May 25, 1993

PC

Donald Alex Blenkarn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Madam Speaker, we have heard a great deal of drivel tonight from the other side. They would have us turn the clock of history back maybe 50 years or 100 years. They would have us go back to the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. John A. Macdonald's national policies were important for the country 50 years ago or 100 years ago but they are not policies for today.

Today we live in a world where goods are produced with fewer and fewer people. The economies of mass production, the computer and robotics changed the production of goods and services to such an extent that tariff barriers are no longer barriers. The old policy of high tariffs to protect the domestic industries of Canada and keep the domestic employment up will no longer work.

If we had to go back to a high tariff policy we would have to go back to a policy of 100 per cent tariffs and 200 per cent tariffs. We would have to go back to a controlled policy that prevented goods from coming into the coun-

May 25, 1993

try and services from coming into the countiy based on nationality or based on whatever we might have. Such a policy would drive the standard of living in Canada down beyond all belief. Yet that is the policy recommended by the New Democrats or the new dinosaurs, to get down to the proper name for that party, or the Liberal Party.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a world economy. We have to produce our goods to world standards of quality and price. If we are not prepared to do that we are not going to be able to maintain our standard of living. We must organize ourselves to produce things efficiently and effectively at prices that beat anybody in the world.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

An hon. member:

Lay everybody off.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Donald Alex Blenkarn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Blenkarn:

My friend says: "Lay everybody off". Lie is right. Anybody who cannot work to produce to the world standard is going to have to learn how to produce to the world standard or lower his or her standard of living. The fact of the matter is that we will have to learn in this country how to live at a world standard.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

An hon. member:

At a Mexican standard.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Donald Alex Blenkarn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Blenkarn:

My friend says: "At a Mexican standard". I want to tell him right now that I have just come back from the Far East. I talked with a number of entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who are hiring labour in south China, Bangladesh and Vietnam at 50 cents an hour. Mexican labour in their terms is just four times too expensive.

The fact of the matter is that Mexico is expensive compared to the world cost of labour. What we have to do is win and we have to win by using our intelligence, our confidence and our basic understanding of how things work to beat world competition. We cannot expect the world to give to us because we happen to be Canadians. We have to win our place in this world. Until opposition members understand that we will never get any sense out of them. They believe we can go back to the days of Sir John A., put up a big tariff barrier, make sure all sorts of uneconomic production exists in Canada and therefore people are employed in Canada to produce uneconomic results.

I am sorry. It will not work any more. The world is not like that any longer. That is not the world we live in. I am soriy we cannot have what we used to have. We used to

Government Orders

have a situation in Canada where we could have a whole series of manufacturers producing only for the Canadian market. We could sell as Canadians our raw resources to the world and make a profit. Raw resources today do not win. Any countiy that tries to win and create on raw resources will go nowhere.

We have a situation where the parties in opposition advocate a policy of not just yesterday, a month ago, a year ago, seven years ago, but 50 years ago. They are advocating a 50-year old policy. That is what they are, a dinosaur party of a long time ago.

Whatever we heard from the other side tonight it is the kind of thing that no longer works in the world. It certainly will not work in Canada. We cannot have a policy based on the new dinosaur concept that we can protect every job by a higher tariff, that we can protect every occupation with a high stone wall against the world.

We have to sell our manufacturers to the world. We have to sell our technology to the world. We have to sell our resources to the world. We have to sell them at prices the world will find competitive. If we do not we will not have the standard of living we have.

Until we are prepared to deal on a world economy basis then we had better understand there is no protection for any job, any position or any occupation in this country. We have to be competitive. Until we are competitive we have no future. The free trade agreement we have with the United States helps us dramatically in terms of our competition. It has given us the opportunity to be competitive with large American corporations on a world basis.

As we expand that free trade agreement with Mexico and hopefully Chile and Argentina, hopefully with all South America, we will be able to have a bloc of free trade countries in the world in which we can sell our expertise, our telephones, our commuter aircraft and our high-tech stuff. That makes sense. As long as we can do that we will be successful.

On the other hand we could go back. We could follow the New Democratic Party. It would keep policy tariffs up. It would make sure that we are a little country with little minds. We would have a lower and lower standard of living. The fact of the matter is that the objectives of the other side are such that they are a denial of where the countiy is going in the world. They deny globaliza-

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

tion. They deny the fact that people have changed and the productive systems in the world have changed.

We have to refute that denial. We have to support this bill. We have to deny the various foolish amendments that have been put before us at report stage. I think the amendments before us must be denied.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Stan Kazmierczak Keyes

Liberal

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):

Madam Speaker, boy, what a bunch of fantasy we just heard from the member for Mississauga South.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Stan Kazmierczak Keyes

Liberal

Mr. Keyes:

Yes, the retiring member, says the member from Hamilton East. He has nothing to lose in standing there and taking 10 or 15 minutes of House time to gloat about what the government that he has been a part of for so many years has done to this country first with the free trade agreement and now with the proposed NAFTA deal.

This country was never competitive until today, implies the member for Mississauga South. Never competitive until today. We were lost in the wilderness. We would have been in the dark for decades if not for the actions of the member for Mississauga South and the government which he so eloquently represents, and that is a compliment for that man, right? Let us look at the record. He eloquently represents this government and look at the record he has achieved for us.

First I must address the amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, to "respect the freedom of association and affirm the role that free and independent, public and private sector unions play in the conduct of democratic governance, honour the rights of all working people to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike, encourage an open dialogue between management and labour on all decisions affecting the future of the work force as a result of the agreement, and implement retraining and adjustment programs for workers displaced as a result of the agreement, including support for those wishing to become self-employed".

