36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 65
CONTENTS
Monday, February 23, 1998
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| PROPERTY RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion
|
1110
1115
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1120
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1125
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1130
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1135
1140
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1145
1150
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1155
1200
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 95 |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Motion
|
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1230
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1235
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1240
1245
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1250
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1255
1300
| Amendment
|
1305
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1310
1315
| Mr. Ted White |
1320
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1325
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1330
| Mr. André Bachand |
1335
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1340
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1345
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1350
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Ted White |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| DISASTER ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| 1998 WINTER OLYMPICS
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1400
| QUEBEC MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1405
| THE CONSTITUTION
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| CANADIAN CENSUS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1410
| GOVERNMENT STAFF
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| WINTER OLYMPICS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| DON CHERRY
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| DRUGS
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| YOUTH
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE DEBT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| OIL INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1440
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| QUEBEC
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1450
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| CENSUS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| RAILWAYS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| DISEASED SHEEP
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1500
| YOUTH
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1505
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Goods and Services Tax
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1510
1515
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1520
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1525
1530
| Mr. John Herron |
1535
1540
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1545
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1550
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1555
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1600
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1605
1610
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1615
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1620
1625
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1630
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1705
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1710
1715
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1720
| Mr. John Duncan |
1725
1730
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1735
| Mr. John McKay |
1740
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1745
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1750
1755
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1800
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1805
1810
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1815
1845
(Division 90)
| Amendment negatived
|
| Motion negatived
|
| Allotted Day—Brain Drain
|
1850
(Division 91)
| Amendment negatived
|
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
| Bill C-21. Second reading
|
(Division 92)
| Motion agreed to
|
| THE CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill S-4. Second reading
|
1855
(Division 93)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 94)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1900
| Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1905
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1910
| Haiti
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. John Richardson |
1915
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1920
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 65
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 23, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms should be amended to recognize the right of every person
to own, use and enjoy property; and to not be deprived of that
right without full, just and timely compensation and the due
process of law.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off debate on
Motion No. 269.
The motion seeks to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to
include property rights. At present there is no mention of
property rights and therefore no protection from confiscation of
personal property by the government. There is no requirement for
the government to provide compensation to an individual if Ottawa
confiscates their property.
This Liberal government has become a master at violating the
property rights of Canadians. Whether it is gun control, the
Canadian Wheat Board, endangered species legislation or direct to
home satellite systems, this government has demonstrated a blatant
disregard for the property of Canadians. All Canadians should be
concerned that the Liberal government so easily and so quickly
tramples on their rights in order to achieve certain specific
policy goals.
It is clear from the actions of this government that it has no
regard for the property rights of Canadians. As a result I have
introduced Motion No. 269.
Red flags surrounding this issue were first raised during the
35th Parliament when the Liberals introduced Bill C-22. This
bill dealt with the cancellation of the Pearson airport
development contract. The Liberals attempted to annul binding
contracts and then exempt themselves from liability. In short
they tried to confiscate property and then place themselves above
the law.
However, pressure from the Senate, threatened lawsuits and
questions concerning the constitutionality of the bill led to its
collapse. All the while the former justice minister, now our
health minister, insisted that everything was above board and
that Bill C-22 was totally conventional. This gives some insight
into the mentality of Liberals and their position on the rights
of Canadian citizens.
Although the Liberals backed down on Bill C-22, they went on to
introduce Bill C-65. This bill dealt with endangered species in
Canada. Serious concerns were raised about the effect this
legislation would have on the property rights of landowners.
Specifically some landowners were afraid that the government
would confiscate their property in an attempt to protect
endangered species.
Again the Liberals downplayed the legitimate concerns of
landowners and treated those questioning excessive government
powers in Bill C-65 as environmental terrorists. Thankfully Bill
C-65 died on the Order Paper as a result of the 1997 election,
however it is still waiting in the wings and there is little
doubt that the government will reintroduce the bill in the near
future. Before it does so, our debate here today gives all
opposition parties the opportunity to go on the record as to
where they stand on the property rights of landowners.
Unfortunately the Liberals' legislative assault on property
rights did not end with Bill C-65. They went much further with
the introduction of Bill C-68. More than any other initiative,
the Liberals' misguided gun control legislation has sparked a
national discussion on property rights.
Armed with the provisions contained in Bill C-68, the justice
minister is able to pass order in council regulations and
confiscate the rightful property of Canadian firearms owners. I
am speaking of property which has been duly acquired. The owner
has paid taxes on the firearm and complied with all other
regulations.
Regardless of this, along come the Liberals who say to
law-abiding gun owners “We are going to take your property
because we know what is best for you.
We are socially re-engineering Canada into a gentler, kinder
society”. That is what the Liberals say.
1110
It is ironic that these same Liberals have created a justice
system where rapists walk out of courtrooms because of
conditional sentencing. Young offenders who kill are sentenced
to a few months at youth internment centres. Serial killers are
given the tools through section 745 of the Criminal Code to
revictimize their victims' families. That is the record of this
government when it comes to engineering a kinder society.
Criminals are given the gold mine while law-abiding gun owners
get the shaft.
Members of the House will know that C-68 is being challenged in
the courts with respect to its infringement on provincial
jurisdiction in the area of property rights. Four provinces and
the territories had the good sense to stand against this bill and
its attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms of law-abiding
Canadians.
Treating ordinary Canadians worse than violent criminals is
nothing new to this government. David Bryan, a Saskatchewan
farmer who tried to sell his grain outside the Canadian Wheat
Board has been led around courtrooms in shackles. His heinous
crime: trying to sell his own crop, his own property without the
permission of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the eyes of the
Canadian Wheat Board, David Bryan does not own his grain, Ottawa
does.
Russ Larson who attended Mr. Bryan's trial said “It is like we
are peasants who are supposed to grow grain, turn it over to them
and shut up”. In other words, you work for the Canadian Wheat
Board not for yourself. The grain is the property of the
government, not the producer.
Incidentally, only farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba
are subject to the violation of their property rights. Farmers
in other provinces can market their crops however they see fit.
That is why farmers on the prairies are increasingly referring to
the wheat board as the OWB, the Ottawa wheat board, because it is
run by bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians in Ottawa instead of
by western farmers.
Motion No. 269 allows all parties in this House an opportunity
to rise and defend the property rights of farmers. I also
challenge members of this House to rise and defend the rights of
Canadians who choose to watch what they want on television.
Direct to home satellite owners have been compared to drug
pushers by the industry minister simply because they are using
American hardware and services. Direct to home satellite owners
have been threatened that their equipment may be confiscated by
the RCMP. Customs officials have seized direct to home satellite
equipment that is being imported from the United States of
America, equipment on which all duties have been paid and which
rightfully belongs to the Canadian retailer or wholesaler. “No
matter,” say the Liberals, “in the interests of cultural
protectionism, that is, government knows what is best for you, we
will trample on the property rights of Canadian citizens”.
Without the strong protection of property rights, the social
engineers have the upper hand. It is in their power to decree
what is acceptable and what is not, what is safe and what is not
and what we should do and what we should not do. Property rights
are not just about firearms or land or satellite dishes; property
rights are about freedom.
But do not take my word for it. Listen to the comments made by
our present Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. In
1985 he delivered a speech in Edmonton where he said “I believe
we must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The
right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and
balances against undue concentration of power in government at
any level”.
Even the creator of big government, Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau, was an advocate of property rights during the
repatriation of the Constitution. However, property rights did
not make it into the final draft of the charter.
Members should be interested to know that property rights are
entrenched in the United States constitution. Article 5 of
amendments to the U.S. constitution reads in part “no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation”.
Opponents of my motion may argue that property rights are
already guaranteed under John Diefenbaker's bill of rights but
that is not true. The bill of rights is simply a statute which
can be overridden by any government legislation.
The Library of Parliament concluded that “there is no
requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking
of property be effected by a fair procedure or that it be
accompanied by fair compensation to the owner”.
1115
In a March 1995 paper on property rights the Library of
Parliament determined that “in Canada there is no constitutional
guarantee for compensation and that the power of the government
in this area is unlimited”. Motion No. 269 seeks to place
limits on the government and Ottawa's ability to simply strip
Canadians of their personal property.
This is not the first time property rights have been discussed
in the House, and I know it will not be the last. My hon.
colleague from Yorkton—Melville led the charge on this issue in
the 35th Parliament. I am pleased to help advance the cause of
property rights in this parliamentary session.
I remind all members that this issue strikes at the heart of our
rights and freedoms in a democratic system. I look forward to
the rest of the debate on this motion. I encourage members to
speak in favour of Motion No. 269 so the House can move to
protect the property rights of all Canadians.
Considering the importance of entrenching property rights in the
constitution and despite the fact that the subcommittee did not
find the motion votable, I seek unanimous consent of the House to
deem the motion votable so we can have a full three hours of
debate instead of one and can put the issue to a vote as to
whether or not we entrench property rights in the constitution.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to move such a motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I will stick to the motion and not raise every hodgepodge piece
of legislation that has been passed in the House. I will talk
about the due process of law, which opposition members probably
do not understand or do not respect. I fail to understand what
the gun legislation, the wheat board legislation and other pieces
of legislation have to do with this important motion. I will
only speak to the issue and will ignore the blatant partisan
remarks of the hon. opposition member.
The enactment of the Canadian bill of rights stems from our
desire to ensure the atrocities that occurred to millions of
Jews, ethnic minorities, political dissidents, people with mental
and physical disabilities and homosexuals do not happen again.
That is the reason we have a bill of rights. The bill of rights
already protects an individual's rights to the enjoyment of his
or her property.
The United Nations responded to some of the atrocities during
the second world war and to some of the other issues I brought
forward by drafting the United Nations declaration of human
rights. The parliament of the day in Canada enacted the
Canadian bill of rights.
[Translation]
The Canadian Bill of Rights has quasi-constitutional status.
A number of its provisions were repeated in specific provisions of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the Charter
contains no specific clause on property rights, it may be held that
the following clause in the Bill of Rights continues to protect
property rights:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there
have existed and shall continue to exist without
discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour,
religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental
freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty,
security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the
right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of
law—
It can be held that this clause provides protection to
property rights in that a person cannot be deprived of his rights
except by regular application of the law. The Bill applies only to
federal laws, unlike the Charter which applies to provincial laws.
[English]
Numerous laws also regulate and protect the ownership and
enjoyment of property in Canada. For example, real and personal
property laws regulate the acquisition and disposition of all
kinds of property. These laws protect individuals from fraud and
other mistakes that may result in someone losing property.
There has been an evolution in what we think of as property and
protecting individuals in a fair manner from losing their right
to enjoy property. The federal Divorce Act and provincial and
territorial family law acts ensure that women are not deprived of
their right to a fair share of matrimonial property and assets
regardless of who has legal title.
1120
There are common law rules which govern the purchase and sale of
land and the taking of interest in mortgages or leases. There
are statues that protect an interest in property, from cars to
patents. Like all other rights the right to enjoy property is
subject to some limitations in society.
[Translation]
As I said, the federal Divorce Act and provincial and
territorial family law acts ensure women are not deprived of their
right to a fair share of matrimonial property and assets regardless
of who has legal title.
There are laws to govern the use of property in the public
interest. For instance, there are land use and zoning laws with
the power to limit the type of construction allowed in a
residential area. Environmental legislation establishes a whole
body of regulations governing everything from the disposal of
hazardous waste to felling trees.
There are laws that govern ownership of shares by limited
companies, bankruptcy, and ownership of land by non-Canadians.
Cultural heritage laws guarantee respect for the interests of
native peoples with respect to use of their lands, and so forth.
All these laws place real limitations on property ownership
and use. Everyone recognizes the need for these limitations. If
the government were to consider amending the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, sight should not be lost of the important limitations on
the enjoyment of property.
[English]
The procedure for amending the constitution is quite complex and
would require the following elements if we chose that route: a
resolution of the Senate and House of Commons and a resolution of
the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the
provinces that have a least 50% of the population of all the
provinces. Obtaining approval for this type of constitutional
amendment, as we have know from the past, can be quite difficult.
The notion of property is far greater than real property. Given
the broad notion that can be applied to real property, we must be
careful if we are able to alter the existing protection for
property rights in a quasi-constitional document.
It should also be noted that women's advocacy groups have had a
number of concerns with the further entrenchment of property
rights. A man's home is his castle is a disturbing concept to
many women who have been denied their share of family assets. It
has only been a few years since Mrs. Murdoch was denied a share
of the family farm where she had worked for many years.
In a complex society with many interests and competing rights
from the division of the matrimonial home to environmental laws
and zoning bylaws we must recognize that rights are not absolute.
In many countries of the world women are legally and effectively
denied the right to own, inherit or control properties. In
Canada today this is not the case. Women have the right to enjoy
property to the same extent as men. There are many existing
protections for property rights in Canada both in the Canadian
bill of rights and other statues and through common law, as I
stated earlier.
Other challenges facing the government are more pressing than
the need to provide additional protection for property rights.
[Translation]
This government must deal with more pressing challenges than
providing additional protection for property rights. The
government is determined to protect our social safety net, our
health system, and youth employment, to name just a few areas of
concern.
The protection of property rights is important for Canadians'
prosperity. Property rights are, in our view, already protected by
existing legislation.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to share my time with another member.
The question of property rights is certainly bigger than
physical property as in land and other things we own and are
physically able to touch. It is important to protect the other
property rights and intangibles such as the property rights my
friend was talking about with regard to land, Bill C-68, guns and
other property.
If we do not have security of property, it brings into the
question the security of a lot of things.
We will be debating the MAI which will have to do with foreign
investment in Canada. Once again property rights will come up as
part of that discussion.
1125
The hon. member on the other side was talking about the
protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question
of property rights has to be entrenched in the constitution,
because we feel that having that right should be fundamental to
being a Canadian.
It was certainly mentioned in the U.S. constitution that it was
a fundamental right for Americans. I think we can look toward
the way its society has evolved. There is no reason we could not
have evolved in much the same way. In keeping with that theme I
would like to point out there is still time for us to do that.
If the motion would have been made votable, it would have been
an indication from the House of whether or not Canadians across
the country were concerned about the issue and whether or not
there was more support for it than what the members opposite and
the government indicate.
This confiscation of property tends to leave the person from
whom the property is taken without adequate compensation for what
is being done to him. As a result it takes away from basic
rights.
The hon. member next to me will continue my portion of this
presentation.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the issue we are speaking about today in the private
member's motion my friend has introduced is entrenching property
rights in the constitution.
It is something I also agree is extremely important. A number
of issues are an example of why all Canadians need to have it
protected and to ensure it is enshrined in our constitution.
Let me give the example of gun control. This may have been
talked about before but it is worth repeating. I have spoken to
hundreds and hundreds of people. One example of where their
firearms are to be taken away is collectors' items which they
have saved for a long time and which are very valuable.
In my riding a number of seniors have been collecting firearms.
In order for them to keep the firearms because of whatever type
of weapon they are—I am talking about veterans and all types of
people who collect firearms—the bolts have to be welded shut and
have to be disabled. These are antiques they are being forced to
destroy.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Not true.
Mr. Gary Lunn: I hear a member from the other side of the
House telling me that this is not true. I can tell the member
that I have spoken to a number of organizations, antiques
collectors' clubs and veterans who have already been forced to
have some of these weapons and antique firearms, of which there
are very few around, changed and altered. The bolts were
permanently welded shut. They are very distraught about it.
In speaking to every one of these groups it brought me back to
the whole firearms issue. They are as concerned about crime and
justice as anybody else in the country. They want to make sure
our streets are safer. We have the government saying that this
will solve our justice problems and look after crime. It brings
me back to why we need these rights enshrined in our
constitution. It is absolutely fundamental.
1130
This is the way the government is going to solve crime which is
not going to make one iota of difference to crime. It is not
going to make a difference. There are many other ways to solve
the crime problem. These are taxpayers, the best citizens in our
communities, role models in our communities, who are being faced
with this legislation. They are saying “we need constitutional
protection, what is happening to us is absolutely dead wrong”.
This is one example and there are many others.
We have just seen the debate on the wheat board. The farmers
are coming forward. They feel their rights are being trampled
on. The government is suggesting there will be some elected
officials on the new wheat board, but still it is a government
anointed and appointed board, the president, the CEO and the
people running this organization. Farmers really do not have any
true input. They want to make sure that their rights are
protected.
The way this can be done most effectively is to ensure that
their rights are enshrined in the Constitution, that they are
guaranteed and they are protected. That would go a long way to
making sure that Canadians feel secure without the government
being able to trample on them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam
Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois's justice critic, I am pleased to
speak to this motion. Some of my colleagues may find it amusing to
see the Reformers trying to use a run-of-the-mill motion to bring
in by the back door what they could not get in through the front,
as if parties are going to be asleep at the switch, and will not
voice their opposition.
It is important to understand the motion, which I will read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms should be amended to recognize the right of every
person to own, use and enjoy property; and to not be deprived
of that right without full, just and timely compensation and
the due process of law.
I think that a member of the Bloc Quebecois is in a good
position to talk about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
given that, for us, it is part of the 1982 Constitution, which was
imposed on us even though we never signed it, but which nonetheless
contains rights and obligations.
Like the good citizens we are, Quebeckers of various political
stripes, we are looking at it and trying to find out its scope. In
in Quebec we have a Quebec charter of rights and freedoms, which
was passed even before the Canadian charter and which contains
certain obligations and rights.
Unless I am way off the mark and am horribly wrong, both the
Quebec and the Canadian charters accord Quebeckers and Canadians
the right to own what they will. I think this is a now considered
to be fundamental right, unless the Reformers have been reading
different texts than I have. I think both charters contain
provision for this.
However, even if I wanted to, I would not be permitted to have
a tank at the bottom of my garden or grenades in my kitchen in a
free and democratic society. This annoys me a bit. The Reformers
are trying with this motion to do what the firearms registration
legislation precludes and to fire up a debate where none exists.
There is no debate in Canadian society, I would hope, and
there is certainly none in Quebec society. I think there are far
greater concerns within our system than that of having rights and
freedoms under the charter to own firearms or whatever. This is
what the Reform Party is after with this motion.
We have to look at the person who tabled the motion; it was
the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. We have to know what he wants;
to do that, I looked at the member's various statements under
Standing Order 31.
We have to look at what this sort of motion means to the member.
1135
I will not read everything he said, only a few passages. The member
made the following statement under Standing Order 31: “Once again the
Liberal government is way off target”. It is true that the Liberals
across the way are off target every now and then, in fact more often
than not.
He added “Rather than cracking down on the use of firearms to
commit crimes, and rather than strengthening enforcement measures along
our borders to stop the illegal flow of handguns, the minister would
prefer to continue to harass ordinary law-abiding Canadians, even going
so far as to deny them use of their own private property”.
We can see where the Reformers are going with this. In another
statement he made under Standing Order 31, he said that the Liberal
government should be ashamed of trampling the property rights of
Canadians. The Liberals should be ashamed of many things, but perhaps
not of what the Reformers are accusing them of in this particular case.
I can hear them laughing across the way.
Mr. Denis Coderre: That is the former Liberal showing through.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: A leopard cannot change its spots.
More seriously, through their motion, Reformers are trying to sway
members, but we must realize what their ultimate goal is: the sacrosanct
debate held in this House on the gun registration bill.
As flawed as it may be, I think that this legislation has become
generally accepted by the public at large.
This morning I inquired about the registration process on behalf of a
constituent, and I was told that the forms will only be available in
October. So, let us first see how the system is working. Let us give it
time to show its flaws, its weaknesses and its strengths. Because there
is surely some good in the legislation. Then we can try to make it
better. But let us not try to block a law that has yet to be
implemented.
To put things in perspective, before challenging such an act or
making proposals in this House, we must first look at the purpose of the
charter, at what may be enshrined in it. The whole issue must be looked
at in light of the specific objective of the Reformers, which has to do
with the gun registration legislation.
As regards the purpose of the charter, the relatively recent
constitutional entrenchment of human rights in charters shows a tendency
to protect individual rights. However, such efforts must respect the
essential balance that must exist between the rights of individuals and
those of the community.
Without this balance, it would, for all intents and purposes, be
impossible to administer the state. The rights of the citizens of a
state must be in harmony with the common good of the community. This is
why it is essential to respect individual rights, to the extent that the
community's safety is not jeopardized.
I believe that is a principle recognized by any person of good
faith, by any person who examines a bill or anything else,
correctly, intelligently, using common sense, and sees that it can
be applicable and appropriate to its intended objective, within a
framework many may find suitable, in this case the constitutional
framework.
Individual rights must not prevail over collective rights, or
vice versa. A balance must be sought and I believe the
legislator—by which I mean all of the members of this House,
whether in government or in opposition, all of us together—has
this desire for balance in mind when passing legislation,
proposing amendments or voting for or against a bill.
In the firearms registration legislation, which as I have
already said is the real object of this motion, I believe that
balance has been achieved. The future will no doubt prove whether
anything needs to be changed or not.
I would remind you that the Bloc Quebecois introduced a series
of amendments. It called for the government to make changes on a
number of specific points. The government, it must be admitted,
did agree we were right on certain points. In committee, the
Minister of Justice at the time agreed that the Bloc Quebecois was
right about certain amendments.
1140
We are grateful to him for that, because I believe it was best
for the public, best for the legislation involved, that the
minister listened to the Bloc Quebecois at that time. However, some
of the changes and amendments we suggested were rejected. Perhaps
the future will prove once again that we were right and that the
Liberal government ought to amend its legislation along the lines
of what the Bloc Quebecois was proposing at that time.
One thing is certain, however, and that is that the
legislation was passed and is now in effect. It has gone through
all the stages of the democratic system in Canada and Quebec,
and you can be sure that not a single Bloc Quebecois member of
Parliament will oppose the proper workings of democracy in this
country called Canada, and in the emerging country which will be
called Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to tell you a little story and it starts back around
1215. King John came back from a war in France and his coffers
were empty.
He went to his barons and his lords and demanded taxation moneys
from them to fill the coffers of the lands so that he could once
again wage war. His lords and his barons at that time said that
this was inappropriate since they were receiving nothing in
return from the king. He was merely taking tax money from them
with no benefit derived whatsoever on their part.
They forced the king to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. That is
the first time that we know of in modern western history of a
recognition of the right to own property. There have been many
other precedents since that time.
Particularly noteworthy is when in 1776 a large part of the
colonies on this new continent broke away from the United Kingdom
and British rule because they did not believe in taxation without
representation. They believed in the right to hold and to own
property.
The right to hold property has several important components,
many of which are touched on in this private member's bill. It
recognizes that people have the right to own property, that they
use and enjoy it, that they not be deprived of that right without
full, just and timely compensation in due process of law. If we
do not have a process of law in terms of the recognition of
property, it is merely at the caprice, the will of the
government.
We all recognize that laws and statutes are important. Indeed
that is why we sit here today. That is why we have this
assembly, this commons, so that the people of Canada understand
the laws, the regulations and the rules. Without that there is
anarchy. As a result, point one is that the process of law must
be recognized.
Point number two is that people have timely, just and fair
compensation. Without fair compensation there is no true value
in property or for what people hold. For example, the Bloc
member spoke to Bill C-68 and gun registration. It touches on
many others such as Bill C-4 and the wheat board act. There have
been several others that have been passed in this House that
touch on this as well.
If people do not have a sense of fair, timely and just
compensation, then indeed things can be taken from them.
Something worth a dollar can be taken from them and they are
given back merely pennies, a dime or a nickel in exchange for
what its true value or worth is.
We see in our history not long ago where that was done. It was
the Japanese internment during the second world war. It has been
widely recognized in this House I think by all parties that those
Japanese Canadians were done a wrong. Why they were done a wrong?
Property was taken from them without fair, just and timely
compensation, something we recognize happening less than 50 years
ago and yet we see the importance of it. We make corrections at
a later date.
1145
Another important criterion is that it is transferable because
if the property is not saleable or transferable, if I cannot pass
my ability to own that property to another, then indeed is it
really mine and do I have full jurisdiction over it? This
touches on the jurisdictional aspects of private property.
Someone should have complete and full jurisdiction of their
property in order for it to be considered private property. With
this comes the whole idea of transferability. Therefore the
state should not be able to regulate or restrict an individual's
ability to transfer that property.
We have recent developments in this country that call attention
to the whole idea of the right to own property. One of these is
the bill of rights which included the right to own property. It
is interesting how later on when we tried to constitutionalize
this in 1982 there were objections to including the right to own
private property in the Constitution which later became the
Constitution Act, 1982.
One of the provinces that opposed that right but claimed it was
not involved in the final negotiation of the Constitution was
Quebec. Prince Edward Island was another. Unfortunately due to
the objections of a few of the provinces we did not see the
inclusion of private property entrenched in the Constitution of
this land.
As a result, what have we seen come down the pipe? Bill C-68,
the gun registration act, speaks to this. In Bill C-68 there are
provisions for the confiscation of private property. Somebody
can own a collection of firearms and be unable to pass that on to
their children, nor even be able to sell it. Why? The government
has made provisions for confiscation, confiscation without fair
compensation. There is not provision for what the real and true
value or marketable value of those firearms may be.
Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which was recently
passed in this House, does not recognize the right of farmers to
own the grain they produce by the sweat and toil of their own
labour, to be able to sell that freely as they so choose. It
violates their transferability because they are not allowed to
sell that to whomever they wish. It violates their fair, just
and timely compensation because they cannot get the full value
and true market value of their grain. They are forced to sell it
through the wheat board. They are also deprived of what I
consider to be a fundamental process of law when we have people
who want to exercise the transferability right and the
compensation right and yet they are jailed and shackled and
deprived of their machinery, fined and cannot work the family
farm.
All three of these fundamental tenets have been violated with
the Canadian Wheat Board Act. As I say, they were also violated
with Bill C-68, the gun registration bill.
It is not that these things have been done in the past because
that is water under the bridge. If we form government we hope to
repeal some of those pieces of legislation. More than that, this
government is also proposing and considering ideas on endangered
species legislation. I would like to enlighten the House in terms
of what that means.
It means that in a given section of land that somebody may own,
if it is found to be that there is a habitat they did not even
know existed and they are found to have potentially violated that
habitat by driving in, around or near it, they can have that
entire section of land quarantined from their use even though
they did not know it existed. They can also face heavy fines and
jail terms as a result of violating that habitat according to the
way the law is defined.
What is that going to encourage? It is going to encourage
people to go ahead and decimate their lands and get rid of any of
those special habitats rather than to go ahead and protect them
with some form of incentive. Using only disincentives will
encourage people to go ahead and obliterate those lands and get
rid of any of those special habitats that may exist. As a
result, I do not think that helps the populations that we are
trying to protect in terms of endangered species or any wildlife.
I do not think that does anything to help the owners of the
property. I also do not think it does anything to help advance
the cause the government claims to be supporting.
When we look at all these things, I do not think the government
has learned the fundamental lesson. I hope at the next election
it pays the price for that. It so sorely does not understand the
whole idea of private property. Nothing violates someone so
badly as having their private property taken from them. I will
speak about a personal experience, the reason my family came to
this country.
1150
We were farmers is eastern Europe. We had our farm confiscated
and nationalized by the state. We had our granaries taken. We
had our land seized. We had our horses taken. We came to Canada
to seek the freedom it provides. Unfortunately 100 years later
we see what is happening here by not recognizing the right to
private property. It chokes me up to think the government is
going to come through with this type of thing and not recognize
this. It is intolerable. Other governments in the past have
paid the price for not recognizing this fundamental right. Shame
on them.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No.
269 put forward by my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt. I
indicate at the outset that we are in support of this motion for
reasons I will outline.
Right away I state uncategorically that the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada has always supported the principles
of individuals' unencumbered rights to own property. The best
guarantors of prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada
are found in the freedom of individuals to pursue their
enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive
economy. That goes further to say that the freedom of individual
Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour and to the greatest
extent possible to have property lies within that right.
There is currently no provision in the charter of rights and
freedoms that prevents the government from taking away a person's
property, something that is owned rightfully by them. There is
nothing there to restrict the government in any way from passing
laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment or further
the reduction of the value of property owned by an individual.
That is very frightening thing to think that those violations
could occur without the protection of our charter of rights and
freedoms.
I want to highlight the fact that the provisions of the charter
of rights and freedoms require that the government provide fair
and timely compensation. That again is drawn into question
without the entrenchment of property rights within our
Constitution. Surely we do not want any restriction on the use
and enjoyment of property or the government's ability to
interfere with the value of a person's property.
It is trite and perhaps goes without saying that it is a
fundamental human right to own and use property in the way which
a person deems appropriate, with the stipulation that as long as
it does not infringe on the rights of another.
Property rights are natural and fundamental and are based on
hundreds of years of common law. One might suggest that common
law in itself is sufficient protection. I disagree. For that
reason among others it is necessary that we have these rights
entrenched in our Constitution.
I suggest the government may have intentionally left property
rights out of the Constitution in 1982 for fear that there would
be some detriment to Canadians' democratic rights and economic
freedoms. This motion is a step in the right direction. It is a
step toward bringing about a change, a much needed and necessary
change to our charter of rights and freedoms.
Presently the only legal protection that does exist in federal
law rests in the Canadian Bill of Rights which was introduced by
Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. Section 1(a) of the
Canadian Bill of Rights states specifically: “The right of the
individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the
enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof
except by due process of law”.
Since the Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statue which can
be overridden by any other federal statue, mainly the charter,
this protection is not enough. Why does this omission exist?
Why is there an omission of property rights within our charter of
rights and freedoms? It is a significant omission. Aside from
the poor guarantee of the bill of rights, there is no requirement
in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property
can be effected by a fair procedure or that it can be accompanied
by a fair compensation for the owner.
1155
On that point I quote a well known professor of constitutional
law, Professor Peter Hogg: “The omission of property rights from
section 7 of the charter greatly reduces its scope. It means
that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even a
fair procedure for the taking of property by government”.
This again is a frightening situation when it happens to any
Canadian who rightfully owns property. As has been suggested
throughout some of the remarks, an individual who may have
inherited property that was passed down through generations, that
a family has saved for and done without, is suddenly faced with
this type of confiscation of property. There is a real need to
ensure this does not happen.
If we did not have a Constitution the protection of property
rights would then revert to what I spoke of earlier, the common
law. But since we have a Constitution with entrenched rights
within our country it only makes sense to broaden the net to
include specifically the property rights of all Canadians.
Property rights are recognized from time immemorial in common
law but with our Constitution in this country this omission is
something that has to be remedied.
To not make sure the law protects property rights would leave it
upon the courts to address this situation when it arises. Again,
I suggest that it is incumbent upon this House and members of
Parliament and this procedure to address this inequity.
Many other Canadians and I have waited long enough for this to
happen. All members of the House appear for the most part to be
in support of this. But what are the exact property rights that
we are talking about? Property rights mean freedom from
arbitrary interference by one's government. They mean a
guarantee that one's rights will not be deprived, that one's
property will not be taken away or restricted in any way by undue
government interference.
It also sets out three very limited conditions where a
government might infringe on that right in this piece of
legislation. The taking of property must be for public use.
There are instances that we are all familiar with where there may
be an expropriation of property for a throughway, a pipeline, a
power line or some legitimate use. In those cases there are
easements available and the law can address it in that way.
Another instance where government might deprive an individual of
a property right would be the taking of the property through due
process of law, that is, a confiscation based on a bill that is
owing, an outstanding debt that has to be addressed.
Third, the taking of property must be done with just and timely
compensation. That is, an arbitrary seizure of property without
compensation or done so in an unfair and arbitrary way would be
outside the rule of law.
With respect to this issue 81% of Canadians consider either very
or fairly important the right to include property rights in our
charter of rights and freedoms, and 81% of Canadians are not
wrong in this. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce, the Canada Real Estate Association as well as many
other organizations support the inclusion of property rights
within our Constitution.
Including property rights also follows the fine example of many
other countries around the world. Some of those countries, the
United States, Germany, Italy, Finland, have seen the need and
have done so within their charters.
Property rights are an issue that transcend any partisan
politics. They have widespread application and appeal and are
something that all members of this House should consider very
seriously before casting their vote against.
The following prominent Canadians have voted in favour in the
past on property rights being included in our Constitution: John
Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Paul Martin Sr., Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and many others.
Again I would suggest there is a tradition to be followed. There
is an opportunity now for this House to put these rights in place
to ensure that inequities as they arise from ownership of
property are going to be addressed and addressed in the proper
forum, which is this House.
For these reasons and many others, I support this motion as do
the members of my party. I encourage all members of this House
to do the same.
