December 20, 1988

NDP

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Butland:

I believe we have. We have tied Canada to a unilateral market, one that will indeed swallow us up, as Mr. Yeutter has said. The Government has cut back on the very budget that could rescue us from economic domination, and that is research and development.

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The Right Hon. Prime Minister in his book, Where I Stand,-he stands in many places-but where he stood, said:

The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit... Research and development, and the resulting innovations are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.

So the Prime Minister called for a 20 per cent funding increase for the National Research Council and he promised to double Canada's research and development debt by the end of his first mandate. What did he do? He decreased the amount.

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

Some Hon. Members:

False.

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

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Butland:

It is not false. What of the reconciliation, the healing process of which the Prime Minister speaks? There was no thought to entertaining any amendments to the Free Trade Agreement no matter how innocuous. Specifically, our Amendment No. 14 to Bill C-2 states that the Bill should be amended immediately after line 7 at page 4. For greater certainty the Government will bring immediately trade adjustment legislation for those dislocated as a result of the agreement.

The tribunal that we would form should be made up of representatives from government, business, workers, communities, and other interested groups. The tribunal shall receive and investigate representations from groups of companies and workers who believe that they are or are likely to be adversely affected by subsided U.S. imports, including those provided by the U.S. Defense Department. The tribunal shall report annually to Parliament on the status of adjustment to the agreement and make recommendations for improving the process. None of this will be heard in the appropriate forum.

The wounds are only deeper as a result of this process that we are going through. We are speaking to be heard, but I am sure that no one is listening.

Professor Ross A. Rotstein of the University of Toronto said it perfectly when he stated: "Sometimes I suspect that members of the free trade camp are so intoxicated by the classical free trade rhetoric that they find it hard to come down to earth and look at the specifics of the agreement".

Let me look at the specifics. For example, Article 1602-national treatment of Americans; Article 604- harmonization of laws; Article 1902-either party can

change anti-dumping laws or countervail duties at any time.

The bottom line will be the loss of our unique Canadian identity. This will happen over time. One does not lose one's identity over a short period of time but over a long period of time. I believe that it will happen. If we will not monitor changes as they occur, put on the blinders and ignore what is happening, it surely will happen. In some areas it will be imperceptibly, and in other areas it will be dramatically. We are genuinely fearful. It indeed is a leap of faith rather than a leap of trust. When one takes a leap one ensures that there is a safety net or a cord to keep him or her from straying too far into whatever abyss there is. Neither is provided by the Government.

In conclusion, I hope Members opposite are correct. If they are wrong, they will have committed the ultimate treason. It will be small consolation that history books will condemn them. I pray Members opposite are right for the sake of Canada.

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

Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):

Madam Chairman, I would also like to take part in this debate. For some days we have been hearing the Opposition pretend they are protecting the people, they are protecting Canadians. I would rather call that confusing the people, confusing workers, and this is what I have to say to Opposition Members: If you are serious, get on with the work, because business people are paying taxes and in order to pay taxes they must work.

While politicians are talking, Madam Chairman, business people must pay taxes. In order to pay taxes, they have to do business. If no taxes are paid, we are in for a frightening deficit first as it was under the Liberals.

Corporations, business people have a responsibility to manage well their businesses and make profits. I know Socialists condemn profits. The same thing for everybody, everybody poor, everybody on the same footing. Everyone with a Lada. That is their business! I remember that during the election campaign my former friend and colleague Phil Edmonston was the only one who declared the Lada the car of the year. That was really something. As a garage operator with some 20 years' experience, I can tell you that if there is one car you should stay away from, that is it. We even refused to gas it up, so bad it was. Those people declared it the car of the year. And now they pretend they will to protect Canadians!

December 20, 1988

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

An Hon. Member:

What are they driving?

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

Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Della Noce:

I noticed that some of my colleagues have very beautiful cars.

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

An Hon. Member:

The Socialists?

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

Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Della Noce:

Yes. Others ride bicycles they tie up here on the side. To show they are poor. But I am sure they take the same salary as we capitalists here do, on this side of the House.

Madam Chairman, I would like to say at the start that free trade is something important to us, Quebecers-it is vital for Quebec. It is vital because as we know, more than 75 per cent of our exports go to the United States.

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

An Hon. Member:

Did Mr. Edmonston know that?

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

Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Della Noce:

Mr. Edmonston comes from the United States. We have been stuck with him for 20

years.

In 1986, the value of exports reached $16 billion. Quebec's exports are mainly composed of the following. Listen to this, because it is important. Newsprint cars, aluminium, telecommunications equipment, ore, ore concentrates, iron concentrate, timber, softwood pulp, rail equipment, urban transportation, machines, machinery and, of course, hydro-electric power in Quebec.

