Hear, hear!

Mr. Wood:

We also fear pollution from the American heartland and from our own industries. Government programs are in place and we will be urging the adoption of others to minimize industrial pollution of our environment. Will the government subsidies to industry for pollution abatement be considered unfair subsidies? Once again, a "trust us" answer is really not good enough.

Canadians in general and my constituents in particular feel close to the land, the water and the out of doors. We want guarantees that this Government will not negotiate away any protections that we demand.

There are many job skills shortages. Skilled tradesmen are required desperately in fields such as automotive, electrical, electronic, machining and other trades associated with the mining and the forestry industries. This Government has steadily reduced the funding for job skills training in my riding. Further cut-backs have already been announced for 1989. Are we now facing the risk of losing funds completely for skills training? Will the Americans argue that this funding represents unfair subsidies to business and industry? Will this

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Government be able to stand up to American pressure for harmonization? I worry for the workers who will be dislocated by the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement.

The Government is fond of quoting the Economic Council of Canada. The Council admits that thousands of workers will be dislocated in a wide range of industries. If workers are dislocated in Nipissing, can the Government guarantee them equivalent jobs in our area? Can the Government guarantee them jobs at all? How is the Government planning to differentiate between jobs lost because of free trade and those lost for other reasons? What specific programs has the Government in place to assist those workers who are dislocated? Can the Government guarantee the workers of Nipissing that they will not suffer?

I worry about the workers in Nipissing who have negotiated reasonable union contracts with their employers. The new buzz word, as I said before, will be harmonization. Management will argue that we must harmonize with the Americans' labour costs, that the cost of benefits must be in harmony with those in the United States if we are to compete. We will hear this argument many times over in the next four years.

What does this Government plan to do to protect workers from unjust contract stripping? The overwhelming majority of Canadians reject the Reagan-Thatcher approach whereby the only thing that matters is a market-driven economy. Canadians believe in fairness, compassion and a balance between the needs and goals of business and the needs and goals of individual citizens. Business does not exist to be compassionate. Its legitimate goal is profit. It is the role of Government to ensure that legitimate social concerns are heard in our society and at the same time acted upon.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that hard-won legitimate gains by labour and others will be lost as pressure is placed on them to harmonize. I urge the Government to be ever vigilant in its negotiations with the U.S. over the next few years.

Everyone recognizes that the impact of the Mulroney-Reagan agreement will be swift and immediate. The Economic Council of Canada states that the benefits to the U.S. are immediate, that the adjustments required of Canadian workers in many industries will be immediate. Will the protection to Canadian workers also be immediate by this Government?

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) both before and repeatedly during the campaign assured us that workers affected by the Canadian-American trade agreement would be compensated. Unfortunately, in spite of repeated questioning, the Prime Minister has failed to bring forward any program to substantiate his promises. When you talk about the dislocation of workers and the adjustments required to improve our access to the American markets, you are not talking about academic abstractions, you are talking about people, workers and their families, businessmen who have invested and taken risks, workers who have contributed their labour and their skills. You are talking wages and benefits which have been justly earned.

What the Government will achieve will be achieved for Canadians and Canada. What will be lost will be at the expense of Canada and at the expense of Canadians.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton as he has already spoken in the debate.

Mr. James:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

On a question of privilege.

Mr. James:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was involved in speaking to another Member and I did not realize that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Miss Catterall) was saying some things about women on the farm. I am not taking any lessons from the Hon. Member. My mother is 85 and she feeds the calves yet today. She has worked on the farm. She has dug sugar beets, topped them and picked potatoes. I do not need to take any sort of lesson from the Member for Ottawa West about women working on the farm. In addition to that, there was mention about the kitchen. If the Member knew anything about the farm, she would know that most meetings take place in the kitchen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to address all the Members of the House. I would like to thank the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin who gave me the honour of sending me to this House. If you will allow a pun, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be "worthy" of it.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Worthy:

I represent a population of more than 70,000 people who live in a most beautiful part of Canada. It is 40,000 square miles of plateau nestled between the coast range on the west and the Cariboo range on the east. The powerful and historic Fraser River bisects my riding. Mine is a riding well known for its gold rush and its rodeos. The world famous Gang Ranch even occupies a corner of my riding. There are many things that attract the tourist to the Cariboo- Chilcotin.

The old historic Cariboo Gold Trail winds its way primarily following the Fraser until it reaches the recently restored historic towns of Wells and Barker-ville. The rivers and lakes lure thousands of fishermen. Big game hunting is very popular during the fall.

Besides tourism, ranching and mining contribute much to the economy and especially to the lifestyle of Cariboo-Chilcotin. But the primary resource of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, of course, is the forest industry. In fact, the sawmills in my riding produce over 10 per cent of all of the lumber produced in Canada. The forest industry affects either directly or indirectly everybody in the Cariboo. In fact, it affects everyone in British Columbia and I would also say probably everyone in Canada. It is important for all of us to know and understand what the forest industry is saying about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Many would have you believe that because of the shingle and shake tariff imposed by the U.S. and the softwood lumber situation, the forest industry is not supportive of the Free Trade Agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely because the industry has been mugged twice already by the protectionists in the United States that it is so strongly in support of the Free Trade Agreement. This industry, better than anyone else in Canada, understands the need for the protection offered by the Free Trade Agreement.

The forest industry in British Columbia is a good industry to look at in terms of free trade. Some would have you believe that we Canadians cannot be competitive when dealing with the United States of America, but that is not true as far as the forest industry is concerned. Nobody in the world can produce lumber like they do in the interior of B.C. No one anywhere can produce as much, as fast or as efficiently. This is so in spite of many adverse conditions that many maintain. Canadians cannot be competitive because of cold weather, because of great distances from the market, because we are highly unionized, we receive high wages

December 23, 1988

and because we have the best benefit packages of any forest industry in the world.

There has been so much talk, Mr. Speaker, that high wages and benefits will suffer under the Free Trade Agreement. In the forest industry the experience has been the opposite. As it is has traded more and more with the United States, it has become more competitive, and wages and benefits have become better, not worse. In fact, I believe that this is the experience across Canada.