1200
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the motion by my colleague on the other side of
this House calls states that the charter of rights and freedoms
be amended to recognize the right of every person to own and
enjoy property—
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. The standing orders indicate that the member
who moves the motion has the right to speak for five minutes at
the end of debate. We have about five minutes left so the time
should revert to him.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The rule pertaining
to this states that the member who has proposed the motion has
the right to five minutes only if another member does not rise to
complete the hour.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 95(2) says
that “provided that the member moving the item may speak for not
more than fifteen minutes”—that is at the beginning—“and
provided that the said member may, if he or she chooses, speak
again for not more than five minutes, commencing five minutes
before the conclusion of the hour during which the said item is
to be considered”.
It is quite clear in the standing order that it is the choice of
the member. The member has chosen to exercise that right and I
ask that he be given that right.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Speaker of the
House has already ruled on that issue and has stated very clearly
that the member can only use the last five minutes if nobody else
rises.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Madam Speaker, as I was stating,
the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt asks that
the charter of rights and freedoms be amended to recognize the
right of every person to enjoy and own property and not be
deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation
and due process of law.
Perhaps the hon. member has not read the charter of rights and
freedoms. Perhaps the hon. member is not cognizant of our
Canadian Bill of Rights, but property rights are already
protected in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
With the coming of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in 1982 which duplicated many of the provisions of the Canadian
Bill of Rights, it is important to understand how the bill of
rights enacted in 1960 fits into the larger scheme of human
rights protections in Canada.
This bill of rights remains in force but is substantially
different from the charter as it does not apply to provincial
legislation or actions. It operates as a federal statute which
is applicable to federal laws and actions. Whereas the charter
expressly overrides any act, whether it be federal or provincial
that is inconsistent with the charter, the Canadian Bill of
Rights does not have express provisions that permit it to
override other federal statutes.
Therefore the difference between the bill and the charter is
that the bill does not have a limitation clause as provided by
section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What
does the lack of a limitation clause mean for the protection of
property rights?
I would ask that the hon. members on the other side of the House
who are supporting this motion listen carefully to what I am
about to say. They might actually learn something.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I have to
interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to
explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (the MAI); (2) failing to explain what benefits and
costs it foresees for the Canadian people; and (3) failing to
take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lead off this debate
today. A number of my colleagues will be speaking as well
because this is a very big concern in their ridings. Some of
them will be speaking from their critic area, such as fisheries,
culture and other areas where there are some concerns.
It is important to point out at the outset that the multilateral
agreement on investment which is being negotiated is a Liberal
government initiative to make Canada a part of the negotiations
at the OECD in Paris. Our negotiators have been there since
1995.
It was interesting that during the election campaign in June
there was hardly any mention of the multilateral agreement on
investment. In fact some Liberal members when contacted denied
that negotiations were going on. People who heard about the
negotiations were concerned and they raised the issue during the
election campaign.
When we in the Reform Party were asked what our stand would be
we said that we did not know much about the negotiations, but
that we were in favour of free trade in principle and free trade
in investment. We supported the free trade agreement and also
the NAFTA, both of which have substantial investment sections.
In principle we are in favour of the MAI, but we want to know a
lot more of the details.
By way of background, the government had to name a new cabinet
after the election. In September when the government returned, a
new minister was appointed to the international trade portfolio.
We thought that he would explain what the MAI meant to Canadians.
In fact we asked the minister if we could meet with the chief
negotiator, Mr. Dymond, to explain it to us because we wanted to
be up to speed on the negotiations.
Mr. Dymond told us that the directions from the new minister
were to be a lot more open and to tell people what the deal was
about. The minister himself when he came to committee assured us
that the government would be much more active in explaining the
deal to Canadians. As a result of that we gave the new minister
the benefit of the doubt. We expected that he and the chief
negotiator would be addressing the concerns being raised across
the country. However we were surprised when that did not happen.
The minister's answer in mid-November was to ask the
Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment to do a study. We were told that we had a very short
time to do that study. The government wanted the report before
the House rose in the middle of December. By the time we
factored in a week to put the report together, it only gave the
subcommittee three weeks to hear witnesses. It did not give us
time to travel across the country to places like British Columbia
where the concern seemed to be the greatest.
It is important to note whose job it is to inform the public. I
would submit that it is the government's job. It is the Liberal
government's job to inform the public of what the benefits are
and what the downside may be in negotiating a multilateral
agreement on investment. It is the government's job to take it
to Canadians.
Why are we condemning the government for its failure to explain
why it is negotiating the multilateral agreement on investment?
Why is it failing to explain the benefits and costs to the
Canadian people? Why is it failing to take part in public
discussion on the agreement? We will endeavour to smoke out the
government today and try to engage it in this debate.
Canada has been negotiating the agreement for two years at the
OECD. Largely the negotiations have been secret.
There was no mention during the election campaign, except for
some groups that came that were getting wind of it like the
Council of Canadians. The NDP started to raise it as an election
issue. Some Liberal members, even cabinet ministers, were in
denial. They said that Canada would not be doing that.
1210
As I said, we were in favour in principle of an agreement
depending on how it came out. We recognized that investment
leads to trade and trade leads to jobs but we wanted to see what
was being negotiated.
It is really ironic. There was no mention of distrust back in
1993 in red book No. 1 or in red book No. 2 for that matter.
There was no mention in the throne speech. These were all areas
where the government had a chance to outline what its initiatives
were going to be for the upcoming mandate. There was no mention
of it. Why not? It is difficult for us to understand why it
would not be trying to inform the public.
As a result there was growing interest in what the MAI really
meant. Many of our members, and I am sure government members,
must be getting a flood of mail in their offices. There are a lot
of people out there who are spreading what I think is false
information, but nonetheless information and accusations that
have to be met head on by this government in answers to things
such as Canada is going to lose its health care, Canada is going
to lose sovereignty as a result of this, government will no
longer be able to make laws and so on.
The MAI is a major initiative yet requires support building from
this government. That simply is not happening. As a result the
public is only getting one side of this issue. Those from the
flat earth society would have us believe that the free trade
agreement with the United States, which contained an investment
chapter, expanded to NAFTA in 1992 were bad for us and it would
roll that back. The same group seemed to be lined up on the side
of the MAI debate saying no, do not go ahead with it.
Where is the minister in all this debate? Is he out doing talk
shows? Is he doing radio presentations to Canadians? Television?
Where is he? He is nowhere at all. No town halls. I should not
say that. He actually gave a presentation last week to a bunch of
business executives at the Chateau Laurier hotel. That is
important but it is vitally important that the minister explain
this deal to Canadians and he is simply missing in action.
The minister points to the subcommittee and says he gave it to
the subcommittee on international trade to study. That is true.
He did. He gave us a very short time frame, but he did. Three
weeks. What did we hear from witnesses at the subcommittee? Let
me just read a few of the quotes.
Elizabeth Smythe from Concordia College in Edmonton said “More
public consultation on negotiations should take place.” We heard
all kinds of comments like that from almost every witness at
committee. Elizabeth Smythe also said “It is not enough for
citizens to get a chance to vote for a government once every four
years if the kind of trade-offs and choices on important
international investment rules are never outlined during an
election campaign”. Absolutely.
We heard all kinds of that. What was the government's response?
Let me read it. The committee of which I see a couple of
members here wrote a report as a result of the three weeks of
hearings.
The first recommendation was that the government should stay
engaged at the OECD and try to achieve an agreement. The number
two recommendation of the committee, an all-party committee, was
the government should continue to increase its efforts to inform
Canadians of the merits of negotiating an MAI while addressing
the concerns brought forward by this committee in public
hearings. Exactly what I am saying.
Of the few people that had a chance to come to the committee,
the 75 groups or whatever, many of them raised concerns. They
said that they were not hearing enough about it, that they did
not know exactly what the government was intending to do. The
committee recognized that and made the recommendation that the
government should explain this deal to Canadians.
In fact the Reform Party, while in general agreement with the
thrust of trying to negotiate an agreement said in the second
paragraph of its dissenting opinion “While we believe a good
agreement will be in Canada's best interest, we acknowledge the
apprehension felt by many Canadians in our country. Given the
amount of genuine concern around the MAI, we are perplexed that
the Liberal government has not put a concerted effort into an
information campaign”.
1215
Many witnesses before the subcommittee commented on the need for
much wider public consultation. At least the three weeks of
hearings by the subcommittee should have been extended to include
a week or more of hearings in the west. It simply did not
happen.
It even got worse. That committee report came down in December.
Where was the minister after that? As I said, at one appearance
at the Chateau Laurier for breakfast. He expects people from
Victoria, Kamloops and Grande Prairie to come to the Chateau
Laurier for breakfast with him. What kind of consultation is
that?
What did Liberal members say when they were in opposition? What
did they say about this kind of approach to big government? They
said that in the red book that the Liberal government would
govern with integrity and that open government would be the
watchword of the Liberal government. What does open government
mean?
They also went on to say that the most important asset of
government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it
is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable
dissatisfaction with government. They talk about the Mulroney
government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and
the institutions of the public sector. This erosion of
confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the
behaviour of certain elected politicians but others have to do
with an arrogant style of political leadership.
The people are irritated with governments that do not consult
them or that disregard their views or that try to conduct key
parts of public business behind closed doors. Is that not deja
vu? Why have they not learned their lesson? They said they
would consult with people.
We have to briefly review where we have been in terms of
investment in Canada in the last 30 years. We had a Liberal
government under Pierre Trudeau that actually tried to discourage
foreign investment with the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It
had the effect he wanted. It discouraged investment. Then Brian
Mulroney came in, in 1984, and changed the style. The
Conservatives said we needed investment in Canada, that
investment was good for us. They instituted Investment Canada
and tried to encourage investment. Then we went as far as
signing the free trade agreement with the United States in 1988.
A big section, chapter 11, dealt with investment and the rules
needed for investment. We expanded that in the NAFTA in 1992 to
include Mexico.
At the same time we were negotiating at the Uruguay round of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We were trying to get an
investment section there, but there was something like 130 member
countries, not all of whom were interested in investment. Their
economies were simply too small. The Ivory Coast and many
countries in the third world have economies that are simply not
ready for investment.
It failed, but there was still a need to have a common set of
rules for investment in the same way as we have rules for trade
in goods and services. They tried again and the initiative went
to the OECD in 1995. It was all great; there was no problem with
it. The only problem I see is that we had a Liberal government
that did not want to explain it to Canadians.
What is at stake in this multilateral agreement on investment?
We need to know. There is growing interest. Other people want
to know what is at stake and there is concern. It is entirely
possible the entire deal may fall through. Countries like the
United States have said that there is not enough in the agreement
for them to sign it.
The NDP would love that. We saw what happened in British
Columbia when the NDP government was in power from 1991.
Investment dropped off every year the NDP was in government in
B.C. All of a sudden I see big ads in the Globe and Mail
and other places advertising for investments. I guess the NDP
government now recognizes it is important.
This deal may fall through because too many countries are saying
they need broad exemptions for this and broad exemptions for
that. Exemptions are fine if they are in our national interest,
but let us define them as closely as we need to, to protect that
interest, not take a broad brush and try to paint it so we
essentially have a shell deal here.
Another benefit is that Canadian investors are investing abroad
in increasing numbers. We had $170 billion of Canadian
investment outside our country last year. That was almost equal
to what our investment is in Canada. They need the rules that
some kind of international agreement would provide, rules that
say we have to treat foreign companies in the same way as we
treat domestic companies. We can still make regulations and
rules, but we have to treat them in the same way. In the event
of an expropriation it would be done in a just and timely manner.
1220
I will read a couple of quotes of people who appeared before the
committee. First is a quote by Steven Stinson of the Canadian
Pulp and Paper Association, a pretty big employer in Canada:
George Miller of the Mining Association of Canada said:
Trade follows investments. Because of the expertise gained in
Canada and the entrée provided by Canadian mining
investment—our suppliers of mining equipment and services are
welcomed to Latin American countries and other parts of the
developing world.
He also said:
We know there is something like $7 billion of Canadian mining
investment now in countries like Chile. Alan Rugman of the
University of Toronto, said:
It would logically seem to me—that if we can get an MAI—that
has the same rules as in NAFTA, we will have better access for
the outward investment in which Canadian firms engage.
Mike Percy, dean of business at the University of Alberta, said:
We live and die by competing in international markets. Our
standard of living depends on our ability to be competitive.
He also said:
One of the remarkable things that has happened in western
Canada...is the tremendous expansion in tradable
services...—business services, environmental services, oilfield
services—(that) have been directed not only to the U.S. market
but worldwide.
Canadians are gaining confidence in investing outside our
country, Canadians like Canadian Fracmaster in Calgary where
there are people I know personally working in places like Russia
and China and bringing paycheques and dividends home.
What is the Reform position in terms of investment? We
recognize the linkage between investment and trade. We recognize
the linkage between trade and jobs. It has been very good for us
to be part of a NAFTA type arrangement.
We recognize that Canadian companies need a physical presence
abroad. To make trade work they have to make some kind of an
investment in another country usually before trade can take
place. We support free trade in principle. We believe in the
protection of private property. We supported the free trade
agreement and NAFTA which both have investment rules. We also
supported GATT and the Uruguay round. By the way, GATT has been
in place since 1947.
Therefore we support a NAFTA style expanded investment
agreement, but we want to know that it is a NAFTA style
investment agreement. We want to know what we are dealing with.
In terms of an investment agreement we want to see these
principles: transparency and openness in multilateral
negotiations, and there is no reason why this should not take
place; a national treatment, investment protection and effective
dispute settlement mechanism; the elimination of performance
requirements; the freedom to transfer payments and after tax
profits; free movement of key personnel and minimum sectoral
exemptions. If we need exemptions, let us define them as clearly
as we can.
Sometimes I wonder why the Liberal government is not trying to
sell this deal. I am not sure what it is afraid of. We know it
was very much opposed to the free trade agreement. It fought the
free trade agreement and NAFTA. In fact the present trade
minister was one of the biggest proponents of not signing.
I want to read a couple of quotes from what he said in the past.
I wonder if that is why the Liberals are so lukewarm to the
agreement. In 1992 he said:
I commend (the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) for suggesting
that this House condemn the government for its failure to be
completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and
objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
With all due respect, it is a shame that we have to rely on our
newspapers to begin to enlighten not only Canadians but elected
Canadians who are supposed to deal with issues on behalf of the
26 million shareholders of this company called Canada.
Why is the House of Commons not debating the parameters of what
it is that Canada should be pushing for or what Canada should not
be encouraging?
Yet back home, on an issue that is fundamental to the
livelihoods of all Canadians, there is silence and ignorance.
I challenge the government. Why is it not involved? The
present Minister for International Trade said all those things in
1992. These were very good questions. Why were there not open
negotiations? Does the same thing apply in 1998 on the
multilateral agreement on investment?
The Liberals do not really believe in free trade. It is either
that or an awful lot of arrogance on the part of the government
we are facing across the way, the Liberal government.
1225
It is the same kind of deal we had with the Kyoto summit. There
were no negotiations with the provinces until the last minute. In
fact we had that again with the MAI. The minister did not meet
with the provincial counterparts until last week. Does that not
sound familiar?
Arrogance, that is what I believe it is. It is shameful. I
challenge the government to get off its butt and get out there to
explain to Canadians why this deal may be good for them, or at
least meet the challenges head on of what people like Maude
Barlow and the Council of Canadians are saying.
If they cannot meet those, if they cannot dispel stories that
these are very bad for Canada, maybe it is not a good deal for
us. I think it is, but the Liberal government has to take up the
challenge.
Protection for Canadian companies is at stake, Canadian
companies that have increased the amount of foreign investment
outside our country by 50% in the last 10 years. That will
continue, but we need some rules.
It is clear that investment leads to trade and trade leads to
jobs. Mike Percy of the University of Alberta business school
said about three months ago in response to the expansion of the
oil sands, the tar sands in northern Alberta and the big pulp and
paper projects that were under way in the forestry industry that
Alberta would require $20 billion of new investment money over
the next 10 years.
We need to encourage investment in the country but we need to
know the rules and we need to know that Canadian sovereignty is
not at stake. If there are areas where we have sensitive
industries that need protection, let us protect them but let us
define it as narrowly and clearly as we can so that we do not
scuttle a deal in the process.
In conclusion, the government has not shown leadership. It must
take up the challenge and deal with Canadians, go out and tell
Canadians what this deal is all about and why the government is
negotiating it on their behalf.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the
hon. member would tell me what he calls the 35 meetings with
provincial and territorial officials since 1995.
I wonder if my hon. friend has forgotten that there are
consultations on an ongoing basis and have been since that time.
Could he tell us whether he counts that? Maybe he does not count
the ongoing meetings.
When we had the delegation from British Columbia before the
committee—I believe my hon. friend was there—the official from
the department acknowledged that the province had been very well
informed on an ongoing basis and commended the government for
that.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, those comments are very
interesting.
Representatives of the provinces were in town last week. There
was considerable complaint that they were not part of the
process. The government is negotiating on their behalf. While
officials from the department may have been meeting on a low
level basis, essentially they were not part of it at the
ministerial level until last week.
The point I am making, though, is that the public has not been
informed. The minister and the department have not been engaged,
and I cannot understand why. Why have they not gone out and
talked about what the proposed benefits are to Canadians? What
are they afraid of?
It is ludicrous. When I talked with the chief negotiator in
September and when I questioned the minister in committee in
October, I believe, I raised these concerns and said there were
people on the other side. I thought he was causing himself a lot
of extra work and damage that was not necessary. A lot of the
objections were being raised out there that were not accurate but
somebody had to deal with them. The chief negotiator at the time
said the minister's direction was for them to inform the public.
It simply has not happened.
Why are we getting stacks of letters? Why are we getting all
these phone calls? It is because the minister has not gone to
British Columbia to talk with Canadians about it. That is where
the biggest concern is. That is his job. Even Brian Mulroney in
the free trade debate and NAFTA went out and sold what he thought
were the benefits of that agreement.
It amazes me why this government would not be doing that. I
cannot understand it.
1230
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the member from Peace River could clarify something for me.
There is no such thing as an MAI agreement. There is no signed
agreement. Why is the member from Peace River engaging in the
same kind of conspiratorial theory that the NDP wants to bring
out? How can we have a reasonable discussion on a non-existent
agreement?
As my hon. colleague the parliament secretary said, I have a
list of consistent meetings with the provinces, the private
sector, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Information
Technology Association, the Canadian Federation of Agricultural,
the dairy farmers, and so on. There has been a consultative
process. The member is falling into the very trap that these
people want us to believe, that somehow there is a conspiracy.
Will the member speak to that issue?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly speak to
that issue. It makes my case about the arrogance of this
government.
What does the government want to do? Is it going to be another
Kyoto type deal where it says by the way, we were over and
negotiated deal, this is what it is and here it is folks? That is
not good enough. We had lots of witnesses who said that it is
not necessary to carry on these discussions in private. If we do
not have public support what kind of an agreement is the
government signing on behalf of Canadians?
What we do have is a draft. It was a March draft, then updated
to May. We know the objectives that Canada was trying to
negotiate. What we did not have until November was the list of
exemptions that the government was intending to table. It is not
good enough to come and say we have arrived at an agreement and
here it is.
The way it is going right now, if the government does sign an
agreement, unless it makes some changes this could arrive on
Canadians' desks. In the Canada-Chile free trade agreement we
never saw the agreement. We never had a debate on it in the
House of Commons. All we got was a Canada-Chile free trade
agreement. The government said by the way, as a result of this we
have to amend some legislation to make it work. That is the
arrogant style that Mulroney had and that the Liberal government
condemned. I just read the kinds of comments it made in 1992.
But this government is doing it all over again. It simply is not
good enough in these times. Canadians want to be consulted.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member
of Peace River is wanting to, if I may use a vacuum cleaner
analogy, suck and blow at the same time.
The Reform Party has said in the minority report that it has no
trouble whatsoever with the MAI. It simply wants investors
protected more. This is a nuisance motion.
It has been the NDP that has supported concerns about the
environment, labour, people, the arts in this agreement. All
Reform wants to do is get some sort of attention on this issue.
In fact, it wants to get more MAI, the quicker, the better.
My question to the Reform Party is why does it not be a bit more
honest with its motion and say let us ram this MAI through faster
than before?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very
interesting approach. As we said during the election campaign in
June, until we see the actual agreement, how are we going to
support it. We support the concept of a multilateral agreement
on investment that has certain principles. That is what we said
in our dissenting opinion. I just read those out for members to
remind them.
We did say a lot of Canadians had apprehension and concerns
about this. Their concerns need to be addressed. We also said
in our dissenting opinion that we wanted to have a public debate
and a vote in this House of Commons before the agreement is
ratified by the Government of Canada.
It is interesting that the people who are lining up against the
rules based investment agreement are the same groups that opposed
the free trade agreement in 1988.
I was not in government but I remember at the time that the sky
was going to fall. Everything that could possible go wrong with
Canada was going to go wrong. That is what we got from the NDP.
1235
It is interesting that the member for Dartmouth raises the fact
that the Reform Party is not very consistent. It seems to me
that the NDP has had a few supply days that could have been
dedicated to this since September. Where was it on this issue?
There are a lot of mistruths being put out to the public,
especially in B.C. I challenge the government to deal with
those.
I do not think it is very constructive to say, as the NDP
government of B.C. did when it came to committee, that Canada
should walk away from this deal and not be involved in the
negotiations at all. I do not think that is very constructive.
Look at what has happened to investment in the province of
British Columbia in the last seven years. It has dropped every
year to an all time low. The premier of B.C. is advertising in
the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post “we
encourage investment in the province of B.C.”. It is because
they are in serious trouble there. Business is leaving in
droves.
It seems to me that the NDP has had lots of opportunity. It has
taken its opportunities in town hall meetings to talk about how
bad this is. I has talked about getting out of the free trade
agreement with the United States and Mexico. I do not think it
would have very much support for that across Canada.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to debate this issue on
the MAI. I chaired the subcommittee on international trade and
trade disputes. We had the opportunity to study the MAI for
three months before Christmas.
At that time the hon. member was a member of that committee. He
knows we heard from some 50 witnesses in the month of November
including the chief negotiator, the Minister for International
Trade and a number of significantly large Canadian groups which
represented concerns on this issue. We brought forward a report
on the MAI which is available to all Canadians if they order it
from Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Also, this report is on the Internet. It is at www.parl.gc.ca.
Also the Department of Foreign Affairs has a site specific to
this, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca. There is all kinds of information
on the Internet from all over the world on this issue.
I challenge the opposition parties to show any government
involved in these negotiations which has been more open on this
issue. We had witnesses before the committee who stated that
this is one of the most open negotiations in the history of these
government led trade negotiations.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the recommendations
in our report. I feel they reflect what Canadians were telling
us across Canada. I agree with the hon. members who say that
there is a great deal of misinformation or disagreement as to
what is in the report.
I also question the hon. member especially on what he said in
terms of negotiation and information being given to the provinces
and the territories. There were plenty of meetings throughout
the history of these negotiations with the provinces to let them
know. Representatives of British Columbia appeared before the
committee. The representative who was not a politician agreed
that they had been informed by the government.
1240
As the parliamentary secretary said, there were some 30 meetings
with the provinces over the years, but there were also meetings
with private organizations and non-government organizations such
as the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, auto parts
manufacturers, auto industry associations, book and periodical
councils, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian book publishers,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada Council for the
Arts, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture. There were numerous meetings with
representatives of these groups as well as correspondence. The
list goes on. Clearly there has been a lot of effort made by the
government to inform Canadians.
I want to take a few minutes to speak about the recommendations
of the subcommittee, as they reflect what Canadians from across
the country who appeared before the subcommittee wanted us to
tell the government.
Our first recommendation called on the government to continue
participating in the MAI negotiations but only if the final text
fully protects Canadian culture, the environment, labour
standards, health, education and social services, both at the
federal and subnational levels; in other words, federally,
provincially and municipally.
That is a very important point. There is confusion in terms of
what role each level of government can play in this issue. The
federal government has spent a lot of time with the provinces in
bringing light to this issue.
Our second recommendation was outlined by the previous speaker.
It recommends that the government continue and increase its
efforts to inform Canadians. That was agreed to by all members.
It was felt that the government should be informing the public. I
know the government has reacted. Since the subcommittee reported
the minister has spoken publicly on the issue. It is incumbent
on all members to do that as well. They have received
information packages from the government which they should
include in their householders to let Canadians know what the
issues are.
The third recommendation is to fully involve the provinces. I
have already spoken about that.
With respect to the fourth recommendation, it is felt that the
government should consider undertaking a full impact study to let
Canadians know the impacts this will have on certain sectors of
our economy. It is not practical early on in the negotiations to
do this because we do not really know what will be in the final
text. These issues will be negotiated, but we do not know what
will be the final conclusions.
The subcommittee indicated that it wanted to look at this issue
again to ensure that Canadians continue to be informed. It is
important that the government let Canadians know and it is in the
process of doing that with respect to the full impacts the
agreement will have on certain sectors.
The fifth recommendation was that for future negotiations there
should be an open and transparent process and public
consultations and disclosure as much as is practical under the
circumstances. I do not think hon. members expect that
negotiations such as this can take place with a million groups
looking over the shoulders of the negotiators. Frankly, that is
not practical. However, what is practical is as these
negotiations continue governments can give updates to certain
sectors of the economy. They can have meetings, such as those
which took place under the WTO when we had farm groups coming in
to talk about agriculture. They were actually there in Geneva at
the time with the government.
Governments can do these things. I know that governments have
asked certain international groups to the OECD, have met with
them and have brought them up to date on these issues.
The sixth recommendation was that the definition of investment
in the MAI should be clarified and should reflect the approach
taken in the NAFTA.
The seventh recommendation was, in the interests of certainty,
that governments and investors under the MAI ensure that it
reflects which international agreement takes precedence in terms
of the rules. As we know, there is the WTO, there is the NAFTA
and now there is the MAI.
We wanted to make sure Canadians knew before they invested which
international agreement took precedence.
1245
Number eight was that we wanted the government to use this
agreement to subsequently pursue an investment accord worldwide.
We feel it is important for Canadian corporations. I know the
opposition likes to talk about these as big international
corporations but over the past number of years the smaller
corporations have been engaging in the majority of world
investment. Canadian small and medium size enterprises are
presently the major worldwide investors.
We are not talking about big monoliths. We are talking about
small businesses throughout Canada. They need certainty in some
of the smaller countries that are not in the OECD to ensure their
investments are safe. That investment helps with trade and it
helps Canadian businesses get in there.
Mr. Ted White: Why aren't you telling the public?
Mr. Bob Speller: We are telling the public. We sent
something to the member which I hope he will put in his
householder.
I encourage all Canadians to get a copy of our report. I feel it
reflects what Canadians are saying. The government has indicated
to all members in the House that it thinks the report is good and
that it will reflect the final outcome of the negotiations.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for his comments. They were well intended and well
taken.
This subject has raised a lot of concern back home. It goes
back to the general election campaign. People were asking
questions about the MAI then and they are still asking the same
questions.
Will the government hold public hearings across Canada so that
everyday Canadian citizens will have a chance to appear before a
committee on all aspects of the MAI? I know the member has
provided some ideas. For example people can use the Internet.
Some of the people I have talked to have said that they have had
trouble finding this information on the Internet. Will the
government go across Canada with a full public debate?
Another question that comes up quite often is the concern about
preserving our Canadian culture. The minister mentioned that he
is looking for a country specific reservation on culture. However
there remain issues such as standstill and rollback clauses. If
it is just a country specific reservation on culture, is it still
allowed to be rolled back? Should we not be looking for a
general exemption on culture?
Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Speaker, in terms of the first
question, I had hoped at that time that we would have an
opportunity to travel across the country. I have had a number of
personal invitations to visit places across Canada to talk about
the issue. I would encourage all hon. members to get out and
talk about the issue. When the minister speaks, he can speak on
behalf of the government.
It was the intention of our committee at that time to travel but
because the negotiations were going on in January we did not have
that opportunity. There are many groups that represent the
different concerns of Canadians on that issue. We brought them
here to make sure their points of view were expressed. I would
encourage the government to put more effort into getting across
the country to inform Canadians.
On the culture issue, I was disappointed in the Reform Party's
recommendation not to protect the cultural industries which I
feel have contributed to much job creation. There is much
support in Canada on that issue.
In terms of the protection, as was said earlier and as the
minister stated, certainly Canada has put that on as one of the
provisions it feels is a deal breaker. It feels if we do not get
the protection that is needed, the Canadian government will not
sign it.
1250
The government has said on many occasions that if there is not a
deal that is in the best interests of Canadians, it will not sign
it. I would certainly encourage the minister not to sign any
deal that does not protect Canadian culture and cultural
industries.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, since
time is running short I will be very direct in my question to the
hon. member.
The crux of this issue seems to come down to sovereignty, who is
going to control the affairs of the nation. Will it be a
multinational corporation deciding the affairs of the nation from
abroad or will it be the nation itself?
We are a resource rich country. We need resource management.
Who is going to manage our resources? Who is going to be in
charge of our fisheries? Who is going to be in charge of our
mining and our forest resources? What protection is in the MAI
now?
I have read the information on the MAI on the Internet. I have
followed it for over a year. There is a scarcity of it. You can
say there is a lot there, but there is a scarcity of it.
Mr. Bob Speller: I thank the hon. member's party for
supporting the government on this initiative in terms of our
commitment to make sure that our governments both federally and
provincially still have the powers they need to make sure that
Canadians are protected in all these different areas.
In terms of who is going to control it, as I said earlier, it is
not a question of these big monolith companies versus the
government. Most of the people that are investing abroad are
small and medium size enterprises. They are the ones that need
the protection certainly from the government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak to the Reform motion. It gives me the opportunity
to make known the Bloc's position on the multilateral agreement on
investment or MAI. This agreement is currently being negotiated
among the member countries of the OECD.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion by the official
opposition on the MAI primarily because the government failed to
hold a proper public debate on this important issue.
Apart from the brief hearings hastily held by the subcommittee
on international trade, trade disputes and investment in the last
Parliament, the House and therefore all members elected to
represent the people were unable to debate it at length.
Furthermore, a number of groups including unions, non
governmental organizations and consumer groups have unfortunately
not had the opportunity to express their considerable reservations
to the government on this agreement. It is of some concern,
because people are unaware of the agreement's existence, its scope,
its advantages, its inconveniences and its costs.
The government has failed to explain what is at stake in the
MAI and yet it must do so, because, when it signs this agreement,
the government is committing the people of Canada for over 15
years. The government has lacked transparency in this matter.
It is saying, through its Minister for International Trade that,
for the first time in Canadian history, a commercial agreement was
considered by a parliamentary committee before it was signed. Care
must be taken here.
If the agreement was examined, it was as the result of a leak
by the NGOs, which managed to get a copy of it and to make it
available on the Internet. A number of members already had the
text of the MAI and were querying the government on it. These are
the real reasons the government gave the MAI to a subcommittee for
examination. No credit should be given for transparency and good
intentions when there were none.
Questions from the opposition and public pressure are forcing
the minister to organize a public information meeting shortly.
1255
At this point, I would like to give a brief background of the
MAI, so as to explain its purpose and the Bloc Quebecois' position.
In 1995, 29 member countries of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreed to negotiate a
multilateral agreement that would liberalize foreign investments
and clarify the rules governing them.
The agreement was originally scheduled to be signed in May
1997, at the meeting of the OECD Ministerial Council.
This was put off for a year, member countries being unable to agree
on final wording because of the complexity of the procedure and,
more importantly, differences of opinion.
Sources even indicate that key paragraphs of the text are
covered in changes and that over 600 pages of reservations
submitted by the various countries have yet to be negotiated. A
new deadline has been set for April 1998 and will not be met. And
we have since learned that the MAI will not be finalized before the
fall. The minister is therefore able, if he really wants, to
submit the text of the agreement for public discussion and to hold
a real debate.
Two principles underlie the MAI: the first is non-discrimination
against foreign companies. This means that countries that sign
the agreement will have to treat foreign investors and their own
investors without distinction and without discrimination.
Eliminating protectionist barriers and opening up our borders to
international competition will enable our businesses to increase
their foreign business opportunities, we are told. The goal of the
MAI is to create equal conditions for international investors.
The second principle is the legal protection of investors and
their investments. The goal here is to ensure that investors have
safe access to target markets. It is known that investments are
not always safe because of a lack of precise rules with respect to
investments and because of the corruption sometimes found in
certain countries. The recent Asian crisis is a very good example.
The MAI provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that gives
a foreign investor legal recourse if he feels he has been treated
unfairly.