Now, I would like to quote one of my colleagues who spoke on Friday, as I liked what he had to say: How could it be said that the people have decided? Even now, I hear that we received a greater number of votes, more than . . . Their calculations are so bad that 1 only made a cursory analysis. Let's look at the vote counts for the three party leaders-I chose the three leaders because they are the most widely known and got the most coverage nation-wide. First, the leader of the NDP, who likes to use figures and vote counts. As my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), said the other night, the leader of the unofficial opposition received 18,400 votes. The Liberal candidate got 14,000 votes and the leader of the NDP,

18,000 votes. The other candidates got 14,000 and 8,000 votes respectively. If you add those two figures together, you get 22,000 votes.

So the leader of the New Democratic Party should not be sitting in the House. He should go home.

The leader of the Official Opposition only received 20,400 votes. He was the one who said: Let the people

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

decide! The Conservative candidate running against him received 14,235 votes and the NDP candidate, 10,000. If you add these two figures together- which does not require the assistance of an accountant-you get a total of 24,500, which means that in view of the 20,000 votes he received, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition should not be sitting here.

So I go on to the third example, our leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), who had 33,729 votes; the Liberal got only 5,900 and the poor NDP-it is true that they are not strong in Quebec-just 1,800. This means that if there is a leader and if the people have decided, well, we have a leader who got 81 per cent of the vote. That means something.

That is why, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the fine words that my colleague said in Latin. I am sure that when you were young, you studied humanities and took courses in which you certainly heard some great Roman sayings. I am originally from that village, that great village which is Rome.

My colleague used a very apt quotation when he said, and I quote page 242 of Hansard, Roma locuta, causa finita. This means that when Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. That used to be applied only to what the Pope said. When the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, speaks in Rome, that's that, it's done.

Well, here in Canada, the final authority is the Canadian people and when they speak, that's that. Why waste time? Why complicate matters? Why tell us

stories?

Madam Speaker, I also want to quote a letter that I received. But pay attention-it is quite something.

It was sent by messenger to me in Montreal, by a great citizen, a businessman from Montreal in the Province of Quebec, a Canadian of Italian origin, a prosperous businessman who can work anywhere in the country because for him, Canada is important, and Canada is not just Quebec City or Vancouver, but the whole country. He wrote to me, "Dear Mr. Della Noce: ..." I would like this to be on record; I want it to be there for my friends opposite to know about it.

I am a Canadian with strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and it is not easy for me as a Liberal to write and tell you that I agree fully with one of your party's policies.

I refer to your party's policy on free trade which 1 support heartily for the following reasons:-

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

And he then set out nine reasons. He is a businessman, and not a socialist. He is a businessman. He makes money. He pays taxes and he creates jobs.

When we arrived in Ottawa after the 1984 election, I recall the Opposition saying: "You promised jobs, jobs, jobs."

Well, we have created jobs, jobs, jobs. We have created 1.3 million new jobs. We no longer here the Opposition talking about jobs.

Let me quote the writer's reasons. They are as follows:

1) Free trade should, in my mind, be universal and thus must begin within one continent.

2) When two countries like Canada and the United States are so complementary, free trade can only be good for both.

3) To me, Canadian trade policies have for too long been protective with the result of an artificial economic environment: damaging productivity and creativity. Thus Canadians have been denied the opportunity to compete and succeed better.

4) As a Canadian 1 look forward to more opportunities and when access to consumers goes from one to ten, so do the opportunities.

5) Culture is hard to define. Canadian culture is in constant evolution. We must face the fact that survival as a people and as a country would not be attained by isolating ourselves economically.

And those sitting on the other side of this House do not know what the word "economically" means. To those in this country in business, it is an important word.

He goes on:

6) I have faith in my fellow citizens and in their ability to adapt and succeed. When opportunities are offered, Canadians who are ready to work, learn, compete and prosper will mold the future of this country.

7) Canadian consumers are now paying a premium on a great number of products. The liberalization of economic activities through free trade can only result in lower product costs and an improved standard of living. The Canadian consumers will profit from free trade.

8) True, some sectors are doomed and some jobs will be lost in them. Flowever, for one job lost, two will surely be created in new or enlarged sectors.

This person knows what he is talking about.

9) Canadians of Italian descent appreciate what their fathers have done. Like most Canadians, our ancestors left their country looking for opportunity in a new land where a future could be built for themselves and their children. Let us not lose the guts and the initiative of our ancestors. 1 have not lost them; I am for free trade.

