36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 18
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 4, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Heritage Canada
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1005
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-304. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-305. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1010
| DEBT SERVICING AND REDUCTION ACCOUNT ACT
|
| Bill C-306. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| BROADCASTING ACT
|
| Bill C-307. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-308. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-309. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
|
| Reference to Standing Committees
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1015
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Telephone Services
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Child Support
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Rights of Parents
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1020
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Security Intelligence Service—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1025
1030
1035
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1040
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Policy
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Motion
|
1045
1050
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1055
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1100
1105
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1130
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1135
1140
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1145
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1150
1155
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1200
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1205
1210
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1215
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1220
1225
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1230
1235
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1240
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1245
1250
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1255
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1300
1305
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1310
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1315
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1320
1325
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1330
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1335
1340
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1345
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1350
| Mr. John Richardson |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| RAILWAYS
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1400
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1405
| DRINKING WATER
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| NUCLEAR WEAPONS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1410
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CHINA
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1415
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BUDGET SURPLUS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1430
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PORT OF VANCOUVER
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| BUDGET SURPLUS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CULTURE
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CHECHNYA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1505
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1510
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1515
| The Speaker |
1520
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1525
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Policy
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
1530
1535
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1600
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1605
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1610
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1615
1620
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1625
1630
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1635
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1640
1645
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1650
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1715
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1720
| Mr. André Bachand |
1725
1730
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1735
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1740
1745
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1750
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1755
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1815
1820
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1825
1830
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1835
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1840
1845
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Homelessness
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1850
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1855
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 18
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 4, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting
Supplementary Estimates (A) of the sums required for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2000 was presented by the Hon. President
of Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HERITAGE CANADA
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled A Sense of
Place, A Sense of Being: The Evolving Role of the Federal
Government in Support of Culture in Canada.
I would like to apologize to the members of this House for the
fact that this document was leaked to the press. This was in no
way intentional and we sincerely apologize; I trust that my hon.
colleagues will accept that it was in no way the government's
intention that this should occur.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
1005
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the second report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at a meeting of the subcommittee on the future of the armed
forces held in Turkey on June 27 to 30, 1999.
* * *
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research
Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(joint custody).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Crowfoot
seconding this bill this morning.
I note that I have introduced this bill a couple of times in the
past.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure the courts grant custody of
a child to both parents unless there exists evidence that to do
so would not be in the best interests of the child. Automatic
joint custody could reduce the number of parents forced to go to
court to gain access to their children, increase the likelihood
of support payment compliance and reduce the likelihood of one
parent denying the other's right to see the children. Statistics
from the U.S. indicate financial compliance increases in direct
relation to access.
The recent report of the Special Joint Committee on Child
Custody and Access recommended that joint parenting be included
in new legislation. However, the justice minister has announced
there would be no new legislation from her before 2001. Children
simply cannot wait that long.
I would hope that members from all parties would support this
important bill for the sake of the children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prohibiting certain offenders from changing their name).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Dewdney—Alouette for seconding this bill.
Given the current revelation of Karla Homolka changing her name
to another name and attempting to move to a community release
facility, I am once again encouraged to resubmit this bill that
was submitted some time ago under different concerns.
The concern still remains the same. Violent offenders are
changing their names while in prison. The consequences of that,
from my research across the country, is that many people do not
know these individuals once they are out of prison and living
under other names. Under new names, they are indeed committing
more offences.
I ask the House to consider this which speaks for itself. There
has to be some responsibility on our system of governance today
to ensure that violent offenders are not changing their names and
moving into our society subsequent to release or even on parole
with a new driver's licence, new identification and continuing on
with other crime sprees.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
DEBT SERVICING AND REDUCTION ACCOUNT ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-306, an act to amend the Debt Servicing and
Reduction Account Act (gifts to the Crown).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill when passed by the House will
ensure that anyone who gives a gift to the crown for the purposes
of debt reduction is assured that money is actually used for debt
reduction and does not disappear into the general revenue fund.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-307, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(designation of cable channels).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill once passed will amend the
Broadcasting Act to put an end to the practice of the CRTC
directing that cable companies must provide specific channels in
the range of 2 to 13 which causes constant disruption to people's
cable ranges in the major cities. It would end the political
correctness once and for all and allow the cable companies to
provide channels in that range based on market demand and viewer
preference.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my seconder, the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, for supporting this very
important bill.
I am sure that after careful consideration this bill will sweep
the nation and the House of Commons like no other private
member's bill ever has.
The basic purpose of the bill is to allow members of community
service groups a tax credit in respect of their annual membership
dues. I am thinking in terms of Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs,
Kinsmen Clubs, et cetera, that now face pressure because of
government downloading from all federal, provincial and municipal
governments.
The pressure on volunteer and service groups is ever-mounting.
Many of these volunteers have volunteer burnout. Enrolment is
down in a lot of the service groups across the country because of
the burnout. This bill shows the volunteers of this great
country of ours that parliament does care and that their
membership dues should be fully tax deductible.
I am thankful for the opportunity to present the finest bill the
House of Commons has ever seen.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-309, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory
labelling for genetically modified foods).
She said: Mr. Speaker, the genetically modified food industry is
growing rapidly. More and more such products are turning up in
our shopping baskets. I would humbly submit that consumers are
entitled to know the contents of the food on their plates.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to move a
motion concerning referral of the supplementary estimates to the
standing committees of the House.
1015
There is a lengthy list of these committees associated with the
motion. If it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the
list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2000, laid upon the Table November 4, 1999, be
referred to the several standing committees of the House in
accordance with the detailed allocation attached.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 6a, 10a,
15a, 35a and 50a
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a and 25a
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1a, 5a, 50a, 60a, 65a, 70a, 75a, 80a,
90a, 110a, 115a and 130a
Privy Council, Vote 30a
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 11a, 20a, 25a, 30a, 41a,
45a and 50a
Health, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a and 25a
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Human Resources Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a
and 35a
Industry, Votes 1a, 5a, 20a, 25a, 30a, 35a, 40a, 45a, 50a, 55a,
70a, 75a, 85a, 90a, 95a, 100a, 110a, 115a and 120a
Justice, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 30a, 40a, 45a and 50a
Solicitor General, Votes 1a, 10a, 15a, 25a, 35a, 40a and 50a
National Defence, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a and L11a
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a
Canadian Heritage, Vote 125a
Governor General, Vote 1a
Natural Resources, Votes 1a, 5a, 15a, 20a, 22a and 25a
Privy Council, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a and 55a
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1a and 10a
Treasury Board, Votes 1a, 10a and 15a
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
TELEPHONE SERVICES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
now been contacted by hundreds of people who are concerned about
the fact that there are families in Peterborough County that lack
telephone service. I am pleased to present the petition.
The petitioners say that whereas Canada is the most connected
country in the world and whereas Canadians in Canada pioneered
telephones and telephone service, it is extraordinary that there
are homes in southern Ontario today, specifically on Peterborough
County Road 40, that do not have telephone service.
A short drive from the city of Peterborough there are families
with children without telephones. They have telephone poles at
their gates. There are homes with phones within a few
kilometres.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to intervene on
their behalf through relevant federal departments, the CRTC and
Bell Canada.
CHILD SUPPORT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today on
behalf of the residents of Prince George—Peace River.
The first petition deals with concerns about the old Bill C-41,
the federal child support guidelines. In it the petitioners note
that this act severely restricts a non-custodial parent's ability
to meet the responsibilities as a parent.
They call upon parliament to amend the new federal child support
guidelines to address their concerns. They ask that provisions
contained in the old Bill C-41 be repealed and replaced by an act
that is more fair, equitable and sensible to parents and
children.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with concerns about child
pornography, specifically in British Columbia, and the fact that
the B.C. Court of Appeal has struck down subsection 163(1)(4) of
the criminal code that makes possession of child pornography a
criminal offence and that the court decision is therefore placing
children in British Columbia at risk.
They call upon parliament to take all necessary measures up to
and including the use of the notwithstanding clause to ensure
that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence and that police forces be directed to give priority to
enforcing this law for the protection of our children.
RIGHTS OF PARENTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition to submit to the House from concerned citizens
throughout my riding.
They say that section 43 of the criminal code recognizes the
primary role of parents in the raising and disciplining of their
children and that the removal of section 43 of the criminal code
would strengthen the role of bureaucrats while weakening the role
of parents in determining what is in the best interest of
children, and therefore would be a major and unjustified
intrusion by the state into the realm of parental rights and
responsibilities.
Therefore the petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty
of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of the
Criminal Code of Canada as it is currently worded.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1020
[Translation]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
The Speaker: I have received a notice of motion under Standing
Order 52 from the hon. member for Jonquière.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 52, I call on the House to hold an emergency
debate on the importing of mixed oxide fuel, MOx, containing
military plutonium.
As members know, the government has unilaterally agreed to
transport a small quantity of MOx from American and Russian
nuclear arms for trials on its use as a fuel in Canadian nuclear
reactors. The government will thus act contrary to a unanimous
recommendation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
which rejected the idea of importing MOx.
Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the idea of
importing plutonium and asked the ministers of foreign affairs
and natural resources to drop the idea.
The ever thorny issue of residual waste management, the lack of
cost effectiveness, the clear opposition by a growing number of
citizens, resolutions by a number of municipalities preventing
the passage of such a convoy through their territory and the
risk of terrorism involved in the movement of this substance
seriously reduce the credibility of the importation proposal.
For all these reasons and because the MOx could be transported
as early as November 15, with the Russians' share potentially
having already left the port of St. Petersburg, we think an
emergency debate is necessary.
The government must justify its decision, which runs totally
contrary to what the people want and what was recommended by the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, and allow
parliamentarians to debate this question of importing plutonium,
even before trials are permitted on Canadian soil.
Accordingly, I ask you to consider my request for an emergency
debate favourably.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I read the hon. member's
letter before entering the House and I have listened attentively
to her explanation, but, in my opinion, her arguments do not
meet the specific requirements at the moment.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Before we proceed to orders of the day,
I will now deal with a question of privilege from the hon. member
for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley that was brought before the
House on October 14, 1999, with further interventions on October
21 and 25, 1999. The question of privilege concerned the
activities and conduct of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service during the course of a lawsuit against the member.
I thank all members who participated in this debate for their
helpful contributions in this matter. In particular, I would
like to draw attention to the presentations made by the hon.
government House leader, the opposition House leader, the hon.
member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia. The many thorough submissions have helped
the Chair In making this important and far-reaching decision. The
Chair is also grateful for the accompanying material submitted by
the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
Perhaps it might be useful at this time to acquaint everyone
with the events that took place, which led to the raising of this
question of privilege. The hon. member benefited from the
parliamentary privileges accorded to all members when she put
certain questions in the House during question period on alleged
spy activities by certain employees of CSIS. Subsequent to this,
the hon. member released related material outside the House of
Commons that inadvertently contained the actual name of a former
employee of CSIS. I am sure all hon. members know that immunity
accorded to members in the House does not exist when statements
are made outside the House. A civil lawsuit ensued and the case
was subsequently settled out of court.
[Translation]
The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley in her
presentation covered a great deal of ground in relation to this
matter. For the benefit of the entire House, I would like to
quickly outline the grievances brought forth by the hon. member.
1025
[English]
First, she indicated that CSIS improperly collected information
and then disclosed that information to a third party in clear
violation of CSIS policy.
Second, she affirmed that CSIS took an active role in the
preparation of a lawsuit against an opposition member of
parliament, including having its legal counsel provide the
plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer with advice.
Third, she contended that CSIS had misused its authority under
the guise of the protection of national security and deliberately
misled the court to frustrate her attempts to resolve the
lawsuit.
The hon. member argued that these actions on the part of CSIS
constituted a deliberate effort by CSIS to intimidate her and
prevent her from speaking freely in the House of Commons and from
performing her role as official opposition critic. She felt that
the evidence provided was sufficient to find that there was a
prima facie case of contempt of the House against the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. Erskine May suggests on page 143
of the 20th edition that:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which
might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for
contempt being in its nature discretionary...It may be stated
generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes
either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions,
or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House
in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly
or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a
contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley stated
that she would “provide prima facie evidence to the Chair that
demonstrates how the conduct and activities of CSIS regarding
this case form what she believes to be a new and disturbing
method of intimidation of a member of parliament”.
[Translation]
Consequently what the Chair must decide, on the basis of the
facts presented, is whether she has provided the necessary
evidence to substantiate a prima facie claim of privilege.
[English]
Let me begin by addressing the three points that relate to the
actions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The
member stated that the plaintiff was in possession of documents
improperly collected and supplied by CSIS. The material included
press clippings, press releases, radio transcripts and the like.
She also indicated that certain items of this information were
not asked for by the plaintiff but rather were given directly
without any solicitation by CSIS to the plaintiff. Before
addressing the issue of the improper collection of these
documents, I must first underline that the material alluded to
was in the public domain and readily available to any member or
private citizen.
The issue of whether the collection and disclosure of these
documents was in contravention of the CSIS Act or internal
policies of the agency is not for the Speaker to judge. The
member has also stated that CSIS purposely prolonged legal
proceedings by providing misinformation in order to prevent the
member from having the case heard in court and also deny her the
right to raise concerns about the case for three and a half
years. Proven or unproven, such misconduct by CSIS is not for
the Speaker or the House to decide. It would be a matter for the
judicial system to review or for the Security Intelligence Review
Committee to investigate.
If the member feels that specific sections of the CSIS Act have
been breached by CSIS employees, then these matters can be dealt
with through the complaints procedures established by parliament
in the Canadian Security Intelligence Act. As I understand it,
the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, was
established in 1984 as an independent body to review the
activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. SIRC's
second role is to investigate complaints from the public about
any CSIS action. Any person who has knowledge of inappropriate
activities by CSIS can complain to SIRC.
[Translation]
In fact, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has the
power to initiate such an investigation without necessarily
having received a formal complaint. Given the fact that three
of the five members of the committee are former
parliamentarians, at the federal and provincial level, I have no
doubt that they would take this matter up with special interest.
1030
[English]
While the Security Intelligence Review Committee can investigate
and report on the appropriateness of activities within and by
CSIS, the question of whether such actions constituted an attempt
to intimidate a member of this House, and are thus a contempt of
the House, fall within the sole authority of the Speaker and are
questions that I take very seriously.
It appears that what we have before us are allegations by an
hon. member to the effect that her parliamentary privileges have
been breached due to deliberate attempts by an outside agency to
impede the member from performing her parliamentary duties.
Precisely speaking, the hon. member protests that one of her
basic privileges, “the freedom of speech”, has been breached by
a deliberate effort of intimidation accomplished by CSIS through
support to a court action by a plaintiff against the member.
Any attempt to intimidate a member with a view to influencing
his or her parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege.
Privilege is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. In
the 22nd edition of May it is stated at page 65:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed
by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High
Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually,
without which they could not discharge their functions, and which
exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
The position put forward by the hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley is to the effect that CSIS made an
effort to intimidate her, thereby limiting her freedom of speech
in the House, resulting in the hon. member being unable to
perform her role as official opposition critic. This, my
colleagues, is a very serious charge.
There can be no question as to the relevance and appropriateness
of the principle invoked by the hon. member.
[Translation]
Indeed, as all hon. members know, the privilege of freedom of
speech is so fundamental that this House could not discharge its
constitutional functions without it. Beauchesne's 6th edition,
at page 22, states:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned
and the most fundamental right of the member of parliament on
the floor of the House and in committee.
[English]
There are, however, limits to parliamentary privilege. Speaker
Lamoureux in his April 29, 1971 ruling indicated that privilege
sets hon. members apart from other citizens by giving them rights
that the general public does not have. In his ruling he stated:
In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the
right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a
member to discharge his or her duties in the House as a member of
the House of Commons.
Speaker Jerome, when speaking on the limits of parliamentary
privilege in his ruling of February 20, 1975, went in the same
direction as Speaker Lamoureux. He added:
The consequences of extending that definition of privilege to
innumerable areas outside this chamber into which the work of an
MP might carry him or her, and particularly to the great number
of grievances he might or she might encounter in the course of
that work, would run contrary to the basic concept of privilege.
[Translation]
However, if a member is subjected to threats and intimidation,
he or she is clearly hindered in the fulfilment of the
parliamentary duties for which he or she was elected. As Joseph
Maingot writes, in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,
on page 235:
[—] not every action by an outside body that may influence the
conduct of a member of parliament as such could now be regarded
as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and
intended to bring pressure on the member to take or to refrain
from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper
means to influence or obstruct a member in his parliamentary
work may constitute contempt.
What constitutes an improper means of interfering with members'
parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts
of each case. Finally, there must be some connection between
the material alleged to contain the interference and the
parliamentary proceeding.
1035
[English]
The question that must be answered is what constitutes
proceedings in parliament. Speaker Fraser, in his ruling of July
18, 1988, defined proceedings of parliament in the following
manner:
This phrase has never been exactly and completely defined by
statute, by the courts of law, or by the House itself. In its
narrow sense the expression is used to denote the formal
transaction of business in the House or in committee.
Traditionally it covers both the asking of a question and the
giving of a written notice of such question, and also includes
everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his or her
functions as a Member of the House, either in the House or in any
committee of the House in the transaction of parliamentary
business.
I may have been somewhat lengthy in my remarks, my colleagues,
but I thought that this is matter of such seriousness that it was
incumbent upon me to clearly explain what constitutes privilege,
contempt and proceedings in parliament. It is my duty to
determine whether the actions taken by CSIS can be seen to have
had as their purpose to influence or obstruct the hon. member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley in her parliamentary work and
within the context of a proceeding in parliament.
Bluntly stated, the question is: Was the support by CSIS of a
former employee of CSIS intended to “chill” the hon. member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley from participating in question
period, debate in the House or committees of the House? Or, the
question can be restated more generally as follows: Did CSIS
provide inappropriate support to a former employee of CSIS who
was suing the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley
because she is a member of parliament and was a critic of the
agency in a parliamentary proceeding? If the answer to either of
these questions is yes, then I must rule, in keeping with our
practice, that a prima facie case of contempt has occurred.
I have reviewed the hon. member's presentation. I have
re-reviewed it and gone through it on at least four occasions—I
want to underline that—and found that nothing she said would
lead to an affirmative answer to these two questions. I have
also carefully assessed the submission by the hon. member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, including all of the
complementary material which she made available, and I have not
been able to conclude that the actions of CSIS, as reported by
the hon. member, constitute a prima facie case of privilege.
The actions by CSIS may indeed have prolonged the civil process,
but the hon. member has not provided the Chair with sufficient
grounds to warrant further action by the House at this time.
Should new facts emerge or if the hon. member returns to the
House with other substantive evidence, I would of course listen
to her again, because, if proven, her allegation would be very
disturbing.
I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention
and all hon. members for their patience while I looked into the
details.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among party leaders and House leaders,
and I believe you would find unanimous consent and approval for
the adoption of the following motion in relation to speaking
times today. I move:
That, during today's sitting the member proposing a motion on an
allotted day shall not speak for more than twenty minutes,
following which a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made
available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and
comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow
responses thereto, and immediately thereafter a representative of
each of the recognized parties, other than that of the member
proposing the motion, may be recognized to speak for not more
than ten minutes, following which, in each case, a period not
exceeding five minutes shall be made available, if required, to
allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters
relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
1040
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to ask if the time that it took for your ruling could be
added to the debate today. In other words, could we extend the
time on the debate?
The Speaker: There would have to be unanimous consent of
the House. Is there unanimous consent to present such a request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Does the House concur in the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE POLICY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, this
government has sabotaged Canadian democracy by pursuing a trade
policy that gives excessive power to unelected and unaccountable
international trade organizations and erodes the ability of
Canada's elected representatives to act in the public interest;
and
That therefore the government should not negotiate any
further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle
meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the Free Trade
Area of the Americas (FTAA) without first securing enforceable
international rules on core labour standards, environmental
protection, cultural diversity, the preservation of public health
care and public education and, generally, the right of
democratically-elected governments to act for the common good;
and
That the government should seek to eliminate the investor-
state dispute mechanism in Chapter 11 of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which gives foreign corporations the
right to sue and intimidate Canadian governments as in the cases
involving MMT and bulk water exports, and should refuse to
include such a mechanism in any other trade agreement; and
further
That the government should take action to remedy its over-zealous
and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade
liberalisation, which has caused extreme hardship for Canadian
farmers, whose domestic support payments have been slashed by
60%, three times what was actually required by Canada's
international trading obligations.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
debate this important NDP opposition day motion. I will be
dividing my time with my colleague, the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Four weeks from now, in a non-descript meeting room in a downtown
hotel in Seattle, a team of Canadian negotiators will sit down
around a table to begin the next round of negotiations of the
World Trade Organization.
Few Canadians know what is at stake in these negotiations and
the Liberal government is not about to tell them. Why? Because
what is at stake in Seattle is nothing less than our universal
health care system, our public education, the future of our
family farms, our cultural sovereignty and the environmental
legacy that we leave for our children.
These are the things that make us one of the world's great
nations. They shape and define us as Canadians, as a caring and
compassionate society, as a vigorous economy and as a place of clean
air to breathe and pure water to drink.
[Translation]
Because of the Liberals' failure to act, everything that defines
us as Canadians is on the table in Seattle.
[English]
If the Liberal government came clean with what is on the table
in Seattle, Canadians would be horrified, just as they were a few
years ago when they discovered that the Liberal government had
spent three years negotiating the MAI behind closed doors.
In that instance ordinary Canadians gathered together. We
worked with other democracies and other progressive organizations
around the world and we dealt a death blow to the MAI. It just
shows how well democracy can work and how well it will work if
ordinary citizens see a threat and work together to stop it.
1045
The WTO has been called a new economic constitution for the
planet. What it really is is a hostile corporate takeover. It
is a takeover of Canada's most important public services and
programs by the world's largest corporations. The trade minister
actually acknowledged this when he stated that under the WTO
regime “the state has surrendered a large part of its
jurisdiction to the market and now transnational actors are the
ones controlling the key elements”. Canadians do not want this
to happen. They will not let this happen.
[Translation]
The WTO represents a takeover by multinationals of the public
programs and services so valued by Canadians. It is
unacceptable.
[English]
A long list of Canada's public policies, laws and programs have
already fallen victim to trade disputes. They include programs
to support Canadian publishing, standards for toxic fuel
additives, and funding for research and development in our high
tech sector.
Last week Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers were here on
Parliament Hill asking for help. Instead of desperately needed
help they got flim-flam, the now you see it, now you don't
magical disappearing statistics.
One of the reasons that farmers need help is the trade
negotiations of the 1980s. While Canada sat at the world table
working to dissolve subsidies, the United States was busy
stepping up its export enhancement program and capturing key
chunks of Canada's world market. Meanwhile, the federal Liberal
government slashed farmers' domestic support payments by 60%,
three times the amount required by our WTO obligations.
This time in the upcoming WTO round, the trade negotiators are
taking direct aim at our most valuable national asset, our
universal public health system. We know that an ageing
population means increasing health care needs. U.S. corporations
see a rich market ripe for the taking with the help of the WTO.
Canada's health care system and our ability to sustain it have
been compromised again and again by corporate interests in our
trade negotiations.
With every new trade agreement we have had a new trade bill that
gives longer patent protection, for example to multinational drug
giants. The result is more profits for pharmaceutical companies
and increasing drug costs for Canadians.
What is it that the U.S. health care companies want this time?
They want more privatization of our health services, majority
foreign ownership of our health care facilities, access to and
more competition in our health care market, and the right to bid
on all our government contracts including those in health care.
The trade minister says he wants to open up health care services
to see whether Canadian providers can export to the world, but
the real agenda is to expose Canada's health care to be scavenged
for profit by the American health care industry.
[Translation]
The Minister for International Trade says he is prepared to open
up our health services to American companies. This will clearly
mean the end of our public health system.
[English]
Our health care is not the only thing at risk. The WTO also has
its eye on our public education system. What could this mean for
Canadians?
Foreign for profit educational institutions would be guaranteed
the right to operate in Canada. Governments could not require
educational institutions to hire locally. The requirements of
the education professions and institutions could be subject to
WTO review. Any government subsidies, like student loans or
grants, would have to be given to both public and private
providers. This would mean the beginning of the end of Canada's
public education system and we will not permit it to happen.
The stakes in trade negotiations get higher every day. The most
recent attack was on Canada's auto pact, the underpinning of
thousands of good Canadian jobs and the basis of much of our
manufacturing sector for the past 40 years.
Look what has happened to environmental initiatives under the
new trading regime. In every single case, the WTO has ruled in
favour of corporate interests and against environmental and
public health.
1050
Canada's baptism by fire came over MMT, a toxic gasoline
additive and a NAFTA chapter 11 challenge by Ethyl Corporation.
The government settled out of court, withdrew its legislation and
paid $19.6 million in damages to Ethyl Corporation. The big
winners were U.S. corporate interests and the losers were
Canadians concerned about our environment.
Now because of the government's failure to act, we face a
similar risk with Canadian bulk water exports. New Democrats are
leading the fight against the export of bulk water. While we
managed to persuade the Liberal government to vote for our
opposition day motion to legislate a ban on bulk water exports,
no such thing has been done to date.
Today my colleagues will speak in more detail about the threats
to agriculture, to our health care, our cultural sovereignty, our
environmental protection.
Let me make it clear. New Democrats support a rules based
global economy. We believe in rules, fair rules, because Canada
is a trading nation, but we also believe we must regulate
economic activity in the interests of people.
The WTO ties the hands of democratic governments that wish to
create legislation good for their citizens, legislation that
might impede from time to time the profit making capacity of
multinational corporations.
New Democrats do not believe and most Canadians do not believe
that we should surrender Canadian sovereignty and the public
services and initiatives we care about in order to make the world
a barrier free playground for the economically powerful.
Today I want to know, Canadians want to know, where are the
Liberals? Why will they not stand up for Canada? Why will they
not fight to protect the rights of Canadians against
multinational corporations?
I assure everyone that today, in Seattle, and in the coming
months whenever and wherever trade negotiations threaten to
destroy the very things that define us as Canadians, New
Democrats will be there. We will be there fighting to protect
the rights and interests of Canadians against the increasing
power and the increasingly anti-democratic control of
multinational corporations.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the points made by the leader of
the New Democratic Party.
She talked about her party being in favour of a rules based
system. Then she talked about corporations taking over. Even a
rules based system that we are talking about will give Canadian
companies the opportunity to expand their businesses which in
turn will be beneficial to the workers of the country. Would the
hon. member not agree that NAFTA as well as the WTO as of today
have been beneficial to the working families of the country?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the member is
absolutely right when he indicates that the New Democratic Party
very much favours rules based trading. The issue is whether the
rules are going to be enforcing the things that matter to us
most. That is why, if the member reads the motion we have put
forward, we have made it clear that we must secure in those rules
enforceable ways to protect core labour standards, to protect our
environment, to protect cultural diversity, to preserve public
health care and public education and generally the right of
democratically elected governments to act for the common good.
Yes, it is important that we have rules which create fairness
for Canadian corporations that want to and are able to compete in
the international arena. But let us not do it at the expense of
workers, at the expense of our environment and at the expense of
things that matter most to Canadians.
1055
The member asked whether we think current trade agreements have
been good for Canadians. There have been some benefits, but
there have been some immense losses, not the least of which is
the severe erosion of the income and the quality of life of too
many of our Canadian citizens.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get clarification of one aspect of the hon.
member's speech.
The member mentioned MMT. I missed the start and whether or not
she mentioned the banning of MMT. There is a common
misconception with the public, which has unfortunately been
advanced by groups like the Council for Canadians, that MMT was
banned by the government. That is not actually the case. By
reviewing Hansard and the act, the record will show what
happened. The government banned the marketing and transportation
of MMT. There is a huge difference.
I apologize because I did not hear the member's particular
sentence, and I do not know whether she made that error in her
speech.
The record will show that at that time the Reform Party warned
the government that banning the transportation and marketing of
MMT would result in a NAFTA challenge. We urged and begged the
government to institute an independent health study of MMT to
determine whether it was in fact harmful because all of the
Health Canada documentation said that it was not. There was no
justification for banning MMT on health grounds. The only way we
could see that it could be done would be to have an independent
study that could then be used to justify if indeed it was
unhealthy.
Could the member confirm that she understands that MMT itself
was not banned, but it was its transportation and marketing, and
that the government was foolish in not having an independent
study to determine its health risks?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the member is familiar
with this case. I think he knows that MMT has been banned in the
United States. Considerable evidence has amassed that would
indicate it is indeed a severe threat. What we are talking about
here is whether Canada is going to be able to protect the health
of our own people and make decisions in the interests of our own
future in terms of health, environment and all of those things
that matter most to Canadians.
The details of the situation he discussed are not nearly as
important as the principle of whether Canada is going to have the
democratic right and the freedom to protect our own interests and
our own rights as we see them as a sovereign nation.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will pick up on certain elements of the motion. Members from
the NDP caucus will be rising throughout the day to speak to
various aspects of the motion before the House.
I will begin with the first element of the motion. It talks
about the government having sabotaged Canadian democracy by
pursuing a trade policy that gives excessive power to unelected
and unaccountable international trade organizations and erodes
the ability of Canada's elected representatives to act in the
public interest.
As my leader stated earlier, this is not a radical or debatable
observation in many respects. The Minister for International
Trade himself has talked about the transfer of power from the
state to the market. To the extent that Canada is a
democratically elected state, it is clearly a transfer from the
democratic realm to the realm of the market, and the market as it
is designed, created and regulated by the WTO, an organization
which I would submit has very much been designed by and for the
multinational corporations.
I would submit to some of my colleagues who are to my left in
the House of Commons but on my right ideologically that they too
should be more concerned about this than they sometimes are.
I attended a conference about a month ago in Edmonton. It was
sponsored by a member from Edmonton and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. They talked about the erosion
of democracy. They were very concerned about the transfer of
power from parliament to the prime minister and from parliament
to the courts and from parliament to various other places within
Canadian society.
1100
What I said at that conference I will say here again today.
People who are concerned about the erosion of democracy and the
erosion of the power of parliament should also be concerned about
the erosion of the power of parliament by virtue of the transfer
of the powers of parliament to the marketplace through these
various agreements.
This is a debate that has been going on for some time. I recall
making speeches not unlike this one in 1987-88 when we were
debating the free trade agreement, then NAFTA, then the
institution of the WTO and the MAI. Now we have the new round,
the so-called millennium round, at the WTO and the FTAA.
All these things are of a piece with a movement away from what
the NDP regards as the proper exercise of democracy. Many of the
things which traditionally were the object of political debate
and parliamentary decision have been taken out of the hands of
parliament and placed in the hands of trade bureaucrats or, for
that matter, enshrined as policy in various trade agreements. The
former things that we were able to debate and decide and on which
governments were able to change their minds as we got new
governments or as governments themselves changed their minds, are
all things that are no longer possible.
Can we actually make a decision here in parliament about drug
patent laws? No, we cannot because that is settled by a trade
agreement. Can we make laws about having two price wheat or a
two price energy system? No, we cannot because that has been
settled by the free trade agreement. Can we have split-run
magazines? No, we cannot even debate that anymore because that
has been decided by the WTO.
Can we have a national ban on the export of bulk water? It
appears that we cannot have that. When the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was asked just yesterday whether he was going to bring in
such a thing, he clearly did not make that commitment. He said
that he would bring in something that would have the effect of
protecting Canada's water resources, but he did not say that he
would bring in a national ban because the government itself knows
that the nature of NAFTA is such that water is not exempt in the
way it has claimed it is. We are therefore at risk of not being
able to prevent the bulk export of water if that is what we want
to do.
It is not a question of whether we should or should not in this
case as in so many other cases. It is a question of whether we
can or cannot because of these particular agreements.
That is the democratic question. That is why we in the NDP want
to put this debate about the WTO and about these trade agreements
in the context of the ongoing debate about democracy. One of the
elements that is so significant in terms of eroding democracy is
the chapter eleven investor state dispute mechanism.
I want to spend what little time I have left on that particular
mechanism. Here we see an ability on the part of foreign
corporations, not domestic corporations or Canadian corporations
that have to live within the law and whose only recourse is
through the domestic courts, but foreign corporations, thanks to
the chapter eleven mechanism, to have a mechanism at their
disposal to harass and to intimidate the Canadian government in a
way that would never have been conceivable in an earlier time.
It was not even an element of the free trade agreement. It only
came in with NAFTA.
We have seen the harassment and intimidation of the government
with respect to the issue of MMT, which my leader talked about.
We see it now with respect to the whole question of water and the
action brought against the Canadian government by Sun Belt as a
result of its inability to create a situation in which it can
export bulk water from Canada.
Why would any government tolerate a mechanism that would give
foreign corporations this kind of ability? All of this is being
done, as so much of what has been proposed in the MAI and now is
being proposed at the WTO, in the name of creating new
opportunities for Canadian companies and Canadian investors
abroad.
The member of the Reform Party talked about Canadian companies.
I do not take it as a given that whatever is good for any
particular Canadian company is good for Canada. I do not
subscribe to that old American notion that what is good for GM is
good for America or that what is good for any particular Canadian
company is good for Canada. What a lot of these companies want
is to do business abroad, and there is nothing intrinsically evil
about that.
1105
The point is that they should not be asking Canadians to give up
their way of life, to give up the way we have organized our life
together over the years, in order to create opportunities for
them to make money abroad.
What is being asked here is for Canadians to give up the kind of
regulations that we have had over the years for foreign
investment so that our Canadian investors can invest in other
countries without similar kinds of regulation. I do not think
that is right. I do not think that we should be asked to give up
our ability to regulate foreign investment. We see it coming in
this next round.
We will see it in the areas my leader has mentioned in terms of
health care and education, because there are Canadian companies
that want to market health care expertise abroad. I am not
against that, but I am against it if it means that in order for
that to be possible we have to dismantle our public health care
system, our medicare, and create opportunities for American or
other foreign multinational health care corporations to be able
to penetrate our public health care system and create more
privatization and contracting out and eventually so erode the
public dimension of our health care system that we end up with an
Americanized or commercial health care system.
That is the agenda. Anybody who does not want to admit that is
not levelling with the Canadian people. That is where I hold the
Liberal government responsible. It is not willing to admit that
this is the agenda of certain people with the WTO. It is not
willing to admit that it is not willing to stand up to that
agenda. We do not hear it. Perhaps we will hear it later and
that would be good news, but I am not holding my breath that the
parliamentary secretary will get up in his place and say that the
Canadian government is seeking a full, absolute and categorical
carve out of public health care and education in this next round.
That is not what the government has been saying. It has not
been saying that it is opposed to putting services on the table.
This is just one little aspect of what we are concerned about.
We are concerned about many other things, such as the fact that
in agreement after agreement after agreement it is investors'
rights which are protected. It is investors' rights which are in
force. Investors, investors, investors. What about workers?
What about the environment? What about democracy? What about all
the other things that matter to people? Well, that can wait.
We can have lofty statements by the minister about how he would
like to humanize globalization. He is going to humanize
globalization over the next 50 years, but when it comes to
investors they can have their rights this year. For us, that is a
perverse moral hierarchy where the powerful get even more rights
and the powerless get to wait and we are against it.
I would therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for
Yukon, that the motion be amended by inserting the word
“immediate” between the words “take” and “action”.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has put the chair in a difficult position. He
is the seconder of the main motion and he has moved an amendment
to that motion. I do not believe it is proper for him to do
that. Accordingly, I am afraid I cannot take the amendment as
proposed by the hon. member at this time.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for his comments, and particularly his leader earlier
who finally made it clear to us that the New Democratic Party was
in fact in favour of a rules based system.
As I remember, after our consultations across Canada and the
minority report that his party put into the report, it seemed to
us that the New Democratic Party was not in favour of us at all
being in Seattle. It is good to hear today that the New
Democratic Party is supporting the fact that we will be in
Seattle standing up for Canadians.
1110
The hon. member's motion mentions some of the hardships Canadian
farmers are experiencing, particularly farmers in western Canada.
I remember going through the his party's policy during the last
election and reading that it would have forced $17 billion in new
spending upon Canadians if it had been elected. However, out of
$17 billion in new spending only $11 million would have gone to
Canadian farmers.
Can the member explain why his party's policy during the last
election was to give so little to Canadian farmers and today it
puts forward this motion stating its concerns for Canadians in
the agricultural industry?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct
the false impression the member is trying to create on two
fronts, the first one being on Seattle.
I do not think the member read very clearly the minority
reports. They are not all that long, perhaps two or three pages,
but perhaps they tax the mental abilities of the parliamentary
secretary. In the report, we said very clearly that we are in
favour of a global rules based trading regime but we are not in
favour of the current model. We are not in favour of the current
assumptions and presuppositions that attend those negotiations.