As a result, such an investor could sue a state through a panel of
referees with binding powers.
While supporting the general objectives of the MAI, the Bloc
Quebecois shares some of the concerns expressed by a number of groups
that testified before the sub-committee. In our view, this agreement
will promote freer investments and trade in general and we cannot oppose
it.
In addition, since capital mobility is increasing, we believe there
should be regulations to ensure non-discrimination and protection for
investments. This means being able not only to take advantage of
globalization but also to manage the stress resulting from globalization
while at the same time extending the investment system world-wide.
However, a number of conditions must be met before the Bloc
Quebecois will be able to support the signing of the MAI.
First of all, it is important that the Canadian government negotiate the
inclusion of a cultural safeguard clause to protect the cultural
industry in Quebec and Canada. Under no circumstances will the Bloc
Quebecois be satisfied with a simple reservation. In this kind of agreement,
a proviso does not sufficiently protect this industry as it only applies
to those countries that requested it, while a general exemption clause
would apply to all signatory countries. Also, the fewer the countries
requesting a reservation, the greater the chances of it being removed in
future negotiations.
1300
The Bloc Quebecois is also concerned about statements made in this
House by the Minister for International Trade, who said on February 12
that the agreement would not be signed if it did not include an
exemption for culture. The minister added that he would walk away from
the table if there is not a complete carve out for culture in the MAI.
However, on February 13, the minister stated just the opposite in a
speech, when he said he would agree to a reservation if he could not get
full cultural exemption.
The essential thing regarding culture and communications is to
preserve the ability of the federal and provincial governments to set up
policies that promote the development of that sector.
Our planet is rich because of its diversity, its cultures, its ways of
life and its customs. The world would lose if we tried to standardize
everything.
The Bloc Quebecois also supports the subcommittee's first
recommendation that Canada should sign the MAI provided the final text
protects Canadian culture, the environment, work standards, health and
education services, and social security, at the federal and provincial
levels. We should prohibit states from lowering their national standards
to attract foreign investments. The Bloc Quebecois will never let the
MAI give precedence to the rights of investors and businesses over those
of the citizens, the workers and the environment.
The Bloc Quebecois also believes that consultations must continue
to take place on a regular basis with the provinces, before the Canadian
government ratifies the agreement.
There are currently many preliminary lists of reservations and it would
appear that coverage of federal states remains a problem. Therefore,
there is a need for proper and ongoing consultations between the
provinces and the federal government.
An editorial writer was right in expressing concern about the MAI's
scope. He wondered whether we would witness the setting up of a charter
of rights and freedoms for corporations. Some groups expressed the same
concerns when they appeared before the committee. The MAI includes a
number of important and far-reaching rules that will restrict
governments' ability to regulate foreign investments, because it gives—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
Mrs. Maud Debien: Madam Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent
of the House to finish my speech?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
requesting unanimous consent to finish her speech. She would need
no more than a few moments. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Maud Debien: The MAI includes a number of far-reaching
rules that will restrict governments' ability to regulate foreign
investments, because we must not forget that it gives businesses
the new right to challenge government decisions. “In short, the
MAI would give government and private enterprise the same status in
law”, the writer commented.
Finally, and in the interests of transparency, the Bloc
Quebecois is asking the Canadian government to refer the text of
the agreement back to the members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade before it is signed. Once
again, it is absolutely essential that the Minister of
International Trade meet this requirement for transparency.
In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the Reform
motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following after the
final use of the word “Agreement”: “, in particular by
refusing to make a commitment to submit the text of the MAI to
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, and more specifically to its Sub-Committee on
International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, before
signing the Agreement.”
1305
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will reserve a decision
and take a few moments to examine the motion to see whether it is
in order, and get back to you as quickly as possible.
[English]
We are studying the amendment right now to ensure that it is
receivable. As soon as a decision has been made, the amendment
will be read.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
like to begin my remarks this afternoon by suggesting that this
is the first time we have had a chance to debate this issue in
the House of Commons.
After more than a year of negotiations on a deal that will
profoundly impact on the lives of every Canadian citizen, this is
the first chance we have had to say anything other than raise the
issue in question period from time to time.
As someone indicated, the MAI is about who will make decisions
for the future generations of Canadians. Will it be duly elected
governments at the local, regional, provincial and federal
levels, or will it be large corporations?
I remind the House that Mitsubishi is bigger than the country of
Indonesia in terms of size. Philip Morris is bigger than New
Zealand. Wal-Mart is bigger than Poland, Israel and Greece. In
my judgment and in the judgment of my party, if the MAI is passed
and accepted by the government, it will mean that we will be
turning over the sovereignty of our country to the whims of large
multinational corporations.
When the question was put to my friends in the Reform Party
about whether they thought it was a good idea, the spokesperson
from Peace River said he thought it was. On behalf of the New
Democratic Party, we think this is bad. For that reason it is
fair to say we are the only political party in the House of
Commons that is clearly on record as opposing the MAI.
The Liberal Party supports it. It has been the enthusiastic
cheerleader since day one. Some people would say that Canada
actually initiated the original discussions in the OECD to begin
the MAI process.
The Conservatives have been enthusiastic NAFTA supports and FTA
supporters. They support the MAI. Bloc members support the MAI.
They are enthusiastic NAFTA supporters. My friends in the Reform
Party have indicated that they enthusiastically support the MAI.
We do not support it and I will say why. Fundamentally we do
not want to throw away our sovereignty, but it has almost become
a mantra in the country—and we heard it again today—that $1
billion in foreign direct investment will create 45,000 jobs. All
cabinet ministers have this text in their hip pockets which they
pull out and read during every speech.
That may be true, but when they look at what happens to foreign
investment in Canada a very interesting picture unfolds. In 1997
the total of new foreign investment in Canada was $21.2 billion.
If this is true, at first glance we ought to have no unemployment
at all. The reality, however, is quite different.
What percentage of $21.2 billion of foreign investment in Canada
in 1997 was for new business investment and what percentage was
for the takeover of existing Canadian companies?
1310
In 1997, 97.5% of the $21.2 billion went for acquisitions and a
meagre 2.5% went to new foreign investment. For all intents and
purposes we can say that virtually all foreign investment in 1997
was not to open up a new mine, a new business, a new mill or a
new manufacturing plant. It was to buy up an existing one with
no net gain in jobs, no net gain in R and D, and no net gain in
community benefits. Virtually 100% of the foreign investment
last year was simply foreign companies coming in and buying
existing ones. The notion that foreign investment will create
jobs is an absolute mythology.
For the past three years, at the urging of its corporate
backers, the Liberal government has been negotiating a deal to
secure a brand new charter of rights for investors behind the
closed doors of the OECD in Paris.
Until very recently Canadians could not find out what this
negotiated deal was all about. They could not find out what our
negotiators were negotiating. They could not get a text. It was
only when the Council of Canadians leaked a text that it became a
quasi-public document. Later the government was embarrassed
enough to have to generate a copy that it was working on in its
negotiations.
If the government really believed its rhetoric and that the MAI
was a good deal for Canada, would it not want to be telling
Canadians what it was doing? Would it not want to inform
Canadians about the deal? Would it not want to tell Canadians
the main essence of the negotiated deal in the best interest of
Canada?
If the government wanted to do that it could send an abbreviated
copy or an executive copy of the entire copy to virtually every
household in Canada. The government has the ability to do that
at the snap of a finger.
My feeling is that the government does not want Canadians to
know what it is negotiating. Let us be reminded that whenever
Canadians had a chance to vote on NAFTA they voted against NAFTA.
They voted against free trade with the United States and Mexico.
The government imposed it anyway, but that is another story.
The government knows that if Canadians knew the essence of the
agreement they would vote against it. To this day I have not
heard a single Canadian stand to say they think the MAI is a
great deal. I have heard hundreds of people say it is a bad
deal.
I recognize the incredible work of my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party over the last few months, criss-crossing the
country, holding public meetings and speaking wherever they could
to try to inform people about the MAI because the government
refused to do so. Somebody had to tell the country about the MAI
and we have taken that up.
I am surprised that my friends in the Reform Party are even
mentioning the whole issue today. Back in April of last year it
started to be raised in the House of Commons by the New
Democrats. I was one of the questioners. A number of my
colleagues were asking questions about the MAI. They asked about
the implications for Canadian sovereignty, Canadian culture,
Canadian labour standards, environmental standards and working
conditions. We raised these questions day after day.
Along comes the election and my leader tried time and time again
to get it on the political agenda of that campaign. Many of our
candidates tried to get it on the political agenda, but the
Liberals did not even want to talk about it. The Reform Party
candidate in Kamloops said that he had never heard of the MAI. He
thought is was something like missing in action, something to do
with Vietnam. The Tories did not dare say anything about it.
The most critical deal that will influence the lives of
generations of Canadian was not even mentioned by Liberal
candidates or the Prime Minister during the election campaign.
That is shocking.
As soon as we got back here, what political party was up in the
House of Commons asking to hear more about the MAI, asking for
public hearings and an emergency debate in the House of Commons?
Every time we were turned down, not only by the government but by
the other political parties. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the
Reform Party did not want a debate on the issue in the House of
Commons. They voted it down. I could go on.
In 1997 the MAI was mentioned on 20 days in the House of
Commons. It was raised in question period because the government
did not permit any debate on it. There was a debate in the
British Columbia legislature on the MAI. I think it was the only
province to do that.
As a matter of fact it is clearly on record as opposing the MAI.
1315
The NDP in the Yukon Territory as well passed a resolution in
the legislature against the MAI. The NDP representative in
Prince Edward Island put a motion on the floor of the legislature
to oppose the MAI at least until public hearings across Canada
were held, and it passed unanimously.
An hon. member: They are Tories.
Mr. Nelson Riis: And yes they are Tories, but it was the
NDP member of the legislature who raised the issue.
In 1997 it was raised 20 times in this House of Commons, 11
times by New Democrats. To be fair, two Liberal backbenchers
mentioned it and one member of the Bloc. There were no Tories
and no Reform members.
We do not have much time to get into the details of the MAI. But
it is fair to say it is now obligatory because of the impact on
Canadian culture, because of the impact on the ability of elected
governments to manage the economy in the best interest of the
citizens they represent, because of the implications of the MAI
against the Canadian environment and against Canadian labour
standards, that Canadians be informed.
Before this deal is signed, I would at least hope that the
government would seek the input of Canadians as it did on NAFTA.
We will do whatever we can as New Democrats from coast to coast
to coast to oppose this deal. We do not think multinationals
should be making decisions about our children's future. We do
not think multinational corporations should be deciding what
comes first.
In closing I will simply say let us be reminded that as we speak
today, Ethyl Corporation has sued the federal government for
trying to protect the health of Canadian citizens because it says
it takes away from its profit to do away with additives to
gasoline. That is what we are getting into, a trade deal that
will impact on the lives of every Canadian. We are locking
ourselves for 20 years into the future. Even future Parliaments
will not have a chance to deal with this issue.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member. It
intrigues me that he made the statement that this is the first
opportunity he has had in the House to talk about the MAI. Then
he went on to criticize everyone else for being supportive of the
concept.
One question I would like to ask him is why the NDP did not
bring this issue before the House itself. The NDP has had supply
days. What did it do? It used up its supply days on other
situations that were not nearly as important as this. The first
thing I would like the hon. member to do is to explain to the
people of Canada why he did not bring forth this issue right
away.
The second thing I would like him to explain to me is this 20
year rule he mentioned toward the end of his speech. The
government has said that it is actually not 20 years, that it is
five years. The 20 years only apply to companies that have
invested during the five year period if a country then opts out.
For example if McCain Foods were to invest $300 million in a
canning plant in Malaysia and Malaysia then opted out, McCain
Foods would be protected for a further 15 years. That is the
government's explanation. Does the hon. member have some other
version of that explanation?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am glad my friend asked
this question.
The first day back after the 1997 general election we felt that
we ought to raise the most important question facing the future
of Canada, which we did. We asked for a special debate on the
MAI. We asked for cross-country hearings on the MAI. We asked
the government to inform Canadians about the details of the MAI.
That was our first item of business.
We called for cross-country hearings and so on but we did not
get the support from our friends in the other political parties.
I do not know whether that was because they did not want to tour
or they did not know anything about the deal. But we will set
that aside.
Then along came our first opposition day and we had a choice to
make. We acknowledged that there were 1.5 million children
living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world.
We acknowledged that there were 400,000 young Canadians looking
for work and could not find a job. We acknowledged that there
was only one other country that has a worse record when it comes
to child poverty and that is the United States of America.
We felt that it was appropriate to speak out on behalf of those
young children who cannot pay for a lobbyist. They do not
participate in election campaigns.
They do not give contributions to political parties. We felt it
was appropriate that they have a voice. Because the children of
Canada are our future we have put them first in terms of our
opposition day motions.
1320
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the member for Kamloops' intervention about
how the MAI was going to completely destroy our country. The
reality is that 80% of our trade is with the United States, all
of which is already encompassed under the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
He goes on to say how it is solely the New Democratic Party that
is concerned about this issue. I wonder if the member could
explain this comment in Friday's Globe and Mail: “Many of
us have been encouraged to think that the fight for the MAI is
very worthwhile, said the Saskatchewan minister responsible for
trade, Mr. Wiens”. It would appear that his own provincial
government does not back his understanding.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, not that my friend would
attempt to distort the facts or anything that was said, let me
first say what Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan had to say
about the MAI. He declared that Saskatchewan will never be part
of any global trade agreement that was essentially a race to the
bottom in terms of conditions and standards for people. He said
that any international trade agreement would have to recognize
trade union rights, the preservation of the environment and human
rights before Saskatchewan would even consider signing it.
Those are all absent from the MAI. My friend said there is no
such thing as the MAI yet. We should send him over a copy so he
can have a look at it. He would notice that those are all exempt
from the MAI.
I just want to reiterate for the record that whenever there is a
New Democrat government in this country, be it in Saskatchewan,
British Columbia, the Yukon or New Democrats in legislatures
across the country, we are all unanimous in saying the same
thing. The MAI ought not to be signed. The MAI is against
Canada. The MAI is really a special constitution of rights and
freedoms essentially designed for the multinational corporations.
We believe that the duly elected representatives of the people
of Canada and not the multinational corporations ought to make
decisions about the future of our citizens.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment moved by the
member for Laval East to the Reform Party's opposition motion is in
order.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I might be pushing my luck a little bit, but I do have a
whole lot more to say about the MAI. I wonder if I could seek
unanimous consent from my colleagues to allow me to continue for
a few more minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
will be splitting my time.
In our party we have fought very hard over the past several
weeks prior to the compilation of the report on the MAI from the
subcommittee to ensure that culture is protected. I want to
clarify for this House that it was a Progressive Conservative
intervention which made as part of the recommendations of the
report that culture would achieve deal breaker status. We
intervened and fought for and strengthened seven of the
recommendations of the report and we are very proud of that
intervention.
Philosophically our party has been consistent in its support for
free trade. Many of the members opposite, including the chairman
of the subcommittee who was elected in 1988, fought vociferously
against free trade, that free trade was not a good idea because
it was brought forward by Brian Mulroney.
However, now they are big proponents of free trade.
1325
When the hon. member from the New Democratic Party said this
issue was not raised by Conservatives in the House, he was wrong.
We raised this issue several times in question period in the last
House. We asked the minister of trade why the Minister of the
Environment introduced Bill C-29 which led to the litigation from
Ethyl Corporation against the Canadian government in the amount
of $350 million, and why should we now trust him as minister of
international trade to negotiate on behalf of Canada in the MAI
when his leadership in the ministry of environment led to that
lawsuit.
We did raise that issue and I would clarify it for the hon.
member. I certainly would not want to accuse him of having
omitted that on purpose or oversimplifying a very complex issue,
although that may be a reasonable accusation in this case.
The success of free trade since 1988 is fairly unequivocal. Like
any other sound economic policy, it takes a long time for the
impact to be felt.
The chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council told me
recently that any job growth that has occurred in Atlantic Canada
has occurred as a result of free trade. When I speak with the
member for Saint John she tells me how Saint John has benefited
from free trade.
We recognize that the basic principles of free trade are sound
and we support free trade. However, we do not support any deal at
any cost without any consultation with Canadians.
This government's inaction and vacuum of information has
provided an opportunity for people who are opposed to free trade
philosophically to fill that vacuum with some misinformation.
Like any issue, there is some information out there from the
opponents of MAI that is very sound and deserves debate and
discussion. This government has not provided Canadians with that
opportunity.
It is the same as the Kyoto agreement and the lack of discussion
on it. Effectively the Kyoto position was written on the back of
an airplane vomit bag on the way to Kyoto. The Canadian position
was basically reached without any consultation with ordinary
Canadians.
And this government wonders why Canadians reject liberalized
trade philosophically when they are essentially provided with a
final deal.
The minister of foreign affairs for Australia in May 1996
introduced the Australian model for treaty negotiations. When
Alexander Downer was in Ottawa on his last trip, I met with him
and discussed this. In fact, the leader of our party met with
Alexander Downer to discuss this important model.
One of the things the Australian model provides is that any
treaty Australia signs will be submitted to and tabled before
parliament for 15 days of debate prior to ratification. That is
one of the recommendations we fought for at the committee level
to try to get in the final report and we were shot down.
One of the other components of the Australian model and one we
were successful in achieving at the committee level, and I am
very proud of this, is that there will be an impact analysis. The
government should undertake an impact analysis on current
federal, provincial and municipal programs in Canada to
understand fully the impact of MAI on the current programs.
Our subnational governments have not been consulted on MAI.
Something we have to ensure is that the provinces, municipalities
and all Canadians have an opportunity to voice their concerns on
MAI, Kyoto or any other international treaty.
In closing, we welcome more debate in this House. We want to
fight to ensure that there is a full debate in this House on this
very important international agreement prior to ratification.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is very rewarding to hear the Conservative Party supporting
this motion in that we need a fuller debate across the country
and in this House.
The hon. member talked about the need for a broad cultural
exemption and the support the Conservative party would have for
that. Consider NAFTA, the free trade trade agreement with the
United States that his party negotiated.
We also have an exemption for culture, but the Americans have the
right to retaliate in kind.
1330
Considering that most of the pressure for culture would probably
come from the United States, I am wondering how the member would
see the MAI moving that process forward, considering that we have
an exemption which essentially has a counter balancing part under
the NAFTA.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, this is one of those
issues which helps our party to define itself as being different
from the other party to which it seems to be compared
periodically, that being the Reform Party.
We were unequivocal in our support for a cultural exemption and
we will fight to ensure it.
The importance of protecting culture in a national unity context
boils down to this. We need to preserve the ability for
Canadians to speak with each other as Canadians. We need to
preserve institutions such as the CRTC and the CBC when we are
living next to a cultural elephant. We need to ensure that all
Canadians can communicate fully. We need to ensure that there is
systemic protection for culture within Canadian institutions.
Under the NAFTA and the free trade agreement Canadians are
protected against their biggest cultural risk, that being the
U.S. There is a bilateral right to retaliation, but that is a
part of any trade agreement, providing a double edge sword.
The most important thing to recognize is that we are expanding
the chapter 11 provisions to 29 countries. That is why due
diligence is ever more important. There will be an unprecedented
level of exposure to Canadian culture and we must ensure that our
cultural interests are protected. That is why, when the Reform
Party was equivocal about its support for a cultural exemption,
the Conservative Party fought hard to ensure that it was there.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise to speak to the issue of the MAI.
I would like to provide a little background very quickly. My
government colleague said that the MAI is on the Internet and that
people have only to call to have a copy sent to them, but someone
who is not familiar with this matter may not understand.
What first has to be done is to express the MAI in simple
terms so that people will know right off whether it is worth
further consideration.
My colleague from Peace River said that it was up to the
Liberal government to make it better known. I am sorry. In this
corner—since we cannot talk about this side—of the House, we
think it is the job of the members of Parliament to meet Canadians
and Quebeckers and explain the MAI. It is not just the
responsibility of the Liberal government. We know this government
too well. If we give it too much responsibility, we already know
what will happen. The effect may well be negative.
So it is up to us as parliamentarians to explain the MAI to
people. It is not new. Essentially after the second world war
trade began to be carried out on a global scale as the result of
various agreements and reconstruction agreements.
The Marshall plan in Europe and the massive influx of American
capital in Japan in essence established different sorts of free
trade systems. That was the start and it progressed very slowly.
In the 1960s, things picked up. Unfortunately, there was a Liberal
government in power. When investment began circulating, the Prime
Minister of the time, Mr. Trudeau, created an agency.
The ultimate aim of this agency was to block foreign
investment, to control it. Thank God, a Conservative government
followed and changed this agency into Investment Canada, which
still exists today and has a much more active role seeking
investment abroad and directing it to Canada.
1335
The party of which I am a member has a history of
globalization, no matter what, but the same cannot be said for our
friends across the way, or our friends next to us. I would be
curious to know what the position of each of the Reform MPs was in
1988, when there was an election on the issue of free trade with
the U.S. Today, they are all for free trade, but what were their
individual positions in 1988?
As we know, our friends across the way wanted to tear up the
free trade agreement. Had there not be a free trade agreement to
speed up exports, Canada would have had an economic downturn in the
past five years. That is as clear as it can be.
I would be very curious to hear the change in their tune.
International credibility with respect to globalization belongs to
this part of the House, and I would like to share the credit with
our friends who were here from the Bloc Quebecois in 1988 and, let
us recall, supported free trade along with the majority of
Quebeckers and were not afraid to face a world reality.
That said, yes people must be informed. True, but the
information must also be given in layman's terms. Our actions must
be explained. Investments have already begun, and there are all
kinds of agreements. Agreements with the U.S., agreements with
Mexico, and one part on investments with Chile. There are many
bilateral agreements in place. There is no end to them.
So why is there an agreement? So that light may be cast on a
specific aspect of the bilateral agreements: investment.
Canada has an important role to play, but it must also protect its
culture for, contrary to what Reform may think, culture is also
part of our national identity. Such things as environmental
standards must be put in place, as well.
We are going to support the Reform Party's motion, which calls
for a greater government presence. I will make one very important
point in closing. When the free trade agreement was negotiated
with the U.S., there were no consultations coast to coast, true.
There was something more—an election. Would the government be
prepared to call an election today on the MAI? This may be the
challenge we are issuing to them.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech,
as I have done all morning on this very serious matter, and I am
left with one overriding question. How are we in this House and
how are the Canadian people supposed to tell the difference
between the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Reformers in this
House of Commons?
All three, based on the speeches today are clearly, I hate to
use the word in terms of some sort of collusion, operating from
the same premise, joining forces in this House to force the
government to fire up its propaganda machine in order to convince
Canadians that their concerns about the MAI are unfounded.
Is there anybody in this House who will join the NDP and
convince the federal government that the MAI is not a good deal
for Canadians and that there are serious flaws in the draft
agreement that will have very significant ramifications for the
future of important programs like medicare and public education,
unique cultural programs in this country? Who is going to stand
up and join us in this House fighting the MAI?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, the difference between us, the
Liberal Party and the Reform Party is that we are consistent in terms of
our international policy. This is my first point.
We are also consistent in saying that Canada is ready to face what
is going on at the international level, while the NDP does not agree
because it thinks that only our internal economy can solve the problem.
The motion before us today should be supported by the NDP because
it asks specifically that Canadians be consulted more extensively. The
New Democrats should support the motion. We are not asking them to
support the MAI. We are asking them to support the idea that there
should be more dialogue, and that this dialogue should include more
people.
The New Democratic Party should support the motion.
It would not mean it supports the MAI. It would simply mean that it is
in favour of having discussions, because the government did not bother
to properly inform Canadians, even parliamentarians, on this issue.
1340
You should be ashamed for not supporting at least the idea of an
open and honest dialogue between parliamentarians and Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend from
North Vancouver.
It is a pleasure to speak on the Reform Party opposition day
supply motion which concerns the famous multilateral agreement on
investment. I also refer to it as the MIA, which is what we are
really talking about, missing in action. We are talking about
transparency and I want to bring the debate back to this. We are
focusing on transparency, on public disclosure and on making sure
the government knows what is going on. I will focus on those
issues in my remarks.
This government has failed to talk to the Canadian people. Some
people on the government side have said that they consulted with
the provinces in 35 meetings over two years. Is that not
amazing? I will read a recommendation from the committee which
had a very short time to debate this issue: “The government
should continue to increase its effort to inform Canadians of the
merits of the MAI while addressing the concerns brought forward
to the committee at public hearings”. The next recommendation
is: “The government should pursue a process that fully involves
the provinces”.
This is a recommendation made by the committee and signed off by
the majority of the committee members, Liberals. Yet those
members stand up so proudly saying they have been informing
Canadians.
The problem with this issue is that nobody knows what is going
on. Why are those members so secretive about it? They have been
negotiating this agreement for over two years. Yet during the
election campaign last April nobody had heard of it. They are
absolutely silent. I suggest they are ashamed of it. Why will
they not talk about it?
Then there is the red book. Do we see this in the red book?
No, by golly there is not even a word about it. There is not one
word after negotiating an agreement with 29 countries. Imagine
that. I wonder why. And then there was the throne speech. Did
we hear about this wonderful, exciting multilateral agreement on
investment? No, not a word, zero.
My friend from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant went through the
committee's recommendations. I emphasize that these
recommendations were made by a majority of Liberals and this
member was the chair of the committee. These are his words in
defending the government's position against our motion: “The
government should pursue a process that fully involves the
provinces and that will allow sufficient time for the text time
available at that time to receive the benefit of further
parliamentary examination by this committee prior to the
signature of any negotiated agreement”.
That is their recommendation and the only thing he can say is
that we have had 35 meetings with the provinces. I point out that
The provinces are now bailing.
His next recommendation is that the government should consider
undertaking a full impact analysis that will note the reason
Canada should take part in the MAI. What the member said about
this is shocking and unbelievable. He said it is not practical
to have a full impact so early on in negotiations. Imagine
saying that it is not practical early on. We have been
negotiating this for two years. The government is supposed to
sign this in April 1998.
I must remind the government that we are now almost in March
1998. What is he thinking when he says that we cannot have an
impact analysis early on? It is absolutely unimaginable. What
are they ashamed of and what are they trying to hide?
The next recommendation, and this is the chair of the committee
defending these recommendations, is: “In future negotiations
regarding matters of as widespread importance”, they acknowledge
that as the MAI, “the government should undertake an open and
transparent process so that public disclosure and consultations
can be carried out in a timely manner”. Imagine that, public
disclosure and consultations.
I must look at my notes because I cannot believe what he said
about that. He said it is not practical. Can you believe that,
coming from this government, that it is not practical to consult
with the public? “In a timely manner”, that is what we are
talking about.
1345
I have a copy of this wonderful agreement. This is the official
copy given to me by the government which it is so proud of it.
What is the very first word on it? Confidential. Imagine that.
The first word on the top left corner of the agreement is
confidential. What is it worth? Why will Liberals not talk to
the public about it? They are screaming about this. What are
they hiding? I have concerns about it. I can say right now I
will not support the MAI because I do not know what members
opposite are hiding.
I support free trade agreements. We need free trade agreements.
They are good. We need more investment in Canada. Our investors
need to be protected. What is the government doing? Why is it
so secretive? It is an absolute disgrace. It is shameful.
I do not know what government members are up to, but there is no
question they are embarrassed about it and not proud of it. They
are so secretive it is incredible.
If the Liberals really care about or really believe in the
agreement, why are they not talking about it? They are not proud
of it. There is no question they do not believe in it, or they
would be telling us about it.
I ask government members to look at what the motion says. It is
asking them to be transparent with the people of Canada, to tell
them what is in it.
What is the minister's idea of transparency? It is a luncheon
at the Chateau Laurier about two blocks away, having a group
meeting at lunch and talking to some investors. Those are his
consultations with Canada five minutes from parliament. That was
his B.C. meeting. It is amazing.
They accuse me of not speaking. I have meetings planned in the
greater Victoria area. I have had three or four of them and I
have another one next week, a very large one.
Will we see anybody from British Columbia? Will we see their
senior member? Will I see Mr. Anderson there? No.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We have just come back from the weekend and some members
may be on a roll, but we still want to maintain the parliamentary
traditions of not referring to ministers by name and directing
our comments through the Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
member of that.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I was on a roll and all
excited. I did not mean to use the minister's name. I
apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, the committee has been
given only three weeks. The Liberals are proud and talk about
consultation. All I have heard the minister say in the House is
that it has been sent off to committee.
That is the consultation process; it is sent off to committee.
Even worse, the idea of the parliamentary secretary on how to
communicate with the people of Canada was “We sent a memo to all
members of Parliament. Can't you send out a message in your
householder?”
Is that how the government will rely on getting a message out,
by suggesting to members of Parliament that they use their
householders to sell its message? I could not believe those
words when they came out of his mouth. It was incredible.
I wonder what the government is doing. This is about
transparency. This is not the first time I have prepared speech
after speech for the House and the government shut down debate.
We could go back to Bill C-2. Time and time again it brought in
closure and shut down debate.
The Liberals have to allow for democracy. I will conclude right
now by saying that this is about transparency. It is about
informing the public and openness. Right now the public is not
informed. The government is hiding behind a missing in action
agreement we know nothing about. It is time the government came
out of the closet and told Canadians what is in the agreement.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, no one in the House disagrees with the idea of
having a consultation on an issue as important as the MAI.
What concerns those of us at this end of the House is the
motives of the Reform Party in presenting the motion. It appears
to be arising out of panic stricken fear that progressive forces
in the country are winning the debate and its side is not being
heard.
I ask the member a specific question around a statement made by
some friends of the Reform Party. Maybe it is a front for the
Reform Party. A representative of the Fraser Institute, Mr. Owen
Lippert, appeared before the health committee where the NDP
forced a debate on the impact of MAI on health care.
He said:
Why don't I believe, then, what the Council of Canadians and Mr.
Appleton are saying? Because the government, the Liberal
government, tells me it ain't so. They tell me that the
reservations in fact properly protect public monopoly, so I'm
going to take them at their word.
1350
Is this the problem the Reform Party is now finding itself in?
Debate has not been allowed to happen in the country. Public
discussion has been stifled by friends of the Reform Party, by
the collusion between the Liberals and Reformers in parliament.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the
member is going on about. She raised a hidden agenda. Here is
the agenda. It is about open and transparent government.
Members of the New Democratic Party had supply days. If they
felt this issue was important they could have talked about it. We
are on the eve of this year's budget. The Reform Party has
committed an entire day of debate, a supply day, the day before
the budget, to talk about the issue. That will show the
commitment and the dedication of this party.
We have grave concerns about the government's unwillingness to
talk about it, why it is hiding it. It is not in the throne
speech. It is not in the Liberal red book. The Liberals did
not talk about it in the campaign. What are the Liberals hiding?
That is what we are pushing them on. That is the only way.
The NDP claims to be wonderful; it will save everybody in this
multilateral agreement. Where are NDPers? They could have
talked about it. The reality is that the Reform Party made it a
priority and did something.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the member from the Reform neck of the woods. He
talked about speaking out on the MAI and devoting a whole day to
it.
The NDP has gone a lot further than one day of hype. We have
been pursuing the issue, the failure of the government to address
the MAI and bring it to Canadian citizens, since well into the
election campaign of last year. As a matter of fact in a public
debate in Flin Flon during the campaign I was able to take the
Liberal member to task and he knew nothing about the MAI.
We have not stopped debating the issue. We have not stopped
pursing the issue for six to eight months. Where has Reform
been? It has finally been forced to be an opposition party by
the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, we know that the Council of
Canadians is a front for the NDP. We know the NDP's position on
the agreement. What we do not know is the government's position.
That is what we are here for.
I have to save a few comments for the NDP. We can talk about
investment. We have an NDP government in British Columbia. We
have no investment. The NDP premier of British Columbia is
placing ads in the Financial Post asking for investors to
invest in British Columbia.
I support free trade agreements. We need to protect investors.
This debate is about what is in there. We want to make sure
that our social programs are not trampled on. We want to make
sure health care is protected and that the right exclusion
clauses are in place.
That is what we are asking the government to do. It has to
become open, go to the people and talk about it. Right now there
is no question the government has not talked about it with
Canadians. It has talked about it behind closed doors. It will
send it off to committee. It will have luncheons with some of
the big players. However it is not talking with Canadians and
that is what it needs to do.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motion.
Coming as I do from a small business background and a small
business community in North Vancouver, it should not be
surprising that I am personally supportive of the concept of the
MAI. I think it is a good idea. Frankly the intent of a
multilateral agreement on investment is shared by the majority of
my constituents as far as I can determine at this time.