And he signs, "Sincerely yours"-though he should have signed "progressively yours". The writer's name is Luigi Liberatore.

This is an individual who once said to me: "Though I am a Liberal, I like what your Party is doing. This time, 1 think I am going to vote for you." And I said to Luigi: "If you vote for me, you vote for prosperity." And what kind of a car does he drive today?-a Mercedes Benz.

And he is going to keep driving a Mercedes Benz. He will continue to be prosperous. His business will continue to grow.

I told Luigi that a vote for me would mean that the country would go forward and prosper. I told him that my Leader needed all of the seats in Quebec that he could get.

We have seen the "57-43" buttons worn by members of the New Democratic Party. They think that if they add the votes cast for the Liberals to those cast for the NDP, that that somehow constitutes a victory for them. Well, we in the Quebec caucus should all be wearing "63-0" buttons, because you guys got zero in Quebec. And if that is not a majority, what is?

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to point at my socialist colleagues all the time, but they were the ones who came to sow fear in our area. They thought they could gain their first seat in Duvernay. I commend the people in Duvernay for having made the right choice, because it would have been a terrible thing to live with a NDP seat in Quebec. And my comrade Agnaieff or the other one, I can tell you they tried very hard to scare people, to scare businesses. They told them: Vote for me, they are going to tax your profits. What a nice, a smart thing to say! But they did not even get 15 per cent of the votes. They did not finish first, they finished third.

And I would also like to quote another important person in Quebec who is awaiting free trade, someone many of my colleagues know-Mr. Peladeau,

Quebecor's president. Look at what Mr. Peladeau said-Weaklings will complain that the Americans are coming here, but it is us who must go to the United States. He is not a weakling, he started from scratch. You know how he started, I explained it again here in this House the other night. For the benefit of those who are absent: He was $2 000 short when he wanted to establish his first printing shop. Two thousand dollars was not the end of the world ten years ago. Imagine, while his mother was away on holidays, Mr. Pierre Peladeau sold his mother's piano to get his first cash

December 20, 1988

flow. When his mother came back she asked: Where is the piano, Pierre? He answered, I needed money, Ma, to start my first printing shop and I sold the piano because we are not using it anymore, we are working.

But now, Mr. Peladeau has a $2 billion sales figure. That's right, $2 billion in Quebec! It would be bad if he would close his business because a lot of people work there. And then you would have reason to complain that Peladeau, Quebecor closed down. You would do like Gillette. It is funny you do not mention the good things. You referred to Gillette. You are late, because people have been talking of Gillette's closure for years.

You could look up La Presse of December 9. Alain Dubuc, I think, one of Quebec's major columnists, described it very well when he wrote: It is beyond me that people would still be talking about closures like Gillette's, because we know that Gillette has been closing down plants around the world, including the United States, including France. You should be listening, Opposition Members-the tremor that happened at the other end was caused by free trade once more! Come now! Talk about IBM, talk about the other investments. But you don't take people ... It would appear that you no longer have any respect for the people who elected you because those people said: Go for free trade, no matter what. Go for it. The figures don't matter, even when they are higher. What you need to represent the people of Canada is a seat.

When I look at all that was said during the election campaign, by the leaders and others... I'll just quote a couple of them who were here. They wanted an election, and one was held, but unfortunately, they are no longer here. Lynn McDonald, for example, said: We want an election. Consult the people of Canada right now by calling an election. Well, she got what she wanted and now she's gone, gone somewhere where the air is fresh and clean. The people have decided and she has decided. Her decision has brought some good people to this side of the House. Another member, who is still with us, said: Call an election. Let's go to the people. And that is what we did. Then, there was the former mayor of Ottawa, Mrs. Dewar, who said recently: An election must be called immediately to let the people of Canada decide on this issue.

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

An Hon. Member:

She had an election.

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

Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Della Noce:

She had an election. She got her chance, she had an election, she is no longer here, she is gone. People said to themselves that they wanted prosperity in Ottawa. Canadians are not stupid, they are

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

capable of reaching a decision, they are intelligent enough. It does not matter what happens between elections.

I checked around my constituency when the polls favoured the NDP. People had a mild reaction. The NDP thought it would make a clean sweep of all ridings.

I met one of them during the election campaign and he asked me what I and my Quebec colleagues would do after losing the election. Another one kept repeating that our days were numbered. Yet a third one boasted about winning a majority. Another one was sure he would be a Minister, so he had already re-awarded the frigate contracts. He had taken them away from New Brunswick and given them to Montreal. He too is no longer here, but we all know he wanted an election, he was from Ottawa Centre.

