Debates of Oct. 9th, 1996

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.

It is wise to look at from where the Helms-Burton bill comes and why the bill actually came about in the United States. It is driven by the Cuban ex-patriot community there.

I do not think many people understand the power the Cuban ex-patriot community has in the United States. This is not a benign group. They are trying to forge and foist their ideas on American foreign policy and have successfully done so in the Helms-Burton bill. They seek redress of moneys and properties they feel were taken from them when they left Cuba. They will go to any lengths to do this. On speaking to congressmen and senators in the United States, they will go to the extent of threatening congressmen and senators to do this.

Their sphere of influence, not surprisingly, does not only exist within Florida and southeastern United States, but much to my surprise goes all the way up the east coast and toward California. Their power is extensive and they exert political and economic power on American foreign policy. The reason why the Helms-Burton bill was passed is because it is an election year. The congressmen and the senators who are running this year have had pressure put on them by the small but powerful group of ex-patriot Cubans.

It is no wonder, and much to the credit of Canada, that we have stood up to this heinous bill that says to other countries that your friends must be our friends, your foes must be our foes and our foreign policy must be your foreign policy and if you choose not to do that, our laws will become your laws.

It is much to the credit of Canada that we have stood steadfast against this gross and inexcusable action by a country that seeks to throw its weight around in the international sphere. Sometimes they do it in a beneficial way, but in this case they are doing it in the most deplorable way to a country that we have always thought to be their friend and ally.

It is not only affecting Canada. It affects all the countries in the world. That is why I applaud the minister for taking up the initiative through NAFTA. I hope he will take it up through the World Trade Organization. I know he has taken up with the European Union. I hope he takes it up also with the Organization of American States.

Collectively, these are initiatives that can send a very clear message to America that says: "You cannot engage in this kind of behaviour in the international sphere. While you are one of two superpowers in the world, you too have to abide by the laws that govern the world, you too have to abide by the rules-based laws that we have in international trade and you are not big enough to be brought down by the countries in the world".

Collectively, these laws were set up for our collective benefit. For those out there who oppose free trade, this is a perfect example of how a country, one-tenth the size of America, can take a leadership role to make this large bear below us heel to the rules that govern all of us in international trade and international security.

I would also like to applaud Canada for the role it has taken in Cuba. We have ignored threats from the United States in the past and we have engaged with Cuba in co-operative bilateral trade.

This is very important. The Americans I think fail to see the importance of this. If they choose to ignore co-operative bilateral agreements, trade, initiative, social interactions and discourse with Cuba, then they seek to have another Haiti in our midst. We all know the penalty that we collectively pay for having the tragic situation, which is what we found in Haiti, in our midst. The western world, North America, the Caribbean and Central America do not need another Haiti.

Cuba is at a very sensitive time in its history. I am very pleased that Canada has taken it on itself to take a leadership role in building bridges of understanding and co-operative trade to benefit the people of Cuba.

The people of Cuba will not forget the effort that Canadians have made for their well-being. Anyone who has travelled to Cuba understands very clearly the terrible state of affairs that Cubans are in right now.

There is a great opportunity for the expertise that we have within Canada to provide for bilateral trade, bilateral aid and bilateral initiatives that will help the Cuban people stand on their own two feet and develop a solid economic base on which peace is predicated.

American foreign policy seeks to damage the Cuban economy and the Cuban people. A power vacuum will be left when Mr. Castro dies. What can happen under those circumstances, as we have seen in many other parts of the world, are tragic situations of conflict. This is another example of how Canada has taken the initiative in a very proactive way in trying to defuse a potential down the road situation where conflict can arise as we have seen in Haiti.

This shows a role that Canada can take in the international sphere in the future, an area in which there is a void. In the 21st century power is going to come from three sources. The first two are traditional, economic power and military power. The third is an area that no country in the world is looking at but one which I think that Canada and a handful countries can capitalize on, the area of

being the organizer. Canada could be that middle power which organizes the multinational initiatives. Reorganization of multinational initiatives is going to be required to address the very important geopolitical security and environmental threats that face all of the nations of the world.

Not a lot of countries can do that, certainly not the United States of America. I do not believe it could be any country that is a member of the Security Council right now. I suggest to the minister that Canada ought to work with his counterpart the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the six to eight middle powers that have managed to retain a sense of neutrality, respect and skill in international diplomatic endeavours.

Let us not forget that as a nation we have repeatedly done this in a superb way throughout the world. In numerous conflicts, Canadians through the diplomatic corps, through diplomatic initiatives, through intelligent foreign policy, have managed to save millions of lives and billions of dollars of economic destitution that would have occurred had these conflict not been either prevented or ameliorated.

That is something of which Canadians from coast to coast ought to be proud. It is not only the diplomatic corps, but it is also our military in the peacekeeping forces that have put their lives on the line for the sake of peace and prosperity for the international community.

This is a role that Canada can take. It can take a leadership role with other countries to exert pressure on the other powerful nations, such as the Security Council members, to truly prevent conflict rather than the current foreign policy that exists in the world which deals with managing conflict.

I may digress for a moment on this important area. Historically we call conflict management conflict prevention. That is a big failing because the precursors to conflict are there years before a real conflict takes place. If those precursors had been identified and addressed, many of the tragedies of the late 20th century could have been avoided.

The most prominent of these is the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps Burundi and Rwanda could not have been prevented but certainly the tragedies that we saw there could have been ameliorated if initiatives had been put forward earlier. It includes identifying the precursors that are taking place and ameliorating them.

Canada has taken a role in that but our foreign policy is still focused on conflict management. Hence, the rapid reaction force, hence peacekeeping. Once we have to employ rapid reaction forces or peacekeeping it is too late. The seeds of ethnic discontent have already been planted for this and future conflicts and it is too late.

It is very sad because most of the time in these tragedies it is not the soldiers that are killed. Ninety per cent of the casualties occurring in conflicts in the 20th century are civilians. They did not ask for it, they do not want it. All they want to do is live in peace. Often because of the megalomaniac desires of a small cadre of individuals who choose to exert power, not for the benefit of peace but for the benefit of a small group of people who have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about killing their own civilians, many thousands if not millions of people will suffer.

That is where Canada can play a role. We should not be sending our peacekeepers hither and thither. Certainly the collective community can take forceful initiatives to prevent conflict from taking place.

Canada could take measures through the international financial institutions. Non-military, economic levers could be applied to individuals who choose to abrogate their responsibilities to a nation and to a people and who engage in behaviour which flies in the face of international security.

Collectively we have sat on our hands and done nothing about it. That has cost the lives of our peacekeepers. Money has been spent by our defence department. Billions of dollars of reconstruction funds have been spent in our aid budgets. This money need not have been spent.

One could argue that we should get involved early on the basis of humanitarian grounds. However, there is also a very pragmatic reason for getting involved early and that is cold, hard economics.

Canadians want to know why we are getting involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. There are economic reasons. As well, many people who live in areas of conflict migrate to our shores. It is not that these true refugees are not welcome in Canada, but the fact remains that they would rather live in their own country in peace and security.

I encourage our ministers to work together with ministers from other middle powers, such as New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The foreign ministers of these nations should get together to develop co-operative initiatives to deal with conflict prevention, rather than conflict management.

Furthermore, I would strongly suggest to the minister that initiatives be taken through international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the United Nations.

I have no delusions that these are very great tasks. I have no delusions that we will accomplish all we set out to do. However, we must try. The geopolitical threats and the environmental threats of the future cannot be confronted by one nation alone. They must be confronted by all nations of the world. Those are the cold, hard

facts. One nation cannot deal with these problems. There must be a collective effort in addressing them.

We must look at this not only on the basis of humanitarian grounds, but also on the very pragmatic basis of economics, on the basis of saving our aid and on the basis of saving our military personnel. By doing this we will achieve savings in those areas.

I strongly support the bill. It shows excellent initiative on the part of Canada. I hope it will be one of many initiatives which Canada will take in a leadership role in the international community. Interestingly enough, the outcome of the bill could be that Canada will have a much stronger reputation in the international community. That would increase our moral suasive power and our diplomatic powers. Again, that need not cost money. Perhaps we can use our diplomatic corps, very keen, intelligent and eloquent individuals with an enormous amount of experience. We might be able to use them more effectively in the initiatives I mentioned before.

I know members from the Reform Party and I am sure the Bloc Quebecois would be very happy to work with the government in trying to engage in initiatives that will benefit our collective society.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for the very interesting speech he made, which had both an historical and an international aspect to it.

I was a bit amazed to hear him applaud the statements made by the Minister of International Trade and say that Canada is big, beautiful, strong, nice, fast, etc. He must have used a dictionary of synonyms to come up with all these nice qualities for the Minister of International Trade and the government. By the way, the minister is indeed very nice, but the comments made by the Reform member do need to be toned down a bit.

If the American bill was so disgusting and so totally unacceptable to Canada, as the hon. member put it, can he tell us why the Canadian government waited seven months before introducing Bill C-54? That is how long it took.

So, my first question concerns the delay. Is the hon. member pleased with the "speedy" intervention of the government, with this seven months delay, since the U.S. government introduced the Helms-Burton law back in March?