That does not mean there are not some people opposed, but at the
moment it appears the majority are in favour.
1355
The big problem is that the government has not been speaking
clearly and forcefully in conveying its position in the Vancouver
area. If an MAI can be negotiated, which truly levels the
playing field for investment between the participating countries,
thereby making it easier, less expensive and more efficient for
small businesses to expand and create jobs by servicing those new
markets, it would be an excellent deal. The government would be
well congratulated if it could achieve such a thing.
Our support in principle does not mean that we do not have some
tough questions for the government on the issue. The government
and the minister in particular have put on a disgraceful display
in connection with the MAI. People have been begging for
information for just about the entire time it has been
negotiated. There simply has not been enough public presence out
there.
Why has the minister not been out in public debating the Maude
Barlows and Paul Hellyers of the land. If he has such a good
deal he should be involved in intelligent debate and be able
prove to Canadians that it is a good deal.
Before posing questions of the government provided to me by some
of my constituents, I would like to put on record my position
regarding the MAI once it comes before the House if there is
enabling legislation.
First, as soon as the MAI is signed in principle by the
government, I will advertise in my local newspaper for people to
come forward who are opposed to and in favour of the MAI. I will
split them into two groups and with research assistance from my
office we will create a written position against and a written
position for the MAI. Equal space will then be given to each
side in a householder that will go to every house in my riding.
Then, as the letters and calls come in, the material from the
opposing side will be used to answer those letters and calls. In
that way we will facilitate a widespread exchange of ideas,
opinions and criticisms. People will get a chance to see the
other point of view. I will also hold public meetings according
to the demand.
Finally, before the House comes to a third vote on any enabling
legislation, I will do a scientific poll in my riding and that is
the way I will vote in the House. My constituents have that
commitment from me.
The Speaker: That seems to be a good spot to interrupt
the member. He still has in excess of seven minutes of his
allotted time and will have the floor when we return to the
supply motion debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, volunteer firefighters provide a vital
and essential service to Canadians. In most communities across
Canada they are the only firefighting resource. In Ontario alone
there are 17,000 volunteer firefighters in 566 departments. These
volunteers save Ontario taxpayers more than $1.4 billion a year.
Fire departments are now finding it increasingly difficult to
find volunteers who meet their high standards and who are willing
to donate many hours of their time.
To recognize the importance of the volunteer firefighters, I
call on the Minister of Finance to raise the tax exemption on
their allowances from $500 to $1,000.
Every day in Canada volunteer firefighters donate their time,
talent and energy for the good of their communities. Every day
they risk their lives to protect their fellow citizens.
* * *
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday the minister of agriculture announced an ad
hoc relief program for part time farmers who are not eligible
under the regular rules of the federal disaster financial
assistance arrangements.
Part time farmers in Ontario and Quebec who suffered ice storm
damage will be getting some much needed help. However, the
government has forgotten full time potato farmers and grain
producers in B.C. whose crops were destroyed by record rain
storms and flooded fields. The government has also forgotten
maritime farmers devastated by a long draught.
It seems like Liberal disaster assistance is allocated according
to the level of media coverage and mud on Peter Mansbridge's
boots.
It does not matter if a dozen farm families are affected or
1,000, the pain is exactly the same. When will the government
learn it cannot continue to treat eastern and western Canadians
like second class citizens. If it is to change the rules for
central Canadians then it should change them for all Canadians.
* * *
1998 WINTER OLYMPICS
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada won more than gold in Nagano.
1400
By all accounts the Japanese fell in love with the Canadian
team. They love our fierce competitive style, our strength and
endurance, our courage against all adversity, our sense of fair
play and, most of all, they love the Canadian nerve.
Our Olympic athletes made us very proud. In particular I would
like to recognize two Olympians from York North, Veronica Brenner
and Curtis Joseph Cujo. Brenner is the world cup grand prix
champion in freestyle aerial skiing and Curtis is an NHL
goaltender. They represented York North with distinction.
Congratulations to all our athletes. They represented Canada
with pride and we thank them.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
welcome Mr. Brassard to the club of the misquoted.
Over the weekend, the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister
finally admitted chaos could result if the Quebec government were to
unilaterally declare Quebec's independence.
This is quite an admission, especially since the sovereignists and
the Bloc have been trying for weeks to make us believe they could ignore
the law of the land with complete impunity.
Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard quickly distanced himself from his
minister's comments on the chaos that could result from a unilateral
declaration of independence by Quebec, emphasizing that Mr. Brassard had
been misquoted.
If Mr. Brassard keeps it up, I bet he will be part of the next
Bouchard government shuffle, just because he is starting to aggravate
the separatist troops.
* * *
[English]
EDUCATION
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a growing dismay with the high cost of
post-secondary education. Some in this House seem to consider
post-secondary education to be an entitlement, free and paid for
completely by the taxpayer. Access to post-secondary education
has always been a reward for hard work and achievement at the
secondary level.
Funding for post-secondary education must remain a partnership
which includes the federal and provincial governments, parents,
businesses, alumni and students. Although current tuition may
seem high, the payoff over a lifetime is more than adequate
compensation. The call for full funding is unrealistic. It
would place a real burden on existing taxpayers, three-quarters
of whom have not had the privilege of attending university. Also,
the success rate for students who contribute to their own
education is higher than for those who do not.
I call on all Canadians including students to recognize the
limitations of our resources. Federal assistance for students
under the Canada student loans program has amounted to billions
over the years. We have also pledged to further enhance our
funding for university and college students across Canada, but
within reasonable parameters, leaving students some
responsibility for the process.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Prime Minister was asked if he was aware that most
Canadians do not support the Senate. The Prime Minister said he
is willing to reform the Senate when the provinces are ready.
Since 1989 Albertans have been ready to elect senators. Since
1990 British Columbians have been ready. Last week an MPP
proposed a bill that could make Ontario ready to elect senators.
Before and after she was appointed by the Prime Minister,
Senator Carstairs indicated that Manitobans are ready.
Canadians are ready. When will the Prime Minister of Canada be
ready?
* * *
[Translation]
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the social contract against poverty suggested by the
Comité de ralliement gaspésien et madelinot.
Like them, we contend that justice, equity, dignity and solidarity
are the values on which we want to build society. We can see that
isolation and growing poverty undermine the quality of life and health
of many in our communities. We are appalled by the scandalous situation
caused and perpetuated by the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
In light of the marginalization experienced by some groups and many
individuals, we reaffirm that, in order to fight poverty, we must create
sustainable jobs with decent wages, make the tax system fair and
equitable, support community life and take appropriate safety measures.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to speak here in Ottawa for those who
are ready to sign this contract.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
time has come for the Minister of Finance to examine subsidies to
greenhouse gas producing industries.
Existing tax subsidies to the oil sands industry could total
hundreds of millions of dollars over time. This industry is a
significant contributor to greenhouse gases.
1405
Instead of tax subsidies we need a national atmospheric fund to
help conserve energy, to level the playing field for renewable
energy and to introduce new forms of energy innovation.
Canada is now committed to the Kyoto agreement and must address
the issue of perverse subsidies favouring the production of
greenhouse gases which impact on the climate.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's Constitution is not cast in bronze. It is not chiselled
in granite. It is penned on fragile pulp and has the permanency
of our national will.
Canada's Constitution was not taken from foreign lands but
crafted by the citizens of our great country.
Our constitutional light shone most brightly when Guy Bertrand
exercised its provisions.
Guy Bertrand believed his rights were diminished by a referendum
to separate and took his concerns successfully to a Quebec court.
The Liberals, embarrassed by this action, finally carried the
issue to the supreme court.
Canadians must be thankful that we have such an instrument of
privilege as the Constitution and the charter of rights.
Canadians also must be thankful that we have citizens of
integrity and determination such as Guy Bertrand.
* * *
CANADIAN CENSUS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada published the 1996
census data pertaining to the ethnic and racial composition of
our great country. According to these data 11% of Canadians are
visible minorities.
As a Canadian woman who is black, I salute our federal
government for its courage and foresight in ensuring we have hard
data about the composition of our society. This information will
assist the government in developing good public policy and
programs. This ensures equality of all citizens and equitable
access for all in every sphere of activity.
As any astute business person will tell you, do your market
study if you want your company's product or services to do well
in the marketplace. Study your consumers.
Unlike the Reform Party and the Bloquistes, our government does
not believe that ignorance is power. Liberals firmly believe
that knowledge is power.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a
growing concern in rural Canada about the low farm commodity
prices. This concern is especially prevalent in western Canada
where forecasters are predicting weaker grain prices for 1998 and
1999.
One of Canada's chartered banks has already said that we could
expect our export of wheat and coarse grains to decline as well.
One market analyst said farmers need higher prices in order to
make a go of it.
Farm gate prices which are already low are likely to worsen
before they improve.
This worrisome trend is even more stark when related to rising
input costs, including the cost of machinery, fertilizer,
trucking costs and higher freight rates. In the west freight
rates on grain have doubled and tripled since the Crow benefit
was done away with by the Liberals.
Grain farmers are increasingly worried about their security and
indeed about the future of the family farm.
Members of our caucus urge the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, the Minister of Transport and the government in
general to take note before it is too late.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, three weeks ago, the federal government and the provinces
signed an environmental harmonization agreement in areas such as
assessment, inspections and environmental standards. Quebec did
not sign, because the Bouchard government decided to go its own
way, in environment as in many other areas.
Under Lucien Bouchard, the former federal environment
minister, Quebec is managing the environment so badly that it has
been failed for the second year in a row by the Regroupement
québécois des groupes écologistes.
“The Bouchard government sees the environment as an obstacle
to economic growth. This government has failed to keep its major
public promises with respect to the environment. The Bouchard
government should stop following the lead of environmental
Neanderthals like the Republican right in the United States and the
Harris government”, said the ecologists.
Instead of funding Pro-Démocratie, the Bouchard government
should practice democracy in all areas, including that of the
environment. It should cooperate with the federal government and
the other provinces instead of spending its time.—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Markham.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the current
agreement on interprovincial trade does not work. A recent
Canadian Chamber of Commerce statement indicated that all levels
of government have been given a failing grade. Overall the report
card review graded Canada a dismal D.
The federal government has failed to show leadership in
improving trade between the provinces of this country. It
persistently encourages trade relations with other countries but
fails to improve trade between Canadian provinces.
1410
This is costing Canadian jobs. Why can this government not
recognize that one of the strongest incentives to reducing
interprovincial trade barriers is the enormous untapped potential
that would boost economic growth?
Knocking down the remaining barriers would create another
200,000 jobs. When is this government going to take real
leadership and ensure that parties comply? Governments need to
renew their commitment and get the process moving again on all
fronts.
I remind this government that economic union and national unity
are inseparable. The stronger the economic ties this government
can nurture, the stronger Canada's national fabric.
* * *
GOVERNMENT STAFF
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I rise to pay tribute to the men and women who are employed in
both political and bureaucratic offices at the federal level.
Over the past several months I have listened to my Reform
colleagues make unfounded accusations and untrue statements about
various staff members. These statements are typically unfair and
totally unacceptable.
We on this side of the House want to praise the hard work and
dedication which our staff members show week in and week out.
Our staff members should feel a sense of pride, knowing that
without their commitment our federal government would be a lot
less effective.
Personally I have no time for the pettiness and callous
disregard some of my Reform colleagues have shown toward these
individuals. On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I say hats off to
our staff members. They work long hours and show tremendous
dedication to their work. It is greatly appreciated.
* * *
WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with the conclusion of the Nagano winter Olympics, let us reflect
on the true Olympic spirit. Let us spotlight the gigantic
efforts of the athletes.
For me, one of the greatest examples of bravery and
sportsmanship was the superhuman effort of Elvis Stojko. His
silver medal is a beacon of hope to a six-year old figure skater
in her first competition and an encouragement to a 106-year old
facing another day.
All our Olympians exhibit what it takes to persevere and
succeed. Let us not forget their families' sacrifices and
support or their coaches' skill and patience. The athletes are
like soldiers in the front lines sustained by unheralded
communities. Olympic competition involves Canadians from all
regions and walks of life.
We are grateful to all the athletes for their leadership. We
say to the Olympians, their families, their coaches and
communities, thank you.
* * *
[Translation]
DON CHERRY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Don Cherry's
disparaging remarks about Quebeckers on the CBC speak volumes about
that gentleman's narrow-mindedness.
His contemptuous and unwarranted comments far exceeded the
leeway allowed a sports commentator on a government-funded
broadcasting station. His venom unfortunately spilled over onto
the Lillehammer gold medal winner, Jean-Luc Brassard, whom he
dismissed as some unknown.
If a francophone commentator had made equally insulting
remarks about anglophones from this country on Radio-Canada, the
crown corporation would have fired him on the spot.
I trust that that is how Don Cherry will be dealt with, for
nobody can enjoy the benefits of working for a crown corporation
and expect to get away with insulting an entire people. A
disdainful attitude such as that of Don Cherry has no place on the
air, and must be vigorously condemned by both the government and
the crown corporation.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, health
care in this country has been devastated by this government's
slash and burn policy toward the transfer payments to the
provinces.
Recently the federal health minister stated that more cash is
not necessarily the cure for what ails the system.
In my province of New Brunswick we have seen another round of
health care horror stories. Surgery waiting lists are growing.
Doctors are leaving and patients are frightened, worried and
stressed out.
A doctor in Saint John recently sent me a letter in which he
outlined dangerous waiting times for surgical procedures in New
Brunswick. A patient has to wait over six months for the removal
of a brain tumour, four months for the repair of an abdominal
problem. Patients also wait routinely one year for gall bladder
and hernia repairs.
Doctors and health care services need more money now. Patients
are suffering. The federal government must stop downloading on
to the provinces. I urge the minister to listen to Canadians and
restore health care funding.
* * *
DRUGS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no
country is immune from the ravages of the problem of illicit
drugs, whether it be heroin from the golden triangle, cocaine
from South America or cannabis from around the globe. It could
also be the new strains of drugs being consumed by the youth of
today.
1415
One of the major tasks facing governments is protecting their
citizens from drug related crime. Too often chronic drug users
resort to crime to sustain their habits. Reducing the number of
dependent drug users through treatment can substantially reduce
the level of suburban crime and violence.
We must also address the problems of those who are affected by
drug abuse and institute programs to assist them in overcoming
their addictions.
International fora continue to be used as a platform for
accusations of lack of action between producer and consumer
countries. It is important to recognize that the social, health
and legal problems caused by illegal drugs affect all countries
regardless of the degree of involvement.
It is time for all nations, regardless of the group into which
they fall, to work together to address this problem as a unified
team. We need to say no to drugs.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised
that for every dollar of new government spending he would spend a
dollar on debt reduction and tax relief. This is the 50:50
promise.
In the past few weeks the Prime Minister has promised at least
$2 billion in new spending, $100 million for new TV shows, some
$800 million toward the millennium fund, $100 million for the
Canada Council, and so on.
If the government plans to keep this 50:50 promise and it is
already committed to spending another $2 billion in new spending,
where is the $2 billion for tax relief and debt reduction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I advise my hon. friend to be patient. The budget will
be delivered tomorrow afternoon. I predict it will be an
excellent budget. I hope the leader of the Reform Party will join
in the approval which I predict will be given by Canadians
generally for the budget to be delivered tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, any budget surplus belongs to the Canadian taxpayers,
not to the government, not to the ministers and not to the Prime
Minister.
There should have been a $3 billion surplus this year and there
was going to be a $3 billion surplus, but then the Prime Minister
and his colleagues decided to spend it before it ever got to the
budget. There is going to be a cut from that surplus that will
not leave anything for debt reduction or tax relief.
Why has the government robbed Canadians of a surplus that was
rightfully theirs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. In
his first question he complained about money likely to be spent
for education of young Canadians. Why do he and the Reform Party
oppose helping young Canadians get a better education? What do
they have against young Canadians?
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what this government has given young Canadians is a $583
billion mortgage.
The Prime Minister promises that tax cuts and debt reduction
will occur some day, but that day is always down the road. There
is always a little loophole to allow him to get out of it. But
spending, that is another story. Spending is now. Spending is
concrete.
In the budget it is more spending that will get the screaming
headlines and debt reduction and tax relief that will get the
footnotes.
Does the government not know that tax relief delayed is tax
relief denied?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the Leader of the Opposition forget that tax
relief from this government has already begun? In the last budget
there were lower taxes for post-secondary students and their
families. There were tax reductions for disabled Canadians.
There have been reductions in employment insurance premiums.
If the hon. member were serious about tax reductions he would be
on his feet now giving credit to the government for what we have
already done in this area of concern.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they talk about the finance minister's dream. There they are
dreaming.
On February 11 the finance minister confirmed that for the first
eight months Canada had a financial surplus of $11.3 billion and
a public account surplus of $1.4 billion. That was not even two
weeks ago, yet now the cupboard is bare. The surplus has been
blown on new spending programs.
Why did the Liberals have to blow this year's surplus on
spending when they promised half of every single billion dollars
would go to debt and tax relief?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is right in what she says the
Minister of Finance said about the surplus, why does she not get
up and praise the minister for this achievement, the first one in
30 years?
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they should have kept a balanced budget 30 years ago. Then we
would not have got in this mess of $600 billion.
When something happens to $3 million, when it gets stolen from a
bank vault it is called robbery and good citizens are supposed to
dial 911. But what do you do and who do you call when $3 billion
gets snookered out of the government vault thanks to the Prime
Minister and his cabinet? We had a multibillion dollar surplus
this year but it has already been spent even the day before the
budget. Why is the Prime Minister treating the taxpayers'
surplus as his own personal cash to do with as he pleases?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after Canadians consider the unfounded allegations in
the hon. member's question, they will want to dial 911 to have
something done about the official opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in his report to the finance committee on Bill C-28, the ethics
counsellor raised a number of different hypotheses as to what could
have been done to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
He stated that possible options had not been subject to prior
examination, as they ought to have been.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that, by not
consulting the ethics counsellor before the bill was introduced,
the Minister of Finance showed a flagrant lack of judgment and
placed himself in an apparent conflict of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance had no knowledge whatsoever of that amendment,
and it was therefore impossible for him to consult the ethics
counsellor. When the decision was made, he was not the one working
on the amendment. It was the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather disconcerting that the Minister of Finance would
introduce a bill without knowledge of its contents. I find that a
bit disconcerting.
An hon. member: It's a bit odd.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: What the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions may have done privately we do not know, but everything
done publicly was done by the Minister of Finance.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the only conclusion
that can be reached is that there is an apparent conflict of
interest, because the Minister of Finance is the only one publicly
identified with Bill C-28?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member is bothered so much by these amendments, why did
his colleagues not oppose them either in the House or in committee?
Their silence attests to the validity of the amendments. There is
no basis for allegations of a conflict of interest, either real or
apparent.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics commissioner said “If I had been informed prior to the
introduction of the present bill or its predecessor, Bill C-69
introduced in 1996, we would have discussed the best way to resolve
the question of introducing the bill in the name of the Minister of
Finance”.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How does he
explain that, for two years, the Minister of Finance appeared to be
in a position of conflict of interest and that, throughout that
period, neither he nor anyone in the government thought it wise to
seek the opinion of the ethics commissioner?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why
did the hon. member and his colleagues say absolutely nothing for
two years on this if the amendments created a conflict of interest
or the appearance of one? This goes to show that their allegations
are once again groundless.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for two years, the Minister of Finance appeared to be in a conflict
of interest and it took the questions of the Bloc Quebecois to get
a reaction from the government.
Are we to understand that the role of the ethics commissioner
is not to ensure government ethics but rather to provide opinions
after the fact in order to save the skins of ministers caught red
handed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Ottawa Sun, when questioned on whether the
minister would have done anything contrary to the code of ethics,
the Bloc ally, the member for The Battlefords—Lloydminster replied
“Personally I do not think so. I believe the Minister of Finance
is an honest man, I really do”.
We finally got the truth out of the Reform Party, now it is
time to have the truth from the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
1425
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that our finance minister had to leave the country to
discover Canada's crisis of growing inequality and joblessness.
Canadians were relieved to hear the finance minister advise the
G-7 that tomorrow's budget will tackle social inequality and
joblessness.
Will this government accept as reasonable targets for the year
2000 reducing poverty by one-third and reducing unemployment
below 6%?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the hon. member will accept that while there is a
lot more to be done, since this government has been in office the
unemployment rate has gone down by more than two percentage
points. Furthermore 372,000 jobs were created last year alone.
That is a signal of our commitment. That is a signal of our
efforts through this budget and through our policies in the
months to come.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister told Canadians he was returning to the purple
book for his post-deficit blueprint. What does the purple book
say about unemployment? It claims that 8% is the natural rate of
unemployment.
Given the horrendous human deficit amassed over the past four
years, will this government throw away the purple book target of
8% and replace it with detailed plans to reduce unemployment
below 6% by the year 2000?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must say I question the accuracy of the premise in the
hon. member's question about the so-called purple book. In return
I ask her to throw away her purple rhetoric and get down to
business working with us to help create jobs and a better life
for Canadians.
* * *
YOUTH
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has decided to spend the fiscal dividend in
advance on the so-called millennium fund choosing to totally
ignore the number one problem facing Canadian students, student
debt.
I would like to know today from the government whether it will
choose to continue to ignore the plight of 400,000 young
Canadians out of work or whether or not it will make a commitment
today so that every young person in this country will be in
school, in training or at work.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the leader of the Tory
party I expect to hear the Minister of Finance read his budget
tomorrow.
What I can already say is that since the month of November our
two departments have worked very closely together, as well as the
Minister of Finance and myself to address the situation of
students in Canada following a November stakeholders conference
that my department organized here in Ottawa. Students, the
lenders and the provinces were there. We reached a consensus
which I hope has been very useful for the Minister of Finance in
preparing his budget.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): All he can do is
hope, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
I do not know what the point is in holding meetings with
students, in trying to reach consensus, if the number one problem,
student debt, is being ignored.
I would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources
Development specifically if he intends to make a commitment that
every young person in Canada will be either in the work force, in
school, or in a training program. Why continue to ignore the
400,000 young people in Canada who have no jobs at the present
time? Why not act in their interest at last?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done something extremely
significant in recent years with the youth employment strategy, and
the Conservative leader ought to show a little more interest in it.
I can tell you that, at this time, the number one problem for
young people is tomorrow's economy. We must ensure that they can
stay in school as long as possible, because young people with
insufficient education are the ones with the greatest difficulty in
the job market.
As a government, we are going to do all we can to ensure that
young people are not tempted to leave school too soon because of
their financial situation.
* * *
[English]
THE DEBT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while the finance department spent the weekend leaking like a
colander, there was one issue that the government really did not
raise. There was one budget issue it did not want to talk about,
our massive $600 billion debt.
It is kind of like the crazy aunt the government has hidden up in
the attic somewhere. It is trying to keep it a little bit of a
secret.
1430
The fact is the average Canadian family pays $6,000 in taxes a
year just to pay the interest on the debt.
Given that shameful fact, why is the debt not the government's
number one priority in tomorrow's budget?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the matter of debt, this
government does not just have rhetoric, it has a record. Thanks
to our success against the deficit, this government actually paid
down $13 billion of marketable debt. We will continue to pay down
that debt.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's record is very clear. It has added $100 billion to
the debt and the only debt it has paid down was paid down with
borrowed money from the Canada pension plan. This is not a very
good bargain for Canadians.
The fact is the $6,000 in taxes that Canadians pay every year in
interest could be used for things like paying household bills,
preparing for their own retirement or paying for their children's
education and sending them to university, something the
government claims it is very concerned about.
Given the shameful fact that Canadians pay $6,000 a year in
taxes just for interest on the debt, why again is the debt not
the number one issue in tomorrow's budget?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again as we quite clearly
said in the fiscal update, we have made it clear that the
contingency reserve will be used to pay down the debt once the
deficit is eliminated.
The quickest way to lower the debt is a growing economy. That
is why at the same time we pay down the debt, we will invest in
Canadians, grow this economy and watch the debt go down.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Over the course of the weekend we learned that the Secretary
General of the United Nations was successfully negotiating an
agreement with the government of Iraq on the application of the UN
resolutions. In other words, the diplomatic solution we advocated
is within reach and the Security Council will be asked to vote on
this solution tomorrow.
If the members of the Security Council move in one direction
and the United States in another, which direction will Canada take?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first off, we were certainly encouraged by the proposals
the Secretary General made to Baghdad over the weekend.
At this point, we, like the other countries, will have to wait
to have a chance to examine the proposal carefully to be sure that
all the issues have been properly dealt with. Then we will be able
to consult the other members of the coalition in order to decide on
a response.
Certainly, the initiative of the Secretary General is to be
applauded.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the start of this crisis, the government has said, sometimes
half heartedly, that it favoured a diplomatic solution.
Since a diplomatic solution has now been reached, negotiated
by none other than the Secretary General of the United Nations,
does the minister intend to promote this approach among his
partners, including the United States?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have not just been talking about it. We have
been working on it. We have been making every effort to ensure
that all the possibilities that could be explored for a
settlement were explored.
I am very pleased to report that as of Friday the security
council has decided to double the amount of money that would go
into a humanitarian program for Iraq to ensure that there would
be a proper set up of oil for food. That is an issue Canada took
a particularly strong role in promoting.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the proposed seniors benefit was announced nearly two
years ago but the government still has not tabled its
legislation. Under the seniors benefit some seniors will face
clawbacks and taxes on their retirement savings of as much as
75%.
I ask the minister, will tomorrow's budget assure Canadians that
this huge tax grab on their retirement savings will be scrapped?
1435
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to be
here in the House tomorrow at 4.30 p.m. so that she can see what
is in the budget.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have been waiting two years and all the member
can give them is a glib response like that.
How can Canadians plan their retirement savings without knowing
how this government intends to tax their savings? In fact we
understand from the minister's leaky department that he will not
even be introducing seniors legislation until the fall.
Why will he not clear things up for Canadians now?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let us make it clear that
this government believes the creation of the seniors benefit is
critical if we still believe in Canada. It is important to
provide pension support for low income senior women and men. This
government believes that. Sadly the Reform Party does not.
* * *
[Translation]
OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
A study of competitiveness in the oil industry, commissioned
by Industry Canada among others, was released in Toronto last
Wednesday. Based exclusively on the large oil companies, this
study completely ignores independent distributors, who represent
20% of the market in Quebec alone.
Given that this study is incomplete and biased, will the
minister agree to have an independent group of experts conduct an
impartial study of operating costs related to retail gas sales?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
study was done a long time ago. I think it has been available to
the public for six months now. A number of questions were raised
regarding the study's methodology, and I will consider them.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Given that the Government of Quebec already treats the large
oil companies and many independents equally with respect to road
tax, unlike the federal government when it comes to excise tax,
will the Minister of National Revenue agree to follow Quebec's
example and allow independent distributors to charge excise tax as
well?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that all
corporations fully comply with the excise tax. Independents will
also apply on the same basis. I will take his representations
and look at the matter.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
media reports indicate that yesterday the secretary-general of
the United Nations brokered a deal with Saddam Hussein.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell Canadians whether or
not the Canadian government finds the deal acceptable?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the previous questions, we
are very encouraged by it but we want to assure ourselves along
with the other members who are taking a strong interest that the
deal meets the kind of conditions that were set out by the
security council.
The secretary-general will not be back to brief the security
council until tomorrow afternoon. Certainly it is very
encouraging. I think we must also be sure that we have the kind
of deal that will work.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how can the minister be so far out of the loop that he does not
have any information? Will he find out about the deal from CNN?
Whom does this minister have to check with before he can decide
whether or not the deal is acceptable to Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate problem with Reform Party members is
that they make their policy based on what they see in the media.
They have no ideas of their own. They do not take the time to
read things carefully. They have no sense of how to go about
making sure that the proper decision is made.
I do not make my decisions by what I see on CNN. I wish members
of the Reform Party would grow up and start looking at things
carefully as well.
* * *
[Translation]
EDUCATION
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many stakeholders in Quebec, from
university presidents to student federations, from the Government
of Quebec to Quebec's Liberal Party, have opposed the planned
millennium scholarship fund.
They are unanimously agreed that this money would be better
spent on existing education budgets, rather than on creating new
mechanisms.
1440
For the good of students and education in Quebec, would the
minister demonstrate good faith on this issue and allow Quebec, as
is only right, to opt out with full compensation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, student loans are an important
issue in Canada. Tomorrow's budget will contain, I hope, important
improvements to the student loans system.
The Government of Quebec, which has chosen to opt out of the
Canadian program, will be fully compensated for all the
improvements we will be making to the permanent structure for
student loans, except that the millennium fund is coming out of
this year's money. It is a dividend we are able to give this year
and is not part of the permanent structure of government funding—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very concerned when Canadians are killed while
vacationing overseas.
Could the secretary of state for the Caribbean region inform the
House on the developments in the case of Richard Gravelle, an
Edmontonian who was murdered in the Bahamas on February 13?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my colleague, the
hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, is correct.
I am certain that all of us in the House would join in
expressing sympathy for the profound misfortune of the Gravelle
family from Edmonton. The Bahamian ministry of tourism has
already provided consular assistance to the Gravelle family.
The preliminary for the two people charged with the murder will
begin on May 2.
* * *
QUEBEC
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday while responding to the
separatist government in Quebec, the President of the Treasury
Board stated that the time when federalists were timid had
passed.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affair previously stated that
if Canada is divisible so is Quebec. Yet the government urged
the supreme court not to consider the question of partition. The
government continues to give Quebeckers mixed messages.
Which minister and which position represent the Prime Minister
and the government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a huge amount of legal issues would be at stake in
the negotiation of secession. This is one.
We asked the court what it thinks is the fundamental one, the
first one, if the actual secession has legal support, yes or no.
We are awaiting the answer which we will respect in either case.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more involved than just
the legal issue.
Three years ago the country was almost lost because the
government refused to inform Quebeckers about the consequences of
a yes vote. Today it refuses to inform Quebeckers of the efforts
of the other provinces to keep the country together.
When will the government start talking and communicating with
Quebeckers about the Calgary declaration terms for discussion?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must inform my hon. colleague that according to
all the information we have, including polls, the Calgary
declaration is strongly supported in Quebec.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Tomorrow when the finance minister presents his budget 1.5
million Canadian children will be living in poverty. The
minister said in London yesterday that the government was
preparing plans to address growing social inequality.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that tomorrow's budget
will not ignore the 1.5 Canadian children living in poverty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has long experience in the House. He
knows that I cannot talk about what will be in the budget, if
anything will be in the budget or not be in the budget.
1445
I can confirm that we as a government and as members of
Parliament are concerned about the plight of children living in
poverty. I look forward to measures being taken over coming
months to help deal with that.
As far as talking about what is in the budget and confirming
what is in the budget, he knows as well as I do that this cannot
be done by me or anybody on this side today.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, back in
1989 the House unanimously passed a resolution to eliminate child
poverty by the year 2000. Instead there are 538,000 more
children living in poverty.
In recognition of what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said,
would he not think it a good idea for the government to set a
target to reduce child poverty by the year 2000 by at least a
third?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working along
with our partners in the provinces on the issue of child poverty.
We are already committed to having $850 million added to the
Canada child tax credit as of July 1, 1998. As a government we
are committed to having another $850 million added during the
course of this mandate. That is very important to alleviating
child poverty.
We in this place believe that every child in the land needs to
have a good start in life. That is why my colleague in the
department of health has great programs like CAPC, for which
financing has been restored and even enhanced.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
the government's high tax policies the best way to start a small
business in Canada is to start a big one and wait.
High taxes, especially payroll taxes, continue to deny Canadians
real employment growth. Will the Minister of Finance offer
meaningful tax relief to small businesses to get governments off
their backs and to get employment growth back on track?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow at 4.30 p.m. the budget
will be presented to the House. I invite my hon. colleague to be
here tomorrow so he can hear quite clearly what is in the budget.
As we saw in the prebudget consultation the government is
listening to Canadians. I am sure he will see in the budget what
will be a reflection of Canadian priorities.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
answer does not work for Canadians and it does not put Canadians
back to work.
My second question is about tax relief for low income Canadians.
Our party has been putting this issue on the table for 18 months
but the finance minister refuses to commit to any specific
relief.
Will the finance minister finally listen to us and increase the
basic personal exemption from $6,500 to $10,000 and take two
million Canadians off the tax rolls, or does the minister believe
that Canadians making less than $10,000 should be paying federal
income tax?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned,
last week the Conservative Party released a prebudget submission
in which it urged that we cut taxes before we balance the budget.