That is what we hear from the other side every day, but they forget to talk about the basic issues, projects to help Quebec or another province. Other provinces stand to benefit, not only Quebec.

I should like to refer to the Economic Council of Canada report released on April 13, 1988 which commented on the various aspects of free trade and featured a regional breakdown of increased employment opportunities. Here are the figures concerning Quebec. For example, they predicted a 1.8 per cent increase in the number of new jobs, up 58,000; 94,900 new jobs in Ontario; 50,900 in the Prairies; 17,700 in the Atlantic Provinces, and 28,900 in British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I am saying to these people: You wanted an election, you had one! Perhaps it did not quite turn out as you expected, but that is the way it goes! Now that the people have decided, have faith in them and tell them you are here to help them, not to make life tougher for them.

Members opposite are acting as if they were saying: Protect Canadians, but they are holding them back, dragging them 20 years back.

You know, if I were on the other side I would probably not be smiling as my colleague on the other side is doing as he signals to me. He can hardly wait for me to shut up. I understand that hurts! But my hon. colleague should understand one thing: Not only has the Liberal Party prevented the country from moving forward .. . He knows that well because he is of the same origin as I am; he is of Italian origin and his party prevented Italy from selling Italian shoes in Canada. They imposed

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

quotas.. . Now he is leaving-I understand why. It must be embarrassing to do things like that!

We in the Conservative Party said that we like competition and that Canadians can be competitive because Canadians and Quebecers are not afraid. They are eager to do business in the United States. But listening to them, sometimes I look at myself and wonder whether I am really as good as that, because they do not stop defending us by saying that we will be in for trouble and that it will not work. We will come up with a new name for their party. Their party should be called the "Won't Work" Party. Why try? My friend Jean-Marc Chaput always said so! It won't work, we'll stay as we are, say nothing, get hit on the head and say nothing.

But stop saying that it won't work. It will work, we are already the best. We look at ourselves in the mirror every morning and say, "We Quebecers are not afraid of taking on the United States." I have been going to the United States for 20 years. I worked in the States, I was a racing car mechanic and we went as fast with 307 engines as the Americans did with 327's. The Americans would come to see us and ask how we did it. Besides, we did not have money. Well, we tried to get the most out of our production and we did it with our hands and our head. And we told-I know, Madam Speaker, I must conclude-the Americans:

We work harder than you and we try to do better than you because you are very rich and that is the only way in which we can compete, try to get the maximum for our energy.

Madam Speaker, I would like the House to do the impossible, to give a chance to the Canadians who elected us so that we can pass this free trade bill. Let the socialists stop frightening people, because they will always drive Ladas and we want to ride in Mercedes. That is the difference.

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

Beryl Gaffney

Liberal

Mrs. Gaffney:

Madam Chairman, I stand here today as one of the newly elected Members of Parliament. It is a great honour and privilege to represent my riding of Nepean in this most prestigious House. I would like to thank those constituents who gave me such a strong mandate, and I hope I can also earn the trust of those who did not.

As an elected member of Nepean City Council and also Ottawa-Carleton Regional Government for the past ten years, one of the things I quickly learned is that the concerns, the thoughts, the wishes of the people are the ones that elected officials should never ignore. Through this, my maiden speech, it is appropriate to take advantage of the time allocated to me to convey the concerns of the constituents of Nepean.

Those constituents who elected me did so for many reasons. Their overwhelming opposition to this trade agreement, however, was far and above the major reason. Time and time again at doors across my riding I heard one thing: "I am against this trade deal as it is written".

We all know the trade deal will probably pass this House and be ratified. However, I hope that the newly elected Government of Canada is a compassionate Government and will recognize that the agreement is not perfect, it has weaknesses, that loopholes must be plugged, safeguard measures should be implemented, and that this Government has been elected to serve not only those who voted for it but also those who indicated a great deal of trepidation about this agreement.

This debate should not be considered to be a waste of time. Far from it. This debate is as crucial as ever because the debate and the speeches on this side of the House reflect not only our responsibility towards those who elected us, but are a form of notice to the Government that we are watching and we want it to be sensitive.

The mandate 1 received from the riding of Nepean is all the more remarkable for two reasons. First, because Nepean, or to be more precise the former riding of Nepean-Carleton, is traditionally a Conservative riding. Second, the proponents of the deal have expressed the conception that Nepean is the kind of riding that has the most to benefit from this trade agreement. Yet despite those two facts, the residents of Nepean voted against the Government and against its trade deal.

