36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 196
CONTENTS
Monday, March 15, 1999
1105
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-260. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1110
1115
| Mr. John McKay |
1120
1125
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1145
1150
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1155
1200
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Pan-American Monetary Union
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Motion
|
1210
1215
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1220
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1225
| Amendment
|
1230
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1235
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1240
1245
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1250
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1255
1300
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1305
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1310
1315
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1320
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1325
1330
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1335
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1340
1345
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN RED CROSS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| FARMING
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1400
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| HOCKEY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| QUEBEC GAMES
|
| Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
| SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1405
| SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| EASTERN ONTARIO FRANCOPHONES
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1410
| WOMEN'S HOCKEY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| VIAGRA
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| BILL C-55
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1415
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| QUEBEC'S CULTURE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| VETERANS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1435
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BILL C-55
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| INDUSTRY CANADA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| BILL C-55
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1445
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1450
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| FOREIGN AID
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1455
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1500
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
| The Speaker |
1515
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-69. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
|
| Bill C-488. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Assisted Suicide
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Water Exports
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Cruelty to Animals
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| MMT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1525
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Pan-American Monetary Union
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1530
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1535
1540
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1545
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1550
| Mr. John McKay |
1555
1600
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1605
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1610
1615
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1620
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1625
1630
| Mr. John Bryden |
1635
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1640
1645
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1650
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1655
1700
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1705
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1725
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1730
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1755
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1800
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1805
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1810
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1815
1845
(Division 336)
| Amendment negatived
|
1855
1900
(Division 337)
| Motion negatived
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| National Parks Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1905
(Division 338)
| Motion agreed to
|
| The Budget
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1910
(Division 339)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Income Tax Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
(Division 340)
| Motion agreed to
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second reading
|
(Division 341)
| Motion agreed to
|
1915
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Third reading
|
(Division 342)
1925
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1930
| The Budget
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1935
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 196
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 15, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday during question period the member for Laval Centre asked
that documents be tabled referring to the road to the Prime
Minister' residence.
If there is unanimous consent, and there has been consultation
with the parties, I would like to table those documents now.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the parliamentary
secretary table these documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
initiate debate on my private member's legislation, Bill C-260.
It is a simple bill in that it consists of one minor amendment
to the Young Offenders Act. I have used the words simple and
minor to describe the content and the construction of the actual
legislation.
The ramifications of the legislation are I believe a little
different and quite important. They address an issue which
Canadians have demanded be addressed for years, that the parents
or guardians of young offenders be called to account when they
fail to discharge their responsibility to supervise.
This amendment changes section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act
from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or
hybrid offence.
Should this bill be accepted and passed, offenders of section
7.1 would become subject to either imprisonment of up to two
years or the normal summary conviction penalties. As I am sure
members are aware, the Minister of Justice introduced long
awaited new youth justice legislation last week.
Furthermore, members may be aware that the legislative change
proposed in Bill C-260 has been incorporated into the new youth
criminal justice act. One must assume the Minister of Justice
and her government see merit in the changes proposed.
Members may therefore be wondering why I have chosen to proceed
with this amendment now. Quite simply, I do not anticipate that
the new youth justice legislation will be implemented for some
time yet. I have heard possibly by year's end at the earliest,
but even that may be wishful thinking. I believe this amendment
is important enough to be incorporated within the current youth
justice legislation, the Young Offenders Act.
I will now take a moment to outline the reasons for this
proposal. Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act permits a youth
court judge or justice to allow an accused person who would
otherwise be detained in custody to be placed into the care of a
responsible person who undertakes in writing to be responsible
for the attendance of the young person in court when required,
and to ensure compliance with such other conditions as a youth
court judge or justice may specify.
The young person also undertakes in writing to comply with the
arrangements and to comply with any other conditions that the
judge or justice may specify.
In simple terms, instead of keeping a young accused in custody,
the law permits an individual, usually a parent or guardian, to
undertake to properly supervise the young person until the
charges are decided. This is essentially just another form of
custody. It is bail.
The court wishes to ensure that both the young person and the
parent or other responsible person agree to abide by the
conditions of release. A signed undertaking, a contract, is
agreed on.
There are of course other provisions that permit changes to the
terms of the undertaking or even cancellation of the release.
1110
A parent need only apply to the court to be relieved of their
responsibility should they find that they were unable to fulfill
their obligation. If that were to occur, the young person would
be returned to custody unless another person were to come forward
to sign a new undertaking.
The problem that occurs and the reason for introducing this
legislation is that some parents or guardians enter into these
undertakings and then wilfully fail to provide proper and
sufficient supervision. This failure can then result in
additional repercussions to the young person and may even result
in additional criminal charges should the young person proceed on
to other criminal offences. It is this type of situation where
parents or guardians shirk their legal responsibility that the
bill seeks to address.
I will provide an example. Suppose a young person gets involved
with the wrong crowd and ends up with others causing some form of
physical assault late one night on an innocent citizen on the
streets of a community. The police are called. An arrest is
made and a charge is laid. We can all probably understand why a
youth court judge might be hesitant to detain this young person
for this type of offence, especially if it is a first offence.
I am sure we can also understand that the same judge would wish
to ensure the young person does not get into further difficulty
prior to the resolution of the charges. The judge may want to
order the young person to stay away from the influence of other
accused. The judge may want to order that the young person
refrain from being out on the streets late at night. In other
words, the judge may impose a curfew.
Suppose the young person's parent then agrees to provide a
written undertaking to supervise this young person to ensure
conditions are fulfilled such as staying away from a listed
number of individuals and being at home during a set period of
night hours.
What if the parent has been part of the problem all along? What
if the parent has never properly performed parental
responsibility toward their young person? What if the parent
signs the undertaking or so-called contract with the court and
then deliberately neglects to control or supervise the young
person? Is this type of situation not a serious problem within
our justice system?
Canadians far and wide have long called for more responsibility
and accountability on the part of parents or guardians of young
offenders. In instances such as I have just described, we have
cases where parents or other adults sign an undertaking with the
court to be responsible and accountable. Should they not at
least be held accountable to the level of a dual procedure
offence?
If the young person merely breaches a condition of release then
the parent may face a summary conviction procedure for their
failure to comply with the undertaking to supervise. If the
breach of the release condition leads to the commission of a
serious offence by the young person, that same parent might be
subject to an indictable proceeding. Like all hybrid offences,
the crown has the option. Of course the judge, as always, has
the final decision on the appropriate punishment should the
charge be proven.
Some individuals opposed to these proposed changes to the
legislation might argue that we may not want to exacerbate the
situation between a young offender and their parent. If the
young offender breaks the conditions of release and the parent is
found to have wilfully failed to uphold the promise to properly
supervise, that parent may end up facing more severe
repercussions through this change to a dual procedure offence.
Some may worry that relations between the youth and the parent
may become further strained. To this I say that if the parent
wilfully participates in ignoring a court imposed condition, then
the parent should be held accountable as it is obvious that the
parent is a major part of the problem in the first place.
A parent, by definition, should be setting a proper example for
the child. An improper example is certainly being set when an
adult signs a court order, ignores the consequences and wilfully
supports the young offender with inappropriate and illegal
activity. Of course the parent should be made to account for
this failure.
My amendment to the law is merely one step to broaden this
accountability. It may be a large step toward protecting citizens
and communities once we impress on delinquent parents how serious
we consider their failures to control their children placed in
their custody at their own request until the original criminal
charges are heard.
I would be remiss if I did not inform my colleagues that this
relatively unknown section of the Young Offenders Act is of
particular relevance to my family and me.
1115
I think that by now some are aware that back in 1992 my son,
Jesse, was murdered by a young offender late one night. Jesse
was 16 years old at the time. He and two friends were heading
home after getting off a bus near home. They were attacked at
random by six strangers, without provocation. A young offender,
who was free in the community on a section 7.1 undertaking,
knifed him in the back. One of the conditions of release into
his father's custody was a dusk to dawn curfew.
Obviously the young offender was not complying with that
condition on that night. He had also failed to appear in court
some three weeks earlier, another failure to comply.
In my opinion, the parent who signed that undertaking to
supervise wilfully failed in his responsibility before the court
and my son paid the price. That young offender was convicted of
the crime and is serving a life sentence in a penitentiary.
The House will note that I stated that it was in my opinion that
the adult offended section 7.2, as it has never been determined
in court. That is the injustice of this case. I do not know if
the situation would have ended up any differently, but the
failure of the adult to properly supervise and control that young
offender certainly did not help Jesse. It may well have failed
to help that particular young offender as well. Who knows,
perhaps compliance with the undertaking to supervise might have
been enough to keep that young person at home that night.
All I know is that particular adult promised the court he would
properly supervise the youth. He promised that the youth would
attend court. He promised that the youth would abide by a curfew
condition. He failed to fulfil those promises and a young life
was snuffed out at 16.
Some have said that this amendment seeks to blame parents for
the crimes committed by their children. That is utterly
ridiculous. The young person is solely accountable for their own
criminal activity. For the purpose of this legislation the
parent is guilty of the offence of failing to comply with an
undertaking. Even if the young person does not go on to commit
another offence beyond a breach, the parent is still accountable
for the failure to comply with their own promise to supervise.
They have broken a contract.
Others suggest that some parents are unable to control their
children. If that is the case, then they simply have no business
entering into such an undertaking. I do not suggest for one
minute that a parent or guardian should be expected to chase
their son or daughter down the street or physically drag them
into the house at two o'clock in the morning should they decide
to breach their curfew. What I do expect, however, is for that
parent to pick up the phone and notify the police of the breach.
By doing that the parent has acted in a responsible manner. The
parent who merely shuts the door and goes to bed is clearly
demonstrating a wilful failure to comply with their undertaking
to supervise.
I believe that members of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs understood the significance of this bill, so
they made it votable. As I said at the outset, although the
content of Bill C-260 is contained in the new youth criminal
justice act, I seek to amend the current Young Offenders Act, as
the new legislation is still a long way off.
I fervently request and seek the support of my colleagues in
this place for this initiative. I do so for all concerned. It
is in the interest of the safety of our citizens and our
communities. It is in the interest of our youth who are most
often the victim of young offender crimes. It is in the interest
of young offenders who are afforded the opportunity to return to
our communities while they await resolution of their initial
charges.
My amendment is simple. It is solely to make adults more
accountable and responsible to properly supervise when they
promise to do so before the courts. Is that really too much to
ask?
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to commend the hon. member
for Surrey North who has introduced Bill C-260 to amend the Young
Offenders Act.
As the House will know, the Minister of Justice introduced youth
criminal justice legislation last week. The new legislation will
replace the Young Offenders Act. It represents one element in
the strategy for the renewal of youth justice which was launched
last May.
I appreciate my colleague's valuable contribution to the justice
committee. Indeed, he asked a number of very thoughtful
questions. He was a major contributor to our victims report and
largely generated many of the very good recommendations that are
in it.
It is a rare day when the government recognizes a private
member's initiative and adopts it as its own.
In some respects it is the ultimate compliment of the government
to a private member to accept their initiative and to incorporate
it into legislation. I would point out that in large measure
this has been incorporated into the new bill.
1120
I refer members to Bill C-68, in particular clause 31(1), which
states that a person who has been arrested may be placed in the
care of a responsible person. Subclause (b) states that the
responsible person has to be willing and able to take care of the
person and has to, in turn, undertake that they will take
responsibility for the young person. The young person, in turn,
has to undertake in writing to comply with the terms of the
order. That in itself is quite a scheme.
Where the bill addresses the concern of the hon. member opposite
is in clause 138(1). Herein lies the change. Every person who
wilfully fails to comply with clause 30 or with an undertaking
entered into under clause 31(3) is guilty of an indictable
offence. Subclause (b) refers to a summary offence.
The effect of the bill is to give the crown an election as to
whether to proceed against the responsible person as an
indictable offence or as a summary offence. It is called a
hybrid offence. It is a worthwhile and laudable initiative on
the part of the member opposite.
It is therefore my intention to discuss the objectives of Bill
C-260 in the context of the youth criminal justice bill. The
legislative response announced last week represents an important
element in the government's overall strategy to address the issue
of Canadians concerned about youth crime. There is no single
solution, no magic bullet which will solve the problem of youth
crime. Last year the crime prevention strategy was announced.
Obviously the most effective answer to crime, and to youth crime
in particular, is prevention.
I want to take this opportunity to address some of the nonsense
that is in the news media about the responsibility of parents.
My hon. friend has addressed a couple of the issues, such as
parents who are accountable for recidivist youth. There is no
way that is incorporated in either his bill or in the new
legislation. That notion is nonsense and it needs to be said in
the House.
I do not see anything with respect to vicarious liability for
parental responsibility in the bill. I stand to be corrected,
but I cannot quite imagine how parents are going to be held
responsible for the crime of their children, vicariously or
otherwise.
The bill addresses crime with respect to children and parental
responsibility in clause 11 of the new bill. The bill deals with
extra judicial sanctions, namely the giving of a notice to a
young person that they are having some serious difficulties with
the law. That does not initiate a judicial process. However,
there is an obligation on the part of the police officer to, in
turn, give the notice to the parent so the parent or the
responsible person is aware of what is going on.
If that does not work, then the next stage falls under clause 26
of the bill where the youth is arrested. When that youth is
arrested there is an obligation under clause 26 to give a notice
to the parents. The notice contains the name of the young
person, the charge against the young person and a statement that
the young person is entitled to be represented by counsel. That
is the second level of parental responsibility.
The third level of responsibility with respect to parental
attendance is found under clause 27. If a parent does not attend
proceedings held before a youth justice court in respect to a
young person they may be, by order, required to attend. In
certain circumstances they may be found in contempt of court if
they fail to attend.
I suggest that these are reasoned and balanced responses to
parental responsibility.
1125
The legislation reflects this commitment to safer streets. As
stated in the preamble of the bill, the protection of society
from youth crime is the most important objective.
At the outset, the legislation sets out its clear goal to
establish a youth criminal justice system that commands respect,
fosters responsibility and ensures accountability through
meaningful consequences and effective rehabilitation and
reintegration.
It is easy to state, but much more difficult to put into
legislation. However, I would respectfully submit that with the
nudging of Bill C-260 and the response of Bill C-68 that in fact
some areas of accountability and responsibility have been
addressed.
In the context of addressing problems with the current youth
justice system through the new youth justice legislation, Bill
C-260 was taken into account. The objective of the hon. member's
bill corresponds to the one objective of the new legislation;
that is, to foster greater accountability.
Individuals, including persons and their parents, must be held
accountable for their actions. Consequences must flow from the
wrongdoing. The modifications suggested in Bill C-260 were
therefore included in the new legislation.
Bill C-260 would apply after the bail criteria has been applied
and the young person has been found to be ineligible for judicial
interim release. In other words, the choice is whether the
person wants to go to jail or whether someone is going to take
responsibility for the youth. In such cases the proposed
provisions of the youth criminal justice bill permit youth to be
placed in the care of a responsible adult instead of being
detained in custody.
The responsible adult must undertake, in writing, to take care
of the young person and ensure that he or she complies with the
conditions of the court. As it now stands, if the responsible
adult wilfully fails to comply with the undertaking, the
responsible adult could be found guilty of only a summary
conviction offence. That, in certain circumstances, as the hon.
member has pointed out, is woefully inadequate for this kind of
criminal liability.
Bill C-260 proposes to make the offence a hybrid offence so that
prosecutors have the choice to proceed summarily or by way of
indictment. An undertaking given to the court to act as a
responsible adult is an extremely serious responsibility. As an
aside, if I were a drafter I would insist on independent legal
advice.
If we are to impress upon young people that the justice system
must be respected and should foster values such as accountability
and responsibility and that criminal behaviour will lead to
meaningful consequences, then we must also apply those values to
responsible adults who play a role in the judicial system.
Throughout the proposed legislation there are measures such as
the one suggested in Bill C-260 which underscore the importance
of accountability and meaningful consequences. The seriousness
of the crime will be reflected in the seriousness of the
consequences rendered by the proposed youth criminal justice
system.
The parents, police, schools and others in the community will
have a significant role to play in ensuring that the young person
in question understands and appreciates the gravity of his or her
actions. It may be more appropriate for the young person to be
accountable through retribution, community service or, in certain
circumstances, confronting his or her victim. The full weight of
the criminal law will be brought to bear when a crime committed
warrants such consequences.
I would suggest that the hon. member can at this point bring a
small measure of closure to the tragedy of his family. He has
acted honourably and in the finest traditions of a
parliamentarian. He brings honour to his son, to his family and
to all members of this House. I congratulate him personally on
behalf of the House for his initiative.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would also like to add my personal feelings as I open my remarks
on Bill C-260. It is certainly the feeling of our caucus that we
have great admiration and personal respect for the member for
Surrey North for the work that he has done to champion this
cause.
There are not many issues that our caucuses will find any
community of interest on, more than likely, but this is certainly
one where I have the greatest admiration not only for the issue
but for the way the issue has been put forward and handled over
many months.
1130
It is not easy to champion any cause, much less a cause of such
great personal interest. It must have been that much more
difficult for the member to deal with the issue. Our caucus
feels strongly that he has handled it very well.
Bill C-260, as we have heard from previous speakers, will be
covered under the new Bill C-68 so many of the merits of Bill
C-260 will be incorporated into the new act. It is for that
reason that our caucus will not be voting for Bill C-260. It has
nothing to do with the content or the merits or the arguments
that we are hearing today, and certainly nothing to do with the
issue. It is simply the fact that we believe it is redundant at
this point and is not necessary. Still, it gives us a valuable
opportunity to speak to the issue and to raise the many merits
Bill C-260 certainly brings forward for us.
My understanding is that under the current Young Offenders Act
there is a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a $2,000
fine for parents or guardians who fail to meet the requirements
of the custody and supervision orders. Certainly it is not as
though this issue has been left unaccounted for at all.
People have obviously contemplated the problems that come with
releasing somebody into the custody of another person and holding
that person accountable for doing what they promised to do or
undertook to do, which is to keep the person in some form of
custody until such time as a trial can relieve the issue.
Coming from Winnipeg and with the street gang problem it has,
this issue comes up all the time. It is a very frequent
occurrence. It certainly needed to be addressed so we are very
pleased that Bill C-68 will put stiffer measures in place to try
to give some satisfaction in that regard.
Our caucus has tried to wrestle with the issue and in doing so
has tried to be tough on crime but also tough on the causes of
crime. That is the best way I can put it briefly.
Looking at the issue in Winnipeg Centre, the riding I come from,
the whole idea of releasing children to the custody of their
parents and having parents act in a responsible manner is
actually compounded by the aboriginal population there and the
parenting skills of the middle aged group of aboriginal people
who live in the inner city of Winnipeg due to the fact that they
were lifted out of their homes as children and put into
residential schools.
This is something we have finally come to grips with. We learn
our parenting skills from our parents. When we remove a whole
generation of people from their family homes where they would
pick up those skills, they do not have the opportunity to learn
how to be parents. I am not saying this in a critical way or a
generalizing way, but that has come to be recognized as one of
the issues we are facing with a generation of youth in various
kinds of trouble with street gangs or whatever.
The parenting that normally goes on in any family home has not
been going on properly because of the unnatural intervention in
in the lives of that middle aged population when they were ripped
from their family homes, dumped in a residential school and just
did not have the opportunity to learn many of those skills.
Scratching deeper under the surface of the whole issue of youth
crime and street crime, we have to look at how these youth gangs
and street gangs are actually structured. A lot of the kids who
are involved, the 10, 11 and 12 year old kids, did not actually
seek out to be members of these gangs.
As more and more of them are finding refuge in safe houses and
being interviewed by people, it turns out that they are getting
muscled into taking part in these gangs. Quite often it is an 18
or 19 year old who comes to a 10 or 11 year old and says “If you
do not do this B and E for us we will beat up your sister or
bring harm to the rest of your family”. The kids literally have
no choice. That is often how they get sucked into it.
I am not saying that should change the way we view crimes.
1135
We have to take a dispassionate view of the impact on victims of
crimes. We also have to take into consideration the fact that a
lot of these youth involved in this stuff did not do it by
choice, that they were often pulled or drawn into it from
unnatural circumstances.
I have an issue in my own personal family that happened to us
and made me wrestle with the issue to try to get a grip on how we
feel about youth crime and the treatment of youth. In my own
family we were broken into by two youths who were 15 and 16 years
old. I actually caught them in the act of breaking into our
house, which is a very nerve wracking thing. When I drove home
one night there they were in the process of breaking into our
home.
I managed to hold one of them down while my wife phoned the
police, but my four year old boy was obviously curious about why
I was fighting in the snowbank with these kids. He came outside.
The other youth grabbed my four year old son by the hair and
pulled him down the street and said “I'll trade with you. You
let my friend go and you can have your kid back”. It was sort
of a kidnapping incident in the middle of a dark, cold winter
night in Winnipeg. It was very terrifying for my whole family.
Naturally I dropped the one kid and went after the one that had
my son and gave him a bit of a licking. The end of the story is
that I wound in court for six months fighting charges that I had
assaulted this kid who had broken into my house. It is
fundamentally wrong. It made me a very angry guy for a long
time. As I said, it made me wrestle with the issue of whether we
get into a hang them high kind of punishment for 15 and 16 year
old kids who break into our houses and threaten our families or
we work harder to try to understand the root causes and try to
deal with it in that way.
This was eight or nine years ago. I have had the fullness of
time to try to wrestle with the issue. I believe that some of
the measures undertaken in Bill C-68 address the right direction
in which we should be going. I compliment the member for Surrey
North that some of the issues dealt with in Bill C-68 had their
origins in the issue the member brought to the House as the issue
he wanted to promote. There should be some satisfaction there, I
would hope, for the member.
The whole issue of inner city youth gangs and street gangs—and
I do not want to harp on it—is an overwhelming problem in the
inner city of Winnipeg. There are 1,500 kids actively involved
in street gang activity. They actually have break and enter
rings where they divide up neighbourhoods. One person will be in
charge of a little crew of break and enter artists. They will
have maybe a six block area that is their turf until they wear it
out. Then they sell the rights to the area to another sub-gang
leader.
It is actually structured to the point where it is beyond kids
just doing random acts of violence. It is almost getting to be
an organized crime ring of young people.
The reason I call them street gangs and not youth gangs is that
they are not driven by young people. There is always an older
ring of people managing the young people who are undertaking the
actual crimes. It is incorrect and it is actually maligning
young people to call them youth gangs.
Obviously as parents we know that most kids are not engaged in
any illegal activity. It is only a very few when we look at the
larger picture.
Families that can least afford decent affordable housing,
education, sports and recreation for their youths, are the ones
most likely to be affected by the tragedies of crime, violence,
street activity and all the predictable consequences of those
things. Not to draw too tenuous a connection, we can bring the
issue down to one of socioeconomics. It is a natural fact that
the have nots are more likely to have some kind of violent crime
as a part of their daily life and more likely to experience some
sort of violence or crime because the incidents are that much
higher. Desperate people take desperate measures.