I also have a second question for my Reform colleague. He also praised the government for following in the wake of the European Union, instead of using the power it was granted on July 29, as I said earlier, and showing some leadership by appealing to a panel under NAFTA. Why is my Reform colleague so glad to see the Canadian government following in the wake of the European Union now, in October, when the government could have challenged the U.S. bill back in July through a NAFTA panel?

So, the two questions I have are very simple. First, why is the hon. member so glad that it took seven months? Second, why is he so glad that we are following in the tracks of the European Union?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his question.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I would clearly agree with the hon. member that it took far too long for this to come to the House. I would also agree with him and my colleague, the Reform critic for international trade, that this issue should have gone to a NAFTA panel immediately. It is unfortunate that the government chose not to do that.

I hope that in the future the minister will know that he can receive co-operation from this side of the House in bringing these initiatives much more quickly through a NAFTA panel or the WTO. If this does come up in the future, I hope he will take this initiative.

Very soon after these initiatives take place, I am sure our Reform critic for international trade will be very happy to give his expert opinion on constructive ways we can resolve these very complicated issues in international trade.

As an aside, I hope that in dealing with the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement the minister is also going to take note of the impact on the Palestinian people. If he chooses to ignore this he is going to do damage to a key linchpin on helping to resolve some of the major issues in the current Middle East crisis.

Therefore I would strongly advise him to take heed and pay attention to acting co-operatively with the Palestinian people to ensure that the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement is going to deal with co-operative initiatives to improve the tragic and terrible economic situation that we see on the West Bank and Gaza strip.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.member for Regina-Lumsden, Hollinger Incorporated; the hon. member for South Shore, fisheries; the hon. member for London-Middlesex, fuel imports.

An Act To Implement The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

moved that Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commence the debate on second reading for the bill with respect to Canada-Israel free trade.

This historical agreement is both significant and symbolic. Significant because it marks the first free trade agreement Canada has signed with a partner outside this hemisphere and symbolic because it stands as further evidence of Canada's commitment to freer trade around the globe.

It sends a very clear message. Canada is ready, willing and able to trade with the world. With this agreement we will stand on the same footing as the European Union and the United States, both of which have already signed free trade agreements with Israel.

For the first time we will have direct access to the Israeli market without having to funnel our trade through the United States or any other country.

The globalization of markets is one of the great waves of history and it is one Canada cannot afford to and does not intend to watch from the shores.

In today's ever changing world no nation, however rich or powerful, can long remain isolated form the great economic currents of this day. Markets are opening up, barriers are falling down and free movement of goods, services and ideas is becoming simply unstoppable.

Today Canadian companies quite rightly see the world as their marketplace, and the opportunities are boundless. We are vigorously and we are successfully winning new markets and opening new doors.

As a result, our balance of trade with the nations of the world has tipped dramatically in Canada's favour to a record merchandise record surplus in 1995 of over $28 billion.

Part of the success we have realized to date has been the co-operative approach taken by this government since coming to office. New partnerships have been created in every province to provide better export services to Canadian businesses with particular emphasis on dynamic small and medium size enterprises.

We have also benefited from the Team Canada trade missions abroad which joined federal and provincial governments with the private sector to present a united and common front in searching out new opportunities for Canadian companies.

To date the Team Canada trade missions have produced some $20 billion in contracts for Canadian companies signed at the time of the trade missions and signed by companies which will be hiring more people here in Canada to fill those contracts as well as to develop new ones. It is estimated that for every billion dollars in new trade 11,000 jobs are either maintained or created as a result.

All of these activities I believe reflect the fundamental change on how Canadians view freer trade. We have come to realize that there is far more to be gained from globalization than to fear from it. We have come to realize that freer trade is the key to expanding Canada's and the world's economy. More to the point, it creates, it sustains jobs, lots of jobs.

Looking at exports alone, one in three jobs in this country depends on export trade. Trade accounts for some 37 per cent of our gross domestic product, more than one-third of our economy. Quite simply, trade with the world has become the economic engine of this country.

The choice before us is clear. We can expand and diversify our trade or we can stagnate and condemn ourselves and our children to leading lesser lives in a lesser land.

This government is not prepared to let that happen. We are not prepared to sit back and watch the jobs, the growth and the opportunities pass to other nations. We are determined to put Canada in a position where it can realize its potential and not only sustain but enhance our standard of living.

To do that we must constantly seek out new partners and new markets. With a relatively small domestic market we must look beyond our borders if we are going to maintain that standard of living. We must give our businesses the access they need to the most dynamic and robust economies in the world.

That is why we signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and why we are working to have Chile join that pact. That is why we are working diligently to help create a free trade area of the Americas. That is why we are such strong supporters of the World Trade Organization in its efforts to

liberalize trade throughout the world. That is why we are involved in the Asia-Pacific economic co-operation forum, known as APEC. That is why we have signed a free trade agreement with Israel.

This agreement is a perfect complement to our efforts at trade expansion. Since November 1993 Canadians have created, as my colleague the Minister of Finance has said on many occasions, over 600,000 new jobs. Canada is projected to have the highest employment growth of all the G-7 nations in 1996 and again in 1997. The lesson is clear. Given the access to world markets Canadians will create jobs and they will produce prosperity.

International trade is a subject involving large numbers, billions of dollars in trade and millions of jobs created. Sometimes amid all of those strings of zeros we lose sight of the fact that behind the big numbers are people, individual Canadians, men and women granted the dignity of holding a job; men and women beginning to plan for the future and building a better life for themselves and for their children; men and women who pay taxes and contribute to the economic health of their communities and to our country.

Recognizing this, our government has set the goal of doubling the number of Canadian companies actively exporting by the year 2000. We believe that this is the best way to encourage economic growth and create jobs.

The free trade agreement with Israel represents another step toward our goal of freer trade worldwide. It is clear proof that Canada is prepared to match our rhetoric on free trade with concrete actions.

Why Israel? Israel and Canada have long enjoyed close relations. Our relationship is rooted in common values and shared democratic beliefs: the belief in freedom and the dignity of the individual. Our relationship has been grounded in common hopes, hopes for peace and prosperity. With this free trade agreement we move toward cementing those ties and realizing the economic potential of our relationship.

It was in November 1994 that the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and our Prime Minister began the process that has led to this historic agreement. It was in Toronto just a few months ago that I had the privilege of signing a final agreement with Natan Sharansky, the Israeli minister for industry and trade.

If I might be permitted a personal word, it was a great honour to meet Mr. Sharansky whom I had read a great deal about. I followed his courageous crusade for human rights in the former Soviet Union back in the seventies and early eighties. It was wonderful to meet him personally and to discuss a wide range of issues.

One of his most remarkable qualities is the ability to persevere and to transcend. For many years he was deprived of his liberty, but he never abandoned his principles. Throughout the darkest days of Soviet oppression he remained one of freedom's torchbearers.

With the signing of the agreement in July, both countries undertook to introduce enabling legislation into their respective parliaments. That is why we have introduced this bill. If the implementation process is completed on both sides by the end of this year, the agreement will come into effect on January 1, 1997.

Before turning to some of the main features of the agreement, let me state clearly something important. While the agreement is between Canada and the Government of Israel, we intend to extend the same benefits to the Palestinians. We will be meeting with Palestinian officials to examine the best ways to go about this.

Canada has always been firmly committed to the Middle East peace process. The relationship between peace and freer trade is clear. At its best free trade acts as a system of rules for peaceful economic relations. It will help to bring additional economic development which will help to bring stability to the region for the people of Israel and for the people under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority in Gaza and the West Bank.

The late former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once said that peace requires a world of new concepts. One of the most important new concepts shaping our world today is freer trade between nations.

While recent developments in the Middle East have been a source of concern to all of us, they should not blind us to the progress to date, nor discourage us from the long term goals. We should be encouraged by the pledges recently made by both Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu to renounce violence and continue negotiations toward peace. Those commitments are a clear indication that both sides have an appreciation for the stakes involved as well as an understanding of the simple truth that far more can be achieved by dialogue than by violence.

We must recognize that the peace process has already brought concrete benefits to Israel. A large number of capital projects in the areas of transportation, energy and communications are being considered by Israel and her neighbours, a development which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Canada supports these constructive alliances and wants to be a full and active player in the future economic development of this region.

This agreement is also important to Canada because of the nature of the Israeli economy. With a thriving private sector, an educated workforce, modern banking systems, an important stock exchange and an excellent communications system, Israel is one of the fastest growing economies in that region.

The new Israeli government's far reaching economic program is aimed at lowering taxes, reducing government spending, cutting red tape and reforming restrictive labour practices. As a result, residential construction is booming and foreign investment is growing. In fact, Israel has become something of a magnet for foreign investment which is supplying the capital Israel needs to grow and prosper.

Israel has also been busy expanding its trade ties. It has signed free trade agreements with Turkey, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, as well with as I mentioned before, the European Union and the United States.

Complementing Israel's economic reforms are its growing political relations. At the end of 1995 Israel had re-established relations with more than 40 countries that had broken ties in the 1960s and 1970s.