Why? I believe the overwhelming majority of Nepean residents voted against this deal not because of any particular animosity toward the Government, but because the residents of Nepean-who, by the way, are a most representative group of Canadian constituents- looked at the deal, examined it and the information pertaining to it, and made up their own minds. The residents of Nepean, as did 52 per cent of all Canadians,

December 20, 1988

decided the deal was not good for Canada and not good for Nepean.

That was and is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, Liberals oppose this proposed deal because we believe when you examine it and scrutinize it in detail, you come to the conclusion it is not good enough for Canada. We believed and still believe that the costs outweigh the benefits, as do the residents of my riding.

The majority of senior citizens in my riding oppose this deal. The majority of youth in my riding oppose this deal. The majority of public servants in my riding oppose this deal, as do the majority of small business people. The majority of women in Nepean oppose this deal.

The senior citizens of Nepean oppose it because as much as they like the United States of America, they do not want to become part of it. As much as many of them enjoy spending some of the cold winter months in Florida, they remain and want to remain Canadian, for our pension plans, our medicare, and for our more caring society. The youth of Nepean oppose this deal because they have pride in their country and enough confidence in themselves to decide their own destiny. What they want from the Government of Canada is increased funding for our educational institutions and new job training in skills development areas.

The Public Servants of Nepean oppose this deal because they know that their ability to formulate independent domestic policy is hindered by it. The small business people of Nepean oppose it because at best it detracts the Government from their concerns.

This leads me to the second major fact I wish to discuss-the clear misconception on the part of the Government that the free trade deal is a good deal for Canada's high-tech industry. I am correct in using the term "misconception" because Nepean, as most people know, is Canada's high-tech capital. And Nepean voted against this deal.

I ask for the attention of my colleagues opposite because I know Canadian companies are competitive in world markets. This deal will do more harm to our future international competitiveness than any other piece of government legislation in the history of our proud and growing nation. My hon. colleagues on the opposite side of this House must come to realize that Members on this side of the House oppose this deal

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

precisely because we have faith in Canada's ability to compete.

Canada's corporate success stories have become success stories partially because of government financial assistance, the type of assistance that is now precluded by this trade deal. Many Canadian companies have become successful because of heavy investments in R and D, excellent products, the foresight to take advantage of market opportunities when they arise and belief in Canadian companies by the Government of Canada.

Now that they have made it, these corporate people, it is all well and good for major corporations to be in favour of this trade deal because they have transcended national boundaries. These corporations are now multinationals. For them, anything that removes barriers to the free flow of capital components and workers, anything that gives more flexibility to respond to world markets, is a good thing.

Unfortunately, what this Government fails to recognize is that what is good for Canada's successful multinationals is not necessarily good for Canada or Canadians. What Canada needs is more corporate success stories. Sadly, this deal is going to make this much harder to achieve, not easier.

What I ask my fellow Hon. Members to ponder is how we are going to help to create the corporate successes that we had of yesterday and how we are going to create them tomorrow when we have willingly tied our hands behind our backs. How are we going to become world leaders in fields such as environmental technology when with the other hand we have slashed government R and D and corporate R and D tax incentives, and are then left helpless to designate a Canadian company as a preferred supplier, or give preferential treatment to companies in certain sectors or certain regions of the country? I do not know. What terrifies me is that I do not think that the Government knows either.

I for one am not of the opinion that either my constituency or my country are best served by reliving the election here. Neither am I one who subscribes to the view that this deal is an unmitigated disaster that will destroy Canada tomorrow. I am enough of an optimist to hope that the present Government may realize the folly of its ways and take the measures to correct them.

What I sincerely hope for is that in the second phase of trade negotiations which relate to the definition of subsidies the Government works harder to protect Canadian interests. I hope the Government of Canada realizes that Canada needs a true industrial strategy,

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

and that we need to maintain enough of the levers of our own economy to make it possible.

I hope that the Government realizes that, as it stands, the trade deal puts us head-to-head with the U.S. Defense Department's $35 billion annual R and D budget, a budget specifically excluded from the terms of the deal which, to remain competitive, will tend to lead us to an even more militaristic economy. To avoid this we need to ensure that the few R and D incentives that Canada has will not be declared unfair trade subsidies, and also devise a realistic and permissible strategy for boosting research and development in areas of our own choosing.

I hope the Government re-acquires the right to use its purchasing power to foster and give a leg up to selective Canadian industries. I hope the Government reserves the ability to implement programs such as the national stock ownership plan suggested by the Liberals in the election that would increase ownership of Canadian firms by Canadians and not leave us totally at the mercy of foreign investment.

I hope the Government holds firm to its commitment that our social programs and regional development programs remain sacrosanct. Furthermore, I hope that the Government does some of the things it should have done long before even contemplating a comprehensive bilateral trade deal with the U.S.

I hope the Government takes measures to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. I hope the Government negotiates with its provincial counterpart-I am speaking particularly here of Ontario-for the construction of a much needed and long overdue four-lane highway south of Ottawa to Highway 401. The completion of Highway 416 is of great economic importance to the National Capital Region.

I hope the Government simplifies red tape for small businesses ensuring that they can get start-up capital, good employees and good advice.

It has been a great pleasure to speak in this House today. I have appreciated the opportunity to express my hopes as a Liberal and to express my hopes for the federal Government of Canada.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

Stan Darling

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Darling:

Madam Chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate today. I am not a new Member of the House. I want to thank the electors of the great riding of Parry Sound-

Muskoka for returning me for a sixth term to the hallowed halls of the House of Commons.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

Stan Darling

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Darling:

One cannot hide one's age if one is in public life, especially if one lives in a rural area. Of course I have to admit, and am proud to admit, that I am from that very illustrious class of 1911, and still going strong.

I might have had reservations four or five months ago when the election was going to be announced. As my colleagues will know, we were not the highest in the polls at that time. I think we were running third. But a great many of the very influential people in my riding came to me and said: "Well, Stan, we think you can win the riding despite our being low in the polls. We want you to throw your hat in the ring". As a result I am here today.

I have listened with interest to a great many of the speeches. I want to congratulate all those new Members of Parliament, even though I suppose my tongue is in my cheek concerning certain ones who replaced some very dear colleagues of mine who went down to defeat. But that is politics, and that is the way it is.

As I was thinking back I remember in the last election some of the very vociferous members of the Liberal Party, two of whom are no longer here. They were speaking in most derisive tones of the many Progressive Conservative Members from the Province of Quebec. They were saying: "You're surfers. You're here one time and then you're gone". Early in the mandate of this Government I thought of that and I said: "Well, by golly, it is tough in Quebec, and it is unusual". But lo and behold two of those who were most vociferous are gone. Instead of our 57 Members from la belle province we now have 63. Some pretty high-priced help and high-profile Liberals went down to defeat.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

Stan Darling

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Darling:

I have heard a great many of the new Members saying that they are here for one reason only, and that is to speak on the free trade issue and voice their opposition to it. That is the reason they are here. They are going to do their best to filibuster it. Some have in some ways tried to stop the inevitable. The Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, said day after day after day last July, August and September: "Call an election. Let the people decide". That great exponent from Oshawa who believes in free trade only for Oshawa and not for any of

December 20, 1988

the other parts of the country reiterated the same thing: "Call an election. Let the people decide". In the British parliamentary system, a majority is the way they decide. We have a majority Government here. We have the mandate to bring in free trade and to bring it in by January 1, 1989. We certainly intend to do it despite all the ranting and raving from the Opposition.

Do the new Members want to debate past history in the House? Bill C-130 passed the House of Commons, and it is now before the House in the new form of Bill C-2. In the previous Parliament we debated some very important legislation, including Bill C-51 and Bill C-204 which dealt with smoking restrictions, and I say amen to that. Maybe some of them would like to rehash that. A lot of them may have strong views on immigration, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. They passed this Parliament, so they are finished. I am wondering about that.

There is also one other issue that some of them may be interested in, and an important resolution which was debated a year ago, the debate on capital punishment. That debate did not go the way I wanted it to, and in that particular case, I might welcome it being brought back into the House, if the new Members are able to do that.

Free trade, despite all that has been said, will benefit more than it will hurt. We have heard the previous speaker from Nepean stating that she had grave reservations for this great riding that she represents. She feels that free trade will be harmful. I have heard other members of the Opposition speaking, including the Hon. Member for Sault-Ste-Marie. Deep in their hearts, they want something that will be good for Canada. I am sure that it will. Deeper in their hearts is the fact that if it does turn out to be a bonanza for Canada, they will end up as one-termers and will go back to their previous jobs, down the pike, whenever the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decides to call an election. I can assure you it will not be before that.

The Conservative Government has stated that this Free Trade Agreement is best for Canada. What is the alternative to free trade? In 1983, the Prime Minister and other prominent Members of our Government voiced opposition to free trade. It is a different ball game now.

The Americans are in a tough position as far as their trading situation is concerned. I am sure all of my colleagues are aware that they are facing and have faced over the past couple of years a trade deficit of $170

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

billion. That hurts not only their Yankee pride, but sure as hell hurts their pocket-books as well. They will do something about it and are doing something about it, as we have found to our dismay, with certain legislation that they have brought in. I do not have to repeat that with regard to shakes and shingles and softwood lumber. We know, as has been mentioned by many on our side, we have to do something to protect ourselves. Canada is the only major trading country that does not have a special trade agreement with some other country.

We know the European Common Market consists of some 15 countries. I will tell you, they are a tough bunch of nuts to try and compete against with the subsidies that they are providing, especially in their agricultural production. It is tough to crack that market.

Some of my colleagues on the other side are asking why we do not trade with the Pacific Rim or with Japan. Japan is a pretty tough nut to trade with too, unless we want to sell them lumber and coal. Just try to sell an automobile in Japan, and I will bet you can count the American cars and probably other European cars on your fingers and toes. There is no doubt about it. Japan is a pretty tough nut when it comes to trying to crack that market. They are our second best customer, if my memory serves me correctly. I am not belittling how important Japan is. They are also the second most important trading partner to the United States as well.

We must have trading barriers that will come down and let us trade. The idea of us being afraid to trade in the open market, that we have to be a little, protective country, those days are past. We have outstanding firms and multinationals in our own country. We have small firms that are anxious and willing to compete. I hear members of the Opposition saying that everybody is against it. Everybody cannot be against it.

There are a lot of people in my riding who were against free trade for the simple reason that they were scared to death by the Opposition. The NDP went around saying that their old age pensions would be cut, that hospitalization benefits would be reduced considerably, and they believed it. It is absolutely ridiculous for many of those people, many of whom I have known for many years, to believe that. In my own riding, a lot of them did not vote against me, but they stayed home. That happened in all our ridings. That is why some of our majorities were cut.

Four years down the pike, I would like to go back to these senior citizens and say "Are you still getting your old age pensions? Are you still getting the very best of

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

hospitalization? Are all these various subsidized things that senior citizens get, housing and so on, senior citizens' homes, are those available to you?" I am quite sure that the answer will be yes.

My riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is a rural riding and does not have great up curves and down curves in employment. It is an area which is made up of a high percentage of senior citizens and a lot of small business. Tourism is a very important industry in my area, and the Tourist Industry Association of Canada has stated categorically that the tourist industry is one of the top industries that will gain tremendously if the Free Trade Agreement goes through. There are also many small and larger industries in my area.

The great bogy man opposite has been telling us about industries closing and Canada going to hell in a hand basket. We are facing gloom and doom. Plants have been closing on a regular basis since time immemorial, and it will probably continue. By and large, new plants will step in to take over from them.

For example, there is an article in the Huntsville Herald with the headline: "$65 million expansion is a boon, says Clarke". That is not the illustrious Secretary of State for External Affairs, but the mayor of the great town of Huntsville. Domtar has announced a $65 million expansion in Huntsville, with 129 new jobs.

Another example comes from the Bracebridge Examiner which, I might say, has not been my greatest supporter through the past 16 years. Despite them, however, I have managed to get elected.

The headline in the Bracebridge Examiner states: "Top Magna brass has some good news". Lo and behold Frank Stronach, a very prominent Liberal candidate, has announced a new plant for Bracebridge. I will admit that the land was bought a few years ago and put on hold, but the article states:

Magna International Inc. has big plans for its 820 acres of land in Bracebridge, it was reaffirmed at the auto parts manufacturer's annual Christmas buffet last Thursday in Toronto.

Some 2,000 people were invited, including Mayor Jim Lang, town clerk Ken Vietch and other industrial people in the area. There is certainly great expansion, even in a rural area.

I can think of another small plant in the town of Gravenhurst. This individual is an entrepreneur who worked for a big firm for a number of years. He left and

started a small business in Gravenhurst called Gravenhurst Plastics. He started with some 10 or 12 people and is now running two shifts. He is running two shifts. One of the greatest products he is manufacturing is garden hose. He cannot keep up to the market. He has been to the United States and has received orders which he says he cannot fill at the present time with 50 employees.

I can assure Hon. Members that if an area like Parry Sound-Muskoka, which is not a great industrial area, can produce like this, other areas will certainly do the same.

Colleagues are aware that I have been greatly interested in the environment and acid rain. I had the privilege for the last two or three years to serve as chairman of the parliamentary committee on acid rain. My area of Parry Sound-Muskoka is probably one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the world. If I thought for a minute that anything in the agreement would damage that most magnificent area, the paradise of all vacation lands in Canada, I would certainly be up and saying in no uncertain terms "no to free trade".

It is stated in the agreement, and has been reiterated by our former Minister of the Environment that the Free Trade Agreement in no way will mean an open door for polluting industries to begin. First and foremost, there are tough regulations in effect now. As most Members know, or should know, regulations and controls on the industry are under the jurisdiction of the provincial ministries of the environment. I will give marks to the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Ontario and his Department as well as to the Minister of the Environment in the Province of Quebec, the Hon. Clifford Lincoln. I only hope he will remain in that position.

These jurisdictions are the watch-dog of the environment. Despite the scare tactics put up by the Opposition, there is no way polluting industries will be allowed to come here. Free trade will make no difference whatever on any additional pollution or other waste.

The committee of which I was a Member for several years experienced a rather tough battle with our American counterparts. When I went there several years ago, acid rain was the best kept secret in the United States. No one knew anything about it except a few very important and environmentally conscious members of Congress such as Senator Patrick Moynihan and George Mitchell.

December 20, 1988

Our colleagues in the United States are waking up to the fact that they are polluting their own nests. Something will certainly be done. 1 will admit that President Reagan was not the great environmentalist in the United States, and God bless him when he goes to his retirement, but President elect George Bush has stated loud and clear that he will bring legislation to cut down on S02 emissions in the United States. There will be controls.

We are fortunate that the majority House Leader in the Senate, Senator George Mitchell, is also greatly in favour of acid rain controls and the reduction of S02 emissions. I predict that within the next year and a half the United States will bring in meaningful legislation that will cut down on acid rain, which of course will benefit Canada. The House can rest assured that with our new Free Trade Agreement there will be no more pollution than there would be without it.

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

Bill Rompkey

Liberal

Mr. Rompkey:

Madam Chairman, in a sense this is a maiden speech for me. On the one hand I feel somewhat like the Hon. Member for Parry Sound in the sense that I am starting my sixth term, but in a sense it is a maiden speech for me.

For the first time Labrador has a federal seat of its own and it is my honour to be the first Member to be elected for Labrador. That gives me a great deal of pleasure.

I do not have to explain to Members of the House where Labrador is or what Labrador is all about. It is a northern territory, not as big as Nunatsiaq, but about

112,000 square miles. It extends all the way from the small fishing communities on the coast to the great air base at Goose Bay with its NATO components, to one of the greatest hydroelectric developments in the world at Churchill Falls. In the west the iron mining communities of Labrador City and Wabush City on the Quebec border produce between them about 50 per cent of all the iron ore in Canada. That makes up the totality of Labrador.

It is a very diverse area, with a great deal of promise and possibility, and very many problems. It is an area that spoke out very loud and clear in the last election about this agreement that we are debating today.

I want to put those concerns on the record and advise the Government of how the people of Labrador feel. Their concerns were put in a nutshell by Simon Reisman when he said that we should have got the definition of subsidy but we did not. We ran out of time. We do not

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

have a definition of a subsidy in the Free Trade Agreement.

What is a subsidy? Which programs of the Government of Canada will be targeted by the United States? We know already, for example, that the unemployment insurance program has been challenged. That challenge is dormant, but it is not dead. What about northern benefits?

I have to give the Minister of Finance credit, now that he is in the Chamber, for implementing a very generous program of northern benefits for travel and housing for the people who live north of 60 and other selected sites in northern Canada. These benefits are very important to the people of the North. When the Free Trade Agreement comes in, these people will want to know if northern benefits will be targeted as a subsidy or not.

Let us take the case, for example, of an iron ore company in Canada which gets the northern benefit tax break. If the workers who work for a Canadian iron ore company have special benefits but there are no similar benefits for workers who work for an iron ore company in the United States, what will happen because of that inequality? Will the United States then say that that is an unfair subsidy to an iron ore operation in Canada and we must stop doing that because we are supposed to be competing on a level playing field?

As Ralph Nader said, I doubt that we will see an uplifting of support services in the United States. What will happen on the level playing field? Will there be a diminution of the support services we have had in Canada? That is the question, and we do not know the answer. That is the concern of the people.

As well, the people are concerned about the possibility of the loss of control over resources that are very important to them, resources like energy, for example. In central Labrador, there is now one of the greatest hydroelectric projects in the world going on at Churchill Falls. It delivers energy to a large portion of not only the Province of Quebec but of New York State. There are other hydro sites on that river as well. There are perhaps over 2,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity left on that river. What will happen under the Free Trade Agreement? The concern is that we will not be able to have a made-in-Canada price.

As I understand it, the agreement says that we must sell energy to the Americans at the same price as we sell it to Canadians. We do not receive a lot of national

December 20, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

newspapers in Labrador, but during the election campaign, I watched the debate on television and I saw Mr. Ritchie, on behalf of the Government's negotiating team, fail to give an assurance that there would be no countervail. I would like someone to address this question.

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

December 20, 1988