I made it very clear in the House yesterday that we are not in
favour of a round of talks which includes investment or services.
We think these should be taken off the table altogether. Things
like agriculture are already on the table and therefore there is
work to be done in that area. However, we are not in favour of
adding new sectors to the domain of the WTO. We are very clear
about that. If that means not being at Seattle, then so be it.
The government could go to Seattle. It is not a question of
geographic location. It is not a question of whether there are
Canadian government bodies in Seattle. It is a question of what
the government is doing there. It could go there and say very
clearly that it does not want a new round of talks on investment
or on services or any round of talks on investment and services.
If it was doing that we would say “go to Seattle”. However,
that is not what it is doing. What it is going to do when it
gets there is something that we find quite unacceptable.
I have heard this misrepresentation before, and I am not sure if
it comes from deliberation or from ignorance, but there are many
aspects of the NDP agricultural policy which if implemented would
not have left Canadian farmers in the situation they are in now,
particularly going back to the elimination of the Crow rate, the
Crow benefit, the western grain transportation subsidy and many
other supports that the Liberals have taken away from Canadian
farmers over the objections of the NDP.
The member gets up and pulls some obscure fact, if indeed it is
a fact or not just something that is being fed by the spin
doctors on his own party side, and claims that this undermines
our position, a position being taken right now in the context of
new developments. No one could have predicted exactly what would
happen in 1999 with respect to commodity prices, drought in some
parts of Saskatchewan, floods in some parts of Manitoba and
various other things that have happened.
As far as I am concerned, this is just a cheap shot and not the
sort of thing one should spend any more time on.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, with the language
which the hon. member used, I must have hit a chord with my
comment.
The hon. member is quite aware that the Government of Canada,
prior to taking a position on Seattle in the next round of the
WTO, held wide consultations across the country. The hon.
member, who was on the foreign affairs and international trade
committee, knows that it was not the opinion of anyone else on
that committee that we should not be at the WTO.
1115
In fact all the other parties seemed to be quite happy that the
report of the standing committee reflected very clearly what we
were hearing from witnesses from coast to coast to coast. The
witnesses felt it was important for a country the size of Canada
that has so much at stake.
Forty-two per cent of our GDP depends on international trade. A
country our size compared to the economic size of the United
States, the European Union or Japan needs a rules based system
under which to work. If we had to go against these countries on
a one to one basis, most times we would lose out.
It is in our interests to belong to an organization of over some
132 countries where we are able to draw on the support of other
countries. It is not this big giant economy of the Americans
trying to beat up on Canada or other smaller countries; it is a
group of countries that get together. That is why it is
important to be in Seattle.
I would assume the hon. member knows, although we would not know
it from his remarks, that Canada takes very seriously some of the
concerns not only in agriculture, but concerns that were
expressed by Canadians particularly with regard to transparency.
The fact is that there has been concern out there across the
country, and indeed in other countries, that the WTO is closed up
and what it does always happens behind closed doors.
This has been the position of the Government of Canada. It was
made very forcefully by the present Minister for International
Trade, the previous minister, and in fact the Prime Minister, in
talking at the free trade area of the Americas. It was said very
clearly that it is in Canada's interests to make sure that
international agreements, not only at the WTO but other
agreements that we may sign, are open and transparent and that
Canadians see what these organizations are doing. It makes sure
that the hon. member's party and those other groups which seem to
want to tell the whole world how bad international trade is for
Canada do not have that opportunity.
Canada has nothing to hide. That is why we felt it was
important to go across the country to hear from Canadians what
they felt about trade. I think the hon. member would agree that
most of the parties in the House, except the New Democratic
Party, felt that that report reflected the views of Canadians.
For at least 50 years, one of the most important roles on the
world stage for Canada in the trade area has been to make sure
that we have these sorts of agreements. Our overall objective is
to improve the quality of life of Canadians. It is not, as the
hon. member claims, to make sure that the corporate giants have
more access to some of the economies around the world and to make
sure that the corporate giants in other countries can come into
Canada and rape this country of our economic development. That
is not the case. I do not think that any government in this
country, quite seriously, would do that.
Our goal is to make sure that we have enforceable rules, that
the rules are enforced and that those within Canadian society who
have an interest in all of the jobs that are created through
international trade get an opportunity to express their views.
I talk about jobs and international trade. Listening to the
hon. member's comments and the comments of the New Democratic
Party, we would not know that international trade and investment
create jobs in Canada. We just have to look at the 1.7 million
jobs that have been created in Canada since 1993. We just have
to look at the dramatic increase in Canada's exports to see a
relationship between investing and exports and the creation of
Canadian jobs.
Major consultations were made prior to responding.
The hon. member knows that we will be responding in the House and
it will be sent to committee on November 16 to put forward our
position on Seattle.
1120
As the hon. member said, there is concern for these
international agreements as precipitated by similar comments of
his party and his leader. There will be some 750 groups in
Seattle. The hon. member said he would be there. We want to make
sure that members of the opposition are also there in order to
see how these organizations work. We want to make sure that they
see firsthand that Canada is not only standing up for Canadian
farmers, workers and industry, but it is also making sure that
the whole world engages in what is called civil society. Civil
society is the groups of Canadians and all of society who are
interested in these sorts of issues and international trade.
On the area of health and social services, the New Democratic
Party says that all of a sudden we are going to lose our health
care, or that we are going to lose our water. It throws out
these wild ideas that somehow the Government of Canada is not
interested in the health care of Canadians or in preserving our
national health care system. How ludicrous. What government
would not be interested?
We have the best health care system in the world. For that
party to suggest that the Government of Canada is willing to
throw it away and to give it away is utter nonsense. Certainly a
member who has been in the House as long as the hon. member has
been should know that. We are committed to preserving our right
to regulate in the area of health care and social services.
There is no question about that.
The hon. member also talked about labour and said that labour or
Canadian jobs were going to be impacted by this decision and that
we do not represent the interests of labour in these
negotiations. The hon. member knows that the International
Labour Organization looks at these issues. Canada is very active
in this organization and in promoting labour rights and promoting
some of the concerns people have about other countries not
keeping up to the same standards as we do in Canada.
Canada is also encouraging and facilitating the development of
voluntary labour codes by businesses in Canada and around the
world. We feel that Canada should be proud of some of the labour
rules that we have made. We want to export those around the
world. We want to make sure that other countries keep up to the
same standards as we do. In the area of labour, Canada is second
to none in promoting it.
The hon. member also talked about culture. I want to assure the
hon. member and all Canadians that we will build support in the
preparatory process for the WTO for language in the declaration
that would recognize the importance of promoting cultural
diversity. The hon. member should know that we have the support
of Quebec and all of the other provinces in this. We find this
to be very important. It is important for Canadians. It is who
we are.
Our area of the world is beside a large neighbour, the United
States of America. It is certainly within our interests and it
is something that has been promoted not only by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, but also by the Prime Minister who in the
speech yesterday on the free trade area of the Americas, pointed
out the importance of Canadian culture and of Canadians
sustaining that culture and some of the risks in doing that.
We have gone further. We have gone to other countries. We have
gone to countries in Europe and a lot of smaller countries to
bring together people who believe in the same cultural ideas that
we do. We have received an awful lot support. It will be high on
our agenda when we go to Seattle.
I want to conclude by saying to all Canadians that this is an
ongoing process. We will continue to consult with Canadians and
the provinces to make sure that their views are represented not
only in Seattle, but in the negotiations that will go on in two,
three or four years.
It is in our interests to make sure that these negotiations are
wrapped up in four years. It is certainly in Canada's interests
to make sure that all Canadians have a say within this system.
1125
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for the way
in which he mesmerized his colleagues on this occasion.
He mentioned the ILO and he talked about the ILO promoting.
That is the problem. It promotes, it does not enforce. We are
talking about the discrepancy between a world in which only
investors' rights are enforced and everybody else's rights are
promoted. There is exhortation, there is promotion, there is
encouragement, but there is no enforcement.
He kept assuring us that no government would ever do the kinds
of things we are accusing the government of doing. Canadians have
been assured before. Canadians were assured by the Conservatives
about all kinds of things about the FTA. Those very people were
assured themselves. There is no credibility left here.
Why should we believe the hon. member when we have such a
history of governments lying to people about the effect of these
agreements? Why does he believe now the things that he did not
believe before?
We are the only party that opposes these agreements and we are
proud of it. We think this is a paradigm for trading that is
going to prove disastrous for the Canadian people and for that
matter, the world.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right
when he says that Canada does put a priority on international
labour. The hon. member is right when he says that. In fact, he
should know that the Government of Canada is—
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Would the member stop misrepresenting
what I was saying. I never said that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has a point of order. Perhaps we have heard
it. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary will want to reply.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
know, if he has been following these issues, that it is in the
interests of all Canadians to make sure that international labour
rules are followed. It is in the interests of all Canadians to
make sure there is more co-operation between the World Trade
Organization and the ILO. That is something the Government of
Canada has been promoting very strongly.
In fact, the Government of Canada at the ILO has also been
making sure, particularly in issues such as child labour, that
there are international rules, that there are ways in which we
can prevent that sort of action from happening.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little confusing listening to the parliamentary
secretary. He was the member that railed probably harder than
any single member in the House against the free trade agreement.
He spent a career from 1988 to 1993 constantly on his feet
fighting that issue. He swallowed himself whole on this issue if
you listen to his speech. I am wondering when this miraculous
convergence took place. I have sent out for some of his exact
words on and his criticism of the free trade agreement, the NAFTA
agreement and any other agreement which related to world trade,
free trade and Canada's trading position.
The question is when did this convergence take place? Was it
immediately following the 1993 election? Was it a gradual
convergence, or as I stated earlier, did he simply swallow
himself whole on the whole issue of free trade?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon.
member's confusion. If the hon. member looked at exactly what I
said during those times, I was against the free trade agreement
that was being signed with the United States at that time.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is the same one we have now.
Mr. Bob Speller: I do not think anybody on this side ever
came out and said that we were against freer trade.
I will tell the member why.
1130
Mr. Bill Blaikie: It still exists.
Mr. Bob Speller: Hold on. The member had his chance.
The hon. member should know that the problem with that deal was
that dumping and countervail was still available to the United
States, which would make it more difficult for Canadian companies
to get in. That is only one aspect of it.
The hon. member should know that when governments are looking at
these issues they have to look at the impact they will have on
Canadian jobs. Because of what we did, getting rid of the $42
billion deficit that we were left at the time, and also dealing
with increasing and promoting international trade, we were able
to create those jobs and make sure that Canadians were successful
in the working of the agreement.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is the parliamentary secretary's government that has not
consulted Canadians on these trade issues. We also have a
problem with not consulting the provinces. That is why we have a
bulk water problem.
The consultation process the government has initiated is
probably responsible for many of the myths we are hearing. Can
the member talk about the consultation problem?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the member would have been
aware, had he sat in the committee, that the provinces which were
there, particularly the New Democratic province of British
Columbia, came forward with different views and opinions on what
we said. However, they said they were consulted very well by
this government.
If the member went back to the records of the committee he would
find that the Government of Canada consulted very widely with all
the ministers of trade of all the provinces. We find that to be
a very important aspect—
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I start I want to ask my hon. colleague opposite to stop
saying I am new to this portfolio. I have been in this portfolio
for almost eight months.
It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the motion brought
forward by my colleague from the NDP. Frankly, I believe a
debate on this issue is long overdue and I think Canadians feel
the same way. Canadians deserve to be informed about our
international agreements.
The official opposition believes strongly that all sectors of
Canadian society should be encouraged to participate and present
their views on trade matters in a constructive manner. That
includes business representatives, labour, environmental and
academic groups, as well as all other sectors of society.
We believe that domestic consultations must be encouraged within
all countries that are signatories to these agreements. However,
direct involvement of the so-called civil society, as encouraged
by the FTAA civil society committee, is a cause for concern to
us.
The official opposition feels that unelected, unaccountable
organizations must channel their views through their national
elected governments which are directly accountable to the voters.
The provinces must be consulted where negotiations of a free
trade agreement touches directly on provincial areas of
jurisdiction.
We know that failure by this government to consult the provinces
in a meaningful way during the negotiations of the NAFTA have
resulted in a situation where bulk water that is located entirely
within provincial boundaries could come under the NAFTA rules in
certain circumstances. Now we have the government scrambling to
create legislation that will address that issue.
Similarly, while setting national emission targets during the
Kyoto protocol negotiations the federal government did not
adequately consult the provinces, whose co-operation is essential
in meeting Canada's commitments.
We believe that parliament must be consulted. The final version
of a treaty like the NAFTA or the FTA should be tabled in
parliament for at least 30 sitting days before the government or
any department takes action.
We feel that a special joint committee should be established to
study treaties, review agreements and hold public hearings,
including the provincial legislatures. Then the treaty must be
ratified by parliament in a free vote before it becomes binding
on Canada.
1135
Canada is a trading nation. Our present and future prosperity
and growth are largely dependent on international trade.
Just five years ago Canada exported 25% of its gross domestic
product. Today it is at 42%. The vast majority of the 1.7
million new jobs created since 1993 is the result of the increase
in our exports.
Canadian exports to the United States increased 80% over the
first five years of the NAFTA, rising from $151 billion in 1993
to $271 billion in 1998. It is important for us to remember that
Canada is a relatively small trading nation. Consequently we
must seek consensus with other trading nations to ensure that
Canadian companies are able to participate in the global economy
in a fair and equitable manner.
Canadian exporters and investors need a rules based system that
will guarantee a level playing field and give Canadian companies
easier access to world markets. I am pleased to note that even
the NDP agrees with this point.
We cannot turn back the clock. Globalization is a reality and
the impact on the Canadian way of life is real and beneficial.
We cannot simply stop the process and pretend that the world is
not changing.
I would argue that this is exactly what my colleagues from the
NDP want to do. This is why I simply cannot agree with the
motion put forward today by my colleague from the NDP.
I would like to quote the new head of the World Trade
Organization, Mike Moore, who has pointed out that poverty, not
trade, is the enemy. He said: “Every WTO member government
supports open trade because it leads to a higher living standard
for working families”.
I point to a recent study by the George Morris Centre which
indicated that Canadian farmers will benefit greatly if this WTO
round eliminates all tariff and non-tariff barriers in
international trade.
The government's own members suggest that removing tariffs and
other trade barriers could add $20 billion to $50 billion to the
pockets of Canadian farmers, processors and exporters.
It is regretful that the NDP favours removing Canadians from the
prosperity offered by globalization. It is regretful that
members of the NDP do not believe that Canadian entrepreneurs
have the capacity or the ingenuity to compete on a global scale.
It is sad that the NDP continues to use the “sky is falling”
type of tactic when discussing free trade with Canadians.
The official opposition believes that the WTO should concentrate
on liberalizing trade around the world. That in itself is an
enormous task. The WTO is simply not the appropriate forum to
deal with important and complex issues like labour standards,
environmental protection, culture and human rights.
The WTO is a highly specialized body with a staff of trade
experts who lack social policy experience. Social activists
should look at more appropriate bodies like the United Nations or
the International Labour Organization to develop international
rules on these types of issues, including enforcement rules.
It is certainly important to deal with issues like these.
However, these important issues are not within the mandate of the
WTO, nor would I argue they should be.
I would like to conclude my comments today by simply reiterating
the importance of free trade and Canada's participation within a
rules based trading system. Canada is a nation that depends a
great deal on trade for its prosperity. Therefore, it is up to
the government of the day to ensure that Canadian companies are
given a level playing field upon which to compete.
The crisis on our farms is a good example of the need for a
level playing field and the effect of government inaction. This
is precisely what the WTO, the NAFTA and the FTAA provide. It is
difficult enough to deal with complex issues regarding the
elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade without
adding the complexity of social issues, as advocated by the NDP
and our socially active international trade minister.
We must remember that in the case of the WTO there are 134
countries involved, each with its own views and priorities.
Forcing our views on them would be soundly rejected. We do not
want to earn the nickname of being the ugly Canadians.
1140
Canada's participation in international agreements must be a
democratic, transparent and accountable process where all
Canadians have meaningful input. Working Canadians will be the
ultimate beneficiaries of a strong rules based trading system.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was referring
to the hon. member as being relatively new to the portfolio, I
was of course comparing it to the fact that he was not around
during the time when all of the large public consultations took
place with Canadians at the committee level. The hon. member
will know that the foreign affairs and international trade
committee held a broad range of consultations across Canada to
get people's views. I appreciate that his party recognizes how
important it is to consult Canadians on this issue.
In these two speeches we have seen why the Government of
Canada's balanced approach to this issue is so important. The
New Democratic Party wants to build walls around Canada. It
wants to make sure that we put up these barriers and that somehow
Canada can create jobs and prosperity when we have a wall built
around us. Then we have the Reform Party, which would erase the
49th parallel. It is more interested in making sure that Canada
is open for sale.
The hon. member should be aware of the importance that the
Government of Canada puts on consulting Canadians. He should
also be aware that there is a role for the Government of Canada
in making sure there is protection for certain things that
Canadians see as being importantt—
The Deputy Speaker: I am trying to allow time for two
comments and I cannot allow any member to go on too long. The
hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind
the hon. member that I did take part in those committee hearings.
I travelled to Ontario and Quebec with that committee.
The parliamentary secretary would like to simplify the situation
by saying that the Reform Party would eliminate the 49th
parallel. That is absolute nonsense.
Of course we know that the Liberal Party does not have a policy.
It always follows public opinion. If public opinion shifts to
that side, it will move to that side.
Yes, the Reform Party is in agreement and would like
consultations to take place with Canadians to ensure that there
is a fair rule based system in the world. However, that does not
mean eliminating the 49th parallel, as the Liberals would like to
say.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the member mentioned the issues of poverty and trade and the fact
that the director general of the WTO said that poverty is the
enemy, not trade.
Our position is that the increasing levels of poverty in the
world and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, both
within countries and between countries, is a direct result of the
kind of trade liberalization that we have seen over the last 10
to 15 years, and that in fact trade is the problem, or at least
the current model of trade is the problem. It is not a question
of not trading. Of course, we continue to be misrepresented in
that respect, as if we want to build walls and all of the other
things that the Conservatives used to say to the Liberals and the
Liberals did not like, but now they have no qualms about saying
them to other people. It is not a question of building walls; it
is a question of what kind of rules we are going to have.
Finally, the member said that the WTO is not the proper venue
for dealing with a lot of these questions: labour questions,
environmental questions and social questions. While that may be
so, it is not the NDP position, I want to inform the hon. member,
that these things have to be dealt with at the WTO. What we are
saying is that they have to be dealt with either at the WTO or at
the ILO, or UNESCO, or whatever other international institution
we might designate, but they have to be dealt with in an
enforceable way before there is any further trade liberalization.
That is our position. It is not that the WTO has to do these
things, but—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East on a
brief response.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond
to the hon. member's comments and then I will talk with him
later.
The hon. member pointed to the poverty issue and said, from what
I understand, that trade liberalization has increased this gap. I
absolutely differ with him on that point. Trade liberalization
has actually helped to remove poverty.
1145
The world has been trading for centuries. I come from a country
that had a socialist system. I have seen the effects of
socialism, of closing the borders to trade, on the poor. I
totally disagree with him on that point of view.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in today's debate.
Let me say from the outset that we agree with some of the NDP's
arguments. Like the NDP, we would like to see an environmental
clause, a social clause, a labour clause and also a cultural
exemption. However, we completely disagree with the motion where
it says that Canada should not negotiate, that it should not be
there without first securing enforceable international rules on
core standards, and so on.
Unfortunately, such a proposal does not take into account past
experience. I do not know if the NDP member was ever involved in
a negotiation process, but I cannot figure why she would ask for
the securing of enforceable international rules before
negotiations are undertaken.
However, I do understand why the effects of globalization,
whether financial or commercial, would be raised before that
meeting. That is understandable.
My point is based on the 1997 report on human development, which
states:
With 10% of the world's population, the least developed
countries now account for only 0.3% of world trade, or half as
much as they did 20 years ago.
Over half of all developing countries are ignored when it comes
to direct foreign investments, with two thirds of such
investments going to only eight developing countries.
This was the situation in 1997. It states further:
In real terms, commodity prices are currently 45% lower than the
average for the 1980s, and 10% lower than the lowest level ever
recorded during the Great Depression of the 1930s, more
precisely in 1932.
I could go on and on. I will simply add this quote from the same
report:
As for the income share of the richest 20% and the poorest 20%,
it has grown from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 78 to 1 in 1994.
While globalization offers major opportunities, it can also
increase inequalities between rich and poor countries, and
between rich and poor people within a country, including Canada.
What means are available to those wishing to change this trend?
Just international negotiation, with the backing of an informed
public, and of equally informed groups equipped to defend their
position.
It must not be forgotten that the MAI, much criticized for
having been negotiated among the rich countries only, was
finally abandoned as an object of negotiation by the OECD, in
response to lobbying. Some of the lobby groups were from Quebec
and from Canada. Why? Because what many of them wanted was to
have the negotiations take place within the World Trade
Organization.
We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that there must be a negotiation
session.
It must encompass a cultural exemption, along with promotion of
cultural diversity, and inclusion of a social clause, an
environmental clause and another one on the respect of human
rights.
We add, emphatically, that Quebec must speak for itself in this
negotiation, in order to be in a position to staunchly defend
its own interests.
1150
This negotiation is an opportunity for 134 countries to get
together, some of them poor countries, then the United States,
with the European Union as a newly-formed counterbalance to them,
and Canada, which is seeking to gain allies, and Japan as well.
This will be an opportunity for them all to bring out their
proposals.
We know right away that negotiations will require, among other
things, that the U.S. modify its position somewhat.
I would hasten to add for my NDP colleagues that even the United
States is beginning to take international pressures into
consideration, especially since the failure of the MAI at the
OECD.
We learn on the Internet today that the United States made a
proposal that would go even further than that of the European
Union on the formation of a task force on the relationship
between working conditions and trade.
This subject is of course taboo for many developing countries,
which see it as a barrier. This forum is where negotiations are
taking place. Consultations were held in Canada, and in Quebec
as well. But what we in the Bloc Quebecois are saying is that
Quebec must speak for itself, parliamentarians must follow this
closely, the process must be transparent, and parliamentarians
must vote on this agreement.
This arises from the need to bend existing and general rules on
the relationship of power among countries and within countries,
between the poorest and the others. Of course, Canada's and
Quebec's growth must be maximized, but in doing so, we must take
account of the rules we set here, which we want followed
worldwide.
This negotiation must be accompanied by transparency. Quebec
must be present, and the public must be given as much
information as possible so that we have agreements that give
those most in need hope in the face of this accelerated
globalization and its negative effects.
Globalization, however, also represents an opportunity to
develop a new solidarity.
It is also an opportunity, as in the case of the MIA, to use new
means of communication like the Internet, which has made it
possible to secure the agreement of players from all continents
who would otherwise not have been able to take part.
But this forum where negotiations take place is essential. In
each of these countries—and this will be done in
Quebec—stakeholders will have to get going and support our
demands and, at the same time, understand that, while the
interdependence of countries may be vital to improving
everyone's fortunes, without rules, and tribunals to apply them,
it will always be the biggest and strongest countries that will
carry the day.
The fledgling WTO tribunal has, however, ruled in favour of
small countries, against the United States for example. And
Canada and Quebec were also successful in defending cases of
particular importance to us.
1155
I would be extremely pleased if the NDP were to tell us that,
although its goal was to generate a debate, it too was going to
take part in examining these negotiations, in demanding that
they be transparent and that the interests of the most
disadvantaged be represented. But negotiations are essential,
because otherwise Quebec and Canada and less developed countries
may suffer. All countries that rely on external trade need
these negotiations.
I would add that Lionel Jospin, France's Prime Minister and a
committed socialist, summarily dismissed those who advised
against taking part in the WTO negotiations.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to the comments by my colleague.
I too am an elected representative from Quebec. This country's
culture is very important to me and, as a Canadian MP
representing a Quebec riding, my wish is to ensure that Canada's
unique culture is protected.
Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that the Government of
Canada is really the one which has, on numerous occasions,
demonstrated that it is in place precisely to ensure the
protection of what is unique about Canada.
We are in favour of consultation, nevertheless. We have
consulted with the provinces and will continue to do so. But
when negotiations are involved, these are government to
government.
I can assure the Canadians and Quebecers in our audience that,
in connection with the points raised by the hon. member relating
to environment and culture, it is our duty to ensure that the
Government of Canada protects all aspects of Canada's culture,
throughout Canada, for ours is a unique country.
We have a specific identity in the eyes of the world. It is
truly the duty of the Canadian government, a duty we accept, to
continue to consult the provinces and to ensure that we have the
best negotiations, precisely in order to protect Canadian
culture.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, that of
cultural exemption, I would first like to say that,
unfortunately, the committee report did not take up the cultural
exemption again. The Bloc Quebecois pointed this out in its
dissenting opinion.
We support looking for new means, for another venue to negotiate
on culture. In the meantime, however, we believe strongly that
the cultural exemption must be upheld.
Members will pardon me if I think that if Quebec, which is
vitally concerned, is simply giving effect to the international
extension of its jurisdictions, as based on the Gérin-Lajoie
doctrine and accepted in other places, it is strictly entitled
to do so. We would point out as well that some countries permit
the presence of provinces when international negotiations are
taking place and they involve the international extension of
their jurisdictions.
So, we say that Quebec should be there.
As for the other elements, if Quebec is involved in
implementation, it must be included in the negotiations. We saw
what kind of problems can arise in other respects when Canada
signs agreements, treaties and conventions that the provinces
are to implement, but does so in their absence.
I am not speaking on behalf of the others, but I say that Quebec
must be present and speak for itself. This is the extension of
the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. It is the extension of our
jurisdiction.
1200
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the role
the hon. member has played in this issue, but she must be aware,
in terms of whether or not Quebec should be at the table, that
aside from the consultations which obviously go on before the
Government of Canada puts forward a position at the WTO generally
there are representatives of all provinces in Geneva or wherever
the negotiations will take place to help the Government of Canada
put forward that position. This time it will take place in
Seattle.
The Government of Canada has always worked very well not only
with the province of Quebec but with the other provinces in terms
of putting forward forcefully the argument on culture and the
argument on many other areas of provincial responsibility.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, despite what I hear from the
parliamentary secretary, given the arbitration to be done, we
still believe that, on this particular issue of cultural
exemption, Quebec should speak for itself.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to stand today on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party to take part in the debate on the NDP supply
motion on free trade.
I wish I had been part of the debate and the discussions in
1988-89 dealing with the Progressive Conservative position on
free trade, the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement that
came thereafter. I congratulate the NDP because of its
consistency. It was obviously consistent in its position back in
1988-89.
NDP members were the fearmongers of the day. They were
isolationist and protectionists. They wanted to build trade
boundaries around the country back then. They are consistent
when they stand before us today in that they still deal with
protectionist and isolationist issues. They would like to see
nothing better than Canada breaking all ties with trading
partners, which obviously cannot happen.
The Liberals on the other hand are not quite so fortunate in
being consistent. The parliamentary secretary must get whiplash
in doing a 180° turn on the free trade and NAFTA issues when his
party was vehemently opposed to any free trade agreements that
were being negotiated back in 1988-89.
I can only say that Canadians are very fortunate that they had a
government then which had vision and foresight. If it were not
for that government which stood in the House and fought for open
markets, the $42 billion deficit the member continually speaks of
would still be a $42 billion deficit.
The 42% GDP increase of which the parliamentary secretary spoke
was a result of the free trade agreements. That is what retired
the deficit and not the Liberal policy which was put into place
since then. Quite frankly no positive policy has come from that
bench since 1993. I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving
credit where credit is due to the Progressive Conservative Party
and its development of free trade policies.
Let me talk a bit about free trade. I will just try to gloss
over it and deal particularly with the agriculture, about which I
do have a tendency of knowing a little more. I will take my own
constituency as a microcosm with respect to free trade. The NDP,
as I said earlier, would like to build boundaries and not see the
open boundaries of the globalized market.
1205
Let me give an example. A fertilizer manufacturer in my
constituency exports the majority of its production into the
United States, our major trading partner. Eighty per cent of
what we produce in trade goes to the United States. Let us make
no mistake about that. It is a marketplace of 300 million people
and we are a marketplace of 30 million people. We depend on the
United States as our market.
A pharmaceutical company in my riding produces a drug called
Premarin. It is a global market but most of it is being produced in
Canada and sold in the United States.
The NAFTA agreement took tariffs and barriers off hogs. Today a
hog processing plant in Brandon, Manitoba, employs up to 2,000
people. The majority of its export market is in the United
States and Asia. NAFTA removed the tariff barrier, and that is
why jobs have been created in my constituency.
A company in my area produces steel buildings which are sold in
the United States. Most of its production goes to the United
States, creating jobs in my constituency and in Canada.
Another wonderful little company that works for 3M sends 90% of
its product to Chicago and Los Angeles. It has created 165 jobs
in my riding and its product goes to the marketplace in the
United States.
A company just outside my riding produces french fries, not for
our table, not for our market, but for Minneapolis. It provides
all of the french fries for McDonald's in Minneapolis, an open
trading partner with an open trading border.
Members of the NDP would like to stop that trade. They would
like to put up barriers. We would not be in the position we are
in today as Canadians with our own quality of life and standard
of living if it were not for trade.
Let me talk about faith in our labour force and our economy. I
do not have any fears about competing with the globe because I
have faith in Canadians. I have faith in our abilities. I have
faith in our ability to capitalize. I have faith in our ability
to produce. That is what trade is all about.
We can compete in the global market, but in order to compete in
that marketplace we need a rules based system. That is what we
have with a rules based system. We have it with NAFTA and our
trading partners in Mexico and the United States. We also have
it with the WTO. We as Canadians require rules based trading
more so than our partners. We have taken advantage of that rules
based trading. We must continue to exercise our negotiating
skills at the WTO table. I would suggest that not being at the
WTO in Seattle at the end of this month would be the worse
possible thing we could do for Canadians and for our standard of
living.
This NDP motion speaks to enforcing labour standards,
environmental protection, culture diversity, the preservation of
health care and public education. These areas are no more
threatened today than they were 10 years ago because we have
rules based trade agreements in place and a dispute mechanism
that goes along with them.
I would argue that trade agreements and trade liberalization do
not put at risk these aspects of Canadian social fabric or the
ability of government in power to exert effective diplomatic
negotiations with our trade allies. Without question, Canada's
diplomatic relations with our trading partners, and particularly
with the U.S., have deteriorated under the Liberal government.
We would not have had the number of trade disputes we have had
with the Americans had we been more effective at the diplomatic
level. Once again the current Liberal government could learn a
lesson from the previous Conservative government.
The notion of scrapping chapter 11 of NAFTA would only do more
harm than good to Canadian foreign investment. Free trade has
rules and it works both ways. We are the major benefactor of
those rules.
Let me talk about agriculture. Canada continues to enjoy a
multibillion dollar trade surplus in this sector, with Canada
being a net exporter of more than $2.5 billion annually, which
was opened up by the NAFTA and the free trade agreements. I find
it baffling that the NDP is suggesting that we not pursue trade
liberalization when farmers would be on Canada's list of
endangered species if it were not for free trade.
1210
Free trade is vital to both the agricultural industry and
international trade. With the WTO negotiations beginning in
November in Seattle, it is important for Canada as a free trading
nation to set realistic goals as we go to the negotiating table.
From what I have heard from the government they are not
realistic. I would go as far as to say that it is being terribly
naive.
The Progressive Conservative Party continues to believe in a
comprehensive strategy required to ensure the Canadian interest
in global agricultural trade is protected at the upcoming World
Trade Organization talks. The government must continue to adopt
the principles of the previous Progressive Conservative
government in the pursuit of free trade in the agricultural
sector. The government must push foreign governments to further
reductions of export subsidies on agricultural products and the
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers.
We are committed to pursuing an active and aggressive trade
policy to secure new markets on behalf of Canadian agriculture.
Changes in consumer preference involving the food industry and
trade liberalization will affect the future of our industry. We
must ensure that there is open dialogue with both industry and
consumers on how we should compete in international and domestic
markets.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has told people time
and time again that Canada's supply managed industries and STEs
will not be touched at the upcoming WTO negotiations. Yet in
Washington this past year the standing committee on agriculture
was told time and time again that supply management and state
trading enterprises were number one and two on the American
agenda. I do not believe that the minister of agriculture or our
trading negotiators have taken that into consideration. They are
going to the WTO in a very naive fashion.
I wish I had other opportunities to give counsel to the
parliamentary secretary and the government on how to handle trade
because we were the ones who put free trade into place.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief comment. While I listened to the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris I had a horrible flashback to the kind
of comprehensive intellectual dishonesty that we saw during the
time of the free trade debate in the House when the Progressive
Conservative Party was in power.
Why can we not relate in the House to what people actually say?
There is enough to debate and enough to disagree about in terms
of what we actually say. We say that we should get rid of the
chapter 11 investor state dispute mechanism. That is something
to debate. The member says he is for it and we are against it.
We could debate it.
Did I ever say that NDP wants Canada to sever all its relations
with its trading partners? I talked about a rules based trading
regime. I talked about what rules we did not like, what rules we
liked, and what rules we would like to see in place. Did I ever
say that it was NDP position to sever our relationships with all
our trade partners? This is the kind of garbage that is not
worthy of this place. Let us at least debate what each other
said, instead of just making up stuff.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, in fact members of the
NDP said that getting rid of chapter 11 would make our trade
ability with our trade partners impossible. That means that we
would no longer be in an open globalized trading market. That is
not what Canadians want.
For every $1 billion in trade in this country 15,000 jobs are
created. Most of the jobs I spoke of in my dissertation are
unionized jobs. They are jobs I am sure the member would love to
see more of, but they come about because of open trade. To get
rid of chapter 11 would be to stop that and close the doors on
that type of trade. I am sure the member would agree that 15,000
jobs for every $1 billion of trade is very important not only for
him and his members but also for other Canadians.
1215
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
claims that somehow the Liberal government, the Government of
Canada just picked up where the Tories left off on this issue. In
fact we did not just pick up. We had to deal first with a $42
billion deficit. We then had to set out a situation in trade,
make new trading agreements and take the focus really away from
just a focus on the United States that the previous government
had with trade and take that focus around the world.
That is why the Prime Minister, through his team Canada
exercises, has been promoting international trade and Canada's
interests around the world. We felt it was important to get away
from just focusing on the United States.
We also had to deal with an economy at a time when jobs were
being lost. That is why we had to focus on not only the deficit
and the debt but also on job creation.
The hon. member also stated that the government has not
consulted with Canadians. He should talk to the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture and all the different groups across
Canada. The Government of Canada did travel across the country
and talked to many agricultural groups to make sure that the
position we put forward in Seattle was a position that reflected
the views of these groups.
I would encourage the hon. member to talk to these groups
because they are well aware of this.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform
the parliamentary secretary that I have consulted with the
majority of these groups, perhaps more than he and his government
have, because there are a number of conflicting issues and
positions being taken.
Let me again speak to the $42 billion deficit. I am sure the
hon. member will agree that the reason the $42 billion deficit
has been retired is because of the free trade agreements and
certainly the open trade that was negotiated back prior to the
1993 Liberal government taking place.
He talks about team Canada and looking at opening up trade. I
am sure the member realizes that 80% of what Canadians produce
right now goes to the United States. It is our major market.
If team Canada has done such a wonderful job, I would ask the
parliamentary secretary why we have not received more access to
the EU market right now, which is a huge market? The member and
his government have certainly attempted to open up that market
but have failed miserably. I put that directly on his
government.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on our opposition day. I will also be
sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.
The subject of the debate today is the World Trade Organization.
I will present my views on how it affects the environment. The
environment and the economy are very much tied together because
without the environment there is no economy. We cannot provide
all our trade on the ships of the ocean. We have to find land
sometime and find our goods and services. When we come upon
these goods and services we find the land has a jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction that we speak of today is this country, the
sovereign state of Canada.
Protecting Canadians is the driving force of being a member of
parliament in the House of Commons: protecting Canadians,
protecting our interests, protecting our future.
Along with the representation that we have in the House of
Commons, Canadians en masse are aware that the environment has
direct links to our health: the cross border air pollution that
pollutes our air, our rain and inevitably contaminates our water.
The international toxic fallout throughout Canada's north is
destroying the traditional culture and value of hunting and
gathering. The country foods, as they are termed, are all
affected by this toxic fallout that is happening in the north.
People around the globe realize that our environment and the
ecosystem, our biosphere that supports our lives, is under
tremendous stress. Climate change and the increased storm
severity and the damage that causes worldwide are a direct result
of our economic activities in the world. The invisible chemicals
that are throughout the entire food chain, including the human
species, are changing our hormones, our basic genetic structure
and threatening our children's future.