As we have reduced our tariffs with the United States over the past 50 years, our standard of living has gone up, not down. Reducing tariffs has resulted in increased trade. Wages and social programs have benefited. Why should this trend change? It definitely will not change. Free trade will not destroy our social programs. On the contrary, it will make it possible for us to improve them.

Although securing the existing U.S. market and protecting current jobs is the primary motivation for the forest industry, it also recognizes that the Free Trade Agreement will provide new opportunities for value-added processing. There is no doubt that over the years we will see many new plants and jobs in this area.

However, there is a more immediate opportunity for secondary industry. That will be the creation of businesses based on the experience and creativity of our own people. In spite of the fact that the forest industry in the interior of British Columbia is the best in the world at producing lumber, much of the equipment and technology comes from other parts of the world, for example, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Washington, Oregon, and California. This does not have to be. We have the people, the experience, the knowledge, and the ideas.

Many small companies in the Cariboo have struggled to establish themselves. They may be small, some companies with 10, 20 or 50 employees, but they are very important to us. They represent our opportunity for growth. They represent our future. These are Main Street Canadians from the Cariboo. They want to compete. They are confident in their abilities and are looking forward to the future.

For example, Brigden Manufacturing is a company with a unique design for a log grapple and arch which allows multiple use of the crawler tractor. It is a small company just beginning, but it has potential.

Bradeco Fab and Welding is a company with an innovative cutting head for automatic falling of trees. It

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

is lighter, less complex, and requires less maintenance than the traditional cutting head. It has been under way for six months and currently has eight employees. It has recently received three new contracts with the United States and Oregon, and the potential is definitely there.

Exco Manufacturing is a small company that has been growing rapidly over three years. It started off producing automatic lumber and log handling systems for the sawmills. Currently it has 65 employees, and the potential is to triple that number of employees in the next four years.

Those companies all started producing for local requirements. Invariably they discovered that there was a very large market just to the south. It is the U.S. market that will produce the incentive for new growth. We need all of these companies. In fact, we should have many more. There is a real opportunity for Canada to become a world leader in development of forest industry technology and equipment. We, the Members of the House, must encourage industry to grasp the opportunity and make it happen.

There are other opportunities for my riding provided by the Free Trade Agreement. For example, totally new secondary industries assembling or manufacturing products for the U.S. market. The investors may be Canadian, but it is very possible that we will attract new investors from the Pacific Rim and Europe. It is curious that these offshore investors recognize the opportunities of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement better than many Canadians. We do not care where the investors come from. We desperately need the jobs, and we hope to have some of those jobs in the Cariboo.

A respected British Columbia Senator, George Van Roggen, was chairman of the committee conducting hearings across Canada on the Free Trade Agreement. He said: "If B.C. wants the prosperity that they enjoy in central Canada then B.C. must have the same secondary industry they have in central Canada. This is only possible under the Free Trade Agreement".

For the people in British Columbia, for the people in western Canada, for all of the people in Canada who live in areas outside the industrial belt of central Canada, we can finally say that it is our turn for fairness in economic opportunity.

I accepted the concept of the Free Trade Agreement very naturally. To me it was something whose time had come. In the same manner as a young person must eventually leave home and find his or her own way in the world, so must Canada find its way with all the

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

industrialized countries of the world. This agreement with the United States, our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, is the natural step to take.

Our young people have no guarantees when they leave the security of home. No one can say for sure how they will succeed. However, even the most protective of parents knows that the time has come and they must do it on their own. It is for them a step of faith. So it is with us. As we step into the free trading relationship with the United States, there are no guarantees. The studies are promising, but we must make it on our own. I have total confidence that our industries can compete. I have total confidence that we will succeed.

All Members in the House recognize that this has been a unique election. Never have the electorate of Canada wrestled with such a major issue. It has created a divided population. When campaigning door to door, it was not unusual to find a husband and wife on totally opposite sides of the free trade debate. Members of the House were fiercely engaged in this election and developed firmly entrenched positions. Normally once legislation is in place that is the end of the battle, but this is not normal legislation. When it is enacted on January 1 it will not be the end of anything. In fact, it will only be the start. It will be the initiation of a new beginning for Canada. Remember that there are no guarantees. Canadians must make this work. Our businesses and industries must respond to the challenge.

I do have a concern. Surely the direction, the leadership, and the motivation should be coming from Hon. Members of the House. Yet, many Members of this House have been violently opposing the Free Trade Agreement. Their concentration and focus has been on why it will not work, why industry will suffer, and why jobs will be lost. They have been conditioning themselves and their constituents to the failure of the Free Trade Agreement. My concern is that, if they are not careful, they could find themselves with a self-fulfilling prophecy in their ridings and perhaps elsewhere.

When the Members of the opposition Parties in this place next address their Chamber of Commerce or Board of Trade, will they continue to put down the Free Trade Agreement? Will they, in effect, encourage their constituents to invest elsewhere, in effect telling them to relocate in the U.S.? It would be so easy to continue the fight-but at what cost? From a political point of view, it could be to their advantage were the Free Trade

Agreement to fail. But at what cost to their constituents, and at what cost to Canadians?

If Hon. Members opposite take a few minutes in reflective thought, I am sure they will recognize the point I am trying to make.

There has been a lot of concern expressed in the media that those areas which did not vote Progressive Conservative will suffer. The answer, of course, is that this Government will treat all areas with fairness and equality. But, those areas which have elected a representative who, because of a lack of confidence in the Free Trade Agreement, a lack of vision, or for reasons of political expediency cannot or will not provide the positive leadership required, if we are to grasp the opportunities of the Free Trade Agreement, may have cause for concern.

I am proud to have had the opportunity of participating in this historic debate, and I am confident that the people of Canada made a good decision in their choice of Government.

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks today by expressing my sincere thanks to the constituents of the riding of Dartmouth for having afforded me the great honour of representing them in the House of Commons. I consider the privilege to be able to stand in this great Chamber and speak on behalf of one's fellow citizens to be one of the greatest honours that a single individual can have bestowed on him.

On Tuesday last, when I first spoke in this House, I felt that special sense of history, of awe and of respect that I am sure every Member feels when first rising to add his/her voice to the record of Hansard. I thank the people of Dartmouth for allowing me to experience that very special feeling. I shall never forget them for having given me that moment.