All of this is a welcome development and stands as further evidence of a new Middle East, a Middle East which is dynamic and outward looking, embracing change and expanding opportunities. It is a Middle East which will not allow its past to limit its future. It is in this Middle East that Israel is poised to become an economic power. It is therefore an opportune time for Canada to strengthen its presence in the growing market through the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

Trade between our two countries is modest, but it is growing. Two-way trade last year is up 37 per cent, to stand at $450 million. Our exports stood at $216 million in 1995, up 49 per cent from the previous year. I am confident that with the implementation of this agreement those figures will grow dramatically.

In fact, even before this agreement was signed, companies in both countries began to retool and adjust their business plans. Air Canada's service to Israel is helping to speed the passage of business, goods and people between our nations.

When we talk about visits, in 1995 more than 68,000 Israelis came to Canada as tourists. If this trend continues, as I understand it is, we will probably welcome more than 100,000 Israeli tourists this year.

With the signing of this agreement, the pent-up demand, the close ties and the vast potential can all begin to be realized. Canadian and Israeli companies will have duty free access to each other's markets for industrial goods. They will benefit from the reduction or elimination of tariffs on agricultural products.

Many Canadian companies, some well known such as Bombardier and Newbridge, and some not so well known such as Claridge Israel, Global Upholstery, Reikh International, Signatel and Telespace, are on the ground already exploring new partnerships and bidding on new infrastructure projects. These firms are spearheading an increase in exports and imports between our countries. They are boosting investment and encouraging innovation through research and development and joint ventures. All of their efforts and those of others will be made much easier by the agreement we are considering here today.

While Israel as a whole represents a healthy and expanding market for Canadian goods and services, there are some sectors that offer particularly strong potential for Canadian companies. These include advanced electronics and communications systems, power and energy projects, oil and gas exploration, as well as agri-food products and environmental technology. All of these are areas where Canada enjoys world class expertise, and all of these are areas of opportunity in Israel.

This agreement provides access to the Israeli market. We realize that access is only half the battle. Companies must be made aware of the opportunities that await them. Canadian companies in the private sector wanting to expand into Israel will have a great deal of support. The Canadian embassy in Israel is working hard at this moment to line up potential partners and to match up Canadian goods and services with Israeli buyers.

Another important vehicle which our companies can use is the Canada-Israel Industrial Research and Development Foundation. Established in 1993 to promote industrial co-operation, it has played a key role in matching Canadian firms with ones in Israel. To date the foundation has approved some 11 co-operative projects worth over $9 million in collaborative research and development efforts. The foundation also provides repayable grants for promising joint ventures.

I am pleased to note this has been so successful that the Government of Alberta and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, have signed agreements to co-operate and work with the foundation. A similar agreement is in the works for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, FORD-Q. The involvement of these governments and agencies is very encouraging because it means a much broader market will be able to tap into the benefits of the foundation. This in turn will lead to more partnerships and more opportunities.

In addition, another agency of the government, the Export Development Corporation, EDC, offers four lines of credit for buyer credit financing in Israel. Canadian companies looking for financial or risk management services will find a ready source in the EDC.

So the support is there. Now that governments have played their parts in establishing the infrastructure for free trade, it is up to the private sector in both countries to step forward and realize the potential of this new relationship.

Let me turn briefly to the substance of the agreement. I will not go into a great deal of detail but I will outline the main elements.

First, under this agreement all tariffs will be removed from industrial products beginning on January 1, 1997, all industrial product tariffs. At Canada's request, the only exception is that women's swimwear, and at Israel's request, certain cotton fabric will continue to be subject to tariffs. Even here however the tariffs are scheduled to be phased out over two and one-half years.

Second, duty free access or low duties will be applied to a variety of agricultural and fisheries products exported by either country. For Canada such exports include grains, grain products, beef, salmon, maple syrup, alcoholic beverages and various processed foods.

Third, the agreement also provides a clear and straightforward rules of origin, a key component of any successful trading relationship. I would point out that these rules of origin are generally less restrictive than those under the NAFTA, reflecting the structure and openness of our respective economies.

Fourth, to resolve any disputes that might arise under the agreement, both sides have agreed to be governed by a binding dispute settlement mechanism.

It is worth emphasizing the areas that are not covered by the agreement. As we would expect, supply managed dairy, poultry and egg producers are excluded. Cultural industries are also exempt. So to is the auto pact. Other areas of trade such as trade in services and government procurement continue to be governed by the multilateral rules being established through the World Trade Organization.

These then are some of the benefits which this agreement brings to Canadians. I am proud of the work our negotiators have done. I congratulate them. I am excited by the prospects that this agreement creates.

As trade barriers collapse around the world, and indeed they are, the possibilities for Canada are virtually limitless.

A world of opportunities is opening up before us and we are determined to place Canadians in a position to benefit from them. This agreement is an important step toward that goal.

It gives us access to a dynamic and important market. Strong bonds of friendship will now be complemented by stronger economic ties. We will be partners not only for peace but for progress, not only for security but for prosperity, and not only for survival but for enrichment.

This agreement is not a leap of faith so much as it is a declaration of confidence, confidence in the ability of Canadians to compete successfully anywhere in the world. To those who say the old trade barriers are simply being replaced by new trading blocks, this agreement offers eloquent proof to the contrary.

To those who say we must diversify our trade around the world, this agreement offers reason for optimism. With freer trade as our guide and our goal, let us continue to open up a world of opportunities to Canadians, confident that we can compete in the world and win.

Let me in closing answer a couple of questions that I have heard with respect to this agreement. One has to do with the process that has been followed. The process that has been followed has been the normal negotiating process that is conducted in such matters. We have negotiated government to government and we have done so in a way to consult with the industries affected.

I indicated that in a couple of cases we are phasing out the tariffs over a longer period of time because of the requests of those specific industries. That is the kind of process we use, whether it is directly with the industries affected or through the sectoral advisory committees on international trade that advise me on these matters. We do so in a consultation process to come up with an agreement which is beneficial and supported by the private sector because that is what is key to making this a success.

We have followed that usual negotiating process. We have done the consultation and now the details of this plan are here before us today.

The other question has been why now. The why now is sometimes talked about in terms of the present conflict that is going on in Israel, in the Middle East. Unfortunately there has been conflict on many occasions. Canada is committed to helping resolve the conflict and to help bring peace, stability and prosperity to the Middle East.

Let us bear in mind that one of the prime purposes of proceeding at this point is that Canada business is disadvantaged in its dealings with Israel. Our competitors in the European Union, the United States and a few other countries have that free trade access and Canadian companies do not have it at the moment. I know of businesses in this country that partially produce a product and send it to the United States for completion so that they can take advantage of the United States agreement on free trade. That costs jobs here in Canada.

We want to end this disadvantage for Canadian companies soon. We have set the date of January 1, 1997 to put this agreement into effect so that we can end that disadvantage and create a level playing field for Canadian business. It is an ambitious schedule, one that requires co-operation, which I hope members of the House will give so that we can pass this in time to put it into effect at the first of the year.

There is another reason why we should do this in terms of the present situation in the Middle East. It is a situation that I talked about a few moments ago. If we are going to have peace and stability we also need economic development. We need opportunities both for the Israelis and for those who live under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority.

This agreement, as I have pointed out, is being offered to the Palestinian authority to cover the people in the Gaza and West Bank. The sooner we put that into effect for them, the sooner job opportunities will help flow through and improve their economy. That kind of economic development is needed to help bring about stability in the area.

I hope we will have full debate on the matter. I hope at the end of the day that all members of the House will join with us in supporting this piece of legislation to help Canadian businesses in their relationship with Israel and help Canadians to go out into the world and compete and win, creating jobs and economic growth here in Canada.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I know that there is no question or comment period but, since I listened so very carefully, almost religiously, to the speech by the Minister of International Trade, you will still allow me to make some comments on his speech. Maybe he will respond to my comments in a future meeting with yet other comments or answers.

What surprised me the most was that he could not praise enough free trade with the United States, with Asia, and with the whole world as he even went as far as to say. This runs somewhat contrary to Liberal speeches of a few years past, when the Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated with the United States. We are very happy with this about-turn by the Liberal members, who are now all for the superb idea of free trade put forward by what is probably a majority of people from Quebec. We are very happy to see these conversions on the part of our colleagues.

As for job creation, I know that many questions are asked and that a lot of figures are given, but I have a very simple question that Canadians and Quebecers probably also ask themselves. According to the minister, for every million in revenue, thousands of jobs are created each time a free trade agreement is signed or Team Canada goes on a mission. If all these jobs have been created, how come the unemployment rate, which was approximately 10.5 or 11 per cent when they took office, is still 10.5 or 11 per cent today?

Whatever the number of questions of Statistics Canada, the finance minister, the Minister of Human Resources Development or anyone else, if they are that good, how is it that the unemployment rate remains the same? That is another question I ask myself.

But there is another part of his speech that I found. And here I would look in the dictionary for synonyms for the qualities mentioned earlier by my colleague and I would apply them to that part of his speech.

When he said that free trade with Israel would solve practically every problem, would create lots of jobs, and so on, he forgot to mention three relatively important aspects. First of all, political or economic stability did not seem to be a prerequisite for Canada to sign a free trade agreement with Israel. So it is possible to trade and to talk about job creation with a country that does not enjoy complete political and economic stability.