That goes to show the kind of priority that party places on
balanced finances.
It is hardly surprising from a party which left Canada to dig
out from under a $42 billion deficit, hardly surprising.
* * *
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general. While statistics show
that crime is down, the fear of crime is up among Canadians.
The parole board has been often criticized when releasing
offenders into the very communities in which they were sentenced.
What has been done at the National Parole Board to improve
public safety?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made a number of changes to the
National Parole Board. Most important, all appointments are made
on the basis of merit and not political affiliation.
As a result of these changes all vacancies are publicly
advertised. We receive many applications. They are reviewed by
senior managers at the parole board against objective criteria.
Interviews are held.
Because most offenders return to the communities they left, it
is very important that we have a controlled and gradual release
or reintegration program. The first step in that exercise is a
sound hiring policy in the National Parole Board.
* * *
1450
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier the Deputy Prime Minister said that the opposition did
not care about young Canadians. It is no mistake that there are
more young Canadians on this side of the House than there are on
that side of the House in a government which is giving young
Canadians an additional $100 billion in debt, a $600 billion
debt, 17% youth unemployment and $25,000 in average student debt.
Now the government is assessing the investment of Canadians in
their own education as a taxable benefit.
Will the minister of revenue tell us whether or not it is the
policy of the government that Canadians whose companies invest in
their training should actually be penalized through the tax
system?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
I wish to inform the House of a press release put out by the
hon. member which was totally irresponsible and very immature.
He says millions of Canadians may face retroactive tax on
training and education.
This is patently false and the hon. member should stand and
apologize to the House and to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
Whereas the federal government is the primary supplier of
blood products, whereas the provinces already pay the costs of
health care for victims of Hepatitis C; and in light of the huge
cuts by the federal government to provincial health transfer
payments, is the federal government prepared, in negotiating the
damages to be paid to victims of Hepatitis C, to take into account
the large amounts the provinces are already contributing to health
care for victims of Hepatitis C?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best I can do is
reiterate what the Minister of Health said on the issue last week
in the House.
He said that no one would be happier than he with a compensation
package for hepatitis C victims. He said that victims were best
served with a package of compensation that involved both levels
of government, and he said that he was prepared to wait a little
longer to see if we could get that agreement.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board has acknowledged the findings of
the advisory committee on senior level retention and compensation
in the Public Service of Canada. He says that the government
values top quality executives in the public service.
Why is it that the government will accept the findings of the
advisory committee but refuses to accept the ruling of the human
rights commission on pay equity?
Is it because the government does not value the work of female
employees, or does it just not care about low and middle income
workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the simple truth is that the commission has not made a ruling.
What is important now is that we have made an offer of $1.3
billion for pay equity. The union has refused to put it to a
vote by its members. For the common good, I once again ask the
member to put pressure on the syndicates and the unions so they
will put this offer to their members.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious to everyone in the House that the mysterious
millennium fund is nothing more than an ego fund for the Prime
Minister. It should be more properly called the “me lend my
name” fund. Students want an education fund that addresses the
issues of all students today, not the ego of their Prime
Minister.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. While students of
the next millennium might benefit, what do students of this
millennium have to look forward to?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again
that student debt is a major problem. We have been working hard
at it. Tomorrow our budget might be interesting.
I find the millennium fund absolutely extraordinary. I was in
London last weekend at the G-7 meeting. I listened to the debate
on how to celebrate the millennium. They are building a very
expensive dome that will cost millions of pounds while this Prime
Minister is choosing to invest in the great brains of our young.
That is what he is doing and that is a good thing.
* * *
1455
CENSUS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent release of the 1996 census report has raised serious
concerns among our newest Canadians. They, finally having become
Canadian citizens, are still being asked their race and ethnic
origin.
I have a question for the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism. Why does the government collect this data and
how is it used?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the census is set
up to find the demographics of the country.
A census is the way of defining the demographics of the country.
Canada is not a homogeneous country. It is a country that is
made up of people from every corner of the world. Canada is also
a country that believes strongly in its social programs and
equality and knowing our census—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Thursday almost 400 Saskatchewan reeves, mayors and
municipal counsellors at a transportation meeting in Saskatoon
voted unanimously to ask the government to delay rail line
abandonments until Mr. Justice Estey had completed his review of
the system. If piecemeal fragmentation continues, there will be
nothing left worth shortlining. Mr. Estey's work will be
essentially academic.
Will the minister show some leadership and table legislation—we
will support it—to address the concerns of these producers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very well aware of the concerns of farmers in
Saskatchewan as well as others across the country.
In discussions I have had with the railways, I have alerted them
to the need to be very sensitive about the way they go about the
abandonment process. There is no organized or systematic plot
going on, to use the hon. member's words, to abandon these lines
before Justice Estey reports.
I think the hon. member should work with his commission. I
think in the end we will see that the results will be good for
all concerned.
* * *
[Translation]
DISEASED SHEEP
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since January 1997, over 3,000 sheep have been slaughtered in
Quebec because they were found to have scrapie, which fortunately
is not transmittable to humans.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to
investigate why this disease was not detected by inspectors until
recently, and will he report back to the House?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I inform my colleague that there
has been no scientific guaranteed proof that there is a
connection between the disease he is referring to and humans.
To be on the safe side, when sheep are found in a flock in
Canada, even if there is one sheep found in the flock of many, we
destroy the complete flock. We have the best control of that
disease of any country in the world and we will continue that for
the protection of Canadians and their health.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the environment minister states that the harmonization accord
signed last month will improve co-operation with the provinces
and will increase Canada's environmental protection standards.
Contrary to the minister's assurances, Canadians are witnessing a
loss of environmental protection across the country. The federal
cuts have continued beyond program review, including the
protection of atmospheric sciences.
Will the environment minister explain to the citizens of Canada
which departments will be stopping hazardous waste dumping in
Ontario sewers?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government and my department
have a great concern about hazardous wastes and whether they are
crossing borders or being dumped anywhere in the country.
We watch all cases very carefully to make sure that anybody that
is perhaps not complying with standards is made aware of what the
federal regulations and rules are.
We will assure all members of this House that we are following
through with our supervision, inspections and maintenance of
standards.
* * *
1500
YOUTH
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
question period today the Minister of Human Resources Development
said the number one problem facing young people was staying in
school or getting an education. If the government thinks that is
the issue, I want to know whether or not it will reinstate the
very successful stay in school program that was launched in 1990
to help prevent young people from dropping out of high school.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can demonstrate very well
that our youth employment strategy and our youth service Canada
have been doing wonders for many of the youth who deserve a
second chance. Our record is very good as far as that is
concerned.
I would like to tell the Tory leader that there are a lot of
students out there who find it very difficult to continue their
studies precisely because they have a hard time financing their
studies. If we can help them, we will do our very best. That is
the priority for this government.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to bring to members'
attention the presence in the gallery of members of a delegation
led by Mrs. Leni Fischer, President of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe.
Also my colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention the
presence in our gallery of the Hon. Pat Binns, Premier of the
Province of Prince Edward Island.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I would like to ask the member for Medicine Hat
to retract a statement which he made regarding “the crazy aunt
in the attic”.
As the New Democratic critic for persons with disabilities and
as an aunt myself, I find this reference sexist and demeaning to
persons with disabilities. I think we should lead the way in this
House to fight against offensive stereotypes. I would ask for a
retraction from the member for Medicine Hat.
The Speaker: My colleague, many times in the course
of debate we use words that are not exactly unparliamentary but
which border on it. I would urge all hon. members of course
always in their choice of words to be very judicious.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant
to its order of reference dated February 4, 1998, your committee
has adopted Bill C-28, income tax amendments act, 1997, and has
agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
1505
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from
the residents of Mount Forest, Dundalk and Shelburne, Ontario.
The petitioners request that Parliament raise the tax exemption
on allowances for volunteer firefighters from $500 to $1,000.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on
behalf of a number of people from British Columbia.
They are very concerned about the government's announcement that
it is going to soon introduce changes to Canada's retirement and
benefit system. The petitioners are asking the government not to
proceed with any changes to Canada's pension system until
adequate input from Canadians from all points of Canada has been
considered.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition contains signatures mostly from residents of Kamloops
but also from residents in a number of communities throughout
central British Columbia.
The petitioners are calling on the government in the budget
tomorrow that if it is going to consider any tax reductions it
begin by phasing out the GST.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties.
Employment benefits of police officers and firefighters killed in
the line of duty are often insufficient to provide for their
families.
Also the public mourns the loss of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a
tangible way the surviving families in their time of need. The
petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of
duty.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 52.
.[Text]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
Besides the Canadian Wheat Board, which other government
regulated bodies have partially elected, partially appointed
board of directors and president/CEO appointed by the minister?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): The structures of organizations to which GIC
appointments are made have been reviewed, and it was found that
none met the conditions contained in the question. There are no
other government regulated bodies that have partially elected,
partially appointed boards of directors and presidents/CEOs
appointed by the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period, the hon. member for North Vancouver had seven minutes
remaining in his allotted time.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a little disconcerting when speeches are interrupted in
the middle but I will continue on from this point.
I had just finished explaining to members how I would be finding
out the political will of the constituents in my riding so that I
could vote that way when or if the MAI comes before the House.
I would challenge other members particularly those of the NDP
who assume that their constituents are against this thing to
really get out there and start sharing information from both
sides. Do exactly what I do and find out how the majority feel.
I would like to turn to a few of the questions that have been
sent to me in a stack of letters from constituents. I will not
be able to go through all the questions but I will give a few.
Is it not true that foreign corporations would be able to ignore
our environmental and labour laws, leaving us to be ruled by
large corporations? The government's response to that has been
that it is not true. It says that all corporations will have to
abide by the same environmental and labour laws in Canada as
domestic corporations. They ask why we should have two sets of
laws anyway as it does not do anyone a favour to have domestic
companies working to a lower environmental or labour law than we
would have for a foreign company.
1510
I accept that explanation as reasonable. But my question is,
why are the Liberals not out there telling the public? Why are
they not out making this information available? That is what
today's debate is all about.
The second question asked, and it was mentioned earlier here
today, why is there a 20 year opting out period? If the deal
turns out to be bad for Canada, why should we be stuck in it for
20 years?
The government's response is that it is not true. We are only
tied in for five years. The 20 years refers to any companies,
perhaps like McCains, that have made a large investment in one of
the participating countries only to find that country then opts
out again. McCains or any other company for that matter would be
protected for the following 15 years.
Members on the government side are nodding their heads so I have
got their explanation right. But why are they not out there
telling the public? Why do we in Reform have to stand here to
facilitate this when it is the government's job to be selling the
program, to be answering questions from the Maude Barlows and the
Paul Hellyers? Why is the minister not out there debating those
people? Instead of that he sits in his chair doing nothing,
waiting for this thing to explode around him.
There are adequate statistics available from NAFTA from the last
10 years to show that these types of investment programs really
work. I have in front of me the figures for NAFTA for more than
10 years actually, the figures from 1984 to 1997. In that time
the volumes of exports to the U.S.A. almost doubled from $85
billion to $157 billion a year, thanks to NAFTA. Meanwhile our
exports to other countries, almost all the other countries of the
world, have actually gone down. In Europe they have gone up, but
to a lot of other countries they have actually gone down.
If we can get a good MAI which facilitates trade in the same way
that NAFTA has in North America, we have a really good chance of
building our exports and therefore our job creation in Canada.
That would not just help McCains and Northern Telecom, it would
work for the small companies in my riding that are very busy
exporting in small quantities to those other countries.
The MAI or at least the principle behind the MAI, the concept of
an MAI promises similar benefits. If it is properly and fairly
negotiated it should ensure that any person or company investing
in one of the signatory countries will find identical investment
rules in place in each country. That is good. Negotiating such an
arrangement makes good sense.
It even makes sense if it forces our cultural and health
industries in Canada to compete in a real world marketplace and
to become excellent instead of mediocre, to strive for excellence
in the climate of competition. I think that may be good. I have
two pages of letters to the editor of the North Shore News
in the last week complaining about the health care system being
in disarray. If there was a little bit of competition introduced
to the marketplace we might find it would go a long way to
solving some of the problems.
It is always possible of course that even under the best
possible negotiated MAI some inefficient and subsidized
industries are going to go out of business and jobs will be lost.
Under NAFTA, jobs disappeared from the costly and inefficient
shipbuilding industry in my riding but they were replaced by high
tech, cleaner, new industry jobs, many, many more of them.
Frankly the unions in the shipbuilding industry let down their
members badly by not helping them to retrain and adjust to the
new marketplace reality.
This brings me once again to criticize this Liberal government
which is not adjusting to the reality of the information age we
live in. People want to know what is going on. They want to know
what the government is negotiating on the MAI. The Liberals have
failed to acknowledge that they need to do that.
The minister has blown it completely. As I mentioned, he should
have been out there debating Maude Barlow. He should have been
debating Paul Hellyer. He should have been debating the
professors, the academics from the socialist universities who are
complaining about this MAI. The Speaker laughs but, Mr. Speaker,
the universities are loaded with socialists.
As for the question of sovereignty disappearing, I would like to
see the minister debating Maude Barlow about the loss of
sovereignty. Frankly I do not believe there would be a loss of
sovereignty because the Liberal government is so dictatorial, I
cannot see the Prime Minister giving up even one iota of his
power to anybody else. To suggest that we are going to lose our
sovereignty is totally ridiculous.
I am rapidly running out of time and I have only asked a
fraction of the questions that are in the big pile of letters
from my constituents. I have passed on copies of some of those
letters to the parliamentary secretary to be answered.
1515
I know he will do that for me. However, I will finish with a
quote from a fax from Dr. Koscielniak who sent it to me. He says
in one of his questions: “Why the secrecy? Could it be that
the Liberals are ashamed of this treaty?”
Maybe Dr. Koscielniak has hit the nail on the head. This
minister and his entire government are actually ashamed of the
treaty because they are ashamed to admit that world trade is a
reality. It needs to be properly negotiated and fairly
implemented.
Those members made the promise to get rid of NAFTA and found out
that it works. Now they have the responsibility of the MAI and
they are so ashamed at having to back peddle that they do not
want to talk about it.
I would just like the minister to get out there and actually
start doing something.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wonder
whether my hon. friend is aware of this document called “Revised
Draft Reservations”.
The revised draft reservations are the actual guts of what is
being negotiated at the present time. There is common agreement
on a lot of the broad draft, but there are 52 pages of revised
draft reservations.
Before these reservations are properly negotiated and so on, how
is the minister expected to go out and deliver these reservations
which are not yet negotiated or agreed on?
The minister has made a very public statement about the
concerns. He has abbreviated the concerns I think very
succinctly. A week ago last Friday he made a speech to the
Centre for Trade Policy and Law in which he laid down some of the
key salient points for all Canadians to hear.
This statement is on the Internet. It is available to every
citizen of this country. He talks about the interpretation of
expropriation where it should be narrow, the Canadian definition.
He gives the ironclad reservations for health care, social
programs, education, culture, programs for aboriginal people and
minority groups, and finally no standstill or rollback
requirements in any of these areas of reservation.
With regard to culture, he supports excluding culture from the
MAI altogether.
Is the minister not communicating with Canadians by making
statements such as this?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the big 52 page
draft of reservations that he is talking about, but it is the
government's responsibility to make sure it is widely circulated.
It has not done it.
Even though the minister cannot talk in absolute specifics, he
should be debating Maude Barlow on national television in general
terms. Frankly, I cannot think of anything that would be more
entertaining than this. It would probably get the largest TV
audience of the entire year.
To talk about the amount of information available, if the
government is not doing its best to get it out there, people do
not get it.
The Internet address was given earlier. It is www.parl.gc.ca.
That is the general Internet site. It is not the specific site.
Let us get the specific site so that people can actually find the
stuff.
This is just an example again of how poorly they communicate
with the constituency.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the more we hear from members of the Reform Party in
this debate, the clearer their agenda becomes.
They tried to leave the impression this morning that they are
concerned about culture and health care and social services and
that they will only support the MAI if reservations that work are
entrenched in the MAI.
We have now just heard from the member for Medicine Hat a very
clear statement that I think is probably a little more revealing
of the truth and a little more in line with the motives of Reform
behind this motion today.
The member for Medicine Hat just said that we need more
competition in health care. This is after all of his colleagues
have stood up in the House and claimed to be concerned about
wanting a reservation in the MAI to protect health care.
1520
This all begins to fit. We know that the MAI opens the door to
foreign investments and will begin to dismantle medicare.
Where does the Reform Party stand? Is it going to stand up
against the MAI and protect medicare or is it going to join with
the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc in this House, open
the doors and kill medicare?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, health care is reserved under
NAFTA. The government has indicated that it would also reserve
it under the MAI.
Unfortunately enough in January when I was in Florida I got
kidney stones—
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, this is very serious. The member should be aware that
this issue went before the health committee. A motion was put—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is engaging in
debate. The hon. member for North Vancouver has the floor. He
should be allowed to complete his remarks. He will do so briefly
I know because the time has expired.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I was saying I was
unfortunate while I was in Florida over Christmas to get kidney
stones. I had to go into a hospital in Florida. The service
levels were spectacular. It really put to shame what happens in
my riding in North Vancouver with socialist medicine.
I do not think there is any harm in having some competition.
Even though it is reserved out of the MAI by the Liberals, I know
it is widely supported in my riding that there should be some
competition to get some efficiency into the system.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member from the NDP referred to the member for
Medicine Hat. The speech was so good I would not want anybody to
mistake the member, not that the member for Medicine Hat would
not have also made a great speech. The member is from North
Vancouver.
The Deputy Speaker: I did refer to the hon. member as the
member for North Vancouver. I did not know whether the hon.
member was referring to some remarks made during question period
when she made her comment.
Resuming debate.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated in this Chamber on February 12
that I would be glad to debate the government's approach to
negotiations toward an MAI agreement with members of the
opposition anytime, anywhere. I am pleased that the hon. members
opposite have taken up my invitation so quickly. What better
venue could there be for this discussion than right here in
Parliament.
I must also say that it is a great time to be talking about
matters of international trade which are obviously tied to
international investment. Canada has never done better than it
is doing now under this Liberal administration. Figures released
last week by Statics Canada show that Canadian exports last year
grew to their highest level ever, $301 billion. They are
continuing to grow.
What this means is jobs and economic opportunities for
Canadians. This also reflects the high level of confidence and
dynamism in the Canadian economy, now that we have managed to
bring the deficit under control and set the stage for strong
future economic growth, as the Minister of Finance will discuss
tomorrow afternoon in his budget.
[Translation]
I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to report to
Parliament on the steps I have taken to familiarize Canadians with
the issues involved in the MAI negotiations, and will continue to
promote a national debate on this subject.
[English]
In the first years of the MAI process in 1995 there was not a
lot to talk about because the preliminary phases of all such
negotiations are quite abstract. There was not very much on the
table in the way of substance. However, the talks entered a more
important period around the time that I became trade minister
last June.
Upon assuming the MAI file, together with the ministers of
finance and industry, I approached this MAI process in two
phases. The first was the priority of getting more information
out to the Canadian public. That is exactly what we have done.
Government officials and I have made ourselves available to
numerous media interviews. We have provided the media community
across the country with background information. We have provided
ongoing information packages to all members of Parliament. We
have consulted widely with Canadians.
1525
[Translation]
The government has been in regular consultations with
provincial governments, through meetings, conference calls and
correspondence. We have spoken with some 40 private sector
organizations ranging from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the
Canadian Council for the Arts, the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Sierra Club, and
health groups.
[English]
Finally, there was a request made for the House of Commons
subcommittee on international trade to hold public hearings on
the MAI last year so as to give a broad range of Canadians an
opportunity to express their views.
If we look at those views we will find that Elizabeth Smythe, a
professor from Concordia University, said: “I want to close by
noting that the hearings of this committee itself indicate a
shift in the willingness of the Canadian government to seek input
from Canadians on this agreement. I also want to note that I
think the Canadian negotiators themselves have been very
effective and extremely co-operative and forthright, as my own
experience attests”.
University of Toronto Professor Robert Howse said: “Finally I
would like to note the value of this kind of hearing and the
hopefully enlightened focus it can put on the specifics of an
issue like the MAI and grassroots attitudes toward it”.
When the committee reported Canadians noted that the
Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party all
agreed with the government that Canada should participate in
these negotiations.
The second phase, which began this year because negotiations
were scheduled to intensify, was the right time to further engage
Canadians on the remaining outstanding issues, whether through
speeches or round tables, through members of Parliament holding
their own meetings in their neighbourhoods and communities, or
through the provincial governments in mandating their committees
to review various aspects of the MAI.
When members of the official opposition accuse the government in
the motion today of having failed to encourage public discussion
on the MAI or to explain the issues involved, they simply do not
know what they are talking about. That is precisely what we have
been doing all of these past few months.
In fact, I will be pleased at the end of my comments to table in
the House today a 20 page document which summarizes the many
different extensive consultations which the government has
conducted with diverse groups right across our nation. Any
objective person looking at the list will have to come to the
conclusion that there has been wide and serious engagement as
well as outreach. When taken together these groups represent
thousands of Canadian companies and millions of individual
Canadians.
In contrast to this, Canadians may be right to ask what about
the Reform Party, the official opposition in the House, looking
at itself in the mirror. In other words, what have Reformers been
doing to increase the understanding of Canadians on the MAI?
What contributions have they actually made? Where are the
community town hall forums that the official opposition has
organized? Where are the lists of the meetings of their NGO
communities? Have they outreached with the stakeholders across
this country?
The government has done the responsible thing, but it seems that
somehow the official opposition can be irresponsible and not do
one single thing. Its members sit back and say that it is
supposed to be passed on. There was not even a single letter from
the official spokesperson on trade for the Reform Party making
one positive, constructive suggestion on the MAI.
There is further evidence of where Reform Party members are
coming from when they reject in the committee report a broad
exemption for Canadian culture. In that same report why do they
reject the inclusion of labour guidelines for multinationals in
the MAI?
1530
Now the Reform Party wants to open up the health care system and
the social services—
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. My apologies to the hon. minister for
interrupting him, but I would like to make a point that he might
share with me.
If my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party are so concerned about
the MAI on their supply day, do you not think they would have
enough energy to have a quorum?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member calling for a
quorum? I do not see a quorum. We had better ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I now see a quorum. The hon.
Minister for International Trade has 11 minutes remaining in his
time.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say,
in both process and substance the Reform Party is suspect. Yes,
there is a lot of hot air. Yes, there is a lot of huffing and
puffing. When we notice what Reformers stand for, we cannot
understand their eagerness to abandon basic Canadian values.
The Reformers complain in their motion that they do not
understand why Canada is participating in these negotiations.
While many concepts are difficult, the answer is quite clear.
[Translation]
Investment flows are particularly important for Canada. We
are host to $180 billion of foreign investment. And we must not
forget that every billion dollars of foreign investment generates
over 40,000 jobs over five years. Furthermore, Canadians have
invested $170 billion abroad.
[English]
Despite the fact that trade and investment are inextricably
linked there is no multilateral framework of rules for investment
as there is for trade. In many countries, in particular in
developing countries beyond the OECD, the treatment of foreign
investment remains unpredictable.
The MAI is essentially about developing a code of conduct for
countries that host and invite direct foreign investment and not
as some would suggest a charter for multinational enterprises.
The fact is that we already have transparent and fair rules for
foreign investment in Canada.
The right kind of MAI would ensure the same kind of treatment
for Canadians abroad without requiring us to substantially change
what we are already doing.
We have said on many occasions that we want to eventually take
the MAI to the WTO whose membership is in the area of 130
countries and develop north and south. In that forum we could
negotiate a truly multilateral agreement on investment that would
complement the rules on trade via the same body.
It is sad the official opposition says in its motion today that
it does not understand any of this, particularly since its
position in the committee report was:
The Reform Party supports Canada's participation in the OECD
effort to construct an MAI that will encourage foreign investment
in Canada and give protection to Canadian investment abroad.
If the Reformers do not understand our explanation for
participating in the negotiations, why are they supporting that
participation? They are either confused or playing at political
gamesmanship or, as we correctly suspect, both.
Let me stress a crucially important point. Participating in
these MAI negotiations does not mean we are hell bent on signing
any resulting agreement come what may.
1535
It is quite the contrary. We will only accept an MAI that meets
the following key Canadian requirements. The first requirement
is a narrow interpretation of expropriation which makes it
entirely clear that legislative or regulatory action by
government in the public interest is not expropriation requiring
compensation, even if it has adverse profitability consequences
for both companies and investors.
The second is ironclad reservations at both national and
provincial levels that completely preserve our freedom of action
in key areas including health care, social programs, education,
culture and programs for aboriginal peoples and minority groups.
Finally, there would be no standstill or rollback requirements
in any of the areas of reservation or exception I have just
mentioned.
With regard to culture we support excluding culture from the MAI
altogether for all countries. If some nations insist on
addressing this sector we will register, as is our legitimate
right, a country's specific reservation in this area. At the end
of the day for Canadian culture there would be no difference
between the two options. Canadian culture is simply not
negotiable.
[Translation]
We will also not accept an agreement that adversely affects
Canada's supply management regime. We will take the necessary
reservations to preserve investment measures specific to our
agricultural interests and responsibilities. The same will apply
to the management of our natural resources.
[English]
In addition there are important questions on how the MAI should
approach labour and environmental standards and whether we should
call for binding or non-binding language. Even experts in the
NGO community agree that this is a complex issue where it is very
important to avoid unintended consequences.
I had a very positive discussion on this and other issues with
provincial trade ministers at last week's federal-provincial
meeting. The NDP minister from Saskatchewan said:
Canada is taking a very strong position at the table that health,
social services and education will be an unbound reservation and
that those matters will not be touched or Canada will not sign
the agreement. That is the position that they have taken very
strongly.
He went on to add:
This was from the NDP Government of Saskatchewan. Al Palladini,
the minister from Ontario, said:
First of all I want to congratulate the minister for initiating
this meeting. I thought the meeting was a very successful one
and certainly the assurance that all the ministers from each
province received today on the MAI is that the federal government
is certainly going to be the driving force behind this thing, but
at the same time with positive input allowed or giving
opportunity to the provinces, especially in environment and in
labour. So I am really confident that these things are going to
materialize in getting us an agreement that is good for both
Canada and the global community.
None of the provinces advocated that Canada walk away from the
MAI table. In fact they were quite reassured by the direction
that the Government of Canada was taking, and we agreed to work
on areas that needed further work.
Given that labour is largely a provincial jurisdiction and that
we share responsibility in the environment, I have asked for
their views and I await their responses particularly in these two
areas because the large majority of both provinces and
territories have not given us their final position on these two
important matters.
We are also continuing to push hard for clear provisions in the
MAI against the extraterritorial application of laws on
investment such as the U.S. Helms-Burton act on Cuba.
I will continue to take the time necessary—and we now have
it—for full consultation with all parties. For some critics,
including the NDP, our insistence on meeting key Canadians
requirements is not good enough.
They say we should not be at the table at all, that we should be
watching from the sidelines. They said that again today,
particularly the MP from Kamloops, at a time when the NDP premier
is reaching out in a rather desperate way to both the business
and investment communities.
1540
I could not imagine a more self-defeating course for Canada than
the one they are advocating. All we would accomplish by running
away would be to forgo any chance of shaping an agreement that
works to our advantage or that satisfies Canada's particular
needs.
Last week the leader of the federal New Democratic Party
publicly recognized that globalization brings opportunities. I
congratulate her on catching up, however belatedly, to the latter
part of the 20th century.
The Government of Canada believes that Canadians do not want to
hide from globalization. Instead, they want to work with
governments to try to shape it to our advantage, which is exactly
what our participation at the MAI table is all about.
In conclusion, we will not run away and we will not hide. Above
all, we will not capitulate either. We are quite prepared to
take the time to get it done right. If our requirements are not
met, we will not sign. We will still continue to attract
investment to Canada.
I want, as I said, the right deal at the right time and not any
deal at any cost or at any time. For the government, Canada's
interests and values must always be and always will be paramount
whether or not the Reform Party likes it. We will never settle
for anything less.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is
it not interesting? We finally flushed out the Minister for
International Trade. He had 20 minutes here today and he dealt
with some of the concerns people are raising. I think that is
great. It is about time.
Instead of using his time to bash the opposition parties, he
should have used his time to explain this deal to the fullest
possible detail.
It is almost annoying that the minister would suggest the Reform
motion—I guess he did not read it—says that we do not
understand this. The motion says that we are condemning the
government for failing to explain why it is negotiating the MAI,
why it is failing to explain the benefits and costs to the
Canadian people, and why it is failing to take part in public
discussion on the agreement.
The minister and the parliamentary secretary will know that the
amount of mail on this is increasing dramatically. All members
are getting a lot of mail on it. It is because the minister and
his department have failed to go out and sell the deal across the
country.
He says in his response that they took it to committee and asked
the committee to study it. Absolutely. It was three weeks in
committee. We were told that we needed a report by December 13
when the House rose. I guess we did because the thing was moving
along. There was a deadline where we were going to have an April
30 signing if everything went ahead. We understand this may be
delayed, but that is the timeframe we were working toward.
When was the minister to involve the public? It is the end of
February. The deal is supposed to be signed on April 30. Things
move along pretty slowly in this process. The minister said we
had a lot of people make representations, a lot of organizations,
40 some, including chambers of commerce. In spite of that the
committee said the government should continue and increase its
efforts to inform Canadians of the merits of negotiating the MAI.
Why would the committee say that? A lot of people came to
committee and said that, first, the committee should have
travelled across the country and addressed the concerns where
people live and that, second, a lot of people did not even know
what MAI meant. What does it mean? There has to be an education
process. We have a minister and a department that are not taking
the time.
The committee made 20 some recommendations in the middle of
December. We still have not had a response to the
recommendations.
I have a couple of questions for the minister. When will they
respond to the committee's report? Will they wait until the day
the MAI is signed? Will the minister bring the deal back to the
House of Commons for debate so that we have a chance to consult
with our constituents once they arrive at an agreement, a chance
to debate it in the House of Commons and a chance for a vote by
all members?
1545
The Deputy Speaker: I am trying to move the debate along.
Since there are so many members who wish to ask questions I will
try to maximize the number of questions within the time
constraints.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table,
in both officials languages, a 20 page document which outlines
the degree of consultations which has taken place with the
Government of Canada across the country. I table this
enlightening document for the benefit of my friends who seem to
be resigned to having a pathetic debate.
One member was complaining about having kidney stones. Another
member said “why are you bashing the Reform Party?” It was not
a question of bashing the Reform Party. That comes very easily.
Its members do that job best themselves. What I was trying to
say was here is what the Government of Canada has done. Here is
who we have consulted. These are the bottom lines of the
Government of Canada.
The trade critic for the Reform Party has not given me one word
on the MAI. His party has had no meetings to speak of. They
have not travelled across the country to discuss this matter with
the stakeholders but they say they are the responsible leaders of
Her Majesty's official opposition. It is as if they are saying
they do not have anything to say or to do.
Then of course they cry when we ask them why they are open to
foreign culture entering our country. What is wrong with them
when the entire Parliament of Canada is prepared to defend our
identity? What is wrong with them when they do not want to
support labour rights being defined, both the rights and
obligations of the multinational companies as well as the
workers? Why does the member want to sell our health care
system? He pathetically stood in his place to tell us that he
got better treatment in the United States of America than he
could have in Canada. In the United States there are 50 million
people who do not have any insurance to speak of.
Then he asked about social services. He said there was not
enough competition in social services.
If the hon. member wonders why he is getting bashed, it is
because he deserves it.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask at the end of my question, or perhaps after I hear
the response from the minister, that you seek unanimous consent
to extend this question and comment period. I liked his last
response a great deal and this is one of the few chances we are
going to get to question him.
As a serious point of order, I would ask for the consent of the
House to extend the question and comment period for 10 or 15
minutes to allow other members to ask the minister a question.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question.
The minister repeated the mantra we have heard so often from him
and his colleagues that $1 billion of direct foreign investment
results in 45,000 jobs. However, the point is that 97% of
foreign investment in 1997 came into Canada not to create new
jobs but to buy existing Canadian companies.
Would the minister simply confirm that 97% of all foreign
investment that came into Canada in 1997, $21-plus billion, was
to purchase existing Canadian companies and not to create new
jobs?
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the figures do not come
from my department or from the Liberal Party of Canada. The
figures come from Statistics Canada, which happens to be one of
the best statistics gathering organizations recognized the world
over.