Now, what do the government people say about such matters? I will quote from the government document on Mexican labour laws and their practices. "Labour abuses

are widespread in Mexico. Weak enforcement of Mexico's labour laws has been cited as a strong argument against freer U.S. trade with the country. Mexican resources for enforcement are scarce. Work place inspections are infrequent, particularly for the Maquiladora operations and only in rare cases are sanctions applied by inspectors. Inadequate safe conditions contribute to industrial accidents in smaller firms and at construction sites".

This is a hell of a record we are going to associate ourselves with, is it not? How about child labour laws? This government document says that taxable child laws are observed in large and medium sized manufacturing and commercial establishments in Mexico. They are not well observed in the small shops and factories. They are virtually ignored in the informal sector.

The statutory minimum age for employment is 14 years. Mexican children between 14 and 16 years of age may work but are subject to special legal protection and shorter working hours. Thank goodness for that. They will not be working 21-hour days. According to a study by the Cato Institute, an estimated 10 million children work at least part-time in Mexico. Ten million children work part-time in Mexico, supplementing an adult labour force of about 30 million. The huge number of child workers reflects generalized poverty and inadequate enforcement of child labour laws. Is that not incredible?

I have two daughters. Many of the members here this evening have children. I cannot imagine for a second that my daughter, age 10, is going to have to go out and work in order to supplement the food we try to put on the table and that my daughter, age 7, is going to have to help my daughter, age 10, who is helping the family to make enough money so that we can put food on the table. That is outrageous.

Is that the concept that we as Canadians are trying to develop? Is that what we are trying to show the rest of the world what we stand for as Canadians? I think not. For the last two, three, four decades Canada has come forward and said: "This is what we are all about. We are a very generous country. We invite all kinds of immigration. We have people living here celebrating their heritage and the diversity of their cultures. We have a wonderful democracy, fairness, free speech".

May 25, 1993

Then along comes the Tory Party. Free speech. Boy, free speech tonight? While members of this House were busy in committee-I was in the transport committee along with my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan from 9 a.m. this morning until just now, but at 4.30 this afternoon the government House leader sneaks in-sorry, I apologize. I will take that back, Madam Speaker. He did not sneak in. He walked in proudly to his seat and said: "This is it. Once again we are invoking closure and limiting the debate on this bill". The largest and most complex piece of legislation to be tabled in this House, some 4,000-plus pages.

Many of my constituents know the disastrous effects of the Canada-U.S. free trade deal and what effect it has had on our country. When I was first elected to this House, when the House was called into session in 1988 we did not have much time. It did not even have time for orientation as a person who had never been here before. My colleagues from Haldimand-Norfolk and Kenora- Rainy River, many of us were first-timers. We walked right in to the free trade debate here in the House of Commons, sitting in our offices, no staff yet, writing our free trade speeches with a pencil and paper, putting it all together.

We discussed the free trade deal. We said there were not enough standards for Canadian workers at that time. We are saying it again today. There are not enough standards for Canadian workers.

The government estimated an increase of 250,000 jobs over 10 years. That was in 1988. Well, five years later half the time has elapsed and what do we have? Over 1.6 million Canadians without jobs. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector, jobs which perhaps have gone for good as Canada is gradually deindustrialized under the failed economic policies of this government, such as the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. And now we have free trade II: NAFTA.

My constituents have been asking me why the government is rushing to pass NAFTA legislation this week when the Americans are not even convinced that it meets their own objectives, that it does not yet meet their standards for dispute resolutions and environmental codes. The so-called side agreements which the Americans are intent upon agreeing to before they ratify

Government Orders

NAFTA have yet to be agreed upon by our government in its haste, ramming the NAFTA through this House before Canadians have had a chance to even examine the legislation and the impact it will have on their lives and their jobs.

Jobs of course are a top priority for Canadians and my constituents. I sent out a householder at the beginning of this month. I asked the constituents in my riding of Hamilton West to rank their priority in creating jobs, putting retraining programs into place, and controlling the deficit. So far I have received 300 householders and they are still coming in. Seventy-five per cent of those 300 householders put the creation of jobs as the number one priority.

Why? Well, maybe it is because over 10,000 jobs have been lost in the steel industry in our home town of Hamilton alone. The steel industry where our production is superior to any other in the country should have been in boom times. Except now under the mis-negotiated Canada-U.S. trade deal it is a bust.

These constituents, like the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs because of the free trade deal, remember the Prime Minister promising in 1988 that Canadian workers who were laid off because of the free trade deal would receive the most generous retraining programs anywhere in order to get them back to work. That promise of course was a farce. Canadians were hopeful of having their jobs protected. Of course, the Prime Minister turned around and promised jobs, jobs, jobs. That is another broken promise.

In closing, Canadians want to see the fine print. They want to see this legislation debated and debated fairly. They are fed up with this type of legislative heartlessness and they want the jobs and retraining programs they were promised. Canadians also want the environment to be protected under this deal. This deal does not meet the objectives of our constituents.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Iain Francis Angus (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House and speak against the North American free trade bill but in favour of the amendments put forward by one of my next-door neighbours, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, and a member from my caucus, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

I think it is important, eight hours into the debate on report stage amendments that I remind those who are watching of the actual text of these motions that have been grouped for debate. I gather that these will be voted on separately, whenever that time comes. It may or may not come soon if anyone is wondering how things are going to progress.