The riding of Dartmouth is one of the fastest growing regions of Atlantic Canada, and for good reason. The riding itself is comprised of the beautiful City of Dartmouth, known all across North America as the City of Lakes. It is a family oriented community, a community in which people from all over Nova Scotia and all over North America have chosen to live and raise their families.

And there are other great communities in my riding that deserve special mention, among them being the community of Eastern Passage, with its fishing traditions, located on the shores of Halifax Harbour, and the

December 23, 1988

community of Cow Bay, located on the rugged shores of the Atlantic, as well as the communities of North Preston and East Preston, the largest black communities in Nova Scotia.

All of these communities add to the cultural diversity and richness which is the riding of Dartmouth.

I should also like to congratulate my colleagues from Nova Scotia on their successful election and re-election to Parliament, and as well I extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election to the chair and on his re-election in the riding of Vancouver South.

For the past two weeks I have listened carefully to the debate that has taken place, first on the procedures in this Chamber and then on the substance of the Government's motion to put into effect the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.

As a new Member but not a rookie to politics, I shudder at the attempt by this Progressive Conservative Government to once again stifle a full and unencumbered debate on a Bill that would initiate the economic union of this great nation with the United States of America.

As I listened and watched, I remembered quite clearly that it was exactly this type of disregard for the Elouse of Commons and for the people of Canada that convinced me to run as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Dartmouth. I did so because I saw a Government led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who cared less about the preservation of the unique fabric of this country than he did about building his so-called special relationship with the President of the United States.

I saw a Government which refused to listen to any point of view on the trade issue but its own; I saw a Government that would close down debate in the House of Commons by wielding its majority to block a full public hearing on the proposed deal, a hearing which could have taken place by way of extensive committee hearings held across this nation. I saw a Government that refused to allow its own studies dealing with the potential negative impacts of the trade deal to see the light of day.

I stand in my place today to voice my opposition and that of the people of Dartmouth to the trade legislation, Bill C-2. I, and the overwhelming majority of the people of Atlantic Canada, believe that this deal, if passed unamended, will negatively alter the very structure of this nation.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The reality of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a nation of regions, each distinct, each with its own strength, but collectively forming the unique fabric that is Canada.

Our forefathers saw the potential of what Canada could be. They believed, as I believe, that a great nation could be forged on an east-west axis, and they resisted the pressures of continentalism. They believed that there was a better way than the American way. They recognized that the vast resources and wealth of this nation could be used to overcome the obstacles of geography.

Successive Governments have used national programs and policies to redistribute wealth from the have to the have not regions of this great nation.

I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party believe that every Canadian should have the right to make a decent living in the region in which he/she chooses to live and that he/she should enjoy the same level and quality of social benefits regardless of income and choice of location.

We have used the richness of this great nation to create fairness and equality of opportunity-in the Atlantic, in the North, and in the West. In short, Mr. Speaker, we have used regional development as a tool for nation building.

Anyone who submits to the reality of Canada as a nation of distinct and vibrant regions should be concerned about the implications of the Free Trade Agreement on regional development programs. This Government is asking us to approve the Free Trade Agreement, knowing full well that it is a flawed document, a document that puts at risk the very ability of the national Government to use regional development programs to bring about level playing fields within Canada.

We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a deal that has no exemption for regional development programs, a deal that has no definition of "subsidy", a deal that trades away our very ability to have made-in-Canada policies for the future development of this nation.

It is a deal that stipulates that once we integrate our economies, the United States and Canada will negotiate the definition of a subsidy and will work toward the elimination of same. These things are all still on the table, Mr. Speaker.

How does this Government explain this outrageous deal? How many more concessions will Canada have to make? The Government says: "Trust us."

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

This is the same Government that told us that it would get a deal that would guarantee Canadians full access to the U.S. markets, a deal that would exempt our exporters from harassment under U.S. trade remedy laws, a deal that would protect our regional development programs.

Elow can we possibly trust this Government to negotiate for our country over the next five to seven years in respect of those matters that remain outstanding? The record is clear. What was promised is not what this Government got in this deal.

We know that the Americans are already starting to clamour for the dismantling of our regional development programs, as well as some specific programs in our forestry and our fishing industries. Indeed, the Americans have already said that some of our Government's investments in silvaculture and reforestation constitute an unfair subsidy and should be countervailable. That is what they have said.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a document from the United States Department of Commerce, and it lists such things as the Economic and Regional Development Program, ERDAs-and they are not icing on the cake in Atlantic Canada. That money goes to pay for the flour that bakes the cake in Atlantic Canada. It is an important regional development tool.

Also listed is the IRDP, the Industrial Regional Development Program, a tool of nation building that was first put into place by a Liberal Government. Also listed is the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program-and I do not think there is one Member in this House representing a riding in which the fishery plays an important role who would say that the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program constitutes an unfair subsidy and should be contervailable in the U.S.

These are the types of programs that the U.S. Department of Commerce wants eliminated, and it is these very programs that will be on the table over the next five to seven years. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these programs do not constitute subsidies; rather, they are tools of regional development, tools that we have used for years in this country to redistribute wealth and create economic opportunity and fairness across this nation.

I submit that the trade deal, if brought into force and effect, will lead to the systematic dismantling of the regional development programs in this country, thus ensuring that Atlantic Canada will never become a full partner in the economic development of this nation.

Simply put, we in Atlantic Canada cannot support an agreement that does not fully protect these vital programs. Already we have seen this Tory Government slash its deficit on the backs of the poorer regions. In his first two Budgets, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cut over $1.5 billion from the regional development envelope. That is on the record. Atlantic Canada should shudder when the Conservative Government makes a commitment to maintaining these programs because its record speaks otherwise.

Time and time again Ministers opposite have shown a complete lack of knowledge of Atlantic Canada and its legitimate concerns about the impact of this trade deal. We recall the former Minister of State for International Trade, the former Member from Sault Ste. Marie who, when asked about the impact of the free trade deal on the textile industry in Nova Scotia said: "Nova Scotia shouldn't worry because it doesn't have a textile industry". This came as quite a surprise, not only to the Stanfields, a name that should be well known in the Conservative Party, but also to the hundreds of workers in Nova Scotia who are employed in the textile industry.