We just have to watch television or read the international section in the newspapers to see that, if it is so good for Canada to sign a free trade deal with Israel in terms of job creation, it does not necessarily mean that political instability makes Quebec's economy unhealthy. If we apply what the minister said to the situation in Quebec, that statement is true.

If the Canadian government is so happy to sign a free trade deal with Israel, a country that does $450 million a year in trade with Canada-and that is the minister's own figure-I think we can assume that it would be all the more happy to sign such a deal with a country that does $250 billion in trade with Canada. So, the Canadian government and the minister, who will hopefully still be there when the time comes, will promote job creation and free trade without saying a word about political or economic stability.

We will certainly keep this part of the minister's speech in mind and maybe one day, during an election or a referendum campaign, we will be able to use it and say: "If it was so good at $450 million, it certainly will not be worse at $200 billion".

Those were the few comments I wanted to make following the speech by the Minister of International Trade.

Now, I can say that we are at last very happy to be able to debate this bill, Bill C-61 on the free trade agreement with Israel. The day has finally come when we have an opportunity to speak to the free trade agreement between our country and Israel. I admit that it gives me great pleasure.

I must, however, point out that the Bloc Quebecois deplores the fact that everything surrounding this agreement has been kept so secret until now. Later on in my speech I will substantiate this.

The Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of Bill C-61, and enthusiastically welcomes the signing of a Canada-Israel free trade agreement. We hope that this agreement will increase trade with

Israel, and subsequently with all the other countries in the world, as the minister said.

We have always been in favour of the globalization of markets and free trade agreements. This agreement will benefit companies both in Quebec and in Canada, as well as in Israel. Our businesses in Quebec and in Canada need access to foreign markets in order to develop. The signing of a free trade agreement is therefore welcome in the present economic situation. Furthermore, the Export Development Corporation, the EDC, has funds available for Quebec and Canadian companies wishing to do business with the State of Israel.

Although the Bloc Quebecois encourages increased trade between Canada and the State of Israel, because we believe that it can contribute to the peace process and to stability in the region, we call on the Canadian government to ensure that the State of Israel respects fundamental Canadian democratic values and human rights.

In addition, we call on the Liberal government to urge the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to re-establish and maintain peace with the Palestinian people, so as to stabilize the situation in the Middle East.

We suggest to the Canadian government that it not exclude the Palestinians from trade resulting from this agreement. Discussions with Palestinian representatives are therefore necessary in order to look at the possibility of extending the agreement to this territory.

With a population of some six million, the State of Israel, like Quebec, has a democratic system of government, a flourishing private sector and modern financial markets. It has a well developed economy based on high technology. Its main industries are financial services, consumer products, tourism and construction. Its average annual growth rate is 5 per cent, and this, since 1985. Its record year is 1993, when the rate reached 10 per cent; a year later, the rate fell back to 6.8 per cent.

Israel is a door open on the Middle East for Canada, as the minister pointed out sooner. Canada has been among Israel's partners since the country's inception in 1948. In fact, Canada recognized Israel in December 1948. We have been trading with Israel for many years. We began trading with this country as soon as it was created.

Various bilateral committees have been struck these last few years by Canada and Israel. We have, for example, the Canada-Israel Committee, which was formed in 1970 to discuss subjects such as human rights, the money issue; the Canada-Israel Chamber of Commerce; the Canada-Israel Foundation for Industrial Research and Development, which has been in existence since 1994; and, finally, the Canada-Israel Joint Committee, which was established a few years ago to discuss commercial issues of common interest to both countries.

At the present time, our trade with Israel represents between $450 to $500 million a year. Of course, these figures do not compare with those for trade between the United States and Israel, which amounts to $1 billion a day. But with the free trade accord that we are about to approve, we can hope for a significant increase of our trade with Israel.

There is a trade potential to be explored in Israel by businesses in Quebec and Canada. Israel's external trade accounts for 25 per cent of its GDP. Its imports amounted to $24.9 billion in 1994, and its exports totalled 6.4 billion in the same year.

In 1995, Canadian exports to Israel reached a total of $216 million Canadian, distributed mainly among the following products: aluminum, machinery, drugs, wood, pulp and paper. In the same year, Canadian imports from Israel amounted to $240 million, mainly in diamonds, which is practical, clothing, machinery and electrical equipment.

The main trading partners of Israel are the United States and the European Union. Israel signed free-trade agreements with both several years ago.

The agreement establishing a free-trade area between the United States and Israel was signed on April 22, 1985 and came into effect on September 1 the same year. A declaration on trade in services was also signed at the same time. A joint committee was established to supervise the implementation of the agreement and hold consultations on issues regarding the functioning and interpretation of the agreement.

This committee studies ways to improve bilateral trade. The main purpose of this agreement was to abolish import duties on all products, beginning January 1, 1995. Duties on some imports considered sensitive are being phased out on several years in order to allow production branches of both countries do adapt to increasing competition.

With respect to agriculture, the agreement, while recognizing that it would be desirable to open up markets by eliminating customs duties, allows both countries to apply other restrictions in order to maintain their respective price support systems.

The free trade agreement between Israel and the European Community was signed in May 1975. The agreement covers all industrial products, some agricultural products and some processed agricultural products. In 1976, an additional industrial, technical and financial protocol was included in this agreement. The implementation of the agreement ended in 1989. Since then, another agreement was signed, this time with the European Union, which has been in effect since January 1, 1996.

In September 1992, Israel signed a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, also known as EFTA. The objectives of this agreement are to promote the harmonious development of economic relations between the EFTA countries and Israel, to ensure fair competition in trading between the signatories, to eliminate obstacles to trade and thus contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and, finally, to improve co-operation between EFTA member countries and Israel. EFTA members are responsible for about 11 per cent of goods imported by Israel and receive 4 per cent of its exports. Under the agreement, which came into effect on January 1, 1993, customs duties were eliminated in the case of bilateral trade in industrial products, fish products and other seafood, as well as for processed agricultural products.

The signing of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement will put Canadian businesses that trade with Israel on the same footing as American and European businesses that trade with this country.

On April 29, 1994, the government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, signed an economic agreement, which gives the Palestinian authority extensive powers over taxation and the regulation of trade and banking, as part of the autonomy of the Gaza Strip and the region of Jericho. The agreement is to be extended to the West Bank. It is more or less the equivalent of a customs union, with two exceptions. One concerns the importation of agricultural products and labour in Israel, while the other concerns a difference in customs tariffs when trading with other countries, tariffs the Palestinians may apply to an agreed list of imports to be used within the territories.

The agreement allows the Palestinian authority to collect taxes and import duties lower than those in effect in Israel, on a wide range of products, but only to meet the needs of Gaza and Jericho. All trading in goods between Israel and the Gaza Strip and the Jericho region will be free, with the exception of agricultural products, for a period of five years.

The State of Israel has been a contracting party to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, also known as GATT, since 1962, and is a signatory to the WTO agreement.

Bill C-61 before the House today will implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement signed last July by the Canadian government and the State of Israel. Clause 8 of the bill states that the House has approved CIFTA.

Part II of the bill deals with the amendments necessary to bring Canadian laws into conformity with the agreement. The following acts will be amended: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act.

If everything goes as planned, the agreement should come into force on January 1st, 1997. However, we suggest postponing the coming into force to a later date if the government is not satisfied that the State of Israel is really ready to implement this agreement, as provided under clause 62 of Bill C-61.

This clause states that the Governor in Council may not issue an order bringing the agreement into force unless satisfied the government of Israel has taken satisfactory steps to implement it.

The purpose of the free trade agreement, which was signed on July 31 in Toronto by the Canadian Minister of International Trade and Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, is to eliminate trade barriers and facilitate the movement of goods between Canada and Israel.

Article 2.1 of the agreement provides for the elimination of customs duties on all manufactured goods, except in two cases, as of January 1st 1997, Special treatment is provided for farm products.

As requested by Israel, a special treatment applies to certain cottons, as is the case for women's bathing suits, as requested by the Bloc Quebecois. Customs duties on these items will be phased out over a period of two years and a half to be completely eliminated by July 1st, 1999.

This exception made in favour of women' bathing suits is the result of considerable pressure from Quebec companies, including Shan, in Laval, and the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, the Bloc raised the issue in the House on several occasions, bringing to the government's attention the concerns of Quebec bathing suit and lingerie manufacturers with regard to a possible free trade agreement with Israel.

These companies were concerned because Israeli businesses benefit from the elimination of customs duty on European textiles, thanks to the free trade agreement with European countries, and so they have a definite advantage in the area of manufacturing costs for bathing suits and lingerie since they can save 25 to 35 per cent on the purchase of raw material. We must remember that Israel is Canada's main competitor in the area of bathing suits and lingerie.

In 1993, the bathing suit and lingerie industry represented 10 per cent of all the Canadian industry and the annual sales of that sector reached approximately $450 millions. That equals the total trade between Canada and Israel.

We must also mention that following the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round, businesses in the fabric and garment industry had to make very major adjustments. It was quite normal that any new free trade agreement would upset them.