The free trade and borderless profit, this fad of making money
regardless—and I want to stress regardless—is losing strength
in the world.
1220
We saw that with the whole issue of the MAI where all peoples of
the world had major objections to trade negotiations being done
behind closed doors. Once the negotiations were brought out to
public forums the MAI was flushed down the toilet. There goes
the pollution cycle once again, so be careful where it lands.
Citizens around the globe realize that there is a cost to making
trade the first and foremost consideration over the protection of
the environment that supports us. This cost has to be tallied in
the houses of government by the democratically elected people who
make these decisions. Trade is a major part of the governance of
this country, but environmental responsibility and the health of
our citizens are also major responsibilities. These cannot be
compromised for trade reasons.
The WTO process wishes to ensure free and unfettered trade
happens worldwide. This is backed up by a cesspool of rules and
regulations. The cesspool has reared its head when MMT and the
water issue has come up. These rules and regulations were
blueprinted to support these interests of the world.
Citizens of Canada and other states of the world are naive to
the small print. When these regulations are enforced through the
justice system and the international trade bodies, we find out
that reality has hit the ground when we start seeing decisions
being made against the will of duly elected governments. The
essence of our opposition day motion is that we must not
sacrifice ourselves for the sake of world trade.
Canadians want a different vision of the future. The legacy for
our children in the next century and future generations is
foremost. Canadians can find danger where there is a lack of
environmental protection in trade agreements with multinational
interests.
In the recent round of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, where a duly elected House of Commons selected a committee
on the environment, a bill was passed to strengthen environmental
protections but was then thrown into cabinet behind closed doors
and the industry lobby tore it to shreds. That is a very
undemocratic process but that is a reality.
Since free trade hit the country, lobbyists have made millions
of dollars carrying legislation and advising on policy behind
closed doors. That is our job as members of parliament who
represent Canadians. This is where we must have an open public
debate on where the country and the future of our children are
going.
MMT is a major issue. I call on the Liberal government to be
cautious. The year 2000 is coming very quickly. The whole issue
of manganese and the effects it has on our health should be
foremost in the review. The health department and the health
minister should look directly at this issue as a number one
priority because of the inhalation of fuel additives.
Manganese was basically used to replace lead as an anti-knocking
agent in fuel for automobile engines. However, we have to face
up to the fact that manganese does strange things. The United
States has banned MMT en masse but in Canada, not only do we
endorse MMT, so to speak, but we also pay and apologize to the
Ethyl Corporation for stopping the interprovincial transportation
of MMT. Groups all over Canada are raising this issue but the
Liberals, in making its $20 million cheque, has basically
endorsed this product and went against public safety and public
health.
We have also heard about the issue of the precautionary
principle from cabinet ministers and especially the environment
minister. The precautionary principle is a major principle of
environmental and health protection in the country but it was
thrown right out the door just to accommodate international
trade.
1225
The wish of Canadians is not to see third world conditions exist
here where corporations make decisions which challenge us at
every turn to protect ourselves and have our sovereign and
democratic rights bent for the sake of profit. The destruction
of resources is happening on the planet as we know it. A case in
point is the Amazon forests which have been experiencing
deforestation for the last few decades.
I now raise in the House that the boreal forests in our own
backyards are disappearing at a faster rate than the Brazilian
forests. Why is this happening? It is to make more profit and
to make more paper. The whole issue of recycling and the issue
of another round of WTO talks are also opening the door for
further deforestation in the trading states.
I want to tell all Canadians that we must protect our
environment. Let us protect the things that create the air that
we breath: the muskeg; the different trees such as the spruce,
the jack pine and the poplar; these gifts that we have from our
Creator that give us life. If we are conscious of the cycle of
life, let us not disrupt that for the sake of profit. Let us put
our health and our democracy ahead of world trade organizations
that want profit, international trade and a borderless society.
I also want to say that there is a Canadian border and I am
proud of the Canadian border. I think the hon. member from the
Conservative Party said that we were trying to raise this border
to higher standards. I welcome that view. I think Canadians
should stand proud of who we are are, protect our jurisdiction,
protect the resources and the gifts that we have, but let us not
give it away for the sake of profit.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak in the House today in support of the
opposition day motion from the NDP.
I will begin by quoting the first part of that motion because it
really gets to the heart or the nub of the very important issue
that we are debating today. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, this government has sabotaged
Canadian democracy by pursuing a trade policy that gives
excessive power to unelected and unaccountable international
trade organizations and erodes the ability of Canada's elected
representatives to act in the public interest;
I think that part of the motion really gets to the issue at
hand. I wonder how many Canadians are aware that in a few weeks
there will be massive negotiations taking place in Seattle at the
end of this month. The Canadian government will be represented.
It will be a closed door process. The issues that will be on the
table are our services and the understanding of what we are as
Canadians.
One of the very frightening things about the upcoming talks at
the World Trade Organization is that very few people are aware of
what will actually take place and what will be negotiated away by
the Canadian government, allegedly on behalf of the Canadian
people.
I even wonder whether Liberal members are aware of what will be
negotiated. We have seen a pattern with this government, and
certainly with the Progressive Conservative government before it,
to deal with international trade relations, trade rules and trade
liberalization in a way that is so secretive that actually
citizen groups and individual Canadians have had to fight tooth
and nail to even get any sense of disclosure about what is going
on and to demand of the government that there be some kind of
transparent process.
I would suggest that just as we have seen in the past with the
negotiations that took place in secret under the multilateral
agreement on investments, we should today be very concerned about
what is now about to take place by the Canadian government at the
WTO.
What are the issues that are before the WTO from the Canadian
government's perspective?
When we look at the issues that are on the table, alarm bells
need to go off.
1230
We have to understand that the WTO as an unelected, undemocratic
government is putting together what is being called a new
economic constitution for the planet. This economic constitution
has been written by and is almost exclusively for the benefit of
the world's largest corporations. That is the issue here.
Let us be very clear that the WTO aims to deregulate
international trade. It is bad enough that we are moving into a
global economy where rules about the environment, social
equality, social conditions and social programs are completely
thrown out the window. What is worse is that the upcoming talks
at the WTO will further and pursue with vigour the agenda of
deregulation and trade liberalization. The consequence of doing
that is it will actually limit the capacity of our government and
all elected governments to set public policy in the interests of
citizens of whatever nation-state. That is the danger.
Is it any wonder that the Liberal government is so intent on
keeping this process very secret and behind closed doors. The
Liberals do not want the Canadian people to know what is
unfolding, just as they did not want the Canadian people to know
what was unfolding with the multilateral agreement on investment.
Let us be very clear. In today's world, multinational and
transnational corporations control more than one-third of the
world's productive assets. We have arrived at the point where
national and regional boundaries are almost meaningless. It is an
environment where the role of the government has shifted from
dealing with national issues to working at an international
level. The role of government has become one of serving a market
ideology. That is what we have arrived at.
If we ask most Canadians what they want from their government,
they would say that they want to make sure that their government
is operating honestly and openly. I think most Canadians would
say that they want to make sure that there is a health care
system that they can use, that there are good schools that their
kids can go to, that there are adequate, safe and secure places
to live and that they have a society that respects the
environment. That is what most Canadians see as the role of
government.
In the last decade we have seen a fundamental shift in the role
of government. It has gone from dealing with public policy on
the basis of what is in the public interest and the public good
to public policy that is devoted to serving the market ideology
in the pursuit of a globalized economy where nation rights are
given over to multinational corporations.
The motion speaks to the very heart of democracy and sovereignty
for Canada. It is about establishing who should make the
decisions about our future. Is it the people of Canada and our
elected governments or is it multinational corporations?
There is no question that the Liberal government approach to the
upcoming WTO meeting in Seattle shows where it is at. It appears
to be wholeheartedly in favour of embracing the agenda of the
multinationals. What is on the line? I think there is more and
more research that would give evidence to show that what is on
the line is health care and our other social programs, the
survival of family farms, our right to establish strong standards
of environmental protection, our cultural institutions and now
for the first time, our education system.
As the education spokesperson for the NDP, I want to focus for a
few minutes on education. For the first time in the history of
negotiations, Canada is allowing education to be put on the table
at the upcoming WTO hearings. The Liberal government has
completely abandoned Canada's traditional view that there should
be exemptions for education in international trade negotiations.
This is a very serious and disturbing departure for Canada.
1235
In fact, the former trade minister said that Canada would seek
to completely carve out health care and education under the MAI.
Today apparently the position has changed. Education is now
apparently being dictated directly by the WTO secretariat on
educational services.
This is moving us in a direction where students and education
are treated as commodities, where students are nothing more than
consumers. The very core and accessibility of our educational
services are being threatened. We have to be very concerned about
this.
It could mean, for example, that foreign for profit educational
institutions would have a guaranteed right to operate in Canada.
It could mean that governments could not require them to hire
local educators. It could mean that requirements of educational
professionals and institutions would be subjected to WTO review.
It could mean that government subsidies of any kind, including
student loans and grants, would have to be given out on a
non-discriminatory basis to public and private providers.
The Liberals claim that the risk to public education is very
minimal and that only education supplied on a commercial basis
will be impacted. The WTO secretariat itself has pointed out
that commercial basis has not even been defined. What is at issue
here is that the separation between what is public and what is
private becomes very unclear.
Today's motion is very important. We in the NDP have brought it
forward because we want to alert the Canadian public as to what
is unfolding on the upcoming WTO hearings.
I am from Vancouver East in British Columbia. Massive organizing
is going on among student organizations, groups like the Council
of Canadians and the labour movement. They are extremely
concerned about these hearings. They want to say to the
government that placing the market ideology and the interests of
transnational corporations above the interests of the people of
Canada and what we should be doing as a democratically elected
government is a very dangerous course and must be stopped.
The Conservative member said that we need rules based trade.
The question is, for whom? We need rules based on public
interest and a common good, not deregulation based on the super
profits of multinational corporations.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, was chastising the
Conservative member for misrepresenting what he said. However in
the next breath, the New Democratic Party comes in and
scaremongers, and brings up all these possibilities of issues
that are somehow taking place at the WTO.
I would like to say to the hon. member that she misrepresents
the Government of Canada in its position. I will mention two
areas.
The member said that the Government of Canada was not interested
in transparency, or in other words, of making sure that people
know what is going on in either the MAI or the WTO negotiations.
Had the hon. member been involved in the debate or the MAI study
done by the trade subcommittee along with the WTO study, she
would know that it was the Government of Canada that brought
forward and put the MAI report on the table at the standing
committee on international trade.
It was the Government of Canada that was promoting knowledge of
Canadians to battle exactly that, to battle fearmongering, to
battle those that would try to paint this in areas that it is
quite simply not.
These are simply negotiations to get better rules of trade so
that we have better access to other countries and that the
agreements we already have in place work better.
I would ask the hon. member, before she rises up and
fearmongers, that she get out and talk to Canadians as did the
standing committee and the Government of Canada. The Government
of Canada found very clearly that it was Canadians who told us
that beyond all the fearmongering, they found it important that
there were rules under which they could trade. They said that if
we are going to create jobs, we need a rules based trading system
to do that.
1240
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments.
I can state categorically that the NDP is the only federal
political party that has consistently gone out with information
about the MAI and the WTO. There were some parliamentary hearings
on the MAI but I have to ask the question, why was that? It was
because the people of Canada and organizations who were involved
in uncovering what the Liberal members were doing demanded that
the Liberals actually come clean, put the issue on the table and
have a public debate.
It was as a result of pressure from the Canadian public that the
Liberals finally had to acquiesce and agree that they had to
provide some information. Exactly the same thing is taking place
now at the WTO.
For example, does the public know, because the Liberals have not
disclosed it, that on the section on the importance of education
even the WTO paper states that education can play a role in
reducing inequality? Do Canadians know that in the Canadian
government paper any reference to this role of promoting equality
is actually deleted? It has actually gone further than the WTO
position which is bad enough in and of itself.
When we say that there has been no disclosure and this is being
done in secrecy, that is exactly the case. It is not
fearmongering. It is trying to get the information out to the
Canadian public that the WTO agenda and what is unfolding there,
and what the position of the Canadian government is, are
extremely harmful to every notion we have on what it means to be
Canadians. That is not fearmongering.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I have a case in point.
The hon. member says the Government of Canada's position on the
education portion is that it has deleted that word. The hon.
member should know that the Government of Canada has not put
forward its position. It will be putting forward its position on
November 16. I cannot understand what the hon. member could be
talking about.
That is how these rumours start. That is how Canadians have
been taken to the cleaners by groups that put out all this
misinformation, and spread all these rumours that the Canadian
government will be doing that.
I am not quite sure what the hon. member was reading from. There
might have been documentation put out by the department in order
to extend this debate.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal
Government of Canada that is taking the people of Canada to the
cleaners on this and other issues.
I note with interest that the member has not denied that
Canada's position will be any deletion to the reference from the
WTO that education serves as an instrument of promoting equality.
Very clearly there has been an admission that not only does the
Canadian government's position mirror what the WTO has put
forward, and we are taking the script from the bureaucrats in
Geneva, but we are going beyond that. The member has not been
able to deny that.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to oppose the motion for the simple reason
that it actually goes to the heart of a common misconception that
borders on scaremongering, that international trade agreements by
their very nature are undemocratic and that somehow by entering
into these international trade agreements we are giving up our
sovereignty and our right to act and legislate on behalf of the
Canadian people, and in the best interests of the Canadian
people.
Let us set the record straight. The very fact that we enter
into these agreements at all is an act of sovereignty in itself,
a very important act of sovereignty. We owe much of our
prosperity and quality of life to free trade; in fact, 40% of our
gross domestic product depends on it. We also see free trade not
just as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, an end to
provide a better quality of life for all Canadians.
The government has also recognized that to reach our common
goals we must engage all of society, not just the experts but
also the non-governmental organizations and academics.
In fact this very week the Americas business forum and also the
free trade area of the Americas ministerial meeting was held in
Toronto. At the same time our government supported a civil
society parallel forum which was held right there in Toronto to
canvass the views of non-governmental organizations, to canvass
the views of academics and to canvass the views of all Canadians.
1245
The government sees that transparency is very, very important. I
would like to use the example of what the government did to
ensure that we went out to speak with Canadians.
In 1998 and 1999 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and its subcommittee on international trade
conducted an examination of Canada's trade objectives and the
forthcoming agenda at the WTO, and also looked at Canada's
priority interests in the free trade area of the Americas.
The committee held a series of public hearings, first in Ottawa
and thereafter across Canada, on the key aspects of Canadian
international trade policy. Why did we do so? Because these
hearings were coming at a time when all countries were facing
some very crucial choices and decisions in the complex
negotiating process that is being conducted multilaterally, both
under the auspices of the WTO and in developing regional forums,
such as the proposed free trade area of the Americas.
In asking the committee to conduct public consultations, the
then minister for international trade stated that there is a
necessity to provide Canadians with more opportunity to have
input into the position that the Government of Canada will take
going into these negotiations.
Actually, at that time the minister stated in his opening
presentation to the committee that international trade had become
a local issue. What happens as far away as the negotiating table
has consequences that reach right down to the kitchen table and
other domains of daily life. As the trend deepens as a result of
globalization, the making of trade policies cannot be left only
to a few officials in back rooms, it needs to engage the whole of
society and governments at all levels.
It was the role of the committee to encourage citizens in all
parts of Canada to participate, to give us their best ideas and
to follow the progress of the study in the coming weeks and
months. The final report submitted by the committee represented
extensive hearings across Canada, containing the views of many
Canadians and interested groups on a broad range of issues that
will need to be addressed in our trade negotiations. It is
incumbent upon the government to respond to those views and the
government will be tabling its response within the next week.
I would commend to all members of the House the report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
entitled “Canada at the WTO: Toward a Millennium Agenda”. It
is a comprehensive and helpful contribution of a parliamentary
committee in defining the national trade interest.
In addition, the committee prepared a citizens' guide to the WTO
and to the committee's June 1999 report. This guide serves as a
very useful tool, not just to inform and educate ourselves, but
also Canadians. We are transparent. I would urge all Canadians,
as well as hon. members opposite, to get a copy of the citizens'
guide to the WTO.
Parliamentarians and all legislative committees are well placed
to take on the responsibility of mediating and communicating
between the executive branch of government and the various
interest groups in an area of broad significance such as
international trade policy at the WTO.
Going back again to the hearings that we undertook, these were
the most comprehensive cross-country hearings ever taken: 425
committee appearances comprised of 88 industry associations, 26
governments, 61 academics, researchers and professionals, 85
civil society representatives and 64 individuals.
The committee was mindful of having the broadest possible and
open public input on the main political choices that will govern
the WTO millennium round.
The report is comprehensive in addressing Canada's general goals
at the WTO as well as specific sectoral interests, particularly
the difficult agricultural dimension where both Canadian export
and supply interests are at play, and the tricky social dimension
of labour and environmental standards, and the role of the WTO
around those standards.
1250
The report developed a broad degree of consensus,
notwithstanding some minority dissenting opinions. We reached
consensus on 39 recommendations. The recommendations related to
our negotiating interests at the WTO round, the implication of
the WTO agreements, as well as improving the dispute settlement
mechanism to ensure that the WTO can make a contribution to
global governments and stability without detracting from its
primary sphere of trade responsibility. It is representative of
what federal parliamentarians working together in a legislative
committee can achieve in influencing the Canadian position
leading into the WTO negotiations.
The report also recommends an ongoing role for parliament in
examining the results of trade negotiations before entering into
binding legal agreements and implementing legislation.
Last Friday in the House the subcommittee on international
trade, trade disputes and investments, tabled its report on
priorities as we enter the consultations on the free trade area
of the Americas. The report is entitled “Towards a Hemispheric
Agreement in the Canadian Interest”; not in the multinational
interest, but in the Canadian interest. This week ministers met
in Toronto to discuss the roles we should have.
We must remember the importance of free trade to our economy.
Every billion dollars in export amounts to 15,000 jobs. Our
annual export and import growth of 8.1% and 6.4%, respectively,
far outpaced our GDP growth. Canada is the most trade oriented
country in the G-8.
We also have to look at investments. There are stronger
increases in both inward and outward flows of direct investment.
In 1998 inflows to Canada were $22.9 billion, but Canadians
invested a record $39.8 billion abroad. Canada, as a medium
power, benefits by a rules based world where might is not right.
This is especially important to us as we live next door to the
United States, our biggest trading partner.
Canadian parliamentarians at all levels can play an important
role in supporting the interests of Canadians by encouraging and
promoting Canadian firms and exports and by assessing broad
industrial and societal interests in recommending approaches to
international trade policy as a new WTO round dawns. Effective
communication and co-operation on trade matters by federal and
provincial parliamentarians may enhance the arrangements in place
to ensure that provincial interests are fully integrated into the
national trade agenda. Support in international and
interparliamentary trade representations will also enhance
government efforts as we strive not only to help Canadian
industry, which is comprised of small and medium size business,
but to benefit all Canadians.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague with whom I have worked on
the committee. She talked about the broad based consultation
process which has taken place, in particular with respect to the
free trade area of the Americas and the WTO. She also mentioned
that the FTAA report is out. I would remind her that the
official opposition has released a dissenting report which dwells
on one of the major points, the consultation process.
The so-called civil society now has direct access to the talks,
bypassing elected officials. They should be consulting elected
officials. They should not have direct input into the talks.
The provinces have not really been consulted. A meeting of the
ministers does not mean consultation of the provinces.
1255
We are suggesting that there be a committee to study treaties
and that parliament be allowed to have free votes on these
treaties.
I would like to have her thoughts on those points.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
the official opposition for his question. He talked about broad
based public consultation. This is the first time in the history
of our trade negotiations that a parliamentary committee has
travelled across Canada before the negotiations started to
canvass Canadians on their priorities, interests and concerns for
the upcoming WTO negotiations.
Let us face the fact that the WTO is a brand new organization.
It only came into existence in 1995 and it may not be perfect. We
listened to those concerns, because we cannot make it better if
we do not understand what the problems are. That was the reason
we went, and we will continue to go.
If my hon. colleague would look at the WTO report again he would
see that there is a specific recommendation that there continue
to be an ongoing role for parliamentarians to look at the impacts
and the effects of trade agreements. The process does not stop
here. It will be ongoing. I hope that the member, who is now a
member of the committee, will continue to be there to canvass
societal interests across Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park on her excellent
remarks with respect to free trade.
She said that it has been the most important vehicle for
economic growth here in Canada in recent years. She also said
that it has been one of the most important vehicles for economic
development and job creation in Canada.
I would like to ask the member whether she thinks that, without
free trade, Canada would now be looking at a budgetary surplus.
Had it not been for the efforts of our government a number of
years ago, would there be a budgetary surplus today?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, we must remember one very
important thing, and I did say this, that this government used
free trade not just as an end in itself, but as a means to an
end; as a way to ensuring a better quality of life for all
Canadians. We do not just believe in unfettered trade and trade
at any cost. That is why we sought consultations across the
country.
Yes, trade is important. Forty per cent of our GDP depends on
it. That is one of the factors which makes this country a great
place to live. It is one of the reasons the government continues
to work on job creation, ensuring that small and medium size
businesses can export. Also, the government plays a very
important role in ensuring that those most affected by free trade
are taken care of, that adjustments are made, and that we are
there to ensure that wealth is properly distributed.
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and
satisfaction that I rise today to speak about something that, in
my view, has served the Canadian public very well.
Before going any further, I would simply like to respond to the
earlier question from the Progressive Conservative member about
the benefits of the free trade agreement put in place by the
Progressive Conservative Party. I would merely remind him that
the Liberal Party was the first party in Canada to support free
trade. This goes all the way back to 1910 and 1911, to the time
of Wilfrid Laurier.
1300
Second, what the Conservatives did was mentioned. I feel we
should also emphasize the nice job done by the Liberals, who
then formed the official opposition. They ensured that some
adjustments were made regarding certain definitions in the
agreement, so that the opening of our borders did become a
laudable initiative and a desirable thing for all Canadians.
Again, the Liberal team, my team, deserves to be congratulated.
Today, I would like to do two things: first, put into
perspective the importance of international trade for Canada
and, second, stress the efforts being made by the government to
provide greater access to international markets for our
businesses.
I could go on all day about the government's efforts, but I will
focus on specific points.
The first one is the importance of international trade. As
Minister Responsible for the Economic Development Agency of
Canada for the regions of Quebec, I see on a daily basis that
Canada's current economic growth is largely dependent on our
businesses' ability to face foreign competition and to find a
niche on international markets.
Let us take a look at some figures. Exports account for 40% of
our GDP. This is the highest rate among G-7 countries. Moreover,
the percentage of domestic production that relates to exports
almost doubled over the past ten years. As for exports alone, in
1998, they reached a record level of $367 billion. Based on the
impressive numbers for 1999, we can already anticipate that the
1998 level will be surpassed.
The trade balance is undoubtedly a good indicator. In August, we
had a trade surplus of $3.6 billion. This means that, after the
first eight months of 1999, we had already exceeded the total
figure for 1998.
[English]
The numbers I just referred to are pretty much eloquent. They
show that international commerce is vital for Canada, vital for
our exports. We as a country profit from the global marketplace.
We started talking about the global marketplace in theory decades
ago, but we are actually facing a real situation. It is a real
challenge for Canada as a country. It is also a real challenge
for our economy.
As a government we want to make sure that all corporations in
Canada, of which we are proud, will be given all the necessary
tools to be involved in and to join with all nations in the
global marketplace. At the end of the process we want to ensure
that we have our share. Having our share means that we will have
economic growth on a national basis and very good quality job
creation in Canada.
Another very important part of international economy and the
global marketplace is foreign investment. Foreign investment in
our country brought us new technology, different knowledge, and
the means to support the social safety net that has been in place
in the country for decades.
[Translation]
So we can see the importance of international trade here in
Canada. Given that our market is relatively small, the fact
that borders are opening now, that tariff and non tariff
barriers are disappearing, enormous opportunities are arising.
1305
The Government of Canada, especially since our government took
office in 1993, has understood this fact and put certain
measures in place to enable our businesses to seize every
opportunity.
First, one of the factors resulting in the government's support
for business is, without a doubt and not often mentioned, our
country's good financial health. It is a matter of ensuring
economic stability, economic growth and control over public
finances.
This results in a respectable and low rate of inflation for us
and respectable rates of interest, as compared with all of the
other G-7 members.
As a result, our businesses have a solid base nationally and a
springboard for their first international venture.
The second factor I would like to draw to the attention of the
House today is the Team Canada phenomenon. I think this is one
of the finest means of international promotion any member of the
G-7 has come up with in this era of globalization.
I am proud that our government is the one that developed such an
initiative, whose purpose is to ensure that all departments and
agencies—22 in all—work together to help businesses on the
international level, and work in partnership with all provinces
and territories as well, and also with the private sector. That
is, of course, very important. I need not review all the
success stories of Team Canada.
I would also like to draw attention to the important
contribution of the Export Development Corporation in our
international efforts. This is a somewhat unique financial
institution which allows us to open doors to a sizeable number
of Canadian businesses in more than 200 countries.
This is another well-known tool and one that is doing an
excellent job, providing support to businesses in very specific
and specialized areas. These areas are vital to businesses.
There is also a fourth element: the changes we have made in
recent years to our embassies and consulates. Canada wanted to
be far more aggressive on the international scene. We wanted to
really support our businesses. This is why we have expanded our
commercial sections abroad and have begun a process to expand
the number of trade commissioners internationally.
In conclusion, a considerable number of actions have been
undertaken in order to help businesses and especially to
ultimately democratize exports and ensure they are also
accessible to small and medium sized businesses.
I shall close with the comment that, in partnership with a
government with a great deal of vision, Canadian businesses will
be able to conquer the export market and to bring to this
country all the prosperity we deserve.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague talk about the
government's record on free trade, but I would beg to differ. He
talked about team Canada. I think team Canada's success is still
under question, despite what the government says.
Let us look at the record on free trade. The Liberals opposed
NAFTA and when they were elected they agreed to it. In the ITAR
dispute which took place the government later recognized the
impact on trade. In the WTO agriculture is not a priority. I do
not even hear the government talking about agriculture. The
Minister for International Trade has only been talking about
culture. Perhaps the minister would like to address my comments.
1310
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the
brand new economy in the global marketplace of course it has to
take place within a framework. We all know that the framework
set by all countries involved in the global economy is the World
Trade Organization.
WTO, which was previously GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, was established, as those who are very much aware of
the situation know, a long time ago. It is a long process but it
is a long process that shows to the population and the world as a
whole that when countries are working together they can establish
rules and parameters which ensure that corporations are able to
compete against each other and that there are rules which have to
be respected and from which every country can benefit.
As far as WTO is concerned, it is an ongoing process which will
continue in Seattle shortly.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
putting my question to the Minister of National Revenue, I would
like to caution members of the public and of non-governmental
organizations that the NDP is using this official opposition day
on the subject of free trade agreements to do a bit of
grandstanding.
I would urge the public to look into the New Democratic Party's
record of attendance at the many consultations that have been
held and the many forums where it was given an opportunity to
express its disagreement with the free trade agreements. NDP
members were never there.
The Minister of National Revenue said that, in 1911, in the days
of Wilfrid Laurier, the ruling Liberal Party was wonderful and
supported free trade. This former prime minister must have been
turning in his grave in the 1980s. It seems to me that, at the
time, the Liberal Party's position on free trade was a lot less
clear.
It also seems to me that, on the GST and NAFTA, the Liberals
have broken two promises. With respect to environmental and
social clauses, could the minister tell me whether his
government maintained its 1993 position in the free trade
agreements with Chile, Israel and the FTAA?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, since time is short, I will
say that I am sure that, even in the 1980s, when the free trade
agreements were being discussed, Wilfrid Laurier could rest in
peace, because my party has always been faithful to its original
tenets, which were established by Wilfrid Laurier himself. This
goes back to 1910, 1911.
Basically, what we did in the 1980s was to bring out various
points of view in order to clarify the agreement. Further
clarification would have been needed to avoid certain problems
of interpretation that we have today and that would not exist if
people had listened to us in the 1980s.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague, who, as a general rule, is one member
of the government who is rational. We cannot change history. I
know very well that, in any case, excessive partisanship can
become morbid and prevent us from seeing things as they are.
I was here in the 1988 campaign, when all of Quebec was
mobilized to get the agreement ratified. We suffered the wrath
of the Liberal Party at the time. It was extremely difficult to
campaign objectively then. Despite all, the results are there.
I would like the minister to tell us the economic effects of the
free trade agreement since its signing, in terms of volume of
export. I would also like to know what it has meant in terms of
net annual revenue for the government.
I do not think we consider globalization or a free trade
philosophy often enough, but it produces results.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I think my ten minute speech
showed the benefits and the need to address globalization and
the various export markets.
1315
Obviously there were enormous positive effects, a source of
particular pride to us, since we also played a lead role in some
of the free trade agreements signed by our government, with
which hon. members are very familiar.
What is also very important, in my opinion, is that when we took
over the government in 1993, our economic sector was having a
particularly hard time competing internationally, because the
fiscal position of the country left something to be desired, as
a result of the actions of the previous government.
We started by putting our fiscal house in order, which brought a
breath of fresh air into private business, and prosperity is
possible today because we have a responsible government.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have the opportunity, along with my colleagues, to reply
on behalf of the official opposition to the NDP supply day
motion.
I am a bit surprised at the way the NDP is attacking this
problem, especially after the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade held extensive hearings last year
across the country to garner information about what people's
positions would be. I am surprised the NDP members have taken the
approach to sort of roll up the sidewalks and put fences up
around Canada as if to say “Stop the world, we want to get
off”.
It could just as easily have come from the Clark Tories. We saw
their main spokesman, David Orchard, taking the same kind of tack
for the Conservative Party. My understanding is that at a recent
convention that was held in Winnipeg, a resolution was raised
that would have free trade as one of the standing principles of
the Clark Tory Party. It was voted down, if members can believe
that. The party that voted for free trade in 1988 is now
rejecting free trade under David Orchard and the Clark led
Tories. It will be interesting to hear how Tory members speak to
this motion today.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Selkirk—Interlake.
I want to talk about free trade and where the whole concept of
trade rules came from. It is important to have a little history
on this subject.
It goes back to the first world war. Shortly after the first
world war in the twenties, the United States became very
protectionist, much like the NDP are suggesting for Canada today.
The United States introduced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Those
tariffs eventually got to about 60%. Naturally, its trading
partners, the other countries around the world said that if they
did not have access to the U.S. market, they did not have much
choice but to put up their own tariffs. That started to happen
and I suggest that was a main ingredient of the massive
depression that hit in 1929, protectionism. It has not served
anybody very well.
We went through the thirties, the depression in Canada. We know
what happens when countries withdraw. The money supply gets tight
and they protect their own markets. There was basically no trade
in the world. We went through a very tough time. Then we went
through the second world war. There was massive upheaval.
At the end of the second world war it was recognized that we
needed some international stability. A number of international
institutions were put in place through agreement, such as the
United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank
and of course the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades in
1948.
What happened as a result of the trade agreements is that we
gradually came to have a liberalized set of rules to govern world
trade in a number of commodities. At the time Canada was
proposing that we should also move to have agriculture included
but there was not enough support around the world to let that
happen. Agriculture was viewed as a special category.
We know what has happened over the years. International trade
has prospered in the areas of industrial goods. Tariffs are only
at about 4% or 5% around the world.
1320
Agriculture was only brought under trade rules for the first
time with the Uruguay round agreement in 1993. It took seven
years for the Uruguay round agreement to be achieved. The
backdrop to that Uruguay round agreement was massive trade wars
in agriculture.
To go a little further down the road, the reason for the
agreement was that countries like Canada, Australia and
Argentina, the smaller economies, knew that they could not
compete with the massive treasuries of trade blocs like the
United States and the European Union. They knew that if we were
going to be exporting, and Canada is very much an exporting
country with 40% of our GDP coming from exports, we were going to
have to have some trade rules around that. There was no
agreement to make the same kinds of cuts to tariffs and subsidies
that there were on industrial goods.
They knew there would have to be an adjustment period. That
adjustment period was to take place in the six year time frame
from 1994 to 2000 with a small adjustment, about a 15% reduction
in tariffs and subsidies.
The idea was to build in another trade round in 2000.
Agriculture would be a mandated negotiation. We would try to cut
these massive tariffs and subsidies we have around the world.
That paints the picture of where we are at. I have talked to a
lot of farmers around Canada in the last several years. They are
saying that we need to have trade rules around agriculture to
bring down subsidies and tariffs because we cannot compete with
them.
We see the government needing to respond by putting subsidies in
place because the European Union spent $70 billion on agriculture
subsidies last year. Essentially they are freezing us out of our
market share by dumping their excess onto the world market.
At the same time, farmers are saying to us, “We need to have
these rules. Go to Seattle. Go to the next trade round and
negotiate tough. We are not going to survive otherwise”. How
does that compare with the NDP approach? The NDP approach is to
roll up the sidewalks and say, “Stop the world and let me off”.
I wonder how that is playing in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Agriculture is hurting very desperately in Saskatchewan. I wonder
how the NDP supply day motion to take us out of trade
negotiations is playing in Saskatchewan. The farmers want more
trade liberalization so that we can compete on the basis of
production, not on the basis of subsidies with trade blocs around
the world. I would suggest that the NDP is going to find out
that it is not playing very well at all.
Members of the NDP are ignoring Sask Pool. The member for
Winnipeg—Transcona is here. He was part of those hearings. He
sat in on some of them when Sask Pool said, “Yes, we need more
trade liberalization. We need it in agriculture”. A number of
farm organizations from Winnipeg, Saskatoon and different places
were calling for the same thing.
Embattled farmers around western Canada in particular are
looking for more trade liberalization so we can get on an equal
playing field as we have with other countries in terms of
industrial tariffs.
That brings into play the role of the Liberal government in the
trade negotiations coming up in the next round. It has taken a
position that we are going to have a so-called balanced approach
in agriculture, a balanced approach meaning we want access to all
of the markets of all the other countries around the world based
on their subsidies and tariffs, but we do not want to do the same
thing here in Canada.
I do not think that is a credible position. We still have
tariffs on some commodities in the range of 300%. I suggest that
those tariffs are going to be attacked in the next trade round,
as they should be.
The role of the government is to take a credible position. It
is to create the economic climate that lets our companies do
well. We have to have some trade rules. We have to trade. We
are a major exporting country and that is not going to change. We
are 30 million people with all kinds of natural resources. The
service sector is growing at a very high rate. We need rules to
work with.
The NDP has also said that it does not want any further
negotiations on investment. It makes me wonder. Since the NDP
provincial government went into power in B.C. in 1991, every
subsequent year the amount of foreign and direct investment in
British Columbia has dropped. B.C. is now a basket case
province. I think the NDP is going to be thrown out of power
there at the earliest opportunity.
It is no wonder that people do not want to invest in B.C. It is
no wonder our mining companies are leaving that province in
droves to go to places like Chile. The investment climate is not
as it should be to create the proper environment for people to
invest. It is as simple as that.
The NDP also says that we should not talk about investment
rules. I know the NDP was very much against the MAI. I would
suggest there needs to be some rules around investment.
1325
The amount of direct foreign investment by Canadian companies
and Canadians in general is now in excess of all the direct
foreign investment in Canada. There is something like $240
billion of Canadian investment outside of Canada. I suggest some
of that is because of the poor economic climate in Canada in
places like British Columbia, but there are other reasons.
Companies also want to take advantage of opportunities in places
like Chile and many other spots. They are looking for some rules
regarding expropriation to protect them in those kinds of
investments.
I am really surprised with the NDP's approach. I know that we
and the NDP have a major difference in policy, but I am surprised
that it would be so regressive in its approach, especially when
farmers in a province like Saskatchewan are asking for trade
liberalization. Companies are asking for investment rules that
would govern investment around the world. It is a very strange
approach, one that we will definitely not be supporting.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to correct a wrong impression that the hon.
member has.
If he had listened to my remarks earlier, I made a distinction
between agriculture and the whole question of investment and
services. I said that investment and services were new things
that were being put on the WTO table in a way that they never
have been before, but that agriculture has always been on the
table at the GATT, as the member rightly recognized, and now at
the WTO and that there was work to do with respect to
agriculture. I wish he would not say things about us that are
not true.
What we point out in the motion is that the government has gone
a lot further than what the WTO actually requires and has put
Canadian farmers in a very vulnerable position. I wonder if he
agrees with that analysis or not. Perhaps he could address
himself to something that the motion actually says, or that some
New Democrat actually said as opposed to what he likes to imagine
New Democrats have said. We have never said that there is not
more negotiation to go on with respect to agriculture. We agree
that there are problems that have to be addressed.