Perhaps the former Minister was shedding a little light on what would happen once the deal comes into force. 1 think he was right. Under the deal Nova Scotia will not have to worry about asking questions like that because it may not have a textile industry five years down the road. During the election he was asked about a statement made by Tom Stanfield, who said that his company would survive free trade, but it may mean that they would have to relocate their operations to the U.S.

When the Minister of Finance was travelling through Nova Scotia telling people they had to vote for the deal or they would lose thousands of jobs, he was the expert on everything dealing with free trade, and he was asked to comment on Tom Stanfield's statement, he said: "I am not an expert on textiles. Don't ask me about that". That was the same Minister who said in this House that we are not to worry, that he and his Government will protect our regional development programs. However, we saw his attack on the pensions of senior citizens after the 1984 election. After all, those pensions were supposed to be the sacred trust of the Prime Minister. I think we in Atlantic Canada have a right to be very concerned over the Minister of Finance and his commitment to protect these programs over the next five to seven years of negotiations.

December 23, 1988

I have also listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He has a stand pat response to every question he is asked in the House. He comes back with the same phrase by rote: The people of Canada have decided and the Government has a right to proceed with this free trade deal. I am sure if you asked him where the washroom was he would give you the same answer. Perhaps he is right. The people of Canada have decided.

We have a Government in this House today debating free trade legislation. However, the people of Atlantic Canada have also spoken and even the entertaining effusiveness and huffery-puffery of the Minister from St. John's West cannot deny the fact that Atlantic Canadians have said no to this free trade deal. All you have to do is count the numbers. Twenty out of 32 seats said yes to the Liberal Party in Atlantic Canada.

As one of those Members, I made a commitment to the people of my riding that I would fight as hard as I could to ensure that the interests of Atlantic Canada are not trampled on by the Government's indecent haste to implement a deal that fully 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate said no to.

I say to the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who is not in the House, in fact I do not think there are any Ministers of the Crown to hear this particular debate today at this point, the people of Atlantic Canada saw through his cloud of smoke and they have not forgotten the comment he made in 1986 when he said that Atlantic Canada was well off compared to Bangladesh. Only that Minister could have uttered such an insensitive statement to the people of Atlantic Canada. That shows why Atlantic Canadians cannot, will not and did not rely on him to represent their concerns in Ottawa. They elected 20 Liberals out of 32 ridings to do that for them.

What has happened since the election? Have there been any attempts by the Conservative Government to allay the concerns expressed by 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate, people from northern Ontario and people from Atlantic Canada who have said no to the Government? No, and for a Government which has refused to listen, this is truly indicative of its style over the last four years.

I say its attitude is of no comfort whatsoever to Canadians. We have seen plants and factories close. We have seen people thrown out of work. All the while the Government refused to announce any assistance for

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

those workers, none whatsoever. We hear every day in Question Period about some of the problems with industries closing down. My colleagues from Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Nipissing got up in this House and raised concerns about job losses in the forest industry, and the Government has shown it has no compassion at all.

For Atlantic Canada, however, the Government's negligence is particularly worrisome. Just last week or the week before we heard Mickey Cohen, former Deputy Minister of Finance and now a senior business executive, say this about the future of regional development in Canada: "This is not pleasant stuff. You've got to say: Atlantic Canada, you're on your own; northern Ontario, you're on your own". I submit it is the right and duty of this House to ensure that does not happen.

If the Government had the legitimate concerns of the north and east and parts of the west of this entire nation at heart, it would have allowed our amendments on regional development programs and we would have had a Bill, while still flawed, which would have at least given some basic protection for the people that do not live in the centre of this great nation.

It is no wonder that we on this side of the House -wanted that type of protection for regional development programs built into the Bill. Atlantic Canada has much at stake. We cannot afford the risks of this so-called leap of faith. The Prime Minister talked about winners and losers under free trade. I believe the people who need the assistance the most in the regions most at risk will be the first to suffer and will suffer the most.

The Government has let the people of Dartmouth down. It has let the people of Nova Scotia down. It has let the people of Atlantic Canada down. It has traded the unique fabric of Canada for a few bolts of cheap U.S. cotton and a sing-along with Ronald Reagan.

I recall when the Tory Government began the trade discussions. The principal objective was to obtain guaranteed access to the American market. In Atlantic Canada we know the importance of the U.S. and our producers were concerned about harassment of our products on the U.S. market. As the Prime Minister stated in an interview with the New York Times, "U.S. trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada, period". We know he will say one thing one week and another thing the next week, depending on what the polls tell him.

Does this trade deal protect Canadian exporters from American trade remedy laws, namely their countervailing duties and anti-dumping actions? The answer is no.

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The trade deal, in my opinion and in the opinion of many across this nation, is a dismal failure. Americans will still be able to harass our exporters and they will still have to fight these cases before American trade bodies. The Conservatives claimed victory when they got a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Really, what is it? Nothing more than a panel to decide whether or not Canadian or American laws have been properly applied. The Prime Minister did not win any protection from trade remedy laws.

We know some of the things the Government put on the table, but what other concessions have been made under the table? We remember Bill C-22, the drug patent legislation, a bargaining chip given away even before negotiations began. We remember the softwood lumber tax and the shakes and shingles tariff where the Prime Minister kowtowed to Mr. Reagan. In fact, this Bill goes even further than that, it grandfathers the lumber tax.

Before I conclude I want to touch on one or two other areas which show the Government was out-negotiated by the Americans. Under the Prime Minister's deal we have traded away forever the ability of the Province of Nova Scotia to use its own oil and natural gas resources as a tool for regional development.

Under this deal, should the Government of Nova Scotia encourage new business ventures through a preferred energy pricing policy on some of its own resources, the Government is obligated to offer these same rates to Americans. To make matters worse, we have guaranteed the U.S. a fixed percentage of our oil and gas production. Canada has become nothing more than a gigantic natural resources reserve for the U.S. This is deplorable and must be condemned as a sell-out of our very birthright.