In 1995, Canadian customs tariffs on bathing suits and lingerie were anywhere from 18 to 25 per cent. The progressive elimination of these tariffs over a period of two and a half years is a lesser evil for businesses manufacturing bathing suits. That two and a half year period will allow Canadian and Quebec businesses to prepare themselves and to adjust to the competition coming from Israel.

Furthermore, we hope that delay will give the Canadian government time to negotiate the elimination of customs tariffs on European textiles for our Canadian businesses, as the bathing suit and lingerie manufacturers have requested for several months and as Israeli businesses have obtained.

The Bloc Quebecois regrets the fact that lingerie is not one of the exceptions mentioned in the agreement. Lingerie manufacturers, who very often are also bathing suit manufacturers, made representations to that end as well and their reasons for requesting an adjustment period in order to prepare for the opening of the Canadian market to their competitors are just as valid as those of the bathing suit manufacturers. But the lingerie manufacturers were the big losers in the negotiation process, as is all too often the case.

The free trade agreement between Canada and Israel refers to several provisions of the GATT and WTO agreements, for instance those regarding the trade dispute settlement process. Canadian and Israeli cultural industries are not subject to the agreement.

The negotiations with Israel concerning this free trade agreement started in November 1994. During the two years of negotiations, few people and few companies were consulted as regards the contents of the agreement. In fact, even the signing of the agreement was kept a secret. It seems to be the policy of this government to negotiate in secret and without consulting anyone free trade agreements having a direct effect on the Canadian public. The fact of the matter is that Canadians and Canadian companies have a right to know and should know ahead of time-not after all the decisions have been made, ahead of time-what trade agreements the Canadian government is negotiating and signing on their behalf.

Before the House adjourned for the summer in June, we made repeated inquiries of the office of the Minister of International Trade about the status of the free trade agreement negotiations with Israel. We were told that it was out of the question that any decision be made before the House reconvened in September. That is why we were very surprised to read in the July 31 or August 1 newspapers that everything had been signed. So we could fully co-operate and simply do our job, we asked to be kept informed on the status of negotiations between Canada and Israel.

International trade officials told us that things were at a standstill for the summer, that they would come back in September and inform us of any developments. This shows that, as I said earlier, the other side would rather negotiate behind closed doors.

Furthermore, these businesses must be kept informed. Quebec and Canadian businesses also have the right to express their opinions and to be duly consulted before the decisions affecting them are taken. History repeats itself with the free trade negotiations with Chile. Although we learned that the agreement should be signed when the President of Chile, Mr. Frei, comes to Canada in mid-November, we still do not know the content or even the main elements of the agreement.

Again, as in the case of the free trade agreement with the state of Israel, Quebec and Canadian businesses were not duly consulted before the agreement was finalized. Again, the Canadian people will find out the details just a few months before the provisions affecting trade and the future of our businesses come into effect.

The government must listen to what businesses, social, cultural and environmental groups, associations and anyone else have to say before signing similar trade agreements with other countries.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of Bill C-61, but we want to issue a serious warning about the government's tendency to negotiate and sign free trade treaties on the sly.

The House resumed from October 8, 1996 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be now read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

The Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being 5.44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Mr. Bernier's amendment at third reading of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Pledge Of Allegiance

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Members of the House of Commons should recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Canadian flag, in both official languages, each day at the opening of the House of Commons, following the opening prayer.

Madam Speaker, all my colleagues in the House and I are here quite obviously because of the electorates in our respective constituencies. I am also here because I have a great love and admiration for this country. I believe that it offers each and every one of us the opportunity to carry forth on behalf of our constituents, as members of the House of Commons, their many desires, wishes and concerns.

While we have a large geographic country which is extremely diverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic, diverse in culture, diverse in language and diverse in economies, quite often as Canadians we tend to be complacent about showing our spirit of patriotism and our respect for this country which has been so good to so many generations. I am delighted to have the opportunity today to bring forward a motion for consideration with regard to the pledge of allegiance.

Using the same criteria for all of the countries of the world, the United Nations over the past three years has selected Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. That should not mean to any of us that we do not have our problems, that we do not have challenges, but challenges are here for each and every one of us to overcome. As the House would know, we will meet those chal-

lenges head on and we will overcome them today and in future years.

Over the past number of years I have had the opportunity to speak to students in many of our schools. In my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte there are some 42 schools, plus 2 community colleges. I challenged myself to try to visit each and every one of those schools during my term of office and to speak about this wonderful country of ours we call Canada.

With all of the differences that I mentioned earlier in culture, in language, in economies we start to look at what are those things that unite us. Whether we are on the far Atlantic coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the far Pacific coast of British Columbia, or in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, or all of those wonderful provinces that are in between that make up this great country of ours, we have certain things that unite us and bring us together. Some of those things are displayed here in this House, as is our Canadian flag.

Whether we are in Newfoundland, British Columbia, Ontario or the territories, our flag is the same. We should be proud of it. We should fly it on every public building. Whether it is on schools, whether it is on government buildings of any type, the Canadian flag should be flown with pride.

In addition to that we have a national anthem. Again, regardless of which province or which coast we might be on, the national anthem or as we know it, O Canada, is the same. Whether it is sung in French or English it has the same meaning. It is our national anthem.

I can recall when I was speaking to the schools, I began to think about all those things that unite us as Canadians from one coast to the other. I can recall as a youngster going to elementary school and reciting a pledge of allegiance.

When first arriving here in Ottawa, I inquired if the pledge of allegiance was still used and available. I was assured that it was. I was told that over the years the words have changed slightly but we still had a pledge of allegiance.

I asked for copies in both English and French. They were provided to me. On my card stock from my office I presented copies of the pledge of allegiance to the schools, the service clubs, the organizations and the municipalities throughout the constituency. I began speaking about it as I visited the various schools in the region.

I began to get requests from jurisdictions outside of mine, from other constituencies in my home province of New Brunswick. One of the reasons I did is because the school districts overlap the federal jurisdictions. Of course, when I got requests from one school district and someone else found out about it, they began to expand. I got requests for copies of the pledge of allegiance from the great province of Ontario, la belle province de Québec, from every province in this country.

It is not my pledge. It belongs to every member of this House, indeed to every Canadian. I want to make it available to every member of this House. I want to make it available to every Canadian. That is why I have brought the motion forward today.

When I speak to assembled students in schools-sometimes they are very largely populated school and sometimes smaller, more rural schools-I always have a little questionnaire about this wonderful country of ours, Canada. We talk about all the provinces and the territories that make up this country. We talk about what the economies are and how they differ from fisheries to forestry to agriculture to mining to all of our wonderful resources that we are so fortunate to have in this country.

We talk about provincial capitals and governments. I always throw a little cue in to see how well the students are doing, how much history they really know about Canada. I talk to them about how we are so influenced by our big neighbours to the south, the United States of America. We see their TV channels expanding into Canada. We see magazines. We are so influenced by our neighbours to the south that sometimes we know more of their history and geography than we do of our own.

I always ask a little question. I always say to the students: "By the way, who was the first president of United States?" Of course they all raise their hands because everyone knows. They all blurt it out: "George Washington". I talk on a bit about the geography and history of our wonderful country and then say: "By the way, who was the first Prime Minister of Canada?" The room goes silent more often than not.

I have a little analogy that I use for them. Members are welcome to use it. I tell them: "When you go on vacation with your family during the summer and it comes lunch time and you see these great golden arches, what do you think of?" They all shout: "McDonald's". I say: "Absolutely right, you got the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald". It is an analogy that I hope will help them to remember all the rest of their lives who the first Prime Minister of Canada was.

It is important for us to realize our past as well as knowing our present, as we look with great anticipation to the future for our children and our grandchildren and as we continue to build this country for a better tomorrow for all Canadians, regardless of where they might live.

As I mentioned, we display our national flag in this House. Every Wednesday, following the opening prayer, O Canada is sung by the members of the House.

This motion I have put forward has been reviewed by the committee responsible. Although it is not a votable motion today, I will be requesting the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to give every consideration to having the pledge of allegiance recited in the House.

I am a firm believer that it is up to us to show the leadership for tomorrow's youngsters and students. They are, after all, going to be the future leaders of this country. Our sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters will be the future builders of this nation. We should give them the benefit of all of this information at the earliest possible date.

Leadership should begin with the highest court in the land, the House of Commons. Therefore, I will certainly be pressing for the appropriate committee to consider allowing members of the House, at the opening of each day recite the pledge of allegiance in both our official languages.

As I mentioned, this is our pledge. It is not that of the United States, France, Great Britain or any other country. It is made in Canada, so to speak, and it is ours to hold up, as we hold up the Canadian flag and as we stand in honour of our national anthem.

As Canadians, we sometimes tend to be somewhat complacent about our patriotism, although I know that Canadians of every background love this country and love the opportunities that this country provides.

For three years in a row the United Nations not only commended but selected Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. That does not say that we are perfect, that we do not have problems and challenges. Of course we do and we always will have.