What we are unequivocally stating, and what he can disagree with
properly and honestly because we have said it, is that there
should be no further trade liberalization of investment and
services until such time as there are enforceable mechanisms with
respect to core labour standards, environmental regulations, et
cetera. If he wants to disagree with that and attribute that
position to us, fine. But let us not have attributed to us
things that we are not actually saying. That is all I ask.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I can only go by the
actual motion that is before the House today. The NDP opposition
motion in paragraph 2 calls for the government not to negotiate
any further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle
meeting of the World Trade Organization. It could not be any
clearer than that.
It seems to me that the NDP's approach is a little bit like the
Liberal approach, that we can have our cake and eat too. It
simply is not the case.
I gather the NDP member would want us to go there on a very
narrow agenda and negotiate on certain sections of agriculture,
although that is not how it reads in the supply day motion. After
what the member said, I do not think that is a very practical
solution.
We know that other countries, like the trading blocs of Europe,
have a vested interest in keeping their subsidies and tariffs in
place. If they were to come to those negotiations and they were
only on agriculture, although I recognize that this is an
approach that we could take, it would not be very helpful. We
are all politicians. We know that it would be very tough for the
European Union politicians to go home and say, “We negotiated on
agriculture, but we are sorry, we lost”. They have to have more
on the table than just agriculture to satisfy their public.
Some $70 billion in subsidies went into farmers' pockets in
Europe last year, subsidies that are destroying our Canadian
farmers. Basically the whole European Union trade bloc is off
limits to our exports. Even worse than that, they overproduce as
a result of these large subsidies. They dump that 10% or 15%
overproduction on the world markets and it kills our agricultural
prices.
We have a difference in points of view on how that can be
achieved. I suggest it is through a larger trade round than the
member suggested.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand the NDP member who has just spoken correctly, there
is a wide gap between what they think and what they write, and
another equally wide between what they write and what they say.
This may explain our difficulty in understanding what they are
getting at.
1330
A Canada-wide consultation was carried out, in which the hon.
member for Peace River was involved. We heard hundreds of
representatives of NGOs, who were in favour of or opposed to
free trade agreements and represented tens of thousands of
Canadians.
I would like to hear what he thinks about the NDP's lack of
participation in that consultative process.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the records will stand
for themselves. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona was at some
of those meetings. That is why I am surprised they would take
this approach.
I thank my colleague for this intervention because we were part
of that same committee travelling across the country. I was at
all the hearings that were mandated and I heard farmers and farm
groups say that they desperately needed trade liberalization in
agriculture. They could not go on. When we do not have it we
see what happens, that we have to get back into the subsidy
business. I think most farmers believe that is not the best
approach.
There were views pro and con at all those hearings on whether or
not we should proceed, but I believe Canada has benefited
greatly. That can be demonstrated by the amount of trade that
has taken place between ourselves and the United States, the
enhanced trade since the free trade agreement of 1988.
I notice the Liberal Party finally did an about-face on free
trade. It has become newly converted supporters of it, which I
welcome. I would only ask that the NDP follows suit.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought before the
House by the NDP caucus. I will take its details on trade and
various other issues and put them into the context of history so
that New Democrats understood why the motion cannot be supported
by virtually anyone in the House except dyed-in-the-wool
socialists.
When we look at the history of trade around the world since
recorded times, we see that the most prosperous countries ever to
exist had gigantic trading patterns with their neighbours and
countries other than themselves. They did not only trade
internally, hoping to become more prosperous and have better
lives for their citizens as we see in this motion. The Greeks
and the Phoenicians relied on trade as do Japan, the U.S. and
even Canada today. The motion before us would in effect slam our
borders shut until such time as we could dictate to the world
what the trading patterns and the details of them should be.
I refer directly to the motion which starts off by saying in the
first paragraph that this government has sabotaged Canadian
democracy. Does that make everyone feel good when trying to deal
with trade issues and negotiate with partners?
The second paragraph says that the government should not
negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment, and
it goes on to talk about the WTO and the FTA. If that does not
apply to agriculture, which is trade, I do not know what does.
Probably the biggest complaint I have about the motion is that we
should stop where we are, not move forward and not improve
matters for farmers.
As the chief agriculture critic I will make a few more comments
about agriculture than other trade issues. As I have pointed
out, New Democrats say to the world that either it does as they
say on trade agreements or they will not help improve conditions
for Canadian farmers or third world farmers through greater trade
liberalization and negotiations.
The last paragraph of the motion says:
That the government should take action to remedy its overzealous
and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which
has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers—
1335
When we look at the benefits of trade liberalization for
Canadian farmers we know they are better off because of the
greater number of exports. Cattle is a great example, as are
grains such as canola. Everything is just that much better by
having liberalized free trade.
In the last paragraph of the motion the New Democrats are trying
to say that Canadian farmers have hit upon a hard time. They had
better not be blaming trade liberalization for that. They had
better be blaming this government and the previous Conservative
government and the signing of the trade treaty in 1993.
It was a start, but when they came home they totally destroyed
domestic support programs for agriculture which farmers needed to
compete on a level playing field with our neighbours to the south
and Europeans. They maintained their domestic support and we
slashed ours and put our farmers into bankruptcy. That can only
rest on the heads of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
However, the solution according to NDP members would be to stop
everything and seal the border. I am paraphrasing a bit because
trade would continue, but in essence they want to stop everything
and start to talk about getting their way and dictating to the
world how things should be before Canada continues with the
negotiations.
Reform has been taking good actions and doing what it can in
Ottawa. We certainly have solutions to the farm crisis to which
the NDP alludes. In the short term domestic support has to be
raised with the idea of keeping our farmers competitive with our
trading partners who are distorting the market through their
domestic subsidy practices.
Also the safety net programs have to be repaired or made current
to meet today's conditions. We have seen the failure of AIDA to
address the primary needs of many full time producers on average
farms. The AIDA program has not served them. This is not a
fault of trade. It is a fault of the current government which is
more worried about the budget and what the voters think in
non-farming areas than it is about farmers who are trying to feed
the nation.
One pillar of the Reform Party is that we must have free and
fair trade abroad. It is time, as I said, for the government to
launch a concerted action to reduce and eventually eliminate
foreign subsidies. I know our negotiators will talk about it in
the trade negotiations, but what would be the matter with the
Prime Minister getting on plane, taking probably the agriculture
and trade ministers with him, going to Europe to meet with the
Europeans and telling them point blank that enough is enough and
they will fight them to the end in this regard? That never
happens.
The government, as part of the solution to the hardship
experienced by the farmers, could reduce the costs it imposes on
farmers out west, in Ontario, in the maritimes and in B.C. For
instance, the four cent federal excise tax on every litre of fuel
adds up to a lot of money. Many of us still tend to think in
terms of gallons. If we multiply that by five it amounts to 20
to 30 cents cents a gallon which farmers are paying. A tractor
running in a field burning up 20 gallons an hour soon runs up to
a lot of money. Our government could be taking action in that
area.
We could help farmers if we would look at letting them do more
value added. We have the case of prairie pasta producers who are
trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by further
processing their durum wheat into pasta flour and products.
1340
What happens is that the Canadian Wheat Board says that it is
the controller on behalf of the federal Government of Canada of
the wheat trade in the country and that farmers will either deal
with the board or be thrown in jail, unless it happens to be
Frank Hurley who gets a slap on the wrist.
The average farmer in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will go to jail
under this government for selling his own wheat. If it is the
last thing I do before I leave this parliament, I guarantee that
it will be a voluntary wheat board where a farmer has a choice as
to whether or not he is in there participating and sharing in
pooling the money he receives for his grain.
I will talk for a minute about the movers of the motion, members
of the NDP who aspire to be in government. Certainly the
Canadian public and voters do not intend to give them that
opportunity. To compare what the NDP has done in parliament with
what the Reform Party has done, we only need to look at the
Address in Reply to the Speech for the Throne. The leader of the
NDP said three little sentences on agriculture. The leader of
the opposition from the Reform Party said approximately five or
six paragraphs with some real meat and some real understanding of
agriculture in Canada. That is the importance we place on it.
In the Standing Committee on Agriculture members of the Reform
caucus presented motion after motion which initiated action and
got inquiries going into the income crisis. We have had supply
day after supply day on agriculture, not on some phony trumped up
motion on trade that sets out a manifesto for the NDP with which
nobody else agrees. I invite any questions that anyone might
like to ask of me.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, indeed I
would like to ask a question of my colleague from the Reform
Party. He said in his speech that any of the problems in terms
of agriculture should rest on the heads of this government and
the previous Conservative government. I would like the hon.
member to acknowledge that the Reform Party should share in some
of the blame.
In 1993 when members of the Reform Party arrived here in any
significant numbers they said to the government that they opposed
all government subsidies for agriculture and that everything
should be based on market driven forces. I submit to the hon.
member from Manitoba that the situation is a result of these
programs. The finance minister over there put on his Cheshire
cat grin and asked how much Reformers would like him to cut.
Indeed the government has cut programs by about 60%, three times
more than it was required to in 1993. I would submit that was
done because it wanted the deficit eliminated as fast as
possible. The Reform Party was sitting over here, the only party
with official party status from English Canada at the time, and
the government could not do it fast enough.
Would the hon. member stand in his place and agree that the
Reform Party has contributed directly to the agricultural crisis
that is happening right now in western Canada?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Palliser is once again dead wrong on his interpretation of what
he thinks he heard during the 1993 election. Certainly the
Reform Party never ever said that there would not be programs in
place to keep the field level for international competition
between our farmers and other farmers. That misrepresentation is
just the same as when the NDP goes around trying to say that the
Reform Party will get rid of medicare or health care, that it
will wreck health care and it will be gone forever.
We all ran in the last election. NDP members went around saying
that kind of garbage and the voters sent back 60 Reformers and 18
or 19 NDPers. I do not think the interpretation of the Reform
platform in the last election, or in the election of 1993,
contributed in any what whatsoever to the Liberal government
taking virtually all the domestic support away from the farmers
of Canada.
Certainly the government is trying to replace it now on the same
old ad hoc basis it has been using since the start of
Confederation.
When there is a problem it tries to figure out something in a
hurry. It comes up with details and criteria which do not work
because it has not had time to put any thought into it.
1345
Reform is saying “Mr. and Mrs. Voter, give us a chance and we
will come up with the long term programs”. We will make sure
that Canada can compete with other countries around the world. We
will free Canadians so they can do business without as much
government interference.
I would invite everyone to compare the NDP platform with what we
have done here in Ottawa on behalf of farmers.
Reform is way ahead in asking questions in the House on
agriculture. When I look at the opportunity to use supply day
motions to discuss agriculture issues, Reform is way ahead.
Which party was it that moved for an emergency debate on the
grain handlers crisis? It was Reform. The Reform Party got the
debate going, but then we learned that a settlement had been
reached during the debate.
That is the kind of action we need in Ottawa. Reformers take
the bull by the horns and show all other opposition parties,
including the NDP, what can be done in moving this country
forward.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the NDP
motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Perth—Middlesex.
I would like to talk about the level of consultation that has
been held between the Government of Canada and various groups,
such as that which has become known as the civil society and many
other non-governmental organizations.
As Canada prepares to head into multilateral trade negotiations
and as it continues regional trade negotiations for the FTAA, the
Government of Canada has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to
seek the views of Canadians on the scope, content and process of
these negotiations. Indeed it has just completed the most
comprehensive consultation ever undertaken on this topic in
Canada. We intend to continue this dialogue throughout the
course of these trade negotiations.
Before describing to the House the extent of these
consultations, I would like to emphasize that, from an
international perspective, Canada is on the cutting edge of
public consultations where trade negotiations are concerned.
In international fora it is clear to other countries that we are
very informed about the wide variety of views which exist in
Canada concerning the international trade negotiating agenda and
that we are being very aggressive in taking every opportunity to
listen and respond to public concerns about this agenda. I am
proud to state that these consultations represent Canadian
democracy in action, a democracy that is dynamic and effective.
The Government of Canada has pursued consultations in a wide
variety of ways. We have sought public submissions on trade
policy issues through a Canada Gazette notice and opened a
new trade negotiations website to provide information and papers
on the trade agenda. We are also using this site as a location
for reporting on our consultations with Canadians. This strategy
has put us at the forefront of using new information technology
to communicate with Canadians and we are extremely pleased to be
deepening our connection with Canadians in this new medium.
The Minister for International Trade asked the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to undertake
cross-country hearings to elicit public comments and views on
trade issues. The committee produced a very comprehensive and
informative report. The government will be formally tabling its
response to the report on November 15.
We have also continued to consult with the business sector to
identify our trading priorities. This consultation is taking
place through the sectoral advisory groups on international
trade. We are working very closely with the provinces in
developing our trade negotiating positions.
We are very pleased that seven provincial trade ministers will
accompany the Canadian government to the WTO ministerial meeting
in December. Furthermore, we have conducted 26 separate
consultation sessions on the issues of government procurement,
investment and competition policy. These consultations,
organized in close co-operation with provincial government trade
representatives and senior trade commissioners in each region,
attracted more than 300 participants across Canada from a total
of 1,040 invitations.
These sessions met the government's objectives to build
constructive links to and promote a dialogue with representatives
of civil society on trade and investment related issues across
Canada; to bring to the discussions a broad spectrum of
stakeholders representing environmental, human rights and labour
interests, as well as members of the business community; and to
advance further substantive discussions with these stakeholders
to ensure that Canadians' priorities and interests on these
issues are reflected in the new round of WTO negotiations.
1350
It was clear from these consultations that there exist differing
levels of expertise on trade and investment issues represented
among stakeholders. However, regardless of their level of
knowledge, participants emphasized a need for continued, direct
exchanges with expert stakeholders, and particularly with
representatives of the federal government. We are committed to
providing this contact and to ensuring that the process whereby
our negotiating position is developed is as transparent as it can
possibly be.
Consequently, in the next stage of our consultations leading up
to the Seattle ministerial meeting the government will continue
to work to expand productive working relationships with civil
society stakeholders, develop focused and responsive public
information and outreach activities to broaden these contacts,
respond to the anticipated increase in stakeholder requests for
information on the government's position on trade and investment,
and lay the foundation for deeper and more strategic involvement
of knowledgeable stakeholder groups that have the capacity and
the credibility to champion federal consultation initiatives on
trade and investment issues within their respective communities
following Seattle.
The effectiveness of our consultations with Canadians can be
measured in terms of the enunciation of Canada's overall
negotiating objectives and priorities. We want to ensure that
the lives of Canadians are improved through better access to
global markets and through predictable and enforceable rules
governing trade. We also want to ensure that these rules help
protect the fabric of Canadian society and fundamental Canadian
interests.
I believe that the extensive and ongoing consultation process
that I have just described contributes very positively to these
overall negotiating objectives and priorities.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to make a contribution to today's
debate. It is a significant event for us to talk about the
success stories of the past, beginning with the team Canada visit
to Japan, the benefits of the Chile-Canada free trade agreement
and the objectives of Canada and other world trade members.
According to the motion, it is apparent that hon. members
opposite are prepared to turn back the clock in a world that has
evidently left them far behind. However, I must say that is not
true for all members opposite.
It is true that the Government of Canada has pursued greater
trade liberalization. Unlike that which the hon. members would
have us believe, the government has been responsible and
democratic in its pursuit of greater trade liberalization for the
benefit of the overall Canadian economy and the agriculture and
agri-food sector.
First, Canada is a trading nation that relies on international
trade to the extent of 40% of its gross domestic product. Could
we imagine what it would be like without that, or with half of
that? Canada is no longer a country comprised of hewers of wood
and drawers of water. The world has become smaller and we live
in a global economy. I say to hon. members, welcome to the
future because the future is now.
Overall in the agriculture and agri-food sector farmers have
adjusted to a constantly changing international market. Their
success is obvious when looking at our export numbers.
Agriculture exports have risen from $13 billion to $22 billion
over the past five years. Even with the economic challenges of
the past year, they were up slightly from 1997, which was a
record year.
Trade is important to the growth of the sector. About half of
the average Canadian farm gate income is the result of trade.
That is why this government is committed to working on the
international front to bring order and stability to the world
marketplace and provide better access to world markets.
1355
Despite the commodity market challenges, the outlook of Canada's
agriculture and agri-food sector is positive. The Canadian
agriculture and agri-food industry has also met the evolving
demand for specialized food products. Our exports of value added
goods and processed products are surging. In fact they grew by
almost 9% last year. Processed goods mean processing plant
investment and jobs, jobs which add to the sustainability of our
rural communities.
Members should not just take my word for it. The industry
itself has a lot of confidence in its own capabilities on the
world market. Already Canada has about 3.3% of the world's
agri-food trade, and the Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council, or
CAMC, which is made up of agriculture and agri-food industry
representatives, has set a goal to increase that to 4% by the
year 2005. It has also set a target for increasing processed
agricultural exports over and above bulk commodity exports. By
all current indications there is no reason to think this goal
will not be met.
There is a lot of opportunity out there. The European Union,
for instance, is the world's largest market for agri-food
products. Ten of the world's top 12 food retailers are based
there. I believe it is obvious why we have to be there.
Yes, there are trade distortions that exist among our trading
partners, especial in the EU. Achieving substantial reductions
in these disparities is a key objective for Canadian producers
and exporters. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food will be aggressively seeking greater world markets
abroad for our products at the World Trade Organization talks,
which will be launched at a ministerial meeting in Seattle at the
end of this month. He will be pressing hard for reductions in
domestic subsidies and the elimination of exports.
The Speaker: The hon. member has five minutes left, and
five minutes of questions and comments. However, I thought this
would be a good time to split the speech. You will be our first
speaker when we return to debate after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today more than 110 individuals representing Canada's
rail industry will be meeting with more than 130
parliamentarians.
The Canadian public should know that the North American railway
system has been, and is, the best in the world for shippers and
governments by providing the best overall service at the lowest
overall price, attracting the most investment and not depending
on subsidies.
Canada's railways are safe. They reduce road costs and highway
congestion, are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.
However, Canadian rail shippers have the most regulated
transportation environment in North America. Therefore, ongoing
dynamic policy changes must keep Canadian shippers competitive in
domestic and international markets and encourage sustained
investment for the delivery of improved services and lower costs.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just returned from a military fact finding mission in
Australia.
I first want to thank those private donors and the Reform Party
which financially supported this endeavour to make it possible.
For 10 days I visited with Australian defence leaders and met
with men and women of the Canadian forces in Darwin. Unlike
Canada's military, which has suffered from political neglect for
decades, the Australians have a replacement or upgrade program in
place for all their major equipment.
Here in Canada air crews continue to struggle to keep the 36
year old Sea King helicopters in the air, while our government
dithers.
If there is one overriding lesson that I would like to pass on
to my colleagues on both sides of the House it is this: In
Australia national defence is truly a national and non-partisan
issue.
The tragic cancellation of the EH-101, where this Prime Minister
made a cynical promise that continues to jeopardize the safety of
military personnel, could not happen there—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada's nuclear energy industry contributes an
impressive $4.5 billion annually to the country's economy and
directly employs 30,000 people.
Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River plant employs nearly 2,000
people in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
1400
As a result of our national nuclear program, many spinoff
industries have been created which employ roughly 100,000 people.
One such company is SRB Technologies of Pembroke. This is a
successful growing company run by bright, aggressive young people
such as vice-president Stephane Levesque.
SRB Technologies manufactures tritium-filled light sources,
Betalights, which have both scientific and commercial
applications, from luminous energy emergency signs to military
vehicles. Next year SRB plans to expand, hire more people and
increase sales in both Canada and around the world.
I am proud to salute Stephane Levesque and his great upper
Ottawa valley company.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have received more than 1,000 letters from citizens in
my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford concerning the recent
decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal that the law making it a
criminal offence to possess child pornography is
unconstitutional.
My constituents wrote to me during their white ribbon campaign
against pornography last week and letters are still arriving. The
purpose of the WRAP campaign is to help educate and sensitize
Canadians to the fact that pornography is addictive and damaging.
My constituents and all Canadians should know that the
government believes the law prohibiting possession is
constitutional. We too believe that our children are our
greatest possession and must be protected against child
pornography. We intervened in the B.C. case to vigorously defend
the law and we will do so again when the case is before the
Supreme Court of Canada.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Remembrance Day we will pay tribute to the Canadians who fell in
war throughout the century.
As we pause to remember, we would do well to recall that war
affects not just those on the front lines but also those left at
home to cope.
During the second world war, for every Canadian in uniform there
were 10 serving at home on the home front. They worked the farms
and factories. They gave blood, collected scrap, planted victory
gardens and bought victory bonds. They suffered privations and
rationing.
Throughout it all, they worried and prayed for their sons and
daughters, husbands and wives waiting in fear for that dreaded
telegram that would begin “We regret to inform you—”. It was
a tremendous time of sacrifice but of great spirit.
On November 11, we will remember those who sacrificed all so
that we in this world would be rid of the forces of oppression
and tyranny. They would be proud of the nation that their
children built and merely ask us to remember them still. We
pledge to do this forever.
* * *
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I had the pleasure to
attend a conference on trade corridors held in Niagara Falls.
People came from across the continent to discuss ways Canada and
the United States can more efficiently transport the $1.5 billion
of goods that cross the border every day.
Since 70% of these goods travel by road, everyone acknowledged
the need to upgrade the highway system.
The American government is pumping over $200 billion into its
highway system over a six year period; that is 90% of the money
it collects in fuel taxes. Contrast this to the federal Liberals
who, despite collecting over $4.5 billion in fuel taxes a year,
put only a pathetic $150 million back into Canada's roads; that
is only 3%.
Trade has been a major factor in Canada's economic recovery. It
is time the Liberals put some of that money back into roads
instead of ripping off the taxpayers yet again.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
understand Canada's military history in the 20th century, one
need only follow the sad trail of monuments and cemeteries the
world over.
At Passchendale in Belgium and Vimy in France, Canadian heroes
of World War I are buried. At Beny-Sur-Mer in France, Sai Wau
Bay in Hong Kong, Bergen-op-Zoom in the Netherlands and the Moro
River in Italy, Canadian heroes of World War II are buried. At
Pusan in Korea, Canadian heroes of the Korean War are buried. At
these and hundreds of other cemeteries the world over, the
headstones of tens of thousands of Canadians speak to us of their
sacrifice that we might live in peace and freedom.
May Canadians always remember their stories, honour their
sacrifice and cherish their precious gift to us.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, never did
I think I would have to rise in the House and remind the federal
Minister of Transport that people in the Sept-Îles region still
do not have access to drinkable running water. The inhabitants
of the beaches area have been deprived of this essential service
because the water table has been contaminated for several years.
Yet, in the summer of 1998, the federal Minister of Transport
admitted responsibility for contaminating these residents' water
source and promised to come up with a long term solution to the
problem.
Today, I join with the spokesperson for the citizens' group and
denounce the Minister of Transport, who seems in no hurry to
assume his responsibilities in this matter and to foot the bill
for the environmental damage caused by—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 70 million Canadian dollars now available in Quebec for
millennium scholarships over a ten-year period are intended to
benefit students from Quebec, particularly those in the greatest
need and, combined with the financial assistance they are
already receiving, reduce their level of indebtedness
significantly.
Minister Legault wants to use the money from the millennium
scholarships to replace existing scholarships under Quebec's
regular grants and loans program. The students have requested
that their loans become millennium scholarships.
Will Minister Legault give a clear undertaking, on behalf of the
Government of Quebec, that students in the greatest need will
receive approximately $2,000 a year in addition to the
assistance they were receiving under Quebec's regular grants and
loans program?
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the supreme court ruling regarding Donald Marshall and native
fishing rights has led to chaos on the east coast and uncertainty
across the nation. The judicial ruling is unclear yet this
government is unwilling to ask the supreme court for
clarification.
Clarification is required regarding who the beneficiaries of the
treaty are, what DFO's regulatory powers regarding the native
fishery are, what the definition is of moderate income, what the
geographical limitations of the treaty are, what rights the
existing commercial fishery have and how far-reaching the
decision is. Is it limited to eels or does it affect lobster,
snow crabs, forestry, oil or more? Finally, how much will it
cost?
It is time for the fisheries minister to get involved so these
issues are clarified and all Canadians know where they stand
regarding this decision.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec students are hoping there will be a positive
outcome to the millennium scholarship matter. They want to see
the money available paid out to them, and they want the Quebec
government to stop playing petty politics with something as
vital to their futures.
The students of Quebec want to see a considerable reduction in
their debt loads. The Government of Quebec must stop
shilly-shallying about the actual amounts to be paid to students.
It is clear that those receiving millennium scholarships must
be the real winners in this. They must receive the amounts to
which they are entitled.
The Quebec Minister of Education must be frank with the
students, the real beneficiaries of the millennium scholarships,
and must tell them the whole truth in this matter.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as the new year approaches and we see more and more articles
about Y2K, a great many people are worried about the
inconvenience that may be caused by various forms of computer
breakdown. However, one of the things we have not heard and
talked enough about is the whole question of whether or not the
nuclear weapons systems that exist around the world are being
given the kind of attention they deserve in light of the Y2K
possibilities.
I would therefore urge the government to respond to the requests
of many groups that are concerned about Y2K and the nuclear
question, to use its position in NATO, in the United Nations and
everywhere else to see if it cannot achieve a stand down of
nuclear weapon systems on December 31.
Let us take all the systems off alert so that the one thing
Canadians and people around the world do not have to worry about
as we enter the new millennium is an accidental nuclear war.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today there
are some important visitors here in Ottawa, the recipients of
the Governor General's Awards: Michel Tremblay, Denise
Filiatrault, Ginette Reno, Louis Quillico, David Cronenberg and
Mavor Moore. They are not the only ones with us, however.
Look carefully and you will also see Thérèse and Pierrette,
Laura Cadieux, Marcel, Édouard, the Fat Lady, and all the other
wonderful characters created by Michel Tremblay and so
skillfully portrayed by Denise Filiatrault and Ginette Reno on
stage or screen.
All of these honorees have given us such pleasure, as we read
their works, hear them in concert, see them on stage or screen.
Once again, their contributions are being recognized today far
beyond the borders of Quebec.
The international renown you all enjoy is a source of pride to
Quebec and to Canada. Bravo to each and every one of you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter
of the millennium scholarships is a happy event for Quebec
students.
I point out, however, that the $70 million provided annually for
Quebec for a ten year period is to benefit Quebec students.
[English]
These grants will be awarded to the students who need it the
most, while also helping them reduce their debt and guaranteeing
that we uphold our previous financial commitment to these
students.
The Government of Quebec has attempted to evade the real issues.
The Parti Quebecois should not ignore the students of Quebec
because they should be the ones to benefit from this
contribution.
[Translation]
They should think twice before trying to make political gain on
the backs of young Quebecers. They have no interest in
political battles, as they told the Bloc member for Longueuil.
It is now up to the Government of Quebec to show its good faith
in this matter, because the Government of Canada wants our young
people to enjoy the fruits of this program, which is intended
for them.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, the Liberal Atlantic caucus, what is left of it, will
announce its plans for Atlantic Canada which I will call a
“Liberal Ode to the East”.
Since 1993
The east coast they could not see
A government so rotten
Atlantic Canada, all but forgotten
No real plan for six years
Frankly, I must say, it brings me to tears
Now that an election is so near
Suddenly they see things so clear
The latest Liberal rave
Eastern Canada they will save!
By catching what they call tomorrow's wave
They've come up with a scheme
But it ain't what it seems
It is a disingenuous attempt
To appease the contempt
A policy for shipbuilding?
Not needed said they
But with an election approaching
Guess what, a review is on its way!
While the U.S. agree
To Baltimore and New York City
The Liberals tell Halifax:
Sorry, no Post Panamax!
Yet another red book
Just a new look
But once you review it
There ain't that much to it
This plan for the east
I know you'll agree
Is more Liberal deceit
Again, just words on a sheet!
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, actor
and producer Denise Filiatrault, dramatist Michel Tremblay,
singer Ginette Reno, filmmaker David Cronenberg and theatre
personality Mavor Moore will be among tomorrow's recipients of
the Governor General's Performing Arts awards.
This is a prestigious award, whose aim is to honour the
excellence of the work done by Canadians. It pays tribute to
our artists' major contribution to the country's cultural life.
I would like to congratulate the winners, while recognizing
their commitment to promoting the quality of artistic life for
Canadians and Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
CHINA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, early
in the morning of July 20, security forces in China began
arresting hundreds of their sleeping citizens. These were people
who meditate. Two days later, the government outlawed the
practice entirely.
The group the Government of China is picking on is known as
Falun Gong. Several thousand have been arrested or detained.
Twisting the rule of law, China amended legislation allowing
sweeping powers to silence a peaceful movement. The solution to
the problem lies at home in China.
Denied the ability to gather or even speak about their beliefs,
this group is now forbidden any legal defence. The government
has actually ordered Chinese lawyers not to plead cases for Falun
Gong. This is poor conduct from a government that claims to be a
representative of a people's republic.
* * *
1415
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of seven of the recipients of the
1999 Governor General Performing Arts awards.
[Translation]
Greatly talented artists, accept our warmest congratulations.
[English]
After question period today and after tributes to our veterans,
I will be hosting a reception on their behalf in Room 216-N.
Colleagues, I would like you to please hold your applause until
I introduce the recipients of the Governor General's Performing
Arts awards. When I call your name would you be kind enough to
stand: David Cronenberg; Denise Filiatrault; Maver Moore; Louis
Quilico; Ginette Reno; Sam Sniderman; and Mario Bernardi. These
are our recipients for this year.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over 1,000 transitional jobs fund grants were handed out
by this government.
Only one grant in all of Canada was put into a trust fund. That
one grant was handled improperly in order to help a failing
company in the Prime Minister's riding. It was given unusual
treatment that ignored not just treasury board guidelines, but
actually broke the law.
Why was this grant in the Prime Minister's riding treated
differently than all the other grants in Canada?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. The appropriate
approval process was undertaken in this regard. The department
did the due diligence on the opportunity. The stakeholders
reviewed the information and recommended investment. No moneys
flowed until the approval process was completed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts say otherwise.
The games that were played with transitional jobs fund money in
the Prime Minister's riding border on the bizarre. Millions of
dollars were doled out to recipients with a track record of
business failure, with shady pasts including criminal records,
and with close business and political ties to the Prime Minister.
Now add to that an illegal trust fund.
Why is it in the Prime Minister's riding that all the rules and
even the law get broken?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in administering the fund the department
chose an inappropriate method. It set up trust funds. In May of
this year that inappropriateness was deemed to be true. In June
a directive was issued. The trust funds were closed. That has
been done. The trust funds have been closed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that must be a pretty recent development.
Someone eventually got $1.19 million from the suspect trust
fund. That someone was Claude Gauthier who had already purchased
land from the Prime Minister's golf course and donated $10,000 to
the Prime Minister's election campaign. Soon after the business
now being run by Gauthier got the money, it laid off all but 62
of the original 115 employees for a net job loss of 53 jobs.
Since this grant did not create jobs, was it simply a thank you
to the Prime Minister's friend?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have confirmed that there was nothing
illegal in any of these transactions.
The approval process was done appropriately. No moneys flowed
until the approval process was complete. The inappropriate
management of funds was identified. Directives were given to
close the trust funds. That has been completed.
1420
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us just go over this again.
There was only one job creation grant in the entire country that
ended up in a trust fund. That trust fund proved to be illegal.
It happened in only one place. That was in the Prime Minister's
riding. It benefited only one person. That one person was
Claude Gauthier, a man who bought $500,000 of the Prime
Minister's golf course, who gave $10,000 to the Prime Minister's
personal re-election campaign and went on to receive a $6 million
CIDA government contract.
The question for the Minister of Human Resources Development is
this: Will she now do the right thing and launch a full
independent inquiry to see how this mess could have ever happened
in the Prime Minister's riding?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done the right thing.
We followed the appropriate approval process. When we
discovered that the administrative method to manage the moneys
was inappropriate, we closed the trust fund. Most important,
there are jobs in the riding. People are working. In a riding
of extremely high unemployment, transitional job funds are there
to help provide sustainable jobs for Canadians. That is the
important point here.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the human resources minister told the House during
question period that everything was fine, that there was no
problem. Fifteen minutes later she was outside talking to the
media saying maybe there was a bit of a problem. In fact, the
trust fund was illegal.
Dozens of jobs were lost during this whole fiasco. In the
meantime, $1 million was spent, laundered through this trust
fund, in order to give it to the only riding in the country, one
riding in the entire country, the Prime Minister's.
Taxpayers deserve an answer. When will they get an answer that
satisfies them?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the question.
Nothing inappropriate was done in terms of the administration of
the approval process. It was done in an appropriate fashion.
When we discovered that the choice of administrative management
of the use of trust funds was inappropriate, we directed the
department to close the trust fund.
Most important is that Canadians who very desperately needed
jobs are working. That is the point of this project.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is congratulating himself on forecasting a
surplus of $95 billion.
Given his cuts to health, education and income support, it is
hard to understand what he is happy about.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that, if he were to return
the $3.7 billion to the provinces, it would be a huge amount for
them, while it is a small part of the surplus for the federal
government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
made it very clear in my economic statement in London that the
five year private sector forecasts were only projections.
That having been said, yesterday I told the Bloc Quebecois
leader that, last year, the federal government transferred $11.5
billion strictly for health over a five year period. At the
same time, Quebec alone received $1.4 billion in equalization
payments.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
someone stole $44 from me—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I hope we are not going to use the
word “steal”.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: —and gave me back $11, what he has done is
take $33 away from me. This is exactly what the minister has
done.
Rather than butting into provincial jurisdictions with new
programs that are none of his business, would he not do better
to give back to the provinces the money he took from them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): New programs, Mr.
Speaker? New programs like the infrastructure program, which
was developed by our government in partnership with the
provinces, and which the provinces wanted to have? New programs
like Technology Partnerships Canada, under which 33% of the
funding goes to Quebec? New programs like the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation, which is funding all the research and
development in Quebec universities and hospitals?
That is what we are doing.
1425
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the Prime Minister is asking us to let him take advantage of a
$95 billion surplus, the people are suffering because of rapidly
deteriorating health systems and educational systems that are
crying out for reinvestment of the money to which the Minister
of Finance has been helping himself for the past four years.
Why does the Minister of Finance not commit to return to the
provinces what has been cut from transfer payments, rather than
getting ready to make new expenditures in areas that come under
their jurisdiction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
give an example of transfer payments, since we became the
government, for the Province of Quebec alone there have been in
excess of $80 billion in transfer payments, that is equalization
payments and the social transfer.
Over and above that, there have been $30 billion paid out in
equalization payments since we took office. That is real money.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
the Minister of Finance is not saying is that he took away $33
billion from the provinces' funding for education, health and
social assistance.
I am asking him whether he is aware of the havoc he has wrought
in the schools, in the hospitals, in the poorest families? Does
he realize this? If he does, is he not ashamed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have just said, last year we transferred $11.5 billion over a
five-year period.
The question I am asking the hon. member is this: is the PQ
government prepared to give back to the municipalities the money
it has cut from them?
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Reform
finally woke up to the farm crisis. Who knows, the Liberals
might wake up to farm crisis soon as well.
The reality is that the government listened to Reform, cut our
farmers loose and now expects them to compete against the
European and U.S. treasuries.
How can the government believe that a tiny fraction of the $1.3
billion needed is anything but an affront to prairie farm
families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is new money on top of $900 million that the federal
government has put on the table this year. That makes a total of
close to $1.1 billion. We are preoccupied; the minister is
working very hard to find a solution. We are looking at what
will be the net income of these farmers at the end of the
process.
There were numbers that came out in anticipation in July, but of
course in July they did not know what was to be the crop. By
October they knew exactly and it has been a good crop. Now
everyone is filing their applications. The program will apply. I
hope that the program will be sufficient to meet the needs.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister does not get it. The government does not get it.
What is needed is an immediate infusion of $1.3 billion to keep
the family farm from dying. What does the government come up
with? Less than one-tenth of that amount.
It is like a patient who needs a transfusion, needs 10 units of
blood and receives one unit. The prognosis is certain death.
Why is the government letting the family farm die?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are absolutely not doing that. On the contrary, I
explained to the House a minute ago that it is $1.1 billion that
the federal government put on the table this year, plus the
contribution of 40% of that amount from the provincial
governments.
It is an agreement that we have developed with the provinces to
try to cope with this type of problem. Now the farmers are
making their applications. They are being processed. Those who
qualify will receive the money as quickly as possible.
We are very preoccupied but the reality is that we have to know
all the facts. Some of the requests were based on figures from
July that had changed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Veterans Affairs met today with the representatives
of the merchant navy veterans, the brave gentlemen who are in the
gallery today.
Will the minister outline for the House and all those outside as
well exactly what he is planning to do starting today to bring
about a fair and just compensation package for these Canadian
heroes?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with every veterans
organization that represents the merchant navy and some of them
twice in the last three months.
1430
There is one thing they all told me. It was that I have to
consult with them and proceed carefully to arrive at a solution.
That is exactly what I intend to do. I take my marching orders
from the veterans, not from the official opposition.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Knowing that we have to
have—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like to hear this
question.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, knowing that they have an
enormous surplus, which was announced just this week, would the
Prime Minister please assure these wonderful gentlemen who are in
the gallery that he and his cabinet will look positively upon a
compensation package for them and show them justice and respect
once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to hear the leader of the Conservative
Party in the House recognize that in Liberal days we have a
surplus. We are not under the Tories any more.
I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has the confidence
not only of the members on this side but of a lot of members on
both sides of the House of Commons.
* * *
PORT OF VANCOUVER
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the port of Vancouver
received a 72 hour lockout notice. Thousands of jobs will be
lost if a strike occurs.
What immediate action will the minister take to ensure that the
port is not closed?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, both parties are sitting down and both parties are
bargaining in good faith. We must let the process work.
Experience has shown us that a lot of these disputes are settled
at the last hour. I urge the hon. member to let the process work
in this situation.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the markets in Japan have informed the
shippers that if there is any delay at all they will move to
another source of product, in other words Scandinavia.
Is the minister willing to lose thousands and thousands of jobs
in western Canada to Scandinavian countries, if this is not
resolved immediately?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my department is quite aware of what can happen in a
strike situation.
Last year 95% of these disputes were settled and they were
settled at the last minute. I urge the parties to negotiate in
good faith. Hopefully there will not be a strike and lockout. At
this time it is crucial that we let the process work.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an interview he gave on television
yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that the employment
insurance surpluses were the product of a payroll tax.
How can the minister justify the fact that the government's
enormous surplus is made up of money from the middle class,
which is the primary contributor in the reduction of the debt
and in the payment of new expenditures the government intends to
make?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
off, 60% of employment insurance contributions are paid by
employers, as the member must know.
Second, when we look at the cuts in taxes our government made in
the 1998 and 1999 budgets, we can see that the vast majority are
tax cuts for the middle class and the most disadvantaged in
society.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance visited the
families he has made poor through employment insurance to thank
them for paying taxes he does not pay, that professionals and
business people do not pay and that senior officials pay only on
part of their salary?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is why it was so important for us to lower contributions each
year since we came to office. This had never been done.
We lowered the contributions and concurrently introduced the
national child tax benefit, raised the tax threshold and
eliminated the 3% surtax of his friends on his right.
* * *
1435
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government through the agriculture minister has
announced AIDA-II. Most farmers, all farm organizations, all
farm related industries, all MPs and all Saskatchewan senators
who relate to our crisis have spoken out against AIDA-I.
Does the minister realize how many farms and how many farm
families have been destroyed because the government deliberately
and callously said no to AIDA-I?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's final comment,
the government did not say no to AIDA-I.
This is the government that put AIDA in place. This is the
government that said all along that it would continue to be
flexible and innovative with the program. This is the government
that added more money to the AIDA program today. Now it is at
nearly $1.1 billion in assistance to producers.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, AIDA-I denied over 70% of the applicants any funding
whatsoever. Time is of the essence, not by the month but by the
day.
Will the minister personally assure the farmers who did not
qualify for AIDA-I that they will not have to wait as long for
their financing and the money they deserve from AIDA-II?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are glad to aid twice, if that is the
way the hon. member wants to put it, but naturally if there are
changes to criteria then applications will have to be reviewed so
that those who are eligible under the new criteria will be able
to receive their money.
Farmers have been asking us to make some changes. We made a
number of changes and announced them today in response to some of
the advice of the safety nets advisory committee. We did that
today.
All week the opposition has been asking us to give more
assistance to farmers. Today we give more assistance to farmers,
and again it does not want us to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only is
federal interference in provincial programs creating problems
that, unfortunately, are costing the public but, when it comes
to the millennium scholarships, we have learned that the federal
government wants to exclude vocational students, first year
CEGEP students, and those studying for a master's or Ph.D.
Does this requirement of the federal government not show that it
wants to undo all that we have done in the area of grants and
loans in Quebec and introduce a two-tier system based on the
level of study?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rather than creating a two-tier system, the
millennium scholarships will reduce the indebtedness of students
with the greatest financial need.
Students have asked that the loans be changed to scholarships.
But what Minister Legault is not saying is that, using his
calculations, students will get only another $175 annually. He
must promise to put the students on a more solid financial
footing. When he does, we will have an agreement.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when a first
year CEGEP student does not qualify, a second year one does, and
a master's student does not, I call that a two-tier system. One
plus one makes two.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: The minister is so ready with her answers
that she gives them before the questions are out of our mouths.
Would it not be better if the Minister of Finance learned from
the millennium scholarships fiasco and gave the money directly
to the Government of Quebec for students, rather than upsetting
the most efficient system in Canada?
1440
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it all wrong. The
whole point of the millennium scholarships, which are
tremendously important to all Canadian students, is to reduce
their debt.
The government has implemented this very important approach to
supporting Canadian students to reduce their debt. We have been
able, through the foundation, to write agreements with all
provinces and territories except for Quebec, but I am optimistic
that we can do it there for the betterment and the support of
students in Quebec.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is again failing to keep a promise that
it made a year ago to Canadians. It promised to spend $12.5
billion on the Canada health and social transfer. We are finding
now that in health it is short $108 million. Why is the minister
not spending that $108 million on the lives of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amount the hon. member referred to occurred prior to
the increase in the social transfer. It was under the old
formula where there was an increase in tax points.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that does not help Canadians out there who are on long
waiting lists, waiting to get health care when they need it.
Waiting lists are getting longer. The government removed
billions of dollars from the transfer. People are waiting for
months for the health care they need. Sometimes they are dying
on waiting lists.
Why did the government remove $108 million from health care? Why
has it not kept its promise?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance has provided the technical response to
the finance question, but let me respond to the health question.
The member knows that last February we made the largest single
investment the government has made by increasing transfers to the
provinces. It was for health only and it was $11.5 billion of
additional money over only five years.
We have problems in our health care system, but Canadians should
know the Government of Canada stands four-square behind it and is
providing additional funding for quality care.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, while Moisson Montréal released its report, which
revealed a 74% increase in one year in the amount of food
provided to poor families and individuals, the Prime Minister
was saying, and I quote “It is my great pleasure at this point—it
is a big problem having billions to spend—Frankly,
let me take advantage of it a bit”.
How could the Prime Minister of Canada smile so broadly, when
part of his huge surplus was created by cuts to the provinces,
including the money used for health, social services, education
and income support?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very important to understand that these projections are only
projections.
They are not definite figures. Definite figures are surely those
projected for next year, that is $5.5 billion, and perhaps the
year after. After that, they are only projections, and it is
not our intention to repeat errors of earlier years, that is, to
spend money we do not have.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the millennium
scholarship foundation has successfully concluded agreements
with all the provincial and territorial governments, except the
PQ government of Quebec, so that some 100,000 students in Canada
may take advantage of the millennium scholarships.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Why is the PQ government so stubborn? What will the minister
have to do so that the students of Quebec may benefit from these
scholarships like other students in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we saw earlier even the Bloc Quebecois
understands the importance of getting an agreement with Quebec so
these very important millennium scholarships can be available to
students in Quebec.
For us what is critically important is that the debt of students
be reduced and reduced significantly. As soon as Mr. Legault will
say that indeed will be the case, I am sure there will be an
agreement between the foundation and the province of Quebec.
* * *
1445
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Karla
Homolka continues to inflame the sensibilities of Canadians.
Months ago she was given escorted visits from prison without any
notification to the families of her victims. Now she has applied
to serve the rest of her sentence in a Montreal community. Once
again her victims' families were never notified.
This problem is not isolated to this particular case. The
solicitor general has been on the job for some time now. Why
does he continue to perpetuate a system that places the rights of
criminals ahead of the rights of victims?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to my hon. colleague that
Correctional Service Canada is opposing this before the federal
court. I can also assure my hon. colleague that before any
offender is transferred, released or out on day leave, the
victims are informed if they so desire.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
a year ago the justice committee submitted recommendations to
improve the rights of victims in the criminal justice process,
including corrections. The Minister of Justice has addressed
those falling within her jurisdiction and we now have laws in
place. The solicitor general, however, has a subcommittee
studying recommendations made by the full committee over a year
ago.
Are victims of crime going to have to wait forever for this
minister to get his act together?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times in the
House, public safety is always the number one issue with
Correctional Service Canada.
In these situations Correctional Service Canada always informs
the victims if an offender is going to be transferred or
released, if the victim so desires.
* * *
CULTURE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in Toronto the Prime Minister committed himself to making an
independent trade agreement for culture a reality. But Canadians
remember that last spring this government retreated on magazines
because of our present trade agreements. Under the NAFTA we are
allowed to protect culture as long as we remain obliged to be
punished for doing so. Under the WTO culture is seen as a good
like any other.
Is the Prime Minister now saying that Canada will push for an
international cultural trade agreement that is not subject to the
WTO and the NAFTA?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, the government has accepted the recommendation from SAGIT
that we seek a different instrument through the WTO for culture.
The minister is in Paris this week meeting with the UNESCO
ministers, as well as co-chairing a roundtable with her
counterparts from France to advance this cause.
The latest announcement, of course, was when we, with the
province of Quebec, were delighted to announce our support for
the cultural diversity coalition that is being built across the
country to ensure that cultural diversity remains.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was the
Prime Minister who made this speech and it was the Prime Minister
I was addressing.
In light of the fact that we have the premier performers of the
country in the House today, can the Prime Minister guarantee them
that the Canada Council and the CBC, the pillars of our cultural
foundations, are not in danger of being swept away and squeezed
out by the straitjacket trade agreements that we are presently
party to?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has always been the
intention of this government to protect, promote and develop our
Canadian culture and the instruments by which that culture
manifests itself. That remains our commitment.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Senate
transport hearings, Kevin Benson, the president of Canadian
Airlines, acknowledged that he was a de facto lobbyist for the
Onex proposal and that when he wanted to suspend the Competition
Act he went directly to the Prime Minister's office and talked to
the Prime Minister's chief of staff. That was before he even
talked to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Industry.
Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff discuss any aspect of
this with the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not talk to the president of Canadian Airlines
about that and I do not know at all. I will check, but I do not
recall any conversation about any specific problem. We have
always been in touch with Canadian because this company has had
some problems over the years and we have helped it to maintain
services from its bases in Vancouver and Calgary. That was
always the type of conversation we had with Canadian. Over the
years we have helped this company. At this moment, what is going
on will be decided in the marketplace.
1450
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister, but that was not the
question. The question was, did he discuss it with the chief of
staff?
In general, does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for
a business person to go to his office to seek advice and
direction on how to deal with two ministers, in this case the
Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, before he
even talks to them? Is this an appropriate action and is it the
way the Prime Minister's office works?
The Speaker: I find that question to be out of order
because it is hypothetical. However, if the Prime Minister
wishes to answer he may.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if it was discussed. My information is
that it was not discussed, but I will check.
It is not abnormal for somebody from an important company like
Canadian, which over the years has had some problems and come to
the government for help, to have access to the government to
explain problems.
My information is that they never discussed the offer of Onex,
but I will check again.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the farmers in the affected areas will be pleased
with the announcement the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
made in the House today.
As late as last week we met with several farm groups and
representatives from out west. They outlined most
compassionately the struggles that farmers are experiencing.
With that in mind, I want to know, with the dollars that have
been allocated by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
today, how exactly those new dollars will help the farmers get
through this most tough, tough time.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has said all along that
it would continue to examine how it could put flexibility and
innovation into existing programs.
We announced earlier today that the additional $170 million that
the federal government is putting forward for this program will
enable us to cover a percentage of negative margins. It will
allow farmers to make a change if they so desire in the reference
periods. It will make other changes that the farm community and
the safety nets advisory committee have been encouraging the
government to do.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
For months the Prime Minister has avoided troubling questions
about TJF grants in his riding by telling us that no rules were
broken. We now know that rules were broken. Treasury board
guidelines were broken. The Financial Administration Act was
broken. That means the law was broken.
How does the Prime Minister explain this huge discrepancy
between what he has said and what has actually happened?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot about this problem.
My riding is like any other riding. Unlike some, it has a very
high level of unemployment. My office is there to help the
people preserve jobs. My job as a member of parliament is to
represent my constituents.
The minister gave all of the explanations. But of course Reform
Party members like to talk about these things because they have
nothing else to say about the government.
I know that everything has been done for a riding that has high
unemployment and I will always do my job.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning I
introduced a bill which would make it mandatory to label
genetically modified foods.
I did so because of my belief that consumers are entitled to be
properly informed about what they are eating.
Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to offer people the
choice about what they do and do not want to eat, by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the hon. member in
the House before that before we can have labelling we must make
sure that the labelling is credible, meaningful and enforceable.
The government is working with consumers' associations, with the
Standards Council of Canada, with groups like Greenpeace, the
Sierra Club and the Consumers' Association of Canada. We are in
the process of finding and putting in place a set of criteria
that can be used effectively, meaningfully and enforceably to
label foods in Canada.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
In approving the Diavik Mine, prematurely of course, the new
environment minister believes that digging up an Arctic lake is
not significant.
He has decided to ignore the constitutionally entrenched
Mackenzie review panel which has concerns about loss of
wilderness and abandonment.
1455
This utter contempt for northerners is only matched by the
arrogance of making a decision while he is out of the country.
Is the Prime Minister concerned that his government is
abandoning the throne speech promise that would set and enforce
tough environmental standards, particularly in the north?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that is exactly what the government is doing.
We are making sure that all environmental problems are being
dealt with.
It has been studied thoroughly and we are respecting the wishes
of the Government of the Northwest Territories which wants this
project to go ahead to create jobs for the native people who live
in the Northwest Territories.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
Onex affair—or the Canadian Airlines affair, which we learned
yesterday is the same thing—we have become aware that there was a
suggestion of a meeting with Deputy Minister of Industry Kevin
Lynch prior to making any announcement, because Mr. Lynch
apparently has a lot of influence on the Competition Bureau.
Can the Minister of Industry assure us that there was no such
meeting and no influence was brought to bear by Mr. Lynch, by
himself or by his department on the Competition Bureau?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
businessmen always make calls to the Department of Industry.
Obviously, it is a department that deals with business-related
matters.
I do not know exactly who spoke to the deputy minister. I can
say that the decision reached by the government to suspend
section 47 was reached for the reasons given by the Minister of
Transport, who was present, and by myself. These were very good
reasons.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. In our 1999 budget we
promised the creation of the new institutes of health research
which was further promised in the Speech from the Throne.
Can the Minister of Health please tell us when the dream of
these poor Canadian researchers will actually become a reality?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to tell the House that this morning we tabled
legislation to create the Canadian institutes of health research.
This is a fantastic measure of historic proportions. It will
transform the way health research is conducted in the country and
over the course of the next two years, in support of these
institutes, the Government of Canada will double the amount of
money it spends on health research. This is a measure which will
truly improve health and health care for all Canadians.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he only has an anxious care
to create jobs in his riding. However, over $1 million went into
the negotiated purchase of a company by the Prime Minister's
friend, a company that later went from 115 employees to 62
employees. We know that the money did not create jobs.
Was it just a thank you to the Prime Minister's friend?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There was nothing
illegal in any of the transactions in this case.
The appropriate approval process was followed. An inappropriate
administration approach was taken by the department. That was
identified in May and the trust funds have been closed.
* * *
[Translation]
CHECHNYA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the dispute
between Russia and Chechnya, which no longer has anything to do
with a fight against terrorism, is becoming a humanitarian
disaster.
Countless civilians have been killed or displaced in Chechnya or
Ingushetia, and are practically without humanitarian aid.
What does the minister, who is concerned about the safety of
civilians, intend to do to bring about a speedy negotiated
settlement and protect civilians and refugees?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, generally speaking, I am in agreement with the hon.
member's sentiments.
1500
I have therefore written to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs
to express strongly the serious concern of all Canadians.
I hope there will be a positive response from the Russians,
particularly with respect to the ongoing negotiations between
the Americans and the Russians. During my recent visit to
Armenia, I expressed the same sentiment.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable John Moore,
Minister of Defence of Australia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of Minister Yu Zhengsheng,
Ministry of Construction of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during this week leading up to Remembrance
Day there are commemorative activities going on all over Canada:
in schools, community centres, concert halls and churches.
Everywhere we look, the crimson poppy reminds us of the torch of
freedom thrown to us to hold high. Canada is holding that torch
of freedom very high. Our armed forces are serving under very
challenging conditions as peacekeepers all over the world. Here
at home, we civilian Canadians help to hold that torch high by
remembering and honouring all those who served so bravely and so
well.
I remember last year being invited to a school in the early part
of November where a distinguished veteran was visiting a
classroom for a question and answer session on his wartime
experience. What impressed us both was how many of the students
wanted to talk about their grandfathers or other relatives who
had been involved in the second world war and how proudly they
spoke of them.
Indeed, just such a young Canadian e-mailed a group of our
veterans who were preparing for their recent pilgrimage to Italy
to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the Italian campaign. She
wrote that although she never met her grandfather, who was killed
in that campaign, she had gotten to know him through the many
stories told by her grandmother. She said:
Until such time that I am able to so, I wonder, would someone
wish to stand for two minutes in silence at his grave. I would
be most grateful. My grandfather's name is William Berry. I
cannot express enough gratitude for your bravery, but please know
that in my family we will never forget.
Sincerely,
Darlene Halsey.
Today, we not only honour those who made that supreme sacrifice,
but those who survived the terrible rigours and horrors of war
and found the strength to recover and to rebuild their lives in
the peace that they fought so hard to achieve.
1505
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
remember today the blood and tears shed for our freedom by war
veterans of Canada and Newfoundland. As the sands of time slip
from this century, we pause to reflect on the supreme price paid
by so many for the peace we enjoy today, ending a century so
violent that humanity was brought to the brink.
In 1899, soldiers left for war in South Africa, their sacrifices
immortalized in bronze at the gates of old Quebec, standing as
testament to this century's baptism by war.
Then Canada was born into the world of nations by respect gained
for its price paid for world peace with the blood of its young as
100,000 moved forth at Vimy Ridge in 1917. A majestic memorial
defying real description stands on French soil to honour our
soldiers' supreme effort.
Dawn soon broke on the beaches of Normandy with the silhouette
of total war painted across its horizon. With 1,000 allied ships
poised for action, D-Day had arrived in 1944. The tranquil
shores bore witness to an invasion force of allied might that
struck a death blow to Nazi tyranny bringing about Europe's
freedom.
Soon a minute atom vaporized Hirohito's will for war. The death
clouds scarcely fade dissipating 100,000 souls as the Korean war
loomed in the ominous shadow of nuclear might.
The price tag of peace in this violent century has been war, and
has been so very high with 110,000 Canadian war dead. We must
learn from the harsh truths of wars past so that we not repeat
humanity's mistakes.
History records the poppy as a symbol of earthly life, until a
day in Flanders, when from the fields of war, Lt. Col. John
McCrae penned verse of remembrance for Canada's war dead. He
spoke for all who have faced their soul in the finality of the
theatre of war, whether Korea, the gulf or the two world wars. He
could well be speaking of all brave men who have soldiered the
world for Canadian beliefs. His words are carved on the walls of
this House and are as enduring as the threat of future war: “If
he break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep”.
For our honourable war veterans and remembered war dead, we
pause today to give our respect. We will not forget.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Europe at the 11th hour of the 11th day of November 1918,
buglers announced the armistice along hundreds of kilometres of
bloody and muddy trenches separating the two warring sides.
Millions of men came up out of the muddy trenches, able to
breathe fresh air at last without fearing that this might be
their last breath.
They were then able to go home to their families with the
satisfaction of a job well done. Not only had they saved their
homes and their freedom, but they were also convinced that they
were responsible for putting an end to such butchery, by winning
“the war to end all wars” as it was called.
Millions more, however, laid to rest under wooden crosses, did
not get up and go home.
Today we honour both those who gave their lives and those who
were prepared to give their lives to defend our values.
Alas, “the war to end all wars” was not to be the last after
all, as we know. We also honour today the children of those
first soldiers, who shouldered their kit-bags and marched off to
a second and even bloodier war 21 years after the first, to
fight for their country and for freedom again threatened.
We must not forget all those who fell in Korea, in the United
Nations' struggle against yet another incarnation of tyranny,
that two-headed hydra so known to our century.
Finally, 55 years after the Second World War, it seems that we
are finally thinking of another group.
Let us gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the merchant
seamen who, during four years, braved U-boat infested waters,
risking their lives to bring weapons and ammunition to their
comrades in arms to ensure the victory.
1510
Malraux said that the victory must remain with those who fought
the war without liking it. That is indeed what happened.
Aviators, sailors, foot soldiers in 1914-18, 1939-45 and 1950-53,
these victorious men and women fought in the war as a duty, but
without liking it, because we are peaceful. Without them,
without their victories, we would not be here in this free
parliament.
Certainly, we will not forget them. We will make sure our
children do not forget them either. Let us make sure that they
know what huge sacrifices were made so they could live, worry
free, in freedom and peace, these things that seem as natural as
the air they breathe, but they were passed on by the sacrifices
so many of their parents and grandparents paid for with their
lives.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great honour and humility that I rise on behalf of the
New Democratic Party to mark Remembrance Day.
Over 80 years ago from this coming Remembrance Day, the terrible
guns of the first world war fell silent on the 11th hour of the
11th day of the 11th month. Unfortunately, that was the end to
only one horrible chapter in a century that has been the most
violent period in human history.
In this century in Canada alone, something like 1.5 million
young Canadians have volunteered to serve in our military and
merchant navy. More than 116,000 gave their lives in World War
I, World War II, Korea and in other conflicts.
Speaking personally, I note with pride that both my father and
my grandfather were among those volunteers, in the Royal Canadian
Navy and the 1st Canadian Mounted Rifles respectively. They were
fortunate to be able to return to their families. Others were
not so fortunate.
Today, with great respect and sadness, we recognize the ultimate
sacrifice offered by those who were killed and the terrible pain
of loss and separation suffered by their loved ones and friends
who saw them no more.
Remembrance Day is marked to ensure we never forget those who
gave their lives for all of us, those who survived but were
willing to give their lives, and those who though they returned
had already given the best years of their lives.
We remember those who were taken as prisoners of war and who
suffered terribly. As someone from Winnipeg, I am particularly
mindful of those from the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of
Winnipeg who were captured at Dieppe or those of the Winnipeg
Grenadiers who were captured during the fall of Hong Kong. Every
Canadian city has similar stories to tell, and sadly so.
Furthermore, let all of us in the House hope that soon we will
achieve complete justice for our merchant navy veterans. Let all
of us in the House find ways to finally recognize those Canadians
who fought fascism in Spain. Let all of us in the House, as
Aboriginal Veterans Day approaches, remember the 7,000 aboriginal
Canadians who served in two world wars and Korea.
Let all of us in the House give thanks on this day for the
continuing service of so many veterans through their
participation in the very important work and activities of the
Royal Canadian Legion and other veteran's organizations. We urge
all Canadians to observe the two minute wave of silence being
promoted by the Legion on November 11.
Let all of us in the House also remember on this day those many
Canadians who have served as peacekeepers and peacemakers in far
off corners of the world. They also put their lives on the line
for peace and we hope they are the only kind of veterans we will
ever have in the future.
Finally, as a parent, I believe Remembrance Day must always be
addressed to our youth and our future. It is now their lives we
need to protect through remembering war.
If anything, let Remembrance Day give all of us more strength
and vigour in working for peaceful and democratic solutions
wherever humanly possible so that after a century, where not just
military but civilian casualties have put the human race to
shame, we can enter the new century with new hope for a peaceful
future.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to pay our
respects to all of our men and women who, in World War I, World
War II, Korea and through peacekeeping, have laid down their
lives and have served to make this the most wonderful country in
which to live.
Next Thursday, November 11, all Canadians will be called upon to
pause for not one minute but a two minute silence. I trust that
we will have a lot of our young people at the cenotaphs so that
they will understand the sacrifices that were made.
My hon. colleague from Charlotte County and I were flown down to
Grand Manan.
We were asked to go there for a special ceremony.
1515
The young scouts in that little town did a lot of research,
along with the Royal Canadian Legion and the veterans
association, to find all of the graves in Grand Manan that were
there for the veterans. The scouts laid little Canadian flags. It
was truly very moving. It was beautiful to see those young men
and young girls as they stood and showed their respect for some
of their relatives and others who were not related to them who
had made the tremendous sacrifice.
I also had the privilege along with some of my colleagues from
both sides of the House to go to Dieppe, France. I will never
forget it. We looked at the promenade and there was a Canadian
flag at the top of every one of the buildings. Children came up
to us and pointed to the little Canada pins we were wearing.
Mr. Speaker, I will never forget the sacrifices that our people
made for you and me and for everyone in the House. We went into
the harbour and I could not believe that our men and women had
gone on boats into that harbour. It was like a mountain on each
side and there was nowhere for them to go. Of course, Mr.
Speaker, as you and I and everyone here knows, tremendous
sacrifices were made.
Yes, I recognize these gentlemen who are in the gallery today,
our merchant mariners. I praise and thank God that they are
finally recognized as the fourth arm of the armed forces, our
army, navy, air force and merchant mariners. They laid down
their lives. Many of them never came back.
I ask all my colleagues when we leave here this week to go back
to our communities that we make sure all of our people understand
that they must get out and show the respect, that they bow their
heads and that they hold that two minute silence to show the
respect that all of our veterans deserve in this wonderful
country of ours.
We shall always remember them.
The Speaker: Is it irony that today we have our
veterans, who I am going to introduce in just a minute, our
merchant seamen and our artists and our writers, all in this
House, the House of Canadians.
I am going to introduce the representatives of the various arms
and some veterans and where they served. At the end of it, we
are going to stand as a House, indeed I hope as a nation, for two
minutes of silence as was asked of us by many members of this
House and by our own Canadian legion.
Before I name these wonderful men and women, the veterans, the
mariners and our artists, I want all of them at the end of these
tributes today to join with us in Room 216 where we can meet them
and spend some time with all of them together.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence of the
following people in the gallery. When I call your names, please
stand. I would ask my colleagues to withhold any applause until
I have introduced everyone.
We have a veteran with us from the first world war, Paul
Métivier. Paul, I hope you do not mind if I tell my colleagues
that you are 99 years young. Please remain standing if you can,
sir. If not, it is all right.
We also have with us Mr. Ken Cavers, a navy veteran of the
second world war who served on North Atlantic convoy runs aboard
corvettes, first HMCS Hespeler and later HMCS
Hawkesbury; Mr. Ken Ewing, veteran of Hong Kong who spent
almost four years as a prisoner of war; Mrs. Leena Jacques, who
was a nursing sister in the second world war; Mr. Philip Jacques,
who served with the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders in
the second world war and also served in Korea; Mr. Bert Harper, a
CANLOAN officer during the second world war who served with the
British forces in our name; Mr. Harold True, a veteran of the
Korean war who served with the medical corps; Mr. Andrew
Garlicki, a veteran of the Polish forces who served alongside the
Canadians in Europe; and Lieutenant Colonel Bill Aikman who was
in Sarajevo during the Bosnian war.
1520
I take the liberty of asking our merchant seamen to also stand
please to receive our tributes.
These are the men and women who served us so well over this
century. In the name of parliament, I thank you for what you
have done for us.
[Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded]
[Translation]
The Speaker: Now, I would ask that all the hon. members please
remain standing, as we will observe two minutes of silence for
those who gave their lives and made so many sacrifices for us in
this century.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to ask the government House leader the very
important question that we have every Thursday.
Could we know what the government might have in store for us for
the remainder of this week and the week following the break?
Could the government House leader also inform us as to whether or
not he will be employing the Mulroney-like tactic of invoking
closure and time allocation, as the government has done on
Nisga'a, on the legislation that will be coming up in the near
future?
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the House shall begin the
second reading of Bill C-10, the municipal grants legislation.
1525
Should we complete this stage early in the day, it is not my
intention to call other government orders tomorrow. Next week,
the members will have the opportunity to work in their ridings
and to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies.
When we return, on Monday, November 15, we shall take up second
reading of Bill C-11, the Devco legislation. Tuesday, November
16 shall be an allotted day, and Wednesday, November 17 shall be
the sixth and final day for consideration of the address in
reply to the Speech from the Throne.
[English]
The hon. member asked me if the opposition was going to have
more obstruction devices in response to government legislation.
Frankly, I do not know and I hope not. I hope the usual progress
can be accomplished without the partisanship and obstructionism
that we do see every now and then. I will do my best to avoid
it, I promise.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this is a question I have asked the government House leader
before but since I last asked him this question, there have been
some developments.
We know that at one point the government was going to bring in
legislation having to do with the regulation of reproductive
technologies and that fell by the wayside. Since then,
particularly in recent weeks, we have seen developments with
respect to the commercial sale of human eggs, et cetera. I
wonder whether this has now prompted the government to speed up
its schedule and whether or not there is any legislation coming
forward in this area.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am not sure
whether this is an appropriate question to be given to the
government House leader but the government House leader may wish
to respond.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the best information I
have at this time on such a measure is that it will be presented
in the House of Commons early in the new year.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I might note
that the minister did not mention whether the government was
going to make its medical research intentions official. This
was supposed to happen this week, or on our return. Is there
any news on this?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am not exactly
sure this is a road we want to go down. I want to assure people
that this is not a precedent. Today the government House leader
is being particularly generous in sticking around to respond to
questions.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, thank you for saying that
I am generous. I appreciate that. The health institutes bill
was in fact introduced in the House this morning. I hope to have
the co-operation of hon. members to send it to committee within
the first couple of weeks after our return. I thank the hon.
member for his interest in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I have one more item. As a result of the
Remembrance Day tributes held earlier this day, there was an
all-party agreement that we would recover the time of the House.
I would ask that you seek unanimous consent that the ordinary
time of adjournment be delayed by some 20 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE POLICY
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate
concluded before question period, the hon. member for
Perth—Middlesex had five minutes remaining in his dissertation
followed by questions and comments.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has a unified position that reflects the trade
interests of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector as a
whole across all commodities and across all regions, which is
hardly a very undemocratic system.
It is very democratic. This position will allow Canada to play a
strong and active role in influencing the direction and eventual
outcome of the important upcoming negotiations.
1530
In the upcoming negotiations Canada and other countries will be
looking to build on the WTO agreement in agriculture signed in
1994. We made real progress in the Uruguay round, bringing the
world agriculture trade under a multilateral rules based system
for the first time. Canada has reaped the benefits. The Uruguay
round was a good start at decreasing distortions which
characterized trade back in the 1980s, but much remains to be
done.
Currently our farmers are faced with some of the lowest
commodity prices seen for a long time. A worldwide problem of
oversupply in some commodities has been aggravated by limited
market access and prolonged by the persistent use of some export
subsidies and trade distorting domestic support of some of our
major trading partners, particularly the European Union.
The United States has also responded to low world prices with
increasingly large payments to its farmers, further widening the
disparity between the amount of assistance provided by the U.S.
and EU and the assistance provided by other countries. It is not
clear that these additional subsidies are helping U.S. farmers
since there appears to be just as many concerns expressed by
American farmers as there are with our farmers about low prices
and low incomes.
This makes our efforts at the international negotiating table
all the more critical. Taking a strong position at the WTO to
lower subsidies and enforce the rules that are agreed to is one
leg of our strategy to deal with the farm income situation.
Canada's initial negotiating position gives Canada an
authoritative agenda, endorsed by industry and provinces, to work
to level the playing field internationally for Canadian producers
and exports.
A key component of this work is to have all agriculture export
subsidies completely eliminated as quickly as possible. We will
also be calling for substantial reductions in domestic support
programs that distort production and trade, and for an overall
limit on domestic support of all kinds.
We will be looking for improvements in market access,
particularly for food products. Food products are leading the
surge in growth in world agriculture trade. The Canadian
industry has increased its emphasis on these new demands to
capture new markets while preserving and enhancing existing
markets in our traditional bulk exports.
Canada will work to preserve our right to choose how to market
our agricultural products. This includes preserving our orderly
marketing systems such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply
management for dairy and poultry products. With this position
Canada will play a strong and active role in influencing the
direction and eventual outcome of these important World Trade
Organization negotiations.
Canada is not alone in its position either. There is much
support internationally for the elimination of export subsidies.
There has been much progress in bilateral negotiations with the
United States for a more unified position. The Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has been diligent in pushing the U.S.
secretary of agriculture to pursue a course which will allow us
to build on our common goals and best interests.
The 21 APEC countries as well as members of the Cairns group,
which comprises 15 like minded agricultural exporting countries
such as Australia, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina, have all
agreed that we should seek the elimination of export subsidies
which are so detrimental to trade.
Canada is a leading player in Cairns and is working closely with
other member countries to ensure that the WTO negotiations are
launched quickly and cleanly so our common objectives can be met
sooner rather than later.
The minister of agriculture recently hosted a meeting of Quint,
an informal group of ministers that includes Australia, Japan,
the EU and the United States. At that meeting earlier this fall
all ministers agreed on the urgency of the WTO negotiations. Our
work with Cairns and Quint also allows us to pursue our goal of
reducing and eliminating trade distorting subsidies on a variety
of fronts and provides Canada with a greater influence.
The Government of Canada has confidence in the ability of our
producers to compete in a world marketplace. As producers they
have confidence in themselves. We are laying the groundwork to
ensure our trading partners enter the WTO negotiations with a
commitment to a smooth launch, steadfast negotiations and
meaningful results.
As the WTO negotiations proceed, the federal government will
continue with the partnership approach that led to the
development of a unified national negotiating position by
ensuring that the industry and provinces are consulted closely
throughout the process.
1535
This is a team effort by the federal government, the provincial
governments and industry as we seek greater access to more
markets and a level playing field. Increased access to world
markets means new opportunities for Canadian producers and
processors, Canadian skills, Canadian research, and Canadian
innovation and technology.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all day I
have been listening to members of the Liberal Party say how
wonderful free trade has been for the country, but I have not
noticed the price of bread or milk, the price of clothes or the
price of a vehicle go down. Prices have not gone down. They
have gone up. The income of the average family has gone down.
Wages have gone down. Teenagers in Yukon earn less than what I
earned 20 years ago at minimum wage jobs. The minimum wage keeps
people below the poverty line.
We keep hearing how good free trade is. What free trade has
meant is that agribusiness can buy its wheat from Argentina
cheaper than it can from Canadians, so we push our farmers right
under.
With all the businesses that we are supposed to support so that
they can invest in other countries, does that mean that Canadian
workers will be lining up to go to work in Mexico for pennies a
day? Just what are these benefits? As a person who has been at
home with my family for 15 years before I came here, it was not
easy to get by. I earned less money as an adult than I did as a
teenager with the changes under free trade. Could the hon.
member explain more clearly what are the benefits to the average
family?
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is very
evident the growth in employment in Canada directly resulted
because of our export industry seeking new fields and buyers and
producing quality products. We are at the highest level of
employment in the history of Canada for the moment. That is a
celebration. That is something that members of the New
Democratic Party should salute once in a while instead of looking
at the bare bottom.
Another thing that is so important in this kind of relationship
is that we are doing it in a rules based operation with
opportunities to grieve issues as they arise that do not comply
with the rules based trading rules of the WTO. There is a point
where we may think we are being wronged. We try to make use of
that like any other member of the WTO. It is rules based.
Everyone who breaks the rules is called on to justify the
rationale or accept the punishments.
It is a good news story. Implementing new programs is shied
away from by people who are shy about getting in on the activity,
but that is what is happening in the world. We are in the game
and we are in the game in a big way.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to take part in this debate on the
whole question of the World Trade Organization.
Understandably, my remarks will focus on agriculture and all the
possible repercussions of the WTO negotiations scheduled to
begin late this month or early in December.
I became aware of the importance of international trade in April
1998, when I took part in a meeting of the Cairns Group, which
gave me a bit of an idea of where Canada stood.
As members know, the Cairns Group is made up of about 15
countries with a much more trade-oriented philosophy. A great
deal has been said about market access, but we seem to be
forgetting fundamental things like the environment or social
issues.
Last week, I attended the 10th meeting of the Inter-American
Board of Agriculture. Thirty-four countries from the three
Americas were present at this meeting in Salvador, in the state
of Bahia in Brazil. Here again, I saw that the program under
which countries would normally be starting negotiations was far
from ready.
Increasingly, we are seeing tensions developing between various
growth poles in the world.
For example, we were able to see firsthand that more and more
Brazil is taking an aggressive approach and becoming an economic
player that wants to impose its views on South American
countries.