The Government has agreed to harmonize, some call this a euphemism for Americanize, our technical and environmental standards. I am sure the people of Dartmouth and Nova Scotia are very concerned about their environment. They see this deal as a sell-out of our children's natural heritage. Acid rain is one commodity that the U.S. has traded too freely in with Canada and Atlantic Canada in the last dozen years.

Over the past four years the Prime Minister has completely failed to obtain a comprehensive agreement to combat this very serious problem. But then what can one possibly get for a bad rendition of Irish Eyes are Smiling?

The more we compare past Liberal Governments achievements and the liberalizing of international trade, the more obvious it becomes that this trade deal is a very bad deal for Canada.

I wish to conclude by telling the Government that over the next week, months and years we in the Liberal Party will be keeping a very close eye on the implementation of this deal. We will continue to fight the battle for Canada, for its independence and for its sovereignty. I serve notice that this battle has just begun.

Hear, hear!

[ Translation)

Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my constituents in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for putting their confidence in me on November 21. I am proud to represent these people who have shown their faith in the future by supporting the Conservative Party and thereby the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. This Agreement, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out so well when he spoke in this debate yesterday, opens opportunities for all Canadians in Canada; that is, central Canada and the main urban centres will not be the only ones to benefit from it. All regions of this country will be able to benefit from it and for Quebecers, it is also recognition of the regions that will gain from this boost to the economy.

The Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, is not strictly speaking a policy like the National Energy Program which had more to do with the problems of regional representation in Canada of the previous administration than with a rational approach to developing this country's potential.

This Government is the first one in years to pursue really national interests. The interests of the West, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario are well represented by all the Members of this Government.

Think of initiatives like the Meech Lake Accord, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Economic Diversification Initiative, the Quebec Regional Development Program and of course the Free Trade Agreement. These are a few examples which show that the Government is sensitive to the needs of Canadians and Quebecers. And these needs clearly expressed by all Canadians have remained a priority objective throughout the negotiations which led to the signing of the Free Trade Agreement.

December 23, 1988

We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that protectionism is a threat to Canada and particularly in regions like Quebec where free trade has been a long-desired goal. The Free Trade Agreement is widely recognized as an essential element of this country's regional policy.

The natural resource sectors such as energy in Quebec and the West and fisheries on the East Coast will no doubt benefit considerably from this agreement. The manufacturing and industrial sector, so important to the development of my riding, Mr. Speaker, will benefit directly from this new economic environment in which the agreement puts us.

The fact that eight out of ten premiers have given their support to this agreement and that a majority of Canadians have returned to power the party that defended it is living proof that this agreement will provide balance in that the economy of all regions of Canada will benefit from it.

This Government also allowed the regions of this country to take charge of their own regional development. Indeed, the new regional development agencies like the one for the Quebec development plan are designed so that the sectors which benefit from the regional development programs will be controlled by those who live in the most affected areas. And it is important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is now possible to focus the effort of these new agencies in a way that will make the most of the agreement itself.

In the spirit of national reconciliation which this Government has pursued since 1984, this historic Free Trade Agreement will be implemented with policies to help all regions of the country tap the immense potential of the agreement. With this in mind, the Government has said from the beginning that there would be no agreement if Canada's ability to promote regional development were hindered. And we know more than anyone in my constituency that this commitment was respected. There is no restriction on the Government's power to create jobs and facilitate growth in any region of Canada. National reconciliation implies the need to face the challenges posed by this vast and diverse nation by ensuring that all Canadians benefit equally from the national potential, from coast to coast.

The Free Trade Agreement guarantees that the economic growth required to maintain our high standard of living will be shared by all Canadians. This trade agreement in no way prevents reaching Canada's regional development objectives. On the contrary, it contributes to reaching them.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it was alleged during the election campaign that many Canadian companies, subsidiaries of American multinationals, would move to the United States because some states have no minimum wage or occupational health and safety laws. This allegation is more than misleading and my constituents were not taken in by such blatant demagogy. For a company or an industry, the workers' pay is only one aspect of its competitive position. Closeness to markets, labour productivity and overhead such as energy costs also contribute to production costs.

A vehicle made in a Canadian manufacturing centre is within one day's travel of 150 million Americans. Canadian labour is usually more productive than American labour. Mr. Speaker, that is not mentioned often enough. Furthermore, our health insurance system helps reduce the number of working days lost due to sickness.

All these factors combined, Mr. Speaker, make Canada an excellent place to do business. The American states that have no minimum wage are in non-industrial-ized regions where labour is generally less skilled. Indeed, industrialized states like Michigan, Massachusetts, New York and California have a skilled work force and a minimum wage similar to ours. The industries are not going to move to and set up shop in areas with an unskilled labour force and dismal economic and transport facilities, merely to take advantage of a reduced pay scale. Mr. Speaker, this did not happen in the United States and will certainly not happen in Canada with the Free Trade Agreement.

That is exactly what the people in the Hochelaga- Maisonneuve riding understood on November 21. That is the reason why they put their trust in a responsible Government. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada is and has always been an exporting nation. Compared with the seven most industrialized countries, Canada is the most dependent economically on its export trade. As much as 31 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product depends on its export trade, and that is the reason why we can enjoy such a high standard of living. Eighty per cent of our export trade is with the United States which represents for us the most natural trade market. Moreover, in Canada, three million jobs depend directly on our external trade.

Faced with this reality, Mr. Speaker, the Government had to assume its responsibility to Canadian men and women. The rise of American protectionism represented a threat for the Canadian economy. With the Free Trade Agreement, the Government under our Prime

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has taken the necessary steps to obtain for Canadians a secure access to the greatest export market in the world.

In this connection, Mr. Bernard Landry stated: "Canada is practically the only major industrialized nation without a secure access, directly or through association, to a market of over 100 million people. This limits considerably its ability to compete especially for the most sophisticated products. The United States is offering us access to a market of 250 million people."

The business people in my riding have stated on many occasions that they are anxious to see this Agreement become a reality and this, because they have confidence in their ability to compete and because this access to the American market would open up for them the way to prosperity. Take for instance the initiatives taken by the Quebec business people during the election campaign to convince the people of the usefulness of this Agreement. For instance, Mr.Bernard Lamarre, President of Lavalin, stated, and I quote: "I just cannot understand how people can oppose the notion of having free excess to the American market."