However, we have people in this House and elsewhere throughout our provinces who are prepared to take on those challenges, whether they are in a community with mayors and municipal councillors, whether it be in the provinces with premiers and legislative assemblies or in this place, we have a responsibility to set examples of patriotism and examples such as we see displayed here on either side of the Speaker's chair in our Canadian flag. Anything that I can do as an individual member, it is my responsibility to do that.

As most members are aware, we had some great news today from the Minister of Finance when he made a presentation before the Standing Committee on Finance. The great news is that those challenges that were before us when we arrived in this place in the late fall of 1993 are being overcome. Those challenges were met head on, that tremendous deficit of $42 billion, a debt of over $500 billion. Everyone said if this were a business, my goodness we would look at putting the locks on the doors. The government did not run away. It accepted the challenge. The Minister of Finance accepted the challenge and said we will overcome.

The great news today is that the goal of $32.7 billion deficit for the fiscal year 1995-96, which ended this past March, came in at $28.7 billion, some $4 billion less than had been projected. That is fantastic news.

The finance minister went a step further and said we are going to give a new goal on our two year cycle. Today was the day to look at 1998-99. Having met and exceeded our past goals, the Minister of Finance said that during the fiscal year 1998-99 we are going to have further reductions below the $10 billion mark. For the first time in 20 or 30 years it will be that low, and reaching 1 per cent of gross domestic product.

I can see the day in the not too distant future, and with the turn of the century coming very shortly upon us, when we could have a balanced budget in this country. Is that not wonderful news? That is what Canadians said they wanted to see of their members of Parliament and of their government. They wanted to see a government that could balance the budget but without the cut and slash that we have heard so many times. Yes, it has been difficult. Quite frankly most politicians do not like to go into our communities and tell people that we have had to cut back.

However, it has been accomplished by the Minister of Finance and the team effort of the government. We ought to be very proud as Canadians today that that day is upon us.

As my time winds down I would like to read the pledge of allegiance to everyone in this House. I read it for the first time on September 30, 1994. Today I will read it again, the pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag:

To my flag and to the country it represents I pledge respect and loyalty. Wave with pride from sea to sea and within your fold keep us ever united. Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice. God keep our flag. God protect our Canada.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Motion M-227 presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.

I have listened to my colleague attentively, and I am not questioning the sincerity of his feelings or the pride he feels in taking the oath he has been so kind as to read to us to close his speech.

The comments I am about to make once again show the difference in perception between a French Canadian, a Quebecer in this House, and the hon. member.

When I was a child, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was celebrated on June 24 in my village and in the neighbouring communities. There was a parade with the young Saint-Jean-Baptiste and his lamb and flags were flying.

This was a paradox, like many other ones in the history of this country. One could see, flying side by side, the Union Jack and the flag of the Vatican. People loved symbols and cared little that one flag represented the Roman Catholic papacy, while the other one was the symbol of the Church of England and the United Kingdom. People showed a great deal of tolerance.

In Canada, this spirit of tolerance was developed through the respect of various symbols. Occasionally, people would stray from this path, but they would easily come back when things would calm down.

The Union Jack, which still flies over Westminster, the parliament of Great Britain, was ours by default for a long time. It was not until 1945, by order in council, while waiting for a new flag to be designed, that the Government of Canada replaced the Union Jack temporarily with the Red Ensign, which still featured the Union Jack in its upper left hand corner, although on a somewhat smaller scale.

The new Canadian flag was still a while coming. Finally, in 1964, debate began here in the House of Commons and in the Senate, and a resolution was passed requiring a Royal proclamation.

It must be said that there was undoubtedly a certain feeling of identification with this symbol, the Canadian flag, examples of which can be seen to your left and to your right. There were epic battles. I recall speeches by Mr. Diefenbaker at the time, in this House, in which he vehemently objected to the adoption of a Canadian flag. I also recall that some members even tried to stop the process physically on February 15, 1965, when this flag, which had been adopted legitimately by members of this House elected by the Canadian people, was first raised over the Peace Tower.

I think that February 15, 1965 was a momentous day, because it represented, for many, release from a tie that had perhaps been in place too long. Canada, it is true, had acquired symbols.

But though I listened to the eloquent remarks of the member for Carleton-Charlotte and heard the pride in his voice, for me the Canadian flag is symbolic of something else. For me, the Canadian flag is a symbol of the Canadian federal state, somewhat like the flag of the European Union which is a symbol of that union. It represents union, the Canadian economic space, as we might call it, to echo the words so dear to Mr. Bourassa when he was in power, and one which even the federalists in Quebec generally use.

So, it is the flag of union. It is not the flag to which I have first allegiance. My first allegiance is to the Fleur de Lys, the emblem of the nation I represent in this House, and the flag which was adopted as the national flag of Quebec on January 21, 1948, or 17 years before the adoption of the Canadian maple leaf flag.

There are, therefore, two visions, perhaps irreconcilable ones. There are two parallel paths, but there is nothing to stop us from building bridges between them. Yet the text-and a very fine text at that-read by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte just now, can hardly be found suitable by a person who owes his first allegiance to the flag of Quebec and the Nation of Quebec. Let me reread it, in order for it to appear in Hansard , and also in order to analyze it. following the quote??

The pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag:

To my flag and to the country it represents I pledge respect and loyalty. Wave with pride from sea to sea And within your fold keep us ever united. Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice. God keep our flag. God protect our Canada.

That is the pledge the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte read to us a little while ago.

It is hard to have two allegiances. The biblical saying that "No man can serve two masters" applies to me. My first allegiance is that I have promised certain things to the men and women who elected me on a platform aimed at making Quebec a sovereign state which, of course, would maintain links of friendship and fraternity with Canada. I cannot, therefore, swear that I am going to pray daily that Canada remain united. I want constitutional reform.

Most certainly I want economic union, a common currency, a common passport. Everything that we can have in common, let us have, but let us rework political structures so that they will allow us to avoid these quarrels, these wars over symbols.

Basically, both the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte and the official opposition are right. No one can be wrong, because in this House people make use of the symbols they believe in, and to which they are firmly attached. While bowing to the values he holds dear, I am convinced that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte can understand, and respect-being the gentleman that he is-the values I hold dear.

Yet, they are unfortunately irreconcilable, and that is why I cannot support the motion before us. It is rather unfortunate, but in my opinion it is statement of two irreconcilable visions of Canada, a difference that will one day have to be settled. When it is settled for once and for all, we shall probably be able to find some common symbols which will suit and please us all, and which will, no doubt, give rise to an almost universal allegiance.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to speak to this motion this evening which would close the debate.

I believe the member is well intentioned in bringing this motion forward. I believe he is motivated by a sincere love for our country, and for that he is to be congratulated. It seems nowadays that any display of emotion or love or passion for Canada is to be appreciated. In that sense I appreciate the motion he has brought forward today.

In general it is fair to say that there is not enough patriotism in Canada. We can be very proud of our country. Although I am in opposition I am intensely proud of Canada and I am intensely proud of the opportunities we have and our position in relation to the rest of the world. We are very blessed with natural resources. We are very blessed with the people we have here and we have much to be proud of in Canada.

This motion about pledging allegiance to the flag is similar in some respects to the singing of our national anthem. People feel that if we do some patriotic things, if we hang up the flag, if we sing our national anthem, that is good for patriotism and it is good for Canada. It is good for enthusiasm. It binds us together and so on.

One of the reasons the member for Beaver River brought forward the motion to sing "O Canada" in the House of Commons was for its symbolic value. We said that it is good to sing the national anthem, it is good that it be sung here once in a while. There was a long procedural wrangle to make it happen. The motion was farmed off to the procedure and House affairs committee. It was debated back and forth. And now I believe the public is pleased that we do sing our national anthem in the House at least once a week. It is sung and it is heard here.

This motion may be typical of what we are experiencing, a surge of patriotic sentiment. I believe this is largely because Canada is going through again another unity crisis of sorts. It seems to never go away. It has been with us off and on for many years, I suppose 40 years. As is evidenced by the official opposition in the House, there is still an active movement to try to split Canada in two.

We seem to be going through a slow motion unity crisis, if there is such a thing as that contradiction in terms. It is a crisis which lends immediacy to the problem. It is in slow motion and just seems to go on and on and on.

This motion is a reaction to that crisis. In many ways it is like the debate and the questions on the flag program of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The minister is sending flags out all over the country to whomever asks for one in the hope that more will be hung from the nation's flag poles and that it will somehow bind us together again with that commonality and that common thread from sea to sea. We will rally around the flag, which is a symbolic thing, and somehow our national unity crisis will go by the by.

I do not think that is going to work. If that is the extent of the federal government's national unity program, unless it can start to enunciate it better, it is not a very good answer to the separatists and to Canadians who are looking for systemic change within Canada. They are looking for something of substance, not a symbolic thing.

I would have been much happier debating a motion from the member for Carleton-Charlotte if he had proposed a motion to decentralize the government, if he had proposed a motion to downsize government, if he had proposed a motion to quit spending so much money on the flag program. I realize all of that cannot be done in one private member's motion. Perhaps the hon. member should have brought forward measures that would have addressed a plan of how we are going to keep the nation together. It would have been more useful if we were debating something of more substance than what we are debating tonight.

