Mr. Riis:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that everyone would agree that Christmas is approaching, Christmas Eve is just around the corner and that this is not the way that we want to proceed any longer. I think that we all recognize that the Government wants to pass this enabling trade legislation. The opposition Parties do not want it to pass.

In recognizing that fact, I wonder if there would not be some disposition to recess for a few days to allow us to return to have a more thoughtful, more comprehensive debate on this issue and to allow Members to get home to their families for Christmas Eve.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Kamloops has put a question to the House. The question is one that your Speaker probably could answer very quickly. But, again, I am constrained from doing so. There may be some response from the government side.

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded as quickly as possible with the disposition of the one item in the Speech from the Throne. There have been certain

delaying tactics but we are proceeding. Third reading will commence today. I think the quickest way to accomplish what my friend wants is to have one complete, all inclusive speech from his critic and then vote.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker:

Orders of the Day.

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

that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be appropriate, in starting my address on third reading of this important piece of legislation, just to remind the House and, in particular, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party of the fact that this legislation, which incorporates an agreement reached between Canada and the United States in October of 1987 has now had more than a year of debate, of questioning and of examination by the people of Canada and by the Parliament of Canada. The Bill now before the House on which I am moving third reading is a Bill that has already received extensive consideration in this House. It has been through the process before, through committees of the House, a standing committee of the House, and a legislative committee. I suppose that in all our history there has never been a Bill as well considered and debated in every aspect as this particular piece of legislation.

Rather than suggest to the House that we now adjourn for a few days and come back to continue discussing this Bill further, I want to remind the House Leader for the NDP of what his own Leader said just several weeks ago, there having been an election concerning which the Free Trade Agreement was one of the major subjects of debate. He said this on November 23, as reported in The Toronto Star: "I think the process has been gone through now." Then, as reported in The Gazette of Montreal on the same day he said: "The people of Canada have taken a decision and now Mr. Mulroney has the right to continue with his free trade legislation".

December 22, 1988

Let me just say that never did a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or a Government have a greater right to proceed with any legislation than have this Government and this Prime Minister with respect to this piece of legislation.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosbie:

In addition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said this as reported in The Globe and Mail on November 23: "It would be churlish and inappropriate to say something should be done about that law at this stage"-referring to the Free Trade Agreement-"all the chances for amendment that could plausibly have been taken have been exhausted". That was a statement of the Leader of the NDP on November 23-two days after the election which had raged for seven weeks almost exclusively on every street corner and in every house in Canada about the very agreement now before the House.

In La Presse it was reported: "On the subject of the trade deal with the United States, he, Broadbent, said that the only thing left for him to do was to accept the decision of the Canadian people. 'In our parliamentary tradition, the Canadian people have made a decision and Mr. Mulroney now has the right and the mandate to pass the free trade Bill'".

Have we seen that kind of spirit exemplified in the House since we opened again on December 12? Of course we have not. We have not seen any acceptance whatsoever of the result of the election campaign that ended on November 21 with a decision in favour of the continuation of the Mulroney administration which meant a decision in favour of the continuance of entering into force of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Has there been that kind of spirit at all in the last 10 or 12 days? No. What we have seen is exactly what Mr. Broadbent said would be churlish and inappropriate. This is what the Leader of that Party said himself. It would be churlish and inappropriate, and the actions of the NDP in the last 10 or 12 days have been exactly that-churlish and inappropriate. They are continuing to be churlish and inappropriate right down to the last second of this debate.

If that is the way they want this to go, that is the way it will have to go. Because, Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is going to be put before this Parliament for a final decision before Christmas. It is going to be put into effect by January 1, if we can believe statements most appropriately made by Liberal Leaders in the Senate as to what they plan to do the

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

week following Christmas, as long as this House does its job before we rise for Christmas Day. Here is something that the Leader of the New Democratic Party said on November 23. He was voluble on November 23 and very reasonable. In La Presse, he indicated:

"It is extremely unlikely that the NDP will reintroduce amendments to the Bill once Parliament resumes . . . Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has been given a clear mandate".

The moment of truth had come in Oshawa. He continued:

"The agreement with all of its faults has been approved by the people. It would not be appropriate to oppose it now."

Do the Members of the NDP ever listen to what their Leader says? Are they just waiting for some new, bright spark to come from out of the West to eliminate their Leader? Does this mean they are ignoring their strictures and the opinions of their present Leader because they know they have a rising star coming from the West? There has never been a star rise from the West, but perhaps this will be the exception.

The appropriate way for this debate to conclude is for the two opposition Parties to agree that we will debate on third reading today and vote this evening at five or six o'clock. That would allow the Members of this House to rejoin their family members for the Christmas season.

This country entered into a solemn agreement, a treaty with another country. It was entered into a year and two months ago. The date for entering into that arrangement was fixed at January 1, 1989. Will we let it be said that Canada cannot meet its commitments with respect to such an agreement after one year and two months, a general election, and hundreds of hours of debate and discussion during the intervening time? We will be shaming this institution before Canada and the world if we do not conclude our business before Christmas. That is the position of the Government, and it is a most reasonable position. If the people do not want to be reasonable, then the Government must continue on.

What about the Liberal Party of Canada, that mighty institution?