In addition to providing us with a secure access to the American market, the Free Trade Agreement ensures that Canadian exporters will no longer be at the mercy of a trade bill used for political purposes. The disputes resulting from the application of anti-dumping and countervail legislation will be settled by a panel made up of Canadian and American trade and commercial legislation specialists who will rule as equals and whose decisions will be final and binding, something which will make the settlement procedure much more expeditious.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our representatives will no longer have to go to Washington to try and settle disputes which can arise between two trading nations and be submitted to the whims of American politicians. That is another expression of our sovereignty.

It is because of our Prime Minister's perceptiveness, his confidence in the potential of Canadian men and women, and his vision of a more equitable Canada that we have obtained this Agreement. All we have to do is take advantage of this instrument to enter the 21st Century.

Mr. Speaker, today being the 23rd of December 1988, I will probably not have the opportunity to offer my best wishes to each and everyone individually. So, if I may, I should like to wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his family, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and your family, as well as my colleagues from both sides of the House,

all my Hochelaga-Maisonneuve constituents, and all other Canadian men and women, a Merry Christmas and a Most Happy New Year.

Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):

Merci, monsieur le president. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might begin by paying a special word of tribute to my predecessor from Victoria, the Hon. Allan McKinnon. Mr. McKinnon represented Victoria for 16 years with diligence, dignity, and honesty. I know that the people of Victoria would ask this House to join with them in wishing him and his wife a very long, happy, and productive retirement.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Brewin:

May I also take this moment to mention my father, the late Andrew Brewin, who served in this House from 1962 to 1979. I know he treasured his time here, and I honour his memory on this occasion.

This is an historic vote. I hope that tonight, we in this Chamber are not making an historic mistake. I happen to have two great grandfathers who served in this House, both of them Liberals. It shows that generations do advance as time goes on.

Mr. McDermid:

Or slip back.

Mr. Brewin:

I am sure the Minister responsible for housing would agree with me at least on that, although there are a few Members who appear not to agree with the proposition.

My mother's grandfather, James Lyons Biggar, who represented East Northumberland in the Canadian Assembly, had the honour of voting against Confederation. History will judge that he was on the wrong side of that issue. I truly hope history will judge that I am on the wrong side of this issue tonight, because it will be an important decision for this country.

In this debate, we have heard a great deal about the seniors in Canada and how they were terrified by the exaggerations of the Liberals and New Democrats during the election into voting against the Free Trade Agreement. Victoria has more than its share, happily, of seniors. We are the retirement capital of Canada. I had the opportunity to speak to seniors frequently during the election campaign. The suggestion that they were terrified into voting against the agreement does not do them justice. My experience is that the seniors and others in our community who came to the conclusion

December 23, 1988

that this agreement was bad for Canada did so because they took the long view, the historic view of what this agreement would do to our country. It was their view, and mine, that there was a truth about Canadian history that the Government has neglected. Ironically, it was a truth that has over the years been expressed by the Conservative Party, first by one of the early Members for Victoria, Sir John A. Macdonald.

Sir John A. Macdonald is associated in Canadian history with the National Policy. The essence of that policy was that if we were to build a distinctive nation in Canada, we had to have an economy which was independent of the larger economy of the United States. If we were to have an independent economy, we needed to build certain protections for our business and manufacturing sectors. We had to have tariffs. We had to have other protections which included the creative use of government to assist in building an infrastructure across the country from east to west to withstand the natural pulls from north to south.

From the beginning this policy has won the overwhelming support of the Canadian people. It has been the issue in a number of elections, most famous perhaps in 1911, when the Conservatives under Sir Robert Borden, won re-election on the slogan: "No truck nor trade with the Yanks".

During the election campaign I had the privilege of meeting someone in my constituency who actually heard Sir Robert Borden in that election during 1911. She was most eager to vote in this campaign because she was not able to vote in 1911 on two grounds-she was under the age of 18 and she was a woman.

She said she had been a Conservative all her life but that she was eagerly looking forward to voting in this election against the Conservatives because she felt this agreement and this policy was a betrayal of what she believed Canada stood for.

The critical questions that underline this debate are the issues of the future and nature of Canada. As it has been said more than once in the last two weeks, we have developed a distinctive set of social and economic programs, programs which have helped us to develop a caring society. We still have a long way to go, but it is a society which has a capacity to deal with fairness, justice and equality with people in our own land, and to give us a basis for speaking internationally for social justice and compassion.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Let me address, in that context, one particular element of the agreement and the legislation before us, which has not been addressed much. That is the impact on provincial jurisdiction. This agreement interferes in a number of ways with what has traditionally been viewed as provincial legislative jurisdiction. This agreement and the legislation interferes in the area of energy policy.

Our Constitution has given to the provinces the responsibility for development, conservation and management of non-renewable energy resources. Yet this agreement, without the official consent of a single province, restricts our capacity at both levels from dealing in a number of respects with our energy resources. This agreement further makes substantial inroads in the capacity of provinces to regulate services and to develop distinctive policies for local economies.

The agreement undermines provincial jurisdiction and responsibility in the area of investment, including, for example, control over decisions as to who may even own land, a matter of great sensitivity in many parts of Canada. As a result of this agreement, the provinces are now bound not to intervene in these areas, or Canada will be in breach of the agreement.

Perhaps most significantly, the section of the agreement, Article 2010, dealing with monopolies, goes a long way to undermine provincial responsibility and capacity to deal with new social and economic innovative programs. For those of us in western Canada public automobile insurance is not a particularly innovative program. In the Province of Ontario, however, it is a very active issue.

I wish to draw to the attention of the House a report in The Globe and Mail on December 13, 1988. It states:

. . . Philip Dewan, director of policy in the Premier's office, says that under Ottawa's free-trade deal with Washington, the province might be obliged to compensate U.S. insurance companies for the loss of business that they would suffer if the provincial government were to create a public monopoly over auto insurance.

The Ontario Liberals are, in effect, laying the groundwork for breaking another political promise. But it does suggest how this agreement is going to be used by Conservative minded Governments to avoid doing what has been so productive over the last 50 or 60 years in this country, the expression at the provincial level of that innovative social and economic spirit of which the Member for Winnipeg-Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) spoke earlier.