Statistics Canada has two sets of numbers. For every $1 billion
in traded merchandise we sustain or create some 11,000 jobs in
Canada. For every $1 billion of investment in Canada we create
or sustain 45,000 jobs over the course of a five year period.
That investment may take different forms. For instance, in the
province of British Columbia 30% of its GDP is made up of trade
with the Asian market. Trade and investment represent an
important lifeblood for our national community. They are the
flip side of the same coin. One creates the other.
1550
Second, we also have to recognize that we are not just talking
about incoming investment in the order of $180 billion to Canada
and that when that comes in, not only does it create job
opportunities, it also imports important R and D development in
our country.
We are also talking about Canadians aggressively investing
abroad, $170 billion. Not only does that create more competitive
companies for our firms internationally, it also creates spin-off
jobs at home as well as research and development.
When we went to Latin America and made investment, it also
created jobs for firms of architects in B.C., firms of lawyers,
firms of engineers. The investment is the complement to trade.
The two go hand in hand and Canada, without trade and investment,
will not be able to create the economic wealth that both he and I
want for today's generation, particularly for young Canadians.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There was a suggestion from the NDP
that we seek unanimous consent to see whether we could extend
this 10 minutes. We would be in favour of that if the Chair
would be interested in seeking it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the period of questions and comments for the minister by 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, first
I want to commend the minister on his evolution from a vociferous
opponent of free trade to now an ardent supporter of the
principles that my party has supported since before 1988.
My question for the minister is relative to the Australian model
for treaty negotiation which was introduced by Alexander Downer,
foreign minister, in May 1996.
This could apply to Canada's participation in MAI, it could
apply to our participation in Kyoto or virtually any
international agreement that we are pursuing. The treaty as
legislated will be tabled in Parliament at least 15 days before
the government takes binding action.
This means the treaty will be tabled after the treaty has been
signed for Australia but before action is taken that would bind
Australia under international law.
Will the minister commit to having the treaty that is signed
tabled in the House for 15 days for legitimate, meaningful debate
similar to what Australia has now? That was the same position we
took as part of the foreign affairs and international trade
committee.
We did not achieve agreement at the committee but I would like
to ask the minister, who I really hope believes in this type of
meaningful dialogue, whether he will commit to 15 days of debate
and discussion with the final agreement tabled in the House prior
to ratification.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first
point goes, I think if the history of political parties in the
country is looked at, it will be found very objectively that the
Liberal Party of Canada has always been the party to try to tear
down these protectionist walls and be very multilateral, very
much a freer trade orientation.
The member's party certainly has a history of suggesting that
those old Chinese walls need to be built bigger, better and
higher. If he is a student of history he should hit those history
books. I think he will be pleasantly surprised.
The second point is the whole question of parliamentary
engagement. I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion of the
model used by the Australians. I think he mentioned that to me
in a very constructive way last year when he was still the trade
critic. I appreciated that.
I certainly will give a commitment to study one of the
recommendations tabled in the report of some kind of
parliamentary engagement at the end of the process. Should the
committee come back to the House in terms of a debate? Should
there be some parliamentary motions?
I think it is also early days. I am being very up front with
him. We do not know whether there will be an MAI agreement, what
shape it will be, will it change any laws of the Parliament of
Canada.
1555
We are prepared to look at the question. We have mentioned that
we are going to report earlier than we are allowed, so that we
can provide those kinds of answers for Parliament.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the last little debate between the Conservatives and
the Liberals was quite enlightening. The minister asked us to
look at our history books. I remember very well this minister
arguing against free trade in this House. I am amazed and happy
that he got into cabinet. It does sometimes change the way we
think or the way we have to think. I am happy he is now a free
trader.
I hear him knock the Reform Party. This party has always been
in favour of free trade. We have not changed our position. Do
not give me the eyes, we have been. The minister is the one who
has changed his mind many times.
This party is the one that brought this matter to the House of
Commons. That is why it is being debated today. The NDP could
have brought it on one of its supply days. The Liberals could
have done on it their supply day. We brought it here. We are
debating the issue but we are not getting one answer.
Every party has asked the same question. A very good question
came from my colleague in the Conservative Party. The weakness in
this whole debate has been that the minister has not been out
selling it. There is a lot of false information coming from our
socialist friends at the other end to the Canadian people. Will
the minister guarantee the Canadian public that before Canada
ratifies the agreement the House of Commons will have the chance
to debate and vote on the issue? It is very simple. That is all
we are asking.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was raising
my eyes is that he somehow gave the impression to the House that
the Reform Party had a history rich enough to talk about the free
trade agreement and NAFTA. Not only does it not have a history,
it does not have a future.
In terms of parliamentary engagement, he may not like the answer
but I gave it to him. He can get up and ask another question.
What I was trying to say is that we are not afraid of an
engagement of Parliament. It was not his party or his critic or
anybody else who pressured the government into putting this issue
before the parliamentary committee. It was an initiative
voluntarily taken by the Government of Canada.
The reason we wanted a report by the end of December 1997 was
that if there was to be a signature by the end of April we wanted
the parliamentary committee to be able to offer its advise to the
government in January so that when crunch time came on the
negotiations we would have the advice of the Parliament of
Canada. The hon. critic for the Reform Party knows this. I told
him so and he agreed with it at the time. We did it at the front
end and we are certainly going to consider what role, if any,
Parliament can play at the back end of the process.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister told me in the House that culture would be carved out
for the MAI. Then he said if we do not get a full exemption we
will settle for country specific reservation, like we did in
NAFTA.
Everyone knows that NAFTA does not protect us since it allows
retaliatory measures by the U.S. The former trade minister said
on January 30, 1997: “We do not have any cultural protections
under NAFTA. That is a myth, we never did”.
If the government insists on continuing with this negotiation
will the government commit to protecting culture with a full
exception to the text like that enjoyed by financial services
such as banks and national securities?
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I tried in my address
today and a few days ago to answer the hon. member's question. I
know she is serious about the cultural industry. I know that she
took on the Reform Party some hours ago on it.
I said two things. First, Canada takes the position that the
culture issue should not be on the MAI table. But because it
operates by consensus, if one country insists on having it on the
table we have said, which is our right, that we will take a
country specific exemption. For the purposes of Canadian culture
either of the two options is the same. The bottom line for us is
that cultural is not negotiable.
Second, where culture does have an exemption is in the
investment chapter under NAFTA. It will do so at bare minimum
under the MAI.
If I can be up front with the hon. member, I do not think for
culture the concern is either NAFTA or the MAI. The concern I
have for culture and trade is at the WTO.
When the application came against our Canadian magazine industry
and the movie industry, it came through the WTO.
1600
I have advocated publicly that we need to square the circle at
the WTO. If we can do labour and trade, if we can do trade and
the environment, if we can have the very sensitive and emotional
debate on agriculture in the next round, surely we can also
despite the difficulty try to square the circle with trade and
culture. Culture at the end of the day comes down to self pride
and identify. Every country, big or small, rich or poor, has
one.
Increasingly with technology where you can download culture,
countries which think that a different language or a different
history can protect them in terms of culture identity are wrong.
We are finding that more allies, more countries are seeing it the
way Canada does. I would like to mobilize some kind of
international opinion that at some point, maybe in the next
round, we can have rules on trade and culture that protect and
distinguish between illegitimate and legitimate practices.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to ask a question that is from a constituent so I hope this
will be one question the minister actually answers. It is a
specific question. Could jobs in our resource extraction sectors
go to foreign workers? For example could Americans come in to
buy up Canadian fishing licences and could Fletcher Challenge
bring in New Zealanders to work for lower wages in the woods?
Could the minister please answer those questions for a
constituent.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the member had
listened to the speech I gave when we talked about natural
resources, the answer would be very self-evident.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister stated just a few moments ago that he was seeking
the advice of the committee as he wants its input and involvement
in the parliamentary process. The committee made specific
recommendations to the minister, number four, a full impact
analysis and number five, that this has to be public disclosure,
a transparent process with consultation with the public.
These recommendations came from the committee. They were
endorsed and supported by a majority of Liberals. His own
chairman has responded in the House today by saying that it is
not practical to do a full impact study so early on. It is not
practical, and those were his own words, for an open consultation
process.
Will the minister tell this House that he is willing to go to
Canadians, to go out to British Columbia and talk about this
multilateral agreement on investment so that they know what the
heck is going on? That is what this debate is all about.
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the member was
listening to the debate and I agreed with unanimous consent to
afford extra time, we have been doing that. It is not only
myself, but also our backbenchers and our government officials. I
would also like to see him and some of the other huffy puffy
Reform Party members take their responsibilities seriously.
We initiated the parliamentary dialogue. We are certainly
grateful for the advice the parliamentary committee has given the
government. As the member knows, being a student of parliamentary
procedure, the government is given 150 days to report back to the
committee. The hon. critic for the Reform Party knows that I have
also made a commitment to do it before the allotted time because
I can appreciate the sensitivity of some of those
recommendations.
We are grateful and we are obviously studying those
recommendations and will be reporting back to that committee very
soon.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Vancouver East, poverty; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, employment
insurance; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, Haiti; the
hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, fisheries.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast.
This is an interesting discussion that we are having.
I was appalled at the comments of the minister when he indicated
that Reform had no history in this debate.
1605
I inform the minister that I was involved in a debate during the
1988 election campaign when the Conservatives were talking about
free trade and the Liberals were against free trade. The
Liberals and the NDP argued against the free trade agreement
between Canada and the United States.
I was also involved in the debate on NAFTA during the 1993
election campaign. I remember the Liberals and the NDP arguing
against NAFTA. It is interesting how things change when one gets
into the government.
The debate today is about the Reform motion which I will read
again for the understanding of viewers who are just joining this
debate:
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to
explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (the MAI); (2) failing to explain what benefits and
costs it foresees for the Canadian people; and (3) failing to
take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
The motion must sound familiar to some Liberals because it is
similar to a motion they made against the Tory government in
March 1992 while the Tories were negotiating the free trade
agreement. The Liberal motion on NAFTA which was presented on
March 24, 1992 was put forward as follows:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to be
completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and
objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
Now the Liberals are saying that our motion is bad although they
put a similar motion before the House in 1992. Come on.
The hon. member's comments are even more interesting. The hon.
member who just gave us a 40 minute dialogue on his position said
in 1992 “We had to rely this morning on the Toronto Star,
as have Canadians, to try to learn what the Government of Canada
has been dealing with in terms of the other two countries. It is
a shame that we have to rely on one of our newspapers to begin to
enlighten not only Canadians but elected Canadians who are
supposed to deal with issues on behalf of 26 million shareholders
of this company called Canada”.
We are talking grassroots here now “Back home on an issue that
is fundamental to the livelihoods of all Canadians there is
silence and ignorance. When there is silence and ignorance,
whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the
unknown at the very least”. This is from the hon. minister who
just spoke.
The NDP and its allies are out in strong force, in particular in
my province of British Columbia. Whether it is the Council of
Canadians or whether it is the environmental groups, they are
telling Canadians one side of the issue. And where is our
government in this? Nowhere. Nowhere has the other side of this
issue been debated either publicly or individually with
Canadians. This is the same group of people, with the exception
of the Liberals who were against the free trade agreement and
NAFTA. We see them once again out there campaigning very
strongly against this government proposal.
The comments from the NDP are that Canada will lose its
sovereignty, that we will have to give up our health care and
that we will lose our Canadian culture. Those of us who do not
see the boundaries and the borders can understand why somebody is
not debating the other side of the issue, why somebody is not
challenging those kinds of comments which are being put before
Canadians.
I believe Canadians want to hear both sides. I am convinced
that Canadians want to know not only what the benefits are but
what the drawbacks are. I believe Canadians are sophisticated
enough to know that in any international treaty Canada enters
into and which Canada signs there will be some winners and some
losers. Canadians want an honest evaluation of what is likely to
happen. They are not getting it with a government that sits in
silence and does not want to participate in this debate. That is
where this government has failed.
This is why Canadians across the country are very concerned.
1610
I will quote the minister's own words again from his March 1992
speech on NAFTA “When there is silence and ignorance, whether it
is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the
very best”. That is so true. It is the silence and the
government's reluctance or the refusal to even talk to people in
Canada about what the MAI is, what does this multilateral
agreement for investment mean. Who are going to be the winners,
who are going to be the losers? When we talk about losing our
sovereignty to the large corporations of the world, is it true,
is it not true? What exactly does this multilateral agreement on
investment mean to Canadians?
Because I believe I have a commitment to my constituents I had a
full page in my householder on this particular issue trying to
bring it to their attention so that we could start this kind of
debate. I must say that most of the comments I received from my
constituents were negative. They felt that there was a problem
with it.
I want to read the question so that the House understands what
they were asked. The question was: Do you support the basic
principle of the MAI which states that foreign companies shall be
subject to the same regulation as domestic companies? There were
almost 2,000 responses to that survey question. Of those almost
2,000 responses 1,507 or 77% of the people said yes that they
supported that principle. Only 317 or 16% said no.
Again, despite that support for the principles of the
multilateral agreement on investment the people who chose to
comment, who actually wrote to me, had negative things to say. I
want to share with the House one of the comments that I received.
I quote “The citizens of Canada require an across Canada forum
to be held on the MAI now. This has been negotiated in secrecy
until it was leaked to the press last spring. This government was
elected on promises to renegotiate NAFTA, so where is their
mandate to progress with the MAI? The repercussions for
Canadians and Canada could be so grievous that open and free
debate across this country is needed. This government does not
represent Canadians. This has become very clear in this country
since 1993”.
That is a comment from a constituent of mine. There were many
others who made comments which support that issue.
The MAI is a draft agreement, as I understand it, that is being
negotiated by this government. It is a draft agreement that
applies to 28 other countries around the world, but most
Canadians do not know that. Most Canadians do not know what
other countries we are talking about entering into this
negotiation. That kind of debate and that kind of information
should be widely known so that people can understand who it is we
are talking about entering agreements with.
There is a whole list of exemptions that Canada has already
placed through the NAFTA and NAFTA is the basis on which the MAI
agreement is being negotiated. Canadians need to know that. They
need to know what exemptions already in place in NAFTA are going
to be carried over to the MAI.
Canadians need to be brought into this discussion. I and my
colleagues believe that Canadians deserve to be included in the
governance of their country and that Canadians deserve to have
the right to have this kind of debate before that agreement is
signed.
I would like to know from the minister and from his department,
are they going to provide this debate before the people of Canada
and before this House of Commons before the agreement is signed?
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker I would
like the Reform Party member to answer a question I have on the
Reform Party's minority report on the MAI.
As far as I can determine from the minority report, Reform says
“The protection for culture, if it must exist, should be drawn
as clearly and as narrowly as possible”.
This seems to aid the United States position on that which is
that they would oppose very broad cultural exemptions.
1615
I would like to know from the Reform Party if they would justify
promoting the interests of huge entertainment giants like Sony,
Walt Disney and Blockbuster at the expense of the rights of
Canadians to their own cultural expression?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, Reformers are not afraid
to say that Canadians can compete at any level, whether it is on
a cultural basis, business basis, industry basis or anything
else. Canadians have the potential and it has been proven.
Whether it is Céline Dion or Bryan Adams in Vancouver, Canadians
have proven that they can compete on an international scale. They
do not need protection. They need promotion and support.
What we would like to see is a tighter concentrated framework
for culture because things like the Internet and the new
technologies can be easily drawn under that cultural
characteristic. We feel that would be detrimental to
development, investment and jobs in this country.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the member could comment on the fact that the evolution of the
MAI, as I understand it, is basically to address those areas
which are not already mandated by multilateral agreements.
Eighty per cent of our trade is with the United States, therefore
80% of our investment agreements are already documented in the
NAFTA. The rest of that, almost 20% or at least 15%, is now
mandated in bilateral agreements. In other words, 95% of our
trade and investment policy is already undertaken in these
agreements.
What the member is talking about and what her party is so
concerned about is an agreement that cannot at maximum affect any
more than 5% of foreign direct investment now occurring in
Canada. Could she relate to me how important she thinks that is?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that
65% of our investment is with the United States, not 95%. This
is why we need to have this kind of debate. It is so those kinds
of figures get put on the table and everybody knows what they
are.
The issue here is, yes, Canada already through NAFTA has this
investment agreement with the United States and Mexico. However,
what is happening here is we want to use that same framework and
expand it to 28 countries, some of which we already have an
investment agreement with. It is not under NAFTA but in
bilateral agreements.
What we have is 28 countries agreeing to consider this option. I
understand there are more undeveloped countries that are waiting
for this to happen so they can come on board as well.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in support of the motion before the House.
The motion reads:
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to
explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on
Investments (the MAI), (2) failing to explain what benefits and
costs it foresees for the Canadian people, and (3) failing to
take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
At the outset I would like to say that it is really quite
remarkable to hear the hon. Minister of International Trade speak
on this motion. We have presented this motion in part to give
this minister a platform to explain to this House and, through
it, to Canadians why there is a need for the national treatment
of investment as is proposed under the MAI. Why would Canada
benefit from the further liberalization of trade laws?
Instead of taking the opportunity and seizing the moment, he
used most of his time for partisan politics, for taking cheap
shots as opposition parties.
There is a principle at the heart of parliamentary democracy
which this government sometimes seems to lose sight, the
principle of ministerial responsibility. We on this side of the
House are merely legislators. The minister is a legislator as a
member of Parliament and is a minister of the crown, a member of
the executive branch of government responsible for negotiating
and implementing foreign treaties. It is his responsibility, not
that of opposition legislators, to explain and articulate the
need or lack thereof for Canada to enter into certain foreign
agreements, the MAI in this case. The government has yet once
more failed in that respect.
1620
That is not surprising coming from this minister and this
government given that this is a minister and this is a party
which in 1988 launched a vicious attack on the free trade
agreement with the United States, which committed that it would
tear up the free trade agreement, that it would retroactively
veto the free trade agreement.
There are members sitting on the opposite side of this House who
argued in 1988 that free trade would lead to the end of Canadian
sovereignty. I remember a Liberal commercial on television with
a map of North America where somehow magically the border of the
49th parallel was erased on the television screen. They said
that Canada was going to become the fifty-first state, that this
would lead to untold economic misery, that our universal publicly
administered health care program would be doomed. That is what
they said, people sitting over there right now, including the
Minister of International Trade.
In 1993 they said they were going to renegotiate the NAFTA. The
last time I checked, they did not change the North American Free
Trade Agreement one iota. The reason why this minister has a
huge credibility deficit addressing the MAI, the reason why so
many Canadians are so cynical and suspicious about the real
motives and outcome here is precisely because they have never
admitted the kind of radical change of philosophy that they have
undergone in government with respect to free trade.
I would suggest that the minister do just that, that he and his
colleagues do some stock-taking and apologize for how they tried
to engage in precisely the same kind of fearmongering and
misrepresentation that our friends in the New Democratic Party
and the party to our left are wont to do.
The Reform Party has always supported the principle of free
trade. We support the principle of national treatment of
investment. We support it not because we want to give more than
we get, but because we realize that Canada as an enormous
exporter, as a country whose economic engine is export industries
and services, would benefit enormously from allowing our
companies, our investors, greater freedom of trade in foreign
jurisdictions.
Late last year I was invited by the hon. Minister of Finance to
take part in a Canadian delegation at the American Hemispheric
Free Trade Discussions in Santiago, Chile, with all of the
governments of North, South and Central America. I had an
opportunity at that conference to speak with Canadian companies
with major investments in South America. Let me give one example
in Chile.
A Canadian mining company based in British Columbia has invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and training in mining
operations in Chile that have generated handsome profits for this
Canadian company, for its Canadian shareholders, for its Canadian
employees. It has brought new wealth to this country like so
many other Canadian export oriented companies.
This very same company was considering whether it would be able
to continue its operations in Chile or would have to suspend its
operations at some point because there is a dual tax scheme in
Chile, a tax regime which imposes a much higher tax on the
corporate profits of companies that are foreign owned. By
allowing certain countries to discriminate against foreign-held
companies, that company and its Canadian employees are not only
penalized but are at risk of losing the hundreds of millions of
Canadian dollars that they have invested there.
There are dozens and dozens of similar instances not only in
this hemisphere but throughout the world where Canadian
investments are put at peril by these kinds of discriminatory
protectionist policy regimes which make everybody poor and nobody
richer.
1625
We want with this motion to focus on this government's inability
or unwillingness to lodge a major national debate. The minister
says that we had committee hearings on it. That is wonderful.
Three weeks. I do not know how many business days the committee
actually met in Ottawa, 10 or 11 business days. It stayed here
in Ottawa and the only people they heard from were the usual
talking heads from interest groups.
Whatever that committee did, whatever its report said, I can
assure members that it did not get out to the constituents of
every member of this place, some of whom are being mislead by the
propaganda of radical left wing conspiracy theorists to believe
that the MAI will lead to another end of Canadian sovereignty,
another end to our health care programs and so on.
What does this government do? Absolutely nothing. In the red
book, the MAI was not even mentioned as an election issue. We
are talking about a significant international investment
agreement that was not even raised as an election issue by this
government. It has been under negotiation for two years. They
had done virtually nothing in those two years to present it to
this House or to Canadians. Then they blame the opposition for
not articulating the government's policy.
I really do not understand. As one of my colleagues says, it
really is audacious. We have asked one simple question of the
minister who spoke not long ago, whether or not he would commit
to having this House debate and perhaps ratify—imagine that—any
agreement that is signed by the Canadian negotiators in Paris at
the OECD.
He could not give us a straight answer on that very simple
question. As somebody who is about as free trade as someone can
get, even I start to wonder what is going on here, what is being
hidden.
Why can the minister not just give a simple straightforward
commitment that the democratically elected representatives of the
people of Canada will have an opportunity to get to the bottom of
the agreement, to look at the details, to see how broad or how
narrow the exemptions are, to see whether or not Canada will
benefit, to see what the economic costs and benefits are.
Why can he not make that commitment in this place today? It is
not a big deal. It does not cost the government anything
politically or financially to allow members and Canadians to
debate this.
For those reasons, I really strongly believe that this minister
needs to make a fundamental reassessment about how he has managed
this file. There is a great deal of hysteria building up out
there and he has done virtually nothing to tell Canadians the
truth about this agreement and its implications.
We hope this motion tonight will be the beginning of just such a
debate.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest and astonishment to the
comments of the Reform Party member for Calgary Southeast. Of
course, it is interesting to see the born again Reform Party
suddenly expressing concern about the MAI.
The member for Calgary Southeast quite rightly points out that
the Liberal Party during the last federal election campaign was
silent on the MAI. That silence was just as deafening from the
Reform Party. I recall on many instances the leader of my party,
the member for Halifax, colleagues from Winnipeg and elsewhere,
alerting Canadians to the profound dangers of the MAI.
We were the only party that even touched this issue in the last
federal election campaign. In fact as recently as a couple of
weeks ago, Reform Party members of Parliament were vigorously
defending the MAI. My colleague from Vancouver East debated the
member for North Vancouver and the member for North Vancouver was
extolling the virtues of the MAI.
Reform Party members of Parliament signed on to the agreement of
the foreign affairs committee on the MAI. New Democrats of
course have from the outset strongly opposed this agreement, this
20-year lock-in that would constitute a massive assault on
Canadian social programs, environmental programs and culture.
1630
My question for the member for Calgary Southeast is a very
straightforward one. Could the member explain why the leader of
the Reform Party was totally silent, not one word, not a peep,
not a whisper, about the MAI during the last federal election
campaign?
Why the hypocrisy today? They realize that Canadians are deeply
concerned about the MAI. They suddenly woke up and said “my
God, maybe we better do something about this”. They were silent
and had supported the MAI from the very beginning.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record
in two important respects.
First, we were not silent during the election campaign on this
issue. We spoke about it in public forums. We had a clear
position. We supported the negotiations, not the agreement,
because there is no agreement. We do not support an agreement
that does not yet exist. That is why we want to be able to
debate it in this place. We do support negotiating instead of
pulling out of the negotiations unilaterally and hiding our heads
in the sand, as our friends from the New Democratic Party would
want us to do.
We will go through the negotiations. We support the
government's presence at such negotiations. Canadians will be
able to debate the agreement that is finalized there.
We have been very willing to discuss the issue all along and
during the election campaign. When I debated the New Democratic
candidate in my constituency he never raised the matter, but I
did talk about our support in principle for free trade. I do not
know what the hon. member is talking about.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe it. My colleague in the socialist movement is
absolutely right. One thing about the NDP is that it was
consistent in its opposition to anything having to do with a free
market economy.
The hypocrisy of the party over there standing up today and
suddenly pretending that it is the defender of those opposed to
the multilateral agreement on investment is an ultimate insult to
the people.
These people have no knowledge of what is going on around the
table. They pick up their information in bits and pieces from
what they receive in the mail or what they read in this paper or
that paper. They never took the time to look into the agreement
to see what it really meant for Canadians.
I want to close by saying that the agreement takes nothing away
from Canada. There is everything to gain for us and nothing to
lose. They should get their heads out of the sand and stand in
support of what the government is doing rather than acting like a
jacuzzi socialist without knowing the least bit about socialism.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to not
knowing much about socialism, I plead guilty. I have never been
in a jacuzzi but my limousine Liberal friend across the way will
know that we have not engaged in the sky is falling chicken
littleism of the loony left.
Let us be clear. Obviously the member came in after I was done
my remarks because he did not hear what I said. The Reform Party
does support and always has supported the principle of free
trade. I talked about why it is necessary for our investors to
get national treatment overseas.
Where is the hon. member coming from? Is he in favour? Was he
in favour of the FTA in 1988?
Mr. Mac Harb: Yes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: He was in favour of it. I guess he did
not tell Mr. Turner that. Was he in favour of NAFTA in 1993? We
do not know where the Liberals are coming from. At least Reform
has been consistent.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
least I know what a socialist is, unlike the previous member. I
am sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park. I
would appreciate a signal as I get to the end of my allotted
time.
1635
I am pleased to engage in the debate today. I must confess that
I was a little surprised by the issue right from its inception. I
am particularly surprised by the attitude taken by my friends in
the New Democratic Party. The member from Burnaby stated a few
minutes ago that New Democrats have been unalterably opposed to
the deal from the beginning. While that is not inconsistent, it
strikes me as being a little unintelligent.
We all know that Canada, as well as the rest of the world, is
moving into a different kind of economic structure, one which
gives a trading country like Canada enormous opportunities around
the world. Our businesses are engaged in every corner of the
globe and they are asking for some measure of protection.
I have been quite active with groups in Winnipeg that are
looking at emerging markets in the Far East in particular. There
are companies in Winnipeg that have managed to secure very
substantial agreements with China. These companies are not large
multinationals. They are companies that are currently doing
business in Winnipeg. In fact right now there is a big
delegation of people in the hog business who are looking at
selling pork products abroad and making substantial investments
in China, Korea and Taiwan.
Mr. Nelson Riis: The MAI has nothing to do with those
countries.
Mr. Reg Alcock: The problem is that the New Democrats are
unwilling even to hear the other side of the debate. All they
want to do is say “It is wrong. The sky is falling”. Let us
at least get some of the comments from the other side on the
table.
The fact is that a significant number of ordinary Canadians are
trying to do business around the world. It is in their interest
to have a legal framework which protects their interest.
It is true that any time we get into an agreement which is
contractual in nature we also agree to certain things. If we are
asking other people for exemptions or to change their body of law
or to limit their freedom to act, we will do the same thing in a
contractual manner.
It is also reasonable, when we start to negotiate any kind of
agreement, that the various parties put on the table their
preferred deal, their perfect world. They may differ
significantly from our view of a perfect world. That is why
there are negotiations.
We have discussions which go on for some period of time and we
reach common positions. It is not rocket science; it is the
business of negotiating an agreement.
I am a little surprised at the shallowness of the Reform Party's
motion, particularly the second and third parts of it. It states
that the government has failed to explain what the benefits and
costs will be and that the government has failed to take part in
public discussions.
I have a document, to which the minister referred, that goes
back to May 24, 1995. If members check their calendars they will
determine that was before the last election. On that date there
was a public announcement of the launch of the negotiations.
I will not, unless called upon, take up the time of the House to
go through this, but since then there have been hundreds and
hundreds of meetings, discussions, phone calls and documents
exchanged with everybody from business to labour. They go right
across the spectrum. The people who have wanted to be involved
in the process and wanted to get information have been provided
with it quite extensively.
I am not certain what the Reform Party is attempting to achieve
with the debate when its members stand in the House and profess
they cannot get things that it seems the rest of Canada has been
able to obtain quite easily.
There are some very legitimate concerns. My friends in the New
Democratic Party, when they step down from their rhetoric and
start to look at the issues, actually make some valid points.
1640
I think the member for Dartmouth made a cogent and coherent
argument about some legitimate concerns relative to culture. A
number of concerns have to be looked at in light of what we are
prepared to accept in terms of limitations on our own freedom of
action.
We can say on the one hand that we are giving up our sovereignty
and will no longer be able to act on behalf of the people of
Canada. On the other hand we can say we are entering into an
agreement where we agree to do something and the other side
agrees to do something. We weigh what we are giving up against
what we feel we are achieving.
The minister, contrary to the opinion expressed by the Reform
Party, was not the least bit shy about being in the House and
debating this point, as he has not been the least bit shy about
being anywhere in Canada and discussing it. In the discussions I
have had in my riding I have had the same kind of reaction.
Articles have been printed in the paper. One article was
something like “if we pass this agreement life in Canada will
end”. That kind of rhetoric has done two things. It has
devalued the debate and made it more difficult for the New
Democrats to put on the table legitimate concerns about this very
complex set of negotiations. It has also raised concerns on the
part of people who may not be aware, may not have the time or may
not have a sense of what is happening internationally around
them, particularly older people.
We set up a committee in my riding to work on this issue.
People, at first blush, after reading the rhetoric were quite
fearful about what may or may not be happening. However, when we
sat down and looked at the questions, got the information from
the minister and came back and had a discussion, it seemed that
step by step people were satisfied that their concerns were being
addressed and their fears were being taken into consideration in
the negotiation.
It is important to make three key points. The first is that
there is nothing mysterious or secretive about involvement in the
MAI negotiations. This is not something that will all of a
sudden be sprung on people. Goodness knows an enormous amount of
information has been shared already. It is a process that began
publicly over two years ago.
It is clear the minister and the government want to let
Canadians know what they are doing.
Second, if it can be achieved, a good and fair set of rules for
international investment would in principle be good for Canada. I
do not think I need make that point in the House. If we could
get a set of principles or rules in place that further
international co-operation, trade and investment in a way that is
of net benefit to the people of Canada and the people in the rest
of the world, it would be a good thing. It is a good thing when
nations come together to negotiate and build a framework of
agreements rather than to fight. It is a good thing if we
negotiate a solution in Iraq rather than fight to reach a
solution.
It is important to underline the third one. At the end of the
negotiation the government will not sign on Canada's behalf an
MAI that does not fully support key Canadian values and safeguard
vital Canadian interest. I believe that is an important point to
end on.
Every day people are negotiating and looking for ways to improve
things in the country. Having reached an end to those
negotiations, we in the Chamber and in the country will be called
on to evaluate it. If it does not meet that test we will not
sign it.
1645
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals have been negotiating this agreement for at least
two years.
Before the election we saw red book II, in which we did not see
any mention of MAI. We heard no mention about MAI in the throne
speech and I was surprised when I saw this report on multilateral
agreement on investment marked confidential. This report would
not be in my hands if it was not leaked to us.
Why was this government negotiating in confidence without
letting Canadians know what the benefits or costs to Canadians
are? Why was this government afraid to have a public discussion
on this issue? Why was this government afraid of calling a
public debate on this issue? Why was the government afraid of
having an informed discussion on this issue?
We are asking a simple thing. We want public discussion on this
issue. We want debate in the House. Can this member inform us
why he is afraid of having a discussion in this House?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, not only am I not afraid of
having public discussion, I am standing and participating in the
discussion taking place in this House.
The member asks why there was no mention. This was publicly
announced on May 24, 1995.
An hon. member: Three years ago.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Exactly. There is no surprise here.
This process has been going on for a very long time. There have
been mailings, packages, information sent to members of
Parliament on July 25, September 15, October 17, November 4,
February 16, February 9—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the member will
forgive me, we will go on to the next question so that we can get
a couple of questions in.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg South is smarting a
bit from the fact that New Democrat MPs in Winnipeg held a public
meeting on the MAI just last week and at the drop of a hat over
350 people attended, a sold-out crowd of people deeply concerned
about the MAI.