My fear is that we keep skirting the issue of what is wrong in Canada both constitutionally and systemically, the way we govern ourselves. We keep putting icing on the cake. We put the butter on the bread. We try to doctor it up but there are some real systemic problems. The issues that are being addressed by the government are dressed up and sold to Quebecers and to the rest of Canadians as real change. That is just not going to cut it. I wish we could be debating something of more substance.

The motion reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, the members of the House of Commons should recite the pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag, in both official languages, each day at the opening of the House of Commons, following the opening prayer".

As I mentioned earlier, I do not object to shows of patriotism in this House; we could do with more of that in Canada. A couple of years ago during the debate on the national anthem I remember actually going out and singing the anthem on the front steps just to try to make my point that it would not hurt us to be a little more patriotic. Of course we now sing the national anthem here in the House.

The proposal of reciting some sort of pledge to a flag every day, while it is not objectionable to me in most ways, has some practical problems. I would like to run through them quickly.

First, there are a lot of time consuming rituals here in the House already. Although I realize it would only take a minute or so to do this every day, my concern is that by ritualizing it, in a sense we are taking the meaning out of it. We make it a daily occurrence. We stand up and say some words that pretty soon will mean nothing. It

takes up some time in both official languages to run through that every day and my concern is it would soon be meaningless.

The second problem is that the Americans pledge allegiance to their flag at each and every opportunity. I am not an anti-American; I think the Americans are our best friends. We are darn lucky to have them as our close neighbours geographically. We are tied to them in so many different ways and thank goodness we are. I am grateful that we have our American neighbours.

Pledging allegiance to the flag at every single occasion is an American tradition. It is really quite American to do that. In a sense, I am just enough of a Canadian to get my dander up over that because it seems to take us down that path.

My third problem is with the concept of pledging allegiance to a flag per se. I have always thought this was a little strange. I have admired the Americans' patriotism, but to pledge allegiance to the flag is not a Canadian answer to the patriotism problem.

When we pledge allegiance to a flag, we should be pledging allegiance to what the flag represents. In a sense, our flag represents our country, our values and the things that make our country great. In that case, why use the euphemisms that are described in this bill to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth?

I have no trouble pledging allegiance to my country. I would be pleased to do that. Maybe even the oath of parliamentarians when they become members of Parliament could be changed to pledge allegiance to our country. I certainly do not mind the thought of that. But pledging allegiance to a symbol is a little strange.

Now for my fourth point. Someone pledges allegiance to a flag. As has been mentioned by our colleague from the Bloc, many people used to pledge allegiance to the Union Jack but it has changed to the flag we now enjoy. However, many people say that it is not the style of the flag, it is the country they are pledging allegiance to. A flag can be changed, we can can hang it differently, we can do lots of things but really, it is a flag.

In conclusion, I would prefer that there was a pledge of allegiance to our country rather than to our flag. If we are going to pledge allegiance to the flag, then there needs to be a lot of consultation on this. I do not think there is any unanimity on what the pledge should be and so on. I will stick to the country and we can leave the flag issue for another day.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the previous speaker has missed the whole point of this debate. The bottom line is that the flag is not about pigment, about cloth. It is about the symbol of our nation. The flag is Canada. For that reason, I will not get into discussing some of the issues he raised in his speech.

I thank the member for Carleton-Charlotte for bringing this matter to our attention. The people of Durham have been very supportive of the fly the flag campaign. Indeed, over 7,000 flags have been distributed to the people of Durham.

When the member for Carleton-Charlotte was talking about his own speaking engagements in his riding, I got to thinking about my wife and myself. We have two cars on the road in the riding. We both have Canadian flags in the back of them. They are paper flags. Every time we go to an event, we make sure that all the kids have paper flags. It is a tremendous thing to go to Santa Claus parades and so forth and to be talking to people in a sea of Canadian flags. It makes me feel very proud to be part of this country, to know people love their country in that fashion.

I was most interested in the comments from the member for Bellechasse. These are some of the problems of our country. We do not really think of how far back in history it was that this nation was made. It does not just go back to 1948; it goes back much further than that.

Symbolism is a nation's struggle to define itself as a country. The member is quite right. From the time of Confederation in 1867 to 1965, Canada never really had a flag. We had many things that we called flags. The Cross of St. George flew on Labrador in 1749. The Fleur de Lys was accepted as a Canadian flag. There was the Union Jack and later the Red Ensign, but none of them were officially designated as a flag of Canada.

The French and the English have a common history in Canada. It was John Cabot that flew that flag of St. George on our eastern shores in 1497. It was Jacques Cartier that rose the Fleur de Lys in the Gaspé in 1534.

The Fleur de Lys interestingly enough is also a flag of another sovereign. The Fleur de Lys in reality is a monarchial symbol from France. It was a symbol of colonialism, no different from the Union Jack. That is why I question why the Fleur de Lys could possibly be the flag of another nation when by definition it is a colonial symbol.

The Maple Leaf has been with our country for many, many years, from the time of the first settlers. It was the first settlers who recognized the strength of the maple as it represented a source of food and furniture. In other words it was a sustenance of their existence in a new world.

The emblem was used in the early 1700s and it was proper and very prominent on very early coinage of Canada. It was the emblem of the St. Jean Baptiste society in New France in 1834. It

was in 1863 that Principal Dawson of McGill University incited it as the emblem of the vitality and energy of a new country.

That symbol has been carried into two wars. People have shed their blood on the Maple Leaf. It is now a symbol that is recognized around the world as Canada, not French Canada and not English Canada. By the way, people did not ask if those who shed that blood were French or English, it was the blood of Canadians.

I have been proud to wear this symbol every day that I have been in this House of Commons and I am proud to wear it when I go around the world. I know other Canadians are as well, including those in the province of Quebec. Canadians and people worldwide recognize Canada as a country of tolerance, as a country of people who democratically work out their problems as we are doing in this House.

The Maple Leaf has been an excellent symbol of what Canada is. It is a growing vital country with deep roots and its roots continue to grow. Its roots will continue to grow, not only in the maritimes of John Cabot and the Quebec of Jacques Cartier, but throughout this dominion from sea to sea to sea. Its branches are similar. We have branched out not only within our country to connect the people of this country together, but we have been able to branch out to the world. The world recognizes the Maple Leaf as a symbol of tolerance.

In closing I would like to state how important it is for a nation to have symbols. This is the symbol of a united and strong country. It can easily be adapted and should be the symbol of all people of Canada including those in Quebec because they are very much an open society and that is basically the country we have tried to create here. The Maple Leaf is very much a symbol of French Canada as it is a symbol of English Canada.

I thank the member for Carleton-Charlotte for bringing this matter before the House. He can be assured that I and the people of Durham are very supportive of his intentions.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 227 introduced by my hon. friend, the member for Carleton-Charlotte. I support the motion and I congratulate my colleague for his patriotism and his love for this great country.

Members would know that I recently introduced Bill C-302, an act to establish an official pledge of allegiance to our flag. The hon. member's motion encourages the House to recite one of the unofficial versions. This version is used by Canada's Jaycees and it has been endorsed for use as an official version by the city of Windsor, Ontario.

Since I introduced my private member's bill I have been overwhelmed by the support shown by Canadians from coast to coast for an idea for a pledge of allegiance. I believe it to be appropriate for members of Parliament to recite the pledge in this very House. This is the national Parliament of Canada and as members of the House of Commons we speak not only for our constituents but for each and every Canadian.

The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte and all members of the House will be pleased to know that I have received over 1,650 messages of support from every province in Canada, including Quebec. Canadians have telephoned, signed petitions, written letters and have suggested pledges. As well, 75 municipalities have endorsed the idea for an official pledge of allegiance. These include the town of Woodstock, the town of Sackville, the town of Dalhousie, the town of Sussex and the village of Minto in the hon. member's home province of New Brunswick. I am proud that in my own riding of Guelph-Wellington the city of Guelph and the township of Guelph have also supported my initiative.

Canadians have been pledging allegiance to our flag for many years in a number of ways. Two former school teachers from Alberta have written to me reminding me that years ago students rose every morning and recited these words: "I salute the flag, the emblem of my country, to her I pledge my love and loyalty".

Another Canadian told me that when growing up in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia she recited: "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the empire for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

According to a Canadian from Lakefield, Ontario, Canadian Shriners use the version similar to that of Shriners in the United States and Mexico. And as I mentioned earlier, Jaycees have joined the member for Carleton-Charlotte and use the version that has recently been endorsed by the city of Windsor.

If I have received any criticism from Canadians for the idea of a pledge of allegiance, it is that some are concerned that the idea is too American. However, I suggest that our history is different than that of the United States and our love for our country is quite unique.

Canadians are discovering the importance of our flag in our lives. Who can forget the flying maple leaf from British fishing vessels supporting our efforts to conserve fish stocks? We all remember the flag hovering over the thousands of Canadians who went to Montreal just days before the last referendum. Whether it is raised at the Olympics or at international hockey championships or worn on the sleeves of our peacekeepers, the flag represents tolerance, understanding and is an internationally recognized symbol of the best country in the world in which to live.