We have had innovative programs like hospitalization and medicare because provinces have had the opportunity to do so. I submit that this agreement and its

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

legislative variation Clause 6 in the agreement undermines that capacity. That is to be severely regretted.

One thing that has been instructive to me as I looked at the election results and listened to this debate is the profound division that we are building in this country on fundamental issues of the future and vision for Canada.

It has been said that only the winners in this election are properly interpreting the view of the Canadian people. But let us break that down on a regional basis. As has been said, eight of the ten provinces, taken on that view, voted against the Free Trade Agreement. If we consider which provinces and which areas of Canada voted against the agreement, we find ourselves at an historical oddity.

Traditionally it has been the regions which have tended to object to protectionism and the National Policy to the extent that they did, and it has been the so-called heartland of southern Ontario and Quebec that have tended to favour the National Policy and tariffs. Yet we have seen in the recent election results that it is the regions of Canada, including the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, the West and British Columbia, that have voted most strongly and forcefully against this Free Trade Agreement.

I believe from my own experience that these sections of Canada voted against the Free Trade Agreement because it was their perception that the protections which had been built in over the last 120 years for an independent Canadian economy were essential to their vision of this country. It is a matter of deep resentment, in our part of the country at least, that this has not been understood, particularly in the Province of Quebec. While we may not have expected a lot better of Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, we did hope that our brothers and sisters in the Province of Quebec might have been more sensitive to the perspective that we were offering to Canada. It is a perspective that we were prepared to pay a price to be Canadian. We are prepared to pay a price to be Canadians. We do not insist on goods at the cheapest price. We recognize that if we are to be an independent country and if we are to speak with an independence in the world, we need to have these protections. We need to have an independent economy in Canada.

It appears that within a few hours the House will pass the free trade legislation. Within a week it will become law. In doing so, we in this Parliament and in the legislatures across Canada will give up substantial rights. We will give up rights to regulate our energy

policy. We will give up rights to regulate investment. We will give up rights to regulate our own economy and to develop innovative social and economic experiments. We will give up rights to have policies that favour Canadian or local businesses in Government purchasing.

This is to be regretted on a number of grounds. It is to be regretted because of its impact on confederation. It is to be regretted because it will leave us with only military spending as the main vehicle for regional development in Canada, to add further to militarization of our economy. It is to be regretted because in selling so much of what we have, we have failed to get the guarantees the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised. We have failed to get protection against American countervailing duties and legislation.

The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party paid a price to get this deal. During this election campaign, they were forced to make a series of commitments to the Canadian people. Chief among those commitments was the Prime Minister's view, as he said in a speech during the election campaign, that the re-election of his Government would ensure the enhancement of social programs. He made his solemn pledge again that a Conservative Government would not dismantle our social networks. That price may have gone against the grain, but it was a price the Government had to pay in order to get this deal.

We will, over the next four years, remind the Prime Minister of that commitment. If for a second time he betrays the Canadian people in their trust, the Prime Minister can count on hearing from these benches.

There will be three points of observation for us during the next four years. Under the terms of the agreement, there will be five to seven years of negotiations surrounding countervail. Those negotiations will, I hope, begin immediately. We will be watching those negotiations.

Second, the Government has again made a solemn commitment that it will protect workers who have been dislocated. The depth and generosity of that commitment, as we have heard it in the last two weeks, may yet be tested. We have heard words with no action, but we will be watching.

Finally, the Government will have opportunities to strengthen our social programs. The Government will have an opportunity to build regional economies across Canada. The Government will have an opportunity to

December 23, 1988

work with the provinces to build a better, fairer and more equitable Canada.

As the Government faces those opportunities, often, we hope, presented to it by those of us on this side of the Elouse, we will be watching the extent of the Government's commitment. If we see one part of these programs eroded, we will alert the Canadian people. It will be our responsibility during the next four years to stand as watch-dogs for Canada over the future of this country.

There is a six-month cancellation clause in this agreement. During the television debate, the Prime Minister referred to this as just a commercial transaction. He invited Canada to exercise that six-month cancellation clause should any of his commitments be undermined. It will be our responsibility in the months and years ahead to stand in this place for Canada and to ensure that the hope that the Prime Minister expresses for this agreement is in fact realized and that history will not regret tonight's moment.

Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to address this House since our election. First of all, I would obviously like to thank my fellow citizens from the wonderful riding of Lotbiniere.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like those in the 169 Conservative ridings in Canada, on November 21 chose the way of prosperity by giving their support to the only political party in this country proposing a trade agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite humbly that I really enjoyed the last election campaign because the voters were faced with an extremely straight-forward situation.

The three parties in the race offered the people a program. On the one hand, the New Democratic Party, being for virtue, changed its policies and programs to suit the opinion polls. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in this election campaign insisted that the debate be essentially on one issue, the Free Trade Agreement.

As for us, Mr. Speaker, we had to answer for the last four years of our mandate, from 1984 to 1988, and for the next four years. Our record for the past four years was extremely prosperous and full of accomplishments. You will recall that the polls conducted at the beginning

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

of the election compaign showed that the outgoing Government was extraordinarily popular. Never had there been so many favorable polls for a government.

Mr. Speaker, a government's role is to give the people something to strive for, a challenge. The only party in the running that had an attractive plan for the people was the Progressive Conservative Party. All the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, could say was that what the Conservatives were offering was no good; that was negativism.

In the end, Mr. Speaker, faced with this situation, the people on November 21 realized that they had had a competent government for the past four years. Remember that in 1984, we had inherited a deteriorating, disastrous situation, with a $38.3-billion deficit, let me remind you. It was frightening!

So on the basis of these facts, seeing that we had given the country good government again, the people obviously wanted to hear what the future government could give them over the next four years. Mr. Speaker, we had achieved a most masterful agreement in the present circumstances, an agreement for prosperity. That is what our business men and women achieved.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Lotbiniere essentially is quite representative of the social and economic dimensions of our immense country. I have many dairy farmers-more than 1,100-with their wives and husbands, children and friends, and also many small and medium-sized businesses that have not only achieved tremendous economic development but also have developed an expertise that enables them to reach the markets of the United States, Europe and even Africa.