Motion No. 1 would add the following words:

respect the freedom of association and affirm the role that free and independent, public and private sector unions play in the conduct of democratic governance,

honour the rights of all working people to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike,

encourage an open dialogue between management and labour on all decisions affecting the future of the work force as a result of the Agreement,

Actually, that might apply to some places in Canada as well.

implement retraining and adjustment programs for workers displaced as a result of the Agreement, including support for those wishing to become self-employed; and

That is the motion in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Also my colleague from Esquimau-Juan de Fuca has put forward that:

"7.1 Nothing in this Act or the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to prevent or limit a Party to the Agreement-

-that is any one of the three countries-

- from establishing a tax on any good imported from the territory of another Party to the Agreement to fund any labour adjustment program or environmental program made necessary by reason of the Party's trade with that other Party or as a result of the production of that other Party.

Motion No. 27 again by my colleague from Esquimau-Juan de Fuca adds that:

(a) unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement;

(b) unless the legislative bodies of the NAFTA countries have adopted a Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for North America modelled on the items 2 through 12 of the Charter of the European Community.

Motion No. 30 adds the following:

(a) unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement; and

(b) until the Secretariat of the International Labour Organization states, in writing, that it is satisfied that the United Mexican States and every state in the United States of America is complying fully with the following conventions of that Organization:

(i) Convention number eighty-seven guaranteeing the freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize;

(ii) Convention number one hundred and five abolishing forced labour;

(iii) Convention number one hundred guaranteeing equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value;

(iv) Convention number one hundred and eleven abolishing discrimination in employment.

Finally in terms of the words that my colleagues are attempting to add to the legislation enacting NAFTA there is the following:

(a) unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement; and

(b) until the United Nations Human Rights Committee Against Torture has expressed, in writing, that it is satisfied that human rights violations are no longer commonplace in Mexico, that torture is no longer systematic in Mexico and that human rights violations in Mexico will be prosecuted by the Mexican government.

If we are to have an economic constitution for North America it is only appropriate that these kinds of measures are put in place. Without them it is quite realistic to anticipate that companies which for whatever reason locate in Mexico will not meet the high ideals, the high standards that have developed in this country of ours over the years, standards that have been developed through the sweat, talk, negotiations and yes, sometimes the blood of trade unionists who have fought for the right to bargain freely, to bargain collectively, fought for the right to have safe and healthy work places. It has not been an easy struggle. It has taken decades.

This past weekend I had the honour, as all of us have had in this House, to present to distinguished Canadians medals in honour of Canada's 125th anniversary as a country. One of those medals that I presented on Friday night was to a former staff rep for the United Steel Workers of America, Henry Gareau, who was one of the first individuals in Ontario to have a nation wide effect in developing the first silicosis committee. For those who

May 25, 1993

are unaware, silicosis is the resulting disease obtained by miners because of exposure to the elements in the mines. That committee was formed decades ago by this individual as part of his job and part of his training and understanding of the needs of workers and the things that affect them.

The work of that one man and that committee eventually developed into protection for widows of those miners who lost their lives because of the silicosis that they obtained because of their work.

If we do not have these kinds of provisions in the enabling legislation the work that Henry Gareau and others have done over the years will be lost. Whether it is a mining company or a manufacturing company or a service company, they will be able to locate in Mexico. Unless we have some assurance that our high standards will be applied, workers there will suffer the same ill effects from their working conditions suffered here in Canada decades ago.

We are not against trading with Mexico. We are not against trading with the United States. We believe in fair trade, we believe in managed trade. We recognize that North America is a major market for us and we can do a lot there. It is a question of what rules we do it under. Do we do it under a free-for-all system that allows for the lowest common denominator? Or, do we put in place specific agreements that are managed agreements that ensure that Mexico is not allowed to undermine the United States which is not allowed to undermine Canada in terms of its workers?

We need an agreement that deals with those things. We are trying to amend this legislation to include the expertise, the gains that were made in Europe through its social charter which ensures that jobs cannot be stolen from one country to benefit another. Those are the kinds of provisions we need in a fair trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, not this free for all that has been brought before us, indeed rushed before us in an attempt to rush it through the House.

It boggles my mind to think back in terms of how second reading was rushed. My colleague from Esquimau-Juan de Fuca will remember how the Tories rammed second reading through this House and they sat on their duffs. They did not call the committee together to meet. They did not give it the opportunity to hear

Government Orders

from Canadians in all parts of Canada. They did not take the committee to the heartland of Ontario where the highest number of jobs have been lost since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into being. Certainly southern Ontario was devastated. The industrial heartland of Canada was devastated as we saw the direct results of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement come into being.

We are again being told that the government wants report stage in and out of this House quickly. It wants third reading, which is the final reading in this House, done in a day. That is why we took the option that we had earlier today to extend the sitting of this House. It is not normal at 9.10 on a Tuesday evening for this House to be sitting.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

An hon. member:

This is not a normal House.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Iain Francis Angus (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Angus:

My colleague says this is not a normal House and I cannot dispute that.

We felt it was important to provide time for members who represent Canadians, members on this side of the House, to get up and explain why we want this legislation changed and why we oppose the concept in its entirety because we have not had that chance. Debate has been very, very limited. Even now I am limited to only 10 minutes on this particular package. I will be back to speak on the other aspects of the amendments put forward by my colleagues in this House because it is my duty, my responsibility and my right to do so.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Joy Langan (Deputy Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):

Madam Speaker, I am almost lost for words about the situation in which we find ourselves in this House of Commons talking about this thick piece of legislation in 10-minute components.