Last week I spoke about the issue of arson in my area of
Winnipeg where the housing stock is so beat up, atrocious, and
dominated by slum landlords that arson is getting to be almost
epidemic. These properties are not worth rehabilitating or
renovating in any way.
We have had 85 arsons in a three month period in a 12 square
block area. Sometimes two or three places a night are going up
in smoke. It is like the big American inner cities during the
race riots of the 1960s. These people are torching the whole
community. It is burn baby, burn again. That is an indicator of
the type of social unrest we are prompting through many of our
social and economic policies.
1140
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
first comment on the speech of my colleague from the NDP who has
brought another issue to the House of great concern to all of us.
It is beyond belief to accept for a moment that he, in an attempt
to save his son from what could have been serious injury, would
end up being subject to legal proceedings. It is beyond belief
we have come to a state where we no longer have the right to
protect our property or even our children from what seems to have
amounted to a kidnapping and a threat against the well-being of a
four year old child. It is abhorrent that we as parents or as
citizens do not have the right in law to use reasonable force to
protect our children and our property and are subjected to
criminal proceedings. We as a parliament ought to take a look at
that.
I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of my
colleague's private member's bill. The hon. member has dedicated
the last seven years of his life to changing the Young Offenders
Act to rightfully hold youth more accountable for their criminal
actions. Unfortunately the member for Surrey North had suffered
an inconceivable tragedy, the loss of a child, which brought him
to this point in his life. I empathize with him and his family
for their terrible loss to the extent my understanding allows me.
I commend his fortitude to redress the inadequacy of the Young
Offenders Act in the face of such an event. I am confident my
colleague's efforts, particularly in Bill C-260, will help
prevent other Canadian parents from enduring a similar horrifying
loss.
As pointed out by my colleague, section 7.1 of the YOA permits a
youth court judge to allow an accused to be placed in the custody
of a parent, guardian or responsible person. The designated
person must sign an undertaking to take care and be responsible
for the attendance of the youth in court and to abide by the
conditions imposed by the judge.
As the law currently stands under section 7.2 of the YOA, if the
person who signs the undertaking fails to provide proper and
sufficient supervision he is possibly guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction but summary conviction only.
Bill C-260 would change this to a dual procedure offence.
Therefore a parent or guardian may be subject to imprisonment of
up to two years or the normal summary conviction penalty for a
violation.
As already pointed out today, the Minister of Justice has
incorporated Bill C-260 within the new youth criminal justice
act. This provision of the new act has received considerable
attention and criticism since the minister's announcement last
week. In my opinion this criticism is the result of a confusion
and misunderstanding that must be clarified.
My colleague from Surrey North and others who have spoken in the
House have addressed the issue, but all members speaking on the
issue ought to clarify this misunderstanding and confusion for
the benefit of the Canadian people and particularly for the news
media upon which we depend to communicate in a clear,
unmistakable and unconfused manner the laws that are being
recommended and put forward by the Government of Canada.
1145
Parents will not be jailed for their children's criminal
behaviour. They may however, if Bill C-260 is passed, be subject
to imprisonment if they fail to comply with a duly and willfully
signed undertaking. That is in my opinion reasonable and
responsible.
Two years ago this April, the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs tabled a comprehensive report containing 14
recommendations for amending the Young Offenders Act. This
report was the result of six months of extensive consultations
and travel throughout the country at an expense of almost half a
million dollars. Over 300 people representing various sectors of
the youth justice system and society in general testified before
the committee. That testimony was incorporated into the
committee's report.
On April 22, 1997 on behalf of the Reform Party I published a
minority report containing 17 recommendations. It proposed a
comprehensive three pronged approach to deal with the
complexities of youth crime and the contributing factors
including: one, early detection and intervention as an effective
means of crime prevention; two, community based resolutions and
sentences in cases of minor offences; and three, strengthening
the Young Offenders Act through significant amendments.
Two years after the Reform Party proposed this plan the
government has introduced its youth criminal justice act. I want
to point out at this time that neither the committee's report nor
my report caught the issue that is the centre of Bill C-260. It
is all the more reason I am grateful to the member for Surrey
North that we heard 300 or more witnesses testify. This
deficiency within the Young Offenders Act was not pointed out by
any of the witnesses.
I might add that the member, who was a private citizen at the
time that our committee was in Vancouver, British Columbia, was
to attend before the committee but for some reason or other he
was not allowed to appear and testify before the committee. Had
he done so, his testimony together with his recommendation that
now forms the brunt of Bill C-260 I am sure would have been
placed before the committee. Nevertheless, it was not placed
before the committee. Again, I thank the member for his tenacity
in coming to this place and going through what he had to go
through to be here so that he could speak not only on the floor
of the House of Commons but also to bring this bill forward by
embracing and encompassing the legal process to do so within this
House.
I know we will go into extended debate once the government's new
bill to amend the YOA has been brought forward. However, I would
like to point out that I have concerns that the government's own
committee recommendations have been set aside with regard to
lowering the age, including recommendations from many of the
attorneys general and from experts in the business, such as
Professor Nicholas Bala who was commissioned by the justice
department to look at lowering the age from 12 to 10.
It seems that the government has abandoned these young people
who by their criminal acts signal to society that they are in
need of help and assistance. To leave it to the provinces is
wrong. It is going to create a checkerboard approach to dealing
with these young people. There is no standardization in the
criminal law governing the administration of the law in the
provinces by the attorneys general. I have some concerns in that
area.
I also have some concerns about the restrictions placed on what
otherwise seems to be a fairly progressive move to allow for the
publicizing of names of young offenders, particularly violent and
repeat violent offenders.
I have concerns in those two areas. We will be addressing them
as the bill goes further through the process and certainly before
the committee.
In closing, in view of the comments made by my colleague who
sponsored this bill and the fact that it may be a long time
before the amendment to the Young Offenders Act produced by the
government comes into effect, I would like to move a motion. I
ask for unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of Bill
C-260 now.
1150
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House for the member to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there are a couple of rather interesting points.
First, I find myself rising today to speak in support of a bill,
principles and comments put forward by a member of the Reform
Party. For me, that is quite an unusual experience to have and I
admit that openly.
Then I see what just happened. I see the politics of the Young
Offenders Act which, until this previous attempt to involve
politics, was going in the right direction. The member asked for
unanimous consent when we have not even finished the first hour
of the three hours of debate which have been allocated to this
worthwhile bill. I am sure the member who did that will be
sending out a press release saying is it not awful the government
will not allow this bill to go through. I thought for a moment we
actually had a chance to get along, yet I see the opportunism
taking place. I just had to comment on that.
I want to go back and try to get along on this bill for a couple
of reasons; I think it is important and the government has
recognized in the new legislation that the issue is very
significant. Also, the bill comes clearly from the heart of a
member of this place and his family who have had to suffer the
worst possible experience that any parent could ever imagine. He
has come before this place and has put a bill forward that might
prevent other families from having the same experience.
I suppose it could be seen as being condescending for members on
this side of the House to congratulate the member, but I believe
that in this case, and hopefully in many more cases, there are
reasons we should understand the passion someone brings to this
place. We should understand that someone has had to go through a
terrible experience and is now trying to do something about it.
I want to quote from the letter sent to all of us by the hon.
member for Surrey North asking us to support his bill. He
states:
The impetus for this bill comes from personal experience. Some
of you may be aware that my son, Jesse, was murdered by a young
offender in 1992. What you may not know is that his killer was
free in the community on a section 7.1 undertaking, one condition
of which was a dusk to dawn curfew. The murder occurred at
midnight.
<—obviously in violation of that curfew. The member goes on to
say:
In my opinion, the person who signed that undertaking willfully
failed in his responsibility to supervise. My son, my family,
paid the price.
Frankly, the point the member has made is one of the more
thoughtful positions I have heard in this place. The supervising
parent of the now convicted murderer who is doing I believe 25
years at the present time—I can be corrected, but he is in
jail—made an undertaking to supervise the individual. The member
clearly said that knowing that the young offender was violating
the terms of that undertaking and the terms of the parole, had
the parent made a phone call to the police, there is a
possibility, one never knows but there is a possibility, that the
authorities could have taken some action. That is so critical in
this.
The Minister of Justice has recognized the significance of this
kind of an amendment. I say to the member that if for some
reason he has heard some members say that they are not going to
vote in favour of his bill, one member earlier said because it
was redundant and would be in the new legislation, I too would
share his concern that we do not delay things too long to make
this new amendment reality.
1155
By introducing Bill C-68 dealing with young offenders, the
government is saying that it wants to see this implemented.
Hopefully the opposition, for a miraculous moment or a slight
change, will co-operate with the government so that we can fast
track the new bill dealing with young offenders. Why am I
skeptical that that will not happen?
The politics of the Young Offenders Act that are played out by
the extreme right wing make it very difficult to put in place
thoughtful amendments such as the one the member is putting forth
today.
We hear about boot camps being the solution. I remember
pre-1995 and knocking on doors during the provincial election
campaign. As I campaigned, a lot of people said that they really
liked the idea of boot camps and getting these guys into some
kind of a disciplinary situation where they would have to wear
uniforms and perform military service. People thought that was
the solution.
I do not say this with reference to the case that impacted on
the family of the member for Surrey North, but the real tragedy
in many cases with young offenders is that there are parenting
problems. There is a lack of direction. There is a lack of a
role model. There is a lack of discipline. There is a lack of
love. Often that is the case. Young offenders too often come
from broken families, from poverty, from the bad part of town if
you will. Sometimes they get in with the wrong group. Drugs may
be involved.
For us to adopt the rhetoric we hear so often from the Reform
Party, that we are not hard enough on 10 year olds is the latest
one with regard to the new bill, would be unfortunate. I wish
more members opposite would learn from the experience of the
member for Surrey North. None of us can really understand the
pain of that, but let us learn from it. The member has put
forward a very thoughtful solution to a very serious problem.
It is also important that we get the message through to the
media that this does not mean a parent is suddenly going to pay
the price for a young person's crime. Although there are members
opposite who I am quite sure would agree with that sentiment. I
know. I have heard speeches by members in this place and in the
Ontario legislature where the sole solution to reducing youth
crime was to simply find a way to make the parent pay the price.
I had a call very recently from a constituent who suggested we
should go further, that we should make school teachers pay the
price if the student in their classroom committed a crime. Where
do these kinds of half-baked ideas come from? They are
destructive. The real long term solution to dealing with youth
crime is to reintegrate and help these people.
I am reminded of a time I spent on the licence appeal board when
I was a municipal councillor. It pales in comparison to the
kinds of issues we are talking about. We have to realize that
87% of the crimes committed by young people are not violent
crimes. Thirteen percent is an enormously high figure in my view
and something we cannot ignore, but the vast majority of crimes
do not fall into that category.
I would like to go back to my example because it very much
shaped my thinking on justice issues. We were a three person body
that had to sit in a judicial format. It was not like a council
meeting where we could leave the room. We heard about a very
high profile case in the community that generated a petition for
the return of capital punishment.
1200
Because we had to get into the details, we were able to
understand that without a doubt there was a tragedy but there was
also tremendous remorse. A serious problem had occurred to
another family and it totally changed the position of the members
on that committee. Justice issues and violence issues are not
simple.
Let me once again commend the member for Surrey North for his
doggedness and dedication in memory of his son. He does his
son's memory proud. I congratulate him for bringing this
forward. He and his family can take credit for this being part
of the new legislation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in this
important debate which, as has been mentioned several times
already, is a real tribute that the hon. member for Surrey North
has paid to the memory of his son.
Aside from some of the rhetoric that tends to emerge in debates
such as this, I will not say there is no merit in some of the
changes that have been brought about through this legislation.
However, I do believe there is also a great deal of missed
opportunity when I read through some of these sections, in
particular the subject of this debate under Bill C-260, parental
responsibility.
This section, proposed in its current form, is very commendable.
It will have an effect, one hopes, in terms of sending the
proper message to parents and guardians who are predisposed to
ignore the conditions put in place by a court.
However, there is a misconception about the actual effect this
will have on the ability of the courts to hold a parent or
guardian responsible for the actions of a young person. This is
after the fact treatment. This is not the ability of the courts
to have any true sanctions against a parent ignoring or
abdicating their responsibilities for their young person, whether
their child or a person for whom they are acting as a parent.
The wrong impression that many have is that somehow through some
sanctions a person will be brought into court if their child has
been accused or is being charged with an offence before the
courts and that somehow the courts will actually be able to hold
the parent or guardian accountable. That is not the case at all.
It is important for that to be clarified.
This amendment through the new young offenders legislation will
allow the courts to hold criminally responsible a parent in
certain cases. For example, a young person enters the process and
is released on a form of recognizance, which is merely a contract
to the court to comply with certain conditions such as a curfew,
non-association, an abstention from contacting a person or place
or staying away from drugs and alcohol if they were involved in
the commission of an offence. If that young person does not
comply with those court ordered conditions and the parent or
guardian who signs that contract similarly with the court is not
holding up that standard, which would be expected, if they
abdicate that responsibility and willfully do not ensure that
every effort is made to ensure that the young person complies,
then they can be charged criminally and brought into court.
This section will accomplish that. It also raises the level of
accountability because it brings it from a six month maximum to a
two year maximum, making it instead of just a summary offence a
hybrid offence. It does accomplish that and does so with the
best of intentions. The member for Surrey North should receive
great accolades and great congratulations for this.
In the broader scheme we need to take a more holistic approach
when it comes to youth justice. We need to ensure there is an
entry level emphasis and a proactive approach taken. In order for
that to happen the existing social services, child welfare and
the social welfare net, need to be enhanced and up to par.
Currently that is not the case.
When we talk about an integrated approach and this new
legislation working cheek and jowl, hand in glove with existing
legislation that unfortunately will not happen.
1205
The Speaker: The member has six minutes remaining.
He will have the floor, if he wishes, the next time.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PAN-AMERICAN MONETARY UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved that:
That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the
House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the
possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a
pan-American monetary union.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to indicate
that the Bloc Quebecois members will be dividing their time for
the remainder of the day.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the matter we are debating
today is a very important one. I believe we are, moreover, the
first parliament in any of the three Americas to hold such a
debate on the creation of a pan-American currency.
The point today is not to decide on the need for such a currency
or to agree or disagree with this measure, but rather to agree
to debate it. I would remind my colleagues that, where the free
trade agreement and the signing of NAFTA were involved, the
opposition was very vocal in its criticism of the government for
making decisions without sufficient consultation. The Liberals
were in opposition at the time, and demanded that a debate be
held prior to signing any such actions and agreements.
Such a mistake must not be made a third time. I believe that
this question of the existence of a common currency must be
examined thoroughly.
I first threw out this idea last December, and there have been a
number of reactions since then. The Canadian ambassador to
Washington, Mr. Chrétien, wondered the same thing, and Quebec
Finance Minister Landry supported the undertaking. My colleague
from Charlesbourg, who will be speaking a little later on, has
studied the matter. Thomas Courchesne and other economists have
spoken and written about it. The Minister of Finance, the Prime
Minister and the Director of the Bank of Canada have spoken out
against such a notion. I should clarify that this was for all
of North America, and that they have not ventured any opinion
about a common currency for all of the Americas.
The fact that so many are reacting to this issue, asking
questions and giving opinions indicates that we are all aware
that our world is moving toward the formation of three major
economic and political blocks, not just economic but political
as well.
The European Economic Community is, naturally, the most
developed. Its beginnings date back to the Monnet-Shuman
Agreement on carbon and steel. The treaty of Rome followed,
with all its developments, and then the Maastricht agreement and
the creation of the euro barely a few weeks ago, the first
block, with highly developed expertise.
The second block is was formed by NAFTA, which brings together
all the countries in North America—Canada, the United States
and Mexico, with Quebec joining soon, I am sure.
With last year's financial crisis behind it, Asia will also move
toward this model with a political giant, China, and the
economic giant, Japan.
The problems of some concern in Africa remain for the world as a
whole. It is not the focus of today's debate, but we should—ant
this is my suggestion—hold a debate on the economic aid that
should be given Africa, which is really outside the movement
taking place on the other continents.
NAFTA, I repeat, brings together the countries in North America.
At the Miami summit a few years ago, a proposal was put forward
to create a free trade market within the three Americas, from
Tierra del Fuego to Baffin Island. As I speak, negotiations and
discussions are underway with Chile and Venezuela. The
Caribbean countries have also established a form of economic
co-operation.
In South America, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have
the MERCOSUR.
1210
It must be realized that, 20 years from now, the countries of
the three Americas will be part of NAFTA. Canada signed a free
trade agreement with Israel and, very recently, one with the
Palestinian Authority. It is also conducting important
negotiations with the European free trade association, which
includes Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
The establishment of an economic bloc also implies, within a
rather short term, the creation of a common currency and of
common political institutions, as in the case of Europe. We do
not need to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from the European
experience.
This is an issue that should really concern Quebeckers and
Canadians regardless—and I want to be clear on this today—of the
outcome of the constitutional debate between Quebec and Canada.
It is all the more important to hold this debate now with the
emergence of the Eurodollar, because 11 national currencies, and
major ones at that, are about to disappear. The German mark, the
French franc and the Italian lira were created a long time ago.
These countries have a much longer political history than ours.
These countries will lose their currency.
Twenty years from now, there will only be three major
currencies: the American dollar, the Japanese yen and the
Eurodollar. A large number of less important currencies are
surviving alongside these three major ones. There is an
intermediate category, which includes currencies such as the
pound sterling. Negotiations are well underway in Great Britain
to start using the Eurodollar.
We have the pound sterling, the Australian dollar, the Swedish
krona and the Canadian dollar, which means that the Canadian
dollar will be of much greater interest to speculators in the
years ahead. We saw what happened in Asia last year and in
Brazil just recently.
Therefore, if we know what things are like now, and if we
anticipate the highly predictable situation of a large economic
block consisting of the three Americas in 20 years' time, the
issue is much more one of how to effect the transition between
the present and the future, with the advantages and
disadvantages that will come up along the way.
We must realized that, as the Minister of Human Resources
Development said in a recently published book, no government can
claim to control its monetary policy, to have an independent
monetary policy. I rarely agree with the Minister of Human
Resources Development, but this is one area where we are on the
same wavelength.
There is no doubt that the main problem for Quebec and for
Canada during this transition period is exports. Right now, our
exports are primarily affected by the weakness of the Canadian
dollar. I wonder whether it is not worse in the medium term to
base the strength and success of our exports on the weakness of
the Canadian dollar rather than on the productivity of Quebec
and Canadian enterprises. To ask the question is to answer it.
We cannot allow a situation to develop where the Canadian dollar
would increase in value because of the devaluation of the
American dollar, probably in competition with the euro, while
our productivity remained unequal to that of the Americans.
There would be repercussions to this.
Is it not our duty as parliamentarians, as elected
representatives, to carry out a careful examination of this
situation in order to be prepared for it, instead of just
letting it happen?
The question was raised about what would happen to our social
policies during such a transitional period, if there were a
common currency.
1215
Ought we to abandon them, or ought we instead to do as Europe
did, and adopt mechanisms to ensure that the deficit cannot
exceed 3% of the gross domestic product, thus leaving leeway for
policies leaning more to the left, or more to the right? Free
trade, or a common monetary policy, are not policies of the
right.
Looking at the situation in Europe at the present time, Germany
has Schröder, a social democrat; France has the socialist
Jospin; Great Britain has Blair of Labour.
To conclude, this is an important debate, of equal importance to
the sovereignists and to the federalists.
The economic developments that will occur in the world will take
place regardless of the constitutional choices we will make as
Quebeckers, and you will make as Canadians. I believe we
Quebeckers will have an even greater role to play, but that is
another matter.
I think that by agreeing to hold such a debate today we are
affirming our role as elected representatives, one which must
rise beyond petty politics and affirm the importance of having
Quebeckers and Canadians debate such issues in preparation for
the future.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the motion reads a
single pan-American currency. Is the member suggesting a north
American currency or a western hemisphere currency?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, it is neither. When I say
pan-American, I mean the three Americas, which represents less
than the western hemisphere, and more than North America alone.
I am talking about a common currency for North America, Central
America and South America, since I think that, in twenty years,
all of the countries in the three Americas will be signatories
to NAFTA and, according to the Miami resolution of a few years
ago, which was adopted at the summit of the countries of the
three Americas, we will have a vast economic market stretching
from Tierra del Fuego to Baffin Island.
That is why I am using the term pan-American.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Has he
considered that the European Union, which took 40 years to reach
a point where it even considered a common currency with the
Maastricht treaty in Holland, first had a political union with
the European parliament and was very much focused on defence
issues and other issues that superseded economic issues?
It seems from my perspective that the Bloc is potentially
cherry-picking one element of the European Union policy when in
fact holistically the European Union has dealt more predominantly
with defence and political issues.
A floating exchange rate provides an ability through that
mechanism for the exchange rate to reflect relative levels of
productivity. Without that unemployment would emerge as
potentially the main floating mechanism to reflect those changes.
Would he be satisfied with an unemployment rate in Canada higher
than it is now? Considering the fact that Quebec has a
relatively high provincial debt, would he be satisfied with
higher unemployment rates for Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions there.
I am told I am taking only one of the elements of the European
construction. If we were offered the Maastricht option today,
the Quebec sovereignists would be happy.
Debating one element does not mean rejecting the whole. I am
aware, though, that it has taken 40 years to build this
political and monetary agreement in Europe. I say that it would
be in 20 years, half the time.
I remind my colleague that we do not know who invented the
wheel. However, the next individual, the one who put it to use,
did not take as long to do so as the one who invented it. We
can draw on the experience of the Europeans in this matter.
As for the issue of unemployment, I am concerned about the
unemployment rate and this is why I am talking about a
transition period. The situation is all the more worrisome if,
in the middle term, our economic success is primarily based on
our exports and on the weakness of the Canadian dollar.
1220
Anyone will tell us that if we are doing our utmost to
strengthen our economy, this should be reflected by a stronger
Canadian currency, which means that the gap between the American
and Canadian dollars should be lesser.
If, instead of working to improve our businesses' productivity,
we had merely and blissfully watched the success of a temporary
policy, we would then have had to deal with an extremely high
unemployment rate and, more importantly, with one that might
have been permanent.
So, in order to deal with the dangers of an unemployment rate
that would increase because of the low productivity of Canadian
businesses, we must increase that productivity and make sure,
among other things, that machinery costs us less. The weakness
of the Canadian dollar works against us when we have to buy
machinery from abroad.
This is just the opposite of what the hon. member said, although
we are aware of the issues that he raised.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not taking the same
attitude now that he did with respect to free trade and the GST?
Today, the answer is no, but is this not another case where he
will have to change his position before very long in order to
ensure the economic future of Quebec and of Canada in the—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, very likely, one more flip flop
would not bother him, but as parliamentarians we must decide if
we want to leave something this important to the C.D. Howe
Institute, the Fraser Institute, the whole Canadian business
community, and government mandarins, or whether we should not,
as parliamentarians, play our role and examine all aspects of
the issue. That is what we were elected to do, and we should
assume
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate.