I believe that at this critical time in our nation's history we should consider all that makes us Canadian. Patriotism does come from the heart but it is also displayed in our words and in our actions.

The House of Commons has recently begun singing the national anthem on Wednesdays. "O Canada" itself, which was only declared official in the past 20 years or so, brings us all together. So does our flag. It is symbolic of the best country in the world.

I want to take the remaining few minutes to share with the House some suggestions I have received from my initiative. Eleanor Hadley from Vancouver suggests the oath: "With love and respect, I pledge my loyalty to Canada and to Canada's flag".

Mrs. Clara Jones from St. Hubert, Quebec writes: "I am proud to be Canadian and I pledge allegiance to our flag which stands for freedom and justice for all of its people from coast to coast. United we stand, protected by the Canadian Constitution".

Evelyne Day from Saint John, New Brunswick, suggests: "To the maple leaf flag, pride of our country, I pledge my allegiance with sincerity, dignity and honour".

David Evans from Victoria, British Columbia writes: "As a Canadian citizen, I pledge my allegiance, my respect and my heart for our flag and to our country, Canada, unified from sea to sea".

I indeed do support this initiative and I am pleased to be a Canadian in this great country.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the motion moved by the member for Carleton-Charlotte, especially after having listened to the speech by the member for Bellechasse. I was much moved by his remarks because I feel they came very much from his heart. He presented to the House his dilemma as a Quebecer who feels a first allegiance to Quebec. He does not discount the rest of the country. Indeed, he spoke of a collective passport. I think he certainly is torn very much in his heart with respect to his loyalty to Quebec and to the country at large.

The flag was born 30 years ago in the midst of just such a debate as we have here in the House of Commons now. Lester Pearson felt that Canada was threatened with division and even separation and contrived to start a debate on the creation of a Canadian flag in order to solve the problem at that time.

I was a young man during the time when the maple leaf flag became our national flag. About 20 months later I was hitch-hiking in France with a young English student. The Englishman had a Union Jack on his flag and I had my Canadian flag and we set out in France. The Englishman asked: "What is that red smear that you have on your rucksack?" I said: "Well, that is our new flag". He said: "Well, our Union Jack has been around for centuries".

When we were in Normandy we were standing by the roadside and a French farmer came pedalling by on his bicycle. In those days it was typical for them to wear blue serge and a blue beret. He stopped by our two rucksacks. He looked at the Englishman's rucksack and the Union Jack and then looked at mine. He said: "Vous êtes Canadiens. Les Canadiens sont bons". He then jumped on his bicycle and pedalled away. That took place a mere 20 months after our flag had come into existence.

That flag in the past 30 years has become a flag that is recognized around the world as a flag which identifies Canada. I have to say, as did the member for Durham, that had I had on my rucksack a flag with the fleur-de-lis that Frenchman would not have known that I was Canadian and came from a separate country because the fleur-de-lis is a symbol used by other countries.

Wherever we go in the world, our flag now means that we come from a country that is noted for its tolerance and its ability to debate away its differences which is part of the genius that is Quebec.

Mr. Pearson brought in the flag in answer to a very difficult period that Canada was going through with its French Canadian component and it created a symbol which is very much a world symbol. That world symbol belongs as much to Quebec as it does to the rest of Canada because it was Quebec who caused the debate and created the flag.

The debate today is on the pledge of allegiance. When we go through this similar debate today I am absolutely convinced that as long as there are members like the member for Bellechasse, who will give his real feelings to the Commons and to the country so that we can solve our problems, I think we are well on our way to becoming not a distinct society of various provinces but a distinct society that is very much Canada.

The member said one thing that I would like to comment on. He said he did not think our differences were reconcilable because he had a first allegiance to Quebec.

There is one thing we differ on, and it is only a nuance. When I think of Canada I think of belonging to B.C., belonging to Newfoundland, belonging to Quebec. He says that Quebec is his nation. I say to him that Quebec is my Canada too. Quebec is my nation as well. I am sorry I do not speak French fluently but I am working desperately on it because that is all part of the wonderful exercise that brings us every now and then as Canadians to debate and to examine our identities.

We will always find that we are a tolerant and understanding people. We are constantly looking to our consciences because of Quebec.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I pledge allegiance to this flag and to the country for which it stands, one country indivisible for the benefit of all. I learned that in a rural school in Saskatchewan in grade one. It still stays with me. That is why I cannot emphasize more strongly support for this motion and the private member's bill which was read to us.

Everything is falling into place nicely. If not each day, at least once a week members could stand up to salute the flag which would be saluting the country for which it stands. Then the children from coast to coast would have an example from us of what they could do in their schools.

I have a challenge for Canada to take it a step further. Let us have a contest across the country. Canadians could come up with a flag song. That is something else I learned in Saskatchewan. The song was "The Maple Leaf Forever". We are on the right track when we are moving in this direction.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, last May 29, I asked the Prime Minister two questions, why did the federal government stand by and allow Hollinger Incorporated to acquire over 60 per cent of all Canadian newspapers, and what further threats to democracy and freedom will there have to be before the government takes action to ensure competition, freedom of speech and the public's right to know in face of this concentration of ownership in the Canadian newspaper industry.

The reply stated that competition law deals with economic impact only. The fact that the Hollinger takeovers have had an economic impact on small independent newspapers in Saskatchewan was ignored. These papers have complained that Hollinger has threatened to drive them out of business if they choose to work co-operatively to advertise. This complaint was not addressed.

The Minister of Industry ignored the fact that Hollinger Incorporated fired 182 people two days after taking over the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix . These papers were making a healthy profit but according to Conrad Black they were not making enough profit.

Hollinger Incorporated now controls all daily newspapers in Saskatchewan. When one person controls 60 per cent of the papers in Canada and 100 per cent of daily newspapers in a province, competition is diminished if not completely eliminated. It is certainly eliminated in provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland where Conrad Black's Hollinger owns all daily newspapers.

In 1981 the Liberal sponsored Kent commission made a recommendation that no more than 20 per cent of Canadian circulation should be owned by one individual or corporation to allow for competition in the newspaper industry. The Liberals are now ignoring these recommendations.

The Bureau of Competition Policy has formally stated that it will not deal with these takeovers. Yet the bureau admitted that corporate concentration in the media has an effect on the newspaper quality, interference in editorial views and a significant decrease in editorial diversity across Canada. The bureau was quoted as saying: "Although these are valid social concerns, it would not be appropriate for the director to comment on editorial diversity and newspaper quality".

The government is using this as an excuse not to do anything on this issue. This is a cop out and a flip-flop of the Liberal's position from their days in opposition.

Concentration of ownership in the media must be dealt with immediately. In the past month three Hollinger newspaper editors have quit. All three have cited significant differences with their new employer Conrad Black as the reason for their departure.

This is unprecedented but not surprising. Mr. David Radler, president of Hollinger, has said that Hollinger papers will not even bother reporting fairly on issues. He stated that he will not report on issues raised by New Democrats, who stand up for working and middle class Canadians, or any other organization that believes in the importance of social programs, fairness, community or co-operation.

Conrad Black's extreme political views are well known. He is quoted as saying that the Tory defeat in 1993 was because they were too socialist, if we can believe that. None of the three newspaper editors who quit could be described as socialists but they were enough out of step with the narrow, big business agenda of Conrad Black that they were forced out of their positions.

The Prime Minister appeared agitated and very uncomfortable when I asked him questions concerning Conrad Black's buying binge. I wondered why. Two days after I raised this concern of concentration of ownership in the newspaper business, the Prime Minister spent three days partying, golfing, riding horses with

Conrad Black at an estate north of Toronto owned by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Of course the weekend was off limits to the media, but the fact is that Conrad Black is an influential friend of the Prime Minister and a financial contributor to the Liberal Party. He gave $13,000 to the Liberals and $11,000 to the Reform Party in 1995.

Canadians are asking that the Liberal government do the right thing and establish an inquiry on the recent acquisitions by Conrad Black's Hollinger to ensure that Canadians receive balanced reporting in their newspapers.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make to the hon. member's submission.

I invite the hon. member to point out where the government would find the authority to freeze any acquisitions that do not violate the provisions of any statute enacted by this Parliament.

The government has no authority to freeze or block commercial transactions as he may be suggesting. In fact, he knows very well that his remedy is to go to his friends in the NDP in Saskatchewan. They are the ones who can remedy any matter about which he has complaints. But he will not go to those friends. He is trying to make this a political issue for the next election by simply running a smear campaign on what has been done thus far.

Second, freedom of speech is guaranteed under the charter of rights and freedoms.

Third, there are fundamental changes under way in methods of communications. Radio, television and now the Internet provide excellent vehicles for the exchange of information and opinion.

The hon. member made reference to certain political donations. It is interesting that he never makes any comment about the political donations being made by the Bank of Nova Scotia to the NDP. The donations being made by others pale in comparison to what the Saskatchewan NDP has received from the bank and he makes these comments in the House, which are very surprising.

The enforcement of the Competition Act is entrusted to the director of investigation and research who is an independent law enforcement official. His role under the merger provisions of the Competition Act is to review the economic implication and concentration of ownership. The director is not mandated to look at social issues such as editorial diversity which the NDP is pushing.