We are talking about a piece of legislation where two speakers from my party were given the opportunity to speak on second reading. Two of our speakers were given the opportunity to speak on a bill that is going to change Canada as we know it in every way. Many of us ran on this issue in the last federal election. Many of us ran with the commitment that we would speak out loudly and strongly about why and how this bill would affect us as Canadians. Suddenly we find ourselves in the situation after all of this time of finally getting a document this

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

thick and being told that it must go through and it must be rammed through quickly.

When we talk today about this piece of legislation and these amendments we are talking about the environmental and social conditions that this bill places before us. The New Democrats put forward several amendments under this section. One of the amendments was to talk about the interpretation so as to prevent or limit a party to the agreement from establishing a tax on any good imported from the territory of another party to the agreement, to find any labour adjustment program or environmental program made necessary by reason of the party's trade with that other party, or as a result of the product of that other party. That was put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

That is a very important amendment because the question becomes where will the money come from in this country to pay for labour adjustment and environmental clean-up due to dislocations and pollution caused by the trade and goods production. Think about it. Here we are in 1993 and we do not have the money, according to the finance minister of this country, to enter into the adjustment programs that were promised to us under the free trade agreement. Now we are going into a North American free trade agreement and we have nothing, no commitment to show us how we will be able to protect Canadian workers through adjustment for jobs lost under this North American free trade agreement. What happens to particularly those workers? Younger workers are going to be hurt but they are young in the work force and they will have an opportunity to recover.

What happens to the workers who are 40, 45, 50 or, 55 years of age? They have worked all of their lives in this country, and planned their working lives toward retire-men. Many of them have pension plans that rely on the best five years, and they find themselves out of work because of this North American free trade agreement. What happens to those workers?

They lose their opportunity. The best five years are often the last five years of their working lives. They find

themselves displaced. They find themselves out of the labour market, no retraining programs in place, no real thought having been given to what we do about these workers. They find themselves at the age of 45, 50, 55 being disenfranchised by Canada, being left in a situation where no one wants them, no one is prepared to retrain them. It is too costly to retrain them. Why would an employer retrain them if they only have 5, 10, 15 years left in the work force? What have we done in this country to ensure that those workers will be protected by adjustment programs? What promises has this government not given the workers of Canada? They have given them no promises other than to say: "Trust us".

The Canadian people trusted this government in the last federal election and the trust has been betrayed by this country. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers were disenfranchised under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They have been left high and dry. We have seen the unemployment insurance program savaged under the guise of providing training programs for workers who have been disenfranchised. Not only do we have a non-program of retraining for those workers, we now have a less than adequate unemployment insurance program.

Without the option under this bill to tax imports a Tory or Liberal government could claim that there is simply no money. There is no money for retraining. There is no money for labour adjustment. There is no money for environmental clean-up. This amendment must be passed and I think it is absolutely critical that we support this amendment to this bill.

Under Motion No. 27 which has also been put forward by my caucus there is a request to amend this bill in clause 242. Essentially this amendment is that legislative counsel has added the citing of clause 242 at page 193 but in fact it is not found on page 193. It deals with trade marks. It is inappropriate for this amendment.

Legislative counsel may have intended this amendment to change part III coming into force which is clause 247 of the first reading version but I think it is absolutely critical that we recognize that free trade by itself brings enormous hardships to workers and communities.

May 25, 1993

To achieve the benefits of increased trade without the concomitant hardships being addressed leaves us in a situation where workers are just going to be abandoned.

All workers should feel secure in this country in the knowledge that not only are they free to choose and engage in an occupation but that all employment will be fairly remunerated.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact of this bill on British Columbia and on my riding of Mission-Coquitlam. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of many of my colleagues that British Columbians will be hurt by the NAFTA. Our resource processing sector, domestic manufacturing and the service sector will likely see numerous job losses. More women, children, people of the First Nations and recent immigrants will live in poverty in British Columbia. We will be less in control of the protection of our environment. We will find ourselves in British Columbia in a situation where some will profit but the majority will be less well off as a result of this agreement.

In my riding the forest industry is an important part of the economy. Workers in our forest industry see the NAFTA as a further threat not only to their jobs but to a way of life. They have seen this government renege on the promise of workers adjustment programs, as I have already stated, under the free trade agreement. They have never seen the adjustment programs.

They have already seen some plants move across the Canada-U.S. border taking their jobs with them. Forest companies are already moving to Mexico.

In British Columbia we are familiar with the Louisiana Pacific. That company has built a state of the art sawmill in Jaurez, Mexico, 60 miles south of San Diego. American raw logs and unfinished lumber are being barged to this manufacturing plant where they are processed and returned to the U.S. The Mexican workers are paid a pitiful $1 to $1.60 U.S. an hour with no benefits. Mexican environmental and safety regulations, which are weak to begin with, are not enforced. This is the kind of future the people in my community face under NAFTA.

Government Orders

As we move into the next number of amendments I will be back to cover some of the other areas that are affecting my community.

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley

Valley): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to enter into debate at report stage on Bill C-115. The legislation, as most Canadians will quickly come to know, is to implement the North American free trade agreement.

Tonight we will be debating until all hours the nature of the legislation that this government is attempting to ram through this Parliament, legislation some 4,000 pages long and, as some have said, the largest piece of legislation ever introduced in the Canadian Parliament, to implement the North American free trade agreement.

It is important that all members of Parliament in this House use this opportunity to really debate and discuss the impact of this treaty on the economy not just of Canada but in particular of our constituencies and of our provinces.

It is important to note, to put tonight's debate into context, just how important it seems to be to the government of the day to get this legislation through. We have just learned on some news reports that the Prime Minister has called back all Conservative Party leadership candidates to be in the House of Commons for the vote on this legislation this week. I am glad that they are coming back, if they do show up. Kim, Jean, Jim, wherever you are, I am glad that you are coming back to be in the House and to be accountable so that Canadians will get a chance to see just how the next leader of the Progressive Conservative Party votes on this legislation. Wherever you are, in northern Ontario or travelling to round up those Tory delegates for the convention, you are welcome to come back. We will be here ready to vote on this legislation.

This legislation is particularly important for a province like British Columbia where when we debate trade it is all about subsidies and countervails. I just have to mention the softwood lumber tariff dispute as a perfect example of the mess that this government has gotten our forest sector into under both the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

What are some of our concerns? Anyone who represents a riding where we have the forest sector with exports to the United States, I suggest that there is at least one part of the North American free trade agreement that is reason enough to defeat this legislation in Parliament. That is the whole provision surrounding the determination of what is a subsidy.

If you are from northern British Columbia and you work in the forest industry that is what trade is all about. One of the criticisms of the free trade agreement was the lack of a definition of a subsidy so that we could determine once and for all what is fair trading policy between our country and the United States.

You will recall the legitimate criticism we levelled at the government when it said it would have some five to seven years to deal with this issue to resolve the question of a subsidy so we would not have the debates we are having over magnesium, raspberries, softwood and salmon, you name it.

What does the North American free trade agreement do? It lifts that requirement so that we will never have a settlement on the whole question about what trade disputes are all about. I would say that if you are from a constituency or province that is heavily dependent on resources and resource extraction for export, that is reason enough to question this legislation and this treaty.

I say that with a great deal of concern about what the future holds for the trade legislation between our two countries because we do not have free trade. Madam Speaker, you know that as well as everyone else does.

We have left in place existing countervail legislation, protectionist legislation on both sides of the border. The government of the day is touting free trade. Well the harassment will continue and we just have to take a look at the list that has developed so far.

We seem to have more trade disputes now when we have so-called free trade. Canadians wonder what direction the government is taking us in with these particular policies. I think it will be particularly interesting when the debate comes as it will later this year, be it in an election campaign or when and if this Parliament sits again, on the whole question of the parallel agreements.

It is very clear that President Clinton and his administration have blind-sided the government in terms of what it thought was to be expected out of Washington, D.C. The government is wondering what direction to go on this. Again negotiations are in secret so we cannot see what is being negotiated even in these parallel agreements.

The motions introduced by my colleague from Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca go a long way in addressing and bringing to a public forum and debate the inadequacies of the government in its administration of the free trade agreement. You will recall the promise of the Prime Minister about the best labour adjustment programs that this country would ever see. We have seen labour adjustment all right. We have seen unemployment going up. We have seen cuts to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That is not the kind of labour adjustment that Canadians were expecting from this government.

It is particularly important that we survey as best we can what the impact those deals will have on our country. We know they are back room deals signed once again by this government, Washington, D.C. and Mexico City.

It is remarkable in a sense that we have debated this legislation and this treaty some two hours and nine minutes at second reading.

The government is using its parliamentary muscle this week to attempt to ram the legislation through. The Prime Minister has called the Tory leadership candidates into the House to try and make sure that they go on record on another one of his proudest and finest achievements, along with the goods and services tax and a number of other issues that Canadians are all too familiar with.

Members will recall the debate, the millions of dollars that were spent last fall promoting a referendum on the Constitution. Many have suggested that what this government is bringing in is an economic constitution of Canada. Yet try to get a copy of the North American free trade agreement from anywhere. If it were not for diligent members of the House, likely on both sides, who spent the time trying to dredge up copies of the treaty to get to their libraries and elsewhere so that people have that information-I hope even members on the other

May 25, 1993

side are doing the same thing-Canadians would not have a chance to see exactly what we are debating here.

Why is the government proceeding as it is? It is pretty clear that it views the North American free trade agreement as the big yawn and that nobody is concerned about it. Let us use this opportunity now to ram the legislation through Parliament.

Let me give as a wrap-up the results of a random survey that my office conducted in the city of Prince George. I was surprised, as most members might be, at the response from people when they were given a chance to comment privately in their own homes about the issue of free trade and the North American free trade agreement. This was not a list of the NDP members in Prince George. This was a random survey. Some 400 to 500 people were called in Prince George to find out their views on the North American free trade agreement. I take my lead from my constituents because when given an opportunity to discuss and comment on the North American free trade agreement, they say they do not like it.

They have not seen the promises that the government made during the free trade agreement debate. They have not seen the kind of information that should be available on the North American free trade agreement. I am with my constituents on this issue. We are concerned about what this government is doing in dragging us into an economy in North America where we will not be able to develop our own resources.

I implore members of the government to consider these amendments and to consider what the government is doing. Please let us defeat this legislation tonight.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

David Charles Dingwall

Liberal

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate this evening. I am happy to follow my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. I am certain that they would want to join with me and members of my caucus when we extend congratulations to the Liberals in Nova Scotia that elected overwhelmingly a Liberal majority government in that province.

I make that announcement because there is a parallel in the subsequent federal election to come. I believe it reflects the quality of debate that we are having in the House of Commons as it relates to the North American free trade agreement.

Government Orders

I want to say not only did the Liberals increase the number of seats from 21 to 40, Tory support decreased from an overwhelming 35 seats down to nine. Of course, the New Democratic Party, true to its values and principles, made a remarkable gain in the province of Nova Scotia in that it did not move one iota in terms of the number of seats it now holds in that province. How appropriate. I think that will be reflected as we see in the quality of debate. The quality of debate on this side is so overwhelming as it relates to the North American free trade agreement. Of course opposite it is absolutely terrible. And what do we have to the left? We get the same old status quo from the New Democratic Party.

On the amendments put forward by my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River, it is worth mentioning that Motion No. 1 contains some things which I believe are deserving of the attention of this House. For instance, paragraph 2 of Motion No. 1 says: "honour the rights of all working people to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike". The third paragraph states: "encourage an open dialogue between management and labour on all decisions affecting the future of the work force as a result of the agreement".

I am no expert on international collective agreements. I am no expert on international agreements which have been signed by sovereign states. But much has been said in this House, particularly by my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River as well as others on this side of the House, which makes it very clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this amendment should be accepted by the government. If not accepted by the government, I would think that most reasonable Canadians would conclude that we on this side would be forced to vote against the legislation which is now being put forward by the Government of Canada.

However, as we pursue our line of thinking and our analysis on the debate of this particular motion before the House, Canadians have to come to realize that the government opposite in proceeding in the way it has not only by forcing the legislation through, but also now in participating simultaneously with side agreements without even adjudicating as to what is in this particular bill, we as a nation have given up leverage. That leverage would have been vital in bringing the Americans and the

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

Mexicans back to the table in order to renegotiate in the best interests of Canadians.

For that reason, Canadians will hold those members opposite responsible. They will do as they did in the province of Nova Scotia tonight: They will kick ass. They will turn out the Tories in the next federal election.

Madam Speaker, there would probably be unanimous consent for me to continue, but in the few moments I have remaining I do want to say that in the almost 14 years I have spent in this House, I have never seen a government display such incompetence when it comes to bargaining in the best interests of Canadians. Elementary negotiating tactics would say that one does not do what the Government of Canada has done and that is to place all of your cards on the table, give away everything in advance of the realization of what your particular goal may be.

However, this government has done the impossible. It has given away the store in these negotiations time after time after time. Now in the ninth inning, just prior to a federal election, the government wishes to ram a piece of legislation through Parliament. It hopes it will have a negative impact on the successor government of this party, that somehow when we gain the confidence of the Canadian people in the next election we will have to deal with that particular issue.

That is absolutely idiotic and stupid. Most reasonable Canadians as the debate progresses and those issues are debated in an election campaign will come to realize and fully appreciate that this approach to consummating international agreements is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians.

I have to take the government to task for proceeding in the way in which it has, for putting items on the agenda which are not in Canada's interests and for omitting those which are in our interests.

I think of the adjustment programs that Canadians were promised during the 1988 election campaign. I remember that the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra put it to the Prime Minister of the day. The leader of the New Democratic Party was off on some safari on some other issue but it was the right hon.

member for Vancouver Quadra who carried the issue with regard to the free trade agreement and specifically the adjustment programs which were lacking.

This particular North American free trade agreement says nothing with regard to a subsidies code. It is null and void and is another major omission with regard to international trade policies. There is nothing in the North American free trade agreement dealing with the energy concept. Of course there is an intellectual argument which can be put forward by those opposite that says: "It really does not have an effect and it may not have an effect". Nevertheless when one reads the fine print, energy is an important aspect of Canadian society and the Canadian economy and it ought to have been a part of the North American free trade agreement. Again it is a substantive omission which is part and parcel of the way this government has operated.

Another major omission of this particular North American free trade agreement is the whole dumping provisions.

I hear a voice from the left, ranting and raving. I hear those voices and I hope they are going to participate in the debate. I hope they are going to say something worth while because until now, the members of the New Democratic Party have added very little to the substance of this debate. As they have done in the provincial election which was just held in Nova Scotia, they have not added one iota to the substance of the debate in this particular Chamber, nor have they added anything to the Chamber in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly as a result of tonight's election.

I want to say to my colleagues to the left: Do not stand up here and try to protect the political reputation of the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Ed Broad-bent, who ran for cover when free trade was being debated across this country in 1988. We are not the party that made the deal with the Government of Canada. It is the leader of the New Democratic Party who made the deal with the Prime Minister and we know what the golden handshake was for the former leader of the New Democratic Party. As someone has said, I believe it was the member opposite: "He is quite a dipper". I do not know if he is a double dipper. He may even be a triple dipper.

May 25, 1993

The amendments which have been put forth by my colleagues, particularly by the member for Kenora- Rainy River, deserve the support of this House. They are reasonable and substantive. They go to the heart of working men and women in this country. I would urge all members opposite to support these amendments.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril (Cid) Samson

New Democratic Party

Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the House leader for the Liberal Party. He was pointing fingers and making all kinds of accusations saying that the NDP was not there for the free trade debate.

I would like to ask him where his members were at second reading when the vote was taken. Thirty-nine of the Liberal members were missing and we lost by 19 votes. Where were they? We could have defeated it at that time, but they were not even here. Now they stand up, holier than thou, pointing fingers, yelling, screaming, saying that the New Democratic Party did not want to participate in the debate. He wanted something with substance.

The hon. member can yell all he wants. He can talk about all kinds of patronage appointments as he wants, but take a look in the other place. We know where all their appointments are going. Do not tell me about appointments. We know what appointments are. They are all sitting right over there. They are the chairmen of all the boards across this country. When the Liberals were in power they made those appointments. Do not point fingers at us and tell us about appointments. They are the leaders and the pros when it comes to appointments.

This evening I would like to speak on the amendments as they pertain to the North American free trade agreement.

I was on route from Timmins in my riding this evening and I got a message on the plane to call home when I landed in Toronto. There was a message to call my wife. I was very concerned because that was the entire message. I did not know whether something was wrong at home or within the family, but there was not. The message was that the government came into this House today announcing its intention to introduce closure on this debate and that our party, the New Democratic Party, not the Liberals, voted to introduce the extension of

Government Orders

hours. So here we are debating this issue this evening, thanks to the New Democratic Party.

I have not heard the Liberals say tonight that they were going to abrogate the trade deal, nothing like that. When they are talking about the amendments, when they are talking about NAFTA, they are not talking about abrogating. They are talking about perhaps wanting to renegotiate it because they are in fact free traders. We know where the Liberals are. We know where they sit on this agreement.

Another thing I received when I arrived here was a notice from my riding that Kidd Creek Mines was going to lay off. I should rephrase that to be fair to Kidd Creek Mines. It was planning to cut 250 jobs and that was announced by Falconbridge Limited, the owner of Kidd Creek Mines.

The reason given was the serious downturn in price for base metal. That is what was announced today. The number of workers who could be laid off by mid-September is unknown because it is not known how many are going to take early retirement and how many are going to take a severance package and so on.

That was an announcement made by the manager at Kidd Creek Mines, Warren Holmes. I know that Mr. Holmes works extremely hard to protect the workers at the mine and at the met site. I know that he did not take this lightly and I know that this is affecting him personally because that is the kind of person he is.

What worries me is what kind of additional pressure is going to be put on Canadian workers as a result of NAFTA? What kind of pressure is going to force them to consider taking lower wages, to taking cuts in their wages as a result of companies threatening to move their operations to places in Mexico like the Maquiladora?

I know you cannot move a mine. I am not that silly. That is not what I am saying for one moment. The fact remains that our workers in general will be put into a situation where they may not have any control over negotiations affecting their working conditions. Why? Because the company or a manufacturer can simply say: "If you do not like it, fine. Walk. We will move". That has already been done.

We know that in Mexico the working conditions are somewhat less than favourable and I am being very kind. We know that workers are working under a lot of duress and a lot of stress. We know that workers have to start

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

working at 14 years old in order to supplement the wages of the family. We know these things.

There are no guarantees in this agreement, there is no Canadian content protection and there is no protection for our workers.

Right from the pre-1988 election when we were campaigning against the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we were saying very clearly what was going to happen in this country to our workers. There would be massive lay-offs, massive plant closures and massive destruction in this country and this is what is happening.

As a result of what we know already, the crime rate is up, family break-ups are up, suicides are up, job creation is down, unemployment is up and welfare is up. Nothing good has come out of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Now we want to go into phase two. We did not complete the job with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, now we want to go into phase two with the NAFTA and continue the debate. We want to continue the destruction.

What we want to do in these amendments is offer some protection for our workers. The motion of the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Motion No. 30, read in part:

That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 242 by striking out lines

20 to 24 at page 193 and substituting the following therefore:

(i) Convention number eighty-seven guaranteeing the freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize;

Why do we want to give workers the right to organize? Everybody knows that the unions only exist to go on strike. That is what a lot of the members are trying to make us believe. Unions do not do anything, but it sure is nice to see them there when you look at the agreement book and you see the kind of protection that workers have in terms of health and safety in the work place.

Workers have the right to organize and there is a reason people organize. It is not just to go on strike. It is to protect their rights, their freedoms and to protect them in the work place. It is thanks to unions that we have Bill 70 which is a provincial bill in Ontario that gives workers the right to refuse unsafe working conditions. What is wrong with those rights?

The motion goes on to state:

(ii) Convention number one hundred and five abolishing forced labour;

Nobody should be a slave. Nobody should be a forced labourer. We should have the freedom to choose, to move, to work and to gain a living.

When we saw Bill C-113 which was in part the Unemployment Insurance Act restricted in Canada the ability of workers to move. Now you cannot just up and leave your job because you want to go on to something better unless you can prove unequivocally that what you are doing is an upward move. You cannot do a lateral move, it has to be an upward move.

I notice that my time is coming to an end. My point is that we cannot restrict people from moving from one job to another when in the opinion of that worker it is an improvement for himself or herself.

Finally, the last part of the motion, as was put forward by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, reads:

(iv) Convention number one hundred and eleven abolishing discrimination in employment;

We have to eliminate discrimination in the work place, discrimination that we know exists in Mexico. We know from a study that is being done right now under the UN there is not one country that has equality for women in the work place, none.

This is a very important amendment. This is a very important issue. There is only one solution to all of this and that is to defeat the whole bill. If we cannot do that, at least pass these amendments which will make it a little more palatable.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Coline M. Campbell

Liberal

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise tonight and speak. It is probably the last time I will have the opportunity to speak in this House. I think it is also a privilege that it is on the North American free trade agreement. I think it shows exactly what has gone wrong with this government's approach to Canada.

As I have only a few minutes I want to speak mainly on behalf of my constituents in South West Nova and I want to speak on behalf of a lot of Canadians who will not

May 25, 1993

have had an opportunity to say what is wrong with this North American free trade agreement.

My colleague and others in my party have already spoken on most of what is wrong as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. That is in relation to the environmental standards, the labour codes, the subsidies, the energy protection given to Mexico and not to Canada, the anti-dumping code and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism.

I want to speak on an area that I have felt very strongly about, and that is on the subsidies. Under the free trade agreement we were to have a seven-year period to look at and define what was a subsidy mainly so that it would protect some of the institutions that Americans have tried to say are subsidies. In a lot of the disputes we have seen with the U.S. with regard to lumber, pork and fish, they have tried to claim that some of our institutions have provided a subsidy to Canadians that Americans did not have.