The issue before the House today is rapidly moving to the
forefront, particularly since the introduction of the Eurocoin
on January 1 of this year.
I am very proud to say that the Bloc Quebecois is the first
political party to raise this issue, not only in Canada but, to
my knowledge, in all of America.
Everybody knows I have been interested in this issue for some
time. I circulated a study paper on this at the beginning of the
year, which sparked a debate in Quebec, in Canada and even among
our neighbours to the south.
It would be sad, inappropriate and most of all unfortunate for
the Parliament of Canada not to consider this issue,
particularly since even the Canadian ambassador to the United
States himself, Raymond Chrétien, the Prime Minister's nephew,
raised this possibility.
This brings me to talk about the wording of the motion, which
does not imply the adoption of a common currency, but rather the
striking of a committee to consider the issue. The Bloc is not
asking that a common currency be adopted tomorrow, but that we,
as parliamentarians, elected by the people, study the issue.
We are all aware of the globalization of the economy, which
brings as a consequence the regionalization and
continentalization of markets. The European Union, NAFTA and
MERCOSUR are examples of that.
We also need to take into account the fact that there are only
three major currencies left in the world, the U.S. dollar, the
euro, and the Japanese yen, the other world currencies being
tied to these.
Where does the Canadian dollar fit into all this? I believe
that the Canadian dollar, being only an intermediary currency,
will become the object of increasing speculation, since the
birth of the euro last January 1 deprived speculators of 11
currencies. This makes it all the more important to think
things through carefully.
As has already been said, monetary and trade issues cannot be
separated one from the other. Perhaps, then, the Canadian trade
situation ought to be looked at.
Since the Free Trade Agreement, Canadian trade, which had been
primarily east-west, has rapidly become north-south and
south-north.
In 1984, Canadian exports to the rest of the world were 113% of
interprovincial trade. In 1996, this figure was up to 183%, and
Canada-U.S. trade is now greater than interprovincial trade.
1225
By way of comparison, on average 62% of exports of countries in
the European Union are with each other, whereas 82% of Canada's
exports go to the United States.
In terms of GNP, exports among EU countries represent only 16%
of their GNP, whereas Canada's to the U.S., represent 30% of
Canada's GNP.
Canada is therefore more economically integrated with the United
States than the countries of the EU are with each other. Also
the fact that 11 EU countries have decided to adopt a common
currency argues strongly in favour of establishing a formal link
between Canadian and American dollars.
In addition, it is logical for monetary integration to follow
economic integration. Thus a pan-American currency would
probably apply to Canada and the United States first, before
possibly extending fully to the three Americas in the wake of
the liberalization of trade that is on the agenda for all
countries in the western hemisphere.
In October 1998 Canada's money supply represented $364.5 billion
U.S.
By comparison, at the same time, the American money supply
totalled $5,841 billion U.S., an increase of 10,7% from October
1997.
The Canadian money supply amounts to 6.2% of the American money
supply. This means that, for the United States, the adoption by
Canada of a dollar tied to their currency represents barely a
few months of the normal growth of their money supply.
We must also talk about the main advantages and drawbacks of a
single currency. The main argument against a single currency was
mentioned by the Conservative member and has to do with the
principle of monetary independence.
What about the independence of Canada's monetary policy? There
is no such independence, it is a myth. There is no Canadian
monetary independence.
This is not my opinion but that of several, including Sherry
Cooper, chief economist and senior vice-president at Nesbitt
Burns.
Let us take a closer look at the figures. For example, between
1950 and 1986, in order to get the Bank of Canada rate, we
simply had to add 1.1% to the rate of the U.S. federal reserve
bank.
In 1996-97, for the first time in 50 years, with the exception of
1973, the Bank of Canada rate was lower than the American rate.
As we all know, this resulted in the Canadian dollar taking a
nose dive and falling to 63 cents U.S. It is to correct this
situation that the Bank of Canada increased its rate to 1% above
the U.S. rate.
This is a return to the old econometric model.
What would be the main advantages of a common currency? First,
it would eliminate the risks of devaluation and the losses that
result from converting national currencies. Second, it would
lead to greater transparency of costs and prices within a
monetary zone, thus facilitating comparison. Finally, it would
allow optimal allocation of capital, largely because certain
regions have a savings surplus while others have trouble coming
up with the capital needed to develop their projects.
In short, as parliamentarians, we should be debating all of the
above. The train is already leaving the station. Before it
goes too far, we should get on. Not only can we be on board,
but we can even be in the locomotive pulling the whole train.
I wish to move an amendment to the motion moved by the member
for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I move:
In conclusion, I would argue that, if 11 European countries
decide, for their own interests, to create a monetary union, why
could Canada and the other countries of the Americas not do the
same? The elected representatives of the House must ask
themselves the following question: how can Quebec and Canada
now make the most of the new economic context of globalization?
We have an opportunity to take the time to examine this
important issue. I put it to the House that we must not let
this opportunity slip through our fingers.
1230
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the amendment
is in order.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate.
I find it a fascinating discussion so far. I cannot help but
think about what this place would look like if we were filled
with political eunuchs.
We have seen many times in the past legislation passed that
makes this place irrelevant. To call us a palace of eunuchs
makes me nervous. I cannot help but think about this when I
listen to my friends in the Bloc. In my judgment they seem to be
advocating some sort of Quebec as a banana republic, with no
control over its monetary policy, no control over the value of
its currency and abandoning decisions on these crucial matters to
others.
Are members of the Bloc Quebecois prepared to give up any sense
of sovereignty over currency? Is this an extension of their
zealous approach to NAFTA and all of the other implications of a
free trade agreement?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I am a little bit
disappointed by the question asked by my colleague from the NDP
for two reasons. First of all, as I mentioned in my speech,
right now Canada does not have an independent monetary policy.
We could study the issue in committee and I think we would come
to the conclusion that our monetary policy is not independent
and we would have to take it from there.
Second, I do not see why such proud countries as France, Germany
with its Deutschmark, Belgium, Italy and Spain, old countries
that were built on a very strong brand of nationalism, would be
willing not to give up their monetary sovereignty, but rather to
pool it. Maybe the notion of sovereignty in the 21st century is
more like a pooling of individual sovereignties.
Here is an example.
The Eurocoin, the new European currency, is France's idea. The
franc was very closely linked to the Deutschmark, Germany's
currency. France saw it had no influence on German monetary
policy. It had no representative in the Bundesbank. What did it
do? It proposed the adoption of a common currency. As a matter
of fact, France was behind the adoption of the Maastricht
treaty.
What happened? France now has a representative in the European
Central Bank, whereas previously it did not have any control
over European monetary policy, which, for all intents and
purposes, was Germany's monetary policy. France did not lose any
sovereignty; it gained some.
1235
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague from the Bloc
said. He has been quoting these examples from Europe.
It seems to me that on this side of the Atlantic the better
example at the moment for the extension of the U.S. currency is
the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. For 107 years Puerto Rico has
had the U.S. dollar but nothing else. It is simply a source of
cheap labour and occasionally a source of ball players for the
United States.
In the western hemisphere, has my colleague studied the case of
Puerto Rico in the last 100 years?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to note the tone the Liberals will be adopting in this
debate. It is rather distressing.
They are comparing apples and oranges. This is the first time I
have heard the Liberals comparing Canada to Puerto Rico. This
gives us some idea of how low they can stoop.
Canada is G7 country. Its economy ranks 7th in the world. They
are trying to compare Puerto Rico, which is a political
dependency of the United States, with Canada, which is not, and
where we could have a say on the North American and pan-American
monetary policy. This is an opportunity we must not let slip
through our fingers.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the
government's response to the Bloc's motion on the pan-American
monetary union.
I am sure that the blatant irony of this motion is clear to most
hon. members. We have a party that is dedicated to breaking up
one of the world's truly blessed unions, Canada, and at the same
time asks us to jump into bed with American monetary policy.
If we look at the real question and issues at stake here it
quickly becomes clear why this motion deserves to be rejected.
Would a monetary union with the United States or the rest of the
hemisphere give us a better monetary policy? Would it be good
for Canadian firms? Would it lead to higher living standards for
Canadians? The answer to these questions is absolutely not.
Remember when in the 1960s Canada had a system of fixed exchange
rates. However, this did not eliminate speculation against the
value of the Canadian dollar. In fact, it in some cases led to
currency misalignment. Eventually the fixed exchange rate regime
was abandoned in the 1970s.
Many other countries adopted a system of fixed exchange rates
after World War II. Like Canada, some of them chose to move to
flexible exchange rates while others moved to make adjustments to
their currency.
Today there is the Euro. That is the basis of this whole
motion. The move of 11 European countries toward monetary union
might seem applicable to this hemisphere but this is the sort of
false apples and oranges comparison, or maybe I should say
tourtiere and strudel, that falls apart the minute we look at it
intelligently.
Consider the facts. The European project involves several
countries with key members of a similar economic size and at a
similar level of development. These countries have adopted a
common currency administered by a common central bank with a
board of 11 national directors.
In contrast, a pan-American monetary union would be dominated by
one mega country, the United States. There would be the
influence from another group of countries with records of
sometime high cosmic inflation.
The bottom line is clear. In such a union, even if it were put
into practice, it is doubtful that Canada would have a
significant role to play in the formulation of North American or
pan-American monetary policy.
This takes me to the underlying point. No matter how members
try to phrase or disguise it, a monetary union actually amounts
to fixed exchange rates which eliminate forever Canada's ability
to conduct a flexible and independent monetary policy. This is
no small or abstract sacrifice.
A flexible exchange rate regime has served Canada very well over
the years, helping our economy adjust to important economic
shocks and allowing our country to conduct an independent
monetary policy.
Some might ask about the recent movements in the Canadian
dollar. Do these movements not show that we would have been
better off with a fixed exchange rate and a monetary policy under
the control of others? Absolutely, definitely not.
These movements represent the natural response to international
shocks. In fact, it is the currency fluctuation that has
actually helped us to adjust to these shocks.
As Bank of Canada Governor Gordon Thiessen has explained on a
number of occasions, the dollar weakened last year because Canada
was being sideswiped by events beyond our borders.
Foremost among these have been the Asian financial crises and
more recently the development in Russia and Latin America.
1240
Let us put this into context. Canada was certainly not the only
country to be affected by these recent developments. Since the
Asian crises began the currencies of other major commodity
exporters such as Australia and New Zealand were affected even
more.
Although Canada's dependence on commodity based exports has
steadily declined, Canada remains a net exporter of primary
commodities. Accordingly, the movements in commodity prices have
had a significant impact on the Canadian economy. The U.S. on
the other hand is a net importer of primary commodities. As a
result Canada suffers income losses when commodity prices fall
while the U.S. economy benefits. This is an important difference
between Canada and the U.S.
The world prices of primary commodities have a major influence
on the value of the Canadian dollar because the exchange rate
adjusts to balance trade and capital flows in a flexible exchange
rate system. When world commodity prices fall the Canadian
dollar tends to depreciate against the U.S. dollar. This is
truer of our relationship with the U.S. than other G-7 countries.
Over the past two years the ratio of export to import prices in
Canada and the United States has moved in opposite directions.
Our terms of trade declined by 6% while the U.S. terms of trade
rose by 5%. In other words, we are receiving less attractive
prices for the goods we sell abroad compared with the prices we
pay for products we import while the U.S. enjoys the opposite
situation.
There is an important corollary that we must remember. Canada's
exchange rate flexibility has helped buffer the Canadian resource
centre by limiting the damage from plunging global commodity
prices. It has helped up to continue to sell goods around the
world, especially in the U.S. market. The flexibility has helped
more than hurt the aluminium industry in Quebec, Ontario metal
mines, Alberta oil and B.C. forest companies. These industries
would have suffered severely and more so if we had a fixed
exchange rate, virtually pricing us out of any global sales at
all.
The basic fact is flexible exchange rate arrangements are more
suitable when countries tend to have different monetary policy
objectives, different industrial structures and face different
economic shocks. It is not the situation Canada faces as anyone
who can look beyond their narrow provincial borders can say.
Let me again emphasize that a flexible exchange rate allows
Canada to conduct independent monetary policy that puts Canada
and Canadians first. The benefits of the greater monetary policy
autonomy and macroeconomic stabilization made possible by
flexible exchange rates are large. On the other hand, a fixed
exchange rate would significantly curtail the autonomy of
Canadian monetary authorities.
The main objective of monetary police with respect to the
domestic economy is to preserve the value of money, to achieve
and preserve a low and stable inflation rate. Anyone who
remembers Canada of the mid-1970s and beyond understands that a
high and variable inflation rate can be very costly for the
economy and that aiming at low and stable inflation is the best
contribution that monetary policy can make for the achievement of
economic well-being.
A flexible exchange rate plays a crucial role in the operation
of monetary policy in an open economy like Canada. We know that
capital is highly mobile between Canada and the U.S. and it would
be impossible for Canada to set an independent and effective
monetary policy under a fixed exchange rate.
Independent monetary policy also allows us to better absorb what
are called macroeconomic shocks. We are seeing right now that we
have been able to escape the worst of last year's Asian crises.
Although both the Canadian and the U.S. monetary authorities are
currently dedicated to maintaining low inflation in their
respective countries, it is a recognized fact that Canada has
recently made more progress in this regard and we have been able
to do so more explicitly about our longer term objective.
The record of many other countries in the hemisphere is by no
means as good as Canada's. Would we want our monetary policy to
be dictated by a board of governors that would include
representatives who had run hyper inflations in the past?
Fixing the exchange rate also sacrifices our ability to use
monetary policy for short term economic stabilization. For
Canada and the United States to be an optimum currency area they
would have to face very similar economic shocks and be very
integrated in terms of the movement of workers.
1245
Here is something for the hon. member of the Bloc to think
about. Although Canada and the United States are bound together
in many ways, we actually face very different economic shocks.
Some would argue that a fixed exchange rate would reduce
transaction costs in international trade and capital flows. We
have evidence that shows the opposite, that in fact the costs are
very small compared to the benefits.
If the costs of currency volatility were so high, why has there
been such a drastic jump in two way trade and direct investment
between our two countries?
I do not think any of these attributes can be found in today's
motion or in the political game playing that is going on here. If
we pursued the suggestion of the Bloc, we would end up trying to
tread water in tough seas, having thrown away the life preserver
of our sovereign, independent, made in Canada monetary policy.
It is not an option the government will ever accept on behalf of
a vast majority of Canadians.
I encourage all members of the House to vote against the
opposition motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In light of the interest
being shown in this matter, I am going to ask hon. members to
kindly limit their questions to one minute.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was
interested to hear what my colleague from the Liberal Party had
to say. Some of his points merit more thorough study.
That is precisely what the purpose of the Bloc Quebecois motion
of today is: to look at both sides of the issue. There are
arguments both for and against.
My colleague has decided to vote against the motion presented by
the Bloc Quebecois. Is this not missing an opportunity to look
at such an important issue in greater depth, instead of being
restricted to a single day as is the case today?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, I thought I indicated
quite clearly that I would be voting against the motion by the
Bloc. In the remarks I made I thought it was very clear the
government has as its objective to ensure that we put Canada and
Canadians first.
The motion is essentially saying to the House and to Canadians
that they would like to go back to a fixed exchange rate system.
When they draw comparison between the North American hemisphere
and the European Union, members of the Bloc fail to recognize
that within the European Union are countries of similar size and
economic power. There are countries that want to integrate their
economies. There is a free flow of labour mobility in the
European Union which forms part of its agreement.
Does the hon. member who asked the question think that it would
not be in the best interest of Canada and Canadians to ensure
that we direct our own monetary policy? We have seen the impact
of that. As we experience what goes on around the world, we must
have as a country the flexibility to ensure that we can respond
and continue to grow our domestic economy in spite of what goes
on globally.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague. I
understand his points about the differences between the European
Union and the scale of our economies and the differences in the
western hemisphere.
I mentioned before the case of Puerto Rico. It seems to me the
debate is about extending the U.S. dollar. It was extended to
Puerto Rico well over 100 years ago, which has simply resulted in
the slowing of the economy of Puerto Rico. By the way, there are
no increased ties between Puerto Rico and the United States.
We were speaking about the western hemisphere and I would like
to ask my colleague about the U.S. dollar being extended to
Liberia.
I am not sure if it is still true, but it may well be that for
many years Liberia has used the U.S. dollar at par. The country
of Liberia is in the eastern hemisphere and its economy is very
weak. Would my colleague care to comment on these two examples?
Has Puerto Rico been a success? Has Liberia been a success by
extending the U.S. dollar?
1250
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, one just has look at what
most economists are saying. It is very clear that the argument
against any sort of monetary union with the United States far
outweighs any of the benefits.
The two examples brought to my attention by the hon. member for
Peterborough have to be looked at, but when we look at what
Canada has done in the past and what Canada intends to do in the
future, our economy is not completely and directly synchronized
with the economy of the United States. Canada needs to have the
flexibility to respond to what goes on around the world. Just
extending the U.S. dollar does not in any way solve the
challenges that any country faces.
The two examples the hon. member has drawn upon speak for
themselves. The arguments are there. The support of Canadians
is in tact. We will continue with our own monetary policy to
ensure the domestic economy continues to prosper.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this is
one of those motions where one cannot help but think that those
people to our left, the members of the Bloc who put forward a
motion like this one, are playing a game of chess. They are not
thinking about the current move but about the next move or maybe
the one after. We ought to give them a reluctant commendation
for at least thinking ahead.
The level of our currency is a measure of our economic health.
When we look at Canada's present economic health we get a 6.5 on
a scale from 1 to 10. Compared with the American dollar we have
a 65-cent dollar.
They are asking us to strike a committee to debate the issue. I
am certainly in favour of debate. I might even be persuaded to
vote in favour of a motion to strike a committee because perhaps
this ought to be dealt with in considerably greater depth than we
can do here. Perhaps we ought to listen to expert witnesses
which a committee could do and which unfortunately we do not
often get to do here because not many members are economic
experts.
My initial reaction is that perhaps we ought to enter into the
debate in such as way as to say yes, let us enlarge the debate.
However, the underlying reason for this committee and for this
study is intriguing. It has to do with the use of currency and
the proposal behind the one we are debating.
We are debating a proposal to strike a parliamentary committee,
but the idea behind it is to have a common pan-American currency
so we will not have to do all the conversions and somehow, I
suppose, hide the red faces of the Liberals for its economic
policies which have brought us into such dire straits in this
country. Our dollar's value on the world scene and particularly
as it is pegged against the American dollar is at an abysmal low
rate.
An analogy might be appropriate. I do not know if members have
ever seen a house going down the road. I have seen this in
Saskatchewan and Alberta. Quite frequently they move buildings
down the road on many wheels. It could be 20 wheels or 24 wheels
set underneath the building. It is intriguing. For a number of
years a friend of mine was in the business of doing this and
among other things used to haul huge grain elevators that go 100
feet into the sky.
1255
The analogy I want to draw is how those wheels were constructed.
If a large building is being moved along the road and goes into a
hole, if there is not some sort of equalization between all the
axles one axle stops carrying its load. Two things can happen.
Additional weight transferred to adjacent wheels can blow the
tires on that wheel, causing instability and if an elevator is
being hauled it could tip. As a matter of fact my friend tipped
one of his elevators because the technicians were not paying
particular attention.
I was intrigued when I looked at the mechanism. Every one of
the axles is tied together with hydraulic hoses and hydraulic
rams so that when one wheel goes into a hole the pressure is
immediately reduced, but as the other wheels pick up the load the
pressure is transferred back to the wheel during the time it is
in the hole. It is never relieved of carrying its share of the
load.
Conversely, if one of the wheels were to go over a rock or a
high spot on the road, again it could cause the structure to tip.
It could result in the tires on that one axle exploding
immediately because of the additional pressure from all the
weight of the building being on one set of wheels when it is
meant to be distributed.
As the pressure increased, the pressure on the rams was
transmitted via the hoses to the other wheels supporting the
structure. Two things happened. It prevented any one of the
wheels from exploding because of increased pressure on it and it
kept stability to the whole structure so it could go straight
along. There was an additional mechanism available to raise one
side to keep it straight if the road was uneven, but that has
nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
What happens if we have a larger currency? It has been
suggested that we should protect the Canadian currency by tying
it to the American currency. A constituent in my riding, if he
happens to be watching CPAC this morning, which I know he does
from time to time because he is a retired person and has time for
it, will be pleased to know I am now presenting his case. He
strongly said we should tie the Canadian currency to the American
currency, just do it arbitrarily and say this is what it is. My
constituent suggested a time line. Perhaps it could be one cent
per month over 30 months which would bring our currency back up
to par with that of the Americans so there would not be a sudden
change.
There is merit in that suggestion. When our economy has a
fluctuation, when it goes down the tube, because we are in the
larger package they pick up the slack for us and we do not feel
an immediate hit in that situation. Eventually we would anyway,
I believe.
The general principle of broadening the currency is to give
strength to all countries that participate based on the overall
average instead of on the vagaries of an individual partner.
One needs to be very practical when one thinks about and does
any reading at all on the European Union, the new Euro coin and
the Euro currency that is under way. As an aside, Westaim in my
riding is a coin plating plant which, among other things, is
providing blanks for the new Euro coin. I thought I would throw
in that free commercial. That is proceeding.
Why would we not want to do this? I think there are a couple of
reasons. I seriously question it. There are some countries in
our hemisphere that are not carrying their load. They are
inefficient, perhaps worse than Canada. They are very highly
taxed as is every Canadian citizen.
As a result, our overall economic efficiency is too low.
1300
One really wants to ask the question: Why does the separatist
party from Quebec put forward this motion today? I think
perhaps, as I said in my introduction, it is thinking a move or
two ahead in what it expects will happen, that Quebec will
eventually separate. I suppose what we are hearing today is a
tacit admission that when that happens the currency and the
economic well-being of that province will be seriously
threatened. I think that is a political reality.
Members of the Bloc are hedging against the future and hoping
they can tie themselves to a larger currency so that the weight
of that very uneconomic decision would be distributed over and
carried by Canada, the United States and the other countries in
the union.
I believe that in the move to do this the separatists better
have a good share of realism. There are a number of countries
which are being denied entry to the European Union because their
economy is not strong. The European Union is working to make
sure that its currency is strong, viable and very stable. The
European Union literally is not permitting some countries to join
because of their economic stability. Economic stability
correlates very closely to political stability.
I would give advice to my separatist partners, whom I wish would
simply stay in Canada. Let us work together and let us motor on.
If they are going to go down this route, they should recognize
realistically that there is a possibility that they would not
even be permitted in because they would not be meeting the
criteria for membership.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was
fascinated by the remarks of my Reform colleague, especially his
explanation as physics professor of the mechanics of moving
buildings and grain elevators across the prairies.
The Reform Party boasts of being a party that encourages debate,
is opposed to secretive meetings behind closed doors and is
desirous of bringing all Canadians from across the country into
the debate.
In this vein, will it support the motion by the Bloc Quebecois,
that is, open doors and windows and ask everyone to express
their opinion—experts, lobby groups, unions, management and so
on. Let us have a debate in society rather than a closed debate
as some, unfortunately, would like.
So, will he support this motion in agreement with the principles
he claims to support?
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, the answer is maybe, and that
is final.
I will give the hon. member a reason for this. Over and over we
see the Liberals on the other side not having debates. In fact
on Friday they used a short day to engage in a so-called debate
on a bill on which they had imposed closure.
The member is absolutely right. I like debate. We need to
debate, not only in this place, but with Canadians across the
country on these issues.
In that sense, I would support a wider debate and I would
support this motion. However, in the interest of that I intend
to sit here all day today to listen to this debate. I have to
tell the member that at this stage I literally have not made up
my mind whether I am going to support this motion or not. I am
going to decide that after listening to more debate and more
thinking. At the end of the day I am going to decide whether or
not to support this motion. My present inclination is about 52
to 48 to vote for it.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
knows that when we spend our time in the finance committee we do
have some constructive debate. There are members on all sides of
this House who certainly enjoy debate.
1305
The hon. member talked about the economic health of the country
of Canada. I believe he ranked it at about 6.5 out of 10 in his
opening remarks. He made reference only to the exchange rate.
What about inflation rates in Canada, the growth of the GDP and
the unemployment rate declining?
He talks about fixing the currency to the U.S. dollar. He has a
constituent who has put forward that proposal. I ask the hon.
member whether he thinks that the B.C. forest industry could
survive a fixed exchange rate with the U.S. dollar. Does he have
constituents in business who would feel when they are exporting
that in fact taking away Canada's ability to buffer what goes on
around the world with flexible exchange rates would not help
companies to export? By fixing it what we have is just one
unitary exchange rate and our cycles are different than those of
the United States.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary
has gone on to stage two. If we have this committee these are
the things we are going to have to talk about. I agree, there
are many, many measures of economic health. The value of one
currency against the American currency is only one of them.
However, the truth of the matter is that we export a great deal
to the United States. That means that every prairie farmer,
every British Columbia lumberman, everybody who produces
something and exports it to the United States now gets paid 65
cents on the dollar because those things are measured in American
dollars. Whether we do that conversion using a calculator to
multiply by .65 or whether we have a common currency, it means
that every worker now, instead of getting $10 an hour, would get
$6.50 an hour.
If we want to be competitive at our present rate of inefficiency
and with our high level of taxation, especially employer
taxation, if we take all of those things into account, I think
the bottom line is yes, the currency can act as a little bit of a
buffer locally. However, it in no way solves the final problem
and that is that we have policies in this country that just do
not permit us to be as efficient as we ought to be.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I say first of all that I love debate
and I like to talk about any topic, and will debate and discuss
almost any topic at any time. However, we only have a certain
amount of time.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean brought forward the
suggestion today that we strike a committee to look into the
widening gap between haves and have nots and the growing gap
between the rich and the poor in the country, in the world and in
our communities. That is a laudable suggestion.
The motion put forward by the Bloc today has me puzzled. I
wonder why the Bloc Quebecois would put forward a motion to at
least consider seriously a Pan-American currency. Then I thought
of one idea. If I was a separatist in Quebec and I was
successful in separating, and then I had to have the Canadian
dollar as my currency and the Bank of Canada setting monetary
policy for an independent Quebec, this would be somewhat
embarrassing. What else could be done? If we had a North
American currency we could avoid this little dilemma and we could
avoid this discussion in the whole debate around separation.
I now understand at least why we are having this discussion
today. It is part of getting the fundamentals in place for a
move toward another vote on separation. I will set that aside.
That is the motivation. I think it is a useful discussion for us
to have in the House today because I hope we can set this thing
aside once and for all.
I must say that from time to time I feel a bit like a political
eunuch. We pass legislation in the House and then the United
States says it does not like the legislation and we yank it off
the table. We saw that with the MMT legislation. The House of
Commons passed legislation to protect the health of Canadians and
then an American company said “Hold it. That is not right. We
do not like that legislation”, and the government bent over,
said it was sorry and backed off.
Now we have Bill C-55, the split-run magazine legislation. The
Americans say they do not like it, so the government is saying it
will see if it can come up with another deal. It goes on and on.
We are losing our sovereignty.
1310
We have seen imposed on us a form of economic feudalism. Our
country was founded by people who fled feudalism. They fled
those regimes around the world where they had no say, their voice
was unheard. They had no power. They were unable to have
elected representation. If we agree with the thrust of this
motion, that is were we will move on monetary policy.
Let us face it, our economy with the United States is very much
integrated. Eighty per cent of our trade is with one trading
partner. There is not a single country in the world, other than
a banana republic, that would even come close to that. To
suggest that we now use the Yankee dollar as our currency, so
that when we go to buy CDs or to the movies we reach into our
pocket and bring out Uncle Sam's currency, that is not the Canada
that Canadians want for the future.
If members went out on the streets and asked Canadians “Do you
really want to have American dollars as your currency?”, they
would think we were nuts. They would say “Of course not. We
are proud to be Canadians. We are proud of our currency. We are
proud to have a separate currency from that of the United
States”.
I am having trouble with this debate. I am a bit critical about
monetary policy. I think we are too integrated with our monetary
policy as it is. It should be much more independent.
I am not saying that our monetary policy and our central bank do
a great job. They do a good job, but they could be doing a much
better job in terms of fighting issues like high levels of
unemployment.
Let us acknowledge those who argue “Look what Europe has
done”. I listened to my friend and I respect him. He said that
we are seeing the French franc go out the door. We are seeing
the German mark go out the door. It is quite a different
situation in Europe where they have 11 economies which are
relatively the same size. There are certainly four economies
that are almost identical in size, influence and power. Here it
is us against the U.S.A. I never slept with a mad grizzly bear
or an elephant, but I can imagine what it must be like. I would
not want to move. I would sit there paralyzed.
The point is that for us to be up against the U.S.A. on an equal
basis is, first, laughable. I do not have to go any further than
to look at today's La Presse. In La Presse the
American government is pointing out that in the discussion of a
North American currency it should not be suggested for a moment
that it is interested in modifying any of its policies to
correspond with problems in Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Chile or
wherever. It is an independent country. It has an independent
monetary policy. It is basically saying to hell with anybody
else. That is the American way.
The American government has made its views very clear about any
form of Pan-America currency. We are not talking about the North
American loonie or the North American dollar; we are talking
about the American dollar, the American currency. In other
words, everybody else in the Americas would join in on some
aspect of the American currency. That is not on.
Let us look at an example of what is happening in Europe. After
the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and the Treaty of Amsterdam in
1997, the European Council of Prime Ministers was set up. It has
an incredible amount of power. I know there is a European
parliament and other assemblies, but the real thrust comes from
the European commission. It has the power. It is fair to say
that when it decides on a particular course of action other
governments have to abide by that decision. It can overrule
legislation in other countries to fit in with the monetary union
in Europe and so on. What Europeans have done is to say that
they are going to give up some of their sovereignty to be part of
that great economic union. That is what it is.
My friends previously talked about the mobility of workers
between countries and so on. My friend in the Conservative Party
reminded us that it took 40 years to develop a very integrated
approach in Europe, and not simply on monetary policy. Here we
are talking about monetary policy.
Let us face it, in Europe when it comes to economic issues and
currency issues, the decisions are not made by those who are
elected and representing the people, they are made by 20,000
faceless bureaucrats in secret. That is the way that system is
operated. We have too much of that now. We have decisions about
the trade between our countries being made in secret. We almost
had the MAI imposed on us. We found out about it at the last
minute. Again, negotiations were basically held in secret,
behind closed doors. That is not what Canadians want.
1315
Canadians have this sinking feeling that their voices are not
being heard. They have a sinking feeling that they are alienated
from the political process. There is a good reason for that
feeling, because they are. The voices of Canadians are not being
listened to.
To suggest that we will now integrate our currency with the
United States is absolute folly. I feel a little reluctant to
say that we will vote against this motion because debate is often
helpful and useful, but if we totally disagree with the premise
of the reason for having the debate and completely disagree with
the reason to proceed with even considering a North American
currency, why would we?
If my friends in the Bloc Quebecois are successful in proceeding
with this, they are articulating a call to be a banana republic.
They want Quebec to be a banana republic.
What is a banana republic? A banana republic is a country that
has no voice over its monetary policy, no voice over fiscal
policy. It just goes along with the dictating country, in this
case the United States. Some of the representatives from Quebec
may want this as an option. I do not think Canadians do
generally and quite frankly I do not think Quebeckers do. The
idea of turning Canada even more so into a banana republic,
kowtowing to the United States, to adapt this version of economic
feudalism is absolute folly.
Everyone has probably got the impression that we in the New
Democratic Party are not that keen on the suggestion of currency
integration. We have all kinds of other reasons to set out why
this is not a good idea.
The chairman of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, who
now is sort of king of the European Euro said the other day that
unions no longer have a part to play in the new Euro Europe. I
wonder if the people of Quebec know that this is what is being
said about the Euro, and that the Quebec unions would have no
role to play in a future Quebec based on a single currency for
North America. That is what the chairman of the European Central
Bank is saying about the new Euro.
I believe that when we revisit this issue in a few months or
perhaps even in a few years, the reality of the Euro dollar will
be in disrepair. Countries in Europe will realize the folly of
continuing with this and those countries that have not opted into
this situation will be doing much better.
In the end, later today we will not be supporting this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, it was
in 1988 that I voted for the first time in my life, and the main
election issue was free trade.
I have the impression I could
take any speech the NDP made at the time and I would find the
same arguments, the same facts, the same fears and the same
anxieties.
That said, my question is very simple. My colleague, whose
oratory skills I highly respect, said “Voices of Canadians are
not listened to”. That is what he said.
Let us give Canadians the opportunity to express their point of
view. Let us vote in favour of the motion.
Let us give unions, management groups, student groups, all
Canadians throughout Canada and Quebeckers the opportunity to
say what they think on this issue.
If he really wants the voices of Canadians to be heard, let him
give them the opportunity. A vote against this motion is not
the way to let Canadians say what they think.
What does the hon. member think of that?
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, this hon. member does not
think much of that suggestion.
Behind the initiative of a North American currency is corporate
America. The BCNI headed up by our friend Thomas D'Aquino said
that the best thing for Canada to make us highly productive was
to privatize, to adopt free trade, to deregulate, to balance the
budget, to impose the GST, to cut social programs, which would
make us more like the United States and that would boost our
productivity.
We have done all those things. We as a country followed the
advice of the BCNI. We followed the agenda of the corporate
voices of Canada, which are the voices behind the Euro and the
voices behind this call now for a North American or Pan-American
currency.
1320
The problem, as we read in the papers today, is that we are not
that productive. Having taken all of these steps, Canada has not
increased its productivity. What is absent from this discussion
is the high level of unemployment and underemployment and the
relatively low wages people are being paid and therefore the
relative lack of purchasing power. Those are some of the reasons
we have to discuss.
Rather than discuss a North American currency, I would go along
with my friend's partner, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and
talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in
Canada, the growing gap between the rich nations and poor
nations. That kind of discussion would have much more merit than
talking about integrating Canada's currency with that of the
United States of America.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too
have a question for the NDP finance critic. He is a man of
considerable insight in a lot of things.
How do I put this without insulting him after what I just said?
Does he really understand what the measure of currency is versus
the wealth of the country? I can buy a piece of equipment and
pay $1 Canadian for it or I can buy the same thing for 65 cents
American. It is the same item and has the same value, it is just
in a different measure. We have different ways of measuring
things. We used to measure things in inches and now we measure
in centimetres.
To what degree is his understanding that all we are talking
about here is the debate on which measure of our economic health
we are going to use?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, as usual my hon. friend
has a thoughtful question so I will respond in kind.
It is fair to say that the value of our currency is a reflection
of what international financiers feel is the health of the
Canadian economy.
My friend will be well aware that in terms of our commodity
exports, the present value of our currency is certainly helpful
during these difficult economic times. We would agree that major
changes are required to the economy of the country in order to
make us more productive in a positive sense, meaning better, more
secure and better paid jobs for men and women and higher
productivity meaning a more appropriate knowledge based economy
of the 21st century. We might have different views on how to get
to that point, I would suspect, but nevertheless we might agree
on the end run.
In terms of the one sector of the economy that is experiencing
incredibly hard times because of international markets, the
commodity sector, it is being assisted by our relatively low
currency vis-à-vis the United States dollar. I would also agree
that it is a reflection of what others feel is the health of our
economy. They are not always accurate. I think some of them are
evaluating in old fashioned ways and are not appreciating some of
the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member as his time is over.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this
important issue to the House of Commons for debate.
It is extremely important that as members of parliament we take
time to debate not only the important issues facing us today but
the important issues that will face Canadians in the future. We
in this place can play a significant role in preparing Canadians
for the risks and opportunities of the future. That is what this
motion is all about.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois spoke earlier today. I guess he
previously had some ties to the Marxist-Leninist Party. Perhaps
he was so disappointed that Marx was proven wrong about communism
that he was anxious for an opportunity to prove that maybe Marx
was right about capitalism. I can say that I am not in favour of
a common currency for the Americas certainly at this time.
The European comparison and the Euro comparisons that have been
made are highly specious. The European Union was a very
intentional political union first which evolved over a 40 year
period. It was focused on defence related issues and ultimately
evolved into an economic union, particularly in the post cold war
environment.
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty was reached after a considerable
amount of debate and discussion. Ultimately a lot of sacrifice
and work went into ensuring the countries that eventually signed
on to the Euro complied with the Maastricht criteria.
1325
This is a very complicated issue. I would hope that the Bloc
Quebecois is not supporting some race to a common currency in the
short term because clearly Canada is not ready for it.
If we were to look at the weakness of the Canadian dollar and
the secular decline in the Canadian dollar over the past 30
years, our Canadian dollar would now be at record lows. It would
be extremely inadvisable for Canada to entertain participating in
a common currency now when we would not be negotiating from a
position of strength. To permanently entrench that position of
weakness would be inadvisable.
If we were to try to strengthen our currency in the short term
with interest rate policies, the Canadian economy simply could
not stand the increase in interest rates necessary to strengthen
the Canadian dollar to be in a strong negotiating position in a
common currency for the Americas.
It was interesting last summer to see the Prime Minister's
approach to the Canadian dollar. At one point he even had the
audacity or economic naiveté to say that the lower Canadian
dollar was actually good for tourism.
I think most members in this House would agree that a nation
cannot devalue its way to prosperity. In fact, the logical
corollary of the Prime Minister's arguments last summer would be
that if we reduced our dollar to zero and gave away all our
merchandise, we would be the greatest trading nation in the
world. The fact is that we would not be getting any money for
those goods. A country cannot devalue its way to prosperity and
it is naive to assume that a country can.
A secular decline in the Canadian dollar has occurred, a
significant amount of which has been due to the secular decline
in Canada's productivity. Productivity in Canada needs to be
addressed with taxation issues, the differences in the Canadian
tax system, our levels of taxation and the structure of our tax
code relative to our trading partners. Those issues need to be
addressed. Interprovincial trade barriers, our regulatory burden,
all these issues need to be addressed. It is going to take a
long time to strengthen our Canadian currency through that type
of systemic, holistic approach to very complicated issues.
Some proponents of a common currency say the positive of a
common currency would be that it would take the power away from
the government to make bad economic decisions. I have more faith
in parliamentarians, in this House, in the ability for a
sovereign country to make the right types of decisions for the
future than those who would advance that type of argument. That
is a very perverse argument to make, that to make the types of
decisions necessary for Canadians in the future, we somehow have
to rip more power away from this sovereign parliament and away
from our sovereign Canadian institutions in terms of the Bank of
Canada.
Without the exchange rate mechanism which currently compensates
for the disparity between our productivity and that of the U.S.
for instance, our unemployment rates would become the operative
mechanism. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois concurred with me
this morning that in fact in the short term this would be a major
issue.
I do not believe that Canadians want to see as part of any step
toward a common currency an increase in unemployment rates. I do
not believe Canadians can afford an increase in our unemployment
rates, particularly in the riding I represent in Atlantic Canada
which has seen insufferably high unemployment rates. In the
process of embracing this common currency or further
globalization and emasculation of our national institutions, a
higher unemployment rate as a cost or a casualty of that is not
acceptable.
In the long term, many of us will recognize trends toward global
integration, in some cases political and in some cases economic.
As the party that introduced and supported free trade, we
recognize and continue to believe that free trade and the free
trade agreements have led to increased opportunities for
Canadians. We believe there are opportunities in globalization.
We also believe that Canadians have to be prepared to embark on
that journey. That takes certain types of economic policy.
For instance, the replacement of the manufacturers sales tax
with the GST was one of the domestic changes necessary to embrace
freer trade. It ensured Canadians had an opportunity to
participate in freer trade and had an opportunity to prosper as a
result of freer trade and Canadians have.
We believe all Canadians need to be positioned to prosper in a
more global environment.
1330
To relentlessly pursue one element of globalization, a common
North American currency, without dealing head on with the issues
that have consistently hurt our Canadian dollar, productivity
issues such as taxation, interprovincial trade barriers and the
regulatory burden in Canada, would be naive.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois. I am sure they would understand my position as a
Canadian and my value of Canadian sovereignty. They would
understand the importance of our defending the sovereignty of our
nation and preparing Canadians to participate in any global
opportunity and challenge in the future.
I would hope this is not an issue being advanced by the Bloc
Quebecois in some way to further reduce Canadian sovereignty with
the hope somehow that it would increase Quebec's sovereignty. As
a Canadian I believe that the recognition of Quebec as an
inextricable part of Canada is fundamental. I believe very
strongly that the distinctiveness of Quebec is extremely
important and I defend that, as does my party as a national party
in the House of Commons. I would certainly hope that
reciprocally members of the Bloc Quebecois would not be advancing
this argument to somehow reduce the sovereignty of our country. I
would not be so cynical as to assume they would be advancing this
as a uni-dimensional attack on Canadian sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a very important issue. While the U.K. has for a
significant time, since Mrs. Thatcher, implemented types of
changes necessary in the U.K. to prepare the British for the
opportunities of the future and to undo a lot of the damages the
Labour Party had inflicted on the English prior to her election,
U.K. arguments against the common currency in Europe have not
been economic arguments solely. They have been arguments on the
sovereign right of a nation to determine its own future.
I believe parliament and Canadian institutions have the
authority and can make the right decisions. I do not believe we
need to remove power from Canadian institutions to somehow ensure
Canadians become competitive.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I find
it rather intimidating to rise after such an eloquent speech by
my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.
My first comment will deal with the notion of loss of
sovereignty which underlies the whole of his argument. There is
no perfect example, but a moment ago I gave the example of
France which, before the Euro was introduced, had no say over
its monetary policy because the French central bank was linked
to or influenced by the Deutschmark. The bank had no say over
the European monetary policy, which was, for all intent and
purposes, the German monetary policy.
With the introduction of the Euro, France now has its say. For
countries like France and other European nations it does not
mean a loss of sovereignty, but an increase in sovereignty.
My question is simple. I heard all the arguments, and some
deserve more in depth consideration. Will the Progressive
Conservative Party support this motion which is aimed at
exploring further all the issues raised by my colleague? These
important issues transcend party lines.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
The Conservative Party will be supporting this motion this
evening. We believe it is fundamental for this parliament to
discuss and explore these types of alternatives with debate that
is respectful of the issues and respectful of other members of
parliament.
However, I continue to have significant concerns about a common
currency.
It will be up to those proponents to debate their side of the
argument and up to people like me to offer our views on the
common currency. Where there is significant common ground on this
issue is the recognition of some of the structural issues that
need to be addressed in the Canadian economy either way.
1335
One thing I failed to mention during my discourse is that if we
were to have a common currency the U.S. could use the Canadian
toonie for its new one dollar coin. We need to address this issue
seriously and with a great deal of debate that will occur over a
long period of time.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the hon. member. I have a problem with his
approach. He wants to get this on the table and he said he will
vote for the motion. I wonder whether he actually thinks we
should be letting the Liberals off to basically provide them such
a cushion to defend their totally inadequate policies which have
brought us the 65 cent dollar. It is simply true that if there
is a unified currency all the countries act as a shock absorber
for the other mistakes.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I do not see supporting this motion and
supporting the notion of further debate on a very important issue
as in any way letting the Liberals off the hook. I have heard
arguments that common currencies take away the sovereign ability
for governments to implement bad economic policy. I would argue
that if the Liberals listened to and perhaps took more
Progressive Conservative policies, even they would have the
capacity to implement some good economic policies. I commend the
Liberals for having kept free trade and the GST and for
maintaining the deregulated transportation, energy and financial
services. Those were the policies of the Conservatives.
The only thing worse than the Liberals taking so unabashedly
Conservative policies would be if they were to implement their
own.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this opposition day debate on the motion
introduced by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and by the hon.
member for Charlesbourg. I thank them for their initiative.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the
House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the
possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a
pan-American monetary union.
On January 1, a new currency came to existence: the Eurodollar.
Over the next three years, national currencies, some of which
have been in existence for several centuries, will be relegated
to museums and private collections. The decision to have a new
reserve currency, in addition to the U.S. dollar and the
Japanese yen, is an important event in the economic history of
the world.
The signing of the Maastricht treaty allowed European Union
members to enjoy the free movement of people, goods, services
and money on their whole territory. A monetary component has now
been added to that economic alliance, with the result that, in
the future, there will be only one currency and one key interest
rate in effect in 11 countries of Europe. One cannot witness
these changes without wondering what is going on in America.
The lesson to be learned from the adoption of the Eurodollar is
that, sooner of later, economic integration raises the issue of
monetary integration. Within about 50 years, Europe has gone
from experiencing one of history's most bloody wars to creating
a common market, which was restricted at first but later
expanded through the Treaty of Rome, and finally establishing a
true monetary union.
1340
Why? Because there are many benefits associated with using a
common currency when there is a high volume of trade between
countries: it reduces uncertainty and the costs of currency
transactions, there is increased pricing transparency, resources
are better allocated, and there are many other pluses.
Naturally, there is a downside to abandoning national
currencies. A currency is first and foremost a trade tool and a
store of value, but it can serve as a buffer when our economy is
undergoing stresses different from those of neighbouring
nations.
The new currency must also be given time to settle in.
Some people are still worried about the initial performance of
the Euro in the markets and will wait until it is well
established before they are prepared to trust it.
But the decision to convert to the Euro means that the 11
nations that did so felt that these disadvantages were offset by
the benefits associated with the new currency. Otherwise, the
Euro would never have seen the light of day.
The immediate result of the arrival of the Euro on money markets
is the drop in the number of so-called intermediate currencies.
The Euro replaces the French, Belgian and Luxembourg franc, the
German mark, the Finnish markka, the Italian lira, the Austrian
schilling, the Irish pound, the Dutch florin, the Spanish peseta
and the Portuguese escudo.
In the medium term, the Euro will very likely also replace
the English pound, the Greek drachma, the Swedish krona and the
Danish krone.
This is of direct concern to us; with so many currencies
disappearing, what currency will international speculators
settle on?
We have only to remember the ravages of the Asian financial
crisis, when everyone rushed to the safety of the American
dollar, to understand the concrete impact of the Euro. If the
Canadian loonie had a rough ride in 1998, so did most European
currencies to some degree.
However, it seems clear that, with the Euro on the scene, a new
international financial crisis would not have the same
repercussions in Europe. Unfortunately, such a crisis would
still hit Canada just as hard, perhaps even worse, because those
speculating on the rise and fall of currencies during a
financial storm have now lost 11 of the horses they can bet on,
thus increasing our chances of attracting their interest.
In 15 or 20 years from now, what major currencies will there be
left, apart from the U.S. dollar, the Euro, the Japanese yen and
maybe the Chinese yuan? In that context, in order to protect
ourselves from the harmful effects of the growing speculation on
currencies, some have proposed a tax on financial transactions,
like the so-called Tobin tax.
But we cannot avoid analysing seriously the alternatives offered
to us if we do not want to become one of the main targets of
international speculators. For example, we could abandon our
marginalized national currency and replace it by a strong
currency. But still, which one should we choose?
Both Americas may be destined to have a common currency, from
the north pole to the south pole, under an extended free trade
agreement. But before we consider creating an all new currency,
we should remember that there already exists a very strong
currency very close to us, a currency which is used as a refuge
when the global economy crumbles, that is the American dollar.
The Canadian money supply totals approximately $600 billion
Canadian, or almost $400 billion U.S. In comparison, the
American money supply is close to $6,000 billion U.S. and
increased by approximately 10% in 1998 over 1997.
Considering that the Canadian money supply in American dollars
represents only 6 or 7% to the American money supply, the
“dollarization” of Canada, that is the conversion of our economy
to the U.S. dollar represents, from the American point of view,
barely several months of growth for the American money supply.
It is also interesting to note that in some regards, the new
European central bank operates like the U.S. federal reserve. In
both cases, the central bank establishes the common monetary
policy in consultation with a number of regional bank
representatives. Therefore, a system where the Bank of Canada
would be the thirteenth regional bank of an American network is
quite conceivable.
1345
All this is hypothetical, at least for now. But this issue is
already raising hackles, particularly in Canada. The main
argument is that by giving up its currency, either through
freezing the exchange rate relative to another currency or
adopting the U.S. dollar, Canada will lose all flexibility with
regard to its economic policies.
However, looking at the evolution of the Canadian and American
bank rates over the last 50 years, one is forced to recognize
that the independence of Canada's monetary policy exists only in
some people's mind. In fact, the best way to determine the bank
rate in Canada from 1950 to 1986 is to take the bank rate they
had in the United States at a particular point during that
period and increase it by 1.1 percentage point.
Of course, some may point out that in 1996 and 1997, the
Canadian bank rate was lower than the American bank rate for the
first time in 50 years. However, we became very aware of the
limits of this so-called monetary autonomy on August 27 of last
year, when the loonie plunged to record lows and the Bank of
Canada had to intervene by raising the bank rate to support the
Canadian dollar.
By rejecting this motion as if they were holders of the absolute
truth, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand, as if
what goes on elsewhere will never affect us. This refusal to
accept change reminds us of their historical position against
the free trade agreement.
Recent developments in Europe, including the introduction of the
Eurocoin, raise new issues. From whichever point of view,
Quebec's or Canada's, federalist or sovereignist, one cannot
escape the issues related to economic globalization.
These issues are being raised today, and by addressing them in a
timely fashion, we increase our chances of taking in stride this
inevitable and already noticeable turn towards a new economy.
This requires a great deal of thought. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois is inviting all members of this House to think about
this issue, to take part in this debate and to vote in favour of
this motion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would have thought, with a debate as important as this one on
the future of the Canadian currency and the use of a
North-American currency, or perhaps a pan-American one, there
would have been more interest forthcoming from the government
side. They have had virtually nothing to say right from the
start, with the exception of using their speaking time for a
ten-minute speech of highly dubious nature.
I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from
Charlesbourg, the man behind this most important debate. The
question, as set out in the motion, is not whether we must
change to some other currency starting tomorrow morning.
The question is this: are we going to put on blinkers in the
next few weeks, months or years, when debates arise concerning
economic interdependence and the future of macroeconomic tools
such as monetary policy?
The question is this: are we going to isolate ourselves from
major world trends, or are we going to start right now looking
at the pros and cons of changing the way we do things.
What I have heard so far has been pretty esoteric. I did not
believe we had reached the stage here in parliament of being so
blinded by narrow Canadian nationalism as to declare ourselves
“staunch defenders of our independence”.
Prepared to fight to the death to maintain the Canadian dollar.
Ready to fight to the death to prevent Canada from becoming a
banana republic”. I will come back to the remarks by the member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, which were totally
out of the current debate.
Let us consider some of the arguments we heard from the other
side of the House. We heard the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions, not just anyone, but someone who is
supposed to be somewhat more open to changes in economic
development and in international world trade. He said “Canadian
sovereignty is vital. We will not hand Canadian sovereignty
over to the Americans”.
1350
We have to recognize the fact that the economic interdependence
that was built over the past 50 years, in fact since the start
of the first GATT agreement in 1947, is practically complete.
There are 134 countries who are signatories to the WTO
agreements. Almost all trade is governed at the moment by rules
that are liberalizing it, rules that became rules of law with
the creation of the WTO and the establishment of the Marrakesh
agreement of 1994.
The government is so far behind that it is now avoiding any
debate on the use of a North American currency or one for the
three Americas. However, the World Trade Organization, in which
Canada is represented, is entertaining the idea that, some day,
we might have a world currency. Members can imagine how far
behind we are right now. And the one who brought up the ides of
a world currency is not just anybody, but the WTO's current
director general, Mr. Ruggiero.
We are so far behind here that we forget that, while goods and
services have been moving freely under the GATT, and now the WTO
rules, capital is not subject to such strict rules that would
provide similar protection. As we saw with the Asian crisis, the
financial sector is not subject to strict enough rules. The
result is that secondary currencies such as the Canadian dollar
are subjected to devastating speculation.
It must be pointed out that daily capital movement is currently
30 to 40 times greater than the movement of goods and services
throughout the world. If we want some form of protection, we
should wonder about the recent Asian crisis, which may not be
the last financial crisis to occur in the world. We must ask
ourselves questions about the forms of protection that we can
create. And one of them is to consistently reduce the number of
secondary currencies in the world. Eleven of them have already
been merged into a single currency, thus eliminating 11
possibilities for unscrupulous speculators, who destroy national
currencies, thus threatening the countries' economic future and
job creation efforts.
The Liberals are not interested in talking about this. They
would rather talk about Canada's independence. I have never
heard so much talk about economic sovereignty in parliament as I
have this morning.
Independence, as they are using the term however, misses the
whole point.
Do the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions and the Minister of Finance think it is more
important to have symbolic, artificial independence, or real
powers within a North American organization of the three
Americas or an international organization?
My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, earlier told us how
European monetary policy worked, explaining that France had only
just recently acquired a say in the future of the French franc,
because the future of currencies in Europe was determined by the
Bundesbank.
With the creation of the Euro, France will have a say in German
policy. That is real power, real sovereignty.
France has exchanged an ultimately artificial—because it no
longer had any power at all—independence with respect to monetary
policy for real power. It did so by banding together.
The same is true for international economic integration,
economic interdependence. All members of the House should know
this, but they are obtuse. There was the case in 1997 of Costa
Rica, a small country of 2.5 million inhabitants, winning an
international case against the claims of the American
government. Imagine that. Costa Rica never would have thought
itself capable of swaying decisions of the United States, the
strongest power in the world. Because of economic
interdependence and common rules, these small countries have
gained extraordinary powers. That is real independence, true
national sovereignty.
I listened to the speech of the member for Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys. It was a despicable speech. We are
fortunate that the NDP will never have a chance to be the
government because if there is a party that would establish a
banana republic, it is that party.
I thought it was so preposterous of the member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys to ask “Do we want to avoid, after
the separation of Quebec, a debate on the use of the currency
and a situation where a sovereign Quebec would have no right to
use the Canadian dollar?” I am sorry, but the member is really
out of touch with reality.
1355
We hold 25 per cent of the money supply. Twenty-five per cent of
the money circulating in Canada belongs to Quebec. Whether there
is sovereignty or not, this money will always belong to
Quebeckers. That is very clear.
Whether we have a North American currency or not, they will have
one heck of problem when this happens and it is decided that we
will be using the Canadian dollar whether they like it or not.
They do not want to hear about it. I can understand that. It
would bother me too.
The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys quoted
the governor of the new European Central Bank, who said
something along these lines “Countries of the European Union
will not have any say in the monetary policy of the new bank”.
This goes without saying, since in every industrialized country
the monetary policy is essentially independent from political
power.
Even under the Bank of Canada Act, the powerful Bank of Canada,
which he reveres and which does not have any power left
according to us, is said to be independent from the political
powers in Ottawa. The member told us, quoting the governor of
the new European bank, that the use of a common currency
generates a loss of sovereignty. Obviously, the hon. member does
not know how monetary policies work.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said “We
cannot have a monetary integration of the three Americas.
We have different economic realities, different inflation rates,
different unemployment rates”. So what? Do the 11 European
countries that adopted the Eurocoin as their common currency
have similar inflation rates? Do they have similar unemployment
rates? Do they have similar domestic policies? Come on. What we
heard here makes no sense at all.
I would have liked to have a real debate on this issue, the kind
of debate this motion brought forward by my leader and by the
member for Charlesbourg deserves. Instead of that, what we have
heard so far today is just political bragging about Canada's
sovereignty, about the need to defend that sovereignty at all
costs. But Canada is losing this debate and it will cost us
dearly in terms of our sovereignty.
Canadians may have an identity problem, but Quebeckers do not.
We are able to have a debate on economic, monetary and global
integration without fear of losing our identity. Quebeckers are
sure about their identity. Canadians are not.
The Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member. I remind him
there are five minutes remaining for questions and comments. It
being almost two o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN RED CROSS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that March is Canadian Red Cross
Month.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre and across the Waterloo region
the local Red Cross branch is holding its 7th annual jelly bean
blitz. This event raises not only awareness for it but much
needed funds.
I commend and acknowledge the hard work of the 200 local
volunteers who assist the Red Cross each year. The Canadian Red
Cross is a humanitarian organization that delivers valuable
programs ranging from water safety and first aid to abuse
prevention and breakfast programs. It is also active overseas in
helping victims of war and natural disaster.
I take this opportunity to recognize this organization which
dedicates itself to the welfare of people all over the world and
wish it a successful Red Cross Month.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1994
two high school girls attending Mount Boucherie Secondary School
were so concerned about the inadequacies of the Young Offenders
Act that they launched a petition asking the government to
strengthen it. They will be disappointed.
The proposed legislation takes only minimal steps toward
recognizing their concerns and ignores the recommendations of the
minister's own justice committee.
British Columbians have additional concerns. The recent
non-action by both the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister
regarding the recent Shaw decision about child pornography has
incensed Canadians.
I appeal to both the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister
to change their attitudes toward justice in deference to
law-abiding Canadians by making sure Canada has a justice system
that protects us and our children, not a system of legal
technicalities that allows judges to refuse pleas of guilty by
perpetrators of crime.
* * *
FARMING
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, farming is a way of life for over 200,000 Canadian farm
families from coast to coast. Too often, however, it is also a
way of injury and death.
Six hundred and ninety-seven Canadians died in farm related
accidents between 1990 and 1996. Most of these deaths could have
been prevented.
1400
During National Farm Safety Week, March 10 to 17, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
together with corporate partner, John Deere Limited, are urging
farmers and their families to think about how they can protect
themselves from the possible hazards of living and working on a
farm.
Lambton Farm Safety Day is held every summer in my riding to
teach children some of the safety concerns on the farm. I
congratulate the organizers of this well attended program. This
year's national theme of “Safe Farming is Smart Farming”
highlights the need for everyone involved in agriculture to
promote safety awareness and to follow safe practices.
* * *
[Translation]
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, March 14, was a day of solidarity with
southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa Valley, and especially
the people there.
This day of solidarity is a reminder of the eight day invasion
of these areas by Israel 21 years ago. It also marks the
security council's adoption, on March 19, 1987, of Resolution
425 proposed by the American representative calling for respect
of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from that country.
Unfortunately invasions and acts of aggression have continued—in
1982, 1993, 1996 and right up to today.
A few days ago hundreds of unarmed students pushed back Israeli
forces that had annexed the village of Arnoun.
Just a few days ago, even Ariel Sharon said he supported the
unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Only the implementation of Resolution 425 will bring about a
just and lasting peace and security for all in this troubled
area of the Middle East.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 4, 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights issued a report which dealt in part
with poverty. Article 13 noted that although Statistics Canada's
low income cut-off was widely used by experts to measure poverty
the Government of Canada itself did not accept it as a poverty
line.
The UN committee has therefore recommended that Canada establish
an official poverty line so that we can measure and respond to
the tragedy of poverty and be held accountable for our progress.
I encourage the government to quickly respond to the call of the
UN to establish a credible poverty line so we can target our
resources to relieve real poverty in Canada from sea to sea to
sea.
* * *
HOCKEY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I
congratulate Canada's National Women's Hockey Team that was
crowned world champions for the fifth consecutive year with a 3-1
victory yesterday over the arch-rival American team.
The U.S. scored first threatening to repeat its Olympic upset,
but Team Canada answered with three goals demonstrating its true
character and skills. Kudos to Daniele Sauvageau's excellent
coaching for Canada's world tournament record of 25 wins and zero
losses.
This record is due in large part to Toronto's Sami Jo Small's
acrobatic goal tending. In recognition of their excellent play,
Small along with Calgary's Hayley Wickenheiser and Kingston's
Jayna Hefford were selected as first team all stars.
Once again Canada's women's hockey team has done us proud. It
is the guys turn now.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC GAMES
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to draw attention to the tremendous success of the Quebec Games
in the Mauricie region.
As the member for Champlain, I congratulate Yves Charpentier,
president of the 1999 Quebec Games, which were the 34th
provincial finals, and Réjean Lemay, director general, and the
major organizers, for their superb management of these games,
resulting in a budget surplus.
Also I wish to thank and salute the 3,500 volunteers who helped
run the show, making the games a memorable success in our
Mauricie region.
I also want to congratulate all the athletes who are the reason
for such a success.
I congratulate and encourage all our young athletes in the
Mauricie region for doing their personal best in their
respective disciplines. These young athletes represented us so
well, by winning 19 medals at the 1999 Quebec Games.
* * *
SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this Semaine de la Francophonie, all Canadians should celebrate.
French speaking Canadians outside Quebec have every reason to be
proud. By working hard to protect and promote the French
language and culture, they give our country a truly Canadian
identity.
1405
Each Canadian province has to face different realities, but this
concern to maintain high quality French is a plus for all
Canadian culture.
The federal government contributes in various ways to support
agencies or groups interested in stressing the importance of
this Semaine de la Francophonie.
* * *
SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Semaine de la Francophonie is a major contribution to the
Canadian identity.
Incidentally, let me remind the House that the summit in Moncton
will help the international community to get better acquainted
with the various facets of the Canadian Francophonie and
emphasize the important contribution of Acadians to our rich
national heritage.
This summit will also give all Canadians the chance to show
their pride and their sense of belonging while making new
friends in the rest of the French speaking world community.
My best wishes go to all organizers of this event, which is of
the utmost importance to all of us.
* * *
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today it is my pleasure to congratulate the winners of
the 1999 Labatt Brier, the holy grail of Canadian curling.
On Sunday, March 14, Manitoba skip Jeff Stoughton, third
Jonathan Mead, second Garry Van Den Berghe and lead Doug
Armstrong defeated the Quebec team of Guy Hemmings, Pierre
Charette, Guy Thibaudeau and Dale Ness.
The game was a classic epic battle between two curling giants.
Quebecers can be proud of their congenial champion and the people
of Edmonton can take pride in staging a tremendously successful
brier with the highest fan attendance ever.
All Canadians, especially Manitobans, wish Jeff Stoughton and
his team good luck as they go on to represent Canada in the 1999
world championships at Saint John, New Brunswick.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House to join others in taking the opportunity to
congratulate Team Canada winners at the 1999 Women's World Hockey
Championship.
Team Canada won its fifth straight world championship this past
weekend spanning back to 1991. Led by five time world team
leaders, France St-Louis of Saint-Hubert, Quebec, and Geraldine
Heaney of North York, Ontario, the team went through the
tournament undefeated and now own a perfect 25-0 record in world
championship competition.
The 20 women who compromise Team Canada 1999 are remarkable role
models for the thousands of young girls and women taking up the
game of hockey in this country. I know all hon. members and
Canadians everywhere join me in congratulating Team Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EASTERN ONTARIO FRANCOPHONES
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Professor
Charles Castonguay has written an affidavit for SOS Montfort on
the situation of francophones in Eastern Ontario.
The Liberal members from this region, who represent these French
speaking Canadians, ought to read it.
We learn from this document that, in the nation's capital and
surrounding area, the assimilation rate of francophones has
grown from 13% in 1971 to 24% in 1996 overall and from 19% to
32% for people 25 to 34 years old.
“For the Ottawa—Carleton residents born in Ontario only, the net
assimilation rate of young francophone adults reached 41% in
1996”, according to Professor Castonguay.
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, when visitors look around the Chamber do
you know what they see? They see men and women who essentially
have become political eunuchs or human rubber stamps.
The budget debate takes place in the media as a result of leaked
details, and parliament rubber stamps the budget. The government
works hard to introduce the MAI and committing future governments
for up to 20 years, and parliament is all but ignored. Ministers
rarely make public policy statements in parliament but choose
instead the national press theatre. The government negotiates
NAFTA in secret with its dispute settlement panels operating in
secret, locks in future governments and basically ignores
parliament.
Parliament conducts take note debates on peacekeeping missions
and the government essentially ignores the content of the
debates. Parliament passes a motion calling for a moratorium on
water exports and the government then asks the United States
government to join Canada to study the pros and cons of water
exports and water diversion. We pass legislation banning MMT and
then back down when the U.S. pressures us just like we will do
with Bill C-55 later today.
Parliament has become Canada's national theatre and
parliamentarians speak not in the House of Commons but in the
house of eunuchs.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
WOMEN'S HOCKEY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the headline
on the La Presse sports section this morning reads “Canadian
women—world champs for fifth year in a row. 3-1 win over U.S.
makes up for Olympic defeat”.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates all members of the women's
hockey team, which has been victorious for the fifth year in a
row at the Women's World Hockey Championship, held in Finland
this past weekend.
The Bloc Quebecois joins in paying tribute to player France
St-Louis of St-Hubert, who announced that she would hang up her
skates after this tournament.
This past weekend, team Captain Thérèse Brisson described the
retiring player as an exceptional athlete who had made a great
contribution to women's hockey.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that, one day, France St-Louis will be
honoured as a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
* * *
[English]
VIAGRA
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that my great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is home to the Viagra capital of
Canada.
The Pfizer plant in the town of Arnprior will be the only Viagra
packaging and distribution centre in the country. This is
tremendous uplifting news for all men who have experienced
dysfunctional problems. I can already picture a number of
prescriptions for opposition members, a dysfunctional group if I
have ever seen one. According to doctors the psychological
benefits of Viagra include improving one's self-esteem and
strengthening relationships.
The leaders of the Reform and Conservative Parties are certainly
in dire need of an urgent remedy for their ongoing political
impotence. A Viagra prescription would improve their strained
relationship and inject much needed self-esteem in all their
depressed members who have been limp, listless and lugubrious for
many years.
[Translation]
Also, the Bloc Quebecois leader had better make sure all his
people get a healthy dose of Viagra too, so that they will have
the vigour to stand up and understand that Canada is the
greatest country in the world.
* * *
SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
members are aware, today is the first day of the Semaine de la
langue française et de la francophonie.
As a bilingual country, Canada has seized this opportunity to
celebrate the success of biculturalism. This week also provides
unilingual anglophones with the opportunity to enrich their
contacts with French and to increase their knowledge of it.
I am therefore encouraging all hon. members to make as much use
as possible of French when speaking in the House this week.
The first simultaneous interpretation facilities in the House of
Commons were installed by the Progressive Conservative
government of John Diefenbaker.
I invite all hon. members, particularly the unilingual and
bilingual anglophones, to use, or to try out, their knowledge of
French in order to show Canada's francophones that we support
them and are proud to be representatives of a bilingual
government.
Let us learn to appreciate our rich heritage.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced
that an additional $70 million a year would be put into official
languages support programs.
These $70 million that will be reinvested in this area will
allow us to reinforce our support to official languages
communities as well as our support to the provinces and
territories for the teaching of official languages and for the
provision of services in the minority language.
The announcement was well received by the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne, which believes that the
minister kept her promise to increase direct support to
communities, and by a number of associations, which are pleased
to see that funding for official languages support programs is
being restored.
I would also like to mention that the member for Dauphin—Swan
River took a stand in favour of Canada's linguistic duality
before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages by
congratulating the government on its decision to invest in
education. I applaud him for supporting our official languages.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-55
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last year Canada received two unfavourable rulings from the World
Trade Organization on its magazine policy. The heritage minister
created Bill C-55 to get around these WTO rulings. This
evening's vote on Bill C-55, the magazine bill, could trigger the
beginning of a trade war with the United States, putting
thousands of Canadian jobs at risk.
The official opposition has been alone in the House of Commons
defending textile jobs in Montreal, defending plastic jobs in
Toronto, and even defending steel jobs in Hamilton against the
heritage minister's magazine bill.
In the interest of protecting Canadian jobs and in the interest
of the current trade negotiations, why does the Prime Minister
not use his common sense and defer this evening's vote on Bill
C-55 until after the Easter recess?
* * *
1415
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, worries persist about the future of the RCMP training
academy depot in Regina.
Last week the solicitor general made and then cancelled his
plans to attend the cadet graduation ceremony and his deputy
minister made and cancelled his plans to attend the same event.
Although cadet training will resume in the new year the civilian
workers at the depot still have not received word on the safety
of their jobs given the government's shortsighted policy of
privatization or alternate service delivery.
Representatives of the civilian workers asked to meet with the
solicitor general to discuss this issue during his scheduled
visit last Monday. When he cancelled they were referred to the
deputy solicitor general. Then he cancelled. What is the reason
the minister and his deputy are afraid to meet with these
workers? I met with them. They perform a valuable, loyal and
dedicated service to Canada.
I call on the solicitor general again to drop any move to
privatize civilian services at the RCMP training depot in Regina.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
INVESTMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
pathetic that the government's main selling point to attract
investment to Canada boils down to that we have low wages and a
weak currency.
According to a recent study by KPMG consulting and endorsed by
the Prime Minister's office, that is the best argument this
government can muster to attract investment to Canada.
Is the government proud of the fact that its big argument to
attract investment to Canada boils down to come to Canada because
we have a weak dollar and we will work for peanuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, anybody who has read the study knows that there was a
long list far more extensive and far more profound than the
points the hon. member has raised.
The real issue is why is it that when a non-partisan study comes
out, a study that shows that Canada is doing well, the Reform
Party cannot support it? Why is it that it feels it is its only
job in life to knock the country, like last summer when the
dollar was under pressure and the leader of the Reform Party went
through Asia saying to the rest of the world that Canada was not
doing well? Why can it not be—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think it is very interesting that the minister now says that we
are doing well with the 65 cent dollar.
The Liberals were not always so blase about the weak dollar.
When the finance minister was running for the Liberal leadership
the first time, he viciously attacked the Tories when the dollar
fell under 80 cents. This is what he said back then: “The only
choice is the way you manage it down to 78 cents. Michael
Wilson's way, it drops down to 70, it collapses. The Canadian
dollar should be 78 cents”.
Why did the finance minister let our dollar drop to 78 cents,
then 75 and then 70? If 70 cents—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to
note that every Canadian province and municipality is using this
study to promote itself, to promote Canada and to show how good
it is to do business in Canada.
In the member's own province the Edmonton Journal said
Edmonton was a good city for doing business. The Lethbridge
Herald says it is cheaper to do business in Canada.
Why can the hon. member not see how good it is to do business in
Canada and to promote Canada rather than trying to bring it down?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
reason it is so good to do business in Alberta is that we have
very low taxes. Unfortunately the minister did not borrow a page
from Stockwell Day's book.
This is the minister's record, the weakest currency in Canadian
history despite what he said when he was running a few years ago,
falling wages, falling productivity and falling personnel
savings. He does not have Mike Wilson to blame anymore.
Why will the minister not admit that the reason our productivity
is falling and we have a weak currency is because of his high tax
policy?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do
not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question.
The fact is communities across this country are supporting
studies like this to show how well Canada is doing around the
world in terms of not only its productivity gains but in doing
business in Canada.
That is why all the major communities across this country are
supporting studies like this, to show how well we are doing in
Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government is stuck in a fog of unreality. Every objective
study from the OECD to Statistics Canada shows that Canadian
productivity is falling.
1420
The government is saying that we are more productive because it
has slashed the value of the Canadian dollar and because it is
now cheaper to buy goods from our overregulated, overtaxed
economy. Devaluing our currency means foreign countries will
take more goods off our hands. I am sure if the dollar were 50
cents or 10 cents we would do even better.
Does the finance minister not realize that selling our products
and services for pennies on the dollar makes us all poor?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I challenge the member to find a single study
that says Canadian productivity has been falling. He will not be
able to find one.
Second, in the KPMG study released a few days ago we see a
series of criteria, including all kinds of costs, construction
costs, municipal tax costs, income tax costs at the corporate
level and on it goes, that shows Canada as the low cost provider
of services. Instead of helping us to sell Canada as an
investment destination, why does the Reform Party prefer to stand
up and put its own country down?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we are putting down is a government that has given us a 65
cent dollar and the highest income tax burden in the OECD, a
country whose per capita GDP is falling through the floor in the
OECD and among other industrialized countries. Does the finance
minister not understand that just as with a company, foreign
investors look at the state of a country's debt and the value of
its currency? They see a country with a 65 cent dollar.
Does the finance minister not recognize the 65 cent dollar he
has given Canada is a sign that we are less competitive and have
a diminishing standard of living in the world?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party seems to have some difficulty finding
good things to say about its country. We have the third lowest
corporate income tax rate for manufacturing in the G-7. It is
lower than in the United States. We have the lowest cost for
transportation and electricity in the G-7. We have the lowest
initial investment cost for setting up a new facility. If the
Reform Party were not so bound and determined to knock its
country, it would start looking at the real facts of the matter.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S CULTURE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
latest rantings of the Minister of Canadian Heritage cast doubt
on Quebec's place in Canada.
According to the minister, in the past 30 years, Quebec has gone
from founding people, to distinct society, to principal focus,
to unique character and now to regional component.
Does the latest brainwave of the minister not faithfully explain
the government's thinking on the ever shrinking place of Quebec
within Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at the merits of what we have done together,
we can see that, in parliament, the policy on copyright was
supported by the Bloc, the policy on the Parks Canada Agency was
supported by the Bloc, the policy on the Saguenay marine park
was supported by the Bloc, the politic on the sound recording
surcharge was supported by the Bloc, the supplementary
assistance program for the publishing industry was supported by
the Bloc. And today the periodical protection legislation was
again supported by the Bloc. I thank them for their
co-operation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
proves we understand certain things, which does not seem to be
true on the other side of the House. It proves nothing else.
The dynamics of the federal system, of which the Minister of
Canadian Heritage is a strong partisan, denies the existence of
the Quebec people. We would not exist as a people, that would
be our heritage, the title of the minister as her Prime Minister
calls her.
Quebeckers, however, are sure they are a people and so they are
very interested, indeed intrigued, by the words of the minister.
Could the minister tell us what regional component means?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I proposed to Ms. Beaudoin was that she
participate with Canada in the discussions. I invited her to
take part in the international network, and she refused. I
invited her again last week and she again refused.
Why did she refuse? Because she does not want to be part of the
Canadian delegation. If she does decide to participate someday,
she will be the most welcome of all the provinces.
1425
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
culture is thriving all over the world, thanks to performers
such as Céline Dion, Luc Plamondon, the Cirque du Soleil and
many others. It is this culture, which belongs to one of the
country's founding peoples, that the minister calls a regional
component.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that, far
from being a mere regional component, the Quebec culture is
first and foremost a national culture that thrives at the
international level?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we are currently supporting the Cirque du Soleil, it
is precisely because we believe in it. If we are supporting the
Montreal Symphony Orchestra, it is because we believe in it. If
we are supporting the publishing industry's policies, it is
because we believe in them.
We can work in partnership. Those who do not want to do so are
those who have a single goal in mind, that is to break up the
country. Such is the policy of the Bloc Quebecois and of the
Parti Quebecois.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is kind
of amusing to see how the minister always gets off the subject.
Does the minister not see a serious discrepancy between the
secondary role that it attributes to Quebec's culture and the
fact that it is so thriving that direct contact between
Quebeckers and the world is fully justified?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is direct contact on a daily basis. I believe
there is a direct contact between the Government of Quebec and
the Government of Catalonia.
There is nothing preventing Quebeckers from establishing
contacts all over the world. All we want is respect of
countries' sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
PLUTONIUM
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the U.S.
government appears on the verge of approving the export of
weapons grade plutonium to Canada.
Canadians have not been consulted about these initiatives or
about their possible consequences. Before this goes any further,
before any decisions are taken about the importing of these
nuclear materials, will the government commit today to full
public consultation, particularly with those communities directly
affected?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, there is a report that was placed by the committee on
foreign affairs into the hands of the minister. The minister has
150 days to reply and I am sure there will be commentary on that
very subject.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
right. It strongly recommended against because weapons grade
plutonium is highly retroactive. It may be coming across our
border and through our communities. It is highly radioactive.
Canadians have a right to have their say. Governments spend big
bucks these days to convince our kids that nuclear is safe. Will
the government now consult their parents on the prospects of
welcoming weapons grade plutonium into our country?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, plutonium may be
retroactive as well. I suggest that the NDP raising this at this
time really proves that it is beyond its half life.
* * *
VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
merchant navy veterans will be appearing before the veterans
committee on Thursday to make their presentation on compensation.
I want to thank all the committee members, the parliamentary
secretary and the minister for giving them this opportunity to
present their case.
Merchant navy veterans are dying at a rate of 13 per month. If
the government takes the full amount of time allocated to respond
to this study, it is possible that another 70 could die waiting
for an answer.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs today commit to a quick
response to the study when it is completed?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank all those who were
instrumental in helping Bill C-61 with very fast passage last
week.
With respect to the merchant navy veterans and their situation,
the hon. member is right. They will be coming before the
parliamentary committee in the near future. I am delighted this
is happening. I am delighted that parliamentary processes kicked
in.
When the parliamentary committee is finished with its work, it
will pass it on to us and we will treat it so that it will be
reported to the House in due course.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
to say that the due course process gives them about 160 days in
order to respond to the House. That means it would be when we
come back after the summer break.
1430
What I am asking of the minister is this: Will he please fast
track this and make sure we get answer in the House before we
break for the summer?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member and to all
members of the committee, let us have a look at the report and
then we will see where we will go.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals actually believe that the
only way to sell Canadian goods and services, the only way to
keep us competitive in world markets, is to slash our dollar to
65 cents or 66 cents. In other words, sell Canada at bargain
basement prices.
Does the finance minister really feel good about selling
Canadian goods and services at 40% below their real value? Does
he feel good about that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I feel very good about selling Canadian products.
I would simply ask the hon. member, when the Canadian dollar was
under pressure last summer, if he is sincere in his concern, why
did his leader—not in the House, not anywhere in Canada, but
outside Canada—go through Asia knocking Canada and knocking the
Canadian dollar?
The fact is that if members of the Reform Party are sincere, the
next time they might ask their leader to stay home.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister and the government
are knocking Canadian manufacturers and providers of Canadian
services by continually telling them through the low dollar that
their products and services are not worth 100 cents on the
dollar. That is what they are telling them.
Our high taxes and costly overregulation are keeping us
uncompetitive.
Instead of giving foreign buyers a bargain when buying Canadian
goods, why does the finance minister not give manufacturers and
Canadians a break here at home by lowering taxes and easing
regulation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows, first of all, that in the last
two budgets we have indeed lowered taxes.
The hon. member knows that in fact we have the third lowest
corporate taxes of any of the G-7 countries.
The hon. member also knows that in the KPMG study the industries
that were looked at were high tech industries, high value
industries and the pharmaceutical industries; all industries
which have grown and were spawned as a result of the government's
research and development policies. That is why they have done
well.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
has been in charge of the EI scheme for over two years now.
In this morning's La Presse, spokespersons for Force Jeunesse
announced their intention of filing a lawsuit against the
minister for discrimination.
What does the minister, who has seen the conclusions of several
reports on the EI regime, have to say to these young people, who
are accusing him of discrimination?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am unable to
comment on complaints that may be before the courts.
As a government, we have carried out a reform of employment
insurance. Naturally, we feel that this reform meets all our
constitutional and legal obligations. Since we live in a free
society, people who feel otherwise may turn to the courts.
I do not think that young people are being discriminated against
in this country. On the contrary, we have given them the youth
employment strategy, which helps them get into the job market
and for which they are very grateful.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister, who told the House on June
1, 1998 that access to EI had purposely been made difficult for
young people so as to discourage them from applying, not realize
how extremely vulnerable a position he is in?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly it is a mistake to make
access to EI too easy for young people.
It is an error the preceding generation made for 30 years. We
encouraged people to leave school too early. We encouraged
young people to leave school, to embark on a precarious job
cycle and rely on unemployment insurance.
We want to free young people from this dependence and from the
precarious cycle of short term jobs, by helping them to further
their education and by ensuring that real jobs are available in
the labour market.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as of this morning grain shipments in Vancouver had
completely stopped.
PSAC has now set up picket lines at all five terminals and they
have shut down as a result. Other labour unions are not crossing
the picket lines.
1435
Daryl Bean stated in an interview last week that grain is now a
primary target and boats are starting to line up.
How long is the Treasury Board minister going to force farmers
to wait for their grain to be shipped?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that PSAC members
have chosen to put up picket lines.
We are encouraging them to get back to the bargaining table.
Unfortunately an impasse has been reached.
I had the opportunity last week to speak to some of the
purchasers of our reliable products. They are beginning to get
nervous as well. The unfortunate thing in the very end is that
it is the producers who will be hurt when the product does not
get shipped.
I encourage everybody to get back to the bargaining table to
settle this and get the product moving.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will say who had better get back to the bargaining
table. It is that government over there.
There has been a wage freeze for six years and the government is
doing nothing to settle the strike. I want to know why in the
last six months or in the last year it has not been able to do
anything. What is the excuse? What is the reason? How many
more millions of dollars do farmers have to lose while boats are
lined up in the Pacific Ocean waiting for grain?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have offered the blue collar workers increases that are
slightly higher than those which have been accepted by 85% of
public sector employees.
They have broken the negotiations. What they are asking for now
is not only almost impossible to meet, but at the same time it
would force the taxpayers to pay much too much. In this case we
must tell the blue collar workers that they have to be reasonable
and accept rates which all other public servants have accepted.
* * *
[Translation]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
documents tabled in the House in justification of the fact that
a contract was awarded without tenders for construction of a
road and a guard house at the Prime Minister's cottage, the
security factor was foremost.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works. How can the
awarding of this contract to Construction R. Cloutier Inc.,
which apparently had undergone security clearance, be justified,
when the work was done by two subcontractors? Had these two
subcontractors been security cleared?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times,
the RCMP recommended that the road be built. It is important to
note that the Prime Minister was not involved.
The RCMP indicated that it was needed for security reasons and
Treasury Board guidelines were followed in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of course this
minister cannot answer the question I asked.
I would ask the minister responsible for public works whether
Continental Asphalt was security cleared before it acted as a
subcontractor for this contract to construct a short stretch of
road and a guard house at the Prime Minister's cottage?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated a number of times in
the House, the RCMP recommended this firm. It was recommended
for security reasons and that is why it got the contract.
* * *
BILL C-55
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is another day, another episode of the cabinet soap opera called
Bill C-55, the split run.
The trade minister is worried about a trade war with the U.S.
The heritage minister talks tough and is calling those Americans
bullies using blackmail.
Bill C-55 is poor policy, period. Is that not the reason the
heritage minister just tried to stare down the U.S. and she
blinked first?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that once again when looking
around this place there is only one party that does not stand up
for Canada and that party is the Reform Party. Its members
showed us that today in their comments on productivity.
Once again, the only members in the House of Commons which
refuse to stand up for Canada are Reform members. They should be
ashamed of themselves.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact we are trying to stand up. This is about censorship and
losing a lot of Canadian jobs. That is what it is all about.
Bill C-55 is dead and this minister knows it. Sure, it may pass
the vote today, but it will never been enacted. The heritage
minister can put it on her resume maybe, but that is about it.
Is it not true that Bill C-55, the split run, will never see the
light of day in the long run?
1440
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party talks about censorship. There is
not a country in the world that would put up with the situation
where 85% of the magazines on their national newsstands are from
another country. If there is a demand across this country to
save some free speech, it is the demand by Canadians to make sure
that in this great country there is some small space left for
Canadian stories.
It is unfortunate that in kowtowing to the Americans the Reform
Party once again is prepared to sell out Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
INDUSTRY CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
this morning's La Presse, Industry Canada has decided to
interrupt a program announced just months ago, a program
involving work placements in industry to develop exports. Oddly
enough, a pilot project was already up and running in Quebec.
Why did the Minister of Industry not allow the Quebec pilot
project to continue, instead of compromising the program in
Quebec and in Canada?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in November 1996, a program was indeed created by Economic
Development Canada and the Alliance in Quebec. The latter had
the responsibility of recruiting for this program—perhaps an
excellent opportunity for young people—20 young people for 20
international business internships in 20 businesses.
After a time, the program had to be deferred because of
insufficient recruitment. An independent company was then
commissioned to carry out an analysis, and unfortunately the
program had to be terminated.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
How is he responding to the growing labour unrest and work
disruptions among federal employees at the Revenue Canada tax
centres and buildings, and will this delay Canadians' income tax
returns?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent
question. It certainly shows that our members on this side of
the House are on the ball and want to ensure that we provide full
service to Canadians.
We regret any disruption of service to Canadians as a result of
the rotating PSAC strike.
I want to assure members of parliament and Canadians that we are
doing whatever we can to provide this service. We will not
tolerate any illegal activity at our tax service offices. In
fact, we got an injunction against the union in B.C. and will
continue—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey North.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question concerns the publication of names within the proposed
youth criminal justice act.
The proposed act provides judges with the discretion to issue a
ban on publication for even those who commit murder and sexual
assault. We are not talking about protecting the identities of
nice people.
Why is the minister proposing to protect the names of such
violent offenders and what possible reason could she have for
keeping the name of a sex offender from the community?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, when one deals with the publication of names and young
offenders one is dealing with two important and competing values
in society. One is obviously the public's right to know and the
value that we place on open courts in our society.
However, the other value, and I know the hon. member is well
aware of this, is the fact that we believe young people are
capable of rehabilitation and that young people are different and
at a different stage of maturity and development than adults.
In fact, it is for us a case of balancing those competing
values. We believe that in our new youth criminal justice
legislation we have balanced effectively those competing values.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, six
and a half years ago a six year old girl was murdered by her
sixteen year old neighbour who was on probation for sexually
molesting a child one year earlier. The murdered girl's parents
knew nothing about the danger that was lurking in the townhouse
next door.
Again, how can the minister possibly justify protecting the
identity of predators?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in fact not protecting
the identity of predators.
As the hon. member is probably aware, in relation to some of the
most serious offences committed within our society, if the
attorney general seeks an adult sentence there will be a
presumption that the name of that offender will be published.
* * *
BILL C-55
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, U.S. deputy
trade representative Richard Fisher has made it clear that the
White House believes Bill C-55 will never be proclaimed into
Canadian law.
I have wondered that myself since the Liberal report stage
amendment and Liberal closed door negotiations with the
Americans.
1445
Someone asked a question in the letters to the editor in today's
Globe and Mail which reflected my own dismay and that of
thousands of other Canadians on this issue. I am wondering if the
minister could answer Brian Mossop's questions for all of us:
“Has our Constitution changed while I wasn't looking? Do
Canadian laws now have to be passed by the House of Commons, the
Senate and U.S. trade officials in Washington?”
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no. I want to thank the hon. NDP critic for the
question. It permits me to make abundantly clear that Mr. Fisher
was in no way reflecting on any of the discussions. Mr. Fisher is
completely wrong when he says that Bill C-55 will not see the
light of day.
I hope tonight the support of all members of this House with the
exception of the Reform Party will send a very strong signal to
Washington that in this country we still make our own laws.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister introduced the amendment allowing cabinet to kill the
bill after parliament passes it. Her government is directing the
closed door talks.
Will the minister guarantee in this House that if parliament
passes the bill, it will become law?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the particular clause I introduced at report stage
of the bill is the exact same clause that exists in many pieces
of legislation. I will say that in the course of the discussions
around other possibilities, we have made it very clear to the
Americans that Bill C-55 will proceed. We have no intention of
abolishing Bill C-55. We have made it very clear also that any
future discussions must hinge on the concept of majority Canadian
content. We believe that reflects not only the letter but also
the spirit of the legislation.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, massive Liberal cuts to transfer payments for
programs like child welfare and social services have left
Canadians with a very tattered social safety net.
The new criminal youth justice act will now divert non-violent
youth offenders into an already overburdened system. Since 1993,
cuts to existing programs currently prevent youth from getting
the necessary direction they need. This coupled with the refusal
by the minister to strive for a 50% share of administrative costs
smacks of double talk.
How will the minister's youth criminal justice act deal with
reformation for non-violent youth without greater resources?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last week in
this House, I received an additional $206 million over the next
three years. The vast majority of that money will be sent to the
provinces to do the very thing the hon. member is talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, on the subject of the criminal justice
system for young offenders, the Minister of Justice noted that
members of gangs that help carry out crimes could be charged.
I wonder how a person could be charged for being an accomplice
to a crime when it is not possible to charge the youths
committing the primary offence.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon.
member is referring to but I do think he should look at the
existing Criminal Code. I take the point that the hon. member as
a prosecutor is well versed in the Criminal Code, but I do
believe recruitment in a certain number of circumstances does
constitute a criminal offence.
* * *
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The
persons with disabilities community is extraordinarily upset that
the most important and crucial source of data for public policy
on persons with disabilities has not been completed since 1991.
Can the minister assure this House that the health activities
limitations survey, HALS, will be completed in 2001?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that our
government is committed to helping persons with disabilities. We
have made progress in this area. The lack of useful data on
persons with disabilities has been a serious concern for all
those who work on public policy in this area. That is why I am
pleased to announce that my department will be providing $1.2
million to the development of the 2001 health activities
limitations survey known as HALS.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
month this government tried to downplay its decision to move the
processing of eastern Ontario tax returns to the Prime Minister's
riding of Shawinigan.
Now even the Prime Minister's own backbenchers are speaking out
against this blatant pork barrel giveaway to Shawinigan. Last
week the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane said the decision was
stupid and he wants the decision reversed.
1450
Who will admit that the PM is just buying votes with pork and
patronage in his own riding?
The Speaker: We are getting a little bit close, my
colleague, so be judicious. The hon. Minister of National
Revenue.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual Reform does not have its facts
right.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast a few weeks ago said that
hundreds of jobs have been transferred to Shawinigan. I gave him
the real facts. One job was transferred. I would hope the member
would check his facts more appropriately before asking questions.
* * *
[Translation]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor
General has just said in the House that the companies with
contracts for the Prime Minister's cottage got them without a
call for tender for security reasons. He also said that
Continental Asphalt was recommended by the RCMP.
How can he say such a thing, when the only investigation at
issue is the one done by the RCMP of Continental Asphalt that
led to a charge of fraud, currently before the court in
Shawinigan? It involves 119 of its employees. How can he say
that?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I did indicate was that the RCMP
recommended that this company receive the contract. I did say it
received the contract for security reasons. That is why the
Prime Minister was not involved.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in this very memo tabled today in the House, the RCMP
requested approval from public works to award one untendered
contract worth $80,000 to the Prime Minister's personal
contractor. In fact, the contractor received two untendered
contracts worth $137,000.
Given that taxpayers already pay for 24 Sussex Drive and
Harrington Lake, where did the $57,000 go and how much more will
it cost us to keep the Prime Minister safe in Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the RCMP's responsibility to
provide protection for the Prime Minister of this country. The
Prime Minister did build a home. It is a private matter. He paid
for it. He had his own road. The RCMP indicated it needed
another access road and that is why the access road was built.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is productivity's worst enemy.
Since 1994 the cost recovery program introduced by this
government has hiked regulatory fees by 153% for Canadian
manufacturers. These user fees are among the fastest growing
costs of doing business in Canada. They are undermining the
productivity and international competitiveness of Canadian
businesses.
How can the Minister of Industry call for higher productivity
when his own government is hammering the private sector with
these hidden taxes?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the cost recovery policy has a very simple basis. It is that the
people who get the benefits from certain services should be the
ones to pay the costs for it.
We have dealt with the business community and have had
discussions. They are now part of our stakeholders group. We
continue to have discussions with them. I must say the policy
has been quite well received.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, increasing numbers of natural
disasters, armed conflicts and financial crises have placed an
enormous strain on the ability of many developing countries to
provide enough food to feed their people. Is Canada prepared to
provide additional humanitarian assistance to help feed these
starving people?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes. In light of recent natural disasters, CIDA was
given additional moneys in the past budget.
I am pleased to announce that we will be purchasing $29 million
worth of Canadian wheat, beans, oil and other agricultural
commodities. This will not only feed these starving people but
it will also have spinoff benefits for our own agricultural
producers.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canadian tax law allows large Canadian companies to incorporate
in tax havens like Barbados to avoid paying Canadian taxes. In
the result, Canada is losing billions of dollars in taxation.
When will the Minister of Finance close these unconscionable tax
loopholes and put a stop to this government sanctioned tax
avoidance scheme?
1455
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, measures have been put in
place over the course of the last number of years. The
government has moved to close those loopholes that allow Canadian
companies that ought to be paying taxes not to pay them. We are
one of the leaders in this area. At the same time we have led
with the OECD because it will be required that all countries act
in concert.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is chainsaw day in the Okanagan Valley. Two years of
weather related disasters and low market prices are forcing apple
producers to cut down their trees. The government has responded
with a disaster relief program that makes apple growers a poor
cousin to other agricultural commodities. What is it going to
take for this government to get disaster relief to apple
producers, or is this government in favour of clear cutting
orchards in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's memory may be short but
he should be fully aware that as long ago as last December this
government, with the co-operation of the provinces including the
province of British Columbia, put in place a program that will
make available up to $1.5 billion to hard pressed and hurt
Canadian farmers in situations like this.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, through his recent statements, the Secretary of State
for Agriculture had generated legitimate expectations among
residents of the Quebec City region and the potential buyers of
MIL Davie, but the Minister of Industry put him in his place.
How can the Quebec City region feel protected within cabinet if
the secretary of state responsible for the region knuckles under
to the Minister of Industry, who refuses to lift one finger to
save MIL Davie's 1,500 jobs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
explained a few days ago that we already have major tax shelters
for the shipbuilding industry.
I also want to point out to the hon. member that, since the
eighties, the federal government has invested $1.6 billion in
MIL Davie. Is it not enough?
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, public confidence in the health protection branch or
what is left of it is at an all-time low. Too many Canadians
have seen corporate interests put ahead of the public good. Even
the unelected, unaccountable Senate has called for an independent
review into the drug approval process. When will this government
finally see the light, investigate the HPB and stop letting
industry expectations take precedence over public safety?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the report from the Senate committee. Many parts of
that report are excellent. The whole thrust of the report fits
very nicely with what we are doing at Health Canada: reviewing
the way the health protection branch does its job, reaching out
to the science advisory board, getting independent scientists of
international reputation to advise on hiring good science for the
department. There are the steps we took in the budget. We added
some $60 million for health protection to strengthen our food and
safety branch. These are all going in the same direction which
is toward protecting the safety of Canadians because that is our
bottom line.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1996-97
alone the federal cost recovery program was estimated to cut
Canada's GDP by $1.3 billion costing 23,000 Canadian jobs in the
process. Yet for every dollar in user fees charged to business,
the feds are only gaining 20 cents in additional revenue. Why
did the President of the Treasury Board not listen to the pleas
of small, medium and large businesses and put a freeze on new or
increased user fees until a new fairer framework could be put in
place?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the principle underlying cost recovery is quite clear.
It has to be equitable to all Canadians in the fact that it is
the people who get the benefit who must pay for it. We have had
discussions with all parts of Canadian industry. We have
listened to what they had to say. Nobody likes to pay more money
except that most of them accepted in the end that this was a fair
way to deal with their problems. We have dealt with them and we
now have a better system.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Labour and concerns the amendments to the
Canada Labour Code, more specifically part I on labour
relations, which came into effect on January 1, 1999.
Could the minister inform the House of the benefits of that
reform for workers who come under federal jurisdiction?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the government decided to modernize the Canada Labour Code,
it chose to consult union organizations and groups of employees
that are under federal jurisdiction. This led to a reform of the
federal labour legislation that is based on a consensus between
management and the unions.
I would like to congratulate all those who have contributed to
that reform and I reiterate the government's commitment to free
collective bargaining and constructive settlement of disputes.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency
Giancarlo Aragona, Secretary General of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order with regard to a breach of Standing
Order 106(3) by the chairman of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage.
On June 20, 1994 and on November 7, 1996 the Speaker made the
following ruling:
In both these cases the committees in question were in breach of
the provisions of Standing Order 114.
In this case the chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage is in breach of Standing Order 106(3) which directs the
committee as follows:
Within ten sitting days of the receipt, by the clerk of a
standing committee, of a request signed by any four members of
the said committee, the Chairman of the said committee shall
convene such a meeting provided that forty-eight hours notice is
given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the
reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the
request.
I submitted a letter pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to the
clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on February
18, 1999. The contents of the letter are as follows:
We are writing pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to convene a
meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the
purpose of hearing testimony from former National Arts Centre
Director John Cripton and possibly other expert witnesses, and to
examine additional information concerning the NAC which has not
been available to the Committee to date.
1505
Today is the 12th sitting day and the standing committee has yet
to convene such a meeting. What the committee did was deal with
the issue in a routine steering committee meeting instead of
convening a specific meeting to consider the request.
If you check, Mr. Speaker, every request under Standing Order
106(3), you will note that in every case the chairman convened a
specific meeting to deal with the request. It is no coincidence
that every committee does this.
If we allow committees to deal with requests under Standing
Order 106(3) at a routine steering committee then Standing Order
106(3) becomes redundant. We do not need Standing Order 106(3)
to propose a motion at a routine steering committee. The
intention of Standing Order 106(3) is to allow the minority on a
committee to have a specific meeting convened to consider its
request.
A routine steering committee is often in camera and crowded with
other items. The actions of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage rendered Standing Order 106(3) redundant. We cannot
allow a committee to enjoy that kind of independence from the
House. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 760(2), states:
Committees receive their authority from the House itself and the
authority of the House overrides that of any committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule on this matter. I would
ask that you consider if the chairman of the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage is in breach of an order of the House and
guilty of a grave contempt.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest
to the request of the hon. member opposite.
In the beginning I think most of us felt that no meeting had
been held. Initially I would have been prepared to say that it
would have been inappropriate if no meeting at all been held.
What the hon. member is telling us is not that. It is that a
meeting was held but because other items were on the agenda he
does not consider that a separate meeting was held for the
purpose of Standing Order 106(3).
The Chair might, I submit, have to rule as to whether or not a
meeting for the purpose of Standing Order 106(3) has to be a
separate meeting where no other items are dealt with, or whether
it is appropriate to deal with items under Standing Order 106(3)
while other items are on the agenda.
The hon. member opposite also said that if the interpretation
was that other items could be discussed at the same time as an
item under Standing Order 106(3), it would render Standing Order
106(3) redundant. Those were his words.
I would challenge that and say I do not believe that such is the
case. This offers a protection for members in the event that a
committee is not scheduled to sit for a long period of time. This
would actually cause a meeting within 48 hours. I would suggest
that this is not meant to replace the regular rule that exists
whereby an item can be discussed if the committee is meeting
anyway.
This does not make the rule redundant. Standing Order 106(3)
offers a measure for the protection of members in the event that
a committee is not scheduled to sit. It offers them a quick step
on having the committee meet to discuss the item in question.
That is the appropriate interpretation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for listening to this point of order which I think is a
serious one.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, as you consider the problem which has
been raised by the member from Dauphin, that you also consider
the other thing happening with Standing Order 106(3). Routinely
the chair of the committee or the committee itself moves in
camera upon receipt of one of these letters.
This format allows not just one party but at least two of the
opposition parties to find an issue or agree to an issue that
should go to a committee and should have a meeting to deal with
the specific subject matter.
As the standing order states, it has to describe in detail what
the matter is and how it should be dealt with.
1510
Instead of giving the opposition parties a chance to publicize
what they might consider a very serious issue, the committees
move in camera and then dispose of the matter by saying that they
will not deal with it further. In other words, the intent of
Standing Order 106(3), which is to allow opposition parties on
occasion to raise the profile of an issue, is being thwarted by a
routine in camera meeting.
The member is describing a kind of two pronged problem for an
opposition party. Standing Order 106(3), which is one of the few
tools left to us in committee, is being thwarted on two counts.
Not only is it wrapped up in other business but it also routinely
goes in camera, is disposed of, and no one sees it. That means
this standing order is of little use to members of parliament.
The Speaker: The points that are being raised cause a bit
of concern to the Chair. I would address myself to the member
for Dauphin—Swan River. I think he mentioned that this matter
was discussed in a steering committee.
Was it a steering committee or was it the standing committee
which met in camera? Could he please clarify his statement for
me?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the item was discussed in a
business agenda meeting, just a general meeting which, as my
colleague indicated, was held in camera. The order was very
specific in terms of what the request was to the committee.
The Speaker: Was it a steering committee or was it the
standing committee which met in camera? Could he please clarify
that?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, it was the standing committee
meeting in camera.
The Speaker: Therefore the question that I have to decide
is whether the mandate given to the committee was carried out.
There were four members, as I understand it, who signed a
request that a meeting be held in a certain period of time. I
believe you said 10 sitting days. Was the meeting held?
According to the hon. member the meeting was held.
Was it held in public or was it held in camera? I do not know
if there is a difference. I would say there is not, providing it
was the standing committee which was sitting.
In the absence of any other information and judging from what
the hon. member said, this was not a steering committee. This
was the standing committee and it met in camera, which is its
right. Is what I am saying so far correct? I just need a yes or
a no.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, yes, it did, but the problem
was the standing committee did not deal with the directive under
Standing Order 106(3) which was to have a meeting with Mr.
Cripton.
The Speaker: I will deal with that now. The
committee met—this is my word—legitimately as it was supposed
to meet. The hon. member is saying that because other issues
were dealt with at that time it was not only for that specific
case.
1515
I would rule that when a meeting is called, it is not
necessarily for one specific thing to the exclusion of all the
others.
If indeed the committee did meet and this matter was brought up,
however fleetingly, I would rule that he does not have a point of
order in this case.
However, I will check with the clerk of the committee and if it
is necessary for me to come back to the House, I will.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 61st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons of Monday, March 1, 1999 in
relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 2000 with regard to Vote No. 5 under Parliament, House of
Commons. The committee reports the same.
I also have the honour to present the 62nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 62nd report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-69, an act to amend the
Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-488, parliamentarians' code of conduct.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table my private
member's bill, the parliamentarians' code of conduct.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a code of conduct for
all parliamentarians, that is members of the Senate and the House
of Commons, and to provide for an officer of parliament to be
known as an ethics counsellor, to advise members, to administer
disclosures of interest and to carry out investigations of
complaints under the direction of a joint committee of the Senate
and the House of Commons.
I believe the passage of this bill would provide a framework to
assist parliamentarians to carry out their responsibilities with
honesty, integrity, transparency and in a manner that dignifies
the trust placed in them by the electorate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 62nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1520
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of
Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia. They also acknowledge that
Canada continues to be recognized internationally as the champion
of human rights.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to continue to
speak out against human rights abuses around the world and also
to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a group of
petitions from constituents in my riding calling on the
government to prohibit assisted suicide and that parliament make
no changes in the law which would sanction or allow that.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of people concerned that
the people of Iraq have suffered untold hardship and trauma in
the wake of the gulf war.
They say that sanctions, far from helping to destroy the
repressive government there, have actually strengthened it and
destroyed any useful opposition since instead of struggling for
its rights the civilian population has to struggle for survival.
These petitioners call on parliament to strongly appeal to the
United Nations, the United States and Britain for a rejection of
any further military action against Iraq and call for a serious
attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours.
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions
pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one has to do with
international trade agreements and water. The petitioners are
concerned about the recent developments of the government, which
seems to be getting into bed with the United States administration
in terms of future exports.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are
concerned about the lack of reasonable sentencing for people who
do harm to animals. They point out a whole variety of ways the
courts seem to take this in a rather cavalier fashion and they
say people who mistreat animals in whatever way and who are found
guilty of this conduct should be fined and dealt with more
harshly.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are
concerned about the long term viability of our pension system and
are worried that the existing pension system does not ensure an
adequate pension for all Canadians and they are asking for a
complete review.
CRTC
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a
petition on behalf of the Oakridge Lutheran Church of Vancouver,
calling on parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and
asking for a new policy encouraging the licensing of single faith
broadcasters.
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Sarnia and St. Thomas who urge
parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting that studies
underway at the University of Quebec are showing adverse health
effects, especially on children and seniors.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on two points of order. The first point is that
on November 23, 1998, I placed Question No. 169 on the order
paper asking how many gun smugglers and illegal gun traffickers
have been identified, prosecuted and convicted in Canada using
the gun registration system.
In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written
answer within 45 days. My constituents have been waiting 112
days.
The disconcerting fact here is that this happens every time I
ask a question.
1525
Every time I put a question on the order paper I have to wait
beyond the 45 days. Why can the government not answer our
questions in 45 days as promised? When can my constituents
expect an answer to Question No. 169?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I know the member is
concerned about this question. As members are aware, sometimes
when these questions are submitted they go to one department and
we get a response. In other cases they may be required to go to
every department and in some cases they will go to one
department, get part of an answer and then go to another. Then
and only then can they go back to the first department to get the
rest.
I assure the member that I will look very seriously at the
whereabouts of the response to Question No. 169.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my second point is
that on December 9, 1998, I placed Question No. 185 on the order
paper asking for a list of contracts between the government and
the consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne. In accordance with
Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days
and my constituents have now been waiting 99 days.
I have been waiting twice as long as the standing orders
require. Why do I have to raise multiple points of order to get
answers to my questions? The government is interfering with my
ability to do my job. If the government answered one question
every 45 days, I would get eight answers in a year. If I used
all four of the order paper questions to full advantage, I would
get 32 questions answered a year. As it is, I am getting fewer
than two answers per year.
At what point does this become a question of privilege? When
can my constituents expect an answer to Question No. 185?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the
previous question, sometimes the responses are more complicated
than in other cases. For example, in tabling responses to
petitions, we have well over 2,000 petitions and we are running
at well over a 90% response rate.
I assure the member that in this case I will look into the
whereabouts of Question No. 185.
The Deputy Speaker: I am reluctant to get into any
discussions with the hon. member about when his privileges have
been interfered with.
I know the parliamentary secretary is aware that at one time I
was chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. That committee deals with, among other things, changes
to the rules of the House. If the hon. member feels he has a
grievance in respect of the answers he is not getting to his
questions, I suggest he raise the matter with that committee
which has the power to change the rules and allow him to put more
questions on the order paper. At least he could get his
questions asked even if he did not get answers. He would not
have his four places tied up in the way he is complaining about
today. That is something the committee could consider and report
to the House on. I know the hon. member might want to be
vigorous in his pursuit of such an aim with the committee. I know
he would find a very receptive ear in that of the parliamentary
secretary.
I suggest we leave the matter there. The parliamentary
secretary is the chair of the committee and so in appealing to
him, the member would be appealing to two people at once. That is
always a helpful thing and will save time.
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PAN-AMERICAN MONETARY UNION
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before Oral
Question Period, I carefully listened to the debate on our
motion and the speech by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He
carefully explained why a special committee should be struck to
consider the creation of a pan-American monetary union.
There is a possibility we might participate in the creation of a
pan-American monetary union.
In his speech, my colleague argued the response of members on
the government side was quite weak. Their arguments are half
baked. They are putting them forward saying “No, we do not want
such a committee, we do not want to debate the possible creation
of a pan-American monetary union”.
1530
Moreover my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot reported the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions had
argued that Canada's monetary policy was very important for
Canada's sovereignty.
My question is this: could my colleague tell me how independent
Canada's monetary policy is from the United States? Is this not
merely an illusion?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond
for her excellent question.
In fact, when we look at the evolution of monetary policy since
1950, the independence of the Bank of Canada's policy is highly
suspect. Since 1950, almost 100 basis points, or 1% in terms of
Canadian interest rates, have been added to American interest
rates.
In other words, each time the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank makes
interest rate decisions, the Bank of Canada follows suit. That
is entirely natural because we are in lockstep with the American
economy. There is capital circulating at the speed of
lightning, and increasingly freely. Given Canada's weaker
performance compared to the United States, more money may leave
the country if there is a difference between Canadian and
American interest rates.
There was 1996-97, when the Bank of Canada boasted that it
operated independently from American monetary policy, when
Canadian interest rates were over 1% lower than American rates.
What was the result? The Canadian dollar took a nosedive, made
even worse by the Asian crisis.
Apart from 1973, when the Bank of Canada made a decision
completely unconnected with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, this
was the only such occasion.
In the circumstances, therefore, any talk about the independence
of the Bank of Canada is complete nonsense. The Bank of Canada
is not independent.
We had another example of this as recently as August and
September. The president of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank
lowered American interest rates by 100 basis points.
Fifteen minutes later—not one or two days, not one week, but 15
minutes later—Mr. Thiessen, the governor of the Bank of Canada,
lowered Canadian rates by exactly the same amount. We are
continually following the evolution of American monetary policy.
A common currency for the three Americas, or even an
international currency, would not be such a great loss of
autonomy.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member across the way knows that the United States is one of the
most powerful countries in the world. Is it true that the only
currency the Americans would accept would be their own currency,
the American dollar? Is that true?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The members
opposite should try to show a glimmer of intelligence for once.
The issue is whether we are going to take a back seat to global
progress. Will Liberals refuse to have a real debate, as they
are asked, and in particular to hold a forum at the finance
committee? I have asked for a two to three-day forum bringing
together experts from Quebec and Canada.
We could examine the pros and cons of a monetary union, see what
the conclusions could be drawn and prepare members of parliament
to hold debates which would be more enlightened than those we
have heard today from the Liberals and the New Democrats in
particular. That is what we are asking for.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to
inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for
Scarborough East.
1535
The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois proposes a monetary
union between Canada and United States.
An hon. member: That is not it.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Excuse me.
[English]
The example which members give us is that of the European Union.
The European Union is very different from the United States and
Canada. There were 11 countries all trading with one another in
11 different currencies. Together they are roughly the same size
economically as Canada and the United States.
Can we imagine the complexity of doing business in a market
where there are 11 currencies and 11 different borders to cross
in order to have the same economies of scale? A monetary union
had transactional cost savings inherent in it.
Another advantage, and we have to look at it, is that with a
single currency there is no possibility of the currency either
going up or down against a foreign currency. Perhaps this causes
difficulties when doing business over a long period of time. The
costs from a supplier cannot be guaranteed for six months because
the exchange rate may differ.
We could find ourselves producing goods or services in Canada
which are not competitive. However there is a way around that.
All businesses involved in international trade which need to deal
with international currencies do what they call hedging. They
buy a currency six months ahead if that is when they will need
it. Or, they sell a currency six months or a year ahead, if that
is when they will be selling their products, in order to ensure
that their costs are ascertainable and fixed.
That is what we in Canada do with the United States. We do not
have the huge problem of 11 different currencies; we have just
two. If we were to go into a monetary union it would be very
unlike the European Union which involves many countries. However
there is a certain homogeny, a certain sameness about the
countries. The United States vis-à-vis Canada is about 11 times
as big economically. The inevitable result would be that we
would lose our monetary policy independence.
[Translation]
The member of the Bloc Quebecois who just spoke said that Canada
never had an independent monetary policy. This is not true.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Since 1950.
Hon. Jim Peterson: When our government took office in 1993,
Canadian interest rates were 2.5 points higher than in the
United States. Today, our short and long-term interest rates are
almost the same as in the United States.
In the meantime, we followed an independent monetary policy that
everyone benefited from, because the huge decrease in our
interest rates led to many more benefits, including a drop in
the unemployment rate that now stands at 7.8%, down from 11.4%.
We also saved a lot on debt service charges. Our independent
monetary policy greatly benefited to all Canadians and each and
every region of the country.
[English]
There is another reason it is very important for us not to
follow the course of the Bloc. When we have our own currency we
have a buffer against changes in economic circumstances, against
economic shocks. Canada, side-swiped by the Asian crisis, has
seen commodity prices around the globe fall approximately 25%.
1540
Canada is a net exporter of commodities while the United States
is a net importer. Just because of global commodity prices the
terms of trade with the United States have gone against Canada by
about 6% and in favour of the United States by about 5%.
If we had the same currency, what would have been the result? It
is very simple. We would have seen a cut-down in Canadian
production. We could have seen workers leaving Canada and being
able to move to the United States which is experiencing the
upturn, but we know that is not feasible. We would have seen
price declines, wage declines where there were no fixed wage
contracts, and job losses.
In spite of commodity prices falling, the Asian crisis followed
by Russia on August 17, and the flight to security of currencies
everywhere, in spite of being hit by those crises our
unemployment has continued to fall. Our currency, the Canadian
dollar, has gone down a bit. It has gone down 7% vis-à-vis the
American dollar.
We could look at other countries in the world that have
suffered. South Africa's is down 34%; it has been sideswiped
completely. Australia's is down about 15% and New Zealand's is
down about 19%. Norway's is down a tremendous amount.
Thanks to the fact that Canada had put its economy in good order
we were able to get through it. Thanks to the fact that we had a
flexible independent monetary policy, jobs continued to increase
in Canada and workers did not suffer. That was the great benefit
we enjoyed as evidenced through the last nine or twelve month
period.
[Translation]
I cannot help but asked myself if the Bloc is not being a little
bit naughty in putting this motion before the House? Could it be
their way of trying to create some kind of link with the United
States? If another referendum were to be held, would that not
make them somewhat closer to the United States?
Never before has such an idea been put forward in the House, and
it is being put forward by the Bloc for the whole of Canada.
Most of the time, their ideas only affect Quebec, not the whole
of Canada.
Let me conclude by saying that the Bloc believes this motion
will promote separatism in Quebec, because the people will feel
that there is some kind of pre-agreement with the United States.
Never will we support such an assumption or such ideas. We will
protect our economic independence and our independent monetary
policy, while recognizing what is going on in the rest of the
world.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
somewhat surprised when I heard the member across the way say
that our monetary policy has had a positive influence on the
unemployment rate. I would ask him to compare it with what it is
in the United States. It might wake him up.
Here we go again with this notion of Canada's monetary
independence vis-à-vis the United States. I would like to know how
independent Canada's monetary policy has been, since we know
that from 1950 to 1986 all one had to do, to determine the Bank
of Canada rate, was to add about 1% to the U.S. federal reserve
rate for the same period.
1545
He was right when he said the gap in the bank rates was even
wider between 1986 and about 1993, this is when the recession
was worse in Canada than in the United States. John Crow, the
Governor, who was responsible for raising the interest rates to
such high levels, is now defending an independent monetary
policy.
What is the point of having an independent monetary policy if it
jeopardizes jobs?
Where was the independent monetary policy of the Canadian
government when the Canadian dollar collapsed in 1997-1998, the
Bank of Canada had to raise its interest rate 1% above the
Americans', returning to the same econometric model we had
between 1950 and 1986?
Where is the monetary political independence when both curves
are parallel? I wish I could show them to the House. They are
exactly the same. Where is the independent monetary policy in
all this?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in a globalized world, we must
look at what other countries do.