Mr. Speaker, you certainly know the Vibec Group in Victoriaville, a highly competent engineering firm, which has managed to use its expertise beyond the limits of the riding, the province and the country, by opening up new markets in both Europe and Africa.

We also have-I want to salute it now because it has just established itself in my riding-the Cascade Corporation in Kingsley Falls which is administered with dynamism by the Lemaire brothers whose leadership is only equalled by the great dimensions of this country.

There are also in my riding quite a number of furniture-making businesses which for years have had subsidiaries in the United States. May I remind you also, Mr. Speaker, that in the City of Princeville alone, there are five major boat-building firms which also must

December 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

export their products to be able to prosper and create jobs for our people back home, in Lotbiniere. These people have realized that by taking their cars or trucks and driving a few hundred kilometres to the south of the Lotbiniere riding, they could reach a concentration of over 100 million consumers. They have managed to understand that, these businessmen and women back home. On the other hand, they have realized that by covering the same distance, not southward, but eastward or westward, they were still within the Quebec borders. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the project proposed by the Conservative Party to our businessmen and women certainly made sense.

These men and women include Mr. Guy Boulanger, from the Boulanger corporation in Warwick which specializes in making doors and mouldings, and which in its field has become one of the most important manufacturer in Quebec, if not in Canada. These people have realized that free trade was already a "fait accompli".

The fact is that for the past twenty-five years, more specifically since 1963, which is not so long ago, Mr,. Speaker, the average duties collected by our Canadian custom officers on all goods imported from the United States decreased from 10 per cent to 3.5 per cent, a reduction of over 6 percentage points. I wish to emphasize that the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement will bring about a reduction of these duties from 3.5 to 2.5 per cent, only a 1 percentage point.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, over the past twenty-five years, we have demanded from our businesses, for their modernization, expansion and consolidation much more than we are going to ask for during the next ten years following the full implementation of the so-called Free Trade Agreement. But again, that is something that the people in Lotbiniere, the businessmen and women, as well as the producers fully realize.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you certainly remember that in 1986, we were forced by the Americans to levy a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber. Unfortunately, at the time, there were about a dozen items which were affected by this tax. Do you know what the next item would have been? Mouldings. You can understand that the Boulanger corporation in Warwick, among others, was keeping very quiet about this situation. It was afraid that the negotiators would finally reach that item. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, they can breath more freely today, because they used to have no protection whatsoever against

American protectionism. Thanks again to this Agreement, we now have a number of mechanism to block the extension of protectionism.

This may be a sign of the times, Mr. Speaker, but do you realize that for its mouldings, the Boulanger corporation in Warwich must purchase its raw material in the United States? It has to bring this raw material home and transform it. It creates jobs for our people and sells its finished products to the Americans.

That is the kind of ability and foresight our business people and citizens in general now have, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say here, Mr. Speaker, that we as a party never claimed that the Free Trade Agreement as such was the end of all our problems. This Agreement, Mr. Speaker, was always presented as a challenge, one that we believed our business people, our producers, and, I repeat, our workers, could meet. But that, Mr. Speaker, obviously depends on the Government being able to give them appropriate policies. So again, in the last election campaign, it was important to be credible. Now what party in recent years could show such credibility? Is it a party that was in power for 25 of the last 30 years and ran up a total debt of $38.3 billion a year, not a decade, or a government that in four years has reduced the debt by $10 billion?

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we gave our business men and women, our producers, support policies so that they could consolidate, modernize and, in short, meet the new challenges that we were offering them. And if we did so over the last four years, obviously we can continue to do so. Besides, we already have some policies in place. The Department of Industry, Science and Technology has just implemented programs to follow up the consolidation and modernization we began. That is foresight. That is what we offered the citizens, the people in my riding, and they answered yes.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the various speakers for some time. Not that I claim to bring anything new, because I think that everything has been said. But you will agree with me that the Hon. Members opposite have not brought anything new either. But I would nevertheless like to point out some things that are unfair, Mr. Speaker. I recently listened to the Hon. Member for "Arctic Power", Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate her for her election, but certainly not for her positions. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on December 19, she said, as reported on page 367 of Hansard:

During the campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that regional development programs were not at risk.

December 23, 1988

His attitude was one of "trust me". Many people in the North believe that they were forced to trust the Prime Minister, our federal political representative, when he met in secret in the middle of the night with ten Premiers to finalize the Meech Lake Accord. Many of my constituents believe that the Accord makes northerners second-class citizens in this country. They also state that the provincial Premiers protected their constituents, but that the Prime Minister, our sole representative, did not do the same for us.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for "Arctic Power" forgot two very basic things. First, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully remind her of the First Ministers' conference with the native poeple in 1985; 1 was there myself. This conference almost resulted in an agreement, except for internal problems with the native people themselves. Secondly, I would remind her that she belongs to the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, the same one-imagine-that imposed repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 without the agreement of not only the native people but also, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec, the birthplace of the French-speaking people, one of the founding nations. She belongs to a party.. . She criticizes us for not having included the Indians in the Meech Lake Agreement. But back in 1982, Mr. Speaker, her own party imposed the Canadian Constitution without the consent not only of the Indians, but of the French-speaking people of Canada. That is no mean feat! That is really something! That is why the people of Quebec, in 1984, told them: "Get out! Enough is enough!" Enough is enough, indeed! In 1988, it was no fluke, Madam. Last year, in Quebec alone, the people realized that we were capable of governing them well. They realized that we were able to identify with and respond to their true aspirations. We don't have any magic solutions, but we have an open attitude, we are able to listen and to discuss. We don't impose things. We don't want to go down in history as a party which says: "This is how it's going to be. And that's that. We're the boss." A country does not work like that. That is no way to govern. But that's what the Member from "Artie Power" tells us. Surely there are limits, Mr. Speaker.

She has forgotten, just like the Member from LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin). How terrible ... He says he is going to watch us. But how long has he been a member of that party? I don't know if he remembers- in any case, his father was there at the time- when Mackenzie King actually told the Canadian people, the people of Quebec in particular-

I would ask the Hon. Member to confine himself to the amendment.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement