Mr. Harvard:

I will read it. I have heard something somewhat familiar to me because I come from the Province of Manitoba. I heard it on that side of the House. It is emanating from those Members. I heard it in the Province of Manitoba. We tried to stamp it out in the last election. We were almost successful in the City of Winnipeg.

I am referring to whether it is permissible for us in this House to listen to Tory bullshit?

Mr. Harvard:

I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. I have a question concerning the rules. I am a new Member, so forgive me for not knowing the rules-

Mr. Harvard:

I come from Manitoba and that is what we call it. We call a spade a spade.

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are strong believers in democracy, and we abhor anything that stands in the way of the right to vote.

During the recent election campaign I became aware of a problem facing some disabled voters in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. Due to their disabilities, these individuals chose to exercise their right to vote by proxy.

December 20, 1988

However, when these voters attempted to secure a medical certificate, which is a requirement for a proxy vote, they discovered that doctors charged up to $15 for this service. This is not an overwhelming sum, but it is an impediment to the right to vote.

I urge the House to give serious consideration to an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Voters should not have to consult their bank accounts to determine whether they can afford to vote. Voting is a sacred right in this country, and as parliamentarians we have an obligation to remove any barrier, large or small, that prevents even one Canadian from voting.

Mr. Harvard:

The people of Winnipeg-St. James have entrusted me with the task of fighting this deal, and to fight it every inch of the way. I cannot betray that trust, and I will not. I know that Hon. Members opposite would like us to come into this Chamber and simply roll over and play dead.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know too much of what has happened in the past. Where I come from, they say: "I did not come down the river on a bale of hay." In other words, one is not naive.

We do not trust this Government, Mr. Speaker; we do not trust this Government any farther than we could spit upwind. That will not change. There is simply too much at stake. The future of this country is at stake. We are going to watch this Government. We are going to watch every move it makes; we are going to listen to every word it speaks. That is our responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we will live up to.

My quarrel with the Free Trade Agreement, as it was throughout the entire election campaign, is based on the fact the vast majority of trade between Canada and the United States is free of tariffs, free of duty, without this agreement. We on this side of the House believe in freer trade among all nations. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that successive Liberal Governments consistently worked toward the reduction of tariffs.

I know that during the last election campaign Members opposite endeavoured to spread falsehoods about the position of the Liberal Party with respect to trade. We are not against freer trade; we are not against lower tariffs. We have worked toward that goal for many years. What we are against, and remain against, is this rotten, abominable deal.

While we desire freer trade with the U.S., we also desire freer trade with other countries. We are concerned that in getting the tariffs and duties removed on the remaining 20 per cent of trade with the U.S., we

have given up the ability to run our own country in the way that we want to run it. In other words, this trade agreement jeopardizes our sovereignty, undercuts our sovereignty.

We know all about the supposed special relationship between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Mr. Reagan, the outgoing President of the United States. That special relationship got us nothing in a period of four years but photo ops and a silly sing-song in Quebec City.

The Prime Minister was desperate for something to show for this special relationship, and perhaps that is the reason for his conversion to free trade. After all, it was in 1983 that the Prime Minister said: "Don't talk to me about free trade during the leadership campaign, or at any time in the future." Why did he change his mind? Why at this point does Canada wish to become tied more closely to the economy of the U.S.?

We should stand back for a moment and consider whether it is not more prudent, while seeking freer trade with the U.S., to continue to pursue the policy of tariff reduction through multilateral means such as the GATT. Instead, this Government has chosen to put all of its eggs into the American basket. It has abandoned the policy of a multilateral focus to trade policy. We are now faced with the uphill struggle of further negotiation and dispute settlement on a bilateral basis with an opposing party that is 10 times our size, with 10 times the economic strength. Hardly an even match.

Let me turn now to the question of subsidies.

Under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement, what constitutes an allowable subsidy will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. This phase of the negotiation is of greatest concern to me. Canada enters the negotiation without any parameters in place in respect of the definition of a subsidy. In the past, the Americans have claimed that our regional development programs and social programs constitute unfair subsidies. I repeat: unfair subsidies. We have no indication that they have changed their minds on that score.

When these programs are raised in the negotiations, will this Government defend them? Or will they buckle under to U.S. pressure, as they have done so frequently in the past? Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker.

Here is the danger, as I see it: The Americans will claim that goods and services being imported from Canada enjoy the benefit of unfair subsidies such as unemployment insurance and pensions. As a result,

December 19, 1988

under the threat of countervailing duties, Canada's social and regional development programs will come under pressure.

We on this side of the House believe that this will lead to a gradual erosion of these programs. That is the greatest threat of all under this agreement. If the Tories had any brains at all, they would have sought a specific exemption to make it absolutely clear that social and regional development programs were exempt under the agreement, especially when we look at historical claims by the Americans that these programs amount to subsidies.

Looking at this agreement from a Winipegger's perspective, perhaps one should not be surprised that the Tories would sleep while regional development programs are eroded. After all, regional development in the Government's eyes is just another cynical means to buy votes. We in Winnipeg know about the Government's lack of commitment to regional development. Again I refer to the CF-18 maintenance contract. We in the Province of Manitoba, particularly in the City of Winnipeg, had the opportunity to strengthen the aviation industry on the Prairies, to develop a diversified industrial base in a part of the country which suffers the effects of the boom and bust cycle inherent in a resource and agricultural based economy. The Government turned a blind eye to that opportunity. That was the case even though the Winnipeg contractor concerned won the contract on an equal footing with its competitors. With the lack of commitment to regional development shown in the CF-18 contract, little wonder regional development was not specifically exempted under the trade agreement.

On the question of social programs, we know all too well the Government's lack of commitment to pensions, unemployment insurance and medicare. As you know, we watched the Government try to deindex pensions during its first term. That reflects its commitment to social programs. Those who fear the erosion of these programs may rest assured that we will defend them at every turn. We will watch over the negotiations on the subsidy definition very, very closely.

We should also ask ourselves why the Government did not get specific exemptions for social and regional development programs. Maybe we should not be surprised that the Tories would place the fortunes of the brewing industry above those of seniors struggling to make ends meet. Not that I was unhappy to see the

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

brewing industry exempted, but I think seniors deserve a better break from the Government.

We on this side of the House insist on a specific exemption for social and regional development programs. It is our duty to do so, placed upon us by the millions of people who supported us and oppose this deal. We cannot stand by while the Government endangers the social safety net which we on this side of the House have worked so hard to construct. We do not wish to see the erosion of social programs as we have witnessed in the fiefdom of the Prime Minister's ideological mentor, Mrs. Thatcher, who so eagerly rushed to his assistance during the last election campaign. In fact, it was interference in Canadian affairs.

Is this agreement another step by Canada away from the caring society that we on this side of the House built toward a Thatcher Britain where two countries now exist? On the one hand you have the wealthy region surrounding its largest city in the prosperous south, and on the other the impoverished north. Is this our model of the future, regional disparity and a growing gap between rich and poor? We on this side see the warning signs. We do not like them and we are going to fight on.

Again on subsidies, what will be the fate of such programs as PFRA, ERDA and the Agricultural Assistance Act as well as the Western Grain Stabilization Act? Those programs are of specific concern to westerners whose economy is still to a large extent reliant on agriculture. All those programs are in the annex to the agreement. All will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. Our support systems will be brought into line with theirs. Our supply management system will be endangered.

From a westerner's perspective, we are concerned about the question of resources in general, including the question of energy. Producing provinces have always held dearly control over their resources as a means to enhance development of their economies. Indeed, the transfer of control over resources to the western provinces was one of this country's first regional development programs. We in the West are certainly not keen on guaranteeing the supply of our resources to the Americans. Indeed, it is surprising that the Americans were given secure supply over energy without anything in return. The United States of America will merely take all the oil and gas Canada can supply, provided it cannot get it cheaper elsewhere. Furthermore, we have virtually abandoned the goal of energy self-sufficiency by committing ourselves to share our oil and natural gas even as our supplies become depleted, this with no

December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

obligation to buy from Canada should cheaper supplies be available elsewhere. The bottom line on energy under this agreement is that we have become an energy reservoir of the United States.

Time does not allow me to touch upon all the concerns flowing from this trade agreement. However, I would like to briefly repeat my concerns. We have not gained secure access to the U.S. market, as my colleagues have outlined in some detail. Our social and regional development programs are indeed threatened. People who do not believe that, particularly Members opposite, might as well believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, I have several bridges that I could sell them right now if they do not believe that. Have they not heard of harmonization? Have they not heard of the integration of the two economies?

I said it during the election campaign and I will say it now. What is the point in consummating this agreement if things are just going to be the same afterwards? The fact of the matter is that things are not going to be the same. We are going to have a continental economy. We are going to have a continental energy regime. There will be harmonization, and I can assure you that they will not be harmonizing with us. We will be harmonizing with them because it comes down to a matter of power and size.

The Americans are aggressive. I can assure you that in the tough days that lie ahead it will be Winnipeg bending toward Minneapolis. It will be Toronto bending toward Washington. It will be Vancouver bending toward New York. That is the lesson we have to learn from the trade agreement. It is a lesson that has been learned on this side of the House, but it has yet to be learned on that side of the House. Will they never wake up?

I also would like to point out, as I have already said in some detail, that our agriculture sector is threatened as well. We have given up the ability to conduct an independent energy policy. It is for those reasons and many, many more that when the time comes I will stand up and vote against this trade agreement.