1540
As I said earlier, Brazil is a member of the Cairns Group. Its
philosophy is also very trade-oriented and it tends to ignore
major priorities in the context of WTO negotiations.
Tension runs so high that, last week, WTO's ambassador in
Geneva, Nestor Osorio, could not participate in the meetings
held in Brazil because of problems with setting an agenda and
getting WTO negotiations under way.
The situation is currently as follows: The United States, Brazil
and several North American countries are refusing to include the
concept of multifunctionality proposed by the European Union.
This is very embarrassing for the WTO ambassador, because
negotiations are at an impasse. It is very difficult to set an
agenda and to clearly indicate what issues will be raised.
What is Canada's role in all this? What will it do? Canada
should be a model, a unifier, or a moderator. We still do not
know what its status will be. Yet, this is a unique opportunity
for Canada to act as a leader in the integration of the three
Americas.
At the present time, two trade powers seem to be emerging,
Brazil and the United States. However, Canada could readily play
the role of moderator-facilitator, intervening with either the
United States or Brazil to get them to understand the importance
in the context of negotiation of having a grasp of all the
concepts which could help advance the issue worldwide.
Now I shall touch on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or the
Canada food police if members prefer, that wonderful propaganda
agency, which guarantees to other countries that food is Canada
Proof, while systematically refusing within the country to
provide elected representatives with information on such
important issues as genetically modified foods when asked.
What is one's reaction supposed to be when one contacts the food
agency and is told “Contact Access to Information and pay for
it”. That is why I call the agency the Canada food police.
If we ask questions on the agency here in the House, I can just
hear the minister answering “Mr. Speaker, you know, this is an
independent agency. I would not like to be accused by the
government of interfering in the internal workings of an
agency”.
Meanwhile, MPs still have no answers, and the public has no
answers. The issue of food inspection control is so vital that,
last week again, in Salvador and Brazil, there was much
discussion of the whole issue of GMOs, which will be on the
agenda.
Where does Canada fit in all this? Despite numerous speeches by
my colleague from Louis-Hébert, there is no way of knowing.
However, the recent throne speech gave me a few shivers. There
is a little sentence in it that indicates quite clearly where
the Liberal government is headed, and I will read it:
The government will protect the health of Canadians by
strengthening Canada's food safety program, by taking further
action on environment health issues, including the potential
health risks presented by pesticides, and by modernizing overall
health protection for a changing world.
What does that mean? It means that the government is preparing
to create a super agency to include health, environment and food
issues. We will again have a hard time in this House getting
information.
1545
The protests are so strong that the government has decided to
back up with the bill it introduced in the last session, Bill
C-80. But we know its intentions. I am sure they will come back
later one with a more biting offensive to impose Bill C-80 and
the new agency on us in 2000.
What does the creation of this super agency mean? It will house
all the disciplines required to control information and will
Canada, abroad, to show its “Canada approved” seal more, a seal
that here will become “Ottawa controlled”.
The government will not just be controlling the information
coming from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but all the
information having to do with food, health and the environment.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I intended to
concentrate more on the issue of agriculture, which will be the
focus of concerns when WTO negotiations begin, possibly in late
November or early December, in Seattle.
The purpose of the meeting, it should be noted, is to agree on
an agenda and negotiations, which will then begin in earnest,
and move to Geneva, where they may go on for months and months,
if not years. The whole issue of trade will be up for
discussion.
Producers, all the stakeholders in the agricultural community,
need to know, to be informed and, last March, with this in mind
and with the help of the member for Louis-Hébert and the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I organized a symposium to look at this
whole issue and really inform people.
It was attended by 125 people. They all left better informed
but, at the same time, more worried, because they can see that
the Canadian government does not have the necessary leadership
to defend them in WTO talks.
Who is better placed than Quebec to defend the interests of
farmers? As members know, Quebec is unique in Canada. We have
two completely different income security systems. We have a
broadly diversified agricultural sector.
So, if the government really wants to be consistent in all the
partnership ideas that it has been promoting since the beginning
of the session, it should give a seat to the Quebec government,
so that Quebec's elected officials can closely follow WTO
negotiations.
We asked the Canadian government to ensure that other countries
do their homework. As things stand, the Canadian government has
fulfilled most of the commitments it made during the Uruguay
Round of negotiations. However, countries such as the United
States, the European Community and Japan have not yet fulfilled
theirs.
We asked here in this House that when the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International
Trade travel to Seattle later this month they demand, before
negotiations begin, that their trading partners do their
homework and comply with the commitments they made.
Right now, the situation is very distorted. Let us take a look.
The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Bob
Friesen, who was here this morning and who once again deplored
the whole federal income security system, says that Ottawa went
too far and that Canada reduced subsidies beyond what was
expected of it. Mr. Friesen claims that Ottawa could do much
more for farmers without violating trade agreements.
1550
Here are some figures. For each dollar received by Canadian
farmers, their American and European counterparts receive $2.50,
and this does not include the $8.6 billion in assistance that
the United States just gave to American farmers. And Canada is
going to agree to begin negotiations in spite of such an
injustice.
Here are more figures, which clearly demonstrate that the
Canadian government is not standing up for our farmers. On the
contrary, it has got down on its knees to please its trading
partners. In 1998, the OECD estimated that total support
provided by agricultural policies amounted to $140 U.S. per
capita in Canada, compared to $360 U.S. in the United States and
$380 U.S. in Europe. Again, one can see the distortion.
One can see that Canada will arrive at the negotiation table and
will be at a disadvantage, considering what it has already given
up, unlike other countries.
We can see that the agriculture minister's argument about
constraints imposed by the WTO does not hold. I should point out
that following the GATT treaty signed in 1995—I have been
referring to these signatures since the beginning—commitments
were made by the various partners. In fact, it is during that
meeting that the World Trade Organization was created.
In 1995, GATT members had to pledge to reduce their farm
subsidies by 15%. Canada did so by giving only 50% of what it is
allowed to give under international agreements. By contrast, the
United States and Europe are giving 100% of what they are
allowed to give. Again, these figures have a distorting effect
on the current world market.
The farmers' plight in Canada and Quebec is not simply related
to problems of subsidies. It clearly shows the federal
government's failure in its farm income support policy.
Let us look together at the federal government's failure in the
AIDA program. The federal government is largely responsible for
the present situation. I know that the agriculture minister
once again announced a program, earlier, but we do not know the
terms of it, how it will be implemented or when it will take
effect. In the meantime, the farm crisis in the west continues.
In the area of farm income, the current situation proves that
AIDA does not work and cannot guarantee farmers a decent living
standard. The government cannot deny responsibility for the
situation, and it contributes to maintaining the farm income
crisis.
As I said this morning, in December 1998, all parties pulled
together to find a title for a report. They talked about a farm
crisis. A crisis means specific and speedy action is necessary
to help people. Today, November 4, 1999, statistics continue to
be bandied about, figures are being brought out to help people,
but the situation is unresolved.
The main problem comes from the fact that AIDA, as it stands
today, denies benefits to a number of the producers it was
intended to help originally. As it now stands, the program will
not be paying out in the next two years the $900 million the
federal government had announced with great pomp last December.
The government will not be able to keep its promises of
assistance.
I would like the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tell us
how much of the $900 million has been used up. What became of
this money?
1555
Why does the minister not want to be of more assistance to
people in a time of crisis? The problems with AIDA in its
present form are many and show that the federal government does
not really want to come to the assistance of those going through
this crisis.
I will give another example. We hear that the forms are very
complicated, and so forth. The answer I was given this morning
contained a mountain of statistics.
I would not have liked to have seen any farmers listening in at
the agriculture committee meeting this morning. I think they
would have gone away furious. Politicians would not have had
much credibility with them, particularly those in the Liberal
Party of Canada. We are told that administering a program is a
hard task. Yet it was announced in December 1998.
I will give an example. At the time the federal government
announced its program on December 12, 1998, the U.S.
administration also announced a special emergency program for
American farmers, bringing to over $5 billion the additional
funding put into agriculture in 1998-1999.
Despite some delays, American farmers got their payments more
promptly than their Canadian counterparts. Here again, the
technocracy and bureaucracy has put Quebec farmers in a position
of weakness, less able to compete.
It is high time this government woke up to reality. First of
all, I will come back to a point I have already made: the
federal government ought to accept the presence of
representatives of the Government of Quebec because of their
type of agricultural production. It is completely different from
that of the rest of Canada. That is the first point. There are
two completely different income security systems. In some
areas, we are more proactive. We have a far more diversified
agricultural industry.
If the Canadian government has any desire to prove its
willingness to become a reliable partner with Quebec, it must
give Quebec a seat at the WTO meeting in Seattle, not only in
Seattle, but throughout the negotiations, because we need to
monitor what this government plans to do. We need to know what
is going to happen. We need to be kept informed of the various
stages to the negotiations, so as to ensure that the hard-won
advances of Quebec agricultural producers are maintained. As
Bloc Quebecois MPs, my colleagues and I will defend Quebec to
the very end.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. member who just spoke would respond to a suggestion that
Quebec, instead of being at WTO meetings in Seattle, might take
the lead within Canada to reduce the trade barriers within the
provinces.
We are told that there is freer trade with Canada and the rest
of the world than there is between the provinces within Canada.
Maybe the member could turn his line to that and maybe Quebec
could take a leading role in reducing trade barriers within our
own country.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that
there are difficulties between Quebec and the other provinces in
Canada. The government is not complying with the Constitution.
When it tries to accuse the Government of Quebec of being the
bad player in this situation, I hope it carefully listened to or
read the economic statement given yesterday by the Minister of
Finance and the throne speech. There was talk of setting
standards for mobility between provinces. The government is
still trying to establish national standards. It is really
having a hard time understanding the Quebec reality.
1600
It is not up to Quebec to take the leadership role, to call for
a reduction in the problems. The federal government must show
leadership. It is up to the Liberal government to lead. It is
up to the Liberal government to realize that a Canadian
Constitution exists and that each province has jurisdictions.
It is up to the Liberal government to get out of jurisdictions
belonging to Quebec and the other provinces and to do its job
within its own jurisdictions.
I am convinced that, if that happened, the problems between
provinces would be solved.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will direct
my remarks to the fourth paragraph of today's motion which reads
in part:
That the government should take action to remedy its over-zealous
and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which
has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers,
This opposition motion takes the extremely misguided position
that trade is bad for Canadian farmers; that it has caused, in
other words, extreme hardship for our producers. It is that
supposition that I would like to tackle during my time here
today.
In fact, trade, rather than creating an extreme hardship, is the
very cornerstone on which Canada's agricultural economy and the
nation's economy overall has developed and thrived. We have an
agriculture industry in the country that generated some $95
billion in domestic sales last year and over $22.5 billion in
exports to markets around the world.
This is a record export performance. I might add that these
sales were made in 1998, a year when financial markets were in
chaos and commodity prices were driven down. However, because of
our access to markets around the globe, Canada's agrifood
industry was able to actually improve on its export performance
of 1997, which, incidentally, was also a record-breaking year.
This export success obviously plays no small part in helping to
build a strong agricultural industry, an industry that
contributes more than 8% of the country's gross domestic product,
an industry that provides jobs for nearly one in seven people,
from the farmer in the field to the person in the processing
plant, to the research scientist who is constantly looking for
ways to improve our crops and develop new crops that the world
will be glad to buy from us. It is also the industry which
provides jobs for over one-half of Canada's young people entering
the workforce for the first time.
Trade is good for our agricultural industry. We have a small
population and we have a large agricultural output. We must
trade in order to survive.
A recent analysis by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada indicates
that for every billion dollar increase in agrifood exports, net
cash income on the farm can be expected to rise somewhere between
$250 million to $310 million.
Some of my colleagues on the other side would argue that is not
good enough. They seem to think that agricultural trade is only
good if the benefits to the producer are dollar for dollar. In
other words, a billion dollar increase in agricultural trade has
to bring a billion dollars back to the primary producers or else
we should just forget it and that we should forget trying to
increase trade.
That is just silly. It is silly because that billion dollar
increase will lead to something like $250 million or more of
additional money in farmers' pockets. They can reinvest that
money in their operations. They can use it to buy a new combine
or to upgrade and expand their barns. When they do that, the
benefits are passed on.
When a livestock producer decides to expand his capacity, he
puts money into the hands of the local farm equipment dealer and
his veterinarian. Maybe he will pay his grain-growing neighbour
down the road to supply him with some additional feed. Pretty
soon everybody is feeling the effects all because of trade.
Meanwhile, beyond the primary producer level, the benefits of
that $1 billion increase in trade go to other players in the
agrifood system. More and more of Canada's agrifood exports are
value-added. Farmers' bulk products are processed and prepared
for the direct-to-consumer market, a highly valuable market. This
means some of that $1 billion in exports goes to food
manufacturers, processors and transporters who also create jobs
and economic growth for our country.
1605
The benefits of trade are very clear and that is why the federal
government does all it can to expand our trade opportunities.
Since Canada started liberalizing trade with its partners around
the world, our exports have exploded. In the last decade, as we
have pursued freer trade with partners all over the globe, our
exports to the world have more than doubled.
In North America alone, our exports have nearly quadrupled in
the last 10 years, with more than $13 billion worth of agrifood
products going to Mexico and the United States last year. If
anyone thinks we would have made these kinds of gains without
liberalization, they are dead wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Ottawa—Vanier.
We have been trying to increase our exports to the emerging
markets of the Asia-Pacific countries as well. Now, because of
what happened in some financial markets in the last year or so
and because of some phenomenally good harvests around the world,
I admit some of these Asian markets have dropped off a bit.
However, we have made gains and we have a foothold in those
markets now. As they evolve, we will be able to take advantage
of the foothold and build on it.
We would not have made these gains without making efforts to
liberalize trade. We free up trade by working with our partners
and various associations like the Asia-Pacific Economic
Co-operation forum, APEC, or WTO, or NAFTA. We build freer and
fairer trade when we put more dollars into producers' products
and into rural businesses at home.
Because of our efforts on the trade front, Canada has made
progress in a number of areas over the last year or two. We have
worked with the European Union to get them to modify their grain
import regime and reduce the duties on some grades of Canadian
durum wheat.
We have gained access to the Japanese market for our tomatoes by
working with officials there to get them to reduce their
extremely time consuming approval process which required that
each and every tomato variety had to be tested separately for
pest risk.
We were successful in persuading Thai officials to reduce their
tariffs on canola meal and alfalfa products earlier this year,
opening a sizeable market for Canadian feed exports.
As a result of our efforts in Korea, the Korean government
announced earlier this year that its applied tariff on canola
would be reduced from 15% to 10%.
In Indonesia, agriculture tariffs were reduced to a maximum of
5% on all food products.
In the Philippines, sanitary import protocols were maintained or
updated to ensure we had continued market access for Canadian
pork, beef, poultry and other agricultural items like bovine
embryos.
Canada also gained access to the Vietnam market for grain and
fertilizers.
All this is trade progress that leads to a stronger agrifood
industry here in Canada.
No, trade liberalization is not the cause of Canadian farmers'
problems. On the contrary, trade is the answer. On average,
across the country, about half of farm gate income comes from
trade. On the prairies, trade is responsible for the majority of
producer income.
Members should think for a moment about what would have happened
to our prairie provinces if they had no international markets
where they could sell their wheat and canola and beef. They
would not be better off. Far from it. It is international trade
that sustains our agricultural regions and the Government of
Canada is working to improve our trade opportunities all the
time. We are doing it by mounting trade missions, by finding ways
to build partnerships and alliances around the world and by
working with like-minded countries to get better, fairer and more
enforceable trade rules that will assist our producers.
We want to increase trade, not reduce it. We are working with
our producers, our processors and our counterparts in governments
at other levels to ensure we reap the benefits.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that was quite an interesting departmental speech handed
to the member so he could just rattle off a bunch of things that
have absolutely no impact on what is happening here in Canada
today.
There is a farm income crisis and this parliamentary secretary
does not even seem to notice that. He talks about farmers having
money to buy combines. They do not have money to put food on the
table. When he is going to wake up?
When is the government going to wake up and address some real
problems like input taxes that farmers are paying and by
developing a real AIDA program where the money gets off the
cabinet table and is delivered to farmers to help them out at
this crucial time? When is it going to fight high foreign
subsidies by the Europeans and Americans that will have a real
impact on farmers in our country?
1610
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, we waited a little while to
have some silly accusations made by the Reform Party and now we
have them.
We just finished saying what international trade does for the
prairie farmer and what kind of condition the prairie farmer
would be in if we did not have trade and the member stands up and
harps about high input taxes.
As of today, the federal government alone has put $1.1 billion
into a native program. Trade and assistance from the government
when it is needed is what is keeping farmers on the farm.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest when the parliamentary secretary spoke
about the benefits of trade and that trade was the answer. I
agree with him.
He then went on to state that trade brings economic benefits to
the farmers and the sub-industries that feed the farmers.
However, as he knows, there is a crisis in the agriculture
industry. Would it not be prudent for his government to reduce
taxes, as we have been calling for, so that there is more income
in the hands of farmers and the farm supporting industries? We
see this as a number one priority but the minister, in his
economic statement, has totally neglected it. Perhaps he can
comment on that.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member and
the previous speaker were saying about the prairie farmer not
making any money is true, then to reduce taxes when they are not
making any money would be very silly.
What he should be doing is talking to his provincial
counterparts from the prairie provinces. He should ask the
provincial governments that have control over the taxation
regime, which farmers are paying taxes to, to reduce those taxes.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the rambling remarks of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Last week, I attended the hearings of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. Two prairie premiers came to testify
that they needed money and that AIDA was no longer meeting their
needs. It is strange that the parliamentary secretary is
telling us that everything is fine in Canada when these two
premiers had quite the opposite to say.
I find it very odd. I have a question for the parliamentary
secretary.
How will he meet the growing expectations of Canadian taxpayers,
who want the Canadian government to ensure that genetically
modified foods are labelled? I would like him to answer that
question.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about
novels and novel foods in the same breath.
The agriculture committee had hearings into genetically modified
foods two years ago, long before it became the issue of the day.
The hon. member should talk to her colleague about the
contributions we have made to the government's position on
genetically modified foods and on labelling.
We have talked to consumers, scientists and all the partners who
were involved in biotechnology. We are on a plane that will take
us to either voluntary or compulsory food labelling.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an
opportunity to take part in this debate brought to us by the New
Democratic Party, particularly as regards the reference to
cultural diversity in the party leader's motion.
[English]
I want to reaffirm to the House that the government sees Canada
as a strong player in the world. We also know that culture
cannot be compromised as we work to create economic opportunities
for Canadians throughout our trade policy.
I would like to quote the Prime Minister who just recently spoke
about the government's commitment to the preservation of Canadian
culture. He said “We must work together to protect this
diversity, recognizing that cultural goods and services are much
more than mere commodities for sale. They touch on something
more fundamental and intangible, our identity”.
1615
No one can question the commitment of this government to the
preservation and promotion of cultural diversity both at home and
abroad. As clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne, our
diversity is a source of strength and creativity, making us
modern and forward looking. Given the importance that the
government places on cultural diversity, we also indicated in the
throne speech that we will work to develop a new approach
internationally to support this diversity of cultural expression
in countries around the world.
Here in the House of Commons on October 20 the Minister of
Canadian Heritage acknowledged the work of the Standing
Committees on Canadian Heritage, Foreign Affairs and
International Trade in developing a creative solution to preserve
and promote global cultural diversity. This solution is the
creation of a new international instrument on cultural diversity.
The committees developed a study based on the recommendation of
the cultural industry's sectoral advisory group on international
trade, better known as SAGIT. I would like once again to
reiterate this government's appreciation of the work of all of
those involved in this debate.
[Translation]
The purpose of this instrument would be to set out clear rules
allowing Canada and other countries to retain policies ensuring
the promotion of their culture, while respecting the rules
governing world trade, and giving cultural products access to
export markets. The agreement would also recognize the
importance of cultural diversity in the social and economic
development of a country, as well as for the whole world.
Canada will have recourse to a whole range of tribunals to which
it can turn for support in enforcing this instrument, including
the international network on cultural policy, UNESCO, the World
Trade Organization, the Francophonie, and our bilateral
relations. Until these discussions have taken place, we will
continue to envisage all solutions.
[English]
The new international instrument will evolve over time, building
on the advice and consensus gained from ongoing dialogue, both
here at home and abroad.
[Translation]
During the preparation for these talks on the new international
instrument, Canada will continue to insist, in all related
international agreements, on maximum flexibility to achieve its
cultural policy objectives.
[English]
With respect to the WTO, we are working closely with members to
build support for language in the declaration that will emerge
from the Seattle ministerial meeting to recognize the importance
of cultural diversity. The Minister for International Trade has
made it quite clear that this is a priority issue for Canada. In
upcoming trade negotiations we will secure our ability to design,
implement and maintain policies that serve to strengthen our
culture.
We are also intensifying the dialogue which the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has been championing over the past several
years to raise the profile of cultural diversity as an important
international policy issue. Many governments have cultural
policies aimed at preserving and promoting their cultural
diversity. These are the building blocks for further
international co-operation which will ensure that culture is a
key consideration on the international agenda.
[Translation]
Canada has been a leader at the international level in stressing
the importance of cultural diversity. We will continue, with the
support of provincial governments and the public, to take part
in discussions on this issue, and specifically on the best way
to ensure that countries can preserve the flexibility required
to pursue their cultural policy objectives.
[English]
The 1998 UNESCO intergovernmental conference on cultural
policies for development held in Stockholm concluded that
cultural goods and services are not like other traded goods and
services. Cultural diversity is an important condition for
peaceful co-existence.
While globalization can enrich cultural relations between
countries, it may also be detrimental to creative diversity and
cultural pluralism. Building on the Stockholm agenda the
subsequent Ottawa international meeting on cultural policy in
June 1998 established an international network of ministers of
culture. It also urged countries to consider how the principles
of cultural diversity could further be integrated into key
aspects of international relations.
1620
The international network on cultural policy has responded to an
international need to discuss cultural diversity and address the
challenges that globalization poses for culture. The network has
grown from 19 initial ministers to the current membership of 37,
representing a broad spectrum of countries and regions around the
world. I am sure the member opposite will recall that meeting of
June 1998. She was one of the participants in that meeting,
which was held in Ottawa.
[Translation]
Among the concrete results of the second meeting of the culture
ministers in Oaxaca, the ministers agreed to set up a liaison
office to support the follow up and the work of the cultural
diversity network. This office will be located in Canada.
Moreover, under the co-ordination of the contact group,
interested countries have agreed to conduct specialized work on
the theme of cultural diversity and globalization, with findings
to be released at the network's next international meeting, in
Greece, in September 2000.
[English]
The network that the government was key in developing will be
central to the debate on the preservation of cultural diversity
well into the next century. Subsequent meetings will be held in
Switzerland in 2001 and in South Africa in 2002.
The government has done important work to raise the profile of
culture and the need for cultural diversity on the international
agenda. In fact, earlier this week the Minister of Canadian
Heritage co-chaired an international meeting of ministers of
culture at UNESCO with her counterpart from France. The meeting
reaffirmed the willingness to defend and promote cultural
diversity. Ministers recognize that promoting diversity and
freedom of choice are keys to the future; elements recognized in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is not just an issue for governments. That is why we are
pleased to see this week's launching of the Coalition for
Cultural Diversity, as well as the ongoing work of the Canadian
Conference of the Arts. We are committed to supporting their
efforts, as are other governments of this country, to engage a
broad range of civil society in the promotion of cultural
diversity.
We are also pleased to be working with our provinces, which
recognize the importance of this challenge.
In Canada we have tried to strike a balance that allows us to
participate fully in the global culture, while at the same time
ensuring a space for Canadian cultural expression. This goal has
not changed. We believe that the approach we have outlined will
strike a balance between the benefits of international trade to
Canada and the ability to pursue our cultural policy objectives
and goals. We will continue to work with all interested
Canadians to achieve these important goals.
[Translation]
As I said earlier today and yesterday, we are very proud to join
the coalition for cultural diversity, which includes the vast
majority of stakeholders in Canada's artistic and cultural
sector.
This coalition, which was created in Quebec, will soon include
most artistic groups, creators, those coming up with the
vehicles we need to give voice to our history, capture the
essence of who we are, our values, and so on. This is a mandate
that the government readily accepts and intends to fulfil.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Palliser.
I am pleased to join in today's debate on the future direction
of our trading relations in light of the upcoming Seattle round
of talks at the World Trade Organization, and continuing
initiatives of the government surrounding proposals to expand the
NAFTA.
I want to talk about how our culture is threatened by trade
deals and how I see better ways to deal with protecting and
promoting our culture in Canada and around the world.
We have seen a dangerous trend in our cultural policies as they
relate to trade in the last decade. Cultural expression is not
being viewed by this government, especially by the United States,
in the way it should be.
I believe that culture is something to celebrate as an
expression of creativity. It is something which allows us to
delight in each other. It is something which helps us to
understand where we come from.
It is our stories, our history, our emotions, an expression of
our joys and sadness. It makes us think and it makes us wonder.
1625
New Democrats believe that promoting culture is done by
supporting and celebrating artistic achievements. We know that
protecting our culture is required in supporting the individual
artists, in the companies which nurture them, in their struggles
to show us and the world a glimpse of their special view of the
world.
Sadly we have a government which deals with culture as a
trade-off of film tax breaks against steel quotas, quantifying
the values of having a domestic book publishing industry against
the pressures of the corporate monoliths who want to sell our
trees and water. Culture is seen as a piece on the giant
monopoly board of world trade by this government.
Simply remember how the government failed to hold the line on
culture last spring when it came to our magazine policy. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage used her best speech writers to
come up with the careful words reflecting great ideas to protect
and promote culture. Then the deal went behind closed doors.
What we saw was the sellout of culture and a trading away of
principles. The Americans got what they wanted. The principle
that our culture was a commodity was entrenched. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage was left with a brave face and the Minister for
International Trade got a promotion.
The same dynamic is in place still around the current cabinet
table. We have a Minister of Canadian Heritage touring the world
to garner international support for international cultural
agreements. At the same we have a new Minister for International
Trade calling upon the business community to rally its support
for a new FTAA, with no real protection for culture and,
furthermore, a new FTAA which revives the odious concept of
investor rights. We know that if the chips are down the
government cares more about the corporate view of culture than
about supporting our precious creators.
Let me quickly address the concept of the current so-called
cultural carve-out in the NAFTA. What we have now is a sham.
The NAFTA section on culture grants permission for the Americans
to put any dollar value on our culture that they want and to
punish us for protecting or promoting it. That is what the
current agreement does. We saw that in the magazine debate.
Simply put, we are allowed to protect culture as long as we
remain contractually obliged to be punished for doing so.
We can pretend that culture is not a commodity, and the Minister
of Canadian Heritage does that, as long as the Americans are
allowed to quantify it and crush us for having it.
The government has said nothing about changing this and nothing
about culture in preparation of the WTO talks. We are starting
out going into Seattle and into the FTAA from a position of
weakness.
I still have some hope, though, that our culture is actually
quite a survivor, one which has survived almost by sheer force of
will in the face of tough odds. I can see this by looking at two
very special communities in my constituency, the black
communities of Cherrybrooke and the Prestons. These communities
have been living on the unforgiving rocky soil of Preston, dating
back to the days when slaves were still sold on the Halifax
piers, before most of the Scots arrived in Nova Scotia. Yet they
have overcome all odds, systemic discrimination, economic
deprivation and the scorn of successive governments. They have
managed to maintain their unique black Canadian culture in their
families, in their oral traditions and, mostly, in their
churches.
Recently I attended the funeral of Rev. Donald Skier and felt
the amazing music, heard the heartfelt stories and saw again how
they are proud and unique, and they have survived. They are an
inspiration to me of how tough a cultural people we Canadians can
be.
We have an obligation as a society not only to respect cultural
survival but to promote and protect our unique cultures in a real
and enforceable way. As a country it is not good enough to
scrape through. Our current trade policy fails to promote and
protect our unique cultures.
There are voices which have been trying to address this problem
and I call upon the government to listen to them. The recent
report of the parliamentary committee on trade has shown that
even a majority of Liberals on the committee see that the current
trade regimes fail culture and we have to try another way. The
recent report of the cultural industry's sectoral advisory group
on international trade presented the government with options for
stepping outside of the current trade agreement and developing an
international trading relationship for culture, standing outside
the WTO and the NAFTA.
This approach has been supported by the Canadian Conference of
the Arts, a leading Canadian cultural organization.
1630
The concept of having a stand alone international trading
agreement on culture has significance in Canada and I support
such an approach with conditions. There is no point in our
minister touring the globe and meeting with cultural policymakers
unless there is an upfront commitment from Canada that we want
culture to be really removed from the WTO and all regional trade
agreements, not like we have now.
In closing, we need a separate international agreement on
culture because the current agreements are a failure. We need a
recommitment to domestic cultural policy. These things can be
done by the government. The choice is there but the time is
running out.
In light of the fact that we have the premier performers in the
country in the House today, now is the time for the government to
commit to removing culture from the WTO and regional trade
agreements. Now is the time for our Prime Minister to guarantee
to the artists in the country that the Canada Council and the
CBC, the pillars of our cultural foundations, are not in danger
of being swept away by the crush of international trade
agreements. Now is the time for this to happen.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
member's comments about the amazing richness of her community in
presenting some of our most innovative cultural manifestations.
Last August I visited her riding when I was in Halifax for the
national caucus meeting of the governing party. There is a
theatre on the water shore there. My wife and I were fortunate
enough to take in the last presentation of the newest Canadian
opera, Beatrice Chancy, created by people living in
Halifax. It had also been presented in Toronto. I take this
opportunity to congratulate all those associated with it.
I gather that the CBC will be presenting it coast to coast at
some point. I encourage Canadians who have the opportunity of
seeing it on CBC to do so. It is quite dramatic and quite
poignant, a very important piece of art.
I want to ask the member a very simple question. I did say on
behalf of the government that we accept the SAGIT recommendation.
The government has taken that position. Does the member not
recognize that?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his wonderful compliments on Beatrice Chancy which was
indeed a work of art, one of the works of this century.
As long as I have the great unease that I have about what
happened last May in the House surrounding Bill C-55, I have very
little confidence that yes means yes, that a carve out means a
carve out, and that a total cultural exemption means that. I
need to have proof.
I did not get it today in the House from the Prime Minister so I
remain a sceptic. I will remain such until it is proven
otherwise, until he answers the question.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too commend the
hon. member for her support of the cultural community.
She spoke about the FTAA and the fact that in the FTAA there was
no guarantee of a carve out or the fact that culture would be
protected. She must know that in these agreements traditionally
Canada has taken a position that it will protect culture. It has
done that very strongly. In these negotiations of the WTO, until
such times as these issues are negotiated Canada still stands by
the principle that it will maintain its right to legislate in the
area of culture and it will protect its rights in culture.
1635
Is the hon. member aware that yesterday in Toronto at the trade
ministers meeting of the FTAA the Prime Minister came out very
strongly in favour of Canadian culture and very strongly in
support of doing something around that area in the free trade of
the Americas to support our cultural industries?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the Prime
Minister's speech and that was why I asked him today. I was
quite excited by what he had to say.
I wanted to get clarification on whether he meant that the WTO
and the NAFTA agreement would have no binding relationship to
culture in the country any longer. I did not get the answer to
that. I still remain unconvinced.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to pursue the
fourth paragraph of the NDP opposition day motion on free trade.
I will read into the record the entire paragraph because the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food concerned himself with the first half of it. The
entire paragraph states:
The government should take action to remedy its overzealous and
irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which has
caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers, whose domestic
support payments have been slashed by 60%, three times what was
actually required by Canada's international trading obligations.
I will take a moment to define what I think is intended in that
paragraph and to go over what has transpired in the past six
years.
In 1993 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed by
Canada and by a number of other countries. For the first time
ever GATT dealt with agricultural issues. I was not there but I
believe I can indicate what the agreement was. We do not have
time to get into all the agricultural concerns right now, but let
me say as a starting point that the signatories were to reduce by
20% domestic support subsidies over the next five years. That
was the arrangement made and all the signatories to the GATT
Uruguay round signed on to that agreement.
In 1993, also an important year, the government opposite came to
power in October of that year. As I noted earlier today in
questions and comments, the Reform Party became the only
opposition in English Canada with official party status in the
House. It had an entirely different agenda, which was to get rid
of domestic support payments as fast as possible. This fit very
neatly with the decision of the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister to balance the books. It was a very happy marriage.
The long and short of it is that instead of Canada reducing its
domestic subsidies by 20% on agriculture over the five year
period it was reduced and slashed by some 60%. This has meant
the elimination of the Crow benefit, the subsidy that predated
Saskatchewan's entry into Confederation. It actually came into
force and effect in 1897. With its elimination there was a loss
each and every year on the prairies of some $600 million; $325
million in the province of Saskatchewan alone. Also freight
rates for farmers shot up dramatically since the end of the Crow
benefit.
The government had the option of eliminating or phasing out the
Crow over a number of years, but because it had a different
domestic agenda of balancing the books as quickly as possible, it
did it all in one fell swoop with a very modest payment going
back to farmers and producers.
It now means in my constituency of Palliser for a farmer in
Rouleau or Wilcox with three hopper cars filled with grain that
33% of it goes to pay the freight alone. It is no wonder farmers
are going broke so fast on the prairies.
1640
Mike Gifford, an international trade negotiator for the
Government of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food that Canada could put $2 billion back into domestic
support payments tomorrow without fear of raising any concerns
among our trading competitors. That is how much we have reduced
our domestic support payments in recent years.
What they got instead was a modest little announcement today of
some welcome assistance for AIDA. The premiers of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan were here a week ago today, along with the farm
lobby, seeking $1.3 billion. The announcement today says there
is a further $170 million available for the agriculture disaster
assistance program, barely 10% of what farmers in the two prairie
provinces feel they need for their provinces.
There is an interesting sentence in the minister's release
wherein he says:
We presume the provinces will maintain the 60:40 cost sharing
arrangement on total safety net expenditures.
That is a rather large presumption for the minister of
agriculture to make, especially for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan
provinces because I do not think they will decide to enter into
this 40% arrangement. The AIDA program is so tainted in those
two provinces that I think they will feel they can get a better
return on their investment by doing something directly for their
farmers themselves rather than entering into what they feel is a
very flawed program.
Let me turn to our competitors, particularly those south of the
border. We have some concerns. We are not only concerned about
what has happened in the past, but now we need to be concerned
about what will happen at the upcoming WTO in Seattle. I note
what Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, has been
saying within the last month. I will quote from a document where
she said:
The goal of the Clinton administration is to eliminate all farm
export subsidies, reducing sky high tariffs used by Canada and
other countries to keep out U.S. imports and strengthen
disciplines on state trading agencies such as the Canadian Wheat
Board.
That is the goal of the United States. I think it will find
support from some other countries as well. It does not like
state trading agencies or enterprises and we do not agree. The
Canadian government has been very dogmatic in its comments that
it will defend to the fullest the Canadian Wheat Board and supply
management. There is no question in my mind that the Americans
have their guns trained on Canada, on the wheat board in
particular, and on supply management.
My concern in this regard is that our government's response is
very timid and very pale. It seems to be paralyzed with fear
that anything we do in terms of trying to protect our primary
producers, particularly in the prairies but elsewhere as well,
will trigger retaliatory action by the Americans. They are
concerned that everything is in the green box in terms of making
it palatable.
For example, in 1995 Canada's total for amber support, the
yellow light, was only 15% of WTO spending while in the United
States it was almost 27%. In the European Union it was just in
excess of 60%.
Canada must approach the next round of the WTO agricultural
negotiations in a very cautious and thoughtful manner. That is
what paragraph 4 is all about in the motion before us.
1645
A new agreement which just continues the existing formula in
reduction of protection and support without correcting the
inequities in the current agreement will not necessarily be
beneficial to Canadian farmers. In fact, such an agreement will
just exacerbate current inequities.
I would make the observation that Canada is so intent on making
sure that the very tiny domestic support we have is in the green
box and that our farmers in western Canada are turning purple as
a result of that.
I notice that you are giving me a signal, Mr. Speaker. I did
not realize the time had flown by so fast. I do want to close my
speech with a couple of predictions.
I have talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and I have talked
about supply management. This is my prediction. The next round
of the WTO which starts later this month in Seattle will see the
demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian government will
fight it to the death, but at the end of the day the Americans
will win and we will lose the Canadian Wheat Board. The next
round of the WTO after this round will spell the demise of supply
management. I hope I am wrong but I do not think I will be.