It became a very costly process over the last few years for Canadians to fight under the trade dispute mechanism. In the past generally speaking a country would take those disputes to the GATT. I have seen the government take a trade dispute on behalf of a group. However the pork producers have had to pay the cost. Coming from an area where the pork producers have a very substantial economic effect in the southern end of Nova Scotia, I know what the cost has been. I am sure it has been the same in other areas under the trade dispute mechanism.

Under the free trade agreement at least Canadians were given seven years to define these subsidies. I have been told that under the North American free trade agreement, and I know it is true, that seven-year process is gone. Subsidies are not even in it. Coming from an area that has different programs to attract business into the east, it has to be a very wrong approach by this government to totally ignore subsidies. It will encumber the whole process of any trade agreement that is reached among Canada, the United States and Mexico.

The object of a good trading balance is that the rights of the people in a country trading with another country are respected. I do not think this trade agreement or the free trade agreement respect what we hold dear here in Canada.

I talk about farming, fishing and forestry, three basic industries in the southern end of Nova Scotia. Since this

Government Orders

government has been in power, we no longer finish our fish. We do not have a lumber industry in our area that is of value to the local people. We do not have a farming base to speak of because we have been scared with the different decisions under the free trade deal concerning the protection of the further finishing of products, which are not protected here, and also with what is coming out of the GATT.

There are concerns. One of the major concerns I have as a politician is when I look at the United States and see what it will amend. The President of the United States says he has to have two lateral agreements. Call them what you want. There have to be two major changes to the NAFTA that was signed by former President Bush, our Prime Minister and the President of Mexico or he will not sign. One is on the environment and one is on labour.

We do not even put that in as a basic concern on behalf of Canadians. Every day we see the jobs that should be staying here in Canada going to the United States and Mexico. One big company, Magna International, announced that it is going to Mexico. Why? Because labour is cheaper. We will buy back the product. Should we not be protected?

The member opposite looks at me as if to say, with a smile, that it does not matter. It does not matter. If I were in southern Ontario I would be worried. I am from southern Nova Scotia and I am worried that we have not got programs. We have not facilitated the use of the finished product here in Canada. You just have to look at a small territorial country like Japan. In area it is the size of New Brunswick maybe, I am not sure, that exports to every country in the world. There is a restriction for imports of any kind coming into Japan.

This government has declared: "Canada, you are on your own. Let the resources go with the big companies into the United States or into Mexico. We are not going to worry about the environment. We are not going to worry about labour. We are not going to worry about subsidies".

Maybe the government is rushing it through today, tomorrow and Thursday because it is scared of its leadership race being a leadership race where everybody wants to run away from whoever the leader is supposed to be.

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

That is no reason to do it to the Canadian people. In three days the most important piece of legislation at the hardest of economic times is being rushed through the House. Is it 10 hours that we have had of full debate? Six hours. Whatever. There should be an election and we are not having it because the Tories are scared. They want this done before the leadership convention on June 12.

Our side has said that we want trade. I have been around since 1974 and I know what a Liberal government can do. It is not just one trading partner. We should be all over. We have the expertise and a skilled labour force that could be going around the world helping others. We have the natural resources that we are giving away or not even developing. If we give assistance to a company in the east or somewhere, they say: "Oh, oh, watch the Americans". It may be a subsidy and it will have to be decided if it is a subsidy. At least under the free trade agreement, I can remember having this debate with the minister of fisheries at one time, and he said: "Oh, in seven years we will know what all the subsidies are". We are not going to know what the subsidies are.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

An hon. member:

We do not know what any of them are.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Coline M. Campbell

Liberal

Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):

I can just see a day when the Mexican government decides it has the cheap labour and cheap environmental regulations and starts saying that we have a subsidy with health care and unemployment insurance. That has been tried by the U.S.

I have one minute left. There is not one Tory here except yourself, Mr. Speaker. In my last minute speaking on such an important item I want to say that I come from an area where we have to finish our product. If we give assistance it should not be looked upon as a subsidy in violation of the free trade agreement. Our fish are not being finished. Our people are unemployed. They want to work. We have the lowest interest rates and yet this government has not instilled in people the knowledge that we have a great country. It has let them down. It is time that the government should be gone. It is time that we had an election, that we wait for a leadership race

that is not going to produce anything more than what we have had and then go into an election.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find a speech that was given here about two weeks ago. I know the members from the New Democratic Party will be interested in this because they are closer to Japan, most of them being from B.C. or Alberta which are the closest to Japan of our provinces. I would like to quote from an article in the October 26 edition of The Nikkei Weekly. The member for Edmonton East will be interested in this.

The sub-heading in that article says: "Sixty-two per cent of subsidiaries in the U.S. are attracted to Mexico, survey shows".

The article continues: "More than 60 per cent of Japanese companies operating in the U.S. believe that the North American free trade agreement increases Mexico's appeal as an investment site".

They went out and surveyed 269 business executives in Japan who indicated that they expected NAFTA to have a major impact on their North American business strategies. More than half of the respondents said yes to the question: "Do you think NAFTA promotes regionalism or protectionism?"

I might add that a former deputy minister of MITI was in this building about two and a half weeks ago and indicated that the Japanese have profound concerns about NAFTA. They are concerned that it will create another bloc to deal with like the bloc in Europe which will create problems for Japan in trading with our continent.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

David Barrett

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barrett:

The Liberals in Alberta support that.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

I am aware of that and they are also doing very well at the polls.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink

May 25, 1993