You used to belong to it.

Mr. Crosbie:

I used to belong to it. I might have something appropriate to say about this suggestion that I once belonged to it. I admit that in my youth I was wayward.

December 22, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):

We know you were convicted of being an extrovert.

Mr. Crosbie:

Here is a saying I came across the other day that might apply to the honourable opposition critic with respect to trade. I do not know who said this, but it is very appropriate.

"The man who wants to clean up politics would make a good start by getting out of politics."

There was a most appropriate statement made in 1984. It was made to the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). It said, "Do not avoid politics because there are so many hypocrites. There is always room for one more." It could certainly turn out to be true.

Somebody said that I had been a member of the Liberal Party, to which I plead guilty. In 1971, however, I became mature and sensible. Always have an appropriate quote in your pocket. Here is what Lord Halifax said:

"Ignorance makes most men go into a political party, and shame keeps them from getting out of it."

It did not keep me from getting out. I recommend that the hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite consider what Lord Halifax said. Do not stay in the Liberal Party simply because you are ashamed.

I believe there is evidence of more reasonableness in the Liberal ranks than there is in the NDP ranks. We must be fair here. The Liberal Party, experienced in the arts of governing a country which they have governed for most of the last century, are more reasonable. They have accepted the fact that the election is over and that the Conservatives have been returned with a majority. The NDP has not accepted that. They have not accepted their Leader. They are having their strings pulled by Bob White and the seven dwarfs, by Shirley Carr. They are all being manipulated over there. Nobody knows who is really in charge. However, I do not want to aggravate them, this being the Christmas season.

What did the Liberal Leader say following the election? We know that he wanted to let the people decide. That was a mistake, but they did decide. They did not decide the way the Leader of the Liberal Party wanted them to decide. Just after the election he said this in The Ottawa Citizen of November 23:

"He said Tuesday his Party will not block free trade legislation. The people have decided they want the deal."

Then in the same paper, he said: "The people are always right". This is a very sensible position to take.

He said in The Gazette of Montreal on the same day, "We will be restating our position on the matter". Well, by golly, he was right. We have heard that restated a thousand times, but, you know, we let the people decide. "Having stated our case, we let the matter proceed." That was The Toronto Sun of November 23. These are the statements of the Leader of the Liberal Party.

We have had a debate. I have not added up the exact number of hours we have debated this matter since December 12. Perhaps some genius who is good at mathematics could do it quite quickly. We have had many additional hours of debate on the Free Trade Agreement. Everybody has stated his or her position. I know the position of the Liberal Party. I know the position of the NDP. I know the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. The public of Canada knows the positions of the three Parties. The public of Canada is paying no more attention to this Chamber at the moment than they are paying to the man in the moon. They are not paying any attention to politics, with the possible exception of the controversy in connection with language matters in Quebec and other parts of Canada. The public may be paying some attention to that, but they are not paying attention to people who are here debating for the thousandth time a matter on which they decided on November 21.

If they gave us any thought they would say, "What did we elect to the House of Commons? What kind of a charade and farce is the parliamentary system in Canada that this process can go on, that we should be here night after night until one or two o'clock in the morning hacking over matters already decided by the people of Canada? How much longer is it to go on? Is the New Democratic Party to have this continue until Saturday morning?"

If need be.

Mr. Crosbie:

If need be? Well, there is going to be a "need be", because we are not adjourning until the House deals with this matter. You can be sure of that. Whether it is two o'clock on Saturday morning or Sunday morning or Boxing Day, this is going to be dealt with. That is the position of the Government.

Dictatorship.

Mr. Crosbie:

Good, the critic is back. I hope the bright light from the West will listen as well.

Mr. Barrett:

Are you speaking to me?

December 22, 1988

Mr. Crosbie:

The predecessors of the New Democratic Party, the CCF, were not much brighter than their successors, the New Democratic Party. I have here some clippings from newspapers in 1965, when a free trade agreement was under consideration in the Parliament of Canada dealing with the automobile trade and auto exports between Canada and the United States.

The newspapers refer to the free trade automobile pact. We all know today the reverence with which the NDP approaches the Auto Pact. If one mentions the Auto Pact they genuflect. In fact, Bob White becomes a whirling dervish when one mentions the Auto Pact. I will not get into what Shirley Carr becomes.

Let us look at some of the newspaper reports of the day when free trade in the automobile area was being debated. An article in The Globe and Mail on January 27, 1967, quotes Albert Taylor, President of Local 222, as saying:

'We're going to raise hell about the auto pact and see what can be done about getting jobs for the Oshawa area', Albert Taylor, President of Local 222, United Auto Workers of America, said yesterday.

They are going to raise hell about it. They were opposed to the automobile pact which was introduced by our Liberal predecessors, by the way.

On October 6, 1965, in a report from Oakville which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, an article about the Canada-U.S. automobile free trade Bill described the position of the Parties. The Liberals say it is a good deal. The Liberals happen to be right. They have been right in the past, they may be right in the future, although one doubts it when one looks across the hall to see what is sitting on the other side.

The Conservatives said: "Let us see how it works-

I will not go on with the rest of it, but since this is the season for honesty, the rest of the sentence states: "We don't like the way the resolution approving it was rushed through the Commons".