Currently there is a movie called Eyes Wide Shut. That is
how Canada went into the last round of agricultural trade. I
hope we go to Seattle with our eyes wide open.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member's comments. Once again, as many of
the speakers from the New Democratic Party did, he came out right
at the end with wild accusations of what is going to happen. All
of a sudden we are going to go in there and get rid of the wheat
board. Then it is supply management that is going to go.
Surely the hon. member must be aware that the Government of
Canada consulted. Prior to putting forward what I and most
members on this side of the House and many on the other side
consider to be a very strong position on agriculture going into
Seattle, the government consulted widely with those in western
Canada who are most concerned, particularly on the western
Canadian side of agriculture. It also met with agricultural
groups throughout Canada.
The hon. member should read some of the reports of the
agricultural meetings where farmers from across the country came
together to talk about a position for Seattle. Then he would
agree that the Government of Canada has almost mirrored what
these farmers came up with. In fact, the Government of Canada,
before putting forward that position on agriculture, sought the
advice of not only farming groups and communities, but also the
agriculture ministers of all the provinces and territories.
When the hon. member makes wild accusations of what is going to
happen, he must first understand that the position we are putting
forward is very strongly supported within the agricultural
community.
The hon. member also talked about the hardship in western Canada
and that many farmers are having a difficult time. I do want to
make this one point because it is important. The hon. member
should know that hardship is not totally a direct result of
foreign export subsidies. Many other factors have come into
play.
What we can do for Seattle is to make sure that we take a strong
position and that we maintain this to get rid of foreign export
subsidies and to get rid of the domestic subsidies that other
countries are using that inadvertently come back and hurt
Canadian farmers. Certainly the hon. member must be aware of the
Canadian position.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
and the opportunity to respond to it.
Part of my background is in labour management negotiations. I
have seen folks on both sides of the table come in with very
strong, hard negotiating positions and then I have seen those
positions collapse.
The concern I have is how strong will the government be in
defence of the Canadian Wheat Board given the political realities
in western Canada. There are precious few members from the
government benches who will be out there vociferously saying to
the trade negotiators and others that we have to hold fast and
tight on the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am concerned.
1650
The member opposite referred to it as a wild accusation but I
called it a prediction. What I am saying is that when push comes
to shove, we will see how strong the resolve of the Canadian
delegation is to preserve and protect the Canadian Wheat Board.
I hope I am wrong.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an
interesting point. He tries to suggest that because we do not
have a number of seats in western Canada that we are not going to
stand up for the interests of western farmers. That is totally
ludicrous.
We are elected not only as members of parliament representing
our constituents here but we are nation builders. We are people
who represent all of Canada. As a person from a rural riding in
southwestern Ontario that has a number of farmers, I can assure
the hon. member that we on this side of the House speak for all
Canadians.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, if they were the nation
builders the hon. member suggested they are, then they would
surely come up with a program that would assist the farmers of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba rather than the pathetic performance on
AIDA that even as it has been announced today falls a day late
and a dollar short.
[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
Tobique—Mactaquac, Homelessness; the hon. member for Joliette,
Employment Insurance.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise on this motion. This motion really
sets apart the ideology of the socialists and shows Canadians
that they are living in the past. They do not understand the
importance of international trade and the relationships and hard
work that our minister, our parliamentary secretary and our
entire team will be undertaking when they attend the meeting in
Seattle.
I will point out some of the anomalies, to be kind, that exist
in the motion. It states that we should not negotiate any
further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle
meeting of the WTO or the free trade area of the Americas without
first securing enforceable international rules on core labour
standards, environmental protection, cultural diversity, the
preservation of public health care and public education. Are
those not the issues among others that we are going to Seattle to
discuss? Of course they are. I almost find the motion
contradictory. It is saying not to negotiate any further trade
deals until we get all of this in place.
Do NDP members think that Canada can simply walk into a world
trading organization and simply demand that it do this and to do
that or we are going to take our ball and go home? They shake
their heads but that is clearly how they think negotiations
should take place.
The language is quite interesting. The motion states that the
government should take action to remedy its overzealous and
irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization. What do
they think?
Mr. Hec Clouthier: They don't think.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: They don't think. In all honesty, what
do they think has contributed to the dynamic growth in this
country since the early 1990s, specifically since 1993?
Globalization and—
An hon. member: Free trade.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I hear the Tories chirping over there.
I remember Brian Mulroney standing arm in arm with the president
of the United States signing “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”.
With a name like Mahoney far be it from me to take on an
Irishman, but I should add that we were not prepared and will
never be prepared to simply climb into bed with an elephant like
the United States.
That is why we need the Seattle negotiations.
1655
That is what the Tories did under the former prime minister and
it led to a $42 billion deficit. What happened then?
We came into office in 1993. I was not here. I was elsewhere.
But the government changed hands. The Liberals came in and we
negotiated a trade deal in Chile. We negotiated trade deals in
other parts of the Americas. We negotiated trade deals in Asia.
We sent team Canada to Japan and all over the world. We showed
Canadians and more important we showed the world that we are a
nation of traders, going right back to the roots of aboriginal
Canadians who were the first traders.
Port Credit is at the foot of Highway 10 in my constituency. It
is named that because the aboriginals used to trade, and nobody
had any money in those days, so they would simply trade back and
forth and barter for credit, for goods or that type of thing. We
are carrying on the tradition of the founders of this nation, the
aboriginal Canadians, who were the first entrepreneurs and the
first free traders in North America.
Members opposite say that with the policies the government has
put in place with regard to international trade, globalization,
world trade organizations, FTA, Chile and all of the agreements,
we are being overzealous. I understand where they are coming
from. It is a lack of self-confidence.
It is a problem that has been in the rank and file of the New
Democratic Party since the days when my father was trying to get
them to have a little more common sense about their policies and
what they should be doing. He understood. I can remember Bill
Mahoney saying to me that we have no problem with the NDP as long
as it is not in government. This was the leader of the United
Steelworkers of America. He said to leave them in opposition
because they are not bad if they stand up and just chirp a bit
and effect some social policy. Give them credit where credit is
due, but for goodness sake do not give them the reins of power.
The proof of the wisdom of those words came through in 1990 when
the people of Ontario decided through a mistake of some kind to
elect Bob Rae. We all remember what happened. A province that
was firing on all engines went into the worst recession since the
Great Depression. A New Democratic Party premier intentionally
decided to run $10 billion overdrafts. Imagine. It was almost
as bad as Mulroney and the Tories. Actually, they were a little
worse. Let me give the numbers.
The way government financing works is that deficits get piled on
top of the debt at the end of the fiscal year. It is the same as
a family that uses an overdraft to buy food and then piles the
overdraft on top of the mortgage. Eventually the mortgage
outstrips the value of the home.
Mr. Rae and the New Democrats had a great celebration. Remember
the fanfare when they came in? Boy, they opened the doors to the
world and it was going to be so wonderful. They took the debt of
the province in five years from $39 billion to well over $100
billion. That province is choked with the burden that was put on
it with the myopic, single minded, narrow lack of vision led and
funnelled by the New Democratic Party policies that are developed
at their conferences.
Members of the NDP get together, slap each other on the back and
say “We are the social conscience of the world. We know what is
best for Canadians. We should never trust the people in the
streets to actually do things on their own. We have to do it all
for them”.
1700
That is the New Democrat policy. That is where the genesis of
this resolution before us today comes from. The members of the
New Democratic Party do not trust Canadians to be able to compete
in the international global marketplace.
An hon. member: We do not trust Liberals.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: They do not trust Liberals because
they have no confidence in themselves. Before we can trust
anyone, we have to be able to look in the mirror and say “I
trust that person in the mirror is going to do the right thing”.
We have to be able to look at our children and say “I trust my
sons and daughters to succeed in the world. I trust them to work
hard. I trust Canadians”. That is not what I hear those members
saying. They are so myopic. They are living in the 1950s.
The Berlin Wall has already fallen, but the NDP members want to
build another one. They want to build some kind of a socialist
wall around this great country and tell Canadians that they know
best what the rules are. They are just going to walk into
Seattle and say “You guys listen up. We are from Canada and you
are going to do it our way”.
This is a sophisticated world we live in. I think everyone will
agree that the socialists have fallen all over the world. There
are the remnants, those who call themselves socialists or labour
politicians like the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair,
who we can hardly call a socialist. I believe he has cut welfare
rates faster than Mike the knife in Ontario.
The premier of Saskatchewan was in this place last week. I am
not so sure that purebred New Democrats, if there is such a
thing, would really call him a socialist. He is a little more to
the right of where some of them find themselves on a daily basis.
Let me speak to the issue of the World Trade Organization and
why we are going to Seattle. Unlike the NDP members who simply
say that we should shut down any opportunities in the
agricultural sector, we want to expand agricultural opportunities
in export. Why not find them other markets? What a unique idea.
Do not worry, I am getting the Reform members. I know they are
feeling left out. The members of the Reform Party are the
extreme of this issue. We have the closed-minded, myopic people
on the left and then we have the Reform members who would take
out some white-out or a big eraser and eliminate the 49th
parallel. They would say that the best way to deal with free
trade is to become Americans. That is their basic policy.
I find it fascinating that we saw the Reform Party leader stand
in this place over the last couple of days in some kind of a
tirade about defending agriculture. Let me share a couple of
things that particular gentleman said. I do not want them to get
too upset, but this is right out of Hansard. This is not
me interpreting something that the Leader of the Reform Party
said. I assume we all accept the validity of Hansard.
Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any
industry's problem. In contrast, Reformers continue to call for
reduced federal expenditures.
Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear-cut reduction
in the dependence of the agricultural sector on both levels of
government.
This was said by the Leader of the Reform on May 10, 1994.
Mr. Greg Thompson: What is his name?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member knows I cannot name him.
The Speaker will rise and make me be quiet. I am not finished
yet, but I may come over and talk about those fellows in a
moment.
We have to wonder when we see the Leader of the Opposition stand
up and demand more money for farmers. Our Deputy Prime Minister
stood up, I think last Friday, and responded to a question from
the agricultural critic.
He said that he was astounded to hear the critic demanding more
help for farmers. By the way, today this government's Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced additional funding of $200
million. We are not ignoring the plight of the farmers in
Saskatchewan or anywhere else in the country.
1705
They seem to be doing a complete about-face. All of a sudden,
they are pretending that somehow they are the champions of the
farmers, that they are going to beat the government up and force
it to give money out to subsidize farmers even though that was
not what their policy stated. However, that does not surprise me
because quite often they will do and say things that do not fit
within their policies.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Selective amnesia.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: “Selective amnesia” my little short
friend says. I like that.
We are going to Seattle in the hopes that we can negotiate
liberalization in trade and protect the things that are important
to Canadians. We believe we have an opportunity in Seattle to
expand marketplaces for the agricultural sector.
We are already leaders, and members opposite know this. The NDP
members may not be willing to admit it, but they know for a fact
that we are already leaders in fields such as telemedicine and
education services. Our ability to expand clearly depends on our
ability to negotiate in these marketplaces. We want to use these
negotiations and we are not afraid to do that. That is the
fundamental difference. We go in with some confidence.
I want to tell members a story about a trip I took with the
former minister for international trade, the hon. Sergio Marchi.
He led a team Canada trade mission to San Francisco and I was
honoured to be able to go. It was with young entrepreneurs. We
saw some things.
I do not know how many members get the opportunity to go to a
movie but I certainly do not often get a chance. However, I did
see the IMAX technology when I was in San Francisco. The IMAX
technology, which is a theatre in the round, is Canadian. It is
spectacular technology.
We were in Silicon Valley in a complex in San Jose where there
were thousands of people coming and going and looking at all the
exhibits. Many of them were going in to watch the movie, The
Story of Everest, about a group climbing Mount Everest. It
was the most incredible sensation I have ever experienced in a
movie theatre. It was in the round. The thing that was wrong
with it was that it should have had a little Canadian flag on the
bottom. IMAX is one of the most successful technologies and it
is Canadian. It was invented by Canadians in Canada and is
exported around the world.
Is that a bad thing? Is that not what our future depends on?
We were then taken to a site visit of the Alameda Naval Air
Base, which is right on the bay in the San Francisco Bay area.
There is a huge area right at the edge of the ocean that was a
landfill site. It was far from sanitary. It was a place where
we had to sign a waver because there was live ammunition around.
I said, “You mean we are really going there? I am not sure I
like this idea.”
They took us out and showed us the technology being employed in
San Francisco to clean up this toxic and extremely dangerous
naval dump site. Guess what? The technology was from Waterloo,
Ontario. A Canadian company was the lead winner on the bid. We
are talking about a contract that was worth hundreds of millions
of dollars to clean up and stop all of the leachate going into
the ocean and to eventually make the naval base into a park.
There were seven companies involved in this environmental clean
up project and six of them were Canadian.
The main one was a Canadian firm that had invented the
technology. The seventh one was a U.S. firm and its job was to
truck things away. What we are talking about is the ingenuity of
Canadian firms in developing environmental technologies that can
clean up some of the dirtiest messes and the biggest problems in
all of the world and it is Canadian.
1710
Why not have a resolution on the floor today to say how proud we
are of those Canadian industries that have invented new
technologies, that have found ways to help internationally around
the world and that are generating jobs. All of the money comes
back to Canada on that project and the men and women who are
working on that project are Canadian men and women working with
Canadian technology.
I do not understand. Instead of saying “Oh, goodness, do not
go to Seattle because they are going to beat you up, or if you
are going to go here is the set of rules we want”, why not
celebrate the success of Canadians around the world?
I have a couple of facts for the New Democratic Party. Two out
of every three jobs in the country depend on trade. Exports are
more than 40% of our GDP, more than any other G-7 country.
Imports give consumers a wider choice and access to the best
products in the world. In 1998, Canada exported $367 billion in
goods and services and each billion dollar export sustains 11,000
jobs. Those are outstanding numbers.
This is a nation of traders who can and will compete
internationally around the world. We will successfully negotiate
and improve our position at the WTO talks in Seattle led by our
minister and our team of professionals. I have confidence in
them and I have confidence in Canadians.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we have seen a great demonstration here.
I think the member is new to this parliament. I would like to
turn back the clock a bit to when his party was in opposition. He
talks about a free trading nation. I do not know if I am getting
sick to my stomach, but to hear a Liberal government talk about
trade and free trade just does not sound right because it wanted
to rip up the free trade agreement. It is just unbelievable what
the hon. member has just said.
I have a very simple question for the member and after he has
finished answering it maybe he could thank the Progressive
Conservative government for the great job it did in bringing the
free trade agreement to the floor. Would we be in a surplus
position today if it were not for the free trade agreement?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, we would not be in a
surplus position today if it had not been for the wisdom of
Canadians who threw that government out of office and put this
government in.
I hope the hon. member does not need what he just tore up. I
remember a certain prime minister tearing something up and we
were not sure what it was. I think what he tore up was the heart
of this nation. He left a $42 billion deficit which we have had
to clean up.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even
though I am young, I remember that when the Liberals were in
opposition from 1989 to 1992 they were against the GST. They
were also against any change to the unemployment insurance.
I remember when Doug Young said that it would be a disaster for
the country if we ever changed the UI. I also remember when the
Liberal Party said the same thing about free trade.
What happened to the Liberals who had the heart of the NDP but
all of a sudden, the day after the election, they lost it. Can
they explain that to us?
1715
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I have seen selective
memories before. This party has never been willing to climb into
bed with an elephant who could roll over and crush it at a whim,
unlike the Conservative Party. Members of this party recognize
that we have to have agreements all over the world; that free
trade does not simply mean a deal between Brian and Ronnie, which
is what it was; that free trade means that we have to liberalize
trade and take the great technologies and the great talents of
Canadians and export them around the world. That is what this
party believes. That is what the government believes. That is
exactly what we are going to do in Seattle.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and I
would like to tell him about a number of experiences, which show
that caution must be exercized in that area.
Three years ago, Canada entered into an agreement on lumber
exports with the United States. That agreement was reached at
the expense of Quebec and of the four provinces that were forced
to take part in the arrangement.
Today, both Canada's free trade lumber board, headed by Tembec's
CEO, and Quebec's Association des industriels du bois de sciage
want to go back to free trade, because it is an interesting
option and they would rather get out of the existing agreement.
I hope the Canadian government will choose that option and do so
within a few weeks, so as to send a clear message to our
industries with respect to future investments.
As for the NDP motion, I do not think that not being present at
the table is the right approach. We understood a long time ago
that Quebec must be present at international tables to
effectively ensure that what is negotiated by the Canadian
government does not adversely affect Quebec, since Ottawa's
interests often differ from those of Quebec and other regions of
the country.
My question is this: Does the hon. member remember that the free
trade agreement, which is very good for all of Canada, was
achieved because Quebec's sovereignists supported the idea?
Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry displayed true leadership,
with the result that Quebec is now less and less dependent on
the Canadian political space and gradually finding its niche in
the North American economic environment.
The federal government should be open to ideas such as the
pan-American dollar, which would help stabilize the economy and
give an even greater push to our exports.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, we all have fits of
common sense, including separatists. It is interesting to me
that a separatist would stand to say that they supported the
attempts at free trade and the negotiations as a Canadian
initiative. It is unfortunate they would not recognize that all
of the benefits that have been negotiated through globalization
and freer trade around the world have benefited the province of
Quebec.
I recall during my days with the ministry of industry and trade
in the province of Ontario travelling to various places in the
world. I invariably came across an office wherever I went that
was the largest, most aggressive trade office representing any
government that existed, whether it was Hong Kong or the United
Kingdom. That office would be the office of the province of
Quebec. They are very aggressive about negotiating trade. They
are indeed free traders. For that philosophical understanding I
congratulate them.
It is too bad they have to have that one plank in their party to
rip the guts out of this country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask a question of the member for Mississauga West who thinks a
farmer is a clerk behind a 7-Eleven counter. I believe that is
his definition. I do not think he knows for sure where wheat
comes from or anything else.
I remember campaigning in 1997 when the Liberal candidate did an
excellent job of presenting the red book policies. About 75% of
my riding is made up of farmers. It was unfortunate for the
Liberal candidate, as he got 6% of the vote and I got about 80%.
I am here and he is back home. Throughout Saskatchewan I do not
believe there are any rural Liberal MPs. Those people have
rejected the Liberal version of agricultural issues.
In Alberta there is zero. In British Columbia, zero. They are
not buying the policies. A committee was sent out to the
prairies to find out why more westerners are not supporting the
Liberals. The Liberals do not seem to get the message. Western
farmers are supporting Reform policies. That is why we are here
and our Liberal comrades are not. They do not understand.
1720
Can the member explain to me, is it because Reform MPs are here
representing western grain growers and farmers, with a few New
Democrats, that the Prime Minister snubbed the farmers who came
here the other day asking for help for a disastrous situation
which the government is ignoring through its ridiculous AIDA
program?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Two
hundred million dollars was given at about 12.30 p.m. and by 5.20
p.m. it is a ridiculous amount of money. I find that difficult.
I know that the member takes a little ribbing from time to time,
but I know he is a sincere gentleman. While he stands in this
place and goes on about the politics of Saskatchewan, he knows
full well that the issue of gun control was probably what sent
him here. As long as there are curtains on the back of the
truck, somewhere to put the rifle, they will send the member to
Ottawa. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with support for
the farmers.
The farmers out west know darned well that we are attempting to
address the problems they are facing and that it is a crisis.
The member opposite cannot in all seriousness stand and try to
pretend that he was sent here in some God-like fashion to protect
the men and women on the farms. It is a pill I am not prepared
to swallow.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
we have a motion by the NDP. Members will agree is a very, very
tough one. There is reference to sabotage. It says that if
there is no guarantee, we ought not to negotiate.
I have heard comments by just about everyone today, either here
in the House or on television. Among these was the last comment
made by our Bloc Quebecois colleague. He said that they had
understood that the empty chair tactic does not work. Quebec
must be present for negotiation, to be sure that it is not dealt
a bad hand by Canada. Perhaps they ought to adopt the same
attitude during negotiations within Canada.
That might be a good thing.
That said, there must be openness to consultation with the
provinces in order to ensure that indeed, when the time comes
for the next round of negotiations, the position will suit the
greatest possible number of Quebecers and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I must indicate that I am going
to share my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I forgot to say
that when I started.
Today we also learned that our friends in the Liberal Party have
discovered free trade. I have never heard such passionate
speeches about free trade from Liberals. They are saying “We
have always been for free trade, just not the Conservative brand
of free trade”.
We remember the 1993 election campaign. After the election, they
said “You know, there are some technicalities to be changed”.
We never really knew what, and whether it was really important.
However, we must remember that free trade, despite everything
that was said on both sides, was no miracle solution, but is now
a vital tool for a country. It will not fix everything,
however. Today, we have to pay attention, with what the NDP is
telling us.
On the eve of the negotiations, a constructive and credible
position is needed for the people of this country. The
government has a report by the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade. The committee travelled, with
some difficulty from time to time, and heard exceptional
witnesses.
When the time came to write the recommendations, they were
completely fudged.
We hope that the response by the Minister for International
Trade will improve the quality of the recommendations and the
work done.
There are a number of examples. In cultural matters, I would
like someone to show me where words such as “protection” and
“cultural exemption” are to be found in the recommendations.
They are not there.
1725
All they did was come up with a new instrument that was
unanimously approved, supposedly, by the cultural sector. There
was no such unanimity. They said that if we were really not
capable of getting real protection, real cultural exemption, we
should have a mechanism as strong as the WTO or we would have to
protect our culture. That was not a recommendation at all.
We hope that the government response to the recommendations will
be much more credible. The upcoming negotiations have changed.
Five, ten or twenty years after signing a treaty or a contract,
we realize that there are some good things and some not so good
things we did not think about.
It is not possible to think of everything, because society is
evolving as well. It is therefore normal that the major rounds
of negotiation are occurring more frequently. Before, they were
few and far between. Why is the cycle shortening? Because
things are changing more quickly.
The Seattle negotiations are beginning. We cannot rest on our
laurels, but things are not desperate either. The Progressive
Conservative Party would approach things credibly. It would not
put up a wall or establish measures to block free trade. Nor
would it do as the Liberals are doing and claim to have
rediscovered the true value of trade trade. Credibility must be
maintained.
I would remind the House that the Liberals opposed free trade,
and not just when the Progressive Conservatives were in power.
One of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speeches was mentioned. Members
will recall that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had decided to open up the
country's borders.
Why? Because there was an economic boom in the United States.
Canada had just finished building a railroad, a financial
ordeal, and it needed money, so that markets could be opened up
for the new territories served, it needed the Americans' money,
know-how, and enterprise here in Canada, especially in Quebec, to
develop the country's economy. So, Laurier was interested in
free trade because he needed money.
When Laurier came to power, Canada was in financial trouble.
There was a lack of financial, human and technological resources
with which to develop the country and there was definitely no
market. The government had just opened up a huge country, built
a railroad through uninhabited lands, and there was no market.
So yes, Laurier made the right decision to open up to his
American neighbour. He had no choice, however.
The Liberals did not always think this way, however. When Mr.
Trudeau was in power, what exactly was the Foreign Investment
Review Agency all about? It was one of the most protectionist
measures Canada ever had. It was not the work of the
Conservatives, but of the Liberals.
During the Trudeau era, they created a review agency that
prevented billions of dollars of investments from getting in or
out of the country. This limited the country's growth. Thank
heaven, changes were made when the Conservatives came along.
Instead of the concept of screening—surrounding Canada with a
kind of sieve instead of a wall—they moved to a far more positive
term: Investment Canada.
We must take care.
The Liberals are not all that protectionist. But when they are
really hungry, when they really have the bit in their teeth they
go as far as they can, sometimes too far, not only up to the
edge of the precipice, but right over it.
It is all very fine
to sign agreements with the United States, with Mexico, Israel,
Chile, all of the Americas in fact, excluding or including
Cuba—we are not sure which, because Cuba was not at Toronto, so
we do not know the government's position on it—but we must take
care.
Today we see cases Canada has lost before the WTO and
others it has won. In Europe at the present time, if one were
to speak with the French parliamentarians for example, one would
be told “That beef with hormones, you know, we don't want any
more of that—nor genetically modified organisms—nor asbestos”.
That is the situation in Europe right now, the barriers are not
tariff barriers but non-tariff barriers. At the WTO, this is not
sufficiently clear. In the report, a number of witnesses
emphasized that this matter must be addressed.
1730
There are currently problems in international trade that have a
direct effect on events in this country. We would like them
addressed in a credible and proper way.
We should not make free trade available to everyone, and say
thank you very much. With our experience, we should look
nevertheless at the real effects. Positive, yes, because the
Liberals are quite happy to have had free trade. Without these
new agreements, Canada would have been in an economic downturn
for over three years under the Liberals.
We would have had a recession, because the domestic market was
in a slump.
Foreign trade, however, was strong. So it is all very well to
run around saying that we are open to the world, but when we
open the door of our house, we do not want people to go off with
our furniture. They are welcome to buy. They can come in and
leave as they wish, but they cannot go off with our furniture.
So, we are saying we have to take care.
Last weekend, I had occasion to meet Bill Phipps, when he was in
my riding. He is the moderator of the United Church of Canada.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona knows him very well, being a
United Church minister himself.
I discussed trade with Mr. Phipps. Since becoming the moderator
of the United Church, he has spoken of faith and the economy.
He raises some very interesting issues; not necessarily miracle
solutions from any one point of view, but issues that are worthy
of discussion.
What we are saying is that the issue of the individual rights of
Canadians is important, but the impact on other people living in
a country with whom we have free trade relations should also be
taken into consideration. We are saying that free trade is
important, as is being outward-looking. Canada has always been
an outward-looking nation. This has evolved through successive
governments.
However, through experience we have learned to look before we
leap, as it were.
New information is now available to us and we must do a proper
analysis.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to what the hon. member was saying about the standing
committee report, the future of the World Trade Organization, and
how he felt he was handled unjustly in terms of putting
recommendations forward which I think were very strong
recommendations that the government is taking very seriously.
The recommendations go to the fundamental issues of trade in
this country. They draw on some of the issues, as the hon.
member said, such as culture and agriculture. They reflect the
120 or 130 representations before the standing committee. The
hon. member knows the standing committee had 38 meetings and met
with over 138 or 139 different groups. Could the hon. member
tell me how many of those 38 meetings he showed up to?
Had the member spent more time in committee he would have known
that the committee debated all the issues he talked about. The
rest of the committee members came together and discussed the
issues. The hon. member could have learned a lot about what
Canadians were saying on this issue if he had shown up to the
committee meetings where we drew on the recommendations rather
than write a dissenting report stating that there was no debate
in committee in this regard.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I will use an expression which
is not unparliamentary. I checked a few years ago. I find the
parliamentary secretary to be patronizing, because given the
situation in the Progressive Conservative Party, one must wear
several hats.
I find it somewhat despicable to see the parliamentary secretary
would so patronizing as to say that a member was or was not
present at meetings of a committee. I want to say that I was
there rather often, if not on a regular basis. When I was not
there, I could always rely on technology to follow proceedings.
I want to point out that we do not live in a third world
country. We have documents. We have everything.
1735
Indeed, we had quality witnesses. The parliamentary secretary
said that I may have been there less often than him. I can say
that I brought a lot more to the discussion than he did. I am
very disappointed by his attitude.
If this is how the parliamentary secretary behaves, if this is
how the debate is to proceed, I find it somewhat despicable. But
I will remind the parliamentary secretary that if there ever was
one person opposed to free trade, it was him.
If there is a person who made an about face, a 180 degree turn,
it is the parliamentary secretary.
An hon. member: He is a snake.
Mr. André Bachand: I hope the parliamentary secretary will be
much more open with members of this House, in the future.
He is well aware that committee members from both sides of the
House, except himself of course, were disappointed about how the
recommendations were drafted, very disappointed indeed.
I hope that the quality of replies will be better with the
Minister for International Trade than with the parliamentary
secretary. I have more faith in the minister than in that fellow
opposite.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult that
the hon. member would attack me in that way, given the fact that
he only showed up to two of the 38 meetings and would—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The parliamentary secretary had his kick at the can in
this debate. I thought Your Honour would at least move to the
other side of the House so that we could put our point of view
forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will repeat once
again that if a member stands for questions and comments and
represents the same party as the member who has just finished
speaking, the Speaker will always recognize someone from across
the aisle, or at least from another party. As long as there is
someone standing who represents another political party or
opposition to the member's point of view, that person will be
recognized.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not
aware that prior to drafting these recommendations the standing
committee met with some 138-odd representatives from across the
country? In fact it travelled to different parts of the country
to seek the views of farmers and of people involved in the
cultural industries. The recommendations in the report reflect
very clearly what the representations were.
The hon. member claims that somehow I spoke out against free
trade. This party spoke out against the American-style free
trade agreement that members of his government were bringing in
at the time. We spoke out against the fact that we did not have
the access into the American market that they were claiming.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bob Speller: Obviously that hit a chord because they
are continuing to yell at me.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I will quote the hon. member.
This is an excerpt from Hansard, dated December 23, 1988, on
page 767. He said:
[English]
He has come out and said that well over 100,000 jobs in the
agri-food sector could be lost. I rest my case.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to debate the New Democrat
opposition day motion. It is a wonderful time to recognize the
success of one of the most forward thinking and innovative
policies to be introduced in the 20th century by any government
in Canada, the free trade agreement.
It is interesting for me to recognize today the Liberal position
on this issue and how it is diametrically opposite to what the
Liberal position was during the 1988 election.
I often wonder what it would be like to be able to float through
one's political life without being burdened under any of the
impedimenta of values, principle and consistency on policies.
That is exactly what the Liberals do on almost every issue.
1740
The only thing worse than their stealing our policies would be
for them to implement their own, and that is what we are a little
concerned about at this juncture. They are starting to implement
their own policies and we are a little afraid about the impact of
them in the long term.
The free trade agreement in Canada, liberalized trade, has been
a winner for Canadians across the country. The Economist
magazine in its 1998 year preview said specifically that the
ability of the Liberal Government of Canada to eliminate the
deficit was based largely on the free trade agreement and on the
GST, both of which were vociferously opposed by members opposite.
However the fact is that the policies worked.
We rise today to debate the opposition motion of the New
Democratic Party on trade. Unfortunately New Democratic Party
members are confusing a number of issues relative to trade. There
is within the New Democratic Party a belief that environmental
issues and trade issues cannot co-exist comfortably. I believe
they can. We may agree on the ends we want to achieve in terms
of an environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable
global economy, which can co-exist. The ends are very similar,
but the means to get there are quite different.
Good trade policy can mirror sound environmental policy. The
World Trade Organization recently came out with a paper that
recognizes both the pitfalls of trade in terms of environmental
policy and some of the strengths and opportunities. There is a
movement now for a world environmental organization which would
mirror the World Trade Organization but would focus specifically
on environmental issues. I think that would be very positive.
Trade as an economic vehicle helps improve the lot of all
countries. In fact it helps improve the lot of the poorest
countries. Let us look at what has happened in Mexico since the
free trade agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement.
It has made significant advancements economically. In terms of
democratic reform and in terms of environmental reform there has
been significant advancement.
Wealthier countries and countries enjoying relative prosperity
can better afford to have sound environmental policy. Some of
the worst environmental policies and disasters existed in closed
economies before the end of the cold war in eastern Europe. To
somehow say that free market economies, trading economies and
integrated economies somehow will lead to bad environmental
policy is counterintuitive.
I would argue that the environment is essentially and
intrinsically a global issue. Pollution does not stop at
borders. Nor does trade. As a result these issues need to be
dealt with globally. Increasingly I think trade can be an
extraordinarily successful lever in achieving a greater level of
global commitment to environmental policies.
The issue of labour standards is raised frequently. Some point
to trade as exacerbating the problem when the opportunities
provided to some of the developing economies by trade will
ultimately provide greater levels of economic opportunity and
flexibility. What happens in countries that take advantage of
trade opportunities is that ultimately they prosper economically.
Their economies become integrated, as do their political systems.
Quite frequently the people enjoying better levels of economic
success will ultimately see opportunities too and demand greater
democratic reforms.
The issue today is how we can best embrace trade opportunities
to provide a greater commitment to environmental or labour
policies. It certainly is not by putting a relatively weak trade
minister in the position of the ambassador to the WTO.
1745
The previous ambassador to the WTO, John Weekes, was a
professional. He was exceptional and he served Canada very well.
I would argue that with the appointment of the former minister of
trade, Sergio Marchi, as the ambassador to the WTO we have gone
from Weekes to weak. My concern is that as we go into the next
round of trade negotiations the global community is going to see
an inherent weakness in our representative at the negotiating
table.
The MMT legislation that people so often point to in
demonstrating a weakness in chapter 11 of the NAFTA was in fact
bad legislation. The MMT legislation was poorly drafted and
poorly designed. Ultimately it was not a failure of chapter 11;
it was a failure of bad legislation. The environment minister
responsible for introducing that legislation was Sergio Marchi.
He went on to become minister of trade and is now representing
our interests at the WTO. In terms of our ability to be
represented strongly at the next WTO rounds, Canadians should be
very scared because the depth and breadth of knowledge and the
understanding of trade issues by that individual is simply not
sound.
Beyond that, we are now paying copious quantities of quid to the
previous ambassador to the WTO in his new role as consultant.
Effectively we fired him as our ambassador to the WTO, but
because the guy we hired, the former trade minister, cannot
handle it, we ended up hiring the consultant company that the
former ambassador works for. Canadians are paying twice the
money and getting, I would suggest, half the representation at
the WTO. That is the real issue.
The problem is, even when Liberals finally decide that free
trade is a good idea, they do not know how to maximize Canada's
opportunities in the global environment.
It is extremely important that we recognize, if we are going to
be successful in the new knowledge based global economy, that
trade and technology go hand in hand. E-commerce is expected to
grow to $1.3 trillion by 2002. There are no borders with
e-commerce. With or without trade agreements, e-commerce will
continue to grow. The only levers that will have any impact on
the ramifications of e-commerce and the increasingly
interconnected knowledge based economy will be through trade.
I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that we
begin to accept, first, that we are in a global environment,
second, that trade is going to continue to be an engine for
growth and a vehicle to achieve greater prosperity for all
citizens of the world and, third, that the free market system is
the best vehicle to achieve that. We should be working together
to find out how we can maximize those opportunities within those
parameters.
I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that the
recent statement from the WTO, recognizing both the environmental
pitfalls and strengths of trade and some of the alternatives to
achieve better environmental policy in a global trading
environment, would be a good place to start. We are heading in
the right direction and we look forward to their constructive
involvement in that process.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the
record for the hon. member, who obviously reads Frank
magazine. I do not.
He talked about Mr. Weekes coming back on contract with the
Government of Canada. The hon. member should know that is
totally false. In fact, we are happy that Mr. Weekes has taken a
contract with another company, which has no relations with the
Government of Canada or that office. The story is totally false.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I really did not expect
the parliamentary secretary to have his facts straight. In fact,
I suggest that his facts on this issue are probably as wrong and
that he is as misinformed as he was when as an opposition member
he was one of the most vociferous opponents of free trade.
1750
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.50 p.m.,
it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the
motion have expired.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman
to investigate complaints relating to administrative and
communication problems between members of First Nations
communities and their First Nation and between First Nations,
allegations of improper financial administration and allegations
of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private
member's bill on behalf of thousands of grassroots natives from
many reserves across our land who have, through their work
throughout the last couple of years, proposed the idea of
creating an ombudsman, someone to whom they can go with the
difficulties they face on the reserves. It gives me a great deal
of pleasure, having worked with many of these people over an
extended period of time, to present this bill today.
My involvement with Indian affairs began in December 1998 when I
was named deputy Indian affairs critic. At the same time, the
Stoney Reserve in my riding was undergoing a forensic audit.
This reserve has been a hot bed of allegations of financial
mismanagement. The audit uncovered enough evidence of criminal
activity that 43 allegations of wrongdoing were turned over to
the RCMP.
Immediately after word got out that I was responsible for
accountability on the reserves I was literally bombarded by
grassroots natives from all across Canada. The files I received
number in the hundreds, while well over 200 cases of
mismanagement have been reported by the media.
As I travelled in Canada from reserve to reserve the stories
were the same. The chiefs and councils have mismanaged money, so
there is no place to live and, in some cases, no clean water to
drink. The squalor, suicides and despair were absolutely
sickening.
In addition, I have had hundreds of cases brought to me
concerning election irregularities. The election practices were
clearly flawed and corrupt.
The list of problems goes on and on, but to be fair I must point
out that not all reserves are this bad. Many of them are very
good. However, unfortunately the majority of them fall into this
category.
As we held accountability summits across Canada I met a lady by
the name of Leona Freed from the Dakota Plains First Nation.
Since we first met she has set up the First Nations
Accountability Coalition which represents approximately 5,000
grassroots people from coast to coast.
