competitive pricing in the race to increase sales volume. Increased sales volume means more product, which means more people working to produce the product, which means more money to make more purchases, and so on.

I know this is pretty simple stuff for many of my hon. colleagues, but the debate we have listened to over the past few days would indicate there are those among us who do not comprehend that the free market system is the ultimate answer to prosperity for the majority and a better life for all.

In real terms, the consumer, our friends, neighbours and associates, will reap substantial financial benefits from the Free Trade Agreement. For example, the Department of Finance model places real income gains at 2.5 per cent, while the Economic Council of Canada estimates these gains may go as high as 3.3 per cent. In

December 20, 1988

dollars and cents, according to a January 1988 Consumer and Corporate Affairs study, this will mean $450 a year for low income families and as much as $800 a year for middle and higher income families.

These are some of the tangible, quantifiable benefits we can see and touch. Harder to estimate are the secondary benefits resulting from increased purchasing power and higher consumption in a more affluent society. Who can measure the social benefits that will flow from a society capable of shucking the burden of debt we inherited four years ago? Who can predict the cultural advances that will emerge in a new era of economic stability and confidence?

This is an exciting time for Canada, a time of hope and a time of progress. This agreement exemplifies the kind of Canada we will have tomorrow. It will be a Canada where the promises of opportunity and prosperity which brought our immigrant forefathers to this northern land will be fulfilled.

Let us grasp the opportunities provided to us by this agreement and use them to claim the 21st century for Canada and for our children.

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

Catherine S. Callbeck

Liberal

Ms. Callbeck:

Madam Chairman, it is with the greatest humility and respect for the traditions of this House that I rise today in the first session of Canada's Thirty-fourth Parliament. I feel truly privileged as a Canadian to have been chosen by the people of the district of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, to represent them and to bring their concerns to this House.

Parliament is the living heart of our democracy. It is the place where great decisions are made that affect the course of our history as a country. It touches the lives of every individual Canadian.

I am conscious of my responsibility as a parliamentarian to weigh every issue in terms of the effects on my country and in terms of the effects on the lives of the people of Malpeque. Those people are my special responsibility. I see it as my duty to serve their interests.

My district has been blessed by nature. It is bounded by the waters of Northumberland Strait on one side and by the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the other. In between lies some of the finest farmland in Canada, the rolling fields of fertile soil where the potatoes are the prime agricultural crop and dairy farms with herds of purebred cattle. Family farms for the present generation struggle to maintain an existence on landholdings that may go back 200 years.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

On both of Malpeque's coasts fishing villages dot the coastline. The boats go out each day that weather permits in the fishing season. They go for lobster, herring, mackerel and groundfish. Theirs, too, is an uncertain existence in the face of fishing quotas, declining stocks and on-shore markets.

The farm communities and the fishing villages are the sturdy backbone of our rural society in Malpeque. They have a deep and lasting bond with the land and the sea. They depend upon our natural environment to return a living to them year after year.

It is the unspoiled and tranquil nature of our environment that attracts many people working in Summerside and Charlottetown to live in Malpeque. It is the same natural beauty that attracts so many summer visitors to Cavendish and the other magnificent beaches on our north and south shores.

But now the people of Malpeque are threatened. They and all that they hold dear have been threatened by the trade agreement signed by the Government with the United States of America.

On November 21, the people of Malpeque, like the majority of Prince Edward Islanders and the majority of Canadians, said they did not like the trade deal. They said they wanted none of it. They said that their future as Canadians working and living in a sovereign nation was imperilled by the agreement. I am well aware that the Government won enough seats in the election to carry out its trade agreement through this House. So I suppose that is what will happen.

But my concern and the concerns of the people of Malpeque lie not only with what is included in this agreement but also with what is not included, for example, a definition of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. Up to this point that definition seems to have been set by the Americans. It goes this way: "What we do is perfectly acceptable, and what you Canadians do is not". That seems to be the essence of the Mitchell amendment. Actually, the Senator from Maine may have done us a service by signalling what the future will be like if the Americans have their way with us in the coming negotiations over subsidies.

Senator Mitchell has targeted 35 government assistance programs to our farm community which he says constitute unfair subsidy. He wants us to get rid of all of them. He wants our country to become a dumping ground for surplus American farm commodities-never mind that those commodities are produced with assistance from the United States Government, and never

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

mind that it costs our farmers more to produce farm products because they have to contend with much more severe conditions in climate.

The potato farmers of Malpeque are justly proud of the quality of their product. They sell their crops in Canada, in the United States and around the world. Prince Edward Island potatoes are second to none grown anywhere else. But this trade agreement suggests that the present duty that each country imposes will be removed over 10 years. That is fine, but the Americans want more. They are not satisfied with that clause. Now they have issued implementing legislation which authorizes the President to negotiate import quotas on Canadian products and Canadian potatoes. That is a clear signal to me and to the farm people of Malpeque that as soon as we achieve any level of success in exporting potatoes to the United States they are ready to put the clamps on us.

Senator Mitchell's amendments also go after the fishermen. Our fishery and theirs operate from two different philosophies. We manage our fishery; they do not. We assist our fishermen because we manage our fishery. We tell them when they can go fishing. We tell them how much of which kind of fish they can catch. We recognize that in an era of high costs our fishermen are limited to what kind of living they can make by man-made and natural restrictions. But that is not the American way; it is our way of dealing with a Canadian situation.

The fishermen of Malpeque and of the Atlantic provinces are entitled to Canadian solutions to Canadian problems. They will settle for nothing less. They will not accept the American way of doing things in Canada.

The question of what constitutes fair government assistance to agriculture, fishermen and other industries in the Atlantic area is a central issue in this agreement. After two years of negotiations with the Americans the Government was unable to reach an accord, even though it was one of the main objectives of the entire exercise.

We are about to see this trade deal become a reality in Canadian life. We still do not know how this central issue will be decided.

We need regional development programs in the Atlantic region. We need them so that we can help ourselves. We need them so that we can have the opportunity of participating in the prosperity of more favoured regions of the country. We are entitled to those programs because, as Canadians, we are entitled to the benefits of belonging to Canadian society stretching

from east to west from one ocean to the other and northward to the Arctic.

Already there is evidence that the regional development programs are being shaped to fit the American view. Senior civil servants have said so. I have no reason to disbelieve them.

That cannot be allowed to happen in subsidy negotiations. We must preserve the right to shape our society as we see fit. We must be prepared to fight for Canadian solutions to Canadian social and economic problems.

There is every indication that it will be us Canadians who will dance to the American tune in the name of harmonization. It is this prospect that alarms the Leader of my Party, my peers in the opposition benches and Canadians across the country.

It is not just a simple matter of retraining our people. It is not even a matter of compensating them in some way or other. It is a matter of a fundamental right as a Canadian to be able to live, work and enjoy the benefits of the Canadian society we have built over the last 120 years.

The people of Malpeque, like the people in other parts of Atlantic Canada, want no more than what is their right by virtue of being Canadian. This Government has negotiated a trade deal that puts those basic rights in peril.

The performance of the Government in protecting our social programs and defending our right to enact assistance programs as we see fit will be watched by every Canadian. I believe the trade agreement is a bad deal for Canada and for my district. The people of Malpeque said so when they chose me as their representative in this House. I see it as my duty to protect their interests as the full impact of the trade deal becomes apparent.

This is what I intend to do as one individual Member of the Parliament of Canada.

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

Albert Glen Cooper

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Cooper:

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into the debate this afternoon on this very important issue, this issue that has been the focus of attention for Canadians for several months now. As we go into this particular stage of the discussion on this Bill, it is interesting to look back and find where we were before. We sat at committee stage on this subject, the subject of free trade, a total of 16 days in the legislative committee. It was 24 days in the External

December 20, 1988

Affairs Committee. Those committee hearings added up to 300 hours. As a result of that, the issue has been very much the focus of Canadians. We are repeating that process again today. We repeat it simply because we have gone through an election period. We, as a Government, have received a mandate to proceed on this particular piece of legislation, because it was the central issue of this last campaign.

I have been surprised in the debate over the last couple of days to listen to Members from the Opposition who say time and time again that a majority of Canadians said "no" to free trade, that this Government has no mandate. Yet if we as Members in this House are to apply their rules of mandate that they seem to be using in their particular arguments, we would find that very few people in this House of Commons have a mandate to be here to represent their people. There are very few people in this room today who have over 50 per cent of their electorate backing them. Does that mean that they do not have a mandate to speak for their people? Does that mean that they do not have a right to come in here to represent their constituents by way of voting in this institution or speaking in this House of Commons? Of course not. It would be the height of absurdity if we were to accept that kind of an argument.

Then why should the opposition Members expect the Canadian people to swallow that argument hook, line and sinker all of a sudden because we did not receive over 50 per cent of the vote in this last election? This Government does have a mandate. It has a mandate by every fair standard that has been applied in the country and throughout the history of Parliaments that have existed throughout the world.

I want to touch on three or four items that I think are essential to the debate. The perspective that I want to bring to the discussion is that of the Member of Parliament for the riding of Peace River, an Albertan and a western Canadian. I believe that this particular debate is an issue that has been absolutely fundamental to western Canadians for a long time. If I were to stop and ask western Canadians what has been the one issue that has been a frustration, a point of anger, not in recent weeks and months but for years and decades, they would say that one problem that they have lived with all this time has been the question of tariffs. Those tariffs were never seen as being put in place to protect the people of Peace River or the people of Alberta. They were never put in place to protect westerners. They were put in place to protect industries that were not located in that part of our country.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

I really do believe that this issue is fundamental to western Canadians. It is fundamental because of those tariffs. We have wanted, since the beginning of Confederation, since the western provinces became a part of this country, to work on a level playing field. We have asked for equal opportunity. Give us equal opportunity. Give us an equal chance. We believe that we can compete successfully with any competition that exists. Instead, as long as those tariffs have remained in place, we have been confined to the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Why? Because those tariffs have never been fair to our products. It is very simple reasoning. It is not just the Americans.

It is the Japanese and the Europeans. In fact, it is the Canadians as well. We are quite prepared to let other peoples' raw materials come into our country with a very small tariff if we can process those goods, but if they want to ship us processed goods, then we want a high protection. That is exactly what has been happening in western Canada for decades. It was quite easy for us to sell the raw oil, the raw natural gas, the raw lumber, but when we wanted to start processing those products, then immediately they faced a much higher tariff barrier than the raw material. As a result, there is a frustration that is very deep-rooted within western Canada.

We have wanted to diversify our economy. That is why this Government has developed programs like the Western Diversification Program. Why? Because we want to broaden our base. We want new opportunities for western Canadians. We do not simply want to be producers of raw materials. We want also to be the producers and the manufacturers of those raw materials. We want to create those jobs and that investment, and we want to keep it in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. We do not want to export those jobs to the United States, to Japan, to the European Common Market. We want to keep them at home. Why? Because we want a future for our young people. I really believe that that is one of the fundamental issues in this debate.

There is another little bit of history that I think western Canadians particularly want to talk a little bit about, and that is the history of being afraid of the Americans. Speaking from the perspective of an Albertan, I think that oil and gas is an important part of our economy. Not only is it an important part of our economy, but it has taught us a good deal about how we can relate to our American neighbours. When we develop that oil and gas, we do it with the co-operation and the help of the American people. It was they who

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

provided us much of the capital that we needed in those early days. It was they who provided us with the equipment. It was they who provided us with the technical knowledge and the understanding that we needed to develop this product that has since become so fundamental to our economy. That taught us that we did not have to be afraid of the Americans. We did not have to run and hide every time we heard the word "American". We did not have to be cowards.

We learned that we could work with them, compete with them and in fact could teach them some things they needed to learn. For example, within the oil and gas sector in western Canada today there are several western Canadians involved in training Americans in the latest technology and techniques. That is why western Canadians have a lot of confidence in our ability to compete with the Americans and other countries throughout the world.

Let me explain some of the benefits I believe the Free Trade Agreement will bring to the West. My riding is essentially a perfect snapshot of western Canada. That area has a strong agricultural base, a strong and developing forestry industry, and a strong energy industry both in oil and gas. We also have the shale tar sands project which involves us in the synthetic oil industry. My riding, which includes all those fundamental resource economies that exist in western Canada, is probably one of the best examples to illustrate what will happen to the region as a result of free trade.

The Canada West Foundation conducted a study of every riding in western Canada to examine the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on each constituency. The study on Peace River resulted in the astonishing statistic that 99.5 per cent of all the jobs within the riding of Peace River would have either a positive or a neutral impact as a result of free trade. I cannot think of a single investment opportunity or program that could give better prospects for the people of the Peace country than that. It is absolutely astounding that such an initiative could result in a positive impact on 99.5 per cent of the jobs in the area.

It is understandable why this initiative is so important to the people in the Peace country and, I believe, to the rest of western Canada. When one considers such an impact on my riding, which I suggest is a snapshot of western Canada, it is obvious why the debate we are engaged in today is so important.

One of the difficulties we face in Canada is that this is a big country with a small and scattered population. Anyone who wants to develop successfully a large industry obviously needs a large market. In Canada, that large market exists primarily in the so-called Golden Triangle of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. In order to gain access to a big market one must be able to reach that market. We in the West are isolated because that market is some 4,000 miles away. The cost of servicing that market is incredible.

The Free Trade Agreement provides another opportunity for western Canadians, including Albertans in my area, that did not previously exist to the same degree. That opportunity is the market in California. It comprises roughly the same population as that of all of Canada, some 26 million. That market is only 1,500 miles from my constituency, which is half the distance to the major market in Canada.

One gas pipeline from the Elmworth gas field in my riding to the State of California and Los Angeles would have the same effect as my riding gaining access to the entire Canadian market from coast to coast. It is no wonder that we believe this initiative is so important. It is a market that gives us an opportunity to move away from our traditional role of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Suddenly we can see the potential to become the processors of our goods and materials. We can begin to develop the secondary industries that we have longed dreamed of.

The Free Trade Agreement will also be of great benefit to consumers in my riding. During the last election I decided to buy a new pair of cowboy boots-a requirement of every Albertan- to replace my worn out pair. Since we were in the middle of an election that involved the free trade debate, I thought perhaps I should wait and buy the boots after free trade is adopted because of the difference in price. In fact, when I learned of the tariffs that applied to goods like those boots, I was tempted to wait until January 2 to buy them.

The gentleman who sold me the boots said that there was a tariff of approximately 40 per cent on boots, saddles and all his leather goods. The agreement will have a major impact on his operation. We can multiply my experience as a consumer thousands of times each day of the week to realize the goods we will have available to us without the restriction of a quota.

A retailer in my constituency once told me that he wanted to increase his quota of cowboy boots because he

December 20, 1988

could easily sell what he had. However, he could not obtain any more because of the restrictions placed on him by the quotas. We as consumers will see those goods available at a cheaper price as well as in greater quantities. That is very important.

In my riding the Free Trade Agreement will have a positive or neutral impact on 99.5 per cent of the jobs. That means those jobs will be secure and will continue to exist. In addition, those of us who are working will have other goods available to us at cheaper costs.

We should also consider just what are the alternatives to the Free Trade Agreement. 1 was surprised that while there is much discussion about this agreement we did not see the Liberals or the New Democrats come forward with well defined alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition said that his solution was to tear up the agreement and proceed on a sector by sector basis. However, the Liberal Minister responsible for that area prior to 1984 said that the sector by sector negotiations did not work. That was not an alternative.

What is the other alternative, to let the tariffs continue to exist? As a western Canadian, I would say that that means our opportunity to succeed, to grow and to develop has been delayed that much longer. It is no alternative to leave the existing tariffs in place. It is no alternative for us to think that we as a country can survive, grow and develop by putting fences around ourselves. That is not the kind of world we are living in today.

The world that we are living in today is a world based on competition, a world based on adjustment and a world based on confidence. I think that is what this agreement is all about. It is our perception of ourselves as Canadians. Are we confident that we can compete with the American and other economies throughout the world? Are we confident that we can adjust and change to the dynamics of a changing, growing, evolving economy? Are we confident in ourselves? Are we confident in our country? Are we confident in our ability to compete with the Americans?

Canada is a very young country, a country with a tremendous future, a country that is prepared to take risks, a country that is full of dreams and visions and a country that has ambitions. I believe that the real bottom line to our success in the last election was that we talked about those visions and we showed Canadians how free trade could give them those opportunities. That, I think, is why this Government has been given the

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

mandate it has today to proceed on the question of free trade.

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

Jack Iyerak Anawak

Liberal

Mr. Anawak:

Madam Chairman, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House of Commons today to deliver my first speech as the Member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq. I will be delivering some of my speech in Inuktitut, and there is an interpreter present ready to translate it.

I would like to thank the people of Nunatsiaq, the beautiful land, for having placed their trust and confidence in me. I want to assure them that I will work on their behalf with sincerity and dedication, in unity and co-operation, toward improving the quality of life in the North, and I hope to represent them in future Parliaments as well.

The Prime Minister's haste to accommodate the President of the United States in passing the free trade legislation prevented me from taking my seat in this House along with the other elected Members on Monday, December 12. In recalling Parliament so soon after the election, the Prime Minister neglected the North, and consequently, my riding of Nunatsiaq, as he has done for the past four years.

I can assure the Government that the time of taking the North for granted, as was done in the Thirty-third Parliament, is over. All too often, the concerns of northerners have been neglected, ignored or overridden, and I intend to remind the Government constantly, in co-operation with my colleague from the Western Arctic, that the people of the North deserve to be treated as Canadians and should be able to access the services southern Canadians take for granted such as medical, dental, travel and banking services.

There are 33 communities in my riding, and some of them receive a dental service visit twice a year if they are lucky, a plane once a week, weather permitting, and a pediatrician once every six months. I am sure you are getting the idea, Madam Chairman, of how isolated the North is. We have just two banks in the entire area and one of them does not even offer computerized services.

Perhaps a short geography lesson would be helpful. Nunatsiaq is the largest constituency in Canada. It covers an area of approximately 1.3 million square miles or 3.3 million square kilometres. It stretches from Tuktoyaktuk, which is almost directly north of Vancouver, British Columbia, to Pangnirtung, almost directly north of Fredericton, New Brunswick. It encompasses three time zones, Eastern, Central and Mountain.

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

During the election campaign, I travelled approximately

20,000 miles, give or take a couple of hundred miles.

Nunatsiaq, which means the beautiful land, is not, contrary to popular belief, bleak and barren. Its scenery can compete with any world tourist attraction. If you do not believe me, Madam Chairman, I invite you to come up to Auyuittuq National Park and Pangnirtung, the Kazan Falls at Baker Lake, or to canoe down the Coppermine River.

Northerners do not want hand-outs from the Government. All we want is a chance to compete with southern businesses in our territory and to become self-sufficient.

The Government must understand that the North is very wary of the Free Trade Agreement. We are worried that we will not be able to compete with American firms which, because of their size, can undercut us, and certain tenders that are over $33,000 will be fair game for the Americans.

The economic future of the Northwest Territories should not be approached by focusing on the problems of the area: long distances, harsh climate, limited services and a small population base. The Northwest Territories should not be considered a burden on the rest of Canada.

We in the North focus on the opportunities and the potential of our area, emphasizing the wealth of resources, the beauty of the land and our strategic position in Canada's claim to Arctic sovereignty. We encourage the Government to take the same approach. The Northwest Territories is an asset to Canada, economically, socially and politically. We can make a great contribution to the prosperity of this nation if Canada will invest in us.

Development of policies which address changes in regulatory regimes, tax structures, fiscal policy, grant programs and the provision of appropriate supportive infrastructure will go a long way toward ensuring prosperity for the Northwest Territories and hence for Canada. The North must have access to programs and policies similar to the ones used in the initial development of our provinces. We require incentives, subsidies and rebates that will put us on an equal footing with the rest of Canada.

This requires substantial input, but this must be viewed as an investment, whether it is promoting tax measures and reward incentives, developing a resource base of qualified northerners to satisfy the workforce requirements of our expanding northern economy,

encouraging northern participation in the non-renewable resource base industry via publicly traded companies, or exploring linkages between the mining industries and other industries such as tourism and arts and crafts. (English translation from Inuktitut:)

In the area of tourism, more work should be done in education and training, and this should be public sector driven. In the area of transportation, we need an improved and expanded road system and our airport facilities need to be upgraded.

We need to equalize costs with southern markets for transportation, communications, wages, housing and CMHC mortgages. We have to resolve the ownership of land, streamline and consolidate existing government programs and develop a one-window approach.

The people of Nunatsiaq have a very high unemployment rate. Seal hunting and carving are used to supplement incomes. However, we all know what happened to the sealskin market because of Greenpeace and Brigitte Bardot. The collapse of this market destroyed the economy of many Inuit communities as well as that of Newfoundland.