I would like to mention the six points our finance minister
presented to the IMF. Among these was the suggestion that all
western countries, countries with a strong economy, should
recognize that the world economy is at risk and should lower
their interest rates to stimulate growth within their economies
and to encourage imports from Asian countries or from other
countries that had problems because of the Asian crisis.
We worked together with other countries that have a strong
economy. That is not a lack of independence. On the contrary,
working in co-operation with our allies is a sign of
independence.
I must repeat.
When we took office in 1993, our interest rates were a lot
higher than those in the United States. Thanks to our low
inflation policy and our tax programs, we have managed to
eliminate the deficit. Our interest rates have gone down and
were really lower than American interest rates six months ago.
Because of the changes occurring worldwide, we have had to
adjust our interest rates little by little, sometimes by
increasing them and sometimes by lowering them.
Today, we can see the results of our independent monetary policy
in terms of economic growth and jobs.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I sometimes
wonder when I see our Liberal colleagues worry about the
intentions of the Bloc Quebecois.
Let us look at the facts. When the issue of free trade came up,
whether it was about the original agreement or the one we have
now, Quebec was at the forefront of these changes. Quebec was
the one with a vision for the future.
The situation here is exactly the same. Trade between Canada and
the United States totals $1 billion a day, maybe more. As for
trade between Quebec and the United States, 55% of our exports
go to the United States.
Now imagine the problems related to the exchange rate, to a
dollar that goes up, that goes down, that is unpredictable.
Sooner or later, we will have to go the way of a common
currency, and I would rather we thought about it now and not
when it is too late. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is
proposing with this motion, the creation of a committee. What
does my hon. colleague has to say about that?
1550
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, our exchange rate is floating.
It is not fixed, it is not set. It fluctuates depending on the
U.S. dollar and the currencies of all the countries in the
world.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I must admit
that when this resolution came across my desk this morning at
about 10 o'clock, I scratched my head and could not quite fathom
why a sovereignist party, a party dedicated to sovereignty should
propose a motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the
House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the
possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a
pan-American monetary union.
I first of all became a little suspicious and thought there was
some mischief here.
It reminded me somewhat of the free trade agreement where our
first struggle in the free trade agreement was to try to get the
Americans' attention. Frankly, as far as the Americans were
concerned, we were a small economy, somewhere close to the size
of California, nothing more, nothing less, approximately the same
number of people. The Americans were not overly concerned about
entering into any kind of agreement with us.
It was somewhat difficult to get them to take us seriously to
the point where we actually ended up for the first part of the
negotiations negotiating both sides of the agreement so that we
could have some framework with which to move forward. We finally
cut a deal with the Americans and entered into what was the free
trade agreement and then became the North American Free Trade
Agreement. As they say, the rest is history. I will leave it to
others to debate the merits of that agreement.
The real problem as I see it is that Canada is perceived to be a
bit player in the entire exercise, particularly in world economic
terms and indeed in North American terms. We take some pride I
suppose in being the largest trading partner in the world with
the Americans. As others have pointed out, basically $1 billion
a day goes back and forth across our borders. Might I suggest
that the Americans perceive it, particularly through the lens of
Washington, as nothing more than a state border, a bit of a
strange state border but a state border nevertheless.
If the government were persuaded to proceed with this resolution
as is urged by the hon. members, I would argue that in fact that
issue is even more exaggerated. If Canada has a problem being
perceived by Washington as a bit player, imagine how Quebec would
be perceived by Washington or New York.
I am sure that people in the offices that control the American
monetary policy, particularly Mr. Greenspan, would be in a bit of
a scramble to find out where Quebec City was. Then they would
probably be told that they speak French up there. That is kind of
nice, sort of like Louisiana. And that Quebec has civil law.
That is kind of quaint, a novel idea. And really it is a
distinct society. That is different altogether.
Mr. Greenspan and others who determine that kind of policy would
not be interested only in issues of culture and language, because
frankly for them, what counts is the bottom line, who has the
most dollars. The issues that are of the greatest concern to
Quebec and also of concern to the rest of Canada are very minor
issues as far as Mr. Greenspan and his people might be concerned.
The monetary policy for a North American currency will be set in
Washington. Let us make no bones about that. That is a reality.
What Ottawa thinks or what Mexico City thinks or what Quebec
City thinks will be utterly irrelevant if this resolution goes
forward and if we have a unified currency. To think otherwise
would be completely naive.
It is a perfect case of taxation without representation. In
particular, this is the creation of monetary policy without
representation. It will be the ultimate in alienation. It will
be the ultimate in frustration and it will be a colossal error.
If this resolution goes forward and if the contemplated result
occurs, we might as well say goodbye to sovereignty for all of
us.
If sovereignty is an issue now, and it has been for 150 years, it
will be an even more exaggerated issue.
1555
In the final analysis, he who has the most toys wins in an issue
of this kind, and he who has the most bucks wins.
One of the speakers from the opposite side used the analogy of
the European Union. The argument was that it went relatively
smoothly. There were 11 countries, 11 currencies, 11 different
sovereign jurisdictions, et cetera, et cetera. What the speaker
failed to mention was that one of the countries did not have
about 80% of the economy. This would be a strange analogy. If
for example Germany had 80% of the economy in the European Union,
do hon. members think that Berlin would really care what Madrid
thought about fiscal or monetary policy? I would argue that all
it does is encourages assimilation.
We have to ask ourselves at some point what is the game, what is
the real resolution behind the resolution? There is a certain
cleverness to the resolution. I have to admire the other side in
that respect. I suppose that instead of going through a painful
four step process we might as well just eat the pain and go for
it.
If I understand the resolution and the desire on the part of the
members opposite, I would first of all understand that they would
want separation. That is clearly the reason they are here in
Ottawa. That will cause a certain amount of pain for Canada and
a certain amount of pain for Quebec. There is just no getting
around that.
Then we would have this strange understanding of a joint use of
the currency. That is probably more pain for Quebec and a little
less pain for Canada, because frankly Ottawa will not give a hoot
what Quebec City thinks about monetary policy and the joint use
of the Canadian dollar. We will do what we want.
Then I would assume a certain element of frustration will set in
on the part of a sovereign Quebec and there will be a desire by
Quebec to go to a separate currency. We can skip that stage and
go directly to an American currency, but I think that would be
the logical outcome of the inevitable frustrations between Ottawa
and Quebec City over the management and joint use of the Canadian
dollar, which I would argue is basically pain for Quebec.
The final stage would be stage four, which is to go to the U.S.
dollar. Inevitably I think that is where we would all end up,
which would be pain for everyone. I would say pain for everyone
in Canada, but not for the Americans who will not care.
I commend the hon. member for the cleverness in his resolution.
He is basically skipping all the stages and going directly to the
American dollar and who cares about what the rest of Canada might
think about the issue. If we need high interest rates to provide
a stimulus, forget that. We are not going to get that. If we
need low interest rates to reduce inflation, there is no point in
having that. We will not be able to achieve it in any event. We
will have absolutely no control over fiscal or monetary policy in
this country. We have to then ask whether we would have any
control over any other policy in this country.
We have already gone through the pain of the federal government
trying to get control over its fiscal situation. If it had not
gotten control over its fiscal situation, we would not have been
able to talk about the health budget. There would not be
anything to talk about because we would still be in deficit. If
we have no control over our fiscal and monetary policies, we will
have no control over any other policies in this country and we
might as well kiss sovereignty for all of us goodbye.
I mentioned the analogy of the European Union which I would
argue is a false analogy. It is an analogy which simply does not
make sense. It is as if Germany had 80% of the economy and let
all of the other bit players join in the European Union. That
makes no sense. It is a false analogy and needs to be denounced
as such.
This is a stalking horse motion. It is there to promote Quebec
sovereignty. This is part of trying to develop winning
conditions and trying to convince the rest of Canada that we will
agree to what will, by any other name, be the U.S. dollar.
That will in one respect create winning conditions. We will just
go from stage one to four like that. There will be pain all the
way around and I do not know that any of us will be a great deal
better off.
1600
I would urge hon. members to see this motion for what it is, a
stalking horse motion that is part of creating winning conditions
with the ultimate result being a great deal of pain for us all.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the poor
content of the member's speech is not surprising. The member
himself explained why it is so: he began thinking about this
issue at 10 o'clock this morning. One can understand why his
arguments are so weak.
He said the Americans give no thought to this debate. He should
read this morning's Miami Herald. The columnist Andres
Oppenheimer, whose by-line is also carried in 40 other newspapers
across the U.S., mentions today's debate.
Maybe the member should also know that the Florida trade
secretary spoke about this subject and thought about it; the
president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, gave some thought to this
issue too, as well as the Inter-American Development Bank and the
Mexico Business Council. Finally, the Canadian ambassador in
Washington, the Prime Minister's nephew, also said we should
discuss this issue. That all brings us to the original motion
proposing such a debate.
I have a question: how is it that the Liberal members who were
so in favour of holding a debate on the free trade agreement
with the Americans in 1988, who wanted to extend it, are now
doing their best to avoid this debate?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I would correct the hon.
member in one respect, namely that I started thinking about his
motion at 10 o'clock this morning. I have thought about the
issues it raises on many occasions. In my view, as it is
phrased, the motion is a nonsense motion and not one that yields
a serious conclusion.
As to whether people in Florida are discussing this issue, I am
not privy to that information. It may be that Quebec is going to
annex Florida or Florida is going to annex Quebec. I am not
sure. However, I understand that there are a number of people
down there who would like to do that.
I would address my hon. colleague's attention to an article in
this morning's National Post entitled “The Case for a
World Dollar”. I read that article initially not even knowing
the debate would occur here today. I put the article down and
thought it incoherent. It made no case for a world dollar, let
alone a North American currency. With the greatest of respect to
my hon. colleague, I would suggest that his case has not been
made and that in fact he has created for himself difficulties
that he has yet to anticipate.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thoroughly enjoyed my colleague's speech. As we all know, this
is about the Bloc Quebecois seeking security under the wing of
the mother hen of the U.S. dollar. We all know that it is not a
hen, it is actually an eagle.
Two examples have been used today of countries that have sought
the protection of the U.S. dollar, Puerto Rico and Liberia. I
know my colleague is a very quick study. He has proved that by
the fact that he developed that wonderful speech in a relatively
short time. I know he follows the economy of Africa with great
interest.
Liberia is a country which long ago took the U.S. dollar. It
moved under the protection of the U.S. dollar.
1605
I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on whether the
people of Liberia feel they have been better off under the
protection of the U.S. dollar these many years. Has the Liberian
economy become better or worse in his view?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, yes this is a motion about
going under the mother hen of the U.S. dollar. I would
respectively suggest that this motion lays an egg. The only
question is how to poach it.
The real issue is that no country has fared better under the
U.S. dollar. Puerto Rico, in particular, is an excellent example
of a country that is without sovereignty, without direction and a
country that cannot make an impact because it has no control over
its finances or its fiscal or monetary policy.
If the hon. member wishes to have Canada or, more particularly,
Quebec become another Puerto Rico in this hemisphere, then he is
welcome to it. We on this side of the House will resist very
strongly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will split
my time with one of my colleagues.
I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion which I
will read for the benefit of those who have just tuned in:
That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the
House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the
possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a
pan-American monetary union.
Why are members of the Bloc Quebecois calling for the creation
of such a committee and why are we holding this debate today?
Because in this rapidly changing world, because of
globalization—as members opposite keep telling us—members of
Parliament must be able to see further down the way.
Yet, the attitude of the members opposite concerns me; it
reminds me of the attitude that prevailed during the debate on
free trade. The Liberals started by shouting their indignation.
We all remember what they said, that free trade would be the
mother of all evils and that if they were elected, they would
never sign the agreement. Once elected, the new Prime Minister,
Mr. Jean Chrétien, finally signed the agreement.
I would say finally with pleasure—
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. member that we must not
refer to an hon. member by name, but by his or her constituency
or title, as the hon. member knows well.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the hon.
Prime Minister. I hope you will forgive the history teacher when
she gets the upper hand.
Just after his election, the hon. Prime Minister finally signed
the free trade agreement. But more importantly, he became the
defender, the grand champion of free trade areas all over the
world because Canada is ready to establish free trade areas with
APEC countries, the Americas, as well as EFTA—Canada has
ambitious plans but it also has more modest ones—whose members
are Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
There is no doubt that, after a positive vote on sovereignty, we
will be able, if that is deemed desirable, to create a free
trade zone that will include Quebec. But if the future is
influenced by what is happening in Europe—and chances are that it
will be—should we not examine the impact this will have and
prepare for that?
1610
Why should we prepare? I am my party's critic for industry, and
I know how serious the productivity problem is in Canada, and
the Canadian monetary policy did not help.
The secretary of state has suggested that the depreciation of
the Canadian dollar preserved jobs, but the low value of our
dollar has also made Canadians considerably poorer compared to
the Americans. This low value of the dollar, based on a lack of
productivity and low salaries, does not only make us poorer, but
also makes improving our productivity more difficult, since that
involves buying new equipment.
But two thirds of equipment purchases in Canada come from
abroad, and 90 % of this is from the United States.
The lower the value of our dollar, the more difficult innovation
is for Canadian businesses. While we hear flattering
pronouncements on that extraordinary Canadian economy, we find a
more sobering description of our reality in reports from the
industry department. The truth is that if our productivity had
improved at the same pace as in the United States, for example,
each Canadian would be richer by $7,000. That is a lot of money.
This is not just more separatist trickery, but a real issue that
more and more people want us to grapple with, because there are
good reasons why we should.
We do not suggest this should be done tomorrow.
We say this matter ought to be examined by parliament, because
it poses a number of problems, including Canada's increasingly
lag behind the U.S.
It is all very fine to go on about an independent monetary
policy, but I would point out to my hon. colleagues from Ontario
that they have not experienced the chill the eastern provinces
have as a result of the Canadian monetary policy. The east has
always had the opposite reaction to the rest of Canada. When
Ontario was overheating, the rest was just beginning to warm up
a little.
I am most anxious to see a committee struck to continue this
debate. The debate is under way, however, and it is going to
continue, because we are lagging further and further behind the
United States, and the rest of the world as well, moreover.
In the past 25 years, Canada has recorded the least growth in
productivity of all G-7 countries.
The Alliance of Manufacturers of Canada has developed a
competitiveness index. For each factor, the country's
performance is compared with the top performer in the OECD, and
the rating is expressed as a percentage. In 1997, Canada—proud
of its performance that year, moreover—was rated at 76%, compared
to the Americans' 89% and the OECD countries' 82%.
Michael Porter, the universally respected guru when it comes to
competitiveness, judges Canada harshly in a study he has carried
out on us.
Among Canada's five greatest weaknesses he lists the poor growth
in productivity, and the little invested in science and
technology.
This prompts me to say that, under those circumstances, one
would expect the Canadian government to take a lead role in
improving Canadian productivity.
1615
Of course, there were a number of initiatives promoting the
knowledge economy, but the truth of the matter is that the
budget this year provides $80 million less for science and
technology than it did last year.
From an economic point of view, from now on, will our hon.
colleagues opposite want to bury their heads in the sand or look
at the development tools we will be needing?
Canada can no longer base its sovereignty on an economic policy
that has its citizens getting poorer all the time and its
exports, which we are so proud of, rely on costs whose main
features are our low wages.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two questions for the member. I listened very carefully to
what she had to say.
The first question is one which I posed previously. I would be
grateful if the hon member would comment on the success of the
country of Liberia taking the U.S. dollar as its own currency and
giving up power over its economy and financial affairs. Does she
consider that the economy of Liberia and the people of Liberia
benefited from that experience?
Second, I wonder if the hon. member would comment on this. This
is from today's issue of l'Actualité. It is an article by
Professor Pierre Fortin, who is an economics professor at the
Université du Québec à Montréal. I will read the last paragraph
of the article:
[Translation]
Times have changed. To let the smallest change in world prices
for our raw materials disrupt our currency is a notion that
dates back to the 1970s and that we need to drop. Texas does not
have a monetary policy distinct from that of Washington and that
has not stopped it from prospering. Even Honduras does not let
its currency vary according to the world price for bananas.
[English]
Would the member care to comment on Professor Fortin's article?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, two fine questions from my
colleague. However, the first one concerns me.
What is being proposed is a committee for Canada. He is
prepared to compare Canada's weight with that of the United
States and that of Liberia. As we try look at a future with a
pan-American or North American currency, he agrees to consider
the question. He is assuming that the model will be that of
Liberia.
Let us all use our brain a little. Should discussions occur,
can we not ask our colleague whether the Americans might not
wonder what would be in it for them? Naturally, the United
States is elephantine, but living next door to it can be costly
too.
As to his question on Pierre Fortin, I do not understand it at
all. He is talking about Canadian policy, which the secretary
of state said had fluctuated with the price of natural
resources, permitting jobs to be saved. What Pierre Fortin said
is that for a self-respecting country, it made no sense, and
doubtless he would agree with me, the effects on productivity
are terrible in the end.
I am not saying that in the short term this should not be done,
but the situation must be seen for what it is. Everyone is
becoming poorer. That is what it means.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, we will vote in
favour of the Bloc Quebecois motion, because no one can oppose
studies. Everyone here is on continuous training these days.
So we agree to go on.
Mr. Fortin said that a common currency was absolutely
unacceptable and that the furthest one could go would be
monetary association.
1620
Any thought of a common currency involves the assumption that
the Americans would forgo their national currency, the strongest
in the world, even stronger than the Euro. In this vein, I
would ask my colleague what she thinks.
In the event it would be possible to negotiate a date for the
establishment of a common currency, I would ask her what fiscal
measures should be passed to strengthen Canada's monetary and
economic position.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I am pleased by the
announcement made by the whip of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
As for his question on Pierre Fortin and L'Actualité, as I said
earlier regarding the notion of fluctuation—the secretary of
state boasted about this—there is no doubt that issues such as
the distinction between a union and an association must be
discussed. The idea is to look beyond the Canadian dollar and
the monetary policy, and to try to anticipate what the North
American and tricontinental economy will be in the years to
come. This is what we must look at.
It would be a good sign if members opposite agreed to discuss
this issue, because the situation is changing and will continue
to change whether we want it to or not. This is true for the
economy, but also for other areas.
The government would be well-advised to create a serene
atmosphere to discuss this whole issue, because the future of
our fellow citizens and of our children is at stake.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Mercier for sharing her time with me.
I say to the deputy government whip that if he wants to quote
L'Actualité, he does not have to go that far. On page 10 of the
magazine, we find the following: “I anticipate a North American
currency within five years. It is unavoidable”. That comment is
from Sherry Cooper, the chief economist and vice-president of
Nesbitt Burns. Incidentally, Ms. Cooper is not a member of the
Bloc Quebecois.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
said he was opposed to the motion of the Bloc Quebecois on a
monetary union with the United States. Up to that point, I
understand him, because he is not referring to today's motion.
He is opposed to something we are not discussing. The Liberals
are off the track, but we are used to that. It is par for the
course with them.
However, today's motion calls for a committee to consider a
pan-American currency. We cannot presume to know at this time
what conclusions such a committee would reach, as the Liberal
members are doing.
It is also puzzling why there is such vehement opposition to a
committee to consider the possibility of a form of monetary
union in North America and in the Americas at the very time when
members of this House are giving thought to a free trade zone
for the Americas.
How can the Liberal members be so removed from a topic such as a
common currency at the very time when we are debating
international and intercontinental trade? These same
individuals who, as my colleague, the member for Mercier,
pointed out, are now supporting the elimination of barriers
between all countries in the Americas, are the same folks who
said in the red book, and I quote from page 24, for my
colleague, the member for Outremont:
A Liberal government will renegotiate both the FTA and NAFTA to
obtain a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code, a more effective
dispute resolution mechanism, and the same energy protection as
Mexico. Abrogating trade agreements should be only a last
resort if satisfactory changes cannot be negotiated.
1625
All members remember that, in 1993, the Liberals campaigned
against NAFTA, against the lack of consultation and information
with respect to these agreements, and that they said on page 24
of their red book that they were prepared to abrogate the FTA.
What have they done since? They have signed it without a word,
they have let in Chile, and they recently signed with Israel and
Palestine. This was another promise they broke, along with the
GST and many others.
One might wonder why our Liberal colleagues want to drag the
debate down to partisan levels.
What we are suggesting today to our colleagues is to act as
responsible parliamentarians. What they are telling us is that
it is bad thinking and plainly bad to suggest to this House that
we act as responsible parliamentarians.
If a review committee concluded that under no circumstances
should we adopt a common currency with the Americas, we would
certainly abide by and support its decision. It might decide,
surprise, surprise, that we should have a fixed exchange rate
with the U.S. dollar, set at 80 cents, for example, after
negotiations, to avoid the uncertainties—a word we hear often
from our Liberal colleagues—regarding exports, which account for
one job out of three in Canada.
It might decide we should adopt the American dollar or a
pan-American dollar.
We are not experts, so today we are suggesting that a review
committee be struck to hear what experts, economists, exporters,
the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Exporters'
Association might have to say on the matter. If they tell us
“Yes, we should go ahead with this”, why should we as
parliamentarians stubbornly refuse to have a quality debate and
not do our job?
I will ask this to my colleagues, because soon we will have a
question and answer period. I would like them to respond to my
arguments. Why do they not want to do their job as
parliamentarians? They opposed free trade, what is their opinion
of a free trade zone? Do they oppose it too? I have news for
them.
Their government and their party are in favour of this American
free trade zone and even presided over the first 18 months of
negotiations. Why not then take advantage of this forum to
expand the debate to the possibility of a unique currency for
all those partners?
The question is legitimate. Why do they not want to talk about
this, and why do they always come back with the same message
“the bad separatists are only introducing this debate to be able
to separate more easily”. This has absolutely nothing to do with
today's debate.
They also raise the objection that, as far as exports are
concerned, we have an advantage now. The Quebec minister of
finance was saying that it was because our weak dollar.
He was saying “Yes, but all this has a pernicious effect, a
little bit like drugs. At the outset, it is pleasant, but in the
long run, it can be very detrimental to our health”. It is the
same thing for the economic well-being and the low Canadian
dollar.
It might be that today it is easier to export our goods on
certain markets because our dollar is weaker than the U.S.
dollar. Who knows. Those who have travelled to the United States
lately have certainly noticed that the Canadian dollar is worth
very little compared to the U.S. dollar.
Mr. Richard Marceau: You know it.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I know.
But if the value of the Canadian dollar increased, would this
automatically means that our exports might be penalized? Should
we therefore set up a monetary policy to keep our dollar at 63,
65 or 70 cents? Is that the federal government's monetary
policy? Perhaps it should tell us that too.
As for the independence of our monetary policy, my colleague for
Charlesbourg, my colleague for Mercier and my other colleagues
who took part in the debate have shown it very well.
Since 1950, if we look at the line of the U.S. dollar value in
relation to the value of the Canadian dollar as well as the
interest rates, we can see that the lines are following the same
curve, they look like exact copies of each other, with one
exception, in 1993, if I