The First Nations Accountability Coalition wants grassroots
aboriginal people in Canada to work together to ensure that their
rights to equality, democracy and accountability are protected
and enhanced. They have tried to solve their problems by working
with the department of Indian affairs, but in most cases the
problems have simply not been recognized. They feel their only
recourse would be the appointment of a first nations ombudsman.
The first nations ombudsman would be similar to the auditor
general in that he or she would serve as an impartial and
independent investigating officer. With this as the mandate, I
had the legislative drafters create a bill to meet the grassroots
objectives and that is what is before us today.
Since the bill was first introduced there have been a number of
cases reported, as well as organizations and individuals who have
recognized the same problems of lack of accountability on the
reserves.
There is simply no point in mincing words. In 1998 and 1999 the
federal government will spend $6.3 billion on special programs
for aboriginal people. The total benefit for status Indians on
reserves is estimated to be $19,903 per person. While the amount
spent is massive, there is often little in the way of
accountability on how the funds are disbursed.
Much of the money ends up in the hands of the wrong people, while
poverty on aboriginal reserves remains the norm. Mismanagement
and fraud have become standard practices.
1755
Some of the most notorious examples follow. At the Saulteaux
Band in Saskatchewan, Chief Gabe Gopher's honorarium and travel
expenses totalled $171,000. In 1997 about $600,000 was spent on
travel by chief and band council. This band had accumulated a
deficit of $1.2 million as of March 31.
The second example is that of the Poundmaker Band in
Saskatchewan. Chief Ted Antoine made some $200,000 in salary and
benefits, while his brother Duane, a band councillor, pulled in
salary and benefits of $149,000. The total band population is
only 1,000 people and the accumulated deficit of the band is $1.8
million.
Then there is the Stoney Band in Alberta, where the chiefs and
councillors received $1.4 million in salaries and benefits,
ranging from about $65,000 to $160,000 per year. The total band
population is 3,300 people. The unemployment rate on this
reserve is 90%.
At the Samson Cree Band in Alberta, the chief and 12 councillors
are paid $1.5 million in salaries and benefits. The total band
population is about 5,000 people. The unemployment rate is at
85%, while 80% of the reserve is on welfare.
At the Tlaoquiaht Band in B.C., Chief Francis Frank's salary and
benefits totalled $109,000 in 1997. He resigned in December of
that year. There were only 500 to 600 people living on the
reserve. An auditor who was called in to look at the band books
was unable to express an opinion on the financial statements due
to inadequate record keeping with reserves, in particular with
respect to expenditures and payroll. Most of the reserve
population is unemployed.
The pay levels of chiefs and councils are incredible, given the
horrific economic conditions and unemployment rates which exist
on many reserves. What it demonstrates is that often it is those
who have the power who also get the lion's share of the benefits.
Over the past 30 years at least $60 billion has been spent by
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to
create a myriad of programs exclusively for aboriginal people.
What is the result of spending all this money? One-third of
aboriginals on reserves live in overcrowded conditions. Over 50%
of the aboriginal children live in poverty. The infant mortality
rate is twice as high for aboriginal children as for other
children. Alcoholism, suicide, illness and crime rates are three
times higher than they are for the non-aboriginal population.
About 25% of Canada's aboriginal bands are being run under
remedial management plans, with the combined debt of bands being
$139 million. A department survey of 300 band councils found
that the most common problem was lack of control and conflict of
interest.
With all of these problems, what recourse is there for band
members when chief and council squander their money? The people
have gone to the RCMP in many cases. They have overcome the fear
of reprisal. That is what happens in a lot of cases. If they
cannot overcome that fear and bring some of this information
forward, they have a tough time.
They have asked chief and council where the money has been
spent. Tony Pascal, a band member from Vancouver, said:
The way I see it is Indian Affairs just calls natives who raise
such issues liars. They don't realize we are the people who live
with and witness our allegations.
A group from the Shuswap Band even tried to initiate an
investigation into financial matters on their reserve with the
RCMP's criminal investigation unit. Xavier Eugene, a former
chief of the Shuswap Band, said:
We actually thought we might succeed but as we went along we
found out there are many blocks to our pathway. Primarily these
blocks were and are caused because of DIAND's antiquated policies
regarding accountability of fiscal reporting. They require very
little documentation to satisfy band council's requirement as
being accountable to the grassroots members of the bands. The
only prerequisite that DIAND has is that they must satisfy chiefs
and council and not necessarily band membership.
1800
The previous minister called for partnership. Partnership is
what is going to work. The problem is that the people have been
left out of the partnership. The band council only audits what
it chooses to audit and that seems to satisfy the government.
I have had a forensic accountability study made of the books of
a number of first nations. They would corroborate Mr. Eugene's
statement. So much is not accounted for, but the department
allows this to go on. The bigger problem is that the band
members have gotten hold of the books and there has been clear
mismanagement of money. They decided to go to the RCMP but that
is where the investigation seems to end.
In correspondence between my colleague the member for Skeena and
the commissioner of the RCMP, in not so many words the
commissioner has stated that the all clear must be given by DIAND
before an investigation can begin. I have that in a letter from
the commissioner. Where does this leave grassroots aboriginals?
Where are they supposed to go next? If they cannot go to the
police and get any results and if they cannot get any results
from DIAND and if they cannot get any results from the chief and
council, where do they go? That is their question.
This resolution will solve that problem and provide an answer to
their question. It has been their hard work that has been
approved by thousands and thousands of grassroots natives across
the country.
I think the Liberal government would be interested in knowing
that I have in my possession an authentic letter that is
addressed to all concerned citizens of the Hollow Water band. It
is signed by the former and present elected leaders of the Hollow
Water First Nation. The letter reads: “We have been involved in
illegal and corrupt acts in the finances and management of the
Hollow Water band, Hollow Water Corporation, Housing Authority,
Band Welfare and other affiliates”.
It is a letter in writing signed by three chiefs in an
apologetic manner about all the corruption. This letter was
taken to the RCMP, but absolutely nothing has been done. That
letter was written in 1994. The letter has been taken to the
police and nothing has been done. Even when the people admit to
their crime nothing is done and today the band members suffer
more than they ever have.
I visited North Bay and was at a meeting for six hours. I heard
stories of nepotism, favouritism, the doling out of funds for
things like housing and post-secondary education. Some
complaints were gut wrenching.
Eva Pitt is 72 years old and nearly blind. Her husband is 74
and he suffers from a heart problem. She has tried continuously
for three years to get the Nipissing First Nation to install a
sewer line to her house. She would like to have some running
water as well, but they do not have that either. Even today
there is still no sewer line.
Anne McLeod told of her sister-in-law dying in the back of a
truck because there is no ambulance service for medical attention
on her reserve. There are older ladies who have witnessed this
for many years, but it is the helplessness and hopelessness that
has attacked the youth on these reserves.
Judge Reilly from Alberta on September 22, 1999 released a
report about the suicides on the Hobeema reserve. It begins with
the story of Eric Johnson. On the day he killed himself, Eric
Johnson walked home along a deserted dirt road and hugged his
mother at the kitchen table before he went to the basement to
hang himself. He spoke what turned out to be his last words, “I
love you, Mom”. Eric was 12 years old. A few days later he was
buried in a cemetery down the road from his mother's home on the
Samson Cree reserve, on the prairie south of Edmonton. His
mother put his teddy bear next to his white cross.
One week earlier in a house just a few minutes away 17 year old
Lee Soosay had hanged himself as well. He stood on a chair and
tied a shoelace to the rafter in his bedroom.
Then he kicked the chair aside. His brother found him hanging
with the little red Bible on the floor near his feet.
1805
In a period of less than eight weeks last spring, four young men
committed suicide on the Samson Cree reserve. Their deaths added
to the grim suicide stats for young native men who have killed
themselves at a rate that has been estimated up to 10 times the
national average. I have sat with mothers in tears on these
reserves. One mother has lost three sons to suicide because of
the hopelessness and the helplessness that they feel.
According to Judge Reilly there are clear reasons for this
heartbreaking epidemic. The report said the blame should be laid
at the feet of corrupt native leaders and misguided federal
bureaucrats who have created a legacy of despair. Judge Reilly
said:
There was an outrageous combination of greed and ignorance that
destroyed the culture of the youth's reserve and made success
virtually impossible.
The reserve was a place of helplessness and hopelessness that he
was unable to leave because of a history of dependence that was
imposed on their people. Not only do vested interests divert
money that should be going to help the poor members of the
reserve, but I also believe that they deliberately sabotage
education, health and welfare programs, and economic development
in order to keep the people uneducated, unwell and unemployed so
that they can be dominated and controlled.
Judge Reilly said that testimony from the reserve members had
left no doubt that leaders had pursued a systematic but unspoken
plan to break the reserve culture for their own benefit. The
judge said:
A member of the tribal council spoke of a proposed development
plan that was opposed by one man (a chief) because he did not
want to allow the opportunities for employment that it would
create. He testified at length as to the repression of Stoney
people as a form of control, and said that tribal income is spent
on social services, instead of economic development, as part of a
deliberate policy of keeping people dependent so that they can be
controlled. He volunteered his theory that controls lead to the
depression that leads to suicide.
The deaths of these boys was due to a long history of
mismanagement and the politics of self-interest that had created
an atmosphere of despair and denied them the services and
programs that were supposed to support them. Judge Reilly's
report noted that the number of drug and alcohol related deaths
on the Stoney reserve was at least 10 times the Canadian national
average.
Yolande Redcalf, yet another case of despair, came to me just
two weeks ago. Yolande Redcalf completed a 44 day hunger strike
protesting the poverty and the housing shortage on her central
Alberta reserve. The hunger strike was due to the fact that she
had to share a rundown house with 14 relatives. She watched her
diabetic aunt drive four kilometres each day to fetch drinking
water that smelled like sewage. She saw her people trudge along
the same potholed gravel road that has been the reserve's main
thoroughfare since it was built in 1944.
Redcalf said she ended her hunger strike after Sunchild band
chief Harry Goodrunning promised that two new houses would be
built on the reserve before winter. I think the new minister had
something to do with correcting this situation and I applaud him
for that.
I had some documents brought to me which list the social welfare
payments on the Alexander reserve. There were payments of made
of $300, $400, $500 and $600. Suddenly there was one for $8,000.
Then there was another one for $9,000. I asked the people who
produced these documents why the payments were small, yet there
were two that were very large. They produced two more documents.
Both of the individuals had been dead for 13 years. They
produced their death certificates. My question was who was
signing the cheques.
I went with the band members to the RCMP. We delivered these
documents in person. The RCMP looked at them and said they
looked very suspicious and that it should be investigated. It
was taken to the police in commercial crimes. Two months later
they phoned back and said there would be no further
investigation. When I asked why, there was no answer. One of
the RCMP officers, who will remain unidentified, alluded to me
that what went on in Ottawa was very strange because there was
obvious evidence and somebody had said to drop the investigation,
just drop it.
That is very suspicious and I do not like the sound of that.
1810
The auditor general, as we know, has been asking for ages to
bring some accountability to these reserves. Every year for the
six years I have been here that has been his plea.
The First Nations Accountability Coalition is growing every day.
Leona Freed is still desperately looking for solutions. She has
made a statement that we all should hear:
We, the grassroots people have nowhere to go for help! Indian
affairs is the problem! Their henchmen are the chiefs, who if
they are good little Indian people, are rewarded with no
accountability. We need a native ombudsman who is not controlled
by the chiefs. I have gone across the country and I can say,
everybody is scared of chiefs and everybody is scared to deal
with native issues, including our native politicians. And I can
also say, Canada is not a democratic country when our government
will allow third world conditions to exist on our first nation
reserves. If our first nations communities were democratic and
if Indian affairs was accountable to parliament, there would be
no need for a national accountability coalition.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to Debbie Neepoose,
Greg Twoyoungmen, Roy Littlechief, Edwin One Owl, Yolande
Redcalf, Eva Pitt, Anna McLeod, Laura Deedza, Floyd Minifingers,
John Chiefmoon and especially Leona Freed. These native people
are living in the most dire straits. They are seeking a
solution. They have unanimously across the country asked for the
House to provide them with an ombudsman they can go to with
allegations that will be addressed, to try and put an end to this
tragic life on the reserves.
Let us put our political differences aside and solve the real
problem of the dire straits of those in the human race who are
suffering dearly.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin by congratulating the member for his
speech. As he knows, there have not been too many times I have
risen in the House to say that. The member deserves the respect
of members of the House for the sincerity he has put forward in
trying to address some of the very serious problems that exist on
reserves across the country.
I too spent some time on reserves in my younger days with the
department of lands and forests in Ontario. I saw the poverty. I
saw brand new schools being built and all the windows smashed out
the very next day. The lack of self-respect, the lack of
self-esteem, the lack of jobs that existed in northern Ontario,
not in western Canada, are still a problem in too many areas.
I have often thought it is a real travesty that a nation as
wealthy as Canada, blessed with its natural resources and
financial capabilities, has a people within its boundaries who
live life in what could only be described as third world
conditions in many instances.
The member will probably not be surprised to know that I
disagree with his solution to the issue. I appreciate the fact
that it is not his solution, that it has come from the
grassroots. I do not mind saying that I disagree with them in
using this particular issue as a solution. Let me say why.
I had a private member's bill in the Ontario legislature that
would have abolished the office of the ombudsman in the province
of Ontario. The reason was that from the days when the
ombudsman's office was created in our province, it grew from
being a complaint or resolution mechanism to becoming a
bureaucracy that was, and in Ontario still is, out of control. It
became nothing more than a court of last resort.
1815
I recognize it is different with the folks on the reserves the
member is talking about, but there are similarities. Once that
is set up it becomes a no at this level and a no at that level
but there is always the ombudsman. It just becomes one further
process in the bureaucratic jungle with which people have to
deal.
My argument to eliminate the ombudsman's office in the province
of Ontario was that elected representatives were the ombudsmen.
We should be the ones to raise issues. To suggest that the
ministry is not accountable to parliament is simply not a fact.
The member may not like the action and there may be things that
need to be done to improve it, but I would have thought in all
honesty that at the end of the member's speech, for which I did
congratulate him, he would have said that therefore he supports
the Nisga'a treaty, as an example.
What about a long term solution? This is not an overnight quick
fix, the setting up an office and appointing an ombudsman. There
would be great criticism about how such a person gets appointed
or who it is. There will be accusations of partisanship. All
that will take place.
The reality is that we should be working with our first nations
to develop programs around self-government and partnership, and I
believe the ministry and the minister are doing it. They may
want to establish an ombudsman. I appreciate it may not be going
fast enough, but Nisga'a is a clear example, whether the member
likes the fine print or the details, of a self-government treaty
that it is totally beyond my comprehension. I do not understand
why the Reform Party opposes something like ensconcing democratic
principles in a first nation that has been debating the issue for
over 100 years.
I do not want to fight the Nisga'a battle. It seems the Reform
continues to do that. However I want to talk about the
ministry's attempt to work with first nations leaders and develop
self-government principles.
What is wrong with self-government where the members of the band
actually elect the council and elect the chief? If an individual
is not being accountable to his constituents then there must be
mechanisms to deal with it. The member has talked about people
making six figure salaries when most of the members of the band
are on some kind of social assistance. That is not acceptable. I
agree with him and I think we should do something about it.
He talked about the auditor general and the public accounts
system. He is empowered to go in and investigate. If there are
criminal acts and wrongdoing, the RCMP is also empowered. It is
unacceptable for anyone to stand in this place and say an RCMP
officer who shall remain nameless told him or her about a
criminal activity and then said to forget about it. That is
unacceptable. That is not the role of the police. If it
happened, it should not have happened. It should have been
reported to his superior. There should not be any attempt to
withhold an individual's identity or name when that kind of issue
comes forward.
The reality is that self-government will ultimately bring
self-esteem, not perhaps as quickly as members of the Reform
Party would like. They like to think that at the snap of a
finger they can solve all these problems. Self-government will
bring self-esteem. Self-government will bring democracy to the
reserves. We owe a debt as a nation, recognizing that for years
we have treated our first nations, our aboriginal people, in an
unacceptable and disgusting manner.
Mr. Myron Thompson: For 130 years.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not care for how many years. It
is not an acceptable solution. If the position of ombudsman is
created, it should be created by the reserves. We talk about the
programs being introduced on reserves. Something like 83% of the
programs were administered in a paternalistic fashion by the
ministry in years gone by, dating back to the fifties when it was
all just handouts and doing it the government's way.
Some 83% of the programs have been transferred to local
communities and an additional 7% have been transferred to the
provinces. This is making huge strides in a heretofore very
difficult, very paternalistic, very government dominated process.
1820
Reformers are constantly yelling about the fact that we should
slash government and cut funding. Their policies would decimate
the funding of that ministry, the assistance to aboriginal
communities. It is difficult to understand how they suddenly
think an ombudsman will come cheap. It cost tens of millions of
dollars in my home province, and I am sure that was the case in
other provinces. My colleague tells me the office of the
ombudsman in Newfoundland has been abolished. That is not the
way to solve these problems.
I do not doubt his sincerity or the fact that the member spent
an enormous amount of time this summer travelling and talking to
the men and women whom he has identified in this place. However
there is a better way. There is a democratic way to work within
government. It is not easy because we are dealing with human
beings.
I would ask members of the Reform Party to take an inward look
at their own policies, to take a look at the fact that we have
just signed an historic treaty in British Columbia which protects
the rights of every Canadian. It passes on our constitutional
rights to the Nisga'a band yet they continue to oppose it for
reasons that are totally unclear to the vast majority of
Canadians.
The member may have his heart in the right place, but I am
afraid his head is a bit off when it comes to finding a solution.
It should be self-government. It should be working with the
tribes to help them develop their own programs and their own
self-esteem.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Perhaps you would find unanimous consent to question the
member for five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are masters of
our own destiny. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin requested
unanimous consent of the House to provide five minutes for
questions and comments on the speech of the member for
Mississauga West. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit
perplexed as I take part in this debate today to speak to Bill
C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman
to investigate complaints relating to administrative and
communication problems between members of First Nations
communities and their First Nation and between First Nations,
allegations of improper financial administration and allegations
of electoral irregularities.
I used the word perplexed because I wonder about the need for
such a bill.
Bill C-222 proposes to first nations a totally useless structure,
a structure they have not asked for and, moreover, one that
duplicates processes already in place.
Budget management by band councils has been the focus of the
efforts and energy expended by both the Department of Indian
Affairs and native communities, particularly over the last two
years.
The implementation of efficient, standard accountability regimes
is a new challenge that is in line with the recommendations of
the Erasmus-Dussault commission concerning the need for
communities to have access to the necessary tools for sound
fiscal management.
1825
Administrative problems do exist, but they have more to do with
the fact that these are new agreements than it does with
defective or inadequate management. Financial transfers to
reserves are new, and we are experiencing problems now because
we are undergoing a transition phase, which is quite normal, and
not because of poor management. It is obvious that, with time
and experience, the existing relationships will only get better.
Answers that emerge from the local communities themselves are
far better than those that are brought in by people from the
outside, well intentioned as they can be.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and
the first nations can find solutions, and these should come from
within those organizations. It is the key to success. Nobody
should come in from the outside and tell people “This is your
problem, and here is how you are going to solve it”. It would be
paternalistic and arrogant.
Having an ombudsman who would tell the first nations how to deal
with problems between and within them would be a little bit like
trying to settle squabbles in a school yard.
We are not dealing here with kindergarten kids, but with people
who have been looking at achieving self-government for a very
long time. We should not impose on them an ombudsman to solve
all their problems. We should support them as they move toward
self-government.
Far from being naive, we do not believe that everything is fine,
but I would say that we are optimistic and mostly we believe in
the capability of the first nations to efficiently manage their
finances, as long as they are given the means to do so. This is
the goal of the negotiations currently underway.
Also, with the co-operation of the native people, the governments
are trying to set up round tables to discuss ways to develop
standards relating to financial administration, internal
control, public accounts and auditing.
I think that these round tables are more useful than an
ombudsman would be, because the constructive solutions put
forward are in sync with the values of the first nations, as
well as with the legislation and guidelines of the various
provinces.
Canadian chartered accountants took part in the development of
the many administrative agreements signed by the stakeholders
and the federal government. These chartered accountants provided
and are still providing some advice. They came up with relevant
and dynamic solutions and are providing band councils the
support they need to carry out the administrative duties related
to the management of their financial resources.
As for the allegations of electoral irregularities, the
information we have leads us to believe that more specific rules
are needed to ensure that the complaints are received and
processed appropriately. Here again, an ombudsman would be
useless.
But what disturbs me the most is not the presence or absence of
an ombudsman responsible for looking into administrative or
electoral difficulties among first nations, but rather the
conviction that seems to be behind this bill. It is a false
one, based on the assumption that there are major problems.
This is incorrect. There are no major problems. This is a
period of adjustment and there is certainly room for
improvement, but the situation is not disastrous, nor will it
become so, because it is changing for the better.
According to the progress report by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development and the Canadian Polar
Commission for the period ending March 31, 1999, the number of
financial statements by first nations on which there was a
favourable opinion by an independent auditor has risen from 57%
to 81% since 1985.
Is this not an improvement? Does such progress not deserve to
be highlighted?
1830
This is not the time to make the machinery more unwieldy by
adding something to it unnecessarily. What we need to do
instead is to support the first nations in their progress toward
self-government and independence. Bill C-222 attacks band council
administrative procedures head on, and by that very fact attacks
their administrative ability.
The Petit Robert defines an ombudsman as “a person responsible
for defending the rights of the citizen against the public
administration”. This is a noble and laudable function, but one
that is pointless in the situation we are concerned with here.
An ombudsman would not be the right answer here.
The right answer is to continue along the path on which the
first nations and the department are already engaged. They must
continue to work to improve the administration and monitoring of
financial transfers and must set stringent rules for handling
any allegations of wrongdoing.
Bill C-222 is therefore, for all the reasons I have given,
totally pointless. As well, it demonstrates a somewhat
paternalistic attitude, one which has no place in the new
relationships we must forge with the aboriginal nations in order
to reinforce their capacity for good self-government. This is
why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-222.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I share the
very deep worry and concern of my hon. colleague from Wild Rose
about the plight of first nations people and his desire to go to
accountability as a way of making sure that wealth is distributed
and passed to those who need it. We are talking about a
desperate need in these circumstances.
The problem I have is with the method, which is appointing a
ombudsman who would be accountable to the department itself. If
we look at our own government, we can see example after example
of a lack of accountability.
We have had a military ombudsman who, a year after his
appointment, still lacks a mandate. We have a military that
cannot be trusted to investigate itself. We have a headline that
says that an air force captain alerted the defence minister's
office of impropriety but nothing was done about it. Another
headline says that the top military is not accountable.
It is department after department. We have the immigration
department that is barely accountable to parliament and even to
its own minister.
We have MPs who cannot crack Canada's tight-lipped spy chief. We
had a situation this morning about concerns around CSIS and the
accessibility we have to that.
Another example was even in the smallest detail as an MP phoning
and requesting some information from a minister and being told
that it was confidential. My assistant had heard this particular
paper being given in public just barely a week before and we were
told that it was confidential. So he went to his home address
and phoned for the information and it was sent out to him because
the request did not come from an MP's office. That is the kind of
accountability we hold ourselves to.
Another headline says that Ottawa gets around access to
information requests and that the government sets a dismal
example of accountability. Members of the foreign service have
tried to bring forth information about misspending and
inappropriate spending of funds.
Here we have a private members' bill that would hold first
nations people to a level of accountability that we are not even
willing to hold to ourselves. We had the Krever inquiry that led
to untold suffering and death. Was there any single person ever
held accountable? No. We had the Somalia inquiry shut down and
nobody was held accountable. We have rapes and harassment in the
military and nobody is accountable.
What is proposed is that we impose on first nations people
another attachment to the Indian Act or another piece of the
department, when obviously our departments are not capable of
investigating themselves.
1835
However, I do think the auditor general's office could play a
very strong role if we were willing to reassess the auditor
general's role in holding any financial transaction to a very
strict and enforceable code of accountability.
An hon. member: It's the ombudsman's responsibility.
Ms. Louise Hardy: But the ombudsman, if I understand it
properly, would be responsible to the minister. The appointment
would be political and would go through the committee. I am
saying that the bureaucracy would be interested in sustaining
itself rather than looking at the true needs of first nations
people. I think those needs can be addressed through
self-government, by getting rid of the Indian Act and its very
odious imposition on their lives and by giving them the chance to
set up governments that work and systems that are accountable.
I know my colleague from Wild Rose used many examples. I have
an example of democracy and the spirit of first nations people
where there was serious conflict within one band in the Yukon.
There was a coalition for democracy that fought long and hard
because they did not agree with what they believed to be actions
that were, in some instances, what they considered to be corrupt.
They fought as a group of people, as a democracy, and they made
changes democratically and got new people elected. They have a
very strong band council and they are negotiating their land
claims. It was not easy but they did it among themselves, they
did it with pride and they did it with integrity. They made
changes for themselves.
What we could be responsible for, and should be, is to make sure
that every band has the capacity to do that and not be squashed
from above and held in positions of dependence.
I read the condemnation by the Alberta judge of both the
department and the bands very closely. I think we have a lot to
learn from what he said. I hope the department of Indian affairs
paid close attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-222,
introduced by the hon. member for Wild Rose. This bill seeks to
establish the office of first nations ombudsman to investigate
complaints relating to administrative, financial and electoral
irregularities by members of first nations communities in
Canada.
We all read and heard about the issue of interfering in first
nations' affairs in Canada, and about how first nation members
never got the $4 billion that was supposed to be transferred to
them for their well-being.
The problem is that some people think there is interference in
the affairs of all first nations. This is not true. In my riding
of Madawaska—Restigouche, the Hill River First Nation is very
dynamic and productive, and its economic growth is absolutely
unbelievable.
This does not mean that the idea of an ombudsman is not a good
one, on the contrary. This suggestion has a lot of merit. A
number of institutions often rely on this kind of service to
file complaints.
[English]
As members of parliament, I know all of us have had occasions
where we have either advised constituents of the presence of an
ombudsman office or been a last resort when a constituent feels
that an ombudsman has still not responded satisfactorily to the
problem.
There are ombudsman offices in government and business with
many, if not all, provincial governments providing the service to
consumers.
Other institutions, such as Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation and a number of financial institutions
like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, offer this service.
1840
I feel the establishment of a similar office for first nations
would be an effective and useful means of addressing concerns of
aboriginal people, whether it be matters resulting from alleged
unfair election practices or financial or administrative
problems.
Aboriginal people have expressed their frustration with the lack
of options available to them when they question the procedures or
process of the band chief and council. An independent ombudsman
office would provide a possible solution and be in a position to
access information that could respond to the complaints.
Furthermore, it would allow aboriginal people to air their
grievances when they feel they have been ignored by the chief and
council and are unwilling to discuss it in a more public format.
Under this bill, any member of a first nation community could use
the service.
The ombudsman would be appointed for a term of five years under
the provisions of the bill, with the governor in council making
the appointment on the recommendation of the minister. First
nations would be involved in the process by making
representations to the committee that would then report to the
minister. It is important to ensure the impartiality of the
ombudsman and this process would distance the first nations from
the appointment of the ombudsman. Otherwise, the effectiveness
and objectiveness of the office could be jeopardized.
On first nations where there have been questions about legality
of election processes or suspicions of inappropriate use of band
funds, there is currently little opportunity for aboriginal
people to lodge a complaint except with the chief and council who
are often implicated in the allegation. Obviously this is not an
ideal situation and does little to alleviate the problem.
The only other course of action available is to complain to the
minister or to members of parliament, particularly those in this
critic area or in whose constituency the aboriginal people
reside.
The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
aboriginal people and is obligated to work on behalf of
aboriginal people to protect their rights. This is a
responsibility that is sometimes misunderstood and occasionally
abused.
The bill would acknowledge that first nations people also have
to rely on themselves, their organizations and elected bodies to
protect their rights and access to services. Instead of having
to outline their complaint to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, they would have an independent ombudsman
office that would address their concerns.
With the input of first nations, this process has the potential
to help first nations people assume greater responsibility and
accountability for their actions. In some cases, band members
are not able to access information that would prove their
allegations, something the bill would address. Under the
proposed bill, an ombudsman would have the power and authority to
access such records. At the same time, it would be at the
discretion of the ombudsman as to what constitutes reasonable
grounds for an investigation and whether accessing such records
would be justified.
As I said earlier, I feel the bill has a lot of merit.
Misunderstanding and discord can often be resolved if a process
is in place to address these concerns. I feel the establishment
of an ombudsman office is one solution that could help first
nations better serve their communities and in the long term
provide better service and more transparency and accountability.
These are objectives that all governments and institutions strive
to achieve and with varying degrees of success. It is always a
good idea to explore new options and possibilities for
improvement. I think the bill has made a worthy proposal.
1845
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I note that we have approximately four minutes left and
I have a 10 minute presentation to make. Is it possible to ask
for unanimous consent that we stop debate at this time and
continue the next time the matter is before the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If we are to see the
clock at a particular time, we see the clock at a particular
time. The answer is no. Either the time is the time or it is not.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, may I help you out of
this dilemma and suggest that the House see the clock as 6.50
p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The deputy
government whip has asked for unanimous consent of the House to
see the clock at 6.50 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate my friend and neighbour, the hon. member for
Whitby—Ajax, on her appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Labour. I look forward to having many
vigorous debates with her.
That being said, I express my profound disappointment with the
government's malicious neglect of what has become Canada's
national homeless crisis. In particular, I want to voice my
absolute horror that the member from Moncton, who in the past did
so much for impoverished Canadians and showed so much promise
when she was appointed minister responsible for homelessness back
in March, would turn out to be such a train wreck as a minister.
On March 25 she promised to have a strategy in place with new
money to help the homeless within 30 days. It has now been 224
days and there is no money or plan in sight.
Also in March she vowed in the House that “every child in
Canada will have a safe bed to sleep in”. Here we are eight
months later and most places in Canada have already had their
first snowfall, and the minister has done nothing to prevent
thousands of homeless children from spending another winter
freezing on the streets.
Last spring her government passed Bill C-66 which will divert
$200 million from social housing programs, after cutting $55
million from CMHC's social housing budget last year. The
minister opposed many of her own Liberal colleagues and voted
down Bill S-11 which would have prohibited poverty as a legal
grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In June she refused to meet with Lifeline Centre, an Ottawa
organization seeking help to set up a new and innovative facility
to assist homeless men who are addicted survivors of trauma.
This summer when the city of Toronto asked the federal
government for emergency assistance to provide short term shelter
for the city's homeless, the Liberals offered the use of the Fort
York Armoury and then sent the city a bill for $250,000. It is
sad to note that the Liberals made a hefty profit on the backs of
Toronto's homeless.
1850
The minister claims she has been working day and night seven
days a week to come up with a plan for the homeless. Yet the
week the throne speech was delivered and other parliamentarians
were coming back to work the minister was jetting off to Mexico.
In May the minister hired 18 new bureaucrats at a cost of over
$1 million to taxpayers in salaries, benefits and office space.
Her new million dollar staff includes three new correspondence
assistants even though as Minister of Labour she already had six
letter writers and six new program assistants even though she has
no programs to administer as the homeless minister. Instead of
putting up a shiny new office that million dollars could have
provided emergency shelter for 30,000 homeless Canadians.
The minister was given the mandate to find a solution for
Canada's homeless. She made a lot of promises to a lot of people
but now she is backing away from her commitments. She has
recently been quoted as saying that she cannot do anything but
pass along a few ideas to cabinet and hope that something gets
done. The minister now says that it is not her job to produce a
strategy, that it is not her job to find new—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for
his kind words.
The Minister of Labour has been fighting poverty and abuse for
31 years. It has been her life's work. In March the Prime
Minister asked her to continue her fight by co-ordinating the
activities of the Government of Canada related to homelessness.
The Minister of Labour has made this assignment a priority.
To assist the minister with the co-ordination of a response to
homelessness, Human Resources Development Canada established a
national secretariat on homelessness. The secretariat staff of
16 in total have been reassigned. They are on loan from other
Government of Canada departments. They were chosen because of
their expertise in homeless related issues such as housing,
health and community capacity building.
The secretariat is currently compiling the comments the minister
heard from the community activists, the homeless themselves and
the countless frontline workers across Canada. In addition,
these borrowed staffers are referencing and summarizing the
information contained in the many excellent reports that have
been prepared by municipalities and community based task forces.
This material will help the minister in preparing her
recommendations for her colleagues.
I want to make clear that the Minister of Labour did not promise
to have solutions within 30 days of her appointment. When she
addressed the conference in Toronto she asked participants to
judge her not in two days but in two years. The only promise the
minister made at that conference was a promise to meet with the
mayor of Toronto, and she has fulfilled that commitment.
There are no quick fixes for homelessness. Communities, the
private sector, municipalities and provinces must all be part of
the solution. The Liberal government is committed to addressing
the plight of the homeless. We have heard this from the Minister
of Labour, in the Speech from the Throne and the fiscal update.
We are working to address the issues through various programs
including youth at risk and the aboriginal jobs program at HRDC
in addition to the recently augmented RRAP. The government will
continue to work with all sectors, private and non-profit, and
with other levels of government, to meet the immediate needs of
the homeless people in Canada for the winter. We remain
determined to address and to sort out the root causes of
homelessness.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday,
October 27, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources
Development in order to find out whether she thought it
reasonable to cut employment insurance benefits to an individual
because that person had no means of transport to get about
easily, according to an official of the department.
The minister, visibly ignorant of the facts, said that my
statements were unfounded accusations. She said, and I quote:
“The accusations made by the hon. member are false”. Those are
her words.
1855
I proposed to the minister that I table a copy of a letter I had
received from a taxpayer in my riding illustrating the
situation. But the government opposed this because, apparently,
it is government practice to not be too informed of the reality
of matters. They do not want to know too much of the truth.
They just said my allegations were false.
In the letter I could have tabled in the House—I could not do so
because a Liberal member objected—a taxpayer in my riding was
told the following:
We wish to inform you that we cannot pay you benefits effective
October 18, 1999. You have no means of transportation and are
thus prevented from accepting employment. For this reason, you
have failed to prove your availability.
She was told as well:
If you do not agree with this decision, which is based on the
Employment Insurance Act, you have the right to appeal within 30
days.
With the pressure the minister is putting on her officials to
harass the unemployed increasingly, we end up with this sort of
situation.
What is the reaction of an employee under heavy pressure from
the department, when faced with an unemployed worker? It is to
try to save the government as much money as possible, not to
help the individual who is without resources and lacks the means
to make a case before a labour tribunal.
In addition, the claimant is told to appeal if he or she is not
happy. People without resources are being asked to go the extra
step of justifying benefits, when they are entitled to them
because they have paid their premiums.
To illustrate how ridiculous this is, we are talking about a
65-year old woman. She has been told that she has no means of
transportation. In a city with public transit, this is a bit
much.
The woman in question had stated that she usually went on foot
to look for work, and had done so until the age of 65. Until
that age, she had been able to find work by using the public
transit system, taking her bicycle, or walking.
This time, she was told that, since she had no means of
transportation, she was no longer available for work. Are we to
conclude that all unemployed workers without their own cars have
no means of transportation and that, as a result, they no longer
qualify for employment insurance?
That is the question I wished to ask and I hope that this time I
will receive an answer.
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the
department treats clients with fairness, understanding and
compassion. That is why Human Resources Development Canada is
known as the people department.
The primary purpose of employment insurance is to compensate
workers in case of involuntary unemployment. However, as the
hon. member knows, every person who is claiming regular benefits
must prove availability for work. This is a longstanding
condition of the EI legislation. Each case is assessed
individually and all circumstances are examined and considered in
a compassionate manner. At the same time, the government has an
obligation to Canadian taxpayers to protect the integrity of the
EI fund. We have in place a number of control measures which
ensure that public funds are protected. We have as well a series
of appeal procedures if a person is unhappy with a particular
decision.
We do not have quotas. We have reasonable performance
expectations for our investigation and control program as a way
of measuring results. Again, they are not quotas. We allocate
our resources according to workload, as does any other
organization.
The hon. member may be interested to know that other governments
also have similar expectations for their social programs. For
1996-97 the Quebec government set a target of $100 million for
its verification of social assistance cases. It surpassed that
target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97 the Quebec
government set a target of $58 million for its in-depth
investigation of social assistance cases.
It surpassed that target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97
the Quebec government set out a target of $58 million for its
in-depth investigation of social assistance cases. It surpassed
that target and recouped nearly $68 million.
Finally, the hon. member will undoubtedly appreciate that as the
people department, it is our intention to ensure that claimants
receive their full entitlement to benefits and nothing less. I
would suggest if he is not happy with a particular decision at a
particular level that perhaps he look further into the appeal
route.
[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 p.m.)