Less widely known is the effect of the United States Marine Mammals Protection Act on the northern and native economy. Passed in 1972, this Act prohibits Canadian northern and native people from exporting sealskin, ivory, whalebone or polar bear skins into the United States.

An exemption from this Act should have been obtained by the Canadian Government during the Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Such an exemption would have a very beneficial impact on the northern economy. But the exemption was not achieved and it seems the Government was not willing to pursue it. Was it because the North did not have enough influence or economic muscle that this issue was not pushed harder?

The Inuit will not be any better off with the passage of the free trade legislation. Why is it that the Alaskan Inuit are exempt from this Act but the Canadian Inuit are not? It certainly is not because the seals or walrus are endangered. The quotas for polar bear hunting are strictly enforced. So the polar bear is not endangered in the world. What is it that the Government is going to do to help Inuit who rely on hunting to sustain themselves? I am certain that the Government of Canada would want to see the Inuit self-sufficient and not totally

December 20, 1988

dependent on social programs. The Canadian Government must put pressure on the American Government to exempt Canadian native people from the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Government of Canada and the Inuit are in negotiations toward a land claims agreement which could establish the Inuit as the largest landowners in Canada. Let us hope that the resources upon which their economic prosperity depends are not diminished by the Free Trade Agreement.

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

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Butland:

I thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this issue for the one-hundredth time but for the first time in this House. People in my constituency of Sault-Ste-Marie, 29,000 strong, voted against my predecessor and the only issue of which they spoke was the Free Trade Agreement.

Our major industry suggested that 1,000 jobs would be lost if the Algoma Steel employees did not vote Progressive Conservative. The President of Dofasco said there would be no expansion if the Free Trade Agreement did not come to pass. The Chamber of Commerce and the media openly endorsed the Free Trade Agreement and predicted doom if Sault-Ste-Marie did not support free trade. A whole series of Cabinet Ministers, many of whom are across the aisle, including the Prime Minister, came into Sault-Ste-Marie. These were powerful forces at work, but the people of Sault-Ste-Marie did not listen and said in a democratic way, "We do not believe you. We do not trust you. We are troubled by the Free Trade Agreement".

I campaigned long and hard against the free trade and I believe it in my heart, my head and most of all in my gut that this is a bad deal.

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

Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration; Minister responsible for the Status of Women)

Progressive Conservative

Mrs. McDougall:

Are you going to read us some more American poetry?

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

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Butland:

As I say, I hope against hope that the deal will bring prosperity to my community. I must because I care for my city and its people, I hope that all the promises of prosperity will come to fruition because it will be of little consolation for me to say, "I told you so". I hope this leap of faith will, indeed, be a leap which will land us somewhere and not in to an abyss. I prefer to believe Leo Gerard who said, when addressing the steel industry.

They'll ship on their subsidized barges and their de-regulated

trucks and then over our border on free trade.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

This steel will originate in non-union mini mills in the southern United States. The acceptance and endorsement of this deal is the most dramatic turnaround in political history, and that prompts anyone to ask why. What changed all of these people's minds? Who are these people and which Party do they espouse? I suggest it is a very notable list.

The Prime Minister,who said, "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it"; the External Affairs Minister, who said, "Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear"; the Minister of Finance, who said, "Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive"; the former Secretary of State, David Crombie, who said, "Our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sisters"; ex Veterans' Affairs Minister, George Hees, who said, "A clear indication of a move toward free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for this country"; the Ontario Conservative Leader, Andy Brandt, who said, "Taking a multilateral route in trade negotiations is the best long-term way for Canada"; former Ontario Leader, Larry Grossman, who said, "I contend it would be a mistake for anyone to have excessively high expectations about the results of any trade arrangements with the United States." It goes on. Then there was Tory strategist, Hugh Segal, but the piece de resistance was former Ontario Premier Bill Davis, who said: "You will not get me". Six months later he said: "What a courageous course of action by the federal Government".

Did a bolt of lightning strike in so many places at once as to profoundly affect the way such so-called learned politicians read into such an agreement? It makes anyone wonder about the credibility of people who espouse the deal now but who were vehemently opposed just a few scant years ago.

Have we not precluded ourselves from the international world of business?

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

Some Hon. Members:

No.

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

December 20, 1988