CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 29, 1994
Bill C-57. Motion for third reading 8390
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8414
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8419
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8421
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8422
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8423
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8425
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8426
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8427
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8427
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8427
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8427
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8428
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8428
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8428
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8429
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8429
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8429
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8429
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8429
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8430
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8430
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8431
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8432
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8433
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8434
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8434
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of motion 8434
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8434
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8443
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 8446
Division on motion deferred 8458
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8462
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8463
8389
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 29, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a point of order regarding a conversation you and I had
yesterday concerning a newspaper article that came out recently
in the Ottawa
Citizen. You had some concern that I was
questioning the integrity of the Chair.
I would like to put on the record that I in no way am imputing
any motives to you and that I am not questioning the integrity of
the Chair or the Speaker.
The Speaker: I take it then there is a complete withdrawal of
any statements which were attributed to her in the article?
Miss Grey: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member very much for her
statement. These things happen from time to time. Quotations
are taken out of context and I want the hon. member and the
House to know that I accept her statement and I consider the
matter closed.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (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
16 petitions.
(1005 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to present two
petitions. The first petition is on behalf of 40 residents of
Edmonton Southwest and was put together by Lynette Ruptash.
It asks that physicians not get involved in the taking of lives but
to save lives. It brings to our attention the fact that the majority
of Canadians are law-abiding citizens who respect the law and
the sanctity of human life. The second petition has 30
signatures. It also asks that physicians not be involved in the
taking of human life. It is against the whole notion of euthanasia
and it is my pleasure to present it to the House.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present a
petition on behalf of the residents of Athabasca.
The petition requests an act serious enough to deter young
people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide
real justice.
I submit the petition and I support the petitioners.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 2,318 constituents
of North Island-Powell River. They respectfully request the
government enact stronger legislation to deal with young
offenders of all crimes, to make them more accountable for their
actions.
I endorse this petition. It was signed by 11.5 per cent of the
people who live in the Powell River region and a higher
percentage of the adult population.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a further two petitions.
The third petition asks the Parliament of Canada not to change
any laws which would have the effect of including sexual
orientation in the human rights act or as a prohibited grounds of
discrimination.
8390
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): I have a
further 30-name petition against euthanasia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on May 10 I submitted a
question to the Minister of Health on the Order Paper. I wonder
if the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader would
respond to it.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member
has been very patient in waiting for the answer to his question. I
assure him I have seen a draft reply to the question. It was
unsatisfactory in that it did not provide an answer for the hon.
member and it was sent back for further revision.
I am optimistic that a full and complete answer will be
forthcoming very shortly. As soon as I receive it I will be more
than happy to provide it to the hon. member here in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8390
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister for International
Trade) moved that Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are
considering today at third reading, Bill C-57, an act to
implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization, will ensure the implementation of the GATT
Uruguay round agreement which the Minister for International
Trade signed on behalf of Canada in Marrakech on April 15,
1994.
Adoption of this legislation would enable Canada to reap the
benefits of the biggest trade deal in history by creating a more
open and stable international trading environment. This
agreement will generate increased Canadian exports and
investment which are crucial to Canada's continuing prosperity
in the achievement of the government's jobs and growth agenda.
(1010 )
Since the second world war Canada's trade with other
countries has risen by over 70 per cent as a share of the gross
domestic product. This is due to trade liberalization, our ability
to explore trade opportunities and a reduction of average tariff
rates to Canada from over 10 per cent to an average as low as 3
per cent in 1992 figures. While this alone may not be directly
responsible for economic growth, one can clearly conclude that
trade liberalization and the removal of trade barriers such as
tariffs can generate economic gains while at the same time
create jobs.
Free trade and trade agreements have to be fair,
comprehensive and transparent. Despite some of the unresolved
trade issues between Canada and our trading partners, I believe
that Canada's trade interests are served today more than ever
before. Since the adoption of the first general agreement on
tariffs and trade, GATT, in the 1940s, global production has
increased over five times and the quality of life has improved for
trading countries. Many trade barriers were removed and many
third world countries moved up to join the ranks of developed
economies. However, there is still room for improvement.
Before assuming office the government made it clear that we
would continue to support the GATT as a cornerstone of
Canada's trade policy. We undertook to focus our effort on
breaking the deadlock in the Uruguay round negotiation and on
building a new World Trade Organization. This legislation is the
fruit of those efforts. The Uruguay round was the largest, most
comprehensive trade negotiation ever undertaken.
The final package contains over 30 agreements,
understandings and declarations. These agreements made many
important gains for Canada. The following stand out as
highlights for us.
First, the market access package includes the largest tariff
deal in history with most industrial tariffs being cut by at least
one-third. Second, the agricultural sector is brought under the
rules based multilateral regime for the first time ever. Third,
trade and services and trade related intellectual properties are
brought within the framework of multilateral disciplines.
Fourth, the agreement thoroughly reforms and strengthens
subsidy and trade remedy rules, thus realizing one of Canada's
priority objectives going into the round. Fifth, the new
integrated dispute settlement system with clearer rules, tighter
deadlines, an appeal process and binding effect is a major
improvement over the existing GATT system and should
effectively preclude unilateral measures responding to trade
disputes.
Finally, the crowning achievement of the Uruguay round is
the creation of a new World Trade Organization, WTO, that will
oversee the preparation of the complex series of agreements
resulting from the round. It will put international trade on a firm
institutional footing. The World Trade Organization will be-
8391
come the third pillar, along with the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, of the world's commercial and
financial structure.
Completion of the Uruguay round will have major
implications for the world and for the Canadian economy well
into the next century.
[Translation]
The GATT secretariat estimates that, in year 2005, global
revenues will be at least $500 billion US higher than what they
would have been without the Uruguay Round. Based on a
conservative economic assumption, we estimate that
quantifiable gains to Canada will amount to at least 0.4 per cent
in terms of real income, or $3 billion per annum, once the
agreement is fully in force. This means an income increase of
$400 per year for each Canadian household.
However, these quantifiable gains are only a portion of the
real earnings that we are almost sure to enjoy. Clearly, for
Canada, the challenge now is to optimize its share of the
economic benefits resulting from the Uruguay Round, through
increased trade and investments, which in turn will promote job
creation, higher income and a higher actual standard of living.
(1015)
There are tremendous opportunities. In several traditionally
strong sectors of the Canadian economy, such as forest,
chemical and pharmaceutical products, tariffs will be
eliminated or substantially reduced world-wide, not to mention
that major non-tariff barriers will fall.
Our service sector, which accounts for 20 per cent of our
export earnings, will benefit from more open and stable global
markets. New agreements on intellectual property rights on
exported goods, combined with clearer rules of the game for
supporting research and development, will open up new
prospects for our technology and knowledge intensive
industries.
I especially want to emphasize the export and growth
opportunities now open to small and medium sized enterprises
to expand onto new niche markets abroad. It is these firms that
are now the most important source of job creation in Canada.
[English]
Our service sector which accounts for 20 per cent of export
earnings would benefit from improved and more secure global
opportunities. New agreements on trade related intellectual
property rights combined with clearer rules of the game for
supporting research and development will open up new
prospects for our technology and knowledge intensive
industries.
I want to especially emphasize the export and growth
opportunities presented to small and medium size enterprises to
expand into new niche markets abroad. It is these firms that are
now the most important source of job creation across Canada.
There is a saying that if one does not use it one will lose it. If
our Canadian small and medium size businesses do not respond
to these new opportunities our economy stands to lose a great
deal. Here is why. Between 1979 and 1989 small and medium
size firms created over 85 per cent of net jobs representing over
2.2 million people. Out of 920,729 firms in 1992 figures,
920,233 or 99.8 per cent of firms were small and medium size
with less than 100 employees. Out of 10,736,700 private sector
jobs, there are over 6,360,000 or around 59 per cent who are
employed by small and medium size enterprise. Therefore, most
of the new jobs will be generated by this sector of our economy.
These figures follow a similar trend in most developed
countries. If we were to compare the number of Canadian firms
involved in trade with other countries we would find that
Canadian small and medium size businesses are missing many
opportunities. In fact, according to a 1990 study, 100 Canadian
companies accounted for more than 60 per cent of the $141
billion of exports and only 7.6 per cent of all Canadian firms
exported at all. However in Korea 42 per cent of their export is
done by small and medium enterprise and in Taiwan it is 55.9 per
cent. In China, 50 per cent of small and medium size enterprises
are involved in export.
To increase the number of small and medium size enterprises
involved in trade we must involve our small business sector and
different levels of government must respond to their needs and
concerns. Of course our competitors are already focusing on
these very same opportunities. However, we must be smarter,
more persistent and more aggressive in identifying and
exploiting the hard won gains in access to both traditional and
newly emerging markets around the world.
In response to this challenge the government has recently
launched an international business initiative called Access 95. It
is designed to translate the complex Uruguay round market
opening measures into a strategy that targets the best export
prospects among the billions of dollars in newly accessible
global opportunities.
(1020 )
This initiative will help our business partners to select and
develop more efficiently those new markets offering the highest
value added returns over the long term. By enhancing industrial
competitiveness, Access 95 will contribute to our domestic
growth strategy to attract investment in the high tech industries
and the jobs of the future.
8392
Before outlining the Access 95 initiatives, I would like to
highlight international trade opportunities that should open up
to export industries across the country as a result of legislation
before us today.
Agricultural producers across western Canada should benefit
from a gradual increase in international prices for grains or
oilseeds and special crops over the six year transition period and
from expanded export opportunities.
Canadians will compete in a fair environment as European
and American export subsidies for agricultural products are cut
by 36 per cent. Quantitative import restrictions and variable
import levies will be replaced by tariffs that will be cut by 15 per
cent over six years, thereby stabilizing the export markets in
Europe, Asia and Latin America for wheat, canola, barley, malt
and alfalfa.
Our beef and pork producers should also profit from the
replacement of foreign import restrictions and levies with a
tariff based regime, as well as from improved and more uniform
rules on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. These should
foster increased export of breeding stock, embryos, plus beef
and pork products to Europe, Japan, Korea and Australia.
Agri-food producers across the country can take advantage of
greatly improved export prospects, especially for dairy
products, seed potatoes, fresh and processed fruits, vegetables,
beer, whisky and horticultural products.
Clearer international rules and fairer phytosanitary
regulations will further stimulate exports and encourage
Canadian processors to invest and plan upgrades and
expansions. Our consumers will also benefit from access to a
broader range of lower cost food products.
Manufacturers of horticultural, construction and mining
machinery in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will
be able to build on the economies of scale which have already
resulted from improved access to the U.S. market. The
elimination of tariffs on many of these machineries in major
offshore markets should spur our exports.
Western Canadian producers of large scale and special crop
farming technologies are especially well positioned to take
advantage of new market opportunities as our exporters of
construction and mining material and handling equipment.
Export oriented chemical producers in Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario can also capitalize on tariff
cuts of over 40 per cent and harmonization of rates between zero
and 6 per cent. The prospects are excellent for chemical
commodities in major industrial markets and for specialty
products in each market.
[Translation]
Computer and instrumentation companies concentrated in
Quebec and Ontario should welcome with enthusiasm the
elimination or considerable reduction of tariffs in major
industrial markets. They will enjoy wider access because of
tariff consolidation in newly industrialized countries and tighter
implementation of technical standards.
The generalized elimination of non-tariff barriers will open
up new markets for manufacturers of computers and computer
parts. The new rules on services and investments and better
copyright protection will facilitate trade in computer services
linked to hardware and software sales.
Manufacturers of electronics and industrial machinery
throughout Canada should get ready to exploit new and
exceptional export opportunities in key industrial markets
where tariffs on electronics, most electrical appliances and
industrial machinery will sometimes be cut by 65 per cent.
Lower tariffs will also bring down the price of imported
machinery, which is good news to Canadian investors thinking
of equipping or modernizing their plants.
(1025 )
[English]
The fisheries industry in Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia and British Columbia can diversify exports
of basic fish items and higher value added fish products to
Europe, Japan and Korea where tariffs will be cut between 8 per
cent and 30 per cent and non-tariff barriers reduced. Canadian
tariffs on a wide variety of fish processing inputs and equipment
will be reduced or eliminated.
The primary and fabricated metals industries in British
Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec can also take
advantage of substantial reductions on tariff and non-tariff
barriers by our main trading partners to boost sales of primary
and fabricated metals such as aluminum, nickel, zinc and
copper. This could well induce new investment over the long
term. Tariffs are to be eliminated on a wide range of steel
products, creating a more stable investment climate and more
secure access to key industrialized markets.
The subsidies and countervail agreement would provide
clearer rules on actions that may be taken against our
competitors' sales of subsidized iron and steel products that
displace Canadian products in foreign markets as well as in the
subsidizing country's domestic market.
Pharmaceutical and medical devices exporters across Canada
will be major beneficiaries of the agreement as key trading
partners eliminate pharmaceutical tariffs and reduce a wide
range of non-tariff barriers. This more dynamic trading
environment should foster Canadian research and development,
investment and expansion of manufacturing. Freer trade with
8393
developing countries should favour the export of specialized
drug products. Export prospects for high technology medical
devices in Europe and Asia should also improve along with sales
of standard devices to Latin America.
For these industries which are driven by major and rapid
technological innovation, the new intellectual property
agreement will be of particular benefit in ensuring that the many
proprietary aspects of drug and medical devices are not copied
by offshore competitors.
Our telecommunications industries in Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia are also poised for further
expansion into major industrial markets as tariffs are eliminated
or deeply cut. The binding of tariffs by many advanced
developing countries would secure Canadian access to those
booming markets. Moreover, our prospects for winning foreign
contracts for telecommunications systems are much better given
the improved access to foreign markets for service technicians
under the agreement on trade in services.
Our transportation industries in Manitoba, Quebec and
Ontario will also profit from a more level international playing
field as a result of improved disciplines on the use of
government subsidies. This will facilitate the export of business
aircraft, small engines, avionics, landing gear, simulators plus
parts and service contracts.
Tariff cuts reaching 33 per cent will stimulate exports from
the automotive, urban transit and rail equipment sectors. As
well, substantial Canadian tariff cuts on original automotive
parts will reduce costs for original equipment manufacturers.
[Translation]
Wood processing companies in New Brunswick, Quebec and
British Columbia will be more competitive on foreign markets
where they will be subject to fairer regulations on the price and
quantity of their products. Tariffs on lumber and wood products
will go down by 50 per cent in major industrial markets and will
decrease in many developing countries.
Since the implementation of standards such as the European
Union's phytosanitary regulations and the development of
product standards and building codes in Europe and Japan will
be tightened, it will be easier for our businesses to break into
these crucial foreign markets.
(1030)
Pulp and paper companies in British Columbia, Ontario,
Quebec and the Atlantic provinces will enjoy unprecedented
advantages on foreign markets. For the first time in history,
most industrialized countries are committed to completely
eliminating their tariffs. This decision applies in particular to
the pulp and paper industry as well as to the book trade and other
products printed on paper. Furthermore, many developing
countries will reduce and consolidate their tariffs on paper
products, thus providing Canadian exporters with excellent
opportunities to diversify their value-added exports.
Besides the tariffs, which will be phased out over a ten-year
period, some non-tariff barriers will also be abolished, in
particular the European Union's requirements for waterproof
paper. The agreement on import licensing procedures and the
agreement on technical barriers to trade will give Canadian
companies more stable access to foreign markets in general and
to those of developing countries in particular.
On the whole, freer world trade and more predictable access
conditions should encourage our producers to modernize their
plants and in the long term promote the re-establishment of pulp
and paper companies.
[English]
Service industries across Canada are closely tied to the
offshore export prospects of the related merchandise sector. It is
estimated that every dollar of goods exported contains 39 cents
worth of service output. Additionally stand alone exports of
service amount to $25 billion a year and are growing at almost
twice the rate of exports.
The general agreement on trade in services of the World Trade
Organization provides for the first time a comprehensive
framework of rules and discipline on measures affecting
services, including banking and investment. Once a country has
committed to open its service sectors to a specified degree, it
must grant Canadian service firms in the sector the same
treatment accorded to domestic companies.
These market openings and safeguard measures will greatly
improve the access of Canadian firms to billions of dollars in
requirements for computers, construction, specialized
engineering, management, telecommunications, as well as
environmental, financial and professional services.
Both the magnitude and complexity of these opportunities are
reflected in the Uruguay text of 500 pages of trade rules in
addition to some 26,000 pages of tariff schedules applicable to
120 countries. The objective of the government's Access 95
initiative is to transform some of these often highly technical
and complex provisions into a trade strategy that helps Canadian
businesses take advantage of our hard won gains in access to
foreign markets.
Access 95 is one of several important government initiatives
to respond to the rapidly changing needs of our business
community. We are committed to ensuring that our international
trade developmental resources are focused on opportunities that
offer the highest payoff for industry in the nineties. Given the
8394
current fiscal situation I should mention that the initiative will
be funded from existing resources.
The government is especially determined to strengthen our
partnership with small and medium sized enterprises. These
businesses often lack the resources and market specific
expertise to discover and pursue newly accessible offshore
opportunities. The government is tailoring its programs and
services to assist small and medium enterprises in developing
their particular niches in the new offshore markets.
(1035 )
At the direction of the first ministers the Minister for
International Trade and his provincial counterparts are working
to implement a trade Team Canada approach to better
co-ordinate international business development. The advantage
of the approach was demonstrated by the signing of contracts
worth potentially $8 billion in China and over $100 million in
Vietnam when the Prime Minister led a team of first ministers
and 375 business leaders to Asia earlier this month.
We envisage that cost effective delivery of streamlined
business development programs through federal-provincial
one-stop shops will improve accessibility for firms while
eliminating wasteful duplication. The approach will entail joint
enhancement of exporter awareness services to prepare small
and medium enterprises to export or to expand beyond the U.S.
market. The development of stronger investment and
technology linkage will assist small and medium enterprise to
find the most suitable production technologies and partners
abroad.
The more effective focusing of existing federal resources has
greatly improved the delivery capabilities of our international
market information and intelligence network. This links posts
abroad with industrial analysts and trade officers across Canada
in gathering and disseminating to Canadian firms timely and in
depth foreign market intelligence that relates directly to their
priority interests.
[Translation]
The Access 95 initiative was designed on the basis of these
priorities. Launched recently by the departments of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, Agriculture and Industry,
Access 95 will, first show Canadian exporters where tariffs and
non-tariff barriers have been reduced; these reductions will be
major gains for them because it will be easier for them to export
some 200 key products and 11 types of services in 42 priority
markets.
Secondly, it will provide information from our offices abroad
on the most promising new markets and the key criteria for
being competitive on these markets.
Thirdly, it will send information quickly and directly to
interested companies through our market information network.
Fourthly, it will provide our exporters with the services of
well-informed specialized consultants who can explain to them
the complex provisions of the WTO agreement, in particular the
implementation timetables, and indicate to them the best ways
to overcome the obstacles they will meet abroad.
By specifically targeting the openings created by the Uruguay
Round agreement, Access 95 should encourage our small and
medium-size businesses, which are already prepared to export
to the United States under the free trade agreement, to penetrate
Latin American, Asian and European markets as well.
[English]
Before concluding my remarks today I want to thank hon.
members on both sides for the constructive approach they have
taken in the House and in committee to this most important
piece of legislation. I look forward to a similar constructive
approach from our colleagues in the upper chamber as Canada
makes a special effort, together with our trading partners all
over the world, to adopt implementing legislation in time to
bring the agreement into force on January 1, 1995.
Let me assure my colleagues who may be concerned by
legislative development or the lack thereof in other capitals
around the world that we are keeping a close eye on the
implementation process of all our major trading partners. I can
repeat the assurances already offered by the Minister for
International Trade that we will proclaim the legislation only
after our principal partners have completed their requisite
implementation procedures.
Moreover, Bill C-57 provides that the governor in council
shall bring the legislation into force only when he is satisfied
that the World Trade Organization agreement is in force.
(1040 )
In submitting the bill for approval the government counts on
the support of all parties in the House for the fundamental
principles of trade policy set out in the preamble of the bill.
These are: that the cornerstone of Canadian trade policy is the
multilateral system of mutually agreed market access
conditions and non-discriminatory trade rules; that free, fair
and open trade is essential for the future of the Canadian
economy and for securing the competitiveness and long term
sustainable development of Canada; and that trade expansion
contributes to job creation, achieves a higher standard of living,
offers a greater choice to consumers and strengthens the
Canadian economic union.
These are the essential objectives the bill seeks to promote. I
invite my colleagues to join me in assuring its timely adoption.
Once again I thank my colleagues in the opposition for their
excellent contributions at the committee level, at second
reading stage in the House of Commons and at report stage.
8395
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, do
not think that earlier, when I went to get a glass of water, I did
not want to bring you one. Quite the contrary. I intend to
eventually offer you something with more flavour, like an apple
juice, since Quebec is one of the main apple juice producers.
That being said, we are now at third reading of Bill C-57, an
act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization, signed at Marrakesh on April 15, 1994, by some
125 trade partners. It took over eight years of negotiating to
reach this historical compromise, which signing members can
be proud of. As we have pointed out throughout the legislative
process, the Bloc Quebecois and I support Bill C-57, in spite of
a number of flaws which I will discuss later.
Why do we support Bill C-57? I have had a few opportunities
to point out in this House that Quebec is fundamentally a free
trader and is open to the world. Quebec was and still is a strong
promoter of free trade between Canada, the United States,
Mexico and, eventually, other trading partners. Quebec was and
still is a promoter of NAFTA and, as I was saying, it is in favour
of expanding this treaty to include other countries from the
American continent.
Let me briefly mention the benefits, for Quebec and Canada,
related to the signing of the agreement which followed the
Uruguay Round of negotiations. First, our companies will have
greater access to foreign markets, thanks to tariff reductions, for
example on wood, pulp and paper, as well as pharmaceutical
products. This will certainly result in increased exports, which
is good and which is what we seek of course through this
agreement.
Trade rules are also strengthened. In the past, GATT members
often took advantage of the vagueness of some definitions to
adopt protectionist measures. The new GATT, that is the
agreements following the Uruguay Round of negotiations,
clarifies a number of trade rules, particularly as regards the
definition of a subsidy, the types of subsidies which are allowed,
compensable or prohibited, as well as the use of countervailing
duties, safeguard measures and anti-dumping duties, etc.
The new GATT also puts in place the foundations of a system
based on the rule of law rather than on power plays. We like to
hope that member states will make proper use of the rule of law
set up in the new GATT. There will also be a new dispute
settlement mechanism. The general council of the World Trade
Organization will be responsible for this quicker and more
efficient dispute settlement mechanism.
Again, with such a system based on the rule of law, smaller
trade partners, like Canada for example, will be able to better
defend themselves against the protectionism favoured by the
economic superpowers, including Europe, Japan and the United
States. It is also important to note that the World Trade
Organization will be replacing the GATT secretariat. A new
more modern structure will replace the old one, which was a bit
outdated and unsuited to the increasingly popular protectionist
strategies and to the new industries covered by these
agreements, like the intellectual property and service industries.
I will come back to these a little later on.
(1045)
Export subsidies for agricultural products have also
decreased. After some spirited discussions, the GATT members
finally agreed to reduce export subsidies by 36 per cent in terms
of total value of the exportations and by 21 per cent in terms of
volumes. Of course, we are talking here in percentages and not
real values.
The gap between countries that subsidize the least and the
most will stay the same. So, there is something wrong here,
since the developing countries and those, like Canada, which do
not subsidize their industries a lot compared to a number of their
trade partners, will continue to be at a disadvantage. This
nonetheless constitutes a step forward, which reduces the
upward pressure on what I would call less ``subsidizing''
countries and gives them a new hope.
The Uruguay Round agreements also clarify the rules
governing intellectual property. It is the first time this issue is
discussed at the GATT level. Creators and businesses benefit
from a minimum protection or, as I would say, a bottom
protection. These new provisions apply to royalties, trademarks,
patents, etc. They limit industrial piracy and trade of counterfeit
goods.
The Uruguay Round agreements also provide for an opening
of government procurement contracting so that our businesses
have an easier access to the competitive bidding system of our
partners' government agencies and governments. These
provisions are subject to prescribed limits on government
procurement of goods and services and on building contracts.
Again, this will open new markets to our businesses, which, in
return, will have to be more competitive and aggressive. Indeed,
this is the challenge they have to face with free trade.
As I said earlier, service industries are now included in the
GATT agreement pursuant to the new provisions, although free
trade does not apply to services as much as to goods. It has to be
understood that if, for the latter, years of experience and
negotiations have brought about freer trade, this is only
beginning in the service industries.
I want to point out that service industries represent 20 per cent
of the world economy. Canadian and Quebec
telecommunication companies, mentioned earlier by the
parliamentary secretary, as well as the financial services sector
will benefit from this liberalization.
8396
There is still a long way to go because many differences of
opinion remain concerning transportation,
telecommunications, audiovisual material and financial
services, in particular, among the main trade partners, including
the United States, the European Union and Japan.
Finally, the Uruguay Round agreement contains provisions
allowing each country to exclude cultural industries and
co-production works from the list of subjects covered by GATT.
I believe that we owe that exclusion to France. As it did with
NAFTA, Canada excluded cultural industries and co-production
agreements from its list of concessions.
This ends my enumeration of what could be considered the
gains made under the Uruguay Round agreement and, if you
allow me, I will now turn to the less positive side of that
agreement, and therefore of Bill C-57.
Throughout the negotiation process leading to the agreement
and a little later, when Bill C-57 was drafted, the federal
government boasted about its desire to consult the provinces.
Undoubtedly, there was an effort made in this regard with the
preparation of a draft bill which was submitted to the provincial
governments. I would add that the federal government did it
only because it cannot implement the agreement without the
co-operation of the provinces in their particular fields of
jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the federal government has not acted
on three basic demands of Quebec.
(1050)
For one thing, we wanted to ensure that the bill contained a
federal clause providing for consultation with the provinces
concerning the application of the agreement in areas under
provincial jurisdiction. The provinces, particularly Quebec,
have agreed to adapt their respective legislation and regulations
to the international agreement signed by Canada.
Quebec was hoping to be better protected by the Canadian
government. The federal clause included in the Marrakech
agreement is indeed too threatening and too restrictive in that it
gives the federal government full responsibility for the
implementation of the final agreement. At the very least,
Quebec was hoping that this clause would not be changed from
what it was in the former agreement. At best, it was hoping that
the federal government would better protect the interests of the
provinces in negotiating with its GATT partners a federal clause
that would better reflect Canada's constitutional reality.
Section 24.12 of the final agreement stipulates that the
Government of Canada is fully responsible for compliance with
GATT provisions and will take all reasonable measures to
ensure that this obligation is fulfilled by local governments. So
this means that, according to what is provided for in the
agreement, the federal government will not consult with the
provinces, but it will make decisions for them.
Not only is Quebec opposed to this wording, but it would have
liked to see in Bill C-57 provisions establishing a
federal-provincial consultation process for important decisions
and for decisions regarding matters under provincial
jurisdiction.
Again, Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that the federal
system has proven its inability to produce agreements that are
satisfactory to all the parties concerned.
I will come back to the federal-provincial dispute settlement
mechanism later on. Of course, we were also hoping that the bill
would provide for a number of adjustment programs for workers
and businesses in soft sectors like textile and clothing, which are
very important in Quebec. A promise to that effect appeared in
the red book, a promise that apparently will not be kept. I will
get back to this later on.
As I pointed out earlier, Bill C-57 is deficient in a number of
ways, and we have tried to deal with that by proposing a number
of amendments in committee and at the report stage. The
government decided, on I would say philosophical grounds
which are questionable, to say the least, to reject the whole
package ``en bloc''. No pun intended. We hope that the
government's failure to give these amendments serious
consideration will not prove to be an obstacle to proper
implementation of the Uruguay Round agreement.
The government must realize that by rejecting these
amendments which, I should point out, had been toned down and
modified to make them palatable to the government majority, it
went against the wishes of several groups directly concerned by
Bill C-57.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may recall the various amendments we
proposed and our reasons for proposing them, and then comment
briefly on the disastrous impact of the government's rejection of
these amendments.
First, we had the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Laval-Est, whose purpose was to establish a process for
consultation with the provinces. Of course, this process would
have applied specifically to matters within provincial
jurisdiction. The consultation process could also have been
extended to any matter relating to trade dispute resolution and
any economic matter of major international significance.
(1055)
I may also recall that this type of consultation process exists
in the legislation now before the U.S. Congress, where it
concerns both economic matters of major significance,
according to section 102, part B of the U.S. bill, and also matters
relating to trade dispute resolution, section 102, part C,
paragraph 3(i).
8397
In a context where trade disputes are frequent and
increasingly concern matters within provincial jurisdiction, the
government could have been expected to provide a mechanism
for consultations with the provinces. I think that in a federal
state like the one Canada claims to be, a state that claims to
respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, it is necessary to
provide a mechanism for dispute settlement as well as a
mechanism for federal-provincial consultations.
The parliamentary secretary said earlier that the federal
government and the provinces were co-operating well on trade
issues. He mentioned Team Canada. Nevertheless the
Government of Quebec has expressed the wish, and it still does,
that a process for consultations be included in the bill. If the
government is so anxious to consult the provinces, why does it
persist in its refusal to provide specifically for such
consultations in the bill? I cannot understand this attitude.
They mentioned Team Canada, but when people work as a
team, all players should have a chance to get on the ice. The
parliamentary secretary mentioned the glorious trip of Team
Canada to Asia. Well, for technical reasons, the federal
government steadfastly refused to let one of the players on to the
ice. From the very start, Team Canada has not been running very
smoothly.
The proposed amendment was also aimed at forcing the
federal government to obtain the provinces' agreement before
taking important steps which would ultimately have an impact
on the provincial jurisdictions, for instance, a change in the
allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas. As things now stand,
the Minister of International Trade has full discretionary powers
regarding the allocation of tariff quotas. It would have been
desirable for the provinces to be consulted on the allocation of
such quotas, and on the establishment or implementation of
policies for selecting trade partners who would have access to
the Canadian market.
If you will permit, Mr. Speaker, I will spend a few minutes on
the issue of tariff quotas because I believe that it is an area of
great concern. The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that
the minister, when making decisions in respect of prices and
quantities of subsidized exports, considers actions taken in the
relevant areas by foreign competitors.
Getting back to the issue of tariff quotas, I just want to say that
the federal government will impose nearly no duties on a certain
number of agricultural products entering Canada. Beyond
established quantities, tariffs will increase significantly, up to
200 or 300 per cent. It is the minister, acting on behalf of the
federal government, who will have the authority to decide which
importers will be allowed to import under these preferential
tariffs.
The federal government, under more or less formal
agreements, will determine from which country certain
agricultural products will be imported into Canada under these
preferential tariffs. We believed that it was essential to ensure
that the provinces could voice their opinion regarding the
choice of importers who will benefit from these low tariffs.
It is all the more important because the provinces may often
have competing interests; therefore, the process should be as
open as possible, in order to avoid scheming and conflicts of
interest. We know, for example, that the federal government has
already entered into agreements with some countries
-including New Zealand which was granted a significant butter
tariff quota, probably in exchange for a similar quota for
Canadian beef exports to New Zealand; under such agreements,
the government guarantees a country access to the Canadian
market for certain of its products in exchange for access to its
market.
(1100)
On the one hand, this kind of agreement can have serious
consequences for local producers and can antagonize our other
trade partners. On the other hand, developing countries-I think
it is important to recognize it-are the big losers with this type
of agreement, because they have nothing to offer in exchange for
access to our markets. We have to take that into account, Mr.
Speaker.
Our amendment was intended to avoid the possibility of
haggling over the granting of tariff quotas and the risk of
conflicts of interest for the minister. We wanted to avoid putting
the minister in a situation where he would have to set tariff
quotas while taking into consideration the conflicting interests
of the various provinces.
This amendment was also intended to prevent the minister
from allowing products imported outside tariff quotas, in case of
shortages on the domestic market, to be sold more cheaply than
the same goods produced on the domestic market.
I will now move to the amendment to clause 3 proposed by the
hon. member for Longueuil. Its goal was to ensure minimal
follow-up by Parliament which would have forced the
government to make a public evaluation of the implementation
of the agreement. This was, in my opinion, the least we could
ask as a safety measure. That amendment had been suggested to
us by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture, when they came before the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
There again, the government decided that this amendment
was not worthy of consideration, and it was rejected late
yesterday.
This amendment would have also required that we examine
the implementation of the agreement by our main trading
partners, most notably the United States. I might add that the
American legislation presently before Congress contains such
8398
provisions in its section 424. That section of the American bill
states that, no later than six months after the day the agreement
has come into force, the President shall report on Canada's
performance fulfilling its commitments respecting dairy
products and poultry.
Such a clause is not overly aggressive. It does not violate the
scheme of the Uruguay Round agreements. It simply keeps us on
our toes regarding our major trading partners, who may at times
be aggressive towards us.
The amendment was also designed to ensure that the
government table an annual report on the impact of the
agreement on workers and companies, as I said earlier.
The Liberal government made promises in that respect during
the election campaign. We know that many workers and
companies will be affected by the implementation of the
Uruguay Round agreements. There is no doubt that they are
prepared to take up the challenge of the Uruguay Round
agreements, but they could use a little boost to face this new
reality.
I now move on to the amendment to Clause 58 brought forth
by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, to ensure that the
protection would apply not only in the present but also in the
future. The intention was to make the clause technologically
neutral, that is to say not to limit its application to today's or
yesterday's technologies, because the clause actually provides
for the protection of recordings made on perforated rolls.
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, perforated rolls!
As I indicated in the debate at report stage, I would probably
have had less of a problem with this aspect if I had been debating
the bill to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization as a member of this House immediately
after the Second World War. Then, I would have told myself that
the days of the perforated roll, as a recording medium, were not
so long gone after all. But in 1994, in the age of the laser and the
optic fibre, I think that we should come up with a
technologically neutral clause, that is to say a clause that does
not apply only to technologies that existed in the old days or
exist today, but that also allows for the development of new
technologies, new means of fixing information.
(1105)
It was a purely technical amendment, simple but
fundamentally important. Today, as noted in the Union des
artistes' brief to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade: ``The perforated roll makes us laugh
because it is so obsolete as a way to reproduce sounds.
Tomorrow it may well be digital tapes or laser disks that make us
smile because they will seem like technologies from another
age''.
The government's approach of limiting comments to the
perforated roll appears timorous and hesitant. It does not augur
well for the review of the Copyright Act. Just because we
proposed only one amendment in this regard does not mean that
we agree with the position of the current government, which is
unduly delaying the introduction of a bill to amend the
Copyright Act.
As we clearly pointed out last week, the government must not
use trade treaties as an excuse to review the Copyright Act in an
haphazard and incidental way. Again, as suggested in the report
of the Liberal majority on the Special Joint Committee
Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy, the government is taking
over areas of shared jurisdiction under the pretext that it is the
only one entitled to deal with their extension on the international
scene.
The amendment to clause 185, which I had the honour to put
forward, was simply aimed at clarifying the guidelines used by
the trade tribunal to rule on dumping cases. Clause 185 in Bill
C-57 outlines how the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
must deal with dumping complaints. Complainants had to prove
to the tribunal not only that dumping effectively took place but
also that it had caused injury to Canadian industry.
The bill also provides that the tribunal can recognize injury
only if the circumstances causing the said injury are clearly
planned and imminent. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this
``planned and imminent'' provision is much too vague and
restrictive. What we wanted to achieve through this amendment
was simply to clarify a little bit the circumstances that can cause
injury, which are now quite vague.
This bill also provides that the Governor in Council can, on
the finance minister's recommendation and if he feels like it, set
regulatory guidelines that will give the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal more specific directives on acceptable evidence
as well as the general interpretation of new dumping conditions.
Canadian steel producers submitted to us that the U.S.
legislation was much more precise and, as I just said, gave their
courts much clearer and more precise indications as to how these
new conditions should be interpreted and what evidence could
be presented to a court.
Given this state of affairs, Canadian producers are clearly at a
disadvantage compared to their American competitors, since
they have absolutely no indication of how they will have to
prove that they are victims of dumping by their U.S.
counterparts. I mentioned how important the steel industry is for
Canada's economy. I will not cover the same ground again, but
we should understand how urgent such an amendment to the bill
was, not only for the steel industry but also for very many
industries and sectors of the Canadian economy.
(1110)
The purpose of the amendment was to require rather than to
simply permit the Governor in Council to establish regulations
to guide businesses and the court in its decisions; it was also
intended to specify the kinds of evidence which should be
included in the regulation and also suggested that the Minister
of Industry be involved in the operation since obviously he is
8399
probably the one who is best able to judge how various sectors of
the Canadian economy are doing.
At this point, I would like to mention the important
contribution of my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake, who presented some amendments to this House. In most
cases, these were similar to amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois and, unfortunately, were also rejected. In his
statements, he too clearly pointed out the difference between
U.S. legislation, which provides some defence for American
industries, and Canadian legislation, which leaves it up to the
good will of the World Trade Organization and the strict
application of the rules of law. This is a dangerously narrow
approach and with all my heart I hope it will turn out to be a
viable strategy that will benefit the Canadian economy.
It is important to say a few words about the progress of
legislation in the U.S. Congress. Over the last few days we
learned that the situation had changed and that a majority of
American senators now intended to support the bill on the
Uruguay Round agreements, even though, as Lloyd Bentson, the
U.S. Secretary of Treasury, put it, the GATT vote was not a done
deal. We have every reason to be very optimistic at this moment.
However, should the American Senate or Congress reject the
GATT agreement, and should the U.S. close its markets, a return
to protectionism at the international level would be a distinct
possibility and would have disastrous consequences for the
economy world-wide. Consequently, the signal which will be
sent by our major trading partner is vital. We will follow the
proceedings in Congress with great interest. We hope that the
Canadian Minister for International Trade will use every
available means to convince our trading partner to pass its bill
on the Uruguay Round agreements as quickly as possible, and
also to make stubborn American legislators aware of what is at
stake here.
I want to conclude by making some criticisms regarding the
process to which we were subjected over the last few weeks.
There is no doubt now, and in fact that was the case from the very
beginning, that the Bloc Quebecois supports this legislation to
implement the Uruguay Round agreements. We know that the
Reform Party also supports the bill.
Consequently, why did the government wait for so long before
tabling its legislation? It did so at the last minute and then it put
all kinds of pressure to rush the bill through every stage of the
process, including in committee. The government thus kept us
from conducting a thorough review of Bill C-57 which, as you
know, includes over 200 clauses.
Given the scope and the volume of this legislation, the
government should at least have consulted us, as it did regarding
other bills. A draft bill was distributed to various sectors of the
Canadian economy, as well as to the provinces, and that is
certainly a good thing.
(1115)
Considering the consensus that prevailed in this House, we
would have hoped that the government would at least have had
the decency to provide other parliamentarians with a copy of its
draft bill, so that we could have looked at it and even made
suggestions before the bill was studied in the House and in
committee. But now the government is stuck. In an attempt to
ensure transparency and to protect its image, it is rejecting every
compromise and every amendment to its bill.
The committee heard a limited number of witnesses, who had
very little time to get ready. In any case, none of their
presentations was taken into account and, with the way the
committee's business was organized, it was impossible to take
into consideration their requests. Public hearings ended two
weeks ago, on a Wednesday, and the following day we were
already studying the bill clause by clause.
How could we have taken into account the proposals,
comments and suggestions made by the witnesses when right the
following day we were asked to railroad the almost 200 clauses
of this bill?
To conclude, I just want to say that we will, of course, support
this bill to implement the trade agreements reached during the
Uruguay Round. I stressed the importance of this bill for Quebec
and I mentioned the consensus that prevailed in this House on
this issue.
We give our support to this bill in the hope that the
government remembers the reservations we have had ever since
this bill was introduced, most of which have been expressed by
the witnesses before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, including the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, the Union des producteurs agricoles, the Union des
artistes, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association. I just
want to remind members that several concerns and several
suggestions came up, but the government chose not to take them
into account. We hope that the government will at least take
these various reservations into consideration when it prepares
the regulations.
Obviously, we hope that these flaws in Bill C-57 will not have
regrettable impacts on already frail areas of our economy and
that these flaws will not place businesses in Quebec and in
Canada at a disadvantage in relation to our major trade partners.
As for the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements,
we hope, since that is all we can do, that the federal government
will keep its word and will be so kind as to consult with the
provinces before making major decisions on matters of concern
to them.
We also hope that the government will do a proper follow-up,
that it will monitor the conduct of our major trade partners, and
8400
that it will keep its promise in the red book with respect to
adjustment programs for workers and businesses. In that regard,
it is important to quote the following excerpt from the red book:
``Governments must assist individuals and firms to deal with the
restructuring that is occurring as a result of trade liberalization.
Such assistance is critical to building acceptance of structural
reforms in the Canadian economy''.
We know very well that given the current state of government
finances, the Liberal government could be tempted to disregard
the promise to set up restructuring programs for those
businesses most heavily affected by the Uruguay Round
agreements and NAFTA.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois and I readily recognize the
need to reduce the monstrous Canadian deficit in an intelligent
manner. However, we are also aware of the fact that workers in
some sectors of the economy will have to make an extra effort to
adjust to new market realities.
While I am absolutely sure that workers and businesses in
Quebec and in Canada will be able to show the innovation and
energy needed to deal with these new realities, I also know that
government intervention is absolutely necessary in some cases.
Before I conclude, I too would like to thank all members who
took part in proceedings on Bill C-57 in this House, including
my colleagues from Louis-Hébert, Laval East and Longueuil,
and my colleagues on the government side and in the Reform
Party, and more particularly organizations and individuals who,
despite the inconvenience of the process, came to Ottawa at
taxpayers' expense to appear before the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, even if their concerns
and suggestions have not been taken into consideration.
(1120)
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the positive approach
taken by members on both sides of the House. I have to say that I
cannot give the government such high marks, because it did not
co-operate as much as we would have liked.
That being said, we will certainly support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to support Bill C-57, an act to implement the
World Trade Organization under GATT.
I think it is a tribute to this House and to Canadians that we
have all-party agreement for this to move forward. We
recognize there are some problems that have to be worked out as
a result of this trade deal as it applies to internal policy in
Canada, but Canada needs this deal very badly. We have been a
world leader in trade promotion and trade rules since the second
world war.
In 1947 Canada was one of the early leaders in proposing a
rules based trade arrangement with the GATT that took place.
We have also been working very hard in the last seven years
under the Uruguay round to bring about international trade rules
that bring sectors such as agriculture and the service sector
under international trade rules for the very first time. These
sectors have been operating without these international trade
rules and we believe they are very important.
We in the Reform Party are very supportive of the
implementation of the GATT and the World Trade Organization.
We are looking forward to the organization getting organized
and up and running quickly.
Canada needs a rules based trading relationship. We will
benefit. We have a small population in a big country; we have a
lot of resources. About 30 per cent of our GNP is directly related
to trade. Unlike some countries for example the United States
which is far more self-contained, Canada needs to trade and we
are a world leader in terms of trade.
One reason we need this is we have had a trade war going on in
agriculture for approximately the last 10 years. We have seen
how destructive this can be to the economy of the industry
affected. Without the Uruguay round we were in danger of this
expanding into other sectors, something Canada could not have
had happen. It was very important to us.
We cannot play the game if everybody is playing by different
rules. That is what we are saying by trying to get international
trade rules. In that way trade is very much like a game. We
always hear the term level playing field and there is a reason for
that. It means we need to have rules that are equal and every
team has the same opportunity under those rules.
To use an analogy, for me it is very much like hockey. Hockey
is my favourite sport. It is a sport that Canada invented. We have
set the rules for hockey over the years. We are very good
nationally. We need to work as a national team when we go
abroad. We have to recruit the very best players and we have to
train those players. To that degree, it is very much like the
Uruguay round. We need international rules in hockey as well as
international rules in trade.
We need a neutral referee in hockey and in trade. The World
Trade Organization is going to be that neutral referee applying
the rules fairly. The Acting Speaker who was in the chair earlier
will certainly know something about refereeing. He was in the
National Hockey League as a referee for a number of years. The
one qualification referees need is good eyesight. They have to be
very vigilant and that will be the role of the World Trade
Organization.
8401
Canada is a trading nation and will benefit greatly by trade
liberalization. Canada produces a surplus of many goods and
services in demand around the world. Yet Canada cannot
possibly produce the full range of goods and services that
Canadians need. In that way it is to our advantage to export
those goods and services we produce best. We do produce a lot
of these very well, just as it is to our advantage to import those
goods and services that other countries produce best.
(1125)
In 1993 Canada exported $181 billion in goods and services
totalling about 30 per cent of our gross domestic product, very
high. For every billion dollars in new exports, over 1,100 new
jobs are created. It is very important to Canada that we continue
to be good traders.
With more liberalized trade the overall prosperity of
Canadians will be enhanced. In Canada trade accounts for one
out of every four jobs generated. In my riding of Peace River we
are very dependent on trade to provide jobs.
The Peace River area of Alberta is booming right now. The
economy is very strong. Agriculture is doing well. The oil and
gas sector is booming. The forestry sector is booming as well. It
is the good fortune of my riding that all of these industries have
healthy export sales and it is no more evident than it is in the
Peace River riding of Alberta.
We do have some problems in making this trade deal work.
Some of them are right here at home. In that way I compare it
with our national team playing hockey. We have to work with
our players to make this deal work effectively for Canada, the
players in this case being the business community and
provinces, and we have to work together.
If I may continue with my analogy for a moment, if we cannot
practise together how can we learn to play the game? Young
players start by playing locally in the neighbourhood rink. If you
are limited to your backyard, however, where do you get your
expertise and where do you learn how to make the moves
necessary to move on to the next level?
Recently GATT has rebuked Canada for having too many
internal trade barriers. I think we have to pay attention. Having
minimum compliance and getting Bill C-57 established and
getting it into effect is the right approach. We want this
agreement to be in effect very quickly. To do that we have
minimum compliance. That means amending approximately 31
acts to bring us into minimum compliance.
It shows that we have some serious flaws in our domestic
policy that have to be addressed. I hope that the manager of the
team, the coach, the federal government, will be working to pay
attention to those problems. Some of them are concerns over
transportation regulation, transportation subsidies, government
regulations, regional development. All of these things are really
slowing us down in terms of competing effectively abroad.
There are many categories of barriers. In agriculture and the
food processing industries there are over 100 of these barriers.
They include marketing boards, production quotas, quality and
packaging standards and transportation and stabilization
subsidies.
In the liquor and wine industries we have provincial
production requirements, local bottling requirements,
differential markups, quotas, packaging requirements and
marketing favouritism.
In the transportation industry we have different licensing
requirements in different provinces, size and weight
requirements, safety regulations, provincial transport board
discretionary powers and varying fuel and sales taxes. It has
been said that we have more barriers to trade internally than in
all of the European Union. That is something we have to work
very hard at to overcome.
In the area of government procurement we find explicit and
implicit preferences for local suppliers and requirements for
locally produced materials. With government procurement
expenditures exceeding $100 billion per year, approximately 20
per cent of our gross domestic product, this is by no means
insignificant.
In the area of labour mobility there are different licensing
requirements for professionals and tradepersons from province
to province. These barriers parade significant impediments to
people wishing to move to other provinces since skilled workers
have to meet additional licensing requirements.
Then there is the area of capital mobility where industrial
incentives, local investment funds and local tax incentives are
barriers.
(1130 )
Such barriers are often used for regional development and
create an inefficient allocation of financial resources. The cost
to our nation of these and other internal trade barriers is in the
neighbourhood of $6.5 billion per year, something that simply is
not acceptable and which we have to work on.
Interprovincial trade barriers have fragmented the Canadian
marketplace and hindered Canada's ability to compete
internationally. Furthermore, these barriers give competitive
advantages to large firms that can afford to comply with the
stringent rules imposed by government. At the same time they
hinder small businesses from reaching their market potential.
Unless we can improve competition within our own borders we
will never be able to reap the rewards of these expanded trade
opportunities.
Yesterday an interesting item was reported in the press. Garth
Whyte, director of national affairs at the Canadian Federation of
8402
Independent Business, says that he finds it ironic that Ottawa
and the provinces appeared to work so well together in Asia but
cannot agree on bringing down interprovincial trade barriers
back at home. This is something I have mentioned many times in
the past in this House and something that is really tying one arm
of our business people behind their backs in their ability to trade
internationally.
Mr. Whyte goes on to say that many members of the CFIB,
which represents 85,000 small and medium size businesses
across Canada, do not even dream of tackling foreign markets
because they cannot expand into next door provinces that would
allow them to grow big enough to compete abroad. It is one of
our Achilles' heels. It has been recognized in our foreign policy
review that we need to create a better international business
environment at home, giving small and medium size businesses
the opportunity to compete.
Most of our international trade is done by about 100
companies in Canada. There is much opportunity for small and
medium size businesses to compete but we have to start opening
up these trade problems and barriers at home to allow them to
get a bigger share of the domestic market so they can use that as
a chance to expand into the international field.
Our national team has some problems. We are not working
together as a team. That is the job of the coach, the manager of
the team on the other side. Team Canada has to work more
effectively at home so we can do a better job abroad.
I see some problems coming as well with the implementation
of the World Trade Organization and how it will affect us in
Canada. It is something we have to work to resolve. There will
be some disputes ahead that need to be settled by this
government. To get back to my hockey analogy, if we slow down
the game too much with too many penalties it does slow the
game down. In this case it is tariffs and interprovincial trade
barriers.
I believe that some of the problems we are facing are tariff
rate quotas, the allocation of them. We have some problems with
our supply management sector that have to be worked out. We
have some problems under the Western Grain Transportation
Act that will have to be resolved as a matter of the
implementation of the World Trade Organization, and the export
volume caps that are going to be imposed.
I would hope that government would work very closely with
industry and the provinces involved to make this a very easy
adjustment to be phased in so that eventually we can phase down
quotas, subsidies and tariffs all across the country and Canada
will be a free trading nation.
I want to quote a couple of examples, one of them being the
beef industry. We are getting representation from both sides of
that issue, which may be good or may be bad. One group is
saying that the tariff rate quotas are high enough and it does not
want them lifted. The other side of the industry is saying that
they are much too low and it needs better access. I can see some
problems coming. There will even be a market trade in tariff rate
quotas which I do not believe is necessarily a good thing.
We heard earlier today from the parliamentary secretary, the
critic for the Bloc and us. Everyone is looking at what the other
major team, Team U.S.A., is doing. It is trying to change the
rules of the game, adding many requirements and regulations as
a part of its implementation legislation. It is not the right
approach.
(1135)
I believe that the referee, in this case the World Trade
Organization, will look at that very closely when considering
the disputes brought forward before the World Trade
Organization. All of the relevant factors will be taken into
account and we will have the weight of 123 member countries
behind us when these rulings are made in favour of whatever
party.
I would welcome very much that we move quickly to the
implementation of the World Trade Organization, allow some of
these disputes that have been lingering in Canada for some time
such as the wheat dispute in western Canada. We all know about
the amount of cases taken to the dispute panel in the United
States with regard to steel. Those are two that should be moved
quickly to the World Trade Organization to be resolved and have
the weight of all of the member countries behind them.
What happens in the United States is of principal interest to
Canada because currently it accounts for about 75 per cent of
Canada's two way trade. We have a strong relationship with the
United States which has allowed Canada to become the seventh
largest trading nation in the world, even though we have a
population that only ranks 31st in the world.
In conclusion, we in this party support moving quickly to the
World Trade Organization, the full implementation of the
GATT. We think we can do quite well. We are going to have a
neutral referee with good eyesight, I hope. We are going to rely
on the things that we do best, skill and agility. We are not going
to resort to the tactics of some teams that tend to get the
enforcers in place. We think we can do quite well based on skill.
We can trade well with any country as long as we have a level
playing field.
Let us get on with the game, let us get on with implementing
this as quickly as we can and let Canada continue to take a
leadership role at the World Trade Organization as it needs to be
changed in future reforms. Let us at home continue to work hard,
be diligent to resolve some of the problems that we have in terms
of trade barriers. Let us be diligent at home with regard to
getting our debt and deficit under control because we know that
is one of the biggest costs in business. It is one of the reasons
that we do not compete well internationally. We have a very high
8403
tax rate. We think we can win the game if we look after that and
do very well in trade.
We believe that Team Canada can hold its own with any team
in the world, given the same rules.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate I
want to remind the House that pursuant to Standing Order 74,
following the first three members this morning, the next five
hours of debate will give members the opportunity of 20 minutes
maximum for speeches, subject to a 10 minute question or
comment period. Sometimes the practice is that members split
their time and I would hope that if members are going to be
splitting their time they would indicate that to the Chair.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, on the government side we will be
splitting the 20 minutes for the first five hours. There will be two
speakers for every 20 minutes.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in support of
Bill C-57, a bill to implement the Uruguay round of agreements
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
In excess of 120 countries are signatories to this agreement
and this bill will make Canada party to the most comprehensive
trade agreement in history.
This government was elected on the basis of a number of
factors. These same factors have kept the government in high
regard. We have the leader, we have the team and we have the
plan, the red book. The focus of the red book was all about job
creation and getting Canadians back to work, to give all
Canadians an opportunity to participate in the economy, to allow
all people the dignity that comes with having a job, and the pride
that comes with the ability to put bread and butter on one's own
table.
Since the election of our Prime Minister and the new
government over 300,000 new jobs have been created, most of
them being full time. In addition, business and consumer
confidence is way up. This is because the government has been
single minded about its promise to create jobs. The government,
together with all Canadians, is succeeding.
(1140)
Whether we are talking about the infrastructure program
which has resulted in the construction of roads, sewers,
sidewalks, health care facilities and other valuable projects, tens
of thousands of Canadians are now back at work as a direct result
of this program.
Whether we are talking about the review for science and
technology, whether we are talking about the Minister of Human
Resources Development and his review of the western
diversification program or his very important and necessary
review of the social safety net, in all of these areas we are
looking to see how best we can create a climate of economic
growth and jobs in this country.
We look to see how we can make Canada a better competitor
on the global marketplace. The success of our Minister for
International Trade and our Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food at the GATT is no exception to the government's
direction which is to create jobs and economic growth in
Canada.
The Uruguay round of GATT is an international agreement but
it has many significant, positive local impacts in Prince Albert,
Churchill River and all throughout Saskatchewan.
A significant industry that will be helped in Saskatchewan is
the agricultural machinery manufacturing sector. Tariffs on
these products will be eliminated internationally over a
five-year period. Western Canadians and Saskatchewan based
farm machinery manufacturers are particularly well positioned
to take advantage of this new economic reality as exports of our
large scale dry land farming technology is on the cutting edge
worldwide both in terms of environmental protection and
encouraging economic efficiency and effective production.
These industries are already very competitive because of a
close proximity to the American market and good access at the
present time. Therefore we can effectively take advantage of
these new market opportunities.
I believe in Saskatchewan farmers because they have been
through drought. At the same time they were subjected to low
commodity prices brought on by the devastating grain subsidy
war waged between the Americans and the European Union.
There is no doubt that Saskatchewan farmers are among the
most efficient producers of agricultural products in the world. A
reduction in subsidies on the international level is going to be
good news for our farmers because they are already so efficient.
One of our most significant changes produced by this
agreement is the end to this terribly damaging international
grain subsidy war between the Americans and European Union.
The volumes of European Union and American wheat exported
will be reduced by over 40 per cent over the next six years. This
will significantly improve the access and the market prospects
for Canadian farmers who grow grains and oilseeds.
This is good news for farmers. As the subsidies are reduced
the economic incentive for the growth of industries in the area of
processing of agricultural products in western Canada will also
increase. For too long we have in western Canada been hewers of
wood and drawers of water. For too long we have been shipping
our produce outside the province and outside the country to be
processed.
8404
We will see the day when we will achieve a much greater
economic diversity in Saskatchewan. We will see the day when
our farmers will not have to ship such a large percentage of their
agricultural products out of the province or out of the country
for processing. Saskatchewan people will do it right at home.
We will soon see secondary processing of agricultural
products in our province. We will be less dependent on the
uncertainties of international raw commodity prices for our
economic stability, diversity of economic activity and diversity
of markets. It is a sure formula for economic improvement and
stability.
The GATT also provides greater protection for the Canadian
farmers in that the United States will no longer be able to use
existing repressive trade laws and other regulations against
imports of Canadian wheat or other agricultural products.
This agreement is also good news for the red meat sector of
the Saskatchewan economy. There will be greater export
opportunities and greater likelihood of investment in the meat
processing industry. The mining sector will also benefit from
having more trade rules which will ensure continued and more
certain access to markets with respect to raw products. In
addition we will see more secondary processing of metals which
are now precluded from economic export opportunities by tariff
barriers in other countries.
(1145)
The GATT will also help the pulp sectors of our economies
again by the reduction of tariffs. This will enhance the viability
of the Canadian industry and enhance the economies of
Weyerhauser Canada Limited, the owners of an already
successful pulp and paper complex in the riding which I
represent. The production of wood products and wood will also
be enhanced for the same basic reasons.
The GATT is certainly a big help in terms of specific primary
production sectors that will benefit from the reduction in tariffs
and in terms of secondary or processed products.
One of the largest benefits to Canada from the GATT is the
fact that clearer trading rules have been established and more
effective measures for settling disputes have been put into place.
This is particularly important and beneficial to Canada which
has a mid-size economy. This will also ensure that the rule of
law determines trade disputes and not simply have trade
disputes resolved by who has the biggest economy or who can
throw their economic weight around on the international scene.
This is particularly helpful to third world economies that for
too long have been controlled by arbitrary economic interests
outside their borders and by the economies of industrialized
nations. This allows them access to fair treatment. When they
can rely on the rule of law as opposed to economic might they
will achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. This will allow
the economies of such third world countries to grow. When their
economies grow they will have greater economic wherewithal to
achieve and to purchase more goods and services from countries
like Canada.
This deal is good for all of Canada but it is good for western
Canada, Saskatchewan and Prince Albert-Churchill River.
Whether we are talking about opportunities of a more
substantial nature in the pulp and paper industry, the mining
sector, the agricultural sector, the wood products sector or any
manufacturing or value added industries or activities associated
with primary resource production, all these opportunities will
have a very positive impact on the good people of my riding.
The agreement will free up the truly entrepreneurial spirit
which already exists in fine measure in my riding and across the
country. Over time increased wealth and opportunity will result,
which is good for all our people.
Once again I congratulate the Minister for International Trade
and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for their efforts,
their vision and their success in doing their part to ensure the
government will live up to its commitment contained in the red
book to create jobs and bring dignity back to the lives of many
Canadians who are out of work through no fault of their own.
This is what we promised to do. This is what we are doing. This
is what we will continue to do with the help of all Canadians to
create jobs and economic opportunity and stability.
The GATT is a good agreement. The bill and consequent
amendments supporting the agreement are in the best interests
of all of Canada, and I speak in favour of it. Finally, I thank all
members from the opposition parties who supported this
excellent initiative and agreement.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments.
We have been dealing with the backtracking of grain for the
last year and we still have not seen any action on it by the
minister. How much time does the hon. member think we have to
resolve some of these issues? They will be very critical when we
come into the World Trade Organization. I would appreciate a
few comments on that.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the hon. member
with respect to backtracking, it has been made clear by the
minister of agriculture that this type of wasteful practice must
be dealt with.
The minister has already conducted extensive consultations
and they are still ongoing. I think there is general agreement
among all players across the country who see this type of
backtracking presently going on that the practice must stop. The
8405
consultation process must continue and will continue. Action
will be taken once the appropriate legislative changes are made.
(1150 )
It is certainly our desire to implement all changes necessary to
ensure that Canada complies with the international agreement
on tariffs and trade. We will take those steps. The minister of
agriculture is working very hard and will be coming up with a
solution to the particular issue.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we all realize that Canada is at its best during periods
of negotiation agreements outside the country.
The problems that I hear from many business people in
Canada seem to be interprovincial trade barriers along with high
taxation in Canada. What does the hon. member think about
interprovincial trade barriers?
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, certainly the existence of
interprovincial trade barriers is a very important issue that must
be dealt with. As the hon. member will be aware, the Minister of
Industry in conjunction with his provincial counterparts has
already taken steps to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. This
culminated in an agreement which was signed and agreed to
some time last summer.
This is also something that has been very important to many
other ministers in government, particularly the Minister of
Human Resources Development who for many years has
advocated much closer economic links among western
provinces to reduce interprovincial barriers.
This will take a continued effort to ensure these barriers are
removed in a sensible fashion. We have accomplished a lot
already; it is a start. We must continue to ensure that the types of
barriers which impede economic growth and negatively impact
our international competitiveness are reduced to make
companies all across this great country more competitive and
more able to fight it out on the world scale. This will in turn have
a great and positive economic impact all across the country.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-57, an act
respecting the World Trade Organization. This is an extension of
the Uruguay round agreement.
It is appropriate to consider why we need free trade. As the
history of the world has developed different countries have
created trade barriers. We have used all sorts of tariffs in our
country to protect local industry.
We support and protect quite often inefficient industries all
over the world. In other words when somebody can make
widgets a bit better in Africa then we can and should allow them
to do it. We may well do better some of the things we are strong
at such as the pulp and paper industry. This is why free trade is
good.
The important part for Canada is to realize that by freer trade
we are making the trading mechanism more efficient. We are
also increasing the actual trade in business that goes on in the
world. Canada will have a percentage share of a larger pot. We
will all be better off. Basically free trade is a win-win situation.
Another aspect in our economy and in the world is that
bigness in industry is going out of vogue. Large industries
throughout North America, Europe and other industrialized
countries are under constant pressure to downsize, to be smaller,
to be more effective and to be more efficient to deal with
specific niche markets in their own communities. These two
factors have a big role to play for Canada.
(1155 )
Canada has been very much involved in the resource based
sector. I think of iron mining, steel fabrication and forestry
products. All these industries, it would appear to me, are
somewhat in decline in the sense that we have to put more value
into our products. We have to add more value to them to be more
efficient and attract world trade. It is no longer good enough to
sell raw logs to China, for instance. We have to fabricate them in
our country.
Earlier my colleague talked about the grains industry. It is
important that we value add in the prairies before they go into
the final markets.
In addition Canada has been typified as a country that has very
specific trade alliances. Historically it started with the United
Kingdom. It has since switched in the last century primarily to
the United States. We talk about Canada being a world trader but
in reality our major trading partner, the United States, accounts
for something like 90 per cent of our trade. We are really not a
world trader; we are a North American trader.
It seems this has to stop. We have to look at the world. We
have to look at other markets. There are a number of reasons for
it. It could well be that the U.S. market will not be expanding as
rapidly as some other markets in southeast Asia, possibly
Europe or even eastern European countries. These could well be
the trading partners that will push Canada and its economy
toward prosperity.
The World Trade Organization gives Canada an open door, a
chance to do something different, a chance to trade differently.
As we approach the 21st century it is a good time to look at our
industrial policy and how it can change.
I talked about small and medium sized businesses. These
businesses are growing rapidly and can attract world markets.
They are the biomedical research industry, software
development, telecommunications and geomatic engineering.
These are some of the areas our country excels in. One of the
problems is
8406
that Canadians do not realize how good they are. They do not
realize that people in other countries think Canada is a world
leader in some of these areas.
The smoke stacks are growing idle all across North America.
The smoke stack economy is falling into decay. For instance, a
recent book by Nuala Beck states that in British Columbia more
people are engaged in communications and telecommunications
than in forestry. In Nova Scotia more people are engaged in
education than fishery, forestry and construction put together.
This should turn on a light. It should tell us that things are
changing in our own country.
How can the government assist and make Canada a world
trader? Small and medium sized business will be the engine of
the future fueled by brains. It will be driven by a new set of
entrepreneurs. These people will be the new employers. They
will be the wealth creators. Statistics Canada recently showed
that job growth was almost entirely related to companies with
fewer than 50 employees. Those with greater than 50 employees
were actually net job losers. When we talk about creating
jobs-and indeed our government is committed to it-we must
focus on where those jobs are being created. Clearly it is in the
small and medium sized business sector. Employment growth in
these companies averages 3 per cent to 10 per cent a year.
Canada has been historically a trading country. Thirty per cent
of our gross domestic product is related to trade and most of the
trade occurs with only a few companies. These are the
companies that are downsizing about which I spoke before.
Often they are the old industry companies.
We must create a new impetus to move the small and medium
sized businesses into the international trading environment.
Government can play a big role in this. Indeed the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade has some new ventures
going with our banking community which are located in most of
our international environments.
(1200)
They are studying what it takes for these small and medium
sized businesses to effectively access international trade. They
have aggressive training sessions and are looking at new,
intuitive ways to finance export trade for the small and medium
sized business sector. The Export Development Corporation and
the Canadian Commercial Corporation will be retooled and
redefined to provide funding and capital support for small and
medium sized businesses to access international markets.
We need to restructure our foreign missions. I had the
advantage of being in Beijing in early May and visiting our
embassy there. I was surprised at the attitude of some staff.
Their orientation seemed to be to continue on in the
international environment. They were going to move from
Beijing to Africa and were never coming home. Quite frankly I
took offence to their attitude toward Canada. This has to change.
These people have to relate more to how we are going to expand
trade for small and medium sized business rather than the IBMs
of this world.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and others
recently came back from the Team Canada mission. I would like
to say one more thing about my own mission. Incidentally China
is not a signatory of GATT but we feel that it will be in the near
future. While I was in Beijing I was able to make a contact for
some of the people in my riding. I note that the township of
Whitby has entered into an economic alliance with one of the
provinces of China. Eighty-five million people live in this
province. Some of the small and medium sized businesses in
Durham are now trading with these people. This has created
employment. This is happening now. This is not an intellectual
exercise.
Sometimes governments are the worst enemies of small and
medium sized businesses. For instance the small and medium
sized business community is assessed high taxation, both
commercial and business taxation, meddlesome provincial
standards and regulations, the dreaded GST and high levels of
personal and corporate taxation.
The deficit has hemmed us in. It has also created a crowding
out in the capital markets. The small and medium sized
entrepreneurs cannot get the capital they need to establish
themselves. Our best commitment to the small and medium
sized businesses will be to reduce deficits, to reduce demand on
borrowing to allow capital markets to form and be available to
small and medium sized businesses.
The government has done some things. They involve the
Small Businesses Loans Act, venture capital programs, but there
is much more we can do.
I am concerned that the small and medium sized sectors do not
have adequate capital markets. We need to create an over the
counter small market for small and medium sized businesses,
one that is easy to access. It should not be like the TSE which
requires five years of financial statements and a fairly
substantial track record nor like the Vancouver Stock Exchange
of which a lot of the investors of this country are a little afraid.
What we need is a regulatory process that will allow Mrs.
Smith at the corner who would rather invest in GICs to invest in
those small and medium sized businesses.
In conclusion I would like to reiterate that it is small and
medium sized business, together with the GATT negotiations
and Bill C-57, that will provide Canada a new future as it moves
into the 21st century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am not trying to surprise
anybody but the Chair cannot recognize anyone unless the
member is standing.
8407
[Translation]
I simply want hon. members to realize that the Chair cannot
recognize anyone unless the member is standing in his place.
Perhaps I should explain this in a little more detail. The Chair
agrees that the list is a tool that may be useful and it is useful
from time to time.
[English]
If someone else was seeking the floor I would not hesitate. As
your Speaker, entrusted with the protection of all members'
privileges and rights in this Chamber, I would not hesitate to
recognize that member who would be rising or standing in his or
her place.
(1205)
It is not to surprise anyone. I am not trying to sneak up on
anyone or cause anyone any anxiety. But the debate has to follow
certain processes, and that one is integral to our business here in
the Chamber.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
apologize. Put it down to my lack of experience. I thought you
were going to call me at the beginning. I promise I will be there
next time.
Today it is my privilege to speak in the debate on third reading
of the bill to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization or GATT.
This debate follows the defeat of two motions to amend the
bill that were presented by two of my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues, the hon. member for Laval East and the hon.
member for Longueuil.
The purpose of the first motion, standing in the name of the
hon. member for Laval East, was to establish a process for
consultation with the provinces when implementation of the
agreement relates to a matter within provincial jurisdiction, any
matter relating to trade dispute resolution or any economic
matter of major international significance. The motion also
intended to make prior agreement of the provinces essential
before authorizing any change to the agreement in respect of
allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas and before establishing
or implementing policies for selecting trade partners to receive
access to the Canadian market.
According to the same motion, with respect to subsidized
exports, the minister shall have regard at all times to actions
taken in the relevant areas by foreign competitors. Finally, in
respect of agricultural products imported beyond established
tariff quotas at a time of shortage of such product in domestic
markets, the minister shall take certain measures to ensure that
such products are not imported at prices lower than those
prevailing in domestic markets.
The second motion, presented by the hon. member for
Longueuil, reflected the spirit of transparency and
accountability by which we should all be guided today. We
hoped to amend the bill to make it incumbent on the Minister of
International Trade to lay each year before the House of
Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified
by the committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers matters relating to external affairs. Such matters
would concern the implementation of the agreement in Canada,
trade obligations and commitments undertaken at the
international level by trading partners of major importance to
Canada, especially the United States, and finally, the impact of
the agreement on Canadian workers and companies.
Unfortunately for the provinces, for the public, for taxpayers
and for democracy, both motions were rejected by the Liberal
government's silent majority. The bill would have been
improved as a result of these two amendments. However, we can
conclude from this exercise, whether we are talking about these
motions or all the others, that the federal government is not at all
in the mood for a real debate on the question, a debate in all
serenity, a consultation that would enhance the bill before the
House today. All the government wants is to see that this
agreement, whose bulk is as impressive as its consequences for
our economy, is bulldozed through the House at record speed.
(1210)
Some people here have a good memory and will remember
that parliamentary indiscretion, that breach of good government
practices. We will remember how this very fundamental
legislation was passed in dreadful conditions. If this bill seems
to be an incidental measure, a legislative adjustment to the
agreement signed by Canada in Marrakesh on April 15, 1994,
the details of that agreement will have impacts which are yet
largely unknown.
Perhaps even specialists in the field are still not aware of
those impacts. The simple fact that they will not consult with the
people who experience the market economy, that they will not
listen to their representatives, that they will not listen to
common sense and that they only deal in figures and
macroeconomic data shows that the government is intentionally
eliminating this information and, in so doing, could very well
worsen the financial crisis in this country. The government is
not assuming its responsibilities by passing this Bill C-57 so
quickly.
My colleagues have explained it clearly. Quebec is in favour
of free trade and international trade agreements. As the hon.
member for Rosemont so rightly said, this is even a very elegant
way of confirming the sovereignty of signatory countries while
ensuring their association in this globalization of markets and
economies. A sovereign Quebec would easily be recognized by
8408
the World Trade Organization according to section XVI(5)c) of
the GATT. This would lead to a definite trade association with
all other member countries, including Canada.
I am not an expert in this very complex area of international
trade. However, I do know that it is advantageous for all nations
of the world to agree in order to set a level playing field for the
relations between their respective markets, in a spirit of mutual
respect. As Gilles Vigneault once said, the complexity of
international trade is seven times greater than the mystery of the
Holy Trinity. Ordinary people have a very hard time
understanding the issue. That is why I feel I should explain the
impact of the implementation of the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization with a very concrete and
down-to-earth example, the marketing of chicken.
Canada signed both the Free Trade Agreement with the United
States and the North American Free Trade Agreement, the
NAFTA. Article 706 of the Free Trade Agreement says that if
Canada maintains or introduces quantitative import restrictions
on chicken products, it will have to allow import quotas
equivalent to no less than 7.5 per cent of the previous year's
domestic production. The provisions of NAFTA are much the
same.
For 1994, the import quota for chicken is 46,488,000
kilograms. This is the maximum nationwide, and within this
limit an importer can apply for chicken import permits. This
quota seems quite sufficient for this year, since import permits
granted up to October 25 represented only 76 per cent of the total
quota.
Uruguay Round negotiations have replaced the quota system
by a tariff system for agricultural products. This was a way to
apply Article XI of GATT. Under this agreement, Canada
submitted to GATT, on December 15, 1993, the list of tariffs
which will replace the present quotas. According to this
schedule, imports of chicken over and above the quotas accepted
under free trade agreements will be allowed, but subject to
duties amounting to 280 per cent of their value, a tariff high
enough to protect Canada and Quebec producers for a number of
years.
(1215)
According to the agreement these tariffs must come down by
at least 15 per cent over the next six years. It is, therefore, a new
protection system. The previous quota system which restricted
imports to 7.5 per cent of domestic production is now replaced
by a tariff system.
This new formula still recognizes the notion of quotas, but
any import above the quota will be subject to duties amounting
to 280 per cent of the value. It is quite likely that this new tariff
quota system will be in place by January.
Chicken will remain on the list of controlled imports
established under the Export and Import Permits Act, so that all
imports will require a permit. The way our domestic market
protection system is evolving, in a paradoxical free trade
context, is causing a certain amount of friction with our great
neighbour. The United States claim that, by imposing new tariffs
on bilateral trade, Canada directly contravenes its obligations
under NAFTA. A strict interpretation of article 302 of this
agreement shows that Canada must abolish all tariffs aimed at
the United States by the end of 1998, and that no new tariff can
be introduced by either partner. If that were the case, chicken
production would no longer be protected.
For its part, Canada is of the opinion that GATT must prevail
over NAFTA. Indeed, article 309 of NAFTA recognizes
Canada's right to cite article XI of the GATT or any measures
that might replace it, to protect its agricultural industry. This
debate is still to come.
As far as the chicken market is concerned, we must recognize
that there is no drastic change. Whereas we only had quotas per
se, under this legislation we will now have quotas plus very
heavy tariffs. What concerns our parliamentary wing, excuse the
pun, are the provisions in case of shortages.
We do know that the demand for chicken products is
increasing steadily. Be it live, eviscerated, cut up, boneless or
processed chicken, these products are increasingly diversified
and in high demand. While the quota may look quite high,
certain sectors, such as the restaurant business, require products
that can appear to be in short supply. In that regard, Bill C-57
leaves it entirely up to the minister to determine access and set
the tariff accordingly for products considered in short supply.
Like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Bloc
Quebecois would have preferred that the minister be required to
take action in case of shortage to ensure that the price of
imported products is not lower that the one asked on the national
market. Ministerial discretion remains a case-by-case approach
that leaves the door open to favouritism, if not to circumventing
standard, equal and equitable rules. Not to mention the zoning
this bill does, a zoning that confirms all the disparity that exists
in this beautiful country. This country is united only in its
opposition to Quebec.
This creates some concern. How can we protect adequately
our farming industry, all the while ensuring continuous supply
by diversifying sufficiently this industry's production? That is
the question a good many traders who depend on processed
products are asking themselves.
The implementation of this legislation will no doubt give us a
chance to get a very good idea of what is at stake over the next
few months. As stated in the preamble of the bill, free, fair and
open trade is essential for the future of this country's economy
and for securing its competitiveness and long-term sustainable
development.
8409
Trade expansion contributes to job creation, achieves higher
standards of living, offers greater choices for consumers and
strengthens the economic union of nations.
(1220)
A multilateral trading system of mutually agreed upon market
access conditions and non-discriminatory trade rules applicable
to all, is the cornerstone of any modern trade policy that is open
onto the world.
The trade agreements resulting from the multilateral trade
talks of the Uruguay Round will create an international trade
environment much more open and stable for Canadian
agriculture, resources, manufacturing, services, technology and
investments. The World Trade Organization (WTO) will pave
the way for integrated management of the new strengthened
multilateral trade system, particularly with regard to trade
dispute settlement.
As GATT's successor, the WTO will be a forum for future
trade talks on the continued liberalization of global trade and the
establishment of new international trade regulations. In this
regard, we must bring Canadian legislation into line. That is
why this bill, which amends some 31 laws now in effect, will
implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization throughout Canada.
The future of peoples around the world depends on their
economic agreements. That is why we are not worried at all
about the inescapable links between the people of
Newfoundland and those in Vancouver, between the people of
Quebec City and those in Los Angeles, between the people of
Halifax and those in Miami. The identity, the authenticity, the
necessary differences that expand our horizons are not barriers
but bridges between men and women of all ages and cultures.
Recognizing our differences does not mean withdrawing into
ourselves but opening up to others. The legendary League of
Nations is still an avenue which we must seek without denying
others or ourselves. It is in this sense that international trade
agreements are a concrete way of recognizing national
sovereignty. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec will
be part of this international reality. A sovereign Quebec will be
part of the global market.
In summary, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill. Even
though our amendments were rejected, even though we have
some reservations, we know that the future of a people depends
on its reciprocal agreements. We agree with the basic principles
behind this bill. The implementation of the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization is necessary and
desirable.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member who just spoke. I
understand his concern for the adjustment that is required for
the industries to make the jump to free trade.
The question I have for the member is which would he prefer,
the phase down of tariffs over a 10 year period through NAFTA
as he talked about earlier, or the system that is currently in place
with the GATT where there is a tariff that will be reduced over a
period of time? Which would be better for the supply
management sector in his province that he is referring to? I
would like an answer to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this
question. I am not a specialist in the field and besides you must
understand that the application to this field is fairly recent. It is
rather difficult for me to say exactly what is good or what should
be subject to quotas or to tariffs.
Last week in my riding, the issue of the chicken trade came
up.
(1225)
A businessman came to see me about it. Here again it is rather
difficult to say exactly what is good or what might be good in the
future, tariffs or quotas. For now, I think that the businessman of
course always tries to pay the lowest price for chicken and
naturally he does not limit himself to our producers very often. I
think that a balance must be found and only time will tell.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague's comments, particularly
with regard to supply management.
I would like to follow up a bit more. In his presentation the
member expressed concern with the implementation of GATT
and concerns about which free trade agreement, GATT, NAFTA
or CUSTA, really will apply. Canada has one idea in that regard
and the United States has another. Certainly these are very
important issues.
I would like to ask another question. If Quebec is successful in
separating over this next year or so, how would the hon. member
rate the harm and damage to the supply managed sector in
Quebec because of separation? For example, in dairy they will
certainly lose half of their market virtually overnight because
right now Quebec has almost 50 per cent of the market with only
25 per cent of the population. Certainly the rest of Canada would
not be open to taking this oversupply.
I would like the member to comment on the damage that will
be done due to separation as compared to his concerns in regard
to the implementation of GATT and the other agreements.
8410
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. When we talk about sovereignty, we must understand
that if Canada were completely self-sufficient, maybe it could
force its way or dictate to Quebec, but I think that Canada, like
Quebec, is a country that needs outside markets and I am sure
that Quebec will do very well in this big system of international
trade which will be increasingly governed by such treaties.
To give the hon. member a better answer, I might suggest that
he refer to what my colleague from Rosemont said in the debate
on November 1. Here is an excerpt:
It is largely a matter of international law, the broadening and reinforcement
of which the minister praised today. Article XXVI(5)(c) of the GATT
agreement provides that a new state carved out of a country which is already a
member of GATT automatically becomes a member on becoming a sovereign
state, provided it accepts the conditions and requirements applicable to the
parent state. It is quite simple and clear. A C.D. Howe Institute study says that
most Canadian experts fully recognize that fact.
Quite simply, Canada will respect and work with Quebec just
as it works with all other sovereign countries.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this matter a
little bit further. I think it is very important that Quebec dairy
farmers and Quebec farmers involved in supply management
really consider this issue. It is extremely important.
(1230 )
I would like to ask the member to pursue this a little further.
First Quebec is not a signatory to GATT or the free trade
agreements. These agreements would not apply if Quebec were
to separate. This is the first thing to consider.
Second, international law has never had a precedent set that
would be along the line of Quebec voluntary separation. There is
no precedent under international law.
I would like this member to explain how he can go straight
faced to the Quebec dairy farmers and say we are not going to
have a massive problem in terms of having markets available
and with regard to prices falling virtually overnight to world
prices, not to the artificially high prices set under supply
management in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I think I may have been
misunderstood earlier. The hon. member should refer to the
November 1 issue of Hansard. He will see that the member for
Rosemont provided a very good answer to that question. This
has to do with Article XVI(5)(c) of the GATT, which I could
read, but what I said earlier is that a new state carved out of a
country which is already a member of GATT need only apply to
automatically become a member.
Also, you have to understand that trade is a matter of give and
take. The government should not use scare tactics and have
people believe that the milk which we sell to English Canada
will suddenly no longer be bought by those provinces.
Let us not forget too that western provinces sell 600 to 800
million dollars worth of beef to Quebec. I do not think that the
beef industry in English Canada exists merely to help Quebec.
That beef is raised because there are profits to be made. And why
do they sell it in Quebec rather than elsewhere? Because they
have the advantage of selling it right here in Quebec, where their
clientele is located.
It will be a matter of give and take. If you refuse to buy
Quebec's milk, you might have to consider selling your beef
elsewhere.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member makes a
comparison between supply managed industry, which is an
industry that has an artificially high price developed, and the
beef industry, he is fooling no one. Clearly beef trades at world
prices everywhere including inside Canada. Quebec has become
a much smaller part of the Canadian beef market. Trying to
compare the consequences of supply management with that of
beef is totally trying to fool someone and it is not going to work
here.
I would like the member to respond to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to fool anybody.
This is simply the reality. This is business. When you do
business, whether it is milk, beef or other products, it is a matter
of give and take. You negotiate and you strike a deal: I buy your
product and you buy mine.
As regards Quebec's sovereignty, if it is so bad for Quebecers,
then why is English Canada about to spend hundreds of
millions? Already, the government is preparing to air 13
television broadcasts in Quebec, to show the benefits related to
being part of Canada.
When I was 14, I was apprised of the sale of our neighbour's
business. The buyer asked the following questions: ``Do you
want to sell your business?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do you have debts?''
``No.'' ``Are you incurring a deficit or making a profit?'' ``I
make a profit.'' ``How much do you want?'' The scenario will be
the same for Canada. If Canada has a debt of $508 billion and a
deficit of $40 billion, this will have to be taken into account. You
can be sure that if it were not good for Canada to keep Quebec, it
would let us go much more easily than it is doing now.
8411
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-57, an
act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization.
The World Trade Organization which Canada is joining will
only work if there is a political will on the part of every nation to
make it work. The Americans complain about loss of
sovereignty through the GATT-tough bananas. We talked
about that in this House during the free trade agreement and we
did not get very much sympathy for Canada.
Whenever you join a world organization there are certain
things to which you have to agree and as a responsible nation
you are expected to fulfil. Therefore, every nation that joins the
World Trade Organization had better know where it is going.
Just because we are having a debate in this House, just
because we pass this bill does not mean that there are not going
to be problems. There are also going to be many positive sides to
the agreement.
The hon. member for Malpeque delivered an excellent speech
on this a few days ago. He talked about the business pressures
that are being brought to bear on the American Congress. Today
where there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic
president, it probably becomes even more underlined than it was
a few months ago.
A business paper presented to the American Congress simply
stated: ``The only way that international bodies such as the
World Trade Organization gain strength is to take power from
their member countries. This is precisely what the World Trade
Organization does. The World Trade Organization is a
stealth-like power grab by international bureaucrats of
unprecedented proportions. It diminishes U.S. sovereignty. It
shifts control to a world trade system from developed nations to
small and undeveloped countries. Most significant, it creates an
international autocracy that overlaps United States democratic
institutions''. That is the kind of pressure that is being brought
to bear on the American Congress by its business community.
Let us turn for a moment to what the Senate bill and the House
of Representatives bill actually says to implement this
legislation on the World Trade Organization.
Section 102(a)(1) states the following: ``United States law to
prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay round
agreements nor the application of any provision to any person or
circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United
States shall have effect''. How can the United States under that
condition sign the World Trade Organization agreement? It is
saying it is not going to abide by it before it even accepts it.
Going on to Mickey Kantor who is the trade representative for
the United States on the World Trade Organization, he said:
``Our sovereignty is more protected under this new agreement
than it has been in the 47 years of the old GATT.
(1240 )
Section 102 of the implementing legislation is clear that when
there is any conflict between either the Uruguay round
agreement or any regulation thereunder and U.S. law, the U.S.
law applies in every case''.
Those words are very familiar. I remember very clearly, as
other members will, having heard those same comments in this
same House of Commons when we were debating the
Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, that U.S. law would prevail.
Those are some of the concerns that we must have in
discussing this legislation. I want to come back to my initial
statement that the World Trade Organization will not work
unless there is a political will on the part of every nation that
signs that agreement to make it work.
I have here an example of an American law that was passed in
1930 right after the great recession started. It dealt with
products going to the United States. As an example, I will cite
Eddy Match Co. If the match pack had the name of a restaurant
on it, the made in Canada logo had to come right underneath the
restaurant name. If it had the name of another restaurant,
suppose it was a chain of restaurants, the made in Canada logo
had to come immediately after that in the same size lettering.
Everything had to be in the same size lettering.
When this did not happen, the trucks were stopped at the
American border. The trucks were stopped at the American
border 62 years later in 1992 because the made in Canada logo
was not in the proper place on the package of matches to suit
American customs. They were looking for irritants, for ways to
keep Canadian products out of the United States. If this is the
way they are going to operate, then how can the world receive
fair treatment under these kinds of policies?
One of the ways for Canada to go in the World Trade
Organization is to follow up on the excellent example set by the
Prime Minister, by nine premiers and by about 375 business
people, to bombard China in a very friendly way based on our
relations over many decades. The visit to Hong Kong and to
other Asian countries was a phenomenal success. The same
process can be used in other areas of the world. We should be
targeting those countries that are developing a large middle
class. That is what there is in many Asian countries today.
There is a large middle class developing there that is going to
be able to do business with other countries of the world.
Business people could go there and talk to them and make
8412
agreements. Selling our technology is a big route. Canada has
laid some excellent bases on R and D and technology over the
years.
Private industry in Canada has one of the poorest records of
the big seven nations in the areas of participating in research and
development. In order to make this World Trade Organization a
success Canadian businesses are going to have to set more aside
for R and D.
(1245 )
If they do not, we will be in trouble in competition down the
road. If they do, we will be able to compete with anybody at the
industrial level. The sale of two Candu reactors to China is one
great example of what can be done.
Here is a developing middle class. Here is a country that is
moving ahead very rapidly. It is going to need all kinds of
energy. There is an opportunity there for us in the future for
more sales. Radioisotopes for medical purposes, there is a whole
market opening up around the world, particularly in Asian
countries.
There will have to be a lot of emphasis put on eastern Europe.
The economies there are in very bad shape. It is to the benefit of
the rest of the world to try to help those countries get back on
their feet so that they too become very worthwhile trading
partners.
I want to conclude by repeating an article from the Globe and
Mail dated January 9, 1992. I quote:
As tariffs continue to fall under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement,
Canadian exporters complain that the United States is increasingly turning to
the marking rules as a trade barrier to Canadian goods.
``It's a significant irritant'', said Jim Moore, vice-president for policy at
the Canadian Exporters' Association. ``The U.S. is the only country with
comprehensive country-of-origin markings.''
Those things have to go if we are going to deal with one
another on a fair basis. The supply management system, which
is very important to Canadian agriculture, will have to be
protected in some way by this government. We have high tariffs
now. We had better be ready for some strong negotiations down
the road because we want those things to remain in place.
Farming is an industry in this country the same as any other. It
has to be managed properly and it has to have the support of the
Government of Canada.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to address the legislation before us, Bill
C-57, an act which implements the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization.
As a member of the House of Commons standing committee
which studied this bill, I know how important this proposed
legislation will be for Canadian business. The government is
very aware of the need to provide a positive environment for
business in Canada. We know that it is essential for business to
have all the benefits possible to compete domestically and in the
global marketplace.
Domestically the government has worked to provide an
environment where more jobs will be created and business can
excel. We have implemented the infrastructure program with the
provinces, directly creating 90,000 jobs over two years. We are
also outlining an agenda to create a better environment for small
business, including working capital for growth, programs to
help small businesses expand and create new jobs, the single
business registration number to cut paperwork, Canada business
centres for one-stop shopping for government services, and the
technology incubator, a very important item.
With the co-operation of the provinces we have reached the
first ever federal-provincial agreement on eliminating internal
trade barriers, an area where much more work needs to be done.
The Canadian economy created over 300,000 jobs in the first
nine months of this year, most of them full time.
As an example, an upturn in the domestic and export sales in
the automobile industry resulted in an announcement at General
Motors that it would be postponing the planned phasedown of
the foundry operations previously scheduled for December in
my riding. The foundry is a major contributor to the
employment in St. Catharines and this was very positive news.
We also know the importance of assisting Canadian business
internationally. Canada belongs to a continually expanding
international market. Making those markets accessible to
Canadian companies is vital.
(1250)
Economically, trade must be one of our top priorities. This is
because one in five jobs in Canada is generated by exports. In
fact among G-7 countries Canada is second only to Germany in
dependence on international trade. Last year during the election
this government stated in its red book that trade policy and trade
relations are crucially important to the achievement of Canada's
economic and social goals.
We noted the importance the GATT has had to Canada in
improving access to international markets. We made it clear that
we supported a resolution to the stalled Uruguay round talks.
The red book also dealt with the problem of definition of
subsidies and dumping and that Canada has been subject to trade
harassment due to the lack of definitions in trade agreements.
Dispute resolutions are often lengthy and costly and of no
value in enhancing trade or relations between countries. I was a
member of the special joint committee reviewing Canadian
foreign policy which released its report a few weeks ago. The
8413
report points out the need for creating and promoting an
international orientation for Canadian business. This report also
states that the World Trade Organization is crucial to the
development of a rules based international trade system and
should be targeted as a priority organization for Canadian
involvement. There is no doubt in my mind that if the world is
able to have a rules based trading system Canadians will be able
to succeed on the international scene.
The Uruguay round took some seven years to be completed
with some 123 countries involved. The agreement reached
includes national commitments to lower tariff and non-tariff
barriers, thorough reform of trade rules and the extension of the
world trading system to cover the areas in services and
intellectual property.
The World Trade Organization will implement the
achievements of the Uruguay round. It will be a permanent
effective institution to oversee world trade policy and settle
disputes between nations on a multilateral basis. This is the
beginning of a new trade era.
In his speech in the House on October 27, the Minister for
International Trade said that the World Trade Organization will
finally put international trade on a firm institutional footing by
becoming the third pillar of world commerce and financial
structure along with the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
The WTO is a major step forward in multilateral trade. It will
assist Canadian exporters in obtaining fair access to foreign
markets. This in turn creates jobs and provides a higher standard
of living for Canadians.
Increased openness in markets is also good news for
consumers, resulting in greater choices and decreased costs for
quality goods and quality services.
Canada must be a leader in helping global organizations to
mature. Last week I had the opportunity to tour a fish farm in my
area which wants to export fish to Japan. The Uruguay round
achieved tariff reductions with Japan of some 70 per cent. We
know that historically the export of fish has been subject to
harassment from countervail actions. Under the new deal
Canadian exporters can expect more secure access to markets
for export of fish and hopefully lumber, pork and magnesium,
all of which have been controversial in the past.
Another company in my area would like to sell prefabricated
housing units to foreign markets. This agreement provides
major gains for Canadian exporters of wood and wood products.
Negotiators representing our most important offshore markets
agreed to phase in tariff cuts on wood and wood products
averaging 45 to 50 per cent over five years. In the area of
prefabricated housing, tariffs will fall in the European Union,
Korea and in Japan.
Recently, as mentioned many times earlier, the federal
government led a group of Canadian business people, provincial
premiers and others on a trade promotion trip which resulted in
great success and gives an outstanding example of Team
Canada. Canadian business exporters and potential exporters
learned that working together pays dividends.
(1255 )
I conclude by reinforcing once again that with rules based
thinking and rules based agreements Canada will not only be
better for it by its exports, but Canada can be a leader in having
the WTO be good for large developed countries and also for the
smaller, less developed countries as they too try to develop their
areas.
The time has come for us to be an example to others by
proceeding to implement GATT in the manner it was intended.
The WTO is scheduled to supersede GATT in 1995. This is a
major step for the international community and Canada is
pleased to be part of it. As a member of this government and the
committee that studied this bill with my colleagues across the
way, I look forward to the implementation of the World Trade
Organization in the very near future.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments of the member for St. Catharines. Having
worked with the member on the foreign policy review, I know
that he supports free trade and the move to the World Trade
Organization.
I would like to ask this question: Does he also recognize, and I
believe he does, there is considerable work that needs to be done
at home to improve our domestic environment for business in
terms of our internal trade barriers and how that is limiting our
ability to trade and to give our small and medium size businesses
an opportunity to develop so they can also become part of the
international trade environment?
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Peace
River. Yes, it was great to be able to work together with all of our
colleagues on foreign affairs and trade. The member is
absolutely right. We have a lot of work to do in Canada to not
only be able to work with our exporters and the new exporters
who would like to export. We must be able to provide them with
communication networks much faster and much easier.
Likewise, I have had a committee in my area studying the
various areas of the U.S. and Canada along the border. There are
many free trade zones in the U.S. which export to Canada and
other areas of the world.
We will have to look at, and I think the government is
proceeding along this way, new ways to make it easier for our
manufacturers and our businesses to be on the same level
playing field especially with the U.S. as we try to export, not
only to the U.S. but to many other countries around the world. It
is very important that we work with these organizations
immediately.
8414
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again it gives
me pleasure to speak to Bill C-57, the enabling legislation to
implement Canada's participation in the WTO. To introduce
more or less some of the ideas I would like to put forward, the
big thing we all have to remember in the developing world and
in a country like Canada is that globalization is an important
part of what is happening in the environment in which we now
have to do business.
We all have to recognize that the European Union is growing,
is becoming more of an entity, more of a functioning trade part
of the world. It was interesting this morning in talking to the
President of the Czech Republic to hear him saying that they are
an associate member of the EU, how they hope to become a
member and by the turn of the century how that will be a very
important part of their trade in the world.
As well of course we have the Asia-Pacific and the
developing tigers with all of the power and strength in trade
there. Then we have the Americas as the third major trading
unit. As Canadians we are making a terrible mistake if we do not
realize that we must become major players in the OAS and in all
that means to the developing of Canadian business and Canadian
jobs.
We have had a number of people tell us about some of the
negatives, some of the concerns that we will not be able to
compete, that our big brother to the south will gobble us up. I do
not see that as being a fear. In fact I see the WTO as opening up
things so that we now are dealing with a much more level
playing field, as the hon. member across the way mentioned.
That playing field will become even more level and we will do
better when competing with the U.S. and with other countries.
(1300)
We must become very aggressive. We have an inferiority
complex and have not always been as aggressive as we could be
in the world of international trade. We should assure the people
who have concerns that there is a review mechanism and that the
dispute settlement mechanism will work much better than
anything we have had up to this point. It will be an opportunity
to review the issues that affect the steel industry, the beef
industry and those industries that have some concerns. We
should reassure them by telling them they will have the ability to
question the areas of their greatest concerns.
According to this legislation and similar legislation being
passed by other governments of the world, WTO members
agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers.
This is pretty good stuff and is the kind of thing we need going
into the 21st century. It is the kind of forward looking legislation
that is going to create jobs and provide Canadians with a way of
life to which we have grown used. It is the only way we are going
to maintain that way of life.
Before I get into the main part of my speech, I would like to
quote briefly from a chapter on international trade in the
Canadian foreign affairs review, of which I and other members
were a part. The chapter called for building shared prosperity. I
put emphasis on the word prosperity. We are threatened with
losing our position, our status and our quality of life and this is a
way to turn things around.
I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will pay particular
attention to this chapter and this section. One of the statements
in the chapter reads as follows: ``The wealth, prosperity and
well-being of all Canadians depend in a decisive fashion on
international trade, on foreign investment and on financial
arrangements that facilitate or hinder trade and investment''.
We should hang on that for a minute and think about what it
means to us going into the 21st century.
It goes on to state: ``In the next century the key to Canada's
involvement in the global economy will be its ability to build
mutually rewarding trade and investment links with the new
trading giants who will be our neighbours to the east, the south
and to the west''. We must look far beyond our borders for trade.
It is one of the most important areas for our economy and
therefore legislation that deals with it clearly affects the lives of
every citizen.
I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that I am a free trader and
that in my previous life, before I was elected to this position, I
was a businessman. I believe that the WTO presents us with a
singular opportunity to gain access to many new markets.
As already mentioned by several of my esteemed colleagues
in the House, some new areas which have been added under the
WTO over the old GATT agreement are services, trade related
investment and intellectual property. These new areas are vitally
important to our future prosperity since trade and services alone
account for approximately one-quarter of the total $4 trillion in
global trade. What better country to provide these services
around the world, banking services, all kinds of services like
that, than a country like Canada.
As we know, services are the largest sector of the economies
of the industrialized world and in many countries one of the
fastest growing. As a result of these new rules, the OECD has
estimated an increase in world trade of at least $360 billion
annually to the world economy. In addition the gains for Canada
are estimated at $3 billion annually when the agreement is fully
phased in. This is not chicken feed. Beyond this the extension of
a rules based, multilateral system through the creation of the
8415
WTO will also expand Canada's ability to ensure that the largest
world traders do not use their economic power to unilaterally
pressure Canada in any trade disputes which develop.
(1305)
This new dispute resolution mechanism will also increase
Canada's bargaining power in our trade relationship with the
U.S. While this trade relationship is a good one and has allowed
Canada to become the seventh largest trading nation even
though we are only 31st in population size, it is not without its
problems. I am certain the WTO will help us to manage this
relationship over the coming decade and will promote
prosperity within both countries.
I will now switch to the more general theme of trade and its
benefits for Canada. Over 20 per cent of Canadian workers
depend on exports for their jobs. That is over two million jobs.
In addition over 30 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product
comes from exports. Last year this amounted to around $181
billion in goods and services.
Therefore it is vital that Canada aggressively promote itself
throughout the world. If we do not face up to the trend of
globalization, then we are all going to be in big trouble. A
country like Canada cannot afford to be protectionist in the
mid-1990s. Therefore it is essential that the House support Bill
C-57. We just do not have the people to do anything but.
The WTO offers Canadian businesses a great opportunity to
continue building sales abroad. While we also have to open our
markets to others I do not see this as a fundamental problem.
While there will be an adjustment period for certain industries
Canadian businesses can compete with anyone in the world. Let
us not have that inferiority complex that I spoke about earlier.
All we want is a fair and open international system with a
level playing field. The WTO goes a long way in accomplishing
this. When it comes into effect next year the WTO agreement
will commit some 120 countries to gradually reducing trade
barriers. This will have the long term effect of increasing world
trade dramatically.
As we know any increase in world trade means more exports
for Canadian business and more jobs for Canadian workers, over
11,000 for every $1 billion in new exports. This means greater
prosperity for Canadian families.
If we take the figures of the Department of Finance which it
claims are conservative-I hate using that word-the WTO will
lead to an estimated annual gain of $3 billion. This would
translate into roughly 30,000 new jobs per year for this
agreement alone. The WTO will also help us to diversify our
trade patterns which are currently dominated by the United
States. It buys some 80 per cent of our total exports.
One of the most exciting growth markets for new Canadian
trade under the WTO will be the Asia-Pacific region which
within five years could represent 40 per cent of the total global
consumption of exports. To date we have had some success.
Japan for instance is already the second biggest trade partner
and purchases more Canadian exports than the U.K., Germany
and France combined.
In addition China has the fastest growing economy in the
world. With its huge population it is predicted that by early in
the next century China could be the second largest economy in
the world. At the present time there are still some problems with
China's participation in the WTO but it is not a matter of will
China join, it is a matter of when will it join.
We would like to see greater trade with Latin America. I have
mentioned the OAS and the importance of Canada taking a
leadership role there. While we would like to see the expansion
of NAFTA which has already given Canada unprecedented and
preferential access to Mexico's growing market of 85 million
consumers, until such time as the Americas also decide that an
expanded NAFTA is in its interest the WTO will certainly be an
in for Canadian businesses. This is not to say that it is
unimportant for the Canadian government to push for NAFTA
accession. It simply means that the WTO will help in the
meantime.
(1310)
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, under the WTO a new
dispute settlement body will police international trade disputes
and ensure that legitimate complaints about unfair trade
practices get resolved according to a clearly established
schedule. This dispute mechanism will likely be much more
effective than the one we have under NAFTA. This should help
us considerably and help to allay the fears of some of our
industries.
In my work as critic for foreign affairs for the Reform Party, I
have heard time and again about the importance of such a rules
based multilateral system. While the WTO does not solve all of
the problems which exist over international trade, it does take a
giant step in the right direction.
Hopefully in the years to come Canada will play a leadership
role in promoting the strengthening of this rules based
multilateral system by promoting the WTO to effectively deal
with the questions of trade remedies and anti-dumping actions.
Another area which the WTO will have to tackle is the whole
problem of agricultural export subsidies. While the WTO does
good work to promote Canadian interests, clearly a great deal
remains to be done to straighten out the mess of agricultural
subsidies that have developed over the years. The Reform Party
would like to see the government take a constructive and
8416
aggressive role in this respect and the WTO is a vehicle through
which it can happen.
I would now like to speak to the related topic of internal trade
barriers. I heard the previous speaker talk about that a little bit.
It is incredibly ironic that we are making good progress in
eliminating our international barriers and yet we are stuck with
the barriers within Canada.
Under the current system Canada's domestic market is
seriously split by provincial trade barriers. This not only affects
our competitiveness internationally but it reduces our collective
prosperity at home. Provincial impediments to free trade add
around $6.5 billion annually to the cost of doing business. This
is absolutely unacceptable. It amounts to approximately $1,000
per family.
While we have taken some steps forward, nobody has really
attacked the problem as we feel it should be attacked. We would
press the federal government to push harder on the provinces to
eliminate these trade barriers because this is going to slow down
our ability to take advantage of the WTO.
If we could eliminate barriers to trade at home it would
increase the efficiency of Canadian businesses and also expand
their ability to trade internationally. What better way is there to
improve our position in the international marketplace? This is
especially true for small and medium sized businesses which are
suffering under the current system.
To conclude, Canada must aggressively promote free trade
throughout the world. This means eliminating provincial trade
barriers, becoming a leader in the WTO, becoming a leader in
the OAS and fulfilling our international commitments.
The first goal can be accomplished by working with the
provinces. The second one involves working with other
countries to ensure that the new World Trade Organization
operates in a way that is genuinely universal and multilateral,
with the widest possible membership consistent with generally
accepted standards.
It is obvious that support for the WTO and the involvement is
there. We can see the prosperity it will bring for all of us. It is
just a matter of providing information to people about all of the
positives that this new trade agreement will provide for us.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to commend my colleague from Red Deer for his excellent
presentation. I was glad that he was able to bring out some of the
flaws in NAFTA that have tried to be corrected in the GATT and
now the World Trade Organization.
(1315 )
There has to be a lot of training and facilitating of people
across Canada in various businesses as far as becoming
exporters is concerned. They not only have to know the rules but
have to understand what has to be done to export to various areas
of the world where the member has travelled, I am sure.
To be able to market these goods, exporters will need to work
together perhaps in a Team Canada approach across the country.
As far as implementing the WTO is concerned, it needs to be
done in a very short term to gain the advantages the hon. member
mentioned.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. As I mentioned, information is the key factor. The
big problem has been that it is easy to trade with the U.S.
Everybody knows the language there is English and the customs
are somewhat the same; it is pretty easy to go down and trade
there. When things get tight in U.S. trade we start looking
internationally and our companies, particularly the big ones,
start dealing internationally. The biggest problem has been that
a lot of smaller and middle sized companies, once the U.S.
market returns, go right back to the U.S. market and forget about
their international interests.
I do not want to encourage government to set up more
bureaucracy to try to obtain business out of the country. That is
not the answer. The answer is to work with business through
seminars and joint ventures to get people out there and get them
the contacts. Government provides the contacts, much as Team
Canada did. It opens the door and then those guys go for it. We
have to get them through the door. That is all government should
be doing.
It is a matter of encouragement and of helping with the
technical aspects but not direct involvement or government
agencies doing the work for business. That will never work. It
will just become another drain on society.
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Red
Deer for his response. Another area I would like the member to
comment on is the importance of being able to export in areas
where their language is not either of the two languages of our
country.
He started to mention that there was work to be done and it
takes time. I think he mentioned that it requires training and
facilitating to allow exporters to export and that we should not
only export south of the border once times get better. He
mentioned that areas throughout the world needed to be
explored and because of the world being so large we had to take
things on a priority basis to facilitate businesses and let them do
the work of manufacturing and exporting into those countries.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, again the member for St.
Catharines raises important questions. I am sure we could work
very well together in terms of what kinds of things we need to do
to get business promoted.
We have a lot of people of various ethnic origins in the
country and we must utilize them. In dealing with the
Asia-Pacific we have a million people of Asian descent whom
we can
8417
utilize in the process and who can be an important part of what
we do.
Again to go back to globalization, the EU has the advantage of
being a more sophisticated market. It basically thinks nothing of
knowing three or four languages and understanding much more
broadly the cultures of other people. English stands one in fairly
good stead in most European countries except for the eastern
bloc. That will help us deal in that market.
English is pretty important in the Asia-Pacific but Mandarin
is more important. That is where we can utilize Canadians of
that descent to help us.
(1320 )
Let us face it. In the Americas there are 34 countries in the
OAS and only one of them uses French. That happens to be
Haiti. All the rest use Spanish or English. We must recognize the
importance of those languages and the importance of using
South American Canadians in that regard. It is extremely
important. We need through foreign affairs to put a lot more
effort into developing and utilizing Canadian citizens of those
origins.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to speak this afternoon on the issue of the World Trade
Organization.
The Uruguay round of multilateral trade talks under the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT was intended
to bring world trade law into the 21st century. Negotiators
agreed that this could be done by taking three key steps.
First, after painstaking negotiations the means were found to
resolve longstanding quarrels over the existing trade of goods
including agricultural products.
A second momentous measure decided upon was the creation
of a World Trade Organization. The WTO will be a permanent,
effective institution to oversee world trade policy and federal
disputes between nations on a multilateral basis.
Third, trade services which account for roughly a quarter of
$4 trillion in global trade were brought under the purview of
global trade law for the first time.
Along with these three key steps, Uruguay round negotiators
agreed on more than 25 separate measures which together
amount to the most significant package of new trade rules the
world has seen since the GATT was created in 1947. These
measures include strengthened trade rules, particularly on
subsidies and countervailing duties, and a more effective system
of dispute management.
New areas have also been brought into the ambit of world
trade rules including intellectual property, trade related
investments and services. Most of the 120 countries
participating in the round have made significant commitments
to lower or eliminate tariffs and other barriers to trade.
Throughout the 26,000 page text of the Final Act of the GATT
and all its principles, proposals and provisions there is one key
theme: multilateralism. It is because the Uruguay round puts
world trade law firmly on a multilateral footing that the global
marketplace will never be the same. The WTO will put a brake
on the tendency of governments to use unilateral trade actions to
harass trade from competing countries. That means Canada will
be less vulnerable to efforts by larger competing economies to
use their size and power to interfere with Canadian exports. It is
difficult to overstate how important an achievement that is for
Canada where one in five jobs is created by exports.
I would like to talk about the second step. The World Trade
Organization or WTO will implement the achievements of the
Uruguay round negotiations. By replacing the GATT secretariat
the WTO will co-ordinate the functioning of its three new
components: the goods council, the services council and the
intellectual property council. Dispute resolutions will be
accelerated with a strict time limit established for the
conclusion of the process once it is under way. Members also
make a commitment to avoid using unilateral retaliation.
It is important to note that the WTO administered dispute
settlement process will prevent a single member from blocking
the adoption of reports of trade dispute panels or on appeal of
appellate bodies. This institutional provision is the cornerstone
to ensure that the new multilateralism functions smoothly.
As one of the most trade dependent countries in the world, the
Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations was vitally
important to Canada in terms of expanded access to markets and
stronger trade rules and institutions. While the negotiation
achievement is of historic proportions, the task remains to
translate the outcome into reality.
Momentum must be maintained to complete the negotiations
in areas such as financial services, telecommunications and
government procurement. Clearly these are areas of growing
importance to world economic development. We must all strive
to realize the greatest possible degree of rules based
liberalization. The potential benefits to both producers and
consumers should not be denied.
There is a question of accession of new members to the WTO,
particularly and pre-eminently China, Taiwan and Russia.
Canada is on the record as supporting in principle their
accession to the WTO. Broader membership will be positive for
the rules based trading system and will offer significant benefits
to the countries concerned.
8418
(1325)
However accession is not a right. Countries acceding to the
GATT WTO must be prepared to commit to a transparent market
oriented economy, to embrace the basic principles of the
multilateral trade system and to provide real improvements in
market access. On the other hand we must not impose
requirements for acceding countries that are more onerous than
those which apply to members.
There is the question of the new trade issues: trade and the
environment, labour standards, investment and competition
policy. These are questions all trading nations are grappling
with. They are complex and do not lend themselves to simple
policy prescriptions. However we feel that certain principles
must be kept in mind as they are defined, debated and
developed.
First, Canada does not support the use of trade sanctions to
impose standards of conduct. Quite apart from the question of
fairness in a world that is becoming increasingly interdependent
where the one common denominator is adherence to a market
based system, the costs of authorizing any one country to use its
economic muscle to impose its own standards are too high for
all.
Second, we must guard against the possibility that new rules
can become a vehicle for new protectionism unless they reflect a
broad international consensus. In this respect we are sensitive to
the concerns of countries, developing and developed alike, that
fear the new rules may be aimed at directing barriers to their
exports.
Third, Canada wants to ensure that the rules of the
multilateral trading system are complementary to and not
contrary to the attainment of broader societal objectives. In the
case of trade and the environment we are committed to the goal
of sustainable development. With respect to trade and labour
standards we endorse the need for compliance with
internationally recognized labour standards.
There is an ongoing process to determine how labour and
environmental issues will be handled by the WTO. At this time
Canada is working with its trade partners on these very
important matters.
We feel that international bodies such as the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development and the International
Labour Organization should accelerate their studies of these
issues and use their findings to help guide discussion in the new
WTO. We are concerned that without that kind of background
work the World Trade Organization could get bogged down
before it has had a chance to establish its institutional footing.
The Uruguay round of negotiations will have a significant
impact on Erie riding in such areas as agriculture and steel. The
world trade talks under the GATT produced a common set of
rules governing world trade in agriculture. Canada's key
objective in talks dealing with trade in agriculture included
improved access to markets, increased disciplines on subsidies
that distort world trade, more predictable and secure border
arrangements to preserve Canada's farm supply management
programs, and assurance that health and sanitary regulations
will not be used as disguised barriers to trade.
Agricultural trade proved to be one of the most difficult issues
tackled in the seven years of negotiation under the round. At the
end of the day Canada had met its goals. As a result of the round
overall tariffs on agricultural goods will fall by 36 per cent and
no less than 15 per cent for any specific product in six equal
annual steps between 1995 and 2001.
In addition, all GATT countries will open their markets to
imports by specific minimum amounts starting next year in
1995, with the level increasing by 2001. Tariffs in place of
quotas will also provide the tools to maintain an effective supply
management system for Canada's poultry, egg and dairy
producers. Producers of red meat, pork and horticultural
products will also benefit from the new market opportunities in
Asia and elsewhere.
Lower volumes of subsidized exports are expected to lead
over the medium term to higher prices for grains and other
agricultural commodities, spurring demand in Canada and other
markets for agricultural machinery and equipment.
Canada's manufacturers shipped farm equipment worth some
$865 million in 1992. Exports totalled $467 million. More than
90 per cent of these exports went to the United States. The
United States also accounts for the largest share of Canada's
imported farm equipment.
The Canadian industry produces four-wheel drive tractors,
combine harvesters, seeding and tillage equipment, hay
handling and harvesting equipment, grain handling and storage
equipment. This technology is at the leading edge in production
of cereal grains from large farms under the dry land prairie
farming conditions. Substantial opportunities for export growth
exist in Australia, Mexico, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and China.
The John Deere plant in my riding, a leading manufacturer of
agriculture equipment, I am sure would welcome these
increased trade opportunities.
(1330)
In recent years the Canadian industry has been in the forefront
of several technological achievements. Among these is the
development of a large capacity four-wheel drive and
bidirectional tractors and axial flow combines. Such advances
will receive worldwide protection for the first time under the
new trade related aspects of intellectual property rights under
the agreement reached in the round.
Over five years beginning January 1 next year, Canada and its
major trading partners including the European Union, Japan and
the United States, along with industrialized countries such as
8419
Finland, Korea, Norway and Sweden, will phase out all tariff
and non-tariff barriers for key products in this sector.
Full line firms producing major items such as tractors and
combines will benefit as tariffs fall to zero in major markets.
Short line firms making a variety of farm implements and
attachments such as cultivators, chisel ploughs, seeders and
fertilizer distributors will see tariffs fall to zero as well. Both
full line and short line manufacturers will enjoy improved
access to offshore suppliers of key parts components.
All this levels the playing field for Canadian farm equipment
makers. Before the agreement was signed Canada and the United
States both extended duty free access to agricultural machinery
from all most favoured nation countries under the GATT. Many
of these countries maintain tariff and non-tariff barriers against
imported farm equipment. Within five years under the Uruguay
round agreement these barriers will be history.
Located in my riding is a Stelco plant which is one of the 15
companies operating in six provinces that make up Canada's
primary steel industry. My riding also has a productive nickel
refinery, Inco, nickel also being a very essential component part
in the steel industry.
In 1993 steel industry sales exceeded $8.6 billion. The
industry employs about 33,000 Canadians. Another 18,000
Canadians work in pipe, tube, wire and wire products industries,
transforming steel into other finished products.
As a result of the Uruguay round most developed countries
including the European Union and Japan, along with Korea, will
phase out all tariffs on steel and steel products over 10 years.
In conclusion, the establishment of the World Trade
Organization is an expression of new realities in the economic
and political relationships among nations. The trading system
no longer operates as the exclusive domain of a few. As the
Uruguay round negotiations unfolded over a seven year period
we have witnessed an evolution in the roles of key players.
I spoke about the success of the Uruguay round and how it will
positively impact on my riding. In a very real way our work has
only just begun. With the all important creation of the World
Trade Organization we have taken the first step. Now we must
begin the effort of investing this institution with the
commitment necessary to take us into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the speech the hon. member for Erie
just made and I was surprised to learn that the John Deere tractor
I own was probably built in his riding. I would also like to
remind my hon. colleague from Erie that, in 1988, Quebecers
showed the most support for international trade, and especially
for NAFTA.
In fact, in more than 62 out of 75 ridings, the vast majority of
Quebecers elected the Conservative Party which had made
NAFTA the cornerstone of its 1988 election campaign. Of
course, where agricultural products are concerned, Quebecers
are extremely well positioned in supply-managed sectors, like
poultry, milk and egg production. To replace supply
management, the GATT agreement provides for what is
commonly called tariffs that can reach up to 360 per cent in
some cases.
(1335)
As the previous speaker pointed out, these tariffs will be in
place for the next six years, and this six-year period is crucial if
our farmers are to adjust and take their place on the market.
Of course, in case of disputes, we will be able to present our
case to the panel. This panel is fine, but among our
representatives we need to have good negotiators who can stand
tall instead of crawling in front of our opponents and saying:
``We have already lost'', even before beginning to defend the
interests of the people they represent.
I recall three particular incidents where I have not been
impressed at all by the way our representatives have stood up for
us. First, there was the softwood lumber dispute, then the hog
dispute and most recently the durham wheat business, which
especially affected Western Canada.
I am concerned about the guarantee and I would like the
previous speaker, my colleague from Erie, to reassure Quebec
farmers that the people who will represent them before these
panels will be up to our expectations.
[English]
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my
hon. friend. I agree with him there is no question that our
negotiators have to be firm and strong. I disagree with him on
those issues he has mentioned, the softwood industry, the pork
industry and most recently the grain situations.
There were panels, there were challenges. In all those cases it
was found that Canada's position was the correct position.
Certainly the agriculture minister in negotiating in those
situations with the Americans-Americans are tough
negotiators-has negotiated well for our country. Looking at
those situations as an example, as a precedent, I have no concern
that the interests of Quebec, the rest of the country will be well
taken care of by our Canadian negotiators. We will negotiate
strongly and firmly for the benefit of our agricultural industry.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I was curious to hear the Liberal member for Erie make some
comments about the steel industry and the steel producers in his
8420
constituency in light of the fact that he is supporting Bill C-57
before the House today.
He made the argument that the steel industry is quite
important in his constituency and that this trade agreement will
benefit it. This flies in the face of what the Canadian Steel
Producers Association has told us in this House of Commons. It
says this bill requires some significant amendments to ensure
protection of the steel producers and the producers association
in Canada with trade with the Americans.
The Americans have a very strong legislative arm which
protects their steel producers. When Canada produces and sells
steel to the American economy and to the American business it
is subject to some very rigorous and tight regulations. As a
matter of fact, there have been a number of occasions when the
Americans have levied anti-dumping charges against Canadian
steel producers.
Bill C-57 does not address the concerns of the Canadian Steel
Producers Association. Yet the member for Erie and the member
from the Bloc stood in this House saying they are going to
support this bill. They are saying it is going to be good for the
steel industry. To the member for Erie, why is he saying this is a
bill he is going to support, that it is good for the steel industry in
Canada, when the Canadian Steel Producers Association says
that it is not good for Canadian producers of steel? It has asked
for a number of amendments which the New Democratic Party
has put forward in this House to assist it in having a fair level
playing field with the Americans.
(1340)
Mr. Member, why are you supporting this bill? Why are you
saying it is going to help Canadians to-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I regret that the
question and comment period is relatively short when members
are splitting their time. I would remind everyone to direct their
interventions through the chair.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Uruguay round,
most developed countries including the European Union, Japan
and Korea will phase out all tariffs on steel and steel products
over 10 years.
I have a quote from the Canadian Steel Producers Association
that says the Canadian steel industry will gain from the Uruguay
round if, as expected, this further liberalization of trade results
in improved economic growth and hence improved steel
demand.
With respect to the new provisions governing subsidies, the
Canadian Steel Producers Association said it was easier to take
action against subsidies by one foreign country which caused
serious harm to our export interest in a third country.
Canada's steel makers agree. Some benefit will flow from the
procedural improvements negotiated respecting the
administration of anti-dumping procedures. According to the
Canadian Steel Producers Association the changes will bring
U.S. practices slightly more in line with Canada's and reduce
slightly the capacity of the United States to use anti-dumping
actions for trade harassment.
The Canadian steel makers also welcome the WTO, saying
that it will have a greater flexibility in its operations than the old
GATT council which required unanimity to act. The assurance
of access to markets secured by the elimination of existing trade
barriers-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I regret time has
clearly lapsed on this round.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's role in the world can be
strengthened by developing a secure multilateral context for
countries like ours within a framework of international law and
the forum of the United Nations.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, for his work in promoting the
implementation of the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization through Bill C-57.
The creation of the WTO is largely the result of a joint
initiative by Canada and the European Union. The WTO is a
means of securing a common institutional framework for the
conduct of international trade relations.
The Uruguay round signed in April is the largest, most
comprehensive trade negotiation ever undertaken. Under the
Uruguay round agreement, the impact on the world economy is
dramatic.
The final package contains over 30 agreements, capped by
agreements to create the world trade organization, featuring a
much strengthened framework for the settlement of trade
disputes.
The Uruguay round will ease bilateral trade tensions and
strengthen GATT rules to make the playing field more level,
transparent and predictable. The round will pave the way to
integrating developing and centrally planned economies such as
China, our sixth largest trading partner.
Under the Uruguay round agreement, access to markets for
industrial products will be substantially improved, with most
tariffs being cut by at least one third. Overall, Canadian gains
from trade by the year 2002 are estimated at about $2.5 billion
U.S. The gain in net income directly and indirectly from the
round is about $4 billion U.S.
Canada will benefit enormously from ratification of the
Uruguay round deal and by our participation in the World Trade
Organization through the passage of Bill C-57.
The WTO provides a trading environment that is more free
and more fair. It will benefit our traditional agricultural and
8421
resource sectors and provide more open markets for value added
and high technology manufactured goods.
This will not only help Canada adapt to the forces of
globalization but will enable us to seize its advantages through
the development of a dynamic industrial structure. The Uruguay
round will enhance very significantly our export prospects in the
Asia Pacific, my area of responsibility and the most dynamic in
the world economy.
The round will provide a tremendous boost to Canadian
exports to the Pacific in agricultural and resource products. It
will also reinforce new opportunities in telecommunications
and other major infrastructure areas where the needs in Asia are
massive and Canadian ability to compete is strong.
(1345 )
Through its supervision of the agreements made and its
management, the WTO will be a great equalizer in international
trade for smaller, medium sized and developing countries.
Countries like Canada will be less vulnerable to the efforts of
more powerful economies to interfere with Canadian exports.
Of special interest to Canada in light of recent experience is
the speeding up of the process and establishment of time limits,
the effort to make it more difficult to block implementation of a
panel report and the commitment to avoid unilateral retaliation.
Bill C-57 will increase clarity and discipline in the use of
multilateral trade rules. For the first time there will be an appeal
process and binding effect which is an improvement over the
current GATT system. It is important that Bill C-57 be enacted
as soon as possible so as to give full legislative power to the
minister as he pursues his important initiatives in the
international arena for the benefit of all Canadians.
Canada's economic strength now and in the future will depend
on our willingness to stay on the leading edge of freer trade,
taking an active role in forging new relationships and building
new structures to extend the reach of a rules-based international
order.
The Prime Minister said in Hong Kong on our recent very
successful trip to Asia: ``We will be examples for the world and
we will move into the 21st century, proud, competitive and
generous''. This legislation will ensure the success of the World
Trade Organization and will allow Canada to remain one of the
best countries in the world.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a few comments to the hon. member.
I am not sure that the hon. member or the members of the
government realize that the matter of protecting the viability of
the Canadian sugar industry is at stake with this bill. It has been
brought to my attention in the past week that if the U.S. actions
continue to go unchallenged, which are in this bill, by the
Canadian government Canadian companies will close many
operations of the sugar industry.
In my area there is a possibility the Lantic Sugar Refinery will
close January 1, 1995 if this bill goes unchallenged in the
manner in which it is presented at this time.
I have been told that little did the government know that the
U.S. took the opportunity to severely restrict our already limited
ability to export to the American market when it tabled its
market access commitments. This deals with the Canadian sugar
industry.
Can the hon. member tell me what the minister is going to do
about this? We only have about a month to go. It can mean 1,700
jobs in the sugar industry if we allow the bill to be passed in the
manner in which it is written.
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the impact on the
sugar industry.
If we look at the overall impact of the bill on Canada there is
no doubt in my mind the Uruguay round and the establishment of
the world trade organization is a step forward to allow freer
access to markets around the world.
I would like to take the question under advisement and ask the
trade minister and the department to look at the complaint and
arrange for a proper reply for the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from the Liberal Party who just spoke presented
several arguments to the effect that the WTO is supposed to be
very beneficial to Canada's foreign trade.
(1350)
He said that it will benefit farmers, the export of our natural
resources, high-tech industries, and also our processing
industries. Can it really be beneficial across the board?
He is known to be straightforward, and rightly so. Could he
take a few seconds, a few minutes of his time to tell us in which
areas it would be less beneficial?
[English]
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that
some industries in Canada are less competitive and some are
more competitive.
The most important part of this agreement is that it
establishes a level playing field for all countries. There is a
well-defined dispute settlement process. No longer can the
unilateral actions of strong economies interfere with the exports
of medium sized powers in the world. It is a great step forward.
8422
As Canadians we have to be very competitive in using this
opportunity before we can benefit from this agreement. There
is no other way out. In order to remain economically strong and
in order to keep all of our integrity and all the values we need
to be able to compete in the global market. If we can have a
free hand to compete in the world, if subsidies are eliminated
from most of the other countries, even in the farming industry
we should be able to compete proudly and freely.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on debate, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I recognize the
member on debate, are there any further questions or comments
to the secretary of state?
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as an
official member of the joint committee on international trade, I
had the opportunity to work at some length on the new direction
to give Canada so that Quebec and Canada perform better on the
international market. We examined new policies in various
sectors, and the way Canada should behave with respect to
international matters.
Today, we are focusing on Bill C-57 which confirms the
World Trade Organization. As a member of this committee and
as a member of this House for more that ten years now, I must
say first off that I agree with the bill as a whole. This is why I am
going to talk instead about the role lawmakers should play in
Quebec and Canada with respect to this opening of markets we
will have to face in the years to come.
It is the responsibility of lawmakers to co-operate in order to
create and maintain a just and fair society. To create a just and
fair society, we must ensure that individual Quebecers and
Canadians have reasons to be hopeful, at least those who are
willing to take the chance to be creative, to invest, and to be
successful in this society. While being fair, we must make sure
that people can hope to succeed without having to give before
they receive.
Obviously, we must deal with the economy, which is in a sorry
state right now. Almost 12 per cent of the population is
unemployed, another 12 per cent is on welfare, which means
that, depending on the region, 22, 23 or 24 per cent of the people
who are fit to work cannot find a job. It is a great pity. We must
deal with this appalling economic problem.
We must also see to it that the appropriate legislation is passed
to improve the economic situation.
(1355)
The economic problem, as I just said, is high unemployment,
a skilled labour force unable to find jobs, a labour force which
does not have the qualifications that the available jobs require, a
low job-creation rate and deficiencies in manpower training.
We can see that every day. There are major problems.
Productivity is stagnating. We know that it is not improving
and we must find ways to increase productivity if we want to be
competitive on international markets. Investments are also
stagnating. We need a formula which will bring investors and for
that, as I said earlier, we need a business environment
favourable to investment.
For the last several years, investors have been reluctant to
come here for several reasons, but in particular because of the
debt and inadequate manpower. Then, there are the markets.
This is a plus for investors, but we have to find new ways to
stimulate investment.
At the present time, we depend on other countries for a large
number of manufactured goods. For example, much
manufacturing is done here but by American companies and we
also import many products. We are dependent on imports and on
manufactured goods that are produced here but not under our
control.
We have to find intelligent solutions to promote job creation
and to improve manpower training. We are still struggling with
this question of co-operation, or absence of, between the
governments of Canada and Quebec regarding manpower
training. This is a terrible handicap for Quebec not to be able to
control training and to prepare its labour force to serve
adequately its businesses, and therefore improve productivity.
This stubbornness on the part of the federal government,
which insists on national standards for manpower training, is
not only regrettable, it is a disgrace. We know full well that
several countries which are doing well, most notably Germany
and Japan, have had regionalized manpower training for several
years, something which is geared to local industry and also
extends to scientific training.
Regions should be able to set their own standards to train
people in areas where a given region has the most economic
activity. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for Question Period. I shall
continue afterwards. Thank you.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you can resume after Question
Period.
[English]
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8422
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
recently announced a five-part action plan that will help to
accelerate
8423
Environment Canada's greening initiatives and save money.
One of the most significant changes resulting from this plan is
the introduction of the green procurement policy to help ensure
environmentally responsible purchasing. The procurement
policy directs employees to use ecologo products or those that
exceed the environmental choice program and to use products
that have been recycled or can be recycled.
This policy also calls for the avoidance of products containing
resources from environmentally sensitive areas. Personnel will
also avoid acquiring over-packaged products and, wherever
feasible, require suppliers to take back excess packaging for
reuse and recycling.
In addition to saving the environment and money, the
initiative helps to develop Canadian environmental industries,
thereby creating jobs, stimulating the economy and improving
our international competitiveness.
Many departments have already taken impressive steps in this
direction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government refuses to consider requests from the
business community and citizens' groups for a reduction in
unemployment insurance premiums. High premium rates slow
down job creation in addition to putting an additional burden on
the taxpayer, who is always paying more for fewer services.
How can the government keep turning a deaf ear to taxpayers'
demands, when it knows that the current rate, according to the
Minister of Finance, is killing jobs?
The minister should establish a genuine job creation strategy
instead of trotting out the pretty speeches the Liberal
government uses to impress the public.
The Liberal government should find a more imaginative
solution than squeezing Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to
service the debt.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1989 a royal commission was formed to inquire into
the area of new reproductive technology. This commission spent
four years on public hearings, research, opinion surveys, and
consultation with a wide variety of groups.
In 1993 the commission published its two volume, 1,300 page
report, making 293 recommendations. While it has been over a
year since the release of this report, the government's belated
response has been a promise for further discussion.
What is required now is action, not more discussion. That is
why with the assistance from six of the commission's
recommendations I have submitted a private member's motion
on the issue of foetal sex testing for non-medical reasons.
I urge this government to follow my example and act upon the
recommendations of the committee in order to prevent further
commercialization of reproductive technology.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to pay tribute to Alexa
McDonough who last week stepped down as leader of the Nova
Scotia New Democratic Party. Alexa's many achievements in
Nova Scotia remind us of the way our party has been a path
breaking party in welcoming women to positions of leadership.
In 1932 Agnes Macphail, who in 1921 was the first woman to
be elected to Parliament, joined the CCF. In 1951, Thérèse
Casgrain was elected to lead the CCF in Quebec and even though
she did not win a seat she became the first woman to lead a
provincial party in Canada.
One year after her election as party leader in 1980, Alexa
herself became the first woman to lead a party in a legislative
assembly. My colleague, the leader of the NDP, the hon. member
for Yukon, presently completed this string of firsts by becoming
the first woman to win the leadership of a federal party in 1989.
We thank Alexa for 14 years of dedication to fighting the good
fight for social justice in Canada, a fight that needs to be fought
the world over in this era of unrestrained globalization. We
acknowledge the debt we all owe to the distinguished and
committed Canadian women who have given leadership to our
movement and made Canadian history at the same time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Premier of Quebec spoke to
members of the Canadian Club in Toronto.
In his speech, the indépendantiste leader warned his audience
against the consequences of a win for the ``no'' side in the next
referendum. He said that if Quebecers voted no to his plan for
Quebec's independence, they would continue to be dissatisfied
with their status in Canada, and for English Canadians, this
8424
would be as bad as an endless session in the dentist's chair,
according to the a daily newspaper Le Droit.
He stated that a win for the ``no'' side in the referendum
would be useless and that all Canada's constitutional problems
would remain, while a win for the ``yes'' side would rid Canada
of the Quebec problem for good.
I think that this week, the Premier of Quebec missed a golden
opportunity to explain what his sovereignty plan is all about.
Scare tactics are certainly not the way to sell his plan to the rest
of Canada. It is important for Quebecers to know exactly-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.) Mr. Speaker,
did you know that the University of Winnipeg Wesmen Women's
basketball team is making history?
Last Friday evening the team equalled the North American
record for the longest winning streak in collegiate sports with its
88th consecutive victory. The team has equalled the record set
by the 1970-74 University of California-Los Angeles Bruins
men's team.
(1405 )
These young women are truly unstoppable. This Friday
evening they may well break the North American record when
they face the University of Manitoba Bisons.
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing all of the players the
best of luck on the court on Friday night. To everyone, the
players and the coach, Tom Kendall, we wish a new North
American record.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
Prime Minister will be attending the Paris Summit on AIDS on
December 1. This summit is a French initiative in co-operation
with the WHO. Forty-two countries representing 70 per cent of
the world population will make a joint affirmation of their
commitment to fight HIV/AIDS.
The Paris declaration will reflect the principles and values
already adopted by the United Nations for HIV/AIDS and will
add a new component for nations to respond to urgent needs with
practical and lasting measures. This declaration would be
operational by January 1996.
AIDS is a public health issue and political world leaders have
made the fight against this disease a priority. Special attention
will be given to reducing the vulnerability of women to AIDS to
the important role of associations of persons living with AIDS
and to strengthening national and international mechanisms for
human rights and ethics as they relate to AIDS.
I am proud to say that Canada has gained an international
reputation as a leader in all three areas.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after all of four
months of work, Mr. Gary Anstey, the former executive
assistant to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, received
$31,000 in severance pay. Mr. Ansley was rehired last month at
an annual salary of $93,000, but was not required to pay back his
allowance, despite the fact he had voluntarily left his job.
By way of explanation, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
is trying to mollify the public's legitimate outrage by arguing
that such practice is not inconsistent with Treasury Board
guidelines.
So, what does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans think of
the rules established by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, which deny benefits to unemployed workers who
have voluntarily quit their jobs? This double standard policy is
only good for undermining the credibility of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and this government as a whole, for
perpetuating such a practice, which is even more unacceptable
in the context of a public finances crisis.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I congratulate one of the stars in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap. That star is Silver Star mountain resort,
recently ranked as the best family ski resort by
Fodor's Insider
Guide to Ski Resorts.
Silver Star mountain resort, a 45-minute drive from the
growing north Okanagan city of Vernon, also was honoured by
Ski Canada Magazine in November as having the best
on-mountain village in western Canada, ahead of Whistler
Mountain village, ranked number two.
In 1993 some 263,000 people came to ski Silver Star,
generating an estimated $50 million boost to the area's
economy. The mountain has an annual snowfall of over 18 feet,
providing consistent snow for its 72 ski runs served by 8 lifts.
From water skiing in summer to snow skiing in winter, the
beautiful riding of Okanagan-Shuswap truly is becoming a
mecca for outdoor sports enthusiasts.
8425
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House that the Government
of Canada has recently signed with the James Bay Cree and the
Province of Quebec a significant tripartite agreement regarding
policing services. It provides for current resources to double,
thereby enabling the police service to better protect the
members of the nine Cree communities covered by this
agreement.
This First Nation administered police service will be better
suited and more sensitive to the culture and the needs of the Cree
people. This three-year agreement faithfully reflects the major
thrusts of the First Nations Policing Policy. This policy provides
for costs to be shared by the Government of Canada and the
provincial government on a 52-48 basis.
I am sure, hon. colleagues, that you will want to join me in
congratulating the Solicitor General of Canada, the Government
of Quebec and the James Bay Cree on the signing of such a major
agreement.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it did not take very long to find out how deep Reform
Party thinking goes.
For over a year we have been listening to the Reform Party
rant about cuts to government spending. Ranting is exactly what
it has been because yesterday its finance critic admitted it has
absolutely no idea what affect its $25 billion in cuts will have on
Canadians or on the economy. Is this what the Reform Party
considers responsible finance policy?
Presto, it is gone and who cares what happens? Who cares if it
sends the economy spiralling into a depression?
The Reform Party may not care, but I am pleased that this
Liberal government cares about Canadians and cares about the
economy. The Reform Party has had over a year to look at
government spending and this is the best it can do. Shame.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Team Canada have
shown the way to Canada's success.
The recent signing of billions of dollars worth of trade with
China and Indonesia will ensure growth for Canada's economy.
Business in the years to come will depend on gaining access to
the ever increasing markets of the Pacific rim.
I ask my government to initiate a Team Canada approach to
establish new economic ties with other nations. I encourage the
organization of a trade mission in the Team Canada style to open
up these tremendously important new markets to the goods and
services that we produce in Bramalea-Gore-Malton and
indeed in every riding in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after a year in power, the Liberal government has soon
made a name for itself with the many cases of patronage and
political appointments based on favoritism. Everyone
remembers that the Liberals promised in the red book to reform
the parliamentary system on a non-partisan basis once they
were in power.
Instead of initiating such a reform, the Liberal government
has just continued the same abuses as the previous government.
This flagrant lack of ethics and of openness, despite the
Liberals' own commitments, is fraught with consequences. It
shows beyond any doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada, far
from renewing the Canadian parliamentary system, is
shamelessly immersed in the same arrogant attitude and even
beating the records for patronage which they strongly
condemned when they were in opposition.
Since the Canadian system cannot be reformed, that is another
reason for Quebec to break away from it as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a 20-year man in the
RCMP recently made the following statement to me: ``In my
experience the use of firearms to commit assaults or murders
pale by comparison to the use of knives or blunt objects.
Restricting the lawful use of firearms by other citizens is an
unnecessary intrusion.
If the government goes ahead with plans to register long arms
we will be so bogged down by paper work and enforcement that
criminals will be much better off. We might as well put our
uniforms and revolvers in the closet because we will be busy
filling out forms''.
In my experience, the most vocal opponents of firearms
registration are RCMP officers and especially retired officers,
8426
including former Assistant Commissioner Robert Head and a
couple of fellows right here on the Hill.
L.H. Nicholson, the most respected commissioner in the
history of the force was adamantly opposed to registration. Of
course the Liberals are not interested in the views of people who
actually know what they are talking about.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, for many
years we have seen our access to the U.S. markets systematically
reduced by the U.S. government. When Canada signed the
Uruguay round agreement on April 15, 1994, the Canadian sugar
industry applauded the conclusion of these negotiations.
Little did it know that the U.S. took the opportunity to
severely restrict our already limited ability to export to the
American market when it tabled its market access
commitments. The result is that its market access stands to be
virtually erased on January 1, 1995 when the U.S. implements
its GATT schedule.
During the 1980s the U.S. government took action to ensure
that Canadian cane refiners could not export to the U.S. Now it is
the beet farmers who are going to be affected. There are 1,700
Canadian jobs that will be affected unless the government makes
some changes.
(1415 )
I am urging this federal government to find a resolution to this
problem. With less than one month to go time is running out.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is Osteoporosis Month.
Osteoporosis is a debilitating disease which causes bones to
become brittle and break easily. More than one million
Canadian women over the age of 50 have osteoporosis and
another two million are at risk of developing the disease.
Further, there are 400,000 Canadian men who are suffering.
Through education and awareness this disease can be
prevented and treated. For this reason Health Canada provides
financial assistance to the Osteoporosis Society of Canada and
its ``build better bones'' campaign which encourages Canadians
to assess their diet, ensure adequate calcium intake and make
healthier lifestyle choices.
The Canada prenatal nutrition program gives mothers to be
counselling and proper nutrition so they can increase their
calcium intake. Educating women on how to stay healthy before
and after pregnancy improves the lives of the next generation of
Canadians.
I am pleased that these initiatives have the well-being of
every generation in mind and suggest that perhaps MPs should
audit their own lifestyles and take action now.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the B.C.
Lions on an absolutely outstanding season, a brilliant win in the
Grey Cup and keeping our treasured cup in Canada.
The B.C. Lions exceeded our expectations and defended
Canada's honour by ensuring that a no-name team returned
home as it arrived, empty handed. The Lions have made all
Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians proud.
On behalf of all members of Parliament and all constituents of
Vancouver South, I congratulate a fantastic victory by our
football team, the B.C. Lions.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
8426
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned that Bosnian Serb forces have stepped up their offensive
against the Muslim enclave of Bihac, where 70,000 people are
literally under siege along with 1,200 powerless peacekeepers.
Meanwhile, the noose is tightening considerably around the
peacekeepers in Visoko, whom the Bosnian Serb army is
threatening to bomb within 48 hours.
Does the Prime Minister confirm the information that the
Bosnian Serb army is about to bomb the Canadian peacekeepers'
base in Visoko?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have no indication that the Serbs are about to
resume their attack on the base in Visoko. We hope that
everyone will stay calm, that the fighting will end and that a
ceasefire will be declared as soon as possible.
The Canadian troops are there not to wage war but for
humanitarian reasons, to distribute food and medicine to the
population. They have done a great job so far, and neither the
Serbs nor the Muslims have any reason to attack our brave
soldiers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, has the
Prime Minister ascertained that the UN resolutions allow the
peacekeepers to retaliate and assure their own safety in case the
Serb forces carry out their bombing threats?
8427
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the United Nations issued very specific rules of
engagement to every group operating under its authority. They
can retaliate against any real attack, but I hope that they will
not have to use their right of self-defence.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
Prime Minister tell us if Canada intends to use its influence so
that the contact group composed of France, the United
Kingdom, Russia, Germany and the United States will adopt a
uniform position on how the peace process in Bosnia should be
put in place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our Minister of Foreign Affairs is now in Moscow. He
talked with his Russian colleagues a little earlier today.
Everyone agrees that we must try to find a negotiated solution
and that a ceasefire must be declared as soon as possible.
* * *
(1420)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board just made its
ruling regarding the award, without call for tenders, of a
construction contract to Saint John Shipbuilding, as part of the
Hibernia megaproject. The Board ruled unequivocally that the
MIL Davie shipyard, in Quebec, had suffered a prejudice, since
it had bidden on this contract, unlike Saint John Shipbuilding.
This important contract involves several hundred jobs.
How can the Prime Minister justify the decision made by the
Hibernia consortium, of which he is a shareholder, to directly
award the contract to Saint John Shipbuilding, rather than to
MIL Davie, which is a blatant violation of the applicable rules?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was informed of this regrettable incident yesterday. I
agree with the hon. member that the contract should not have
been awarded directly to Saint John Shipbuilding. I have asked
the Minister of Natural Resources to immediately contact the
chairman of the consortium and ask him to review the decision.
Some claim that there was legal authority to act as they did, but
they certainly violated the spirit of the agreement, to the effect
that everyone should have a fair opportunity. We hope that they
will review the decision and allow MIL Davie to bid, like other
interested parties.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Prime Minister pledge to give clear
instructions to the representative who sits on Hibernia's board
of directors, so that he will make a plea in favour of awarding the
contract to MIL Davie?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been in touch with the consortium to the effect
that it should review its decision. We made it very clear. There is
one representative, not directly of the federal government but of
a corporation connected with the federal government, and we
will give him instructions to vote in favour of changing the
decision.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today a confidential document produced by the
International Monetary Fund states that the government's goal
of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP is woefully
inadequate and will permit the addition of another $155 billion
to the federal debt over the next few years.
The problem here is that the minister's deficit reduction target
is essentially political, geared to appeasing proponents of high
spending rather than a real fiscal target aimed at balancing the
budget.
My question to the finance minister is will he follow the
IMF's advice and introduce more ambitious deficit reduction
targets now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 3 per cent
target is a very important target. It really does mark that point in
the evolution of the nation's economy where once again the
growth in the economy becomes superior to the growth in the
debt.
The 3 per cent target as well is a very ambitious target. It
means having the deficit as a percentage of GDP in under three
years. It is a target that has not been hit by any government in
over 20 years, and it is going to require a very ambitious
program.
I would say that not only are we prepared to follow the IMF's
advice but in conversations we have had in Madrid along with all
the other countries in the IMF Canada was singled out for its
economic performance.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister beats around the bush. Is not the real
reason that the finance minister will not commit to firmer deficit
reduction targets that he cannot convince enough of his
ministerial colleagues to take the necessary measures to reduce
government spending?
Over the last month we have seen minister after minister and
heads of agencies show up at committees pleading for
increasing or maintaining high levels of spending, not putting
forward major reductions. For example, the minister of heritage
last week is said to have promised his resignation if the CBC
were to be partially privatized.
8428
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to make the spending
cuts, the level of cuts advocated by the IMF and others, even
at the expense of the resignation of some of his ministerial
colleagues?
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this cabinet and
this government are united behind our goal to achieve the 3 per
cent deficit.
There are no splits on this side of the House contrary to the
splits which existed in the Reform Party when the leader of the
Reform Party's hand was forced when his own members said
finally after a year maybe they should get constructive and start
saying what that party would do in terms of the deficit.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fiscal reality is the international money markets
have already factored in the government's deficit target, the
Canadian dollar is weak, interest rates are rising and
unemployment is still at the 10 per cent level.
Unless the government adopts a more courageous stance on
deficit reduction during the present recovery it will make
exactly the same mistake the Mulroney government made in
1984-85.
I ask the Prime Minister why does he not expend some of his
present political capital on eliminating the deficit rather than
allowing ministers to fritter it away on half baked measures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a program that is very clear. We have cut
expenditures and we will keep cutting expenditures. We are
making sure at the same time that we have growth in the
economy.
If tomorrow we were to eliminate the deficit from $42 billion
to zero there would be a huge recession in Canada. The wise
thing is to do it in a progressive way. We are doing that.
There are a lot of people complaining because we have too
many cuts but we will achieve our target of 3 per cent of GDP by
the third year of our administration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The federal government has been pouring billions of dollars
into the Hibernia project. It has one of the six seats on the board
of directors, which allows it to influence administrative
decisions such as the one resulting in awarding a contract
without tender to Saint John Shipbuilding.
Can the minister explain why she has consistently refused to
answer the questions put to her by the opposition for several
months now with respect to the lack of supervision of the
day-to-day management of the company, which has led to the
current problems with respect to the way contracts were
awarded to Saint John Shipbuilding?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that which I have said before
and perhaps correct the hon. member in one small way.
We are one of five on the Hibernia management company.
That company is seized with the responsibility of the day to day
management of the Hibernia project.
I will reiterate here today, as I have before, it is not this
government's intention to micro-manage on a day to day basis
that project.
However, as the Prime Minister has indicated, in relation to
the situation involving MIL Davie there is a clear report from
the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Board indicating MIL
Davie and other Canadian companies were not given full and
fair opportunity to bid for the work in question. The Prime
Minister's answer has been clear today that we are as concerned
about that as the hon. member and we will take action.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the same minister.
In view of the minister's answer not to interfere with the
day-to-day management of the project, am I to understand that
the federal government's refusal to intervene is part of its
strategy to close down the last major shipyard in Quebec, while
Quebec has supported 90 per cent of the efforts made to
streamline the shipbuilding industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to repeat what I said earlier. I was informed
yesterday that this contract might have been awarded without
tender. We intervened immediately. We asked the chairman of
the consortium to review the decision and to allow other
Canadian shipbuilders to bid on the contract.
We acted immediately. The member's accusations are
unjustified.
* * *
(1430)
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Bosnian Serbs have announced that they will
shell the Canadian base at Visoko. Canadian personnel are
8429
hunkered down in bunkers at this moment. The Sarajevo airport
is closed. There is no humanitarian aid getting through.
Does the Prime Minister still insist that Canadian troops have
a purpose in Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian troops have played a very useful role there.
When we look at the deployment of the Canadian soldiers to
Bosnia, they have been called upon in very difficult
circumstances to hold some very responsible posts.
They have been delivering food and medication and are still
trying to mediate a possible peace. They are not there to make
peace; they are there to supervise peace. There is no peace at the
moment.
Yesterday I was very clear that everyone wants a ceasefire.
We want the activities on both sides to stop so that Canadian
troops, as part of the United Nations group, can play their role. I
think they will serve to the end of their mandate because when
Canadians say they will do something they stick to their word.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants something the Prime
Minister cannot get because the situation has escalated. There is
no humanitarian aid being conducted in Bosnia.
General Rose said this morning that the situation was beyond
the capabilities of a peacekeeping mission. If the troops needed
to control the situation were brought in, Canadian peacekeepers
would be forced into a combat situation when they have no
mandate to participate in war.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting that Canadians should go to
war in Bosnia or is the Prime Minister suggesting that Canadian
troops should come out? What is the Canadian government's
position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian position is a very clear one. It is to stay
there and try to bring about peace. This is why they have been
able to help a lot in the last three years. There was a debate in the
House of Commons. Everybody was consulted. The majority of
the House wanted the Canadian group to stay there and fulfil its
mandate.
We will be negotiating with our allies, but we have decided
that the best course is to be with the others to try to install peace
there. It is not Canada's role to engage in war. They are not there
to make war; they are there to bring about peace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister, who will be leaving
shortly for the Paris Summit on AIDS. Yesterday, the Prime
Minister showed his complete ignorance of the subject.
Unfortunate, but true. Let us hope he will be better informed
today. The Prime Minister answered in the House yesterday that
the amounts allocated for the fight against AIDS would be
reviewed, as would all other government programs.
Will the Prime Minister confirm, as he is about to leave for
Paris, that his government is preparing to cut funding for the
fight against AIDS, contrary to the position he took when he was
in the opposition?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I gave no indication that we intended to cut funding.
We all know people would like to see us spend more on medical
research, not just for AIDS but for other causes as well. The
government has committed $203.5 million over a five-year
period, and we intend to meet our commitments.
If we had more resources, we would be able to spend more. We
still have $1.5 million which has not yet been allocated. The
minister has several options, including the summit on this issue
to be held in Vancouver in 1996. Part of the money will be used
to prepare the summit, which will bring experts to Canada and
help us make some progress in this area.
Yesterday, I was not aware of what was happening to the $1.5
million, but that does not mean I am not aware of what is
happening in this area. In this particular instance, I did not
know, I made inquiries and I have the answer today. I am
sufficiently humble to realize I cannot know everything.
(1435)
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this does
not make things any clearer. The Prime Minister referred to a
commitment over five years. If the government is unable to give
a clear answer for this year, does that mean it has decided to cut
funding for AIDS?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a budget that will be brought down in
February. All items are now being reviewed. None are exempt,
but there is no indication at this time that this particular item
will be affected to a greater extent than other items. Personally, I
hope funding will remain at the level we promised in the past.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On Friday the government announced its decision to override
the CRTC by holding a review of our direct to home satellite
policies. This review is being held in house and behind closed
doors. Even though there will be public interventions in the
8430
process, the decision will be made by a committee appointed by
the minister.
The minister should prove that he is not trying to play
favourites in the industry. Will he not allow the CRTC, his arm's
length, independent organization, to give this issue its due
consideration?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself today
announced the panel that will be reviewing the submissions
from the public in our reference under the Canada Gazette on the
direct to home policy.
I want the hon. member to understand very clearly a couple of
things. First, this is in no way an overruling or a setting aside of
the CRTC decision with respect to the exemption order that was
issued. That order stands and the CRTC has enunciated its views
on how it would issue such orders in the future.
Let me also make clear this point. We are dealing with the
articulation of government policy. That is the responsibility of
the government and not of a regulatory body. That is what this
party was elected to do last October. That is the responsibility
we bear and that is the responsibility we will carry forward when
this policy is announced.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is
it indeed articulation of government policy that two of the three
members of the government's so-called non-partisan
committee have strong links to Power Corp, strong links to the
Prime Minister and his associates or both?
The review process has not even begun and the fix is in. Will
the Minister of Canadian Heritage restore the public's
confidence in the process by dismissing the proposed committee
and referring the matter to a joint heritage-industry
subcommittee?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has made a very strong statement
concerning three people, all of whom are former deputy
ministers in the Government of Canada who have demonstrated
their good judgment, their integrity and their intelligence over
many years.
I want to assure her that I have endeavoured to the best of my
ability to determine whether there was any possible conflict of
interest for any of these individuals. It is my view that there is no
such conflict of interest. If the hon. member is aware of a
conflict of interest, I would like her to make specific allegations
as to the nature of that conflict and make them in a forum where
she is accountable for those allegations.
In the meantime I suggest to her that it is improper to impugn
the integrity of people who are operating on the basis of a
request from the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not know how Canadian
programs regarding clinical research on AIDS worked. Yet, in
24 hours, he is supposed to discuss them in Paris.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government has
concurred with the joint proposal of the Canadian AIDS Society,
the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Canadian Public
Health Association asking that the $1.1 million remaining in the
discretionary fund be allocated to clinical and basic research to
offset the acute lack of funds in this area?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to explain the situation regarding this $1.5
million fund. I have said that part of it has already been allocated
for the Vancouver Summit and that the minister will carry out
her duty and allocate the remaining funds to areas where they
can do the most.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Prime Minister justify that a mere four
months before the end of the fiscal year we still do not know the
intended use of this discretionary $1.1 million? I remind the
Prime Minister that last year $800,000 lapsed. They were not
spent because the minister failed to allocate them to community
organisations.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this kind of questioning is rather ridiculous. To allocate
the $1.5 million we have set up a committee which has drafted
guidelines for the selection of projects.
We are currently considering a few applications; they have yet
to be approved. We have earmarked $400,000 for the Vancouver
conference in 1996.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
I applaud the minister's statement of last week that he would
overhaul the laws governing child support in divorce cases. My
question for the minister is how? How does he ensure the needs
of children are met? How will his plans ensure fairness and
equity between parents and, most important, when?
8431
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been working
with colleagues in cabinet on the questions my hon. colleague
has put this afternoon to prepare improvements to the legal
system concerning the payment and taxation of child support.
I can tell my hon. colleague that the proposals on which we are
working will deal with three matters: first, the method by which
the amounts of child support are determined; second, the
method by which they are taxed; and, third, the creation of a
national strategy to enforce these orders once they are made.
In connection with the first and the third of them, we have also
been working closely with provincial and territorial
counterparts to ensure that the process is integrated.
The ministers of finance, human resources development,
revenue and my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women, will be bringing forward specific proposals
including, as necessary, changes to statutes when our
preparations are complete.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister wants to disrupt private clinics in Alberta that charge
facility fees. This will disrupt private clinics in every province:
chiropractors, physiotherapists, abortion clinics, executive
health clinics. Shall I dispense?
Will the minister treat every private clinic in Canada in
exactly the same way?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very difficult when you are facing a bunch of
clowns to be responsive.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1445 )
The Speaker: I know we all want to hear the response. I ask
the hon. minister to please complete her answer.
Ms. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, private clinics charging facility
fees for medically necessary services are a concern to all
ministers of health across the country.
Last September when we met in Halifax, all ministers of
health present, except Alberta's, agreed to work together to
resolve this problem and regulate these clinics.
My message to Alberta is join the rest of us and help protect
medicare, our finest social program.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Alberta did
not join this task force because she has her own task force and
will report directly to the minister. She knows this.
Let me describe two clinics. One deals with cataracts; a
facility fee of $1,275, a doctor's fee $526. Another clinic deals
with fertility; facility fee, $2,750 and a doctor's fee of $1,235.
One is in Calgary and the other one is in Toronto. If she shuts
down the Calgary clinic will she shut down the one in Toronto?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know where the Reform Party stands on medicare
now. For a party that prided itself on its integrity, it is a pity its
members did not come clean during the election and tell the
people of Canada they wanted user fees. They want cash register
medicine. We do not. We want people to be treated because they
need treatment, not because they have more cash than somebody
else.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the federal government rejected a plea from the
business community to lower UI contributions. While the
Minister of Finance stated in his last budget that, according to
his own figures, a reduction of seven cents would create 40,000
jobs, his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, said that an unexpected surplus would allow
further reductions.
How can the Minister of Finance justify his persistency in
ignoring the representations made by the business community
for further reductions of UI contributions, given that he claims
he wants to create jobs and that the UI program has a $2.7 billion
surplus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat
ironical that the hon. member would ask me today to heed the
advice of the business community when he usually asks me to do
just the opposite.
That being said, the hon. member must realize that I, and
certainly the Minister of Human Resources Development also,
want to lower UI contributions. In fact, we lowered these
contributions from $3.07 to $3.00. It is very important to ensure
stability. This means that we do not want to find ourselves in a
position where we would be forced to increase UI contributions
during a recession and lower them in a period of growth. We
want to avoid a yo-yo effect. We want stability. We will lower
UI contributions when it is appropriate to do so.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Finance is
accusing me of using discretion regarding the proposals made,
when he should be the one doing so when it comes to solving
these issues.
Does the minister realize that, by refusing to lower UI
contributions to the level suggested by the business community,
he merrily contradicts his colleague, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, he deliberately sacrifices 100,000
jobs, this according to his own figures, and he confirms the
8432
comments made by the vice-president of the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce, who said that the Minister of Finance could not
care less about job creation?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
member's conversion to the opinions expressed by the business
community and the Chamber of Commerce.
I am sure that the other communities he represents will be
delighted to hear of this conversion on the road to Damascus. I
would suggest however that the member might want to listen to
what the Minister of Human Resources Development and I have
said. It is crucial once the unemployment insurance rates go
down that they stay down. The business community and workers
should not be subject to some kind of a yo-yo effect where every
time there is a downturn in the economy we are forced
counterproductively to raise those rates.
What we have said is that the rates are certainly going to come
down. But when they come down under this government they are
going to stay down.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 22 of this year the justice minister said in response to
a question I asked him: ``We read the report recently about the
defects in the present registration system for restricted firearms
and the need to improve the registration''.
Was the Minister of Justice referring to the justice department
report covering the review of the present handgun registration
system submitted by Mr. Terence Wade or is there more than one
report outlining the defects of Canada's registration system for
handguns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is the report to
which I referred.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice has not tabled the Terence Wade report with
the Standing Committee on Justice. He has not made it available
to the public and his departmental officials have refused to
release the report to members of Parliament.
Is the reason the report is being concealed the fact that it
contains a devastating condemnation of the current handgun
registration system, reveals its failure to reduce the criminal use
of handguns and also exposes the uselessness of the minister's
plan to expand this failed registration system to rifles and
shotguns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, none of the above.
The fact is that I see no reason why the report should not be
made available to members of Parliament. Had I known of the
member's interest, I would have provided him with a copy.
I can tell the hon. member that the report evaluates the system
for the registration of handguns and finds weaknesses and areas
for improvement. It has been very valuable as we have looked at
ways to design, should we decide to do such a thing, a
registration system for the people.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary
responsible for Canada Post.
Canadians from coast to coast are astonished to learn that last
year Canadian postage stamps were printed in Australia instead
of in Canada. What has the minister done about this issue?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was in February that the minister indicated that
Canada Post was anxious to have stamp production back in
Canada as soon as economically feasible. In November
contracts were signed with MBC Corporation and the Canadian
Bank Note Company to return stamp production to Canada.
Members will be happy to know that beginning
mid-December Canadian stamp production will be in Canada. It
means more jobs for more Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. Less than three weeks
before the House adjourns for the holiday season, the Minister
of Justice has still not tabled a gun control bill, despite his and
the Prime Minister's repeated promises in this House.
Does the minister intend to table his bill before Christmas,
yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, well before Christmas
the government will announce its decisions in relation to the
firearms control program of the government.
8433
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister already told us on September 22 that he would table a
bill, and not proposals, in November.
Since he seems to be retracting, is this how the minister
intends to keep his word?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my I first observe that
it is November until the end of tomorrow, at least it is on this
side of the House.
Second, my commitment has been clear from the outset. It has
been that at the instruction of the Prime Minister I would
prepare specific proposals so the government could decide and
announce its position in relation to the control of firearms in
Canada.
That is exactly what we are going to do in keeping with my
commitment.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
month fishery officers presented the minister of oceans with a
report showing that a lack of enforcement was a significant
cause of this year's salmon disaster on the west coast. However
the report presented by DFO to the minister's review panel did
not give any significance to the reduced enforcement effort.
Why would the minister withhold this critical information
from his review board?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member, because I know
of his interest in the matter, that no information has been
withheld from the Fraser review panel.
If there is information that ought to be presented to it by any
member of the commercial industry, any stakeholder or by any
professional group within the enforcement community, they are
quite free to make those recommendations.
I have had a very constructive meeting with enforcement
officers in Vancouver. I am studying the information that has
been given to me. As a consequence of listening to people in the
field, on the front lines and on the rivers I hope to do a better job
in 1995 than we are able to do in 1994.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is
that information contained in the fishery officer's presentation
was not presented to the review board. That presentation
confirmed that habitat and poaching investigations were not
done. Undercover investigations had come to an abrupt end and
enforcement reports were not received at the highest levels.
Why did the minister not bring this and other critical
information contained in the fishery officer's report to the
review board's attention?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not clearly understand the question
when it was asked the first time.
I have no intention of in any way, shape or form, directly or
indirectly, trying to influence the flow of information or the
outcome of the review being done by an independent review
panel headed by the former Speaker of the House of Commons,
John Fraser.
I agree that all of the information available ought to be
presented to the panel so that a solid conclusion is arrived at.
Any and all information provided to me, even in a confidential
meeting by enforcement officers who seek to take me through an
apprenticeship, is available and will be available to the full
review panel.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The question of private health care clinics in Alberta has been
discussed in the House for over a year. Clearly these clinics,
which charge both the patient and the government, are part of a
two-tier system. The Prime Minister has said he would not
allow this.
As the Prime Minister was a part of the government that
formulated the Canada Health Act when it came into being,
could he say, because apparently the department can still not
decide, whether these clinics contravene the Canada Health Act,
as he understands it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are completely committed to the Canada Health Act
and it has to be respected.
In terms of the interpretation, that question is being evaluated
at this time. Everyone knows that not every aspect of health care
is covered by the Canada Health Act.
We are looking into it. If it is against the Canada Health Act
we will apply the act and withdraw the money.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
(1500 )
With respect, Mr. Speaker, this has been under study for some
time. It has been obvious to everyone that these clinics have
been operating for some time. I would ask the Prime Minister
8434
the date by which he believes the department can make this
decision.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister indicated that this problem exists in the
interpretation. It is being debated between nine provinces and
the federal government in order to clarify what is covered by the
National Health Act of Canada.
We are looking at this with the provinces. When this is
concluded we will draw the line. If these clinics are not within
the act we will withdraw the compensation as is mentioned in
the act.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week Campaign 2000 released statistics indicating that
there were 331,000 more poor children in Canada than there
were five years ago. Given this deplorable situation, can the
minister tell this House about his commitment to the goal of an
enhanced child tax benefit?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for addressing what is probably the most important social issue
in this country, the plight of many of our poor children.
As members know, we have tried to address this directly by
putting it forward to Canadians as part of the green book. We
want to mobilize full efforts behind opportunities for better
work for parents of poor children, better support for child care,
and certainly enrichment or increasing of child benefits.
The key question is can we mobilize the support of members
of this House, the provinces, and Canadians throughout the
country behind a major national effort to deal with the question
of child poverty. I am still confident that we can and with the
help of the hon. member and others I think we will.
_____________________________________________
8434
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that, after being interrupted by oral question period, I
take the floor again to say that I support Bill C-57 because
Quebec is very open to international trade. We have always been
very open to the world, particularly as regards trade.
I was in the process of explaining that rational solutions must
be found, solutions such as encouraging economic growth
within Quebec and Canada by providing our businesses with an
effective trading environment. There are serious problems for
businesses, because they have to deal with two governments
which, in terms of taxation for example, use two different
systems.
These two levels of government have environmental
regulations and legislations that are completely different, which
makes life extremely difficult for businesses dealing with them.
For example, they have to conduct some environmental studies
under Quebec legislation and others under federal legislation.
(1505)
So it really hinders big projects that affect the environment.
Everything is duplicated, like the manpower office, so that
business does not have the environment it needs to develop. To
act quickly on environmental issues, we must restrict the
obligations that companies must meet in this regard.
One solution is international trade. It is not the only one, of
course, but it is a very important way to promote our companies.
Again, I must mention here that I tabled a motion in this House
which was defeated last night. Its purpose was to provide the
steel industry, among others, with sufficiently strict regulations
here in Canada, or at least regulations that are as strict as those
in the United States for import-export and especially for
dumping.
This motion was defeated and, again, I did not understand
why the government still did not accept this motion. On many
occasions, representatives of the steel industry asked us to
revise the regulations in Bill C-57. The government refused to
support my motion and I am very sorry that this part of the law
could not be amended.
I want to say to people in the steel industry, who are surely
listening to me today, because they care about what is going on
here, that we in the Bloc Quebecois did all that was necessary to
meet their requests. Unfortunately, the government did not
consider our demands or those from the steel industry.
To face this international competition, we must also
encourage creativity. We also tabled a motion. The bill says, for
example, that present products must be protected. We tabled a
motion that would also have protected future products. We think
it is very important, if you want to encourage creativity, our
business people and small businesses, to protect future products
in the same way as existing products are protected by law.
Once again the government refused to accept this motion, a
motion we felt was entirely normal and fair in its attempt to help
our creators, SMEs and researchers improve their prospects of
succeeding in these increasingly globalized markets.
8435
We must take an intelligent and structured approach. We must
avoid wasting energy and resources on taking on all markets
indiscriminately, without considering factors such as
transportation, specialization and economies of scale. We need
good strategic planning that considers our strengths and
weaknesses, the benefits and drawbacks, while monitoring the
development of attractive and promising markets.
In Quebec, we must consolidate our positions on the North
American market, now and in the future. In Quebec especially,
we supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, and
we also supported the first free trade agreement with the United
States, which, as I remember, was a very controversial issue. I
was a member of the government at the time, and in 1988, when I
ran for Parliament, I did so mainly to help adopt the free trade
agreement with the United States.
(1510)
I was supported in this endeavour by the vast majority of
Quebecers. We were practically unanimous in our approval of
free trade between Canada and the United States. For us in
Quebec, it was crucial.
For many years and many decades, we have been involved in
trade with the United States. About 80 per cent of our exports go
to the United States. It should come as no surprise that we want
to go on consolidating our efforts to continue our exports to this
very important market.
To give you some idea of the size of the U.S. market, I will
look at the number of people living within a certain radius. For
instance, if we look at the number of people living within a
radius of 1,000 kilometres from Montreal, including the United
States and Toronto, there are 100 million people. Imagine, 100
million consumers, among the richest in the world! That is why
it is so important for us in Quebec to continue to develop our
exports and to do business with the northeastern United States.
This is not to say we should neglect other markets, such as
Asia and the Pacific Rim. We know that in this region, markets
are developing and the standard of living is going up, especially
in Japan and China. Last year, China's economic growth was
between 12 and 15 per cent. There are 1.2 billion people living in
China. We should position ourselves so that we can take
advantage of the future opportunities in those countries,
especially in China.
We are somewhat apprehensive about letting the federal
government be responsible for helping Quebec promote its
economy. We have heard-it is not official, but there are
indications-that the Canadian government intends to reduce
the number of employees in charge of international trade in the
United States, and increase the number deployed in Asia and the
Pacific Rim.
This is cause for some concern as, for obvious reasons, and I
mentioned this earlier, we want to continue doing business with
the United States, and increase our trade connections with them.
First of all, it is a great market, where trading is made easier by
the fact that the Americans speak a familiar language, namely
English, and that our cultures -economic cultures and social
cultures- are similar. We live in a space that is almost the same,
but it is quite another story when you talk about the Asia-Pacific
area, with the linguistic difficulties being bigger, the distances
longer and the efforts required to promote our products take
longer and cost more to produce results.
In a context of staggering deficit and debt, I think that we
must look at the easiest opportunities to increase the
profitability of our businesses, so that our economy becomes
healthier and that the governments can get afloat as soon as
possible.
That is why I think and we, in Quebec in particular, think that
continued efforts are necessary to try and maintain and increase
our market opportunities in the United States.
(1515)
Of course, this will require a high level of cohesion between
our industries, the unions, the government, our universities, and
so on. Without this co-operative effort, I think that we will find
it increasingly difficult in the future to be efficient and
productive.
This is why we, in Quebec, are looking forward taking our
future in our own hands in order to act together and eliminate
duplication of all kind that gets in the way of united action and
efficiency. In that sense, we are looking forward to gaining
control over our taxes, to spend this money according to our
priorities and ensure that we succeed more rapidly in this global
context.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to congratulate my colleague from Longueuil on his
speech, which is practical and sticks to reality. It is not a
theoretical speech. We see that the member for Longueuil has
experience.
I also thank him for reminding us that Quebec is open to free
trade and foreign trade. Quebec is not a society that is turned in
on itself, quite the opposite. I also thank him for recalling the
importance of trade with the United States for Canada and
Quebec; 80 per cent of our trade is with our big southern
neighbour.
I would like to ask him this question: Does he believe that the
agreements reached following the Uruguay Round negotiations
will help the poorest countries progress? Under these
agreements, will it also be possible to protect the environment
and better protect the rights of workers in countries that are less
well organized than western countries?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert for his kind words.
8436
I think that we must be very careful in helping the poorest
countries, because we tend to think in the short term and to pay
more attention to trade than to the poorest in the world. I think
it is obvious that if we increase our productivity, our trade, our
ability to pay, we will be in better position to help the poorest
countries.
In many ways, we must be very careful not to work only with
the countries from which we stand to gain the most. We must
also develop markets with the poorest countries, thus helping
them ensure their own development.
I made several trips to developing countries with External
Affairs officials. The ambassadors I met told us that one way to
help developing countries was to trade with them.
Since Bill C-57 is aimed at opening up trade, I think that if we
do it with dignity, we can increase trade with these developing
countries, thus helping them become better traders. There is
nothing better than practice to learn how to do business.
If we can show developing countries how to borrow, how to
lend, how to do business, how to make goods, I think it would be
one of the best ways to help them.
(1520)
This does not mean that we should not help those in need,
those who must be fed every day, those who need help to become
better farmers, and so on.
In this regard, I think that opening up markets to the entire
world will give developing countries better opportunities to
trade and to learn from successful trading countries. I am
convinced that this will help them a great deal in the future.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand the hon.
member for Winnipeg Transcona and hon. the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake will be splitting this next block of
interventions, so ten and five each.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to be able to participate in this debate
this afternoon. The NDP finds itself in the position of being the
only party in this House to oppose the legislation we have before
us, the legislation that would bring into being the World Trade
Organization.
It appears that unlike the government, the official opposition
and the Reform Party we are the only party willing to develop
and maintain a sustained critique of the way the world is going
according to GATT, according to NAFTA, according to FTA.
Some would say this places us in the position of being
defenders of things past and in some sense that is true. We would
like to defend the notion of fair trade and markets adjusted to
meet social and human need rather than accede to the demands
of the multinational corporations that the world be arranged for
their pleasure, which is the way we view the WTO and the
legislation to implement it.
The WTO is in effect a new constitution for the globalized
economy that is written by and for multinational corporations.
One of the ways this could have been offset would have been if
some effort had been made during the negotiations or even after
to introduce the notion of a social clause that would ensure
multinational corporations and others recognize basic labour
and environmental standards for instance, to prevent the race to
the bottom or what is also called social dumping.
This was not done during the negotiations, although I
understand that some countries did bring the idea forward, not
Canada unfortunately. It was not able to be done during the
debate on this legislation despite the amendments that the New
Democratic Party brought forward because the government
rejected our amendments suggesting it ought to work on a social
clause and report back to the House of Commons on a regular
basis as to what it had done in respect to developing such a
clause.
Another concern we had during this debate, which we
expressed at report stage and we express now, is that this new
WTO, even though it supposedly offers a new rules based
trading regime that will bring relief from trade harassment, in
spite of this, American behaviour under NAFTA rules and the
evasive measures the Americans put into their implementing
legislation make it very unlikely that the Americans will play by
the rules.
That is why we offered through our amendments to put into
our legislation that which the Americans had in their legislation.
We thought what is fair for the Americans is fair for Canadians.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or however the
expression goes. No deal, the government defeated our
amendments, argued against them as did others.
One has to ask the question of globalization through the WTO,
but on whose terms? It would seem to be on the terms of the
multinational corporations and in a secondary way on terms that
are more favourable to the Americans than to Canadians and to
others. Americans always make sure they have these riders,
these qualifiers, these caveats in their legislation to make sure
the rest of us will play by these rules. When push comes to shove
if their interests are at stake they do not have to play by the rules.
The WTO as it now stands without a social clause would be a
constitution for a new world order in which the multinationals
would preserve their position as what we would like to call
outlaws. They would be free to pursue their own interests
outside the power of the law of any one land whereas the
constitution for the new world order of the global marketplace,
the WTO agreement as it stands is remarkably one sided in our
8437
view in its defence of the rights of investors and its silence on
the rights of workers.
(1525)
It pretends that labour, social security and the environment
are not trade issues and that attempts to regulate in these areas
will be considered barriers to trade. It is eloquent about the
multinationals' right to be free of any public policy that would
affect their rights to intellectual property or to the free
movement of capital but it refuses to allow similar protection
for workers' rights to form trade unions or to have a safe
workplace.
In the developed economies of Europe and North America
globalization has contributed to the chronically high levels of
unemployment, falling real wages and workers facing the stress
of longer work hours. Most important, wages and salaries are
dramatically falling as a percentage of GNP. That is, workers are
getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie.
When robust rates of growth such as we are now experiencing
in Canada continue to be accompanied by depression like rates
of unemployment and falling real wages, it is clear that benefits
from growth in the new globalized economy are going to a very
select group of people at the expense of most Canadians.
Some developing countries in Asia have experienced
phenomenal rates of growth in the new order but in the most
successful countries like Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore and
China such growth has occurred in societies without basic
human rights, without independent trade unions and with
economies in which child labour, prison labour, conscript army
labour are widely practised. This is sometimes referred to as the
Asian miracle, the new miracle. I call it just an old form of
exploitation revisited and does not deserve the word miracle at
all.
The WTO as it stands puts its seal of approval on a world
economy in which the benefits of growth flow more and more to
the shareholders of the multinationals and less and less to their
employees and to communities. What we should be seeking is a
WTO that concerns itself not only with the classic trade disputes
between nations but also the problem of what has become known
as social dumping, which I referred to earlier; that is, a nation's
competitive advantage that results from unregulated labour
markets and lack of environmental protection regulations and
other ways in which nation states are being asked by this new
order to play this sort of beggar thy neighbour game by reducing
the quality of their social standards in order to create what is
euphemistically called a good investment climate.
A social clause needs to be added to strike a balance between
the market efficiencies of liberal trade and investment practices
and the social solidarity of all communities that want basic
human rights and decent employment practices enforced
everywhere where capital is free to come and go.
In debate on report stage, as I mentioned, we proposed an
amendment to Bill C-57 that would have had the government
report to Parliament regularly on progress made in WTO
negotiations toward a social clause. In a related amendment
seconded and supported by the Bloc Quebecois we also
proposed prohibiting the importation of goods made by children
in contravention of International Labour Organization
conventions.
The idea of a social clause is one that enjoys wide support
around the world as a necessary counter weight to the
liberalization of investment. A social clause for the WTO is
supported by the International Labour Organization's
secretariat which earlier this month recommended to the
governing body of the ILO that there should be a social clause to
the WTO.
The majority report of the joint committee that recently
reviewed Canadian foreign policy also included a
recommendation that there should be a co-ordination of
international labour and social standards. We were disappointed
therefore but not surprised that the Liberals who wrote that
report did not support our amendment that would have been a
step toward the goal that they share.
In debate on our amendment on child labour, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade
said that he agreed with the spirit of our motion and that the
government was working with the OECD and the ILO on the
question. He did not say, however, that at a recent UN meeting
on the upcoming UN conference on social development Canada
came down firmly against any attempt to link trade with labour
or environmental standards. Shame on the government.
This confirms the dramatic drift of the Liberal Party to the
right on trade issues.
(1530 )
The Liberals opposed NAFTA during the election on the
grounds that there was no definition of subsidies and that the
labour and environmental side agreements were not strong
enough. They then proceeded to ratify NAFTA without a
definition of subsidy and with the existing weak side
agreements.
The Minister for International Trade then talked about the
deepening and broadening of NAFTA, even comparing NAFTA
to the early days of the European community. Now the Liberals
say they are opposed to any linking of labour standards and
environmental standards to trade in the WTO. The
metamorphosis is complete.
On his recent visit to China and Indonesia, the Prime Minister
claimed that the best way to improve the human rights situation
in certain developing countries was to engage with them in
trade. However, the WTO as it stands without a social clause
will allow existing human rights abuses to flourish. There is
nothing in the WTO that prevents countries from allowing child
8438
labour, from using prison labour and conscript labour or from
denying workers' rights to form independent trade unions.
China could join the WTO, as it is likely to do, and expect to
enjoy the protection of the WTO free trade rules while it
continues to allow 10-year old children to work in unsafe
factories for virtually nothing. Indonesia could continue to
operate an economy where over two million children work in
contravention of ILO standards. For the government to deny any
link between trade and labour standards makes a mockery of its
claim to support human rights through trade.
Furthermore, and in conclusion, the advocates of the
liberalization of world markets assumes that as developing
countries become more prosperous internal social pressures will
be generated from a maturing and self-confident workforce to
insist on higher wages and better working conditions as
happened in the past. This assumption fails to recognize that the
vast pool of unemployed workers in rural sectors in the
economies of east and south Asia, for example, not to mention in
the former Soviet Union, creates a huge drag on the ability of
wages to rise at a reasonable rate.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on third reading debate of Bill
C-57, the act that implements the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization and ties Canada conclusively to the
GATT agreement.
Canadians know very little about the 26,000 page agreement
that their government signed on their behalf at the special GATT
meeting in Marrakech on April 15, 1994. The agreement was
reached after eight years of negotiations. It is a huge deal that
takes Canada even beyond where the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement
dared to go.
Now, with very little debate, the federal Liberal government
is going to accept the new world economic order dictated by the
multinational corporations and reduce Canada's ability to
determine its own economic destiny even further.
After yesterday's vote in which the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois joined with the Liberals in supporting this bill at
report stage, it is easy to see who Canada's real opposition is
here in Parliament. Only New Democrats, who have taken the
time to examine not only the previous trade deals but this one as
well, are standing up for the interests of ordinary Canadians in
the face of economic globalization and the dominance-no, Mr.
Speaker, the tyranny of the multinational corporations.
Make no mistake, the implementation of the agreement and
the establishment of the World Trade Organization is the
creation of a new world government which has the power to tell
countries what they can or cannot do within their own borders.
This will not be a democratic government. This is a new
government dominated by the unelected and self-appointed
multinationals that replace the possibility of a democratic
response to the problems of the world.
This was the deal that was negotiated by the Mulroney team,
but it was signed and is now being implemented by the Liberal
government without opposition from anyone but the New
Democrats. This is quite extraordinary.
The agreement through this legislation sells out farmers and
working people alike and jeopardizes the future economic
prospects for all of Canada's youth and particularly the youth
who live in the regions of this country.
At this time in our history and at this time in our economic
development, we should be doing everything in our power to
stand up for Canadians in all walks of life.
(1535 )
The World Trade Organization is in effect the new
constitution for the globalized economy that is written by and
for the multinationals. The Liberal government has rejected a
policy of developing a social clause to the WTO that would
ensure that multinationals recognize basic labour and
environmental standards to prevent the race to the bottom. I
made comments about this and about child labour at report stage
the other day.
Let me take a moment to try to tie together a couple of what
would appear to be unrelated events. Only a short time ago the
Prime Minister and all of the provincial and territorial leaders,
except the premier from Quebec, toured China on a major
business trip. They talked trade and they made a lot of deals.
Every one of those deals was paraded in the pages of the
newspapers around this country. What the Prime Minister and
the premiers were telling us is that the economy in China is
booming, or is expected to boom in the very near future, and that
Canada must be a part of that.
Meanwhile, back home in response to their interpretation of
the GATT agreement clauses, the Ministers of Transport and
Agriculture were telling Canadian farmers that our domestic
transport support program known as the Crow benefit will have
to be changed. It would seem that the net result will over a few
years reduce the money available to the Canadian grain to port
for export, reduce the dollars available to farmers at the farm
gate and likely as a result reduce the grain grown for export
across the prairies.
8439
Let us go back and have a look at China again for a minute.
I just finished reading an article done for the Worldwatch
Institute called ``Who will feed China''? I certainly recommend
the article by Worldwatch president Lester R. Brown to
everyone.
Mr. Brown acknowledges the growing affluence of the
Chinese. He acknowledges the growing population, the growing
demand for food, the growing demand for meat in particular.
More important, he points out China's shrinking capacity to
produce food.
We know from circumstances around the world that as
incomes rise, one of the first things that low income people do
with their money is diversify their diets, shifting primarily to
more meat, milk and eggs. In China as in Japan, South Korea and
Taiwan before it, this is beginning to happen. Of course with the
rising demand for a diversified diet also comes the demand for
additional grain.
China has been encouraging the production of laying hens and
therefore the production of eggs. The official goal of the country
for egg consumption has been set at 200 eggs per person per year
by the year 2000, double the quantity consumed in 1990. By the
way, that is about the equivalent of what residents of the United
States consume in a year.
With the Chinese population expected to reach 1.3 billion
people by the year 2000, annual egg consumption would be
expected to rise to 26 billion. Interestingly enough, Chinese
hens lay about 200 eggs per year each so China will require a
flock of about 1.3 billion hens to meet its needs.
The point to be taken here is that to reach this goal China will
require at a minimum an additional 24 million tonnes of grain to
feed those birds to produce those eggs and 24 million tonnes of
grain just happens to be the equivalent of the entire grain export
from Canada.
If the per capita grain consumption climbs even modestly in
China from under 300 kilograms per person at present to 350
kilograms in the year 2030, demand will also climb to 568
million tonnes of grain. With a total production of only 263
million tonnes by 2030, the deficit will be made up by imports
which will have to rise to a staggering 305 million tonnes of
grain. We must recognize that in 1993 the entire export of grain
from all countries around the world was just 200 million tonnes.
In other words, by the year 2030 China could eat up almost two
thirds what the world is producing today for export grains.
We know that China is not the only country that is growing
and likely to experience a grain deficit. India, Iran, Ethiopia,
Nigeria and others fall into this category.
(1540 )
We need our federal government more than ever to stand up
for strengthened orderly marketing, single desk selling and
internal transportation support so that as the world needs our
grain we are not only producing it but we are also able to deliver
it quickly and efficiently as required.
I see that my time is running out. Although there are many
more things that I would like to say to contribute to this debate,
in conclusion let me say to my colleagues in the House that not
only am I opposing this legislation in front of us today but I am
encouraging all members to oppose it and give Canada and
Canadians a fighting chance to make it in the world today.
Trade can spread wealth and knowledge or it can accelerate
the destructive trends now under way. Sadly, I see this
legislation and through it this government taking us down a very
destructive path.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I will preface it
with a truism. The truism is that if you do not compete you
cannot be competitive.
Accepting that truism, I wonder if the hon. member would
comment on whether or not in his opinion various protected
industries in Canada have been made more competitive, which
has resulted in lower costs and better product to the consumer as
a result of restrictive trade processes in the past within Canada,
trade barriers within Canada, and whether there is a parallel
between interprovincial trade barriers which raise prices and
decrease competition and national trade barriers.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question
and actually another one that came to my mind as the member
from Edmonton was speaking.
Essentially, as I view the world I see the words competitive
and efficiencies working hand in hand. A competitive economy
or an efficient economy are one and the same thing.
To me, and more importantly as I look at the whole country,
when the country or the world looks at an efficient economy it
sees an economy that will produce wealth that can be
redistributed to ensure that all members of that particular area
will be able to benefit from that increased wealth.
An efficient economy produces jobs. The world economy
today is not increasing jobs. The OECD countries are all
exhibiting unemployment rates from 7 per cent to 30 per cent.
Those sorts of numbers tell us that we are not a very efficient
economy.
One of the things that I had hoped to indicate in my remarks
while I had the floor but was unable to because of time dealt with
the matter of trade and the environment. I wanted to indicate in
answer to this question that I believe that trade and the
environment are also very much linked. When we look to the
future of the world and the carrying capacity of the earth it is
very easy to see that our task as leaders on this earth is to ensure
that we plan far enough ahead to ensure that our grandchildren
will be able to
8440
survive on this planet without eating foods made from artificial
substances.
Currently when we look at GATT planning documents we see
that these leaders are predicting declines in employment for
many sectors of the existing economy. High on that list
scheduled for future unemployment are our farmers,
agricultural workers, textile workers and office clerks. From
that list it would appear that the GATT planners seem to be
expecting us to go hungry with no clothes on our backs, without
any information from people who are supposed to collect it for
us.
With world populations increasing the way they are, surely
this is absolute nonsense. Canada's leaders should be looking at
building an efficient economy that produces wealth to ensure
that Canadians have the jobs to be able to compete with those in
the rest of the world.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not have a list of speakers so I have been rising
pretty regularly. I finally made it and I appreciate your
indulgence.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on the
issues. Today it is the World Trade Organization bill. It is a
pleasure as a farmer and now as a politician to address some of
these problems.
(1545)
I have heard so much today about trading with different
partners. I would like to remind some of the hon. members in
this House that when we talk about trade with the United States
we have a trade surplus of roughly $35 billion right now as far as
goods are concerned. We can imagine increasing our trade with
the U.S. but I think we will also have to be realistic and realize
that we import more from the U.S. at that time.
The problem as I see it is that we lose this huge trade surplus
with the U.S., with negative trade balances with a lot of other
countries that could really afford to pay for more products that
we have to sell. Japan has a $2 billion trade surplus with us.
Germany has the same amount, more or less. The British Isles
have over a $2 billion trade surplus. Even Mexico has a $2
billion trade surplus with us.
When we look at those points there has to be something wrong
that we cannot penetrate these markets. I have a big feeling that
some of it goes back to the inefficiencies of our manufacturing
and exporting companies. We have heard over the last couple of
weeks in testimony before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food that we could probably donate raw
products that our farmers produce to the manufacturing
companies and they still would not be able to compete. It does
not really seem that the problem of competition is in the primary
producers' field.
Therefore I have to address one of the big problems that I see
and that is in the transportation policy. If members watched the
CBC last night they would have seen the CBC addressing the
issue of backtracking grain from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg and
into the U.S. We have heard so much that this Liberal
government is trying to correct some of the problems that are
there. I point out that the western grain transportation policy
was passed by the previous Liberal government. It had a very
nice provision in it where non-performance could be thrown
against transportation companies like the railways and they
could be charged if they failed to deliver the products that were
guaranteeing under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Backtracking is simply a breaking of that agreement. It is
disrupting the transportation system. It is making it inefficient.
It is not allowing us to compete with other countries. It is also
putting an extra tax burden on our taxpayers. The one
backtracking issue is costing taxpayers today anywhere from
$15 million to $40 million a year. We cannot afford that in this
country with the debt load we have.
We also have to realize that the railways probably are in a
pinch in some areas. When we look at the over taxation on fuel
compared with the United States and some other countries, if we
look at the extra taxes that our corporations are paying
compared with the Americans, they also are in a bind and are
trying to somehow make ends meet.
Some other problems are in the management of the crown
corporations. When we see a management person getting
$300,000 as just a little benefit of interest free money, this is
added into the cost of shipping our products. Those are issues
that we have to address.
(1550)
We say we need more value added. This has been the theme
that I have heard on the farm for the last 10 years now. We need
more value added but in the next breath we hear that we have lost
100 food processing plants and abattoirs.
Why has this happened? It has happened very simply because
we were not competitive in the world's finished products. We
are very competitive in raw products. However when it comes to
the processing end and we see markups of 200 per cent from the
time it leaves the farm gate until the time it hits the retailer, this
is not efficiency.
These are things that have to be addressed before we will
become competitive in the World Trade Organization. It makes
one wonder sometimes why we would stress the point to become
more efficient always at the primary producer to produce more.
If we look back at statistics we see that we have increased
production in grains and oilseeds. We have increased production
in all other products far ahead of the efficiencies that have been
built into our manufacturing plants.
8441
We have to start realizing that something has to happen
because if we are going to compete, we have to be competitive.
It is imperative that the western grain transportation subsidies
be revamped. Somehow under GATT it is going to be forced
on us and the sooner we do it the better off we will be.
During the election the Reform Party promoted very strongly
its plan of a trade distortion program that would take over the
transportation subsidies. It seems to me that maybe that is the
direction we will have to go to make our transportation system
more efficient.
If I look at what is happening under the World Trade
Organization rules and subsidies today, it means that we will be
shipping a fraction of our grain under these subsidies and still be
qualified as green. All of a sudden one day in the middle of a
month we will find out that we have shipped an amount that we
were qualified to ship under these subsidies and we will have a
totally different freight rate.
This is going to cause a lot of stress in marketing especially
when farmers are realizing that products like canola have a very
small quantity allocated to them under this grain subsidies
program because the quantities have been set according to the
production that we had in the 1985 to 1990 period.
This means that canola production increased drastically from
1990 to 1993. Our limits on subsidized transportation on canola
will be very small so that the producers who may be selling into
that market in the first month will qualify for the subsidized
freight and then the rest of the canola production will have to go
under full freight rate costs.
This will also pertain to wheat and I can see this being very
disruptive and argued among farmers trying to push their
product on to the market, trying to get a little advantage, get a
little better price, and it is going to create a lot of hardship and a
lot of heard feelings in the farming community.
That is why I would suggest very strongly to this government
that it quickly restructure the western grain transportation
subsidies into another program so that we do not have these
disputes arising even among farmers. We do not need any more
disputes. We need more co-operation.
If we do not get more co-operation between farmers,
manufacturers and transportation we will not compete in this
World Trade Organization globe. It is very important that we do
enter this World Trade Organization and play fair ball with it.
Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned before that you had some
experience in refereeing. I think you will also agree that the
linesmen were very important in that game, that they did have to
help in keeping the game under control.
(1555 )
I think this is where the hon. member from the NDP failed to
realize that we will have referees and linesmen who are not from
the multinational food processing corporations. These are going
to be set and enforced by countries. It is only with the will and
determination of countries like Canada supporting this trade
organization, making sure that the laws are kept and abided by
that we will have a very successful entry into this trade
organization.
I would appreciate it if the hon. members on the other side of
the House would take it to heart and make us competitive by
becoming competitive inside the country, doing away with trade
barriers, doing away with overtaxation and doing away with
some of the disruptions in the grain handling system by strikes.
We need co-operation. We need this country to get more exports
to improve our balance of trade and to make this country
productive and rich again.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an historic occasion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On a point of order, the
hon. member for Vegreville.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, actually I was standing for debate.
We had shared time, the member for Lisgar-Marquette and I.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Certainly in reviewing
and consulting with the table it would confirm that the member
for Lisgar-Marquette only used 10 minutes. Regrettably, the
Chair was not apprised that the member would be sharing his
time, but having only used up 10 minutes I will recognize the
member for Vegreville for a 10-minute intervention followed by
five minutes question and comment. My apologies to the
member for Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to take part in this debate on the implementation
of the GATT agreement and the World Trade Organization.
This is the first time since GATT negotiations have taken
place that agriculture is a substantial part in the agreement
which is very encouraging. As we can see from the general
support for this legislation which will implement GATT and put
in place the World Trade Organization, there is widespread
support in this House as well. I think it is very encouraging to
see that.
There are however some problems with this bill. I would like
to speak about some of the concerns I have with the bill,
although again I want to reiterate that Reform does support this
bill strongly and I support this bill. However, there are still some
concern mainly with regard to implementing GATT and the
workings of the World Trade Organization.
8442
I know farmers are ready for this trade organization. I have
seen this over the past years as the GATT negotiations have
proceeded. I certainly hear it now from individual farmers and
farm groups that they do support this deal. Clearly farmers are
ready for this deal to be in place and to have the World Trade
Organization in place as a referee, to use the analogy of my
colleague. Is government ready?
I am going to ask a lot of questions today about whether this
government is ready for the implementation of this GATT deal
and for the World Trade Organization to be put in place.
My questions fall into two areas. The first question is in the
area of interprovincial trade barriers and the lack of this
government's dealing with that area, especially in agriculture.
(1600 )
Agriculture is a major part of the GATT negotiations. Yet in
the negotiations on reducing interprovincial trade barriers held
by the government with the provinces over the past summer,
there was virtually no substantial agreement or deal made
between the provinces and the federal government in the area of
agriculture. This important part of trade in the world situation
and in the GATT has not been dealt with in this country. That is
the first area.
The second area is with regard to government agencies. I have
questions about whether the government is ready for the deal
when we look at how it is taking part and refusing to change
certain government agencies.
I would like to briefly talk about interprovincial trade
barriers. Agriculture is an important part of the overall GATT
deal, but it has not been dealt with as a serious issue in terms of
freeing up the barriers between provinces in the area of the trade
in agricultural commodities. It is important that there be some
action on the part of the agriculture minister and other cabinet
ministers in the area of lowering and removing interprovincial
trade barriers.
The third area is government agencies and how the
government has dealt with them. The agencies I am talking
about particularly are the Canadian Wheat Board, the supply
management system and the Western Grain Transportation Act.
I will keep my comments on the Western Grain Transportation
Act very brief because the member for Lisgar-Marquette has
already dealt with the issue to some extent. I will talk about the
Canadian Wheat Board and some of the questions I have with
regard to changes that will be required to the Canadian Wheat
Board to make the GATT deal work.
In the agreement there are two changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board Act. They are laid out in clauses 48 and 49 of the bill.
Clause 48 deals with changes to section 45 of the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. Under these changes the Canadian Wheat
Board will control only exports and no longer control imports of
wheat and barley.
I want members to think about that a bit. Right now the
Canadian Wheat Board controls imports and exports of wheat
and barley. Under the change the Canadian Wheat Board will
only control exports of wheat and barley. I ask if it makes much
sense for our government to control exports when we have just
negotiated a trade agreement which is meant to allow for freer
trade of goods in and out of the country. It makes no sense.
Clause 49 changes section 46 of the Canadian Wheat Board
Act. It says that the Canadian Wheat Board no longer controls
licences for imports into Canada. It gives up the restriction on
imports of grain and gives up the control of licensing imports.
At the same time it maintains under the Canadian Wheat Board
Act restrictions on exports. It seems absolutely ridiculous that
imports are no longer restricted under the act and exports
continue to be restricted under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
What does that mean in terms of what will happen in the grain
industry? I think it means a lot of things. It means that American
farmers will now be able to sell directly to Canadian millers
while Canadian farmers may not. Does that sound incredibly
ridiculous? It is. We need further changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board Act to allow Canadian farmers to sell directly to Canadian
millers. American farmers will have this right after the bill is
passed, as it surely will be.
(1605)
I would like to tell a story about a Canadian entrepreneur that I
heard at the wheat board rally in Regina three or four weeks ago.
To diversify his operations a farmer built a flour mill on his
farm. He employed people from off farm to run the mill. It was
the type of operation we all want to see.
What was his concern and why was he one of the speakers at
the wheat board rally in Regina? The reasons are really quite
simple. For him to use his own wheat in his flour mill, it was
necessary for the farmer to sell his grain through the Canadian
Wheat Board to be strictly operating under the law. He needed
his own flour because he was making specialty flour products
and selling them across western Canada. Yet to do that, to use
the wheat that he was growing to produce flour, he had to go
through the Canadian Wheat Board. That sounds almost
unbelievable when we are talking about opening up the trade
environment.
The farmer also wanted to expand into the American market
with his specialty flour. What was restricting him from doing
that? The Canadian Wheat Board was restricting him from doing
that. He would have to get a permit under the Canadian Wheat
Board Act to sell his flour into the American market, a
restriction that he did not want to live with.
8443
If we look at the particular situation of the farmer and carry
it a little further and if the bill passes as it almost certainly will,
the farmer may go to an American farmer across the border,
buy his flour without going through the Canadian Wheat Board,
buy wheat for his mill without going through the Canadian
Wheat Board. He will not be able to do that under the changes.
The sellers will not need a licence to import the wheat to be
used in his mill. Yet he cannot use his own flour in his own
mill. He cannot use his neighbour's flour in his own mill
because of the restrictions of the Canadian Wheat Board. It
sounds absurd and it is absurd.
I would like to ask the minister a series of questions. First,
does it seem reasonable to allow Canadian farmers the same
freedom American farmers enjoy? Does that seem reasonable?
Should not Canadian farmers at least have the same freedom in
marketing their wheat and their barley as American farmers
have, especially when we are talking about marketing into the
Canadian market? They do not now have the same freedom.
The second question is in regard to giving farmers control of
the Canadian Wheat Board which, after all, is their organization.
Farmers pay the bills to operate the Canadian Wheat Board. The
Canadian Wheat Board supposedly exists for the benefit of
farmers. That being the case, how could the minister or any
other minister possibly refuse to give farmers control over this
organization?
I have asked the minister this question several times over the
past few months and the answer has been that they have to study
the matter or the answer went in some other direction entirely.
When I am talking about giving farmers control over their
own organization, I am only talking about farmers electing a
board of directors to replace the present appointed board. That
would make the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to farmers
who really pay for the operation of the organization. Why on
earth would the minister or anyone else have to do a study to
decide to give farmers control over their organization by
electing a board of directors? I cannot think of an answer.
I would just like to ask a couple more questions in the time I
have left. Has anyone asked farmers whether they want the
wheat board maintained as a monopoly operation? I know other
Reform members and I have. The minister certainly has not and
it is time that he did. The minister has an obligation to ask
farmers whether they want this monopoly maintained. Has
anyone asked farmers whether they want appointed
commissioners replaced with an elected board of directors?
(1610)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I know 10
minutes can sometimes go by rather rapidly, with the greatest
respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
short question for the hon. member from western Canada. I
would like to know what he has to say about the fact that we are
still paying the cost of shipping western grain, in other words,
Canadians have to subsidize the transportation of western grain.
I always thought we should subsidize the transportation of grain
in proportion to the distance involved. The fact is that although
we subsidize the transportation of western grain, there are no
subsidies for the transportation of grain from the East. I always
thought that was unfair. I would appreciate some explanations
from the hon. member from western Canada.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the question was with regard to
subsidies and whether subsidies should be distance related. A
further comment by the member that there were no subsidies to
grain from central Canada was untrue. The seaway is a very
expensive system to keep open and operating. A lot of
government money has gone into and continues to go into it.
Certainly there are subsidies to central Canadian farmers in
terms of shipments as well as to western farmers.
The second point was why the Crow benefit, as it used to be
called, came into being in the first place. It came into being early
in this century to get raw product to central Canada for
processing. That was the reason that the Crow benefit was paid
in the first place. It was not because western farmers needed a
subsidy. It was because central Canadian processors wanted
western farmers to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. This
is no longer acceptable. The Crow benefit payment has
prevented western farmers from developing a processing
industry in western Canada.
We can no longer talk about whether or not the subsidy should
be distance related. The question is whether we should have a
subsidy. The answer is no. There should be no subsidy connected
directly with distance or to be paid out in any other way.
The money now paid out under the Western Grain
Transportation Act, the Reform Party has said, should be put
into a trade distortion adjustment measure which would
compensate farmers directly for damage done due to unfair trade
practices in other countries. The compensation could be for
damage in any commodity; it would be commodity neutral.
The way things work, probably the compensation would be
for grain at first. Certainly over time the compensation would be
for other commodities as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member about grain transportation. Today,
to be eligible for the subsidy, western grain is first shipped to
Thunder Bay, and we are talking about grain that is going to be
shipped to Europe. Then, they ship it back to Vancouver, and
from Vancouver the grain is sent by ship through the Panama
8444
Canal to Europe. I would like to know whether the hon. member
has some alternatives, when we are talking about saving money.
I wish he could suggest some ways to save money in this
particular instance.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question refers to the
backtracking that has been occurring for several years and was
pointed out to the minister very clearly a year ago. Backtracking
involves grain being shipped under the subsidized rate to
Thunder Bay and then going back at the full market rate. It
makes no sense.
As my colleague mentioned before, it costs Canadian
taxpayers between $15 million and $40 million a year. It is
absurd. It should not be happening. Why could the minister of
agriculture not say it will not happen any more within a month of
when he found out it was happening? Why? There is no good
answer for it. It should have happened.
The minister himself is backtracking. Originally he said that
the backtracking would cease to exist on January 1. Now he has
put it off until the end of July, to the new crop year.
(1615 )
Certainly there are some problems with contracts that were
made before this problem was widely recognized but those
should be dealt with directly and backtracking should have
ceased long ago.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an historic occasion to enter this debate because it
does mark the end of half a century of specialized experience in
world trade, what we would think to be flawed experience, and
the moving into the 21st century.
I am reminded of the vision of the great wartime leader
President Franklin Roosevelt whose plans for the post war
period included not merely a United Nations organization but a
parallel international trade organization that would promote
principles of liberalism, free trade and that would remove trade
tariff barriers around the world.
President Roosevelt did not live to see his vision implemented
or to see it fail. The reasons for the failure are a matter for
historians. Some wrongly blame it on the cold war but we would
have to say it was the persistence of protectionist feelings in the
United States associated with that tragically ill-advised attempt
retroactively to cure the world depression, the Smoot-Hawley
high tariff wall approach.
Mr. Roosevelt and his heirs, Mr. Truman and others, had to
fight against that. They also had to fight against the
neo-isolationist American thinking that one found bound up
with the Bricker amendment controversy seeking to limit an
affirmative American role in western Europe's political and
economic recovery.
The failure of the International Trade Organization, the
failure of the high hopes of Bretton Woods toward the end of the
war led to the creation of this strange institution. Some have
said, borrowing from Guys and Dolls: ``The oldest permanent
floating crap game in the world,'' but in fact it is a periodic,
recurring international diplomatic conference, GATT.
GATT had many things to offer in terms of history, but if one
looks back on it it was a concentration of particular problem
solving operations, each bringing in its own set of specialists,
each producing an arcane set of diplomatic negotiations that
were never open to larger public debate.
GATT had a function to fulfil but the quest for overarching
principles or an overarching vision of a world economy was
simply not there. This is the significance of the revival half a
century later of the concept of a World Trade Organization. It
will finally balance in the economic sense what the United
Nations is intended to do in a governmental sense.
With the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, it
completes a triad of international economic organizations. That
is all to the good and we might say that it is about time. It is a
federalizing process. It is a constitutional process. It will mean
that the large issues of world trade are no longer debated in
secret in those holiday resorts visited off season because that is
really where the GATT conferences were held.
They got cut rate rates. One visits Uruguay in winter instead
of the beach in summer. GATT had its function but it did not
really answer up to the problems of the emerging 21st century.
This WTO initiative comes with a period when the walls are
falling down all around the world, all the walls. The Berlin wall
falls politically. You cannot shut out the economic ideas when
you open the way to political ideas.
It has been said, and it is true, that you can achieve a market
economy without having a liberal democratic society but you
cannot maintain the one without the other. The English
historical experience was that certainly free trade principles
emerged before the political liberalization but the political
liberalization marches hand in hand with that.
In very many respects this is an historic occasion for us. The
debate has been constructive and helpful. I noted in particular
the interventions of my colleagues, my friends of the Bloc with
their concerns about federalism. I can assure them that on this
side of the House we share the desire for a more flexible,
co-operative federalism in which there is, not merely as a matter
of political common sense but also of a genuine sense of
goodwill, co-operation and liaison between the federal
government and provincial authorities. So much of the
achievement of
8445
free trade depends on the working co-operation at all levels of
government.
(1620)
Those interventions have been helpful and have been taken
note of. You may be assured that in the implementation of the
government's structural reform programs they will be operated
on so that we move from a period in which Canadian economic
policy has been governed by bilateralism plus multilateralism
through this periodic international diplomatic conference that is
called GATT into what has been called a mondialist, one world
type of conception, a parliamentary constitutional organization
where the debates are open, where the delegates can make thrust
and counter thrust but where everything is into the open. That I
think accords with the spirit of our times.
It is not a closed organization, although it is important to
stress-and I think we have borne this in mind-that you cannot
in our debate on an act to implement the World Trade
Organization and in the guise of making amendments to national
legislation insert unilateral reservations to an international
treaty. If we are to be in at the beginning as a charter member of
the World Trade Organization, we must do so without
reservations and with the full confidence of our ability to make
the system work.
We have disengaged more easily and more elegantly than
some other countries, certainly more easily than our neighbour,
the United States, from the old order. The swords are being
turned into ploughshares. Economic forces guide the next
century. The old order on which the cold war was based is over.
As a charter member of the World Trade Organization we are in a
position to make very concrete suggestions on the accession of
new members. We can help the entry of China into this
organization. We can look at the special case of Taiwan because
I do not think Taiwan can be ignored. We can look at a place for
Russia with its new liberalizing phase still to be completed.
There is an enormous challenge in this transition from a cold
war, politically and militarily based world order to one based on
free trade and the free commerce in intellectual ideas that goes
with this.
This is something of a challenge to Canada because we have
led in foreign policy in so many areas. We invented
peacekeeping. In very many senses if you look at the substantive
principles of the United Nations they are our ideas for a
democratizing of a world organization that perhaps too easily
fell into the concept of a permanent members' club. We are in
the fight there.
This is the challenge of the new bill and in some sense the
happiness that we find such a consensus around the House from
virtually all the members of the House in support of this
principle and this idea.
In moving the new system into the 21st century there is no
derogation from our special relations with the United States and
Mexico under NAFTA. These agreements subsist but they are
seen in the larger context of one world with its own principles in
which a pluralism of decision making occurs. This has been the
Canadian way from the beginning. I return to my original point.
It is a moment in history. Half a century, in a certain sense, of the
carryover of the old, pre-World War II economic order comes to
an end with new hopes and new visions. It is a privilege to have
been part of it.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra put an
historical sense to what is being proposed at third reading of the
World Trade Organization, something that was attempted after
the second world war and was always, by my reading of history,
blocked by the United States.
(1625 )
It was interesting to note the hon. member mentioned that in
his opinion and apparently in the opinion of the government as
well because they did stop all attempts to insert unilateral
reservations into international agreements.
I think he was referring to the amendments that NDP members
had put before the House at report stage. Essentially we were
attempting and continue to make the argument for a level
playing field between ourselves and the Americans. Their law
which we copied and we are hoping to insert into our law
effectively says that where a dispute or problem arises on trade
matters, U.S. law shall prevail. That is something the United
States has adhered to ever since it became a country. Its
constitution gives its Congress that right. I understand that.
However, I have greater difficulty understanding the action it
has taken with its proposed law which effectively says the U.S.
considers that consensus is still the rule in mediating disputes.
That is not what all people conclude the international agreement
says. It says where there is a dispute, the disagreement shall be
resolved by a vote with the majority carrying. The U.S.
persistence in saying that consensus is required means that in
any dispute we might have with one of the largest economies and
certainly a country with one of the largest armies in the world
will only be resolved by consensus. This means if the U.S. does
not agree to it, we do not get an agreement.
Since this is an historic occasion and we have gone to a true
World Trade Organization where a majority rules and where the
same rules will apply to all parties, does the member not have a
bit of a suspicion in the back of his mind that as far as our
relations with the United States are concerned, it is still going to
8446
be its rules and the World Trade Organization will take a couple
of more decades before it arrives between Canada and our major
trading partner.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his very thoughtful question. We believe in the rule of law. The
World Trade Organization has its constitution, its charter and its
rules, including the rules as to how decisions are made. We will
try to apply that to other countries, including if necessary our
neighbours the United States.
The charter will evolve of course. I would hope that we will be
submitting amendments in the future that will strengthen the
dispute settlement procedures and submit, in the ultimate,
issues to the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. We are
not afraid of that. For a number of reasons the United States is.
But we can perhaps bring them along to our point of view.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order.
I am sorry to interrupt. I will be just a second. I think you will
find there is unanimous consent in the House for the following
motion:
I move:
That if during Private Members' Hour a recorded division be demanded on
Thursday, December 1, 1994, the same shall stand deferred until the
conclusion of time allotted for the consideration of Government Orders on
Tuesday, December 6, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of
Bill C-57. I am not going to discuss agricultural issues today. I
want to discuss the implications of this bill with respect to a
major segment of Canadian industry, the petrochemical
industry.
I am speaking in one sense out of self-interest because the
petrochemical industry happens to be the largest industry in my
riding. It came about as a result of chance when oil was first
discovered about 20 miles outside the city of Sarnia in the
mid-1850s. Oil was brought into the city by truck and train and
later by pipeline to the point that Sarnia became an oil town. Out
of that evolved the petrochemical industry which now plays a
major role in the economy.
(1630)
The demand for oil and oil related products particularly
following the second world war led to an expansion of
petrochemical companies throughout Canada but in particular in
my riding.
We saw during the post-war period, after the second world
war through to the eighties, massive expansion, massive
demand for petrochemical related products. We saw that the
income of those who worked in this particular segment of the
economy was probably the highest per capita income of
Canadians.
However, in the eighties, in the downturn, the petrochemical
industry suffered a number of economic set backs. There has
been a decrease in demand since 1988 due to the recession.
There has been an increase in competition in particular in the
Asian rim. Changes in government regulations have had a
negative impact on an industry that remains very vital to our
Canadian economy.
I would point out that in the province of Ontario the provincial
government has imposed a number of environmental regulations
which are driving business out of this part of the economy. In my
riding alone there have been more than 5,000 jobs lost since
1988. Still, it is a vital part of the economy employing
something like 17,000 people.
There are 17 petrochemical facilities in my riding. There are
the Imperial Oils, the Shell Oils, the Duponts, the list goes on
and on. There are 10,000 people directly employed in it and
another 7,000 people working in related fields. It is interesting
to note that employees in the petrochemical industry earn two
and one-half times the annual salary of the average Canadian
worker.
We realize that trade liberalization is a key to continued
development in this industry. That is why passage of Bill C-57
is essential for the economic well-being of a large number of my
constituents. To understand why that is the case, we only need to
consider the chemical industry or the petrochemical industry in
Canada.
Canada's chemical manufacturing sector has annual sales of
over $10 billion and employs some 30,000 Canadians. It
provides the basis for a broader chemical and chemical product
sector which employs another 90,000 Canadians. This industry
is Canada's third largest manufacturing sector and is also third
in terms of value added. The chemical industry depends on
international markets for its survival. Exports account for well
over 50 per cent of annual production in Canada. In some
facilities, especially in southern Ontario in my riding, it is well
over 80 per cent that is exported.
8447
That is why the normalization of tariffs achieved by the WTO
is so important. If we consider for one moment the size of world
trade in this industry, we will know that in 1993 total exports
of chemicals worldwide were some $313 billion U.S., or 9.2
per cent of total world exports. For the same year total world
production was over $1.25 trillion in U.S. funds.
Bill C-57 represents a significant step forward for the
chemical manufacturing industry in my riding, throughout
Canada and particularly in Alberta. By joining the World Trade
Organization Canada and its major trading partners, including
the European Union, Japan and the U.S. as well as other
industrialized nations have agreed to harmonize a broad range of
chemical tariffs at low rates of duty. Any Canadian tariff that is
currently below the harmonization levels will remain
unchanged.
Also included in the agreement are new global rules for the
protection of intellectual property rights, including a set of
standards in the area of copyrights and trademarks which
commit each government to protect and enforce intellectual
property rights. That is very important for Canadians where we
have invented a number of procedures of a chemical nature that
have been given protection as intellectual property.
This agreement will also result in several benefits for Canada
in general. Once again I speak in favour of my riding which will
benefit from it.
(1635)
The reduction and harmonization of most favoured nation
tariffs will improve market access for Canadian exports of
chemicals and chemical products and plastics to niche markets.
This improved access will be particularly beneficial for the
export oriented petrochemical and synthetic resin industries
located in Canada.
For Canada the strength of the World Trade Organization and
the GATT lies in their broad country participation. The
disciplines that will apply to developing countries will improve
our access to these markets. By providing more open
international markets the World Trade Organization agreement
will assist the Canadian industry to become better oriented to
global markets.
The traditional Canadian branch plant structure is giving way
to one that is increasingly world competitive. International
manufacturing mandates and research development mandates
for Canada will be facilitated by this agreement. The World
Trade Organization will also provide an improved dispute
settlement regime for a more effective alternative to trade wars.
I would like to talk briefly about the future. Market access for
petrochemical products is essential to the continued growth of
the industry. It is vital for economic renewal, notwithstanding in
whose riding it may be. To be globally competitive means to
have real access to global markets. In ratifying this agreement
we as a country are taking an important first step. We must
continue our efforts if we are to ensure continued growth in this
very vital sector of our economy.
Canada's trade negotiations are, in my opinion, to be
commended for their accomplishments during the Uruguay
round. They were successful in getting the key target markets of
Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong to agree to most of the tariff
lines. These markets are of particular interest to the
petrochemical sector in Canada.
However, other countries-there is no question this is
something that must be worked on-must be encouraged to join
in in harmonizing their chemical tariffs in the future. In
particular I am thinking of China, because China has a chemical
industry that is two and a half times the size of Canada's in terms
of production. The Chinese industry is growing at the rate of 15
per cent a year and we must convince the Chinese to harmonize
their chemical tariffs and discipline restrictive border measures
for chemicals so that their borders are also open to our products.
Briefly in conclusion, we have to realize that we are living in a
world in which economies of scale are the determining factors.
At the present time in Ontario and most Canadian manufacturers
of petrochemicals are sized for the national and regional
markets but they are not of international scope in size. To be
truly competitive these facilities must be world scale in size. To
be world scale in size they must be able to freely enter world
markets without barriers in place. The larger our market the
more efficient and competitive Canadian industry can be. That
is obviously a truism.
Our world scale plants in the manufacturing of
petrochemicals such as ethylene located in Joffre, Alberta and in
my riding of Sarnia, add substantially to our balance of trade
with other countries, especially the United States.
As Pacific rim countries attempt to break into the marketplace
we are still in a position of strength. Recent studies clearly show
that the workforce required to operate these petrochemical
facilities is the second most educated and trained workforce
today in Canada, second only to the software industry but in
many respects virtually identical.
To ensure that there is a place for our technical graduates we
as a country must constantly strive to ensure open markets for
our goods. Quite simply many of our Asian competitors do not
have the skilled employees needed to operate such facilities
effectively or efficiently.
We must also remember that the production of petrochemicals
ranks highest in Canadian manufacturing in adding value to raw
materials. We have the raw feed stock in abundance, one need
only visit the gasfields of Alberta to realize the volume of the
gas stocks have. We have gas stocks in Ontario also. We must
now ensure that we pass this bill in order to ensure that we have
8448
the markets to which we can ship Canadian products. We can
use these raw stocks and we can add great value to them in the
end.
(1640 )
Finally, without the passage of this bill we will slowly but
surely strangle this important segment of our industry in our
economy.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member started by saying that today he was not going to speak
about agriculture. He did not but I have a question with regard to
agriculture.
The member knows that in Ontario the Ontario Wheat Board
has an elected board of directors. This elected board of directors
controls the operations of the Ontario Wheat Board. In the west
the Canadian Wheat Board is controlled by an appointed group
of commissioners.
I am looking for an open and honest opinion. Does it make
sense that a marketing group, the Canadian Wheat Board, which
is paid for by western Canadian farmers, be controlled by a
group of appointed commissioners rather than by an elected
board of directors as is in place in Ontario?
If the member does agree this should happen, can he offer any
suggestions for making it happen quickly? If the hon. member
feels that it should not happen, that farmers should not take
control of their organization which they pay for, why not?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, what so often happens with
members opposite is they give true meaning to the Latin term
non sequitur. In any event, I would have to confirm first what he
has had to say before I could really offer any comment.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for his every interesting speech on the
petrochemical industry, something that I really do not know
very much about. I do not have that industry in my riding.
He mentioned the education of people working in that
industry. Does he feel that our institutions are keeping up with
that? Are they able to graduate the talent we need to be effective
in the international marketplace?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt
that we are able to graduate the kind of talent necessary to
operate. As I have mentioned, we have led the way in many
respects in terms of gas technology and other facets of the
refining industry which is part and parcel related to the
petrochemical industry. We have led the way in that in terms of
technology and in terms of costs of unit production.
We are having problems with an aging workforce. The
technology has changed so rapidly that it is sometimes difficult
for that workforce to appreciate or to have a full understanding
of what the science applied is at that particular given point.
That is an industry-wide problem. It does not apply just to
Canada. It is happening in the United States, especially in the
gulf coast region where the industry must constantly upgrade its
workforce, not because it is a poorly trained workforce but
because the science and technology is changing to the point that
these people cannot appreciate the complexities of the
theoretical level of what is happening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 Regina-Lumsden-Taxation; the hon. member for
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Government Appointments.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-57, a bill to enact
the World Trade Organization agreement.
Canada has been, is and I presume will be a trading nation.
The part of the country that I come from, the west, was opened to
European civilization through the act of trading; the traders
from the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company.
Their main purpose for exploring the west was on a trade
mission. It has been a healthy environment for Canada whenever
we have been able to trade freely and unhindered.
I wish to speak today with regard to the issue of farm safety
nets. They are also impacted by the legislation that we are
dealing with today.
(1645 )
We have to understand that agricultural safety nets are really
risk management policies. They are mechanisms to help the
farmer manage risks associated with producing a valuable
commodity, food. We all need it.
The production and selling of goods such as food has a
characteristic in addition to its value as a physical sustenance
that makes it unique. That characteristic is perishability. There
are unique risks associated with the provision to the world of a
perishable commodity, that food that sustains us all.
It is these characteristics of food and the accompanying risks
that lead us to develop risk management programs or our farm
safety nets. The basic responsibility for managing the risk falls
to the farmer just as it does for any other businessman. Farmers
accept the fact that there are unique risks in producing food.
They try to make wise decisions and carefully manage the
product through its life cycle.
The other basic risk in farming in addition to this aspect of
perishability is the highly fluctuating or uncertain income
caused by forces over which farmers such as myself have no
8449
control. Those forces are natural hazards, market cycles and
trade distorting influences.
Therefore the risk management tools that farmers basically
need are threefold: a crop or livestock insurance program to deal
with the natural hazards, an income stabilization program to
deal with market cycles and a trade distortion adjustment
program to deal with trade distorting influences.
My party, and I was pleased to be involved with that, was able
to consult widely across Canada prior to the 1993 election with
farmers to develop their thoughts on these matters. We are
happy to see that the Liberals who did not campaign on a
post-GATT platform begin now to recognize that the old farm
safety nets are going to have to change.
It seems rather odd that the Liberal Party, one of the oldest
parties in Canada, did not start consulting with farmers earlier.
In fact we are finding in this House that the Liberals are doing all
their consulting after the election. I am proud to belong to a
party that did its consulting before the election. I consider that to
be one of the reasons why so many of us were elected. It also
gives us great authority to speak on most of the issues that we
address in the House, including this bill.
What are some of the concepts that have led to the rules and
conditions and definitions of what now have to be
internationally accepted farm safety net programs? There has
been much talk about improving agriculture policy related to
farm safety net support in recent years.
While the GATT talks have brought reform, there is still much
to be achieved in practice. The organization known as the
OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, consists of Australia, Austria, Canada, the
European community, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.
In the OECD overall support from government budgets and
consumers to agriculture production still accounts for well over
40 per cent of the value of that agricultural production. In spite
of some progress in tackling domestic farm programs, trade
barriers remain stubbornly resistant to liberalization. Many of
the alternative measures being put in place, including direct
income support to farmers to replace subsidies, are still linked
in some way to the production of agricultural commodities.
With respect to rules based trade, the feeling is commonly
held by a lot of farmers that lawyers and bureaucrats are going to
spend huge amounts of time and money trying to figure out how
to beat the GATT rules. We already know, for example, that the
EEC has kept its sum total payment policy in exchange for the
U.S. keeping its nationalistic farm policy.
In other words, we are going to see a lot of wheeling and
dealing and shifting and fudging of numbers in trade and support
account columns. I suppose that such is the give and take of
international negotiations but unfortunately farmers are the
ones who are usually caught in the economic cross-fire.
Currently in the OECD, there are different types of safety nets
and support programs for agriculture. First, of the total support
that comes from consumers and government budgets to the
OECD agriculture, around 71 per cent is transferred by policy
measures that raise market prices received by farmers for their
produce and are paid by consumers for their food beyond those
existing in the world market. These are commonly known as
commodity price support systems.
In Canada's case, the supply management system falls within
this category. There are a lot of positive things that could be said
about supply management but there are certainly a lot of
negative things that have to be said about it as well.
One of the great negatives of the supply management system
is the interprovincial trade barriers that we have within our own
country. It is rather ironic that today we are discussing
legislation that breaks down international trade when we are
such a poor example to our international trading partners with
our domestic policy.
(1650 )
Whatever form our support takes, the real problem for
farmers, as my hon. colleague opposite from Malpeque has
often stated, is low, real net market income for food. Farmers
simply deserve a fair return on their investment. They want to
get paid what their product is worth just like anyone else. They
do not particularly want to have a lot of subsidies and
government support.
I would suggest to hon. members opposite that the way to get
more market income is to relax these types of price support
policies that restrict the market forces. We need to trust a free
and fair marketplace to bring the returns that we all want. I am
happy to see that our rules based trading arrangements are
addressing these type of subsidies and moving toward their
elimination.
Second, only 13 per cent of farm support given is in the form
of direct payments to farmers from government budgets. Much
of this is transferred to the farming sector by policies that raise
prices received by farmers through subsidies based on output or
production. Although such subsidies do not directly affect the
market prices paid by consumers, most of these measures are
production related. They take the form of deficiency payments
which are payments that make up the difference between a
guaranteed price per unit of commodity and the actual market
price. Headage payments are payments paid on the amount per
head of cattle or sheep, et cetera.
The third type of support represents 16 per cent of the total
and is largely made up of government's budgetary finance
measures that are not targeted to specific farmers or
commodities but to the agricultural sector as a whole. These
include
8450
publicly financed infrastructure, research, inspection,
information or education and training.
We must note that the amount of support provided by these
three different types of policy measures is very uneven across
the OECD countries. Some countries give more weight and
emphasis to the support of market prices, others to direct
payments and yet others to non-targeted general support.
Therein lies the problem of negotiation for rules based and equal
treatment trade.
Therein also lies the potential for a harmonized movement
away from market distorting programs to a free and fair
international marketplace where farmers can make a living
providing one of the most important products to humanity, the
food we eat.
The pricing support programs and other subsidies I have
referred to apparently cost consumers and taxpayers in OECD
countries over $350 billion a year in higher food bills and in
taxes. These policies distort trade patterns and heighten tensions
between countries.
At the OECD ministerial meeting in 1987 their governments
therefore committed themselves to reducing total support and to
moving away from production and output related subsidies to
other policy measures. One of the programs considered by
GATT to be green is direct income payment to farmers which
comes under the second type of safety net or support that I have
referred to, direct payments.
I want to talk about the matter of direct income payments for
farmers. We refer to it as an income stabilization program or ISP
and that addresses the risk of market cycles. Direct income
payments are literally that, explicitly budget financed income
transfers made directly to individual farmers. Thus, they are
distinct from the other policy mechanisms that transfer income
to farmers indirectly either through commodity price supports
which raise consumer prices or through lower input costs or
through money spent on the farm sector as a whole.
The main advantage of direct income payments is that they
can be targeted to the specific farmers whose situations are
deemed to warrant such payments. This is in sharp contrast with
price supports that are targeted at commodities which thereby
give most benefit to the largest producers who may not warrant
such support.
A commodity price support system such as our supply
management also creates a prohibitive expense in its tool of
production, the quota. It restricts farmer entrepreneurship
because new entrants can only get in with large capital outlay
through means such as large debt or a fortunate inheritance.
As a regulated marketing mechanism it does not transmit the
signals of the market back to the producers quickly enough and
reduces the innovative abilities of the industry. Therefore, the
supply managed system must speed up its adjustment to
liberalized trade as it will be in its own best interest. I know
some of the members opposite are beginning to agree with this
certainty even if they do it with reluctance.
Moreover, support to the income of farmers is more efficient
than support to the prices of products. Price supports easily leak
into the sectors upstream or downstream from the intended
recipients or are wasted in competitive price subsidization
between countries illustrating a phenomenon known as transfer
inefficiency.
Well targeted direct income payments have a high degree of
transfer efficiency because nearly all of the transfer ends up
where it is intended, supporting farmers' incomes.
(1655 )
Moreover, in case members opposite are still not convinced of
a better way, let me offer another advantage of farmer income
support as opposed to commodity price support. Since income
supports are financed from national budgets, they are more
transparent and can thus be scrutinized more easily than price
supports which are hidden in high consumer prices.
In all fairness and objectivity, we must admit that all
measures of support including direct income payments will
produce distortions to some degree. I am saying that those
supports linked to pricing or production of specific commodities
are the most distorting. Price supports are guilty, as I have
mentioned above.
Production support systems are faulty because they give
incentives to over or underproduce certain commodities, thus
creating a moral hazard or a situation called farming the system,
or they encourage unfriendly environmental practices. All in all
it should be obvious that moving away from price and
production support and toward income support is the wave of the
future. All would be well-advised to get on board.
Direct income payments must satisfy two conditions in order
to allow farmers to become more market reliant. First, the
amount of payment should be generally fixed to a particular
period of time and thus remain immunized from moral hazard.
We do not want an income support program that would give an
incentive to alter behaviour for monetary gain at the expense of
environmental stewardship or fair business practices.
Second, the amount of payment should not be determined by
the volume of current or future production of specific
commodities or inputs to avoid biasing farmers' choices
between specific commodities or those production techniques.
We must also continue to carefully define the objective of
each type of direct income payment, whether it is income
payment to help farmers adjust to alternative activities, a
scheme to establish a minimum income, a measure to encourage
environmental activities or a program to stabilize income be-
8451
cause of market cycles. All these appear to be eligible under
GATT. The situations for which direct income payments could
be made available have to be very carefully specified to ensure
there is the least distortion to the use of resources and to avoid
back door channels of support to agriculture commodities,
which would undermine the current reforms taking place.
How do we decide the amount of direct income payment?
Basically there are two ways. First, we can assess the costs
incurred by the farmer in undertaking activities for which
payments are targeted. The second way is to evaluate income
foregone by not undertaking an activity or measured against a
predetermined base line such as loss of income due to market
cycles compared to a recent income trend.
The duration of direct income payment programs depends on
the duration of the problem being addressed. As far as possible,
market-based solutions should be encouraged because they are
longer term and are likely to emerge as reform evolves.
As I opened my comments I talked about the west being
explored and developed because of free traders, because of
people who wanted to go out, take some risks and try to make a
few dollars. I suspect that as Canada moves into the global
economy we can again expect to have some adventures, perhaps
in a different situation, perhaps in the high tech civilization and
society that we now live. It will be exciting for agriculture as
well. There are great opportunities and this Bill C-57 is in a
small way opening the door of opportunity.
While this bill will not solve all problems facing world trade,
certainly not all of the problems facing agriculture, it is a step in
the right direction. Therefore we offer our support for the GATT
agreement, for the World Trade Organization Implementation
Act and we hope this is one move toward reducing government
funding for not only agriculture, but many commodities. It will
give an opportunity for the market to sustain our industries,
including the agricultural industry, so that not only farmers but
all Canadians will enjoy lower taxes, a strong economy, and
have a bright outlook on the future.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member gave us a nice theoretical review of what would be nice
if everybody agreed with the same kind of rules. We are debating
though this world trade office which is international. It is not
something we can control within the confines of one country.
As an aside I would point out that this country has had
provinces ever since its inception and those provinces have
certain powers which the hon. member has chosen in his
theoretical discussion to ignore. They have control over
production within the province which is why the marketing
boards operate the way they do.
(1700)
However my question concerns the international aspects of
the bill. I would urge the member to turn his mind to our
relations vis-à-vis other countries, particularly as they apply to
assistance to agriculture since that was the main theme of his
speech.
Since the negotiations began in 1986 I note that all countries
made a verbal undertaking to start reducing subsidies and
assistance to agriculture. I note that in the OECD countries he
mentioned the aid to the agricultural sector has actually
increased by 7 per cent in the past year over previous years. The
trend is definitely not reducing assistance to farmers in OECD
countries, with the exception of Canada which shows a decline
of 12 per cent in the last year over the previous year in assistance
to agriculture.
We hear a lot of talk about level playing fields. As a former
hockey referee, Mr. Speaker, I know you understand the
importance of having the two teams relatively well matched in
terms of equipment and so on. It seems to me that what we have
achieved to date with the verbal agreements is perhaps a field
that will be more level than it was. However players on the
Canadian team have hardly any equipment and players on the
other teams we are competing against are very heavily padded
and ready to go with the full support of their fans, their local
national governments.
I read the documentation our country put together. I got it
under freedom of information because it was not made available
otherwise. I find it is the intention of the country under the
Liberal government, and apparently supported by the Reform
Party and others, to reduce the assistance to agriculture at an
even faster pace than we have done to this point in time, even
though the other countries are still a long way from catching up
and taking off their special protections.
It is to the point that by the end of the decade when the
six-year implementation stage comes and we start on the
seventh, which is supposed to be the achievement of the new
world order, Canada will be paying its agricultural sector $1.5
billion less than the agreement requires. We will be nice and
squeaky clean. We will be out there playing hockey in our
civvies while everybody else will have the same level of support
they have now, with perhaps a few minor reductions.
I am wondering how he could describe that as fair or
something he would advocate in terms of our relations with all
other countries. How could this approach be something that he
would support?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
the hon. member for Mackenzie. I know he has a sincere interest
in agriculture and a strong commitment to the industry.
He spoke just in passing about marketing boards and the fact
that the provinces have been given some jurisdictional powers in
that area. The actual act is a federal act and there have been
some real discrepancies as a result of it.
8452
For instance, I wonder if the hon. member for Mackenzie
supports the fact that the province of Quebec has a leg up on the
rest of Canada as far as the industrial milk quota is concerned.
Provinces such as our province of Saskatchewan do not have fair
access to the industrial milk market because of the inequities of
the interprovincial trade barriers within Canada. It is certainly
an area we need to rectify. It is an intolerable situation. It has
certainly hurt the agricultural industry in our province.
(1705)
With regard to his comments about the level playing field and
being equipped to play in the game, I share some of the same
concerns the hon. member has expressed but I mentioned in my
speech that we were comparing apples and oranges.
I want to make very clear probably one of the most dastardly
attempts at taking away the equipment we as Canadian
producers need to play the game. It was the action undertaken by
the minister of agriculture when he agreed to cut the export sales
of durum to the United States by half. Certainly I would agree
with the hon. member that actions such as that one when we have
the trade agreements on our side are unacceptable.
Export sales of Canadian durum to the United States were
steadily increasing. In fact they were on an ascending rate, an
accelerated rate. Just because Uncle Sam south of the border put
a little pressure on the Canadian minister of agriculture he
forgot about the rules. He forgot about the equipment. He threw
it away.
If we are talking about being out on the ice and playing the
game, I do not think our agriculture minister has gone out on the
ice yet. If he has he certainly has not gone across his own blue
line. Perhaps he needs a penalty for not getting in the game. I do
not know, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever called one of those but I
think the agriculture minister needs one.
We have the NAFTA. We have the GATT. If we are to
voluntarily give up just because somebody puts a little pressure
on us when the rules are on our side and the judgments are on our
side, it is wrong and a disgrace to Canadian farmers. I would call
upon the minister of agriculture-and I am sure the hon.
member for Mackenzie would as well-not to strip us of the
equipment that helps us to play the game.
I am convinced that Canadian farmers, given a level playing
field, will compete with any team. Just as we were able to
compete with the Russians back in 1976, I am sure as agriculture
producers and free traders we will be able to take on any
competitor in the world and play an excellent game. I suspect
when the final whistle blows and when the light comes on at the
end of the third period we will win if the government does not
get in the road and if our minister of agriculture pulls up his
socks, grabs a stick and gets in the game.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just to make sure the
House is clear, the member for Regina-Lumsden will speak for
approximately 15 minutes and the member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle for 5 minutes, which will make a full
complement of 20 minutes.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is my duty and my pleasure to speak in opposition to Bill
C-57, the bill to enact the World Trade Organization legislation.
There are many reasons we oppose the bill as New Democrats.
Before getting into the reasons I want to make a comment or
observation. When we have a bill that is supported and put
forward by the Liberal government of about 250 pages dealing
with an agenda the large multinational corporations want to see
completed, that is supported by Bloc members in the House and
is supported by the Reform Party, it seems to me Canadians
should pay particular attention to the implications of the bill.
When a bill is supported by the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and
the Reform Party there has to be something peculiar,
mysterious, suspicious and probably disadvantageous to
Canadians.
I challenge any member in the House to stand to say they have
read the bill because I do not think they have. I do not think they
understand the implications of the bill. However I have had
occasion to read most of it. I have not read it all, but what I have
read is unbelievable with respect to what the bill does to
Canadian producers, agriculture producers, steel producers,
sugar producers and other manufacturers.
The reason I say that is that the bill does not stand up for
Canadians. Members of the New Democratic Party, the member
for Winnipeg Transcona, the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the member for Mackenzie and
others, have stood in the House of Commons to say that they
have major concerns about the bill. We have heard the concerns
in agriculture. We have heard the concerns about child labour
and important social equities with respect to Bill C-57.
When I look at a bill I look at certain criteria the bill has to
meet in order for me to support it. It has to be fair. It has to be
equitable to those it affects. It has to be responsible. The
government has to account for its actions with respect to the bill.
(1710)
In my observations of the bill I can only conclude that if the
legislation does not meet the criteria I have set out as being
acceptable to Canadians and to the people of Regina-Lumsden
whom I represent, it cannot possibly go forward without
comprehensive debate and amendment.
8453
As a result the New Democratic Party put forward
amendments in the House to address issues of equity, fairness,
responsibility and accountability. They were defeated by the
government, by members of the Reform Party and by members
of the Bloc Quebecois. This is very disconcerting to the people
of Canada as well as to our caucus because we tried to inject
some fairness.
I want to make a couple of points with respect to the bill. For
example, the WTO is a new constitution for the globalized
economy written by and for multinationals, the transnationals of
the world. The government has rejected a policy of developing a
social clause to the WTO that would ensure multinationals
recognize basic labour and environmental standards to prevent
the race to the bottom.
Even though the WTO supposedly offers a new rules based
trading regime that will bring relief from trade harassment,
American behaviour under NAFTA rules and evasive measures
put into the American implementing legislation make it very
unlikely that the Americans will play by the rules.
In my remarks today I want to focus on the American
legislation and how it protects American producers and
American businessmen. The Canadian legislation we see before
the House today does not protect Canadians in the same way.
The biggest claim of WTO advocates is that it will inaugurate
a new era of a rules based trading regime with enforceable rules
regarding dumping and subsidies. The only problem is that the
biggest single player, the United States, clearly has no intention
of obeying the rules. We have already seen how under NAFTA
rules the harassment of our trade in lumber and wheat has gone
on unabated.
The results of the recent congressional elections do not give
Canadians much cause for hope that this behaviour will change.
More important, the Americans have written into their
implementing legislation a long list of provisions that
effectively guarantee that no WTO will ever overturn an
American federal or state measure. The Americans have given
notice that they will treat WTO rules as they have treated
NAFTA rules: to ignore if they go against perceived American
interests.
We in the New Democratic Party have proposed amendments
that would have written into Canadian law exactly the same
protection from WTO rulings the Americans have given to
themselves. The government with typical gullibility about
American goodwill chose to defeat our amendments. That
reminds me: it is the same gullibility of the former Conservative
Government of Canada. It bent over backward for the Americans
and now we see the Liberals who were supposed to be different
are not different. They are the same. They did exactly what the
Conservative government did in the last Parliament of Canada.
Liberal, Tory, same old story, I presume.
In one sense we can look forward to the American sabotage of
the new WTO rules in the way that they have sabotaged the
NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. To get these rules we
have sacrificed a tremendous amount of sovereignty over
investment policy and social security standards. With a rules
based system imposed on American protectionism we can begin
to rebuild a new constitution for the global economy that
represents the interests of the communities.
I share with members an incident that occurred involving
myself and other members of the House of Commons last May.
We are a member of the steel caucus. The steel caucus is
composed of all parties with steel production in their
constituencies. I am proud to say I have IPSCO, the
Interprovincial Pipe and Steel Company in my district. It
employs about 1,100 people. It is a very conscientious and
environmentally sound corporation. It produces a significant
amount of steel and pipe for the Canadian and American
economies and for economies outside North America.
We visited with American congressmen and senators on the
issue of steel production. The reason we were there was that
Canadian steel producers had been injured by anti-dumping
claims of the American steel industry. We went there to talk to
the legislators because they have legislation in effect which
ignores NAFTA and which ignores the WTO that we have before
the House today to protect their own producers.
(1715)
If they believe, if it is perceived-it does not have to be
proven-to injure their own industry, they can use whatever
ability they have under the legislation in effect to deflect or stop
trading nations from selling that product in their country.
We have asked as a caucus to have this legislation amended to
reflect the concerns of Canadian steel producers, our
agricultural producers and others, including sugar, so that we
are protected in the event that the WTO is injurious to Canadian
producers. The government has defeated that. It ignored our
requests and we are very concerned that as are the people in
these industries.
The Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra gave a historical
perspective as to what he thought Franklin Delano Roosevelt
intended in his trade negotiations. I want to throw a quote back
to the member for Vancouver Quadra from Franklin Delano
Roosevelt when he was president: ``The true test of progress in
society is not whether we add to the abundance of those who
have much but whether we provide enough for those who have
too little''. That is a very important message that was relevant
then, relevant now with respect to governments protecting the
people in their countries from injurious economic initiatives
from other countries regardless of world trade regulations.
8454
They are set up to set some standard and regulations to
govern and trade by, to have economic interchange, but in the
end the bottom line is that if it is injurious to your country a
government is elected by the people for the people to protect
the people.
However, if you pass a law that does not provide that
protection, you are giving up your obligation and right to govern
the people you have been elected to govern. What the heck is
going on here? I cannot understand this. I do not think anybody
else in the country understands this either.
What we have to do is point out to the Canadian population
that Bill C-57 is injurious to the steel producers of Canada. It is
injurious to the agricultural producers of Canada. It is injurious
to the sugar producers of Canada and that means it must be
injurious to much of Canada.
If that is the case, why are they injuring our own people? We
have enough competitors out there who are taking advantage of
our country and our economy. We do not have to let the walls fall
down and let our mechanisms of defence collapse and encourage
outside countries to rape and plunder our economy further.
The government is making a serious mistake with respect to
passing Bill C-57 unamended. As a matter of fact, we have
support from many people. I have a letter here from the sugar
refineries. My former deskmate, a Conservative member, the
member for Saint John, the former mayor of Saint John, has
written to the Minister of Finance, pointing out what impact Bill
C-57 will have on the sugar industry.
I can get into that in a few minutes but I want to provide some
evidence from the steel producers of Canada. They have made
representations to the government, to the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as late as November
16 and they have indicated that Bill C-57 as proposed is going to
be injurious to the steel producers of Canada. They document it
in numbers.
They say that because of the anti-dumping situations and
charges, they have been victims of the American steel industry.
It is costing them millions of dollars. They are saying that this
type of anti-dumping initiative is injurious to their exporting
and steel production.
We are not dumping steel in the United States. We produce
steel here and we sell it directly on a contract basis after winning
a tender like any other producer would do in North America. Yet
they single us out as being unproductive and as being overly
competitive because they feel it is hurting their industry.
The facts show and the truth is that is not the case. The steel
producers of Canada want the government to make a couple of
amendments on the following points. They suggested and we
have put forward this proposal in the House that the Special
Import Measures Act should be amended and should provide the
Canadian international trade tribunal with some authority with
respect to injury on the steel exports in Canada.
(1720 )
Unlike the American implementing legislation, Bill C-57
provides no guidelines as to what would be acceptable evidence.
Without guidelines it would be very difficult for a Canadian
company to know how to demonstrate a foreseen and imminent
threat of injury. American companies will have an easier task
under the legislation even though the same principle of the WTO
is being implemented.
The U.S. implementing legislation also provides that if
dumping diminishes in reaction to the filing of a complaint, the
ITC may discount evidence after the filing of its assessment of
injury. This makes it easier for an injury charge to stick. There is
no comparable provision in C-57.
They go on and talk about a number of other issues. Bill C-57
does not say anything about how the threat of injury should be
interpreted at the time of review of an anti-dumping action. The
American legislation does provide for these things.
I could go on in detail about what the steel producers feel is
injurious. The point is that every time they win a contract,
export the steel to the States, even though NAFTA is in
existence, even though the WTO is preparing to be in existence,
the Americans can say because they have lost the contracts in the
open tendering process: ``We are not going to let them take this
contract because we are going to ask them for more
information''. If they ask for all sorts of information it costs
Canadian steel producers literally millions of dollars to gather
this information which then makes their original bid more
expensive and unprofitable. It also delays and is more or less a
discouraging act on the part of the Americans. They have this in
the legislation.
If the Americans harass Canadian steel producers they have
their law on their side and the Congress to provide them with
that lever. Canadians and the Government of Canada are saying:
``We are not going to be like the Americans. We do not want to
provide protection to Canadians because we will be just like the
Americans then''.
Some things the Americans do are pretty smart. That is why
they are the most successful business people in the world. That
is why they have the most successful economy. They always
undertake economic initiatives to the benefit of their country.
New Democrats oppose Bill C-57 on the basis that it is
injurious to the economy of Canada.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the time remaining I also wish to speak on Bill C-57.
I wish to point out that as New Democrats we are not against free
trade per se. We are in favour of a genuinely free trade on a level
8455
playing field. NAFTA, the free trade agreement and Bill C-57
do not lend themselves to a level playing field.
The example the Europeans have with the European
community is more to our liking as an example of where there is
genuine free trade. The Europeans not only recognize that to
bring down the customs barriers and allow the freer trade it is
not just economics that are involved but also the social,
environmental and labour standards.
They have made certain that countries like Spain, Portugal
and Greece that have traditionally low social, environmental
and labour programs have implemented policies to raise them up
so that there is a level playing field. All the industries from
Holland, France and Germany do not go down into cheap labour
countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece. In other words,
care and attention was given to implementing their free trade
agreements. That is basically what we seek as well, a genuine
playing field, to raise the bottom up rather than to bring the top
down to the bottom.
Canadian workers will suffer and government revenues will
suffer. What we are entering into is a global trading pattern in
which industries will find and locate where labour is cheapest.
They will be able to get the resources at the cheapest possible
price and locate their head offices where they pay the least
amount of tax. It is smart business. If you were in business that
is how you would set up your business arrangements. You would
make certain that your natural resources were going to cost the
least, that your labour would cost the least and that you would
pay the least amount of tax. That is logical.
These agreements are allowing them to escape any social
responsibility, any economic responsibility to nation states.
(1725)
Here we are living in a period in the evolution of the human
race when through technological changes we can produce an
abundance such as the human race has never seen before. Yet
countries like Canada and the United States are declining further
and further into poverty, into nations where there are fewer
resources and less wealth to share and for their citizens to enjoy.
We are seeing decreases in our standard of living in the midst
of plenty. Is it not because of the way our economy is structured?
The wealth that is produced is not being distributed. Large
corporations are escaping their social responsibilities by
locating their head offices offshore, which is allowed under
these agreements, and so government revenues are declining.
The nation states and the sovereignty and the sovereign power of
the nation state are slowly eroding.
That is why I am amazed to see the Bloc supporting this. By
supporting this, even if Quebec-I hope it will not, and I suspect
it will not-succeeds in establishing itself as a nation, by the
time it gets there it will find that the nation will not have any
power left at all. It will all have been given away through these
trade agreements.
We are talking about, this little corner of this House, the only
voice of opposition to this massive change, is how we as a
country and how our economy operates and how we regulate
ourselves in the sources of revenue and jobs and wealth. What
we are objecting to is the unfairness of it, how these trade
agreements will benefit the few at the expense of the many, how
as a country and as a sovereign nation we will suffer and we will
decline.
I implore the government, which paid lip service when it was
in opposition and opposed NAFTA and the free trade agreement,
which now seems to embrace these agreements, to maintain
some social conscience, to demand that this government moves
to implement into these free trade agreements social,
environmental and labour components; to make certain that
there is a genuine level playing field, to make certain that the
progressive and historic gains that we have made in this country
in our economy, in our wealth, are maintained and protected
rather than being drawn down to the lowest common
denominator.
I appeal to the genuine Liberals to exert the influence in their
caucus and on their government to make certain that the
Government of Canada stands up for the workers and the
ordinary people of Canada, not to sell them down the river like
the previous Tory governments have done.
Mr. Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is almost
5.30 but I think you might find a disposition on the part of the
House to complete the debate on this important piece of
legislation this afternoon. I believe you will find that there are
two remaining speakers and if each were to be allotted 10
minutes, both being members from this side of the House,
without questions or comments, we could conclude the debate at
5.50. At that time I think you would find also there would be
consent to have the question put on the bill and the vote called at
that stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization.
I would like to reflect today on how important the adoption of
this legislation is to the economy of Canada in general and to the
economy of my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton in
particular.
In order for this government to meet its objective of creating
jobs and improving the economy of Canada, it must enhance the
ability of the nation to export to the rest of the world. The
legislation before us will play an essential role in improving
Canada's access to the ever-growing international markets. By
8456
creating a more open and stable international trading
environment, the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization will generate and increase Canadian exports and
investments.
(1730)
Canadian governments have long recognized the importance
of efforts to liberalize trade. Canada ranks among the top trading
countries in the world.
Over the past two decades Canadian exports have grown
faster than exports from Europe and at about the same pace as
U.S. exports. The free trade agreement signed with the U.S. in
1989 has resulted in an annual gain in real income in the range of
2.5 per cent.
Every region and every sector of the Canadian economy has
benefited from the liberalization of Canada's trade with its most
important trading partner.
A recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute on the effects of the
FTA concluded that Canada's exports to the United States over
the first three years of the agreement performed the strongest in
those sectors that were liberalized by the agreement,
particularly non-resources based manufacturing.
Bramalea-Gore-Malton is in a region of the country that
depends most significantly on non-resource based
manufacturing. Provisions of this bill dealing with agriculture
are extremely significant in that for the first time the agriculture
sector will be brought under the rules-based multilateral
regime.
The significance of these changes will be reflected in my
riding in the improvement of market opportunities for processed
foods. We must support this legislation to ensure that Canadians
will be able to take advantage of improved access to markets.
In the industrial products sector, for example, the Uruguay
round agreement provides for reductions in the tariffs by
one-third and tariffs in 10 sectors have been eliminated entirely.
In terms of improving trade opportunities, Canadian exports
to the European Union will benefit from tariff reductions of
almost 60 per cent. Tariffs on Canadian exports to Japan will be
reduced by 70 per cent.
These tariff reductions will have a significant impact on
companies in Bramalea-Gore-Malton that export to either
Europe or the emerging markets of the Pacific rim.
Better access, reduced tariffs and a competitive attitude
recognizing the worldwide opportunities presented will be the
cornerstone of growth in the future.
This bill is also significant to my riding because for the first
time trade in services and trade related intellectual property are
brought within the framework of multilateral rules. These rules
will provide a stronger basis for the development and transfer of
technology.
The agreement promotes continued liberalization of trade in
services and intellectual property in an area estimated to be
worth some $2 trillion annually. Increased growth in this sector
is anticipated and in fact corporations within my riding are well
placed to benefit from expanding opportunities in these sectors.
It is significant that the negotiations leading to the
establishment of a World Trade Organization benefited greatly
from the process of consultation that has taken place.
The business and agricultural communities, as well as the
provinces, were closely consulted throughout the course of the
negotiations. The fact that prior consultation was designed into
this process means that the results reflect the realities of doing
business in all regions of the nation.
(1735 )
The legislation before us is extremely important as the World
Trade Organization will replace the existing GATT. The World
Trade Organization along with the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund will now operate in concert as the
foundation of a worldwide financial and commercial structure.
The significance of this should not be underestimated as the
development of new global trade rules and negotiations aimed at
furthering liberalization of trade worldwide will now be
provided with a forum.
My support of this bill reflects not only the benefits that will
accrue to my riding, but the benefits that Canada as a nation will
no doubt enjoy. I urge my fellow members to support Bill C-57
and swiftly move to the establishment of the World Trade
Organization.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the third
reading of Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization. The main aim of this
legislation is to establish the new World Trade Organization
which will administer the recently concluded general
agreements on tariffs and trade signed by 123 governments in
Morocco in April of this year.
This bill will set the stage for a new era in international trade,
making Canada a full participant in the most comprehensive
trade agreement in history. Bill C-57, the implementation
legislation, will modify existing legislation and contains only
those changes required to meet Canada's obligations under the
international agreement.
8457
Canada and a host of other nations went through seven and
one-half years of difficult, often very frustrating, multilateral
negotiations with the Uruguay round of GATT. Throughout the
negotiations, Canada aggressively pursued an agreement to
pave the way for expanded trade and investment worldwide. We
certainly did not get everything we wanted, but that is the
nature of most negotiated settlements.
I intend to offer my support to this bill, although I must admit
my support is tempered by cautious optimism. There are so
many unanswered questions associated with what can or should
be achieved in this new era of global trade. Until we become
familiar with the ways and means of this new trading
framework, uncertainty is bound to linger.
The Uruguay round covered 15 different trade areas including
services, government procurement and a new set of trade dispute
rules. We all know how close we came to not having an
agreement at all. Had Canada and other nations not signed this
trade deal it is open to question where we would have stood. It is
possible that business would have continued as usual, but very
unlikely.
Several very serious trade disputes had been piling up
between the United States, the European community and Japan
and were put on hold pending the outcome of the Uruguay round.
As a middle economic power, Canada often found itself in the
crossfire between these formidable trading blocks and our
interests suffered as a result. To that end Canada was forced,
after standing completely alone, to abandon its primary aim, the
strengthening and clarification of article XI, and instead was
compelled to protect its supply managed products by an initial
level of high tariffication rather than quotas.
I should state that as member for Lambton-Middlesex the
primary industry in my riding is agriculture. Statistics show that
nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of farm products
are produced each year in the counties of Lambton and
Middlesex. More than one-half billion dollars worth of farm
supplies and equipment are purchased.
To say that my constituents are concerned about what lies
ahead of them would be an understatement. Frankly, I do not
blame them for being concerned as we embark on a brand new
era in global trade, where to a certain extent a large degree of
blind faith is required. As parliamentarians I believe our main
challenge, given the kind of financial straits in which we find
ourselves and given the international obligations under which
we are now operating, is to search for a proper balance between
the rigours and the power of the marketplace and the
establishment of a greater degree of fairness to farmers in the
farming community. A farming community is worth preserving
and I cannot overstate the need to use and develop our talents in
doing so.
(1740)
It would be a serious mistake for Canada to become
complacent now that 10 years of trade negotiations, starting
with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, have finally ended.
The globalization of large corporations means there is a whole
host of problems around which we have to get our minds.
International trade is no longer among nations but among
highly organized transnational corporations which have
operations around the world. That means there must be
international rules on such things as government regulations,
competition laws, industrial standards and even rules governing
labour markets. The World Trade Organization represents just a
beginning in this process.
For example, members of the House should know that only a
handful of companies control the processing of Canada's
agricultural products. If we do not address this reality, then I am
truly afraid for the future of Canada's farmers. If there is no
incentive to farming then our sons and daughters will choose not
to carry on. If a country cannot feed itself then it becomes a
beggar in the world economy.
There are things we do right in Canada, that are the envy of the
world. Internationally Canada has a reputation as a reliable
supplier of some of the safest and highest quality, most
diversified and unique agri-food products of any country in the
world. Canada's agri-food industry accounts for 8 per cent of
the GDP, over $15 billion in annual export sales, 40 per cent of
Canada's positive balance of trade, two million jobs or 15 per
cent of all jobs and $70 billion worth of goods produced each
year.
We are told that the World Trade Organization will remedy
such things as export enhancement subsidies and unilateral
trade sanctions, that it will command sufficient confidence in its
impartiality and efficiency, that it will uphold multilateral rules
in the face of powerful protectionist interest groups and national
governments.
I am gratified that there is a growing consensus in Canada that
we have to develop our own strategies in dealing with the new
realities that confront us. For example, I am very impressed with
the work being done over the last six months by the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Since May the committee has embarked on an ambitious study
on the future of agriculture in order to evaluate present
agri-food objectives and modify them for the year 2000 and
beyond. Using the criteria of fairness, sustainability and
efficiency, the committee is examining the agri-food sector role
in rural life and in the Canadian economy and is involving
producers, processors, consumers and other interested parties in
developing a long term national strategy for agriculture.
Taken together, these components will constitute an overall
farm policy that will take the Canadian agri-food sector into the
8458
next century. It is precisely grassroot efforts like these that will
prepare Canadian agriculture for the challenges before us.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute the agriculture
committee and its efforts and I have every confidence that it will
be successful in its endeavours. Hopefully, the Uruguay round
will be the last marathon bargaining session.
I believe there will be a preference instead for more limited
and focused negotiations on a variety of sectors and that is as it
should be. Canada has in the past invested significantly in
agricultural research and has achieved one of the highest
international annual growth rates of agricultural production
over the past two decades.
Here is a case in point. Canola, developed in Canada by the
federal government researchers, grew from a zero dollar per
year industry in 1974 to an estimated $9.35 billion per year
industry in 1994.
Tragically Canadian investment in growth enhancing
measures such as research and market development in the
agri-food sector has steadily declined in recent years. We must
reverse this trend precisely because we will find ourselves in an
even more competitive marketplace under the auspices of the
WTO.
Let me say in conclusion that we must develop a strategy for
agriculture between the various levels of government and the
private sector, including the various farm organizations. This
need is even more acute within the highly competitive global
marketplace and it involves three inter-related components.
We must remain committed to agriculture and agri-food and
other natural resource sectors which are the cornerstone of
Canada's economy.
We must strengthen our investment in agri-food research. We
must ensure that the farmers of this country who produce $70
billion worth of goods each year get a fair share of the
agricultural dollar.
Using these criteria once we have recommitted ourselves to
building a solid domestic foundation in Canada's agricultural
sector, I truly believe that we will be able to compete with
anyone in the world.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief deputy whip
to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now
before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m. at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for
not more than 15 minutes.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There is
another vote already scheduled tomorrow. I think you would
also find the House is disposed by unanimous consent to agree to
have that vote at the end of the normal time allotted for
government business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.45 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8458
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House,
1) during an election period but before the date of the election, every
Member of Parliament should be required to certify the location and presence
of their furnishings, supplies and equipment:
(a) in the constituency office, which list should be attested to by the Deputy
Returning Officer, and
(b) in the House of Commons office, which list should be attested to by House of
Commons staff;
2) after an election, the smooth storage and/or transfer of furnishings,
supplies and equipment to the new Member of Parliament should be arranged:
(a) in the constituency office, by the Deputy Returning Officer and
(b) in the House of Commons office, by House of Commons staff;
8459
3) if an outgoing Member of Parliament fails to deliver all furnishings, supplies and
equipment, the shortfall value should be deducted from the Member's pay and/or
pension, or compensation should be sought and, in extreme cases, criminal charges
should be initiated.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity
to debate my private member's motion M-290 which seeks to
address the current inadequacies and shortcomings surrounding
the turnover of assets and inventory by defeated MPs to their
successors.
Currently volume 2 of the member's manual of allowances
and services, chapter G-3, is the only reference to the turnover
of constituency assets of the House of Commons. The closest
and most direct statement referencing the turnover is as follows:
A member who stands for re-election but is not re-elected is required to
vacate the constituency office within 30 days of the date of the election. Thus
the essential costs of maintaining the office for the 30-day winding up period,
(e.g. office supplies, telephone rental, telephone answering service, utility
bills, furniture and equipment rental) may be charged against the members'
office budget.
This is the only reference to a time line, a 30-day winding up
period, and it is not specific as to transfer of assets.
(1750 )
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to read into the record the
text of my motion. However, you have just done that.
I welcome debate, input and suggestions during this allotted
hour and following on how to improve the transition for
incoming MPs, particularly as this motion directs office
inventory and assets.
The public has high expectations of its new MPs after an
election. The goodwill component which is now the driving
philosophy behind the orderly and timely turnover of assets can
and has led to political abuse and interruption of the political
and constituency response process.
I know this first hand. I know I am not alone, particularly after
the last election which saw over 200 new MPs elected, 200 eager
MPs who wanted to get down to business at the constituency
level and in Ottawa but were precluded by outright refusal by
some losing candidates who procrastinated in turning over
government assets or in extreme cases could not be contacted at
all or refused to return calls. Such was my case. Ultimately my
entire office inventory was not in place until January. If it had
been one day later it would have been February, more than three
months after election day.
The House of Commons materiel management group could
not account for the inventory and was unable to locate the
inventory because of its inability to locate the outgoing MP,
because it was unaware of two of the four constituency office
locations which he utilized, and because the MP had placed
assets in storage facilities without notifying materiel
management-totally stealthy and irresponsible behaviour on
the part of an outgoing MP who refused to show goodwill,
inconveniencing not only me but the constituents of North
Island-Powell River.
Allow me to elaborate on the saga of my misfortune by
quoting from my constituency assistant, my second employee at
the constituency: ``On my first day of work, December 1, 1993, I
walked into an office that was sparsely appointed with borrowed
furniture. Not one piece of equipment belonged to the
Government of Canada. I brought my own computer from home
so that we could reply to correspondence''.
My staff frustration grew daily. My staff paid a visit to the
office of my predecessor. It was locked and no staff was around.
A call to Ottawa to materiel management proved fruitless. It
also had no idea where the assets were and was spending
considerable effort tracking down the MP without success.
Essentially, the problem could be summed up by the House of
Commons materiel management official who stated that there
were two MP phone numbers, each with an answering machine
referring the caller to the other telephone and no returned phone
calls. At this point I purchased a photocopier. I knew that an
effective MP had to possess some investigatory skills. This was
ridiculous.
Materiel management representatives indicated they were
getting nowhere with the former MP and their hands were tied
because they lacked power by statute or by decree to do
anything. They floated the scenario at this time of trying to
access the MP and influence his behaviour through the party
constituency association or his party leader.
On December 8, 1993 my constituency office received a call
from the House of Commons to say that the furniture and office
possessions were located. Delivery was promised to my main
office. On December 13 some basic furniture arrived. On
December 17 more furniture arrived, but no sign of computers or
photocopiers as listed on the inventory list. My office continued
to supply the personally owned computer and borrowed a fax
machine.
At that point considerable correspondence and filing had
accumulated, not a good beginning on response turn around
time.
(1755)
On December 20 the House of Commons called to say it had
no idea where the computers were. I decided at that time to
purchase two computers from my member's office budget. The
former member had four constituency offices, so possessions
belonging to the government were scattered. We located some
more inventory in storage with over a month owing on their
storage because the former MP had paid for two weeks storage
and indicated the House of Commons would pick up the
remainder of the tab without further instruction and without
informing the House. Again, not all the computers were present
at this storage site.
8460
Also I quickly found that the fax machine we located was in
poor repair, forcing me to purchase a new one. I received further
inventory on December 24, 1993. On January 5, 1994, I received
delivery of a new fax machine. On the same day I took
possession of two new computers, more than two months after
the election.
On January 7, I found the inventory from the previous
member's Sechelt office, far from complete after reconciling
the inventory list. Computers again were missing. Included was
a 386 and a lap top. With rent still owing to the storage facility of
the Sechelt inventory, I personally paid the amount to solve the
operator's frustration with the position he had been placed in.
On January 22, I received information that more inventory
had been located in a Campbell River storage facility. The
missing computers with the exception of the lap top were in the
room. They were of the older 286 variety. On January 31, I did a
formal reconciliation, the 286 lap top never did show. In May I
was informed that it had been returned to Ottawa damaged and
unusable and materiel management informed me that the former
MP had been requested to pay and had paid for the lap top.
The sleuthing around by me, my staff and House of Commons
staff was bad enough in order to locate government inventory.
Because Parliament had not been in session for about seven
months previous to the election, there was a large pent up
demand for service and reasonable expectations by deserving
constituents for attention to their needs.
The fact that I was without assets was a major distraction for
me in fulfilling my duties as an MP. The previous member had
been in office for 14 years. As a green MP and with the residual
effects of a contested campaign still fresh in my memory, I did
not want to go public with the inexcusable behaviour of the
previous MP because I had taken the high road consistently
when others had not and I did not want to appear somehow
affected by my win.
The events I have described should not be allowed to reoccur.
These assets had been bought and paid for by the taxpayers of
Canada and we need better ground rules than currently exist.
Materiel management did all it could do at long distance within
it mandate. Even with that my staff was instrumental in its
sleuthing and finding where some of the inventory was stored.
Members can appreciate that my staff could not view the items
once located in storage without authorization from the House of
Commons. Even this was awkward and so was not done, adding
further to our delay in reconciling our inventory.
We would all be much better off with clear lines of authority
and responsibility to effect the transfer of assets. In my view the
withholding of the entire office inventory was punitive and
retributive and I should have had some recourse beyond good
will to pursue the matter. I was the last member of Parliament in
Canada to receive my assets. I know I was not alone in my grief
and frustration and that is why I feel so strongly about my
motion.
(1800 )
Similar activities as perpetrated by my predecessor would be
tantamount to theft in the private sector. We must untie the
hands of the materiel management people of the House of
Commons and allow new MPs to do their job effectively. Good
will is not enough. Accountability must be introduced. We must
put teeth into the rules and procedures for the turnover of assets
and initiate ramifications for those who do not prescribe to the
rules.
My motion calls for the involvement by the deputy returning
officers at the constituency level. They would be charged with
the responsibility of reconciling inventory of the former
member and co-ordinating the transfer.
In Ottawa the materiel management staff shall ensure storage
and/or transfer in an orderly fashion. If the outgoing MP should
fail to deliver, the shortfall value would be deducted from that
former MP's pay or pension or compensation sought and, in
extreme cases, criminal charges should be initiated.
During my trial surrounding this debacle and the senseless
behaviour exhibited by the former MP, various strategies
emerged including, as I previously mentioned, contacting the
former MP's riding association and party leader. The other
option was to pursue the issue through the Speaker which was
complicated because this was also a time of transition for that
office.
In the final analysis, materiel management of the House of
Commons has no power to initiate the transfer of assets and in
the final analysis again must rely on the good will of the former
MP who in this case had none.
My situation may be a dramatic example, but as my
colleagues who will speak later will attest, I am not alone. If we
do not do something about it now it will get worse. I will tell
members why. Currently we are dealing with stable and existing
ridings. We all know we are considering the adoption of a bill
which would see ridings actually change their boundaries every
five to ten years. Therefore, the frequency in which members
inherit intact ridings is going to reduce and the frequency when
they inherit changed ridings is going to exacerbate the problem.
The new MP will not know which former MP or constituency
office he or she will be inheriting because the boundaries will
have been shifted.
8461
Clearly it is incumbent upon the House to take a look at the
current turnover of assets procedure. We cannot have a situation
where the legislators of Canada are found incompetent due to
a lack of legislative authority governing their own activities in
areas so common sense as transferring MP furniture, supplies
and equipment. If the House allows this injustice and waste of
taxpayers' dollars to continue it is not serving its function.
I would like to submit one further option to make my case.
While I have not spoken to the chief electoral officer, it may be
that this individual through some amendment or addition to the
Elections Act can be empowered by statute to initiate and ensure
the turnover of these government assets in an orderly and timely
manner.
This is a serious issue and one I would implore the House to
deal with even if I had not experienced this frustrating, time
consuming delay. As it is now, the House is powerless, materiel
management is powerless and sheer good will is not enough.
I thank the House for the opportunity to debate my motion.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in
this debate today because the hon. member's motion is a serious
one.
I want to point out that while I think he has raised a subject
that is one we ought to discuss, I am not sure the solution he has
proposed to the subject, laying criminal charges and getting the
returning officers and elections involved, is a particularly
helpful set of suggestions.
I would like to deal first with those. Then I will try to say
something constructive about what the hon. member has put
forward because I know he has done it in all seriousness.
(1805 )
I also want to say that I do not think the experience he had is
one that was shared by all members of this House. Most of us
when we took over in the House after having been
elected-mine of course was not in 1993; it was in 1988, but I
took over from a sitting MP at that time-did not find the
situation quite as bad as the hon. member has described.
The outgoing members in most cases were very civil in their
treatment of the newly elected members in that they handed over
the office supplies that were there. I think also the hon. member
might have sought greater assistance. It might have been
available in a way that perhaps he did not appreciate at the time.
He was seeking that assistance having found that most of the
equipment apparently had disappeared.
The difficulty that the hon. member's motion indicates in my
view are twofold. First, he has suggested that the proper solution
for this is to have, I think he says, the deputy returning officer
look after this. I assume that he means the returning officer in
the constituency and not one of the deputy returning officers in
one of the polls.
If he means the returning officer in the constituency, he
suggests this person go in and do an inventory as soon as the writ
is issued. With all respect, the returning officer in the
constituency has to get his own office set up within hours of the
writ being issued. He has to hire all his staff to get the election
machinery going. The time when that person is at his or her
busiest moment is in the few days following the issue of a writ.
To suggest that person ought to take time out of that schedule
and drop around to the MP's office to have a look at the furniture
is patently silly.
If the hon. member thinks about that, he will realize it is not
the place of the returning officer in an election to go around and
see the MP's office equipment and conduct his own inventory.
There are other reasons it is not a good idea that I will elaborate
on in a moment.
The second criticism I would make is that I am not sure the
hon. member needs to have the deputy returning officer be the
person that does it. There are dozens of deputy returning officers
appointed in every constituency, one for every poll. In my
constituency there are something like 240 polls. In other ridings
there are more. Surely we do not have to wait until those people
are appointed, which takes some weeks into the election period
in the first place, then choose one that will be the person that
runs about to the MP's office to inspect the equipment. I do not
see that as necessary.
I want to deal with the current arrangements that affect
members' office equipment and how they are covered in fact by
provisions currently existing in the Member's Manual of
Allowances and Services. I am sure the hon. member has read
the manual on allowances and services. It is entirely possible
that when he got to the pages on materiel management he fell
asleep. I have had this experience reading this manual. It is
tough going. I do not suggest for a minute that the hon. member
is negligent in his duties, but this manual is heavy duty stuff.
In it there are all kinds of things that deal with members'
equipment, budgets and so on. If the hon. member turns to
section 7(1) of the bylaws-I think the bylaws are at the back or
the front of the manual; there is a separate book that has them
but they are also in the manual-it says:
Where an MP contravenes the bylaws of the House and the situation is not
resolved to the satisfaction of the Board-
This means the Board of Internal Economy.
-the Board may order any amount of money required to rectify the
situation to be withheld from any budget, allowance or other payment that
may be made available to the Member-and
8462
c) -if the Board considers it necessary-the Board may order that any budget,
allowance or other payment that may be made available to the Member be frozen for
such time and on such other conditions as the Board considers necessary.
In addition to that the board has powers of enforcement using
civil remedies. It can sue members of the House who have
breached the provisions of the bylaws of the board. I want to
make it clear that inventory of members' assets is not something
that is done just before election time.
The hon. member will discover there is an annual inventory
carried out of the assets that are in his constituency office. My
experience has been that the list is sent to my staff and I am
asked to verify and sign a document that those items are in my
constituency office. If the hon. member has a real problem with
the conditions of the assets, that is if they were being destroyed
and damaged by an outgoing member, which I heard by rumour
may have happened in one instance but I do not know, the
member can be asked when the inventory is done to comment in
the inventory on the state of the assets over which he has control.
(1810)
I frankly cannot understand why it would be a particular
problem in almost every case for members to review this list of
assets on an annual basis and pass their comments to the House
officers in charge of this, materiel management, and have those
reports made available. As the hon. member knows, they are
made available on the election of a new member. This list is
given to the new member and the new member is then told he can
go to the constituency office and reasonably expect that the
items on the list from materiel management will be available to
him or her, as the case may be. I am of course referring to the
hon. member who opened the debate with his motion in this
particular case.
I am not sure that we can do a great deal to prevent former
members from making off with assets. It happens in various
places around this country. As I have said, I think virtually all
members have been quite honestly dealt with in this regard and
they have received the things they ought reasonably to have
received from the former member.
I know the hon. member for North Island-Powell River has
had his problems. I see from the scowls on the faces of hon.
members opposite that some of them may have had a shared
experience. But that has not been the experience of the vast
majority of members in this House.
I think to go on a witch hunt or come in with some draconian
rules that are extremely cumbersome, awkward and expensive to
administer for the sake of saving a few thousand dollars here and
there on missing equipment is hardly worth the trouble that I
think the hon. member for North Island-Powell River is
suggesting we ought to engage in by this motion.
I sympathize with the plight he described. I recognize that
there can be cases of dishonesty and we all deplore that. But the
law affords sufficient remedies. Where there has been
dishonesty charges can be laid. We do not need a motion in the
House to lay charges. That can be done where fraud has been
established.
On the basis of the annual review of assets that is conducted
by materiel management and officers of this House and are
signed for by members of this House when the review is
complete, and is done on a regular basis, there is no reason in my
view why that list cannot be accurate and up to date when the
new member takes over.
If that is the case, it seems to me it is unnecessary for us to get
into a lengthy procedural arrangement whereby we have all
kinds of people coming into MPs offices and inspecting this
equipment day after day. It is a nuisance, it is expensive and
unnecessary. I know the hon. member, being a member of the
Reform Party, like us is much opposed to government waste.
I suggest that some of the things he has put in his motion
would lead to increased government waste.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on this motion and to give the viewpoint of
the Official Opposition on the motion of the member for North
Island-Powell River.
I want to say right away that we do support this motion. We
support it because it involves taxpayers' money and also the
proper management of the equipment made available to elected
members.
The motion presented by the member for North
Island-Powell River refers to sound management, to transfer
when an election is held and recovery if any furniture, supplies
and equipment for which the member is responsible while in
office and which belong to the House disappear. Remember that
if it belongs to the House, it belongs to all taxpayers.
(1815)
This motion reminds us of how difficult it is to draw up a
permanent list of property for an institution such as the House of
Commons where the political staff changes very regularly, every
four or five years.
Although an inventory for all office equipment belonging to
the House has existed since 1977, according to information
obtained from Materiel Management, more than 90 of the 205
new members elected last fall reported significant discrepancies
between the inventory report of what they should have received
and what they actually received. It is disturbing that 90 of the
205 newcomers do not have the equipment exactly as it is listed
on the inventory. We are entitled to ask questions and the
member for North Island-Powell River, who tabled the motion,
is right to raise the issue.
8463
As early as April, several Canadian newspapers reported that
equipment like video systems, televisions, faxes and furniture
had disappeared from the House since the last election in
October 1993. For example, La Presse for April 13 reported that
Commons staff were trying to find television sets, VCRs,
computers, cellular telephones, faxes and furniture belonging
to the government, on the basis of information obtained directly
from Materiel Management. We know that this includes
equipment which is not easy to put in one's coat pocket.
Nevertheless, we must not conclude too hastily that theft or
fraud is involved, as some people might be inclined to do.
According to our information, it is very difficult to prove that
former members really intended to steal. As proof, almost all the
missing items were recovered, the member will be glad to know,
by the staff of Materiel Management and the non-recovered
items were charged to the members who were responsible for
them.
There are many difficulties in drawing up a reliable inventory
of House property and they have nothing to do with the honesty
of members. For one, Materiel Management is not always
informed promptly of changes to members' inventory during
their term and also it is often difficult to transfer property from
the riding office of a defeated member to the new member's
office, given the rivalry between them.
Also, some items from the riding office, including laptop
computers, cellular telephones and video systems, are left in the
defeated member's Ottawa office, no doubt in the belief that the
newly elected member will occupy the same premises on the
Hill, which is not necessarily the case.
The honour system of assigning responsibility for inventory
to members has its advantages but also disadvantages, let us
admit. The Bloc Quebecois is fully aware of the importance of
protecting all property, both in members' riding offices and in
their Ottawa offices, since it belongs to the House of Commons
and is paid for with taxpayers' money.
With this in mind, we can only support Private Member's
Motion 290, which suggests strengthening-do you agree?-the
measures for auditing equipment inventories. I do not hear the
member say that he agrees. Is something wrong? I was saying
that the member's motion suggests strengthening the measures
for auditing equipment inventories, furniture and so on, and the
responsibilities of every member for this property-and it is
important because we manage the taxpayers' money-in order
to protect public property. We agree.
Nevertheless, several of the measures suggested in the motion
already exist, we must admit. For several years, a physical audit
of all the premises occupied by members of Parliament in
Ottawa has been done annually.
(1820)
And an electronic inventory, which uses bar codes, makes it
easier to control and protect this property. Until quite recently,
always according to Materiel Management, there was a major
problem, which has now been identified. It was the issue of
furnishings in riding offices.
We have to realize exactly where the problem is, and it seems
it is particularly serious in riding offices. In fact, because of a
lack of staff, Materiel Management was unable to check its
inventories of furnishings in riding offices. I support the hon.
member's motion, and I can inform government members that
the problem has been identified. The problem was in the ridings,
and there was not enough staff to keep track.
Now that there is more staff, there is a more effective
relationship based on trust and co-operation between Materiel
Management and the riding offices. This is a definite
improvement, and we appreciate the efforts of those concerned.
A materiel policy is about to be put in place. It was in fact
discussed on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. The policy is almost ready to be implemented, and we
are talking about the beginning of the next session. We hope it
will be put in place by the Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, which discussed and approved the implementation of
this policy.
This policy on furnishings basically contains the main
elements of the hon. member's motion, Motion 290, which asks
us to be efficient, effective and responsible managers, because
the furnishings and equipment we have are, in the final instance,
provided by the taxpayers.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to talk to a motion like this since I was one of
those people personally involved in some of the bad dealings
that happened after the election.
Of course, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says
these are only isolated cases so why bother. That is not what this
is about. This whole issue is about accountability.
I know that some members on the other side may have a
problem with that issue. We do not have a problem talking about
this in the House of Commons. Accountability is something
everybody in this land has to live with, particularly members of
the House of Commons.
I wonder if the government members are going to listen to
this. After all they do have a majority government. We found out
today that the Bloc will support our member's motion, and I am
sure the vast majority of colleagues, all of the Reform
colleagues, will support it as well.
8464
In talking about accountability and assets belonging to the
taxpayer the question is: When it comes to a vote next week
on Wednesday or Thursday, how will the government members
vote on this issue? Will they find a very small technicality? Will
they find as the member for Kingston and the Islands says, that
perhaps this is not really as bad as we think? Will they say that
since it is not that bad they will vote it down? Or, will they say
that perhaps there is an issue of accountability and perhaps
therefore they should vote for it? That remains to be seen.
Mr. Milliken: It is not votable.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is right. There, they
half shot my whole argument down. It is not votable, but will
they support it?
An hon. member: We will support it, but it is not votable.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): There you go.
The question is: Who owns government property? The fact is
that the taxpayers own it. Regardless of which incumbent comes
into the job, the facts are the equipment is only on loan.
Although we purchase it doing our time or we may take some
from a member who preceded us, it always belongs to the
taxpayer. It is much like leasing property; it has to be given back
in some shape or form.
(1825 )
In my case after I was elected I went with my predecessor to
look at the inventory in the cold storage. I did not know whether
it was the right or wrong inventory but I went through the
facility. I said we would ship it out to my new office. It came a
couple of weeks later. There was no problem at all. I opened the
door to my new office. The fellows on the delivery truck came
and I actually sent some of the equipment back. I said: ``This
stuff is in terrible shape. Take it back and I am going to have to
deal with it some other way, but bring in the television and the
VCR. They look a little old but bring them in anyway. Bring in
the old cellular phone and we will make use of that''.
A while later I thought we should check off the inventory. As
the member for Kingston and the Islands has said, an inventory
sheet is given to us. I checked the VCR off, no problem at all.
What bothered me was that the inventory list indicated that these
were recent purchases and they were high dollar items. The
amounts were in the several thousands of dollars, even for the
television and the VCR but I would not have given very much for
what I received. The value of those items I received might have
been $200 or $300 in total.
I thought that perhaps there was something wrong. Digging
into it we did find that yes, all this new equipment was bought
but it was not sitting in my office; it was somewhere else.
Mr. Milliken: Shame.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The Liberal member is
saying ``shame''. Yes it is a shame. It is a shame they do not
understand what accountability is and what the issue is.
What happened was that the member had purchased the new
equipment and kept it at his home and replaced that equipment
with old stuff.
Mr. Wappel: Shame.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It took me quite a while to
fight this. We finally did get it all back.
The fact is there should be something in place to assure there
is accountability.
I understand the concern of these Liberals across here. It is all
too often that we hear: ``Shame, shame, shame''. It is all too
often that we hear: ``Yes, we should do something about it''. It is
all too often that we know nothing is done. That is unfortunate.
This is not an isolated case. This has happened time and time
again. All we are asking in the House of Commons is that it stop,
that something gets in place and we take care of it. That is not
too difficult a thing to ask.
It is not about trouble. This issue is not trouble. One member
said just recently that the Reform Party was looking for a
witchhunt in this motion, again my friend from Kingston and the
Islands. I am not sure what the reference was to the witchhunt
but again they have to get beyond witchhunts. They have to get
beyond all of this lack of credibility in their statements and get
on to what the issue is all about.
I tell you what I would not do with the member for Kingston
and the Islands. I would never let the hon. member run my store.
The way it is described here is: ``Well, somebody is walking off
with the equipment; somebody is walking off with my inventory
but that it is okay. It is only a couple of people, so let us not
bother with it''. It could be your whole profits going down in the
store.
We resolve this situation by taking a motion like this and
saying that is the way to deal with it. Let us put it on the books.
Let us dig in here and say even one instance like this is
unacceptable because where there is one there are others. Indeed
we have heard two of them today and there are more in line.
Mr. McClelland: If you can't deal with the little things how
can you deal with the big things?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, we are having
fun in here today because those people over there do not
understand what we are talking about.
(1830 )
The motion my colleague put before the House is a solid
motion on accountability. It is really unfortunate that members
over there do not understand about this stuff. We are trying hard.
8465
Perhaps in the next three years we will teach them how to spell
the word accountability, will teach them how to think the word
accountability and will even teach them how to act the word
accountability because they really do not know what it is about
today.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, although I am not scheduled, I keep hearing the word
accountability from the member for Fraser Valley West. I wish it
was question and answer period. Last summer I had the pleasure
of attending the public accounts committee conference in
Charlottetown. The total cost of my ticket was probably $700. I
would like to ask the member for Fraser Valley West who flew
from Vancouver with his wife-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Who paid her way.
Mr. O'Reilly: -to Charlottetown, then on to New Brunswick
and then on to St. John's how much his ticket was. Where was
his accountability? Talk about the pork barrel.
Mr. Thompson: It came out of his pocket.
Mr. O'Reilly: I cannot believe this member could stand and
talk about accountability.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I would like the record to show that there is a
cheque, not in the mail but deposited with the government, for
my wife's portion of anything that was personal on that public
accounts conference.
By the way I take great exception to the accusation-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Resuming debate
with the hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this issue because I have had the same
experience as has been related by the other two members of my
caucus. I take real exception to the cavalier attitude that has
been expressed across the floor on the whole issue because even
if only one member had this experience it is sufficient to warrant
close examination and some real change.
Before I was elected I visited the offices of the former
member. They were very well appointed offices with good
furniture. There were computers in both offices and were very
well equipped. After I was elected and the inventory was
transferred to my office I was surprised to find that some very
meagre furnishings were transferred. My filing cabinets, two of
which I received, were locked and appeared to have been rolled
down the stairs. When I had a locksmith open them because the
keys were not there, the hanging filing rails were not there. It
took some time and expense. The computer that was inventoried
and I was to receive was not there. Some old obsolete
equipment, some home-built computers with no serial numbers
and such, replaced the ones I was to receive.
The member across the way says that an inventory is regularly
sent out to every member. We are to examine our office
equipment and verify with our signatures that the material is
there. An inventory dated September 13, 1993 was received,
reviewed and I presume signed by the former member. However
immediately after the election the same former member came
into materiel management and stroked off any number of pieces
that he had a number of excuses for not being there. That is only
one month and a little after he originally verified the contents.
(1835)
Even if the rules are there they are certainly not being
enforced. In my case it was very obvious. I really could not
understand why. Immediately after my election when the
material was transferred and all this equipment was missing, I
approached materiel management people and talked to them. I
sensed a real hesitancy to do anything about it.
I could not get anybody to get excited. They told me: ``It is
going to take months to straighten this out. You better go out and
refurnish your office because you are not going to get this back
in time''. I had all kinds of excuses.
The member says that if there is fraud, the rules are there. It
will be punished. It will be followed up. How can fraud be
established if nobody will do an investigation of the whole issue
in the first place?
I pursued with great vigour the material that was missing and
did eventually receive some of it back from the former
member's home in undamaged crates. However when I uncrated
them a laser printer, for example, was badly damaged. It cost the
taxpayers of Canada some $800 to repair and to put back into
working order.
I could go on and on. It made me very angry and overall it
ended up costing me personally some $500 in legal costs to
defend myself against the former member's legal action for
slander. I approached again the House of Commons to provide
some assistance and some support in that area and was turned
down.
Clearly if the rules are there they are not being enforced. I
could not understand it. The longer I am here, the more and more
I begin to understand it. It is an attitude around this place.
When I recently entered my building on Wellington Street and
inquired of the security person standing there if I might do
something-it was something to do with some guests who were
arriving-he said: ``You can do anything, sir. You are God
around here''. That is the problem around here. There is not any
accountability. That is the attitude that caused the materiel
management people to hesitate to investigate the charges I was
making.
8466
It is an attitude that has members of the House pass rules and
regulations around here that are never enforced. Members can
walk through any building on the Hill and, in spite of the fact
a rule was passed by this organization that smoking is not
allowed in the buildings on the Hill, there is blue smoke wafting
out of the offices because we are God around here. I find that
unacceptable.
What I did find encouraging, however, from this whole mess
and when I was finished was that the person in charge of
members' services, Mrs. Edna MacKenzie, when we discussed
the whole situation approached me and asked if I might help her
to develop some kind of a system-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I am having some
difficulty hearing the member who has the floor. I wonder if I
might ask for the co-operation of members on both sides.
Sometimes the mood of the House can change very quickly. It
can be very good humoured one minute, even one second, and be
something quite different shortly thereafter.
I just caution us on making sure that we conclude the
proceedings today in good humour but in as vigorous a debate as
any member may wish. Ultimately we should maintain and
respect the decorum of this place and each and every member.
(1840 )
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, in the process of
trying to solve the mystery of the missing office equipment, I
had a discussion with the newly appointed head of member
services, Mrs. Edna MacKenzie, who asked if I would help and
get involved to try and develop changes to the system that might
prevent this very thing from happening again. I was pleased to
hear that.
This may not be perfect but it is certainly an attempt to
address some of those concerns. I see a willingness on this side
of the House and I heard a willingness on the part of the staff that
runs this organization. I think the only thing missing is a serious
willingness on the part of the government to take the initiative
and do something to stop that. I think it is an extremely serious
matter. I do not care if it was something as little as the lack of a
transfer of a flag and pole which every MPs office in Canada has
standing in it, which I did not receive.
All the consumable items that I did not get when added
together are a considerable amount of money. I think it is very
serious and I would hope the government will also take it
seriously and that we might do something to remedy this
situation so it will not happen again.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the debate we have
heard, I think we are in general agreement on this motion with
the exception of some of the debate from across the floor.
I think you will find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That the question of furnishings, supplies and equipment in the
constituency office and in the House of Commons office of every member of
Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs for consideration.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken to me
about this and we are certainly happy to have the standing
committee undertake a review of this matter.
I hope that hon. members who indicated they had a problem
will come to the committee and tell the committee about their
problems because the committee will be interested to hear them.
If there is something that can be done to rectify the problem, I
am sure the committee will make the appropriate
recommendations.
Motion agreed to
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8466
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Auditor General reports that corporations owe $2.9 billion in
unpaid taxes to Revenue Canada for 1993.
He also states: ``Clearly, reducing deficits through more
effective tax collection is preferable to raising taxes. Taxes
receivable are an important national asset and leaving them
uncollected has a serious impact on the deficit''.
The burden on the deficit of unpaid taxes and tax expenditures
is overly represented by corporations and large businesses. I
raise concern to the fact that $2.9 billion in unpaid tax is owing
to this government. The federal government has a responsibility
to ensure that money is paid back to the treasury it is due.
Corporations owe 32 per cent of the unpaid taxes. Another 12
per cent of unpaid taxes are from employers, that is business,
who have not paid their payroll taxes. According to the Auditor
General, the vast majority of accounts in arrears are less than
one year old.
The federal government must work toward recovering these
delinquent accounts. This is only the first step. The government
has a responsibility to close the present tax breaks and the tax
8467
loopholes provided to corporations and higher income
Canadians. Why is it that a Canadian with an income of
$286,000 can reduce their tax rate to less than 10 per cent, while
middle and lower income Canadians experience tax rates of
close to one-third of their income? The tax system gives
corporations and the wealthy big tax breaks and some are still
not paying what they owe. This must be corrected.
(1845)
The government must stand up to tax cheats and close tax
loopholes. It must also undertake tax reform during their budget
deliberations, not just cut social programs.
Our economy has just been through some difficult times but
not all corporations were in financial trouble. Many have turned
healthy profits but do not pay their fair share of taxes.
In his reply the Minister of National Revenue stated that
companies and individuals are ``having a tough time after the
recession''. This sympathy was not extended to unemployed
Canadians who saw their unemployment insurance benefits
slashed. Unemployed Canadians were also victims of the
recession, yet they did not seem to have the government's
sympathy.
The government needs to place a tax on profits so that
profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes at a time
when they are able to pay. The Auditor General identifies $37
billion in tax expenditures, of which only $15 billion is RRSP
related. The majority of Canadians with RRSPs are average
Canadians who are preparing for their retirements and are, in
effect, deferring income that will be taxable in the future. The
rest of the tax expenditures are corporate write-offs.
Why is the government not looking at ways to increase its
revenue by eliminating some of the corporate tax expenditures
and putting a cap on RRSP contributions from higher incomes?
The tax system is in desperate need of reform. Corporations
are not paying their fair share of taxes. The Liberal government
has made it clear that cutting the deficit is a priority, yet it has
not taken a serious look at increasing revenue from profitable
corporations.
The government has instead chosen to cut back on social
programs. It is raising university students' tuitions, cutting
money to seniors and cutting UI payments before it even
considers making profitable corporations and the wealthy pay
their fair share of taxes.
The government also continues to give away money to
profitable corporations. As a former businessman I respect the
company wanting to make a profit, but why are corporations
such as Royal Oak Mines, Rolls-Royce Canada and Bombardier
also receiving millions of dollars in grants? The Chamber of
Commerce receives $2.1 million.
I am asking the government to get serious with the deficit by
collecting the money owed by corporations and to reform the tax
system to make it fair.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden has asked when Revenue Canada is going to
start paying more attention to collecting the approximately $3
billion of unpaid corporate tax. He will be happy to hear that we
are paying attention and taxes owing are being collected.
I would like to clarify the amount owing by corporations. The
hon. member indicated that approximately $3 billion is owed by
corporations. In fact, the amount as reported by the Auditor
General was $2.1 billion. Another $.8 billion was owed by
employers who are not always corporations.
The hon. member should know that at any given time some
proportion of taxes assessed by Revenue Canada is outstanding.
These taxes are not lost revenue. They represent taxes that have
been assessed but not yet collected. In many cases they are owed
by honest taxpayers who intend to pay and by businesses who
are trying to recover from the recession. They do not represent
an untapped source of funds for the government to apply against
the deficit.
These are accounts receivable which are already part of the
government's fiscal plan. These moneys will be collected with
interest, except where there are legitimate reasons to adjust the
assessment. Less than 1 per cent of total gross revenues will be
uncollectable as a result of insolvencies and bankruptcies.
I would like to add that corporations are not given special
privileges. In fact, unlike most taxpayers, large corporations are
subject to an accelerated collection procedure. The Income Tax
Act prohibits the immediate use of enforced collection measures
for most categories of debt for 90 days from the notice of
assessment date, with the exception of large corporations who
must immediately pay one-half of the amount assessed.
Revenue Canada's enforcement programs are based on a
comprehensive strategy to encourage voluntary compliance to
maximize the efficient and effective use of our enforcement
resources.
All members of the House, including my hon. friend from
Regina-Lumsden, will recognize that the results of this
strategy are impressive: 95 per cent of taxes owing are paid
voluntarily and Revenue Canada's mandate is to preserve the tax
base. The department has always been and continues to be
absolutely committed to the highest level of compliance
possible.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week I rose to ask the Deputy
Prime Minister about two recent appointments to the Senate and
8468
to offer a suggestion about what she, the Prime Minister and the
Liberal government might do about the Senate in the future.
(1850 )
My remarks and the focus of my question were prompted by
the government appointments earlier in the week of long-time
Liberals, Ottawa's Jean-Robert Gauthier and New Brunswick's
John Bryden. While I indicated that both may very well be very
worthy appointments, I wanted to suggest that there is much
more to this issue than the worthiness of the candidates.
Canadians are looking for a change in the Senate itself.
Canadians are looking for the government to take the necessary
steps to either abolish the Senate or elect its members so that
Parliament's second Chamber is accountable to the people of the
country and not just to the Prime Minister who made the
individual appointments.
As long as the Prime Minister continues to appoint senators,
the same old charge of patronage can be made. For Canadians
the government of the day is seen to be just like all those who
have gone before it. Once again the Prime Minister has seen fit
to ignore the calls for Senate reform and instead has done as
Mulroney did before him. He appointed his friends and
supporters to the upper house.
The Prime Minister is missing a great opportunity to correct
years of abuse. Something different must be done as quickly as
possible and only the Prime Minister is in a position to act today.
About two years ago I attended a constitutional conference in
Calgary at which ordinary individuals as well as experts from
across western Canada participated in a discussion about the
Senate and the future of democracy. I listened to a lot of debate
about an elected Senate and even about proportional
representation as the basis for the election, not only of the
Senate but of the House of Commons as well.
I say this to indicate that I am already aware that there is a
great wealth of knowledge around the country that can be called
on by any Prime Minister who really wants to do something to
address Canadians' mounting distrust of governments,
patronage and the Senate.
The existing appointed and unaccountable Senate must be
abolished. I can add that I also support replacing it with an
elected Senate which is given more specific responsibilities and
is accountable primarily to the regions. I realize that any reform
of the Senate as we know it would require a constitutional
change, accepted not only by this House and the provinces, but
also by members of the Senate. We saw in the Charlottetown
accord how difficult this is going to be. Therefore, there must be
more than one way to abolish the Senate. I call on the Liberals
across the way to take a bold, new initiative.
In addition, Canadians are concerned about the country's
mounting deficit and the federal government's desire to cut the
deficit by cutting spending. It seems unfortunate the Liberals
are telling Canadians that our nation can no longer afford social
programs, but we can afford to continue to fill the Senate with
political hacks.
Many jobs will be lost in the public service this year because
of cutbacks. Many ordinary Canadians will lose their jobs and
others will not find jobs because existing ones in the public
service will not be filled when they become vacant. The Liberals
should do to the Senate what it is doing to the public service.
When a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the Prime Minister should
resist the political temptation to fill it and instead leave the
position vacant. Over time, by attrition, the Senate will slowly
abolish itself. It is certainly a better idea than continuing to
appoint the party faithful who have no mandate or commitment
to reforming the system.
I ask the Liberal government to be bold and reform the Senate
through attrition of its members.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member change his tune on
the Senate. I can recall in the last Parliament when the GST was
being debated his party moved a motion urging the Senate to
defeat the GST bill. He voted for that motion. Unless he was
absent that day, I am sure he did. His whole party supported it. It
supported the Senate. It abandoned its longstanding policy of
abolition of the Senate. Now I hear two of the members from that
party squawking and complaining that really is not their policy. I
wish the New Democratic Party would make up its mind.
I would like to deal on a more serious note with the issues
raised by the hon. member. What he is asking the Prime Minister
to do is frankly silly. He is asking the Prime Minister to ignore
one of the constituent parts of Parliament. He knows that
Parliament is composed of three elements: the Crown, the House
and the Senate. He wants the Prime Minister to ignore the Senate
and not fill it so the Senate is left as a sort of floating group of
people that are there that were there before. Gradually it will
diminish and become less effective simply because its members
are not appointed any more and there are a whole bunch of
vacancies.
Those left are still able to carry out all the functions of the
Senate. One of the functions the Senate has is the right to review
bills that are passed by this House. Indeed its concurrence is
required on all bills passed by the House. The hon. member
seems to have conveniently forgotten that. He is asking the
Prime Minister to let a Tory rump in the Senate tell the House
what it can do with its bills. I do not think any responsible Prime
Minister could agree with such a thing.
The Conservative Party in the House of Commons, as he
knows, was almost wiped out in the last election. It has but two
members who are rarely here because they have other
responsibilities apparently to try to rebuild the party. We are left
trying
8469
to run the Government of Canada dealing with a Conservative
majority in the Senate.
Mr. Solomon: Let us abolish it.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says abolish it. He knows
perfectly well that requires the unanimous consent of the
provinces. He also knows perfectly well that some of the
provinces, particularly in his part of Canada, are opposed to
abolition of the Senate.
Mr. Solomon: Not Saskatchewan.
Mr. Milliken: I am glad to hear that. I am told that is not the
case in Alberta nor is it the case in British Columbia. If one
province blocks it that is the end of the initiative.
The Prime Minister made the very wise promise when he was
running in the election campaign in 1993 that he would not
tinker with the Constitution of Canada. Canadians were sick and
tired of constitutional tinkering. It cost us. It has almost broken
our country up because of the tinkering of the former Prime
Minister and his bumbling in that field. This Prime Minister has
promised that he will deliver to Canadians what they want and
that is anything but constitutional reform.
We will not get into Senate reform because it requires a
constitutional change. To suggest that we should make the
Senate a weak link in the parliamentary chain by refusing to fill
the vacancies is silly nonsense.
The candidates that were put in the Senate this week are
excellent candidates. They have excellent qualifications. The
hon. member does a disservice when he refers to them as
political hacks.
The former member for Ottawa-Vanier served a
distinguished career as a member of a school board. He has been
a chiropractor for many years, having received his doctorate in
the chiropractic in 1953. He worked as a chiropractor for many
years before he was elected to Parliament and did some during
the time he was here. He has been an excellent MP and a leader
in his community. Surely someone with those qualifications is a
worthy appointee to the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been moved. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.)