The member does not want rhetoric. He wants a calm debate on
this issue. We have been trying to have such a debate. I would
like to ask the member for Winnipeg South a question regarding a
matter relating to the health committee where we actually tried
to have such a debate on guaranteeing that health care, medicare,
would be protected from the MAI.
All we got from their side were voices from the BCNI and the
Fraser Institute saying trust the Liberal government. There were
no arguments, no accountability, no answers.
If this member and this government are so committed to
maintaining medicare and believe it is not a threat in the MAI,
why will they not agree to a complete exemption for health care
in the MAI as opposed to the NAFTA reservations which evoke all
kinds of concerns?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was not
aware that such a meeting was held in Winnipeg.
I think the simplest way to answer that question, although it
evokes a number of responses, is just to reiterate the point that
was made.
In negotiations, many things are broadly talked about but the
commitment that has been made is at the end of negotiations this
government will not sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not
fully support key Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian
interests.
Health care is definitely one of those key Canadian values that
every member on this side of the House will support.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like say how pleased I am to join in this
debate today on the multilateral agreement on investment.
I do so in a number of capacities, as a member of the
subcommittee on international trade disputes and investment and
as a member of the standing committee on heritage.
Also, I rise today as a member of a riding that is home to many
artists and individuals who are involved in the arts and cultural
industry in Canada, a sector I am absolutely passionate about and
care for very deeply.
1650
I would like to start the debate by reiterating the key messages
that the minister has been saying about the MAI. First,
there is nothing mysterious or secretive about our involvement in
the MAI negotiations. I believe that Canada has a duty to be
there to protect that which is important to Canadians.
Second, if it can be achieved, a good and fair set of rules for
international investment would in principle be a good thing for
Canada.
Third, at the end of the negotiations, the minister will not
sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not fully support key
Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian interests.
I would like to talk about one very important vital Canadian
interest and Canadian value. That is the arts and cultural
industry in Canada and what we as a government have been doing in
consultation with the cultural sector and the individual actors,
creators, writers, technicians, publishers who live in my riding.
We have been consulting with the minister. We have been going
to the minister, having the minister's ear and the minister has
been listening. Let me put that in the context of what I would
ask all members to read, a report that was tabled at the Canadian
Conference of the Arts by Garry Neil which sets out the problems
with the original draft text that came out in May 1997.
In his report, Mr. Neil makes absolutely clear that according to
that draft which was released, the cultural sector would be
covered fully by the MAI as drafted in January 1997.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with hon. members of the Reform
Party that Canada can compete anywhere and in any sector,
including the cultural sector. With all respect, they can only
do so because of this government's cultural policy which
advocates the creator and Canadian content and the infrastructure
to take that Canadian content through the creator to our
audiences in Canada. That has been our policy.
Mr. Neil goes on by saying that potentially with the January
1997 text as drafted, the MAI would affect in some way virtually
every cultural policy. We may be able to compete today in
children's programming for one reason alone, because we have a
cultural policy that promoted children's programming.
Yes, we are world leaders in television programming for
children. The Comfy Couch, Dudley the Dragon, things
that our children and our grandchildren know about, have come
about through one of those policies which has been the Canada
cable and television production fund which is only given to
Canadian companies. Those things would not have been created.
Let us see the impact the MAI in its 1997 form would have had on
culture. Let us talk about what, if we had accepted that draft
as written, it could potentially have done for culture.
Particularly to Reformers who feel that culture should not be on
the table, that it should just be part of this agreement, let me
tell them what would happen.
Canada prohibits, limits or restricts foreign ownership in most
of our cultural industries currently. For example, no foreign
company can own more than one-third of a Canadian broadcaster or
distribution undertaking, cable, satellite or otherwise.
The policy in the book trade generally prohibits a Canadian
company from being sold to non-Canadian interests. The policy in
film distribution prohibits a foreign company from establishing a
new business in Canada, except to distribute its own productions.
Increased foreign ownership in the sound recording business is
reviewed by investment Canada under the net benefits test.
Ontario's periodical and publication distribution act and several
Quebec statutes require Canadian ownership.
The other thing our government's policy does for culture is that
funding programs are limited to Canadian individuals and firms.
Access to most funding programs is denied to non-Canadian
companies and individuals, for example funding support for film
and television production activities through Telefilm, the
provincial agency. The Canada Council is limited to Canadian
firms.
If taxation is carved into the MAI, the support through the
refundable investment tax credit and the companion provincial
schemes are also at risk. The CRTC has been mandated by this
government for the creation of private sector production and
talent support programs in both the television and sound
recording industries by directing licences to provide certain
percentages of revenues for these purposes.
These programs are generally not available to foreign firms.
1655
Let us look at the book publishing industry development program,
the block grant program of the Canada Council and the publication
assistance program. They are limited to Canadian book and
magazine publishers. Access is also limited to many funds that
support new media productions, again limited to Canadian firms.
The cultural industries development fund, administered by the
former federal business development bank, provides assistance
only to Canadian firms.
However, since the definition of investor in the MAI includes
organizations and associations operated on a not for profit
basis, direct and indirect funding of these activities may be
subject to challenge if access is denied to a foreign association
or organization having a Canadian presence or asset. Let us look
at the Canadian content requirements. For a television program
to qualify under Canadian content, the producers of that material
must be Canadian.
Those are examples of this government's cultural policy not just
to protect Canadian culture but to promote it, to ensure that we
have a viable industry that, as Reform says, can compete anywhere
in the world. That is because of this government's policy. If
we look at that, we must also look to see what has to be done for
our cultural sector. The subcommittee on the MAI and the
Canadian heritage committee have been listening to what has to be
done.
Mr. Neil has said in his report that first and foremost Canada
must take a lead role and try to support the principle of the
French government which is asking for a full exception.
Currently the only exception in the MAI text as drafted in
January 1997 is an exception for national security. The French
addendum puts in a principle of cultural exception. Let us use
that word clearly, exception.
We also listened to representatives from SOCAN, the society of
Canadian composers, who came up with a review of different ways
we could exempt culture. They came up with a broad definition of
culture, one that differs from the NAFTA definition. When we
consider where we were with culture years ago when NAFTA was
drafted, we did not have the technology and the art we now have.
They added words to it. Television and broadcasting are now part
of it. The committee looked at that.
The same day we heard from SOCAN, the standing committee on
heritage also heard from representatives from the Ministry of
Industry who spoke about the multimedia industry. They told us
how our cultural industries account for 25% of the multimedia
industry. But that is not a definition in NAFTA. So the
committee is listening. Perhaps the SOCAN exception is not
sufficient. We have to continue to consult with heritage, with
industry as to what the appropriate exceptions should be. Again,
we are now talking about exceptions but that is not all we have
to look at.
If we cannot get all the other countries to buy into the idea of
an exception for culture as we have done for national security,
then there is one other recommendation made by Mr. Neil in his
report. If the broad exception is not agreed on, the country
specific reservations must be unbound and new measures must be
permitted.
I am happy to report that is exactly what the Minister for
International Trade has stated. If we are not able to obtain a
full out exception along the principles of the French exception,
then Canada will accept nothing less than an unbound country
specific reservation, the recommendation made by Mr. Neil at the
Canadian Conference of the Arts.
The minister is listening and the committee is recommending the
principles of SOCAN. Mr. Keith Kelly, the executive director of
the Canadian Conference of the Arts, told us to make it
self-judging and important, protect what is important to
Canadians. That is what this government is going to do. If we
do sign we will do so only when we have fully protected the
cultural industries. We will not sign until we have a definition
that covers not only the arts and cultural industries of today
but the arts and cultural industries of tomorrow.
Only in that way, by continuing with our present cultural policy
of ensuring Canadian content and creation and the infrastructure
to support it, only then will we be able to compete abroad.
1700
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am rather curious with this very broad exemption the member is
asking for if it would include such things as telecommunications,
computer software, television signals, Internet service. These
are all things that could be argued as relating to Canadian
culture. If that is the case and considering the whole area that
I have just mentioned is the greatest expansion of investment in
the world today with satellites and all of the very high level,
high priced technology, is she not really saying that with that
broad exception no investment in Canada for anything to do with
new telecommunications, Internet, satellite or anything else?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
very important and relevant question.
One of the things with respect to the broadening of the
definition is if we look at the SOCAN exception it has added
communications by telecommunication in its definition of cultural
industries. I think this is something we are going to have to
debate as to what are cultural industries. We cannot predict in
the future what our new cultural industries will be.
I do not believe that the NAFTA definition is simply enough. But
I also take the recommendation made by the Canadian Conference of
the Arts that one way we can ensure we can protect and promote
our cultural industries abroad and have them compete in this
competitive world is by making culture self-judging.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for
actually reading into the record some very important facts that
have been put forward by Garry Neil and also by Keith Kelly.
I understand a great deal about the issues the hon. member is
talking about and I appreciate her concern about culture in
Canada.
I am still very nervous though about wording. I would like to
know whether the hon. member thinks it would be a good idea to
have people like Garry Neil and Keith Kelly, spokespeople for the
arts, available to actually make a final judgment on whether or
not we have at the end of the day a cultural carve out which is
acceptable to them. How does the hon. member think that could
happen so that we will not at the end of the day find ourselves
with something which is absolutely useless for culture in this
country?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I think consultation is
important, absolutely. One of the recommendations the
subcommittee made was to support the approach to seek general
exception, make it self-judging and aggressively pursue an
alliance with respect to exceptions.
Yes, I think it is important that we continue to have
discussions with members of the arts and cultural communities
which we are doing right now in the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage. This is not something we have put aside to
just let the subcommittee work with. The more consultations we
have the better. We need to continue this and get into
partnerships which this government is willing to do with the arts
and cultural industries in Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was on the subcommittee on trade disputes which considered this
issue with the hon. member. I know of her concern for the
cultural and arts sector.
What bothers me a little bit is it seems to me we are talking
about a big agreement here that has the potential for benefiting
a lot of sectors. Culture is one of them, but there are a lot of
sectors that could enjoy more investment. There are a lot of
Canadian businesses that are investing outside our country and
which need the protection this kind of agreement would provide,
protection for non-discrimination, protection for expropriation.
The member has suggested we should walk away from this unless we
get this broad self-judging exemption for our cultural industry—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Parkdale—High Park has about 45 seconds to respond.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister
has made it absolutely clear and I support the minister. If we
cannot get an acceptable cultural country specific reservation,
we will walk away from this agreement.
1705
We are not protecting our industries right now. If we look to
see who controls our publishing, who controls our recording, who
controls our film distribution, it is not Canadians. We do not
have a protectionist policy. We do not stop those people from
coming into Canada and investing under our rules and under the
transparency rules. I invite companies to come and to be part of
our cultural industries, but not to take them over.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Before we do, hon. members, if during the questions and comments
there seems to be a good interest and a lot of members wanting to
ask questions, if you would indicate that to me then I will know
the number of people who want to ask questions. Then we can keep
the questions and comments quite short so we can get in as many
people as possible.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for your information I will be sharing my time with my colleague
from Vancouver Island North.
The Reform Party is very proud to have brought this to the floor
of the House of Commons in the absence of information being
provided by the Liberals over this very, very important issue.
The questions of the people of Canada have fundamentally been met
by silence.
I heard the member for Winnipeg speaking about the fact that
members of Parliament had been briefed. Is that not wonderful.
There are 300 of us. There are 30 million Canadians who would
like the information, not just 300 members of Parliament.
During the 1997 election the question came up, what is the MAI?
What is it all about? There was a lot of concerned chagrin on the
part of many Canadians, myself included, because I did not know
what the MAI was. All I found out was that it had been under a
process of negotiation not just for weeks, not just for months,
but for well over a year and the people of Canada had been
basically kept in the dark. This has led to a deep concern on the
part of Canadians as to what this government, indeed what these
multinational companies are up to. What is going on behind
closed doors?
Into that vacuum of information we have had the foes of the MAI
jump. They have jumped in with books. They have jumped in with
public appearances on radio and television. They have been in
front of every microphone, and where has the minister been? I do
not know. Certainly not in front of a microphone, certainly not
explaining this.
I ask the question, what is in it for the foes, what is their
agenda? I suppose to a certain extent a person could say it makes
an awful lot of money for public interest groups. They take a
contrary position to the government and they build it up in some
kind of a ghost and goblin way, such as the Council of Canadians
has done. It makes a lot of money for their cause and keeps
their people employed. Their attack on this is sometimes blunt
and forceful and sometimes subtle.
I have in hand a book entitled MAI: The Multilateral
Agreement on Investment and the Threat to Canadian
Sovereignty. If that is not ghosts and goblins, I do not know
what is.
To show the subtleness I am referring to, I quote from page 67:
“While it is doubtful whether foreign based corporations would
try and use the MAI rules to strike down provincial labour codes
directly, the new investment treaty would most certainly create a
more competitive climate, which would put additional pressure on
governments to weaken parts of the labour codes”. Then they give
some examples, and they conclude by saying: “These examples show
that this kind of economic type legislation is increasingly the
target of attack by big business in this country”.
What is going on here is the foes to the MAI are basically
having a field day while fundamentally we have silence from the
government on the other side. It is into this breach that the
Reform Party jumps, and we jump with information.
The multilateral agreement on investment is going to be a
creation of negotiation. It is not a stationary object we can throw
stones at. It is presently under negotiation. I suggest, as a
matter of fact I state, that a multilateral agreement on
investment would be of great benefit to Canada as a trading
nation and to all the people of Canada who work for the companies
that are involved in producing the goods and services.
What is the MAI? Quite simply it is nothing more and nothing
less than a common set of rules that defines the rights and
obligations of investors from 29 countries when they invest in
any of the other 28 countries that are currently negotiating the
agreement. That is it. That is what the MAI is.
1710
The MAI fundamentally sets out a level playing field. It
replaces a mixture, a pot-pourri of overlapping and sometimes
conflicting investment agreements between all of those countries
and other countries in the world. It brings some order to the
chaos that presently exists between countries in terms of rules
which subject companies to the rules of governments when they
make investment in foreign countries.
I also point out that we now have the free trade agreement,
NAFTA and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is now
conducted under the World Trade Organization. All of those
agreements have sections relating to investment. We have chaos
at this particular point.
What would happen if we did not sign? In committee just the
other day, Mr. Jack Stoddart, the chairman and publisher of
General Publishing Company, said “It is important because we can
live within the OECD”—the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development—“without the MAI and that is important because
many people feel that it is either all or nothing. You have to
be in or we will be sort of out in left field. We have so many
trade deals, so many trade treaties already with countries we are
talking about in the 29 countries but, as Mike Harris the skip of
the Canadian men's curling team said `Well, tomorrow the sun will
rise”.
Mr. Stoddart then says “Well, if we don't sign this deal the
sun will rise. I would suggest however that it is going to be a
difficult day for the cultural industry if the deal goes through
the wrong way”.
What are we saying here? There are very large Canadian
multinational corporations that have investments worldwide. Just
to name a few: Cominco, Noranda, Inco, General Motors. They all
have investments worldwide. If those investments are put into
jeopardy by a foreign country determining that they are going to
be treating the Canadian investment in their country in a
different way to the way in which they are treating their other
national companies, that effectively means the jobs of tens,
if not hundreds, of thousands of Canadians presently working in
Canada have the potential of being in jeopardy because of the
actions of a foreign nation against a Canadian multinational
company.
I just heard a Liberal across the floor say we will not sign a
deal unless we get a broad cultural exemption. Was she saying
that the jobs and investments in the cultural industry in Canada
are more important than the jobs and the investment in the large
companies in Canada that have investments outside of our country?
Is she pitting one group of workers or one group of investors
against another saying that if the mythical cultural group is not
protected, then we are not going to protect anyone? That is a
rather shameful way to look at it.
We have the globalization of culture whether we want it or not.
I heard in committee people from Quebec and people interested in
the French language in Canada saying that there is an
encroachment on the Internet and the worldwide web of English
and English terms are getting in the way of French and thereby
undermining the French culture in Canada. This is not unique to
Quebec. It is not unique to French speaking Canadians anywhere
in Canada. This is exactly the complaint that is addressed in
Russia. Russia is using an English word for floppy disk. There
is nothing like that in its lexicon.
The difficulty is that if we go to a broad exception such as has
been proposed by the Liberals, the U.S. will not sign it.
Therefore the MAI will not come into effect. If we go to a broad
exception, we have not really achieved anything in any event
because we have not been able to define what is culture and what
is not culture. Consequently, we will end up with the same chaos
we presently have.
The MAI will not make or break Canadian culture. The MAI is a
part of our arrangement relative to Canadian culture.
The position of the Reform Party is that it would support
exceptions as narrow as required and only when necessary for
specific protection. This idea of a broad exception, an all
encompassing exception, is not acceptable.
1715
We believe that culture should be negotiated at the World Trade
Organization as a package of culture. We must negotiate in
concert with Germany, France, the U.K. and Australia against the
United States to form an alliance against the United States
because of its attitude toward the export of its culture.
The MAI, properly negotiated, will be a powerful tool in the
hands of Canadian companies and Canadian workers will move ahead
as a result of it.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that all opposition parties would like to have a
full impact analysis of the MAI. We also suggest that the MAI be
subject to a final text which fully protects Canadian culture,
but not only Canadian culture. I have heard much about that
today, but I have not heard about the environment, labour
standards, health, education and social services at the federal
and sub-national levels.
I wonder what the member of the Reform Party feels about issues
other than culture.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the impact analysis is
something which has been recommended, as I understand it, by the
subcommittee. The Reform Party is in support of that section of
its report.
The other areas which the hon. member is asking about are
presently covered under the NAFTA and we would expect the same
kind of treatment in those areas. Otherwise we would end up with
conflict between the NAFTA and the MAI. The agreements must be
negotiated in parallel. We cannot have two separate agreements
which relate to the same thing saying different things.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make it unequivocally clear that the multilateral agreement
among all of the OECD members is not an end in itself. It is a
beginning. The next step would be to go to the World Trade
Organization and, hopefully, every member of the World Trade
Organization will abide by the same rules.
I also want to tell my colleague that our negotiators are not
going to a round table with other OECD members to discuss our
cultural industry as an open field. There are already
protections under the FTA and the NAFTA for our cultural
industry. We want to ensure, as a minimum, that what we have in
terms of exemptions now under the NAFTA and the free trade
agreement will continue when we sign the MAI.
To that extent, what the government is doing, basically, is the
absolute minimum in a fair game.
I want to take my colleague's comments today as an endorsement
of what the government is doing.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the cultural exemption to
which the member speaks which exists under the NAFTA is indeed a
very weak exemption. It can be countervailed.
I would like to use Sports Illustrated as an example. I
realize that Sports Illustrated comes under the WTO, but I
am using it as an example. If we are not prepared to comply with
the findings of a tribunal, the United States could countervail
Sports Illustrated with wood. The United States could
countervail movie production with wine making. The U.S. has a
whole host of remedies which would go against us on our
exemption.
It borders on being a myth that we have a cultural exemption
under the NAFTA.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in the hon. member's comments. What he said was, if
you have this unconditional or broad mandated carve-out for
culture, the Americans will not sign. Therefore we cannot go
ahead with it.
1720
Somehow the Reform Party's position is that we will go out with
some other multilateral partners and make them give us some
special conditions on culture. Is the Reform Party's position
not that if we cannot get our way with this agreement then we
will cave in to the Americans? Is that not what he said?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to
hear one's words repeated by somebody who has a different
interpretation of them.
I quoted from a newspaper article which I take as being
authoritative. U.S. negotiators say that they believe their
cultural related companies, such as telecommunications and
computer software firms, would not have as much access to the
global market if countries were allowed to protect those kinds of
industries. With a broad cultural exemption, it is my position
that this government, particularly under the idea that was
postulated by the Liberal speaker before me, is that this would
be self-policing. We will decide what is going to be included
and what is not. Quite frankly, the Yankee trader would be crazy
to sign such an agreement.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to discuss the multilateral agreement on
investment today. This is an official opposition Reform motion
which is being debated. I will read it.
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to
explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (the MAI), (2) failing to explain what benefits and
costs it foresees for the Canadian people, and (3) failing to
take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
I have received a significant amount of correspondence on this
issue. The main theme in the letters deals with concerns about
the MAI as posing a threat to our economy, our environment, our
resources and our social and cultural programs, that it is a
threat to Canadian sovereignty, and that it would provide new
avenues for corporations to challenge national, provincial and
municipal laws. There were major concerns about what we termed
roll-back and stand-still provisions of the agreement.
The theme seems to be the loss of our Canadian way of life and a
concern that any exemptions Canada may negotiate may be difficult
to define and difficult to enforce.
What information do we have regarding the MAI? We have the
website which has a draft of the text agreement. We have the
exemptions proposed by Canada in November 1997. We have the
statements of the minister and we have some parliamentary
committee proceedings.
What does this information tell us? The first thing we know is
that the committee never left Ottawa. Any concerned Canadians
from other parts of Canada who appeared before the committee had
to travel to do so. Very simply, it is not good enough to only
consult in Ottawa on an issue of this magnitude. My position is
that it is not for the official opposition to do this homework,
it is for the government. In the words of one of my constituents
“if it is so good for the Canadian people and the economy, why
is it not being debated publicly?”
There are some things I looked for in the 52 pages of the
reservations tabled by the minister in November which are of
major interest to my constituents in Vancouver Island North. For
example, the fisheries exemption. We have one for fishing,
harvesting and processing and one for fishing related services
which deals with port privileges and foreign fishing within our
200 mile zone. Critics have stated that if the MAI is signed the
way it is currently worded, the exemptions do nothing to prevent
Canadian fishing licenses from being owned by non-Canadians. If
this is the case, it is a major change and one that I believe
Canadians would not support.
I have read the fisheries exemptions carefully. They do nothing
to alleviate my concern that Canadian fishing licenses should be
reserved for Canadians only. The standing committee on fisheries
has invited the Canadian negotiator to attend our committee to
respond to this and other concerns. This has not yet occurred.
There are many things that have not yet occurred on this file.
I attended a standing committee environment meeting two weeks
ago because the Canadian negotiator was represented at the
meeting. He stated that the minister was considering signing a
letter of intent regarding the MAI at the end of April because
there would be no final text available at that time. This is
highly inappropriate as it takes us further down the road without
knowing where we are going.
It is also a dismal negotiating position for a government already
known as a patsy in international circles. The minister should
not sign anything at the end of April.
1725
There are some concerns about provincial jurisdiction in
particular from British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. For
example, in B.C. the crown owns 95% of the forest land and uses
the forest as a strong instrument of government policy making.
Many people involved in the industry as well as government do not
want this agreement to tie their hands in terms of promoting
value added British Columbia manufacturing and other initiatives.
B.C. has the added complexity of the recent supreme court
decision on aboriginal land title, the Delgamuuk decision. The
current aboriginal affairs exemption is totally inadequate and
does not cover the eventuality of investor compensation by
government for ongoing aboriginal land claims.
This is an obvious shortcoming given that government may
unavoidably be compelled to transfer assets or deny investment.
This is a tremendously complex area that can no longer be glossed
over. Provincial interests have been seriously neglected by the
federal government on the major issue of aboriginal affairs for a
long time. The time for Liberal government fudging is over, not
to be continued with the MAI on this file.
It is readily apparent that a major set of consultations with
stakeholders is required across the country and it has not
happened. Canada has further reserved the right to adopt or
maintain any measures with respect to public law enforcement,
correctional services, income security, social security, social
welfare, public education, training, health and child care. On
the surface this sounds reasonably sensible. In addition, there
are several exemptions for oil and gas, banking and financial
services and land ownership. The list does not look as
comprehensive as I would have anticipated given public concerns
about the environment, for example.
What do I have to stack up against these criticisms? The
minister is now saying that there is virtually no chance of an
agreement by April and lots of chance for consultation. He made
a speech. What did he say in his speech? He said: “Canada will
not accept any general commitment to freeze the so-called
standstill or phase out restrictions on foreign investment.
Canada will retain the flexibility to carry out public policy in
core areas of national interest. The MAI would also not force
Canada to lower its labour or environmental standards. In fact,
it is intended to keep other countries from lowering theirs to
attract investment away from Canada”.
He also said: “I can tell you what the MAI is not. It is not
a charter of rights for multinational companies, nor does it
spell the end of Canada's sovereignty. We will retain the right
to enact laws in all areas, social policy, health care, corporate
rules, labour and the environment. We will still be able to
impose restrictions on foreign investment in sectors like
culture, health care and education”. That is what the minister
said.
Where did he make this speech? To the Standing Committee on
Industry in Ottawa. It is no wonder Canadians are wondering
where the minister is who is responsible for the MAI. The
question is who is right, the critics or the minister. Who are
we to believe and where is the missing dialogue? Why is the
government failing to explain to the public why it is negotiating
the MAI and what the costs and benefits are for the Canadian
people?
This is a very significant initiative which is certainly
deserving of a much greater profile and public consultation than
the government has given it. I would like to be able to analyse
the information and come up with a reasoned response as I think
many Canadians would like to do. Given what has transpired to
date, this is impossible and I blame the government. I am in full
concurrence with the official opposition motion to condemn the
government for its lack of proactivity on this issue. It has had
the time, the opportunity and the resources, but it simply has
not had the political will.
In the minister's own words: “My department is consulting
closely with the provinces, the private sector and
non-governmental organizations”.
1730
Without challenging that statement there is one thing very wrong
with it. He has left out the public. That concludes my remarks.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will start by commenting on some of the points that were raised
earlier with respect to this, which will lead up to my question
for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Earlier the member for Kootenay—Columbia indicated that the
government, if I understood him correctly, was pitting one
industry against another industry. If I understood him properly
we should not be protecting broad based Canadian heritage.
A very clear message has been sent out today. If I understood
the member properly it is that Canadian heritage is on the
trading block as far as the Reform is concerned. Absolutely not,
as far as the government has said.
My question is for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Does he believe we should protect Canadian heritage at all cost,
even if it were to mean not signing the MAI? Remember, sir, that
you are dealing with the very make-up of our country when you are
questioning this and people are listening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind all members
to address each other through the Chair.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in
the MAI of which heritage is one. To wrap oneself in the
heritage flag and suggest that the Liberal answer is the only
answer, which is actually a totally unworkable answer, I am not
going to respond directly.
What I will say is in any set of negotiations there are some
basic issues. If we do not get what we want we should not sign
it. I agree with that.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after
hearing a few of the speeches by Reform Party members I concluded
that we are in agreement about the need for an agreement.
However there is one exception. My colleagues in the Reform
Party want the government to abandon its fight on behalf of
cultural industries. I want to say for the record that we will
not abandon that fight.
My colleague is trying to allude to the fact that certain
Canadian laws will be affected if we were to sign the
multilateral agreement. I want to correct the record. No
Canadian laws will be affected as a result of that. Every
Canadian law, whether provincial or federal, will continue to be
in full force after the signing of the multilateral agreement.
I wanted to have straight that signing the agreement will not
cripple the hands of the Canadian government from enacting
special laws in Canada.
Would the hon. member stand and say that he commends what our
Canadian negotiators are doing at the table?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that
government members want to somehow portray themselves as the only
defenders of Canadian culture.
If the hon. member wants to take that position he should
narrowly define what he says and say exactly what he wants. What
he has said so far does not cut it. A broad exemption really
does not cut it.
I raised some legitimate concerns from a British Columbia
perspective, from a provincial perspective. I do not hear anyone
asking me about those legitimate concerns. Members will not find
out about any of them if they sit in Ottawa and only accept input
in Ottawa.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the member for Vancouver Island North is
a very straightforward one.
If the MAI is so important to the Reform Party, why was it that
the leader of the Reform Party during the last federal election
did not say one word about the MAI?
1735
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we needed to see the
details when the election campaign was going on. It is
interesting that this question should come from the NDP.
During the election campaign, when I was asked about the MAI, I
had an opinion. When the NDP candidate was asked about the MAI,
he did not know anything about it. Twenty-four hours later, he
was totally opposed. What kind of homework is that?
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the secretary of state for regional
development.
I am somewhat disappointed in the motion as it fails to move the
debate off this eternal merry-go-round. It is in distinct
contrast with the participation of the Reform Party in committee
and its helpful contributions to the committee.
If I may, I would like to refer to the committee's minority
report as it was written in the larger report. I take the Reform
Party at its word when it says that it is a free trade party and
supports Canada's participation in the construction of a
multilateral agreement on investment. It continues:
The Reform Party is a free trade party that supports liberalized
trade and investment. We thus support the MAI initiative at the
OECD subject to the concerns we have outlined on labour and
multinational standards and culture.
Having stated its position as supportive of the government's
initiative, I propose to turn to two of its criticisms in the
time allowed.
I highlight these in contrast to the motion which seems to be
highly critical of the government. I characterize its critique
as one of nuance rather than adamant opposition, as one with
which reasonable people might disagree but one which is
characterized by a broader sense of agreement.
The Reform Party states in its minority report:
We endorse most of the recommendations contained in the
subcommittee's study of the multilateral agreement on investment
with the exception of the one on labour and multinational
standards and the one that has a broad exemption for culture.
I would like to turn to those two exemptions and ask whether Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition is giving the government good advice.
We have heard from a great variety of sources with respect to
cultural exemption. It has a variety of names, a cultural
carve-out, cultural exemption, sectoral exemption, et cetera. The
argument is that the agreement will severely limit Canada's
ability to foster indigenous culture and Canada's voice. Some of
the rhetoric borders on paranoia and uses silly language like
NAFTA on steroids.
The Reform Party, to its credit, is a bit more nuanced in its
critique. For those of us who sat in on some of the testimony it
became quite clear very quickly that not all cultural industries
are created equal. Writers and artists dependent upon grants
from government and other sources appeal to a limited audience or
are just starting to feel the need for some protection.
Cultural industries that are capital intensive and have a degree
of mass cultural appeal need access to large, international
markets and international capital.
I would like to quote from the report:
Canada's film and television production industry increasingly
depends on foreign markets. Peter Lyman of the Nordicity group
pointed out the importance of foreign trade and investment from a
Canadian perspective. Foreign financing and foreign revenues
contribute about $600 million to Canadian film and television
production.
The example of CanWest Global was given as a Canadian firm that
gets tens of millions of dollars in revenues from its foreign
investments in Australia and New Zealand, which strengthens its
ability to finance traders.
To state that all cultural industries are created equal is not
consistent with the testimony of the witnesses. Clearly quite a
number feel the need for protection, but there is also a number
who feel that the protection of an MAI carve-out may be a serious
detriment to their eventual success.
The Reform Party's position is that if the protection of culture
must exist it should be drawn as clearly and narrowly as
possible.
In fact it would prefer a cultural policy which does not put
stressful artists and companies at risk.
1740
I am of the view that when the minister negotiates the final
working agreement he should be very specific as to what culture,
for the purpose of the agreement, means. This is not an
abandonment of culture. I believe that this is the direction the
government is going. It is one which is desirable and has broad
support within the House.
The second area of dissent is on labour and multinational
standards. The Reform Party's position in the minority report
is:
Although the Reform Party fully supports the labour standards at
issue—the right to organize democratically, bargain collectively
and strike peacefully in the absence of discrimination—we cannot
support thrusting these standards on to other countries.
I believe that the Reform Party is wrong for two reasons. It is
missing an opportunity to develop a practice of raising
international standards. Many of the countries with which Canada
is negotiating have labour standards and practices which are
appallingly low.
A number of countries that are party to these negotiations
routinely exploit their labour force. In some respects it is an
ideal time to try to raise labour standards rather than let them
slip off the table as the Reform Party advocates. The argument
which has the direct or indirect effect of raising standards
needs to be supported.
The second reason I think the clause needs to be included is to
level the playing field. I would much prefer that other
countries bring their treatment of workers up to our standards,
rather than the reverse. If we miss the opportunity to raise the
standards for other countries, our own competitiveness will be
eroded and therefore defeat what we hope to obtain from the
agreement, namely the ability to sell into other countries
without exploiting our labour force.
I believe this is an opportunity to enhance the lot of workers
around the world and to provide a measure of dignity to all. No
country including our own should be put in the position of having
to exploit its own labour force to obtain a measure of
prosperity. At its root, raising worldwide labour standards is
enlightened self-interest and one which the minister should
pursue with vigour.
In conclusion, the Reform Party has a useful contribution to
debate. It is my view that it is a more nuanced approach to the
cultural exemption and one which needs to be examined. However,
on the issue of labour and multinational standards, Reform is
clearly wrong and cannot be supported.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting to hear so much talk about the Reform Party's
dissenting opinion. I guess it must have struck a nerve.
It seems to me, though, that there was some talk about
international markets in terms of culture. We know there are
about $700 million of investment in our Canadian cultural
industries from countries such as Australia. If we decide to go
the protectionist route, two can play that game. Other countries
can play that game as well.
If we put broad cultural exemptions on instead of defining
narrowly exactly what we need, how will that serve our interests
with countries such as Australia which are investing in Canada?
Would that not cut off some of the investment?
Most of the so-called threat to Canadian culture seems to be
coming from the United States. We already have the NAFTA with a
so-called cultural exemption which says that we can have
retaliation and equivalent effect. It would be pretty tough to
get a weaker exemption than that. That will remain in place
whether or not we sign the MAI.
How does the member see the MAI destroying the cultural
exemption which is already in place under the NAFTA?
1745
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I
do not. The issue is the form of cultural industry which appears
to be in need of protection. I believe the minister is in the
process of negotiating that form of cultural protection.
The issue really is to equally access and have a level playing
field with respect to those industries which have either mass
appeal or that need large capitalization. In this way we can
have our cake and eat it too. Those industries which do not
require that protection will not have it in the agreement.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it unfortunate that some Liberals choose to say that the
Reform Party is not out to protect Canadian culture. It is quite
the contrary. The Reform Party recognizes that Canadian culture
is a very valuable commodity to this country but cannot be
protected with a broad instrument such as they are talking about.
A quote in the Ottawa Citizen on February 17 from Paris
reads “Scores of French writers, film-makers and composers
joined forces yesterday in Paris to defend their government
cultural subsidies against the threat posed by a new global
investment pact. They fear it will undermine its cultural
identity”.
Protection goes both ways. French-speaking people who want to
export Canadian culture will be stopped at the border of France
if the MAI is under a broad cultural exemption. If that is what
we want and what France has asked for, we will have a wonderful
little fortress with our Canadian culture with a great big wall
around it because we cannot get it out in spite of the fact that
Canadians and Canadian artists are world class people. We want
to give them the opportunity to be able to export.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed
in the member opposite in that it appears he has missed my major
point. I will repeat it.
The major point is that the industries which feel they are in
need of protection will obtain protection from this agreement.
However, those cultural industries which are not in need of
protection, such as the CanWest and Nordicitys in this world,
will not necessarily obtain it in the agreement.
My point is simple: We will have our cake and eat it too. That
is the essence of good negotiations and good agreement.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. What the hon. member
is saying is very good but he has heard some good comments from
this side. The hon. member is a fair member and has been around
for a while. Does he agree that this debate should come back to
this House for a full debate by all members of Parliament and
voted on so that all Canadians understand fully what the
agreement is going to be about?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already
said that and answered that question fully. It is an agreement
of this country and goes through the normal parliamentary
process. I do not know why the member needs to be concerned
about that.
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to
rise today on behalf of the government to speak to such a delicate
and important matter as the multilateral agreement on investment.
For Canada, the MAI is a fundamental agreement with regard to
what we are as a society, not only in social terms but also in
terms of economic development. On the subject of economic
development, I would point out that Canada is a leader around the
world. It is also a leader in the establishment and advancement of
multilateral processes.
The vitality of our economic component speaks eloquently of
our international interventions. Canada, whose foreign trade
represents over 40% of GDP, is one of the biggest trading nations
in the world in terms of the figures involved. This figure is the
highest of that of any of the G-7 countries.
Secondly, Canada's favourable trade balance increased from $7
billion in 1991 to $41 billion in 1996. So this agreement on
investment is very important for us.
I said we were and still are leaders in this area. In this
regard, we could perhaps look back and consider the first free
trade agreements. We could even consider the notion of free trade.
1750
It will be recalled that the first discussions on free trade,
on liberalization, date back to the turn of the century, with the
first Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada,
Wilfred Laurier. Then, in the aftermath of the second world war,
there was as we know a surge in globalization. Certain structures
were put into place, leading to the creation of the World Trade
Organization or WTO, which started out as GATT.
We know that the purpose of the WTO is to regulate
international trade, to make sure that the rules of the game, so to
speak, are respected.
It is increasingly evident now as we speak that economies are no
longer strictly national, that they are subject to international
rules.
The phenomenon of globalization is gaining strength.
Obviously, even if the WTO is doing a good job with trade
regulation and liberalization, through its own framework and
through the various bilateral and multilateral trade agreements
that may been signed, in this era of globalization there are other
elements that must be taken into account.
This is why the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
represents another important element.
It is one we must have at any price, if Canadian companies are to
enjoy more freedom on the international scene, to be able to invest
more readily and more confidently, and consequently to ensure that
the Canadian economy prospers and that we are able to continue to
hold our own and to create quality jobs.
Those who are against this agreement decry the fact that the
negotiations took place behind closed doors. I think that those
who say that are trying to mislead people. As a government, we
announced the start of negotiations with the other countries
involved in the discussions on May 24, 1995, three years ago.
Since then our government and all the other governments involved
have indicated their intention to reach an agreement.
My hon. colleague responsible for International Trade has also
been working extremely hard with parliamentarians in order to
develop a position that is strictly Canadian and will open up
markets, while respecting our strictly Canadian values.
In this connection, I must refer to the three guiding
principles underlying these discussions. The first element is that
this is a totally open process, not a secret one.
Second, the goal is to provide a framework for what, in this
era of globalization, is termed international investment, to
provide rules, standards, that will offer some security to
businesses with an eye to development on the international scene.
Third, we as a government will be signing an agreement that
will respect the principles of Canadian society, that will respect
our society's interests, and that will have job creation as its
ultimate goal.
In fact, a closer scrutiny of the MAI shows that this is,
essentially, an agreement which will provide businesses with a
framework and, in some cases, will create regulations such as those
already in place within the G-7.
The MAI will consist of a number of elements, three of which
we would classify as fundamental. First, there is the question of
the rule of expropriation.
1755
It is self-evident that this is a fundamental rule, and must
not be interpreted in such a way as to end up as a kind of hobble,
if I may use that word, to our role as a government to regulate and
legislate in the public interest.
My colleague responsible for international trade is perfectly
aware of the importance of defining the terms “expropriation”,
“legislation” and “national regulation”. He is aware too, because
it works both ways, of the importance of those definitions for our
companies when they wish to establish an international presence and
when they invest in other countries.
The second important element is the protection of our freedom
of action in areas that may be found at the very heart of Canadian
society. We obviously are referring to health care, social
programs, education, culture and programs for native peoples and
minorities.
The third element is the status quo. In other words, it means
that we will not accept any restriction in the areas indicated of
the freedom of action we currently enjoy.
In conclusion, we are told by our negotiators in Paris—
since everything is happening in Paris under the aegis of the OECD
—that negotiations are going well and we may reasonably expect to
reach an agreement that honours the points I have just mentioned
and the nature of Canadian society.
In other words, if we leave things in the hands of time and
the fine team of negotiators we have and with my colleague, the
Minister for International Trade, we will reach an agreement that
can only benefit Canadian society and all Canadian industries.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before any multilateral agreement is agreed upon by the Canadian
government, would this member favour this issue coming back to
the House of Commons for debate? Would he favour allowing time
for us to consult with our constituents, having a full debate in
the House of Commons and voting upon it here in this House?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my
speech, the negotiations with regard to this agreement were
announced three years ago. It is a custom with international
agreements that negotiations are carried out on a sort of
confidential basis. The member states involved in the
negotiation of the agreement are discussing the issues among
themselves. At the end of the process, they will reveal to their
populations the contents of the agreement. The negotiations are
underway.
As far as this government is concerned and as far as my
colleague, the Minister for International Trade has been
involved, we have been very open minded. We want to be sure of
the principles in this agreement. At the end of the day if we
decide to sign this agreement it will be because we have found
some Canadian principles enshrined in the agreement. We will
make sure those Canadian principles are good for—
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. We need some relevance here. I asked
the question of whether the government would bring this issue
back to the House for a vote in the House of Commons. I want an
answer to my question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of
the Chair, the hon. parliamentary secretary was on topic.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my hon. colleague. The negotiations currently under
way with the other countries are very important for our country's
future.
1800
Why not hold public hearings and allow a parliamentary
committee to travel across the country? This matter is so
important for Canadians as a whole. It is democratic to hold
public hearings, to discover the opinions of Canadians across the
country. Why not do that? It is a democratic thing to do.
I have a second question. There is a provision in the
agreement that concerns me a great deal; it says that, should
Canada sign the agreement, there would be no review for 20 years.
Does the parliamentary secretary agree with that?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of
consultation, I think my colleague for international trade was
quite eloquent in his remarks on the government's consultation
process.
As was pointed out, the agreement is essentially still under
negotiation among the parties to the round table, and, as I
mentioned earlier, under the aegis of the OECD.
On the second question, since the agreement is still being
negotiated and has not yet been ratified, the question is a
hypothetical one I cannot answer.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, when this negotiation is complete and the Government
of Canada has made up its mind to sign on, will it bring it back
to the House of Commons for a full debate of this House of
Commons and a vote by all members of this House of Commons, yes
or no?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, how many seconds do I
have? A minute. It is pretty amazing to see that the hon. member
comes back with what I would call with all due respect a
hypothetical question.
As I said, the negotiations are still under way. All the member
states are still involved in the negotiation process. I would
like to remind my colleague from the Reform Party that Canadians
supported this government in the last election. They trust this
government. The people of Canada know that my colleague
responsible for this department is taking care of our Canadian
principles. Let us give the negotiation process a chance and we
will see afterward.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have seen in this last speaker and this last exchange between the
opposition parties and the government exactly why this motion is
before the House today. It was brought forward by the Reform
Party not because we are not in favour of multilateral
agreements, not because we are afraid of free trade, not because
we do not think Canadians can compete, but because when this deal
is done, it should be debated and discussed and voted on by the
people Canada through their representatives here in the House of
Commons.
When that is not done, is it any wonder that Canadians spend
their time now in town hall meetings looking at one another
wistfully saying “Has anybody heard anything about the MAI? Has
anybody got a clue on the government side what this is all
about?”
It is obvious. Three times now, many times during the day but
certainly in this last go around here, there has been a point
blank question, when this deal is completed, will the government
bring it back to the House for debate and a vote. Then the hon.
member from the Liberal side stands up and asks how long he has
to answer that question. Is it yes or no? It reminds me of the
famous quote by Winston Churchill that it is the people who
control the government. Not the government, the people. That is
what it should be.
Members on that side of the House seem to think it is a good
idea for the government to control the people. Is it any wonder
that in the upcoming byelection in Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lou
Sekora, now the new found Liberal messiah, will come into the Port
Moody—Coquitlam riding and says “This is an excellent
opportunity for me to represent you in Ottawa”.
What is he actually up against? Maybe he does not know. I do
not know Lou Sekora, maybe he just does not know. Maybe he thinks
he is going to run it like his mayor's chair. But he is up
against the backroom boys. He is up against the smoky backrooms,
the cooked up deal presented to the Canadian people as a fait
accompli.
1805
We are all told to accept it like good little boys and girls.
When the Liberals are finished concocting this thing in whatever
format it might have, we are told to just accept it. Although
for some reason we are not at the level to understand the deal,
we have to accept it because the father Liberals will tell us it
is okay. It is the ultimate in Ottawa sending a message to Port
Moody—Coquitlam, British Columbia saying “We know what is best
for you. Do not ask any questions”.
Lou Sekora is going to find out in spades that is what he is up
against within the Liberal caucus. Do not ask a question. Do not
ruffle any feathers. Do not rock the boat. Just accept and then
sell the completed deal back in our ridings. Do not for heaven's
sake debate it here in the House of Commons. That is what he is
up against. That is too bad.
It is too bad because this debate should be about the MAI. Even
given the Liberals' reluctance to discuss this, we have learned
more from the government side today about the MAI, the process
and what they are up to than we have learned in the last two and
a half years. It is too bad the minister got so partisan. If he
had just answered the questions we would have learned quite a bit
more about this deal than we have learned so far through the
newspapers, through the rumour mill, through the wild imaginings
of Maude Barlow and her crowd.
It is too bad because this debate really is about a very
important subject for all Canadians. Free trade is important for
Canadians if it is done right. Multilateral agreements on
investment could be a good thing for Canada if they are done
right.
The problem, and the reason this motion is before the House
today, is that the government has not done it right. The process
has been wrong. The process is flawed. The government has been
very secretive. This secret in the government reminds me of an
abscessed tooth. It just sits there and bothers you, it grates
at you, antagonizes you and sticks the needle into you. It is a
secret. A constituent, a voter wants to know what it is about
and somebody says “No, no. It is a secret. You can't know”.
His jaw starts to ache. “What is it about those guys that is
causing this bunion on my gums? What is it that is forcing me to
feel so aggravated?”
It is the secrecy. They say, “You guys cannot know because you
are only the voters, you are only the business people and you are
only the constituents who have to live with the deal. Why should
you have to know about it?”
I am kind of partial to knowing what is going on in the country,
and not just because I am a member of Parliament. I have to live
here too.
No wonder constituents are looking for answers. They are not
getting them. That is secret, it is abscessing, it is getting
worse and it is causing this government a lot of damage on the
MAI because it has not been forthcoming with what should be going
on.
What have we said in the Reform Party? Our trade critic has
amply and adequately described it throughout the day during his
questions and answers. Let me run through the principles that
should be guiding this. What should be guiding it?
Openness in all multilateral agreements. Let us be open about
it and allow debate. Let us allow votes. Let us allow
discussion in a public forum, and this certainly is the most
public of forums. Lots of information explaining the costs and
the benefits of the deal.
I said before that an MAI could be a good thing for Canada. I
think it should be a good thing for Canada. We need foreign
investment. In turn we need to invest in other countries and so
on. That could be and should be a good deal for Canada.
Another is public consultation. The minister's idea of public
consultation with British Columbia at least is to hold a meeting
at the Chateau Laurier in the British Columbia room. He thinks
that you just throw the doors open in the Chateau Laurier, where
of course all the British Columbians are known to wait in the
morning to talk to the minister, you crawl down to the British
Columbia room, you throw the buffet open and say “They have been
consulted. The B.C. room was wide open. All of the British
Columbians that could pour into that room on short notice were
welcome to attend”.
That is not consultation. That is more of that niggling little
pointy part the dentist uses to get right into the filling. That
is the part that just says “Gee, you guys in B.C., why not take
that. How do you like that?”
The people who could not come to the British Columbia room at
the Chateau Laurier are back in my province of British Columbia
saying “I don't know what they are doing down there.
They will not tell me what they are doing. They will not discuss
it. They will not debate it. They will not vote on it when it
comes to conclusion. They will not have a discussion in the
House of Commons by the representatives we sent there”. Instead,
the six Liberal yes men and women they have in British Columbia
come here and say “Well, let me just get that needle again and
see if I can get it under the tooth and see if I can make you
more comfortable”. I think not. It is too bad.
1810
An hon. member: It is five Liberals.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Lou Sekora has trouble counting.
I conclude with a couple of comments that came from the minister
of trade when he was in opposition. This is what he said about
NAFTA. NAFTA is a very similar type of agreement as the MAI, we
think, although we cannot know because they will not tell us.
This is what he said about NAFTA:
Without any information and with the results clear as day on the
free trade agreement, Canadians can only respond with a certain
amount of genuine fear for themselves and their nation.
Hansard on March 24, 1992, in opposition that
Canadians must be part of the equation. I guess that means at the
British Columbia room at the Chateau Laurier:
Canadians must be part of the equation. They cannot be told at
the end this is good for them. Canadians must decide for
themselves, in conjunction with the Parliament, what is good for
themselves, their children and the future of the country.
That is what this motion of ours is about today. Sure we
condemn the government. Sure we say that it has mishandled this
file. The reason is obvious. Canadians have said this secrecy,
this way of giving us the fait accompli at the end of the process
is not the way to negotiate international agreements and expect
the Canadian people to buy into it.
That is the problem. The toothache, the secrecy, goes on too
often, too long and the debates here are simply a rubber stamp
instead of a meaningful debate and a meaningful vote. That should
change. This motion is to address that issue and try to get the
debate on the MAI at least started because the government has
failed at every step of the way in having meaningful debate on
the MAI, one of the most important agreements ever to face this
country.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a very serious question for the member opposite. I too believe
it is important to have discussions in ridings across this
country. I am having a town hall meeting on the multilateral
agreement on investment, an open forum, publicized in newspapers,
as are many people.
My question for this member who speaks so sanctimoniously about
how terrible it is to invite people to Ottawa is why has he as
the whip of his party not spoken to Grant Hill? The health
committee of this House of Commons wants to travel on the issue
of natural products and substances. We had a proposal that was
approved by the Board of Internal Economy and only because your
member refused we were able to travel the country to
listen to the views and concerns of people in Vancouver,
Winnipeg, Halifax and other parts of this country where the
committee wanted to go.
I ask the member, who is the whip of his party, why has he not
spoken to Grant Hill and given—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, a
couple of things. Before we give the member for Fraser Valley an
opportunity to respond, we do not refer to other members by name
in the House. Also, the Chair cannot recognize members unless
they are in their place. A 50 second response, the hon. member
for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say
to the hon. member. I do not know why she is trying to divert
this debate on to natural products. It was her health minister
who started the whole fracas on the natural food products. It
was her minister who tried to stymie people who wanted to get
access to natural products. It was her minister that put the
health police against the health inspector. But I do not want to
get excited about that.
Instead, I just want to say again that the opportunity to debate
in public forums has to be done across the country on all kinds
of issues. If the member wants to talk about natural products,
we can get off on that tangent but I am unwilling to at this
time.
The MAI should be discussed in public forums. When it is
finally discussed and negotiated, then the final debate, the
final public consultation happens here in the House of Commons
and a vote to ratify it takes place in this House.
1815
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 114
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 138
|
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to the
main motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 090]
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
ALLOTTED DAY—BRAIN DRAIN
The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The House
will now proceed to the taking of several deferred recorded
divisions.
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 17, 1998, the House will
now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on
the amendment relating to the business of supply.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the amendment now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Bloc Quebecois will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
1850
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the
independents in the House I vote yea.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 101
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the main
motion.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 091]
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion for second reading stage of Bill
C-21.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting yea, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Members of our party are voting in favour of
this motion, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the small
business people in York South—Weston I will be voting with the
government on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 201
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 51
|
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
THE CANADA SHIPPING ACT
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime
liability), be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment to the motion for second reading
of Bill S-4.
The question is on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the amendment now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, because this bill
originated in the Senate, the official opposition will vote yes
to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will
vote yes on this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
1855
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the bill should
originate here. I vote yes to the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Does the House give its consent to proceed
in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will make that
unanimous. I vote yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 252
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That on Thursday, February 26, 1998, notwithstanding any
standing order:
1. The House shall meet at 8.30 a.m. for the purpose of
considering Government Orders.
2. The daily routine of business, members' statements and oral
questions shall take place at the usual times.
3. Any questions required to be put on that day pursuant to
Standing Order 84 shall be put no later than 4.45 p.m.
4. The House shall then adjourn immediately after the question
referred to in part 3 above is decided.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1900
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the minister in December drew attention to the fact
that yet another report graphically portrayed the tragedy of a
million and a half Canadian children living in poverty in Canada.
There have been too many reports from the Canadian Association
of Food Banks, the Canadian Council on Social Development,
Campaign 2000 and others. All of these reports point to the same
thing, that the Liberal government has failed to address poverty.
In fact, the situation is much worse than when this House passed
a resolution unanimously in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by
the year 2000. The only thing that the Liberal government has
offered and has announced about four times is the national child
tax benefit.
But even the child tax benefit is woefully inadequate. The $850
million promised for the child tax benefit will not in any way
compensate for the regressive policies of the Liberal government,
nor the cutbacks in funding for social assistance of 40%.
As the benefit has been proposed, people on welfare will receive
no additional funds. While the funds will initially be
distributed to every child below a specified income level,
provincial governments will deduct that amount from current
welfare payments. This means that welfare poor children and their
families will gain absolutely nothing from the government plan.
Despite government assurances that no child will be worse off
under the plan, anti-poverty activists have real concerns
regarding the implications and the messages that this segregation
of working poor from welfare poor entails.
Without a commitment to a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda, the
national child benefit is a band-aid solution that actually acts
to depress wages and further marginalize poor people. Children
are poor because their parents are poor. Eliminating child and
family poverty will require a comprehensive strategy that must
include other essentials such as job creation, housing, child
care, training and post-secondary education.
The lack of affordable child care is a particular concern
because the benefit is structured to push low income mothers into
the workforce without providing funding for quality child care
options.
The federal government has consistently put child care on the
back burner despite promises to the contrary. There is no
discussion and no plans that we have seen about strengthening
child care as a complement to the child benefit.
We call on the government to review its child tax benefit and to
acknowledge and recognize that this benefit is woefully
inadequate and will not in any way compensate or substitute for
the cutbacks that we have experienced.
If the government is committed to eliminating poverty in this
country and helping poor children and their families, then we
must at the very least ensure that this child tax benefit has
adequate funds, is fully indexed and also applies to families on
welfare.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not
the first time but the second time in the last week that I have
been asked to speak on behalf of the government as it relates to
child poverty based on a question that the member from Vancouver
East has asked.
I am quite frankly appalled that the member continues to suggest
that this government and in fact all governments in Canada do not
think that child poverty is a priority. Two years ago this June
governments of all persuasions, not only Liberal, Conservative
but in fact NDP governments, came together at a premiers'
conference, with the Prime Minister chairing that particular
conference, and made it very clear that the number one priority
of Canadians was child poverty and that we would put in place in
a partnership kind of scenario, certain programs that would help
children and, of course, help their families at the same time.
1905
We started that off with an $850 million down payment on a
program that is going to be one of the most far-reaching programs
that this generation has ever seen. I cannot for the life of me
understand why this member continues to suggest that not just
this government but all governments are not committed to this
very important issue.
Let me emphasize that this particular question is one which we
have taken very seriously. The Campaign 2000 organization, which
we all know, of course, is not a Conservative think tank, has
said this is the first time that both levels of government have
acknowledged the need for a plan to jointly address child
poverty. I again emphasize a plan.
Yes, of course there are problems. We are working toward it. We
are going to put programs in place and we will see them roll out
as that plan starts to unfold in the weeks and months and years
to come.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this
motion to adjourn, when we know that tomorrow is an important day,
budget day. On the eve of the budget, I think it is appropriate
for two opposition MPs to raise the issue of the battle against
poverty.
Despite what this government may say, the present situation in
Canada is far from rosy in this connection.
Poverty is increasing, and as I asked on November 25, 1997, of all
those billions that are surplus in the employment insurance fund,
is there not some way the government could make a special effort to
get some of it back into the pockets of the unemployed during the
time they are without work?
Let us never lose sight of the fact that, when there is talk
of child poverty, it is very rare for poor children not to have
poor parents, and the most important issue is to ensure that
parents have enough money to live on.
We know that the employment insurance program can be self-financing
and make an acceptable surplus with premiums of $2 per $100 of insurable
earnings, as compared to the current rate of $2.70 per $100. Could the
government not provide in tomorrow's budget for a reasonable premium
reduction and use part of the 70 cents difference to improve the quality
of life of those who find themselves without work?
Would that not be a good way for the government to really fight
poverty with the main tool at its disposal, namely the EI fund?
Another point I wanted to make about the November 25, 1997 question
is this. The minister's response at the time was “We are following this
reform very closely”.
He was referring to the tabling, early in 1998, of a report evaluating
the reform for 1997.
The report was tabled last week or the week before, and it does not
contain any recommendation. On the one hand, the minister claims to be
following the reform closely and promises that, if changes are needed,
they will put everything on the table, but on the other hand, he tables
a report for the entire year 1997, which does not include a single
recommendation.
Will the minister decide to leave evaluation of the reform up
to people who are capable of making concrete, short-term
recommendations to him, because those now covered by the Employment
Insurance Act, who are watching their benefits shrink and the
number of weeks dwindle, or who are not eligible for benefits at
all, cannot wait for the 1999 report, which will tell us that in
1998 they have still not managed to find the figures?
Members of all the parties on the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
would certainly be able to come up with all kinds of examples and
amendments to the act in order to make it more humane as quickly as
possible, and ensure an acceptable minimum income for all
unemployed workers.
Will the government take the opportunity offered by tomorrow's
budget to put solutions on the table and finally ensure that its
reform is fair?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit
that I find it very humorous. Those of us who were in this House
in the last Parliament debated the EI changes in a very
significant way.
The committee—and my colleague from Malpeque was there—spent a
lot of time talking about what the changes would mean. Of course
when we implement changes of this magnitude, the largest changes
in the last 25 years, there is going to be a period of
adjustment. There will be a time when there are some unknowns.
1910
In the legislation we committed ourselves to five separate
reports, to monitor the system as it unfolds before Canadians to
see if it has the right kind of effect on workers, if it has the
right kind of effect on training and if it has the right
component of insurance. There are both passive and active
measures. This legislation is different from what we saw in the
previous unemployment insurance legislation.
The first monitoring report which was tabled in Parliament last
month obviously suggested very strongly that it was a preliminary
report. Most of the information which the hon. member talked
about cannot be forthcoming from the new legislation because it
has just been implemented. We cannot get the data because people
have not been under the new system long enough for us to make a
judgment.
What that member and other members opposite are doing is
basically playing with rhetoric, with words, because until we see
the second, third, fourth and fifth monitoring reports and get
the real data we will not be able to make a factual analysis of
whether in fact the new EI changes are working or not working.
I want to make this very clear. The commitment of the
government is very clear on this issue. If there is a need for
changes, if the monitoring shows that there are certain areas
which are not working properly and require modification, this
government is prepared to make those changes. That is the
obligation and the commitment of this government.
HAITI
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question originally had to do with the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and the military in Haiti. I would like to tell
the House right off the bat that this question has absolutely
nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the safety
of the RCMP members stationed there on the peacekeeping mission.
Actually, I believe that it is now a training mission.
In any event, the two areas we were dealing with after the
military left had to do with the physical safety of members of
the RCMP as they carried out their training duties and their work
with the local police forces.
Haiti is a relatively unstable country. It is still working out
its democratic institutions.
A couple of recent events come to mind. For example, a police
chief was reportedly killed in the area with a machete.
Apparently he was beheaded. That indicates that the level of
violence to which I am referring is present.
At the time of my question and at the time of committee meetings
on the RCMP superannuation act, one of the assistant
commissioners stated that the RCMP did have some concerns and
that they were sending a medical officer to Haiti to look into
the situation and ensure that members of the force were being
properly taken care of.
If a member of the RCMP is injured we want to ensure that they
have the care required, similar to what they would receive in
Canada.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is twofold. Are the
members of the RCMP in Haiti sufficiently safe in their duties,
having due regard to the local situation? This also includes
other countries which might have military support in Haiti.
Second, if a member of the RCMP is injured, either slightly or
seriously, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that there
will be adequate care given to that member?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address
the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
We are very proud of the quality of the people who were sent to
Haiti by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and with the way they
co-operate and work as part of the full team with Canadian armed
forces personnel.
Canada has had a large number of people serve in Haiti and the
police have certainly received all kinds of praise during their
tour because of their excellent instruction and the models they
have presented to the Haitian police.
1915
In terms of the numbers of people who were there, we had 650
Canadian forces personnel and more than 50 members of the
Canadian civilian police, mainly the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. When we left we did leave some protection. We left the
Bisons, the armoured personnel carriers, so that when they
paroled they would not be fully exposed. They would give them
protection while patrolling from one town to another or within
the cities of Haiti.
The main accomplishment of the military components was to
establish some form of stability. It was not perfect when we
left but it will take a long time before we ever get the Haitians
to conform to the kinds of patterns that we would like to see.
The modelling was never there. The kinds of rules and respect
for the rule of law were not instilled in the civilian
population. As a consequence, our police and our soldiers going
in as peacekeepers had to play a lot of it as they saw it and use
common sense.
They performed indispensable functions in monitoring and
training national police forces. They played a major role
through the assistance of local police forces in restoring civil
order and contributing to the building of confidence and security
between the parties and the local populations. That was what the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police did.
With the 46 members of the police force there we have not had a
major incident. They have looked after themselves well and have
been well protected in due course.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to focus my attention this evening on the
government's failed strategy of quiet diplomacy to resolve the
Pacific salmon treaty dispute and the recent resignation of
Canada's tough talking and well respected chief negotiator, Yves
Fortier.
Throughout the dispute, Mr. Fortier has forcefully and
eloquently articulated the concerns of Canadian fishermen. He
has asserted three points over and over again which the Prime
Minister and the minister of fisheries have failed to listen to.
Mr. Fortier's three points were that the Americans were
overfishing Canadian salmon stocks which violates the equity
principle of the treaty, that the Canada-U.S. stakeholder process
is doomed to fail because U.S. states and Indian or aboriginal
tribes have no interest in agreeing in a reduction of a catch of
Canadian bound salmon, and that the U.S. and Canadian governments
must resolve the dispute at the senior political level, a
tete-a-tete between the Prime Minister and president. It is time
to call in the so-called A team.
The report of special envoys Ruckelshaus and Strangway backs Mr.
Fortier on these three points. Why did Mr. Fortier resign if the
Ruckelshaus-Strangway report vindicated everything that he had
been saying for the past four years as Canada's chief negotiator?
In his letter of resignation, Mr. Fortier outlined two paths the
Canadian government could take to resolve the dispute. Ottawa
could demand international arbitration and lobby Washington
vigorously to impose a compromise on U.S. stakeholders, or Ottawa
could weaken its demands and essentially sell out the fishermen
to calm the waters between Ottawa and Washington.
Is it true that Mr. Fortier resigned because Ottawa decided on
the second path, to sacrifice Canadian fishermen for the sake of
warmer relations with Washington? Rumours are circulating on the
west coast that the U.S. state department refused to continue
negotiations if Mr. Fortier remained as Canada's chief
negotiator. Could the minister confirm that the state department
did ask for Mr. Fortier's resignation and, if it did, why did the
Canadian government capitulate to American demands?
As the Canadian government calms the waters between Ottawa and
Washington through quiet diplomacy, a storm is brewing off the
B.C. coast. This summer the estimated average catch will only be
50 to 100 sockeye per boat on the north coast. There is also a
major crisis with Skeena River coho, stocks that the Alaskans
have been overfishing for years. There is a desperate situation
developing in the B.C. coastal communities.
When will the Prime Minister demand that President Clinton sit
down to resolve the dispute? When will the government assert
itself to protect the interests of Canadian fishermen and demand
that the Americans put conservation first?
Last summer the minister of fisheries talked of quiet diplomacy,
that he could do nothing to stop American fishing except talk
nice. As a result Canadian fishermen became desperate, backed
into a corner by Alaskan overfishing and disastrous federal
fishing policies that have left many almost bankrupt.
These fishermen then engaged in some gumboot diplomacy of their
own, blockading the U.S. ferry Malaspina to stop the
overfishing.
1920
When will the government learn that selling out Canadian
fishermen to placate Washington will only cause more conflict and
more pain for B.C. coastal communities and salmon fishermen?
When will the Prime Minister find the backbone to stand up to
President Clinton and demand his country live up to its
obligations under the international treaty?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised
by some of the comments of the member opposite. He should know
full well that the government is standing behind B.C. fishermen
in their quest for a settlement. However I am little surprised
by the slant he is taking in terms of being very selective in the
points he picked out of Mr. Fortier's letter.
Read in its entirety, however, the letter is a clear description
of the history of the Pacific salmon dispute and what needs to be
done in the future.
Throughout the letter Mr. Fortier's sense of dedication and
commitment shine through. After five years as chief negotiator
on this difficult issue, it is not surprising that he expresses
frustration with past experiences. Unfortunately those
statements have been taken out of context. It is important to
quote some of the other statements made in Mr. Fortier's letter.
He describes Canada's position in past negotiations as “clear
and forceful yet flexible and fair” and Canadian demands as
“valid, justified, reasonable and practicable”. He describes
how Canada only agreed to a stakeholder process after negotiating
a formal framework which required a commitment by the United
States to resolve through government to government negotiations
all issues left unresolved by stakeholders.
Mr. Fortier refers to this as “another significant victory for
Canada, one that afforded us certain opportunities”. It is
those opportunities that the Government of Canada now hopes to
capitalize on.
Mr. Fortier describes the Ruckelshaus-Strangway report as “the
most recent positive development for Canada”. He states that we
have made progress and the government has been provided the tools
with which to achieve the benefits that are its due under the
treaty.
Finally it should be pointed out that the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are now leading
consultations aimed at developing an effective negotiating
process. The Government of Canada intends to stand behind B.C.
fisherman and ensure that there is a negotiated settlement to
this process.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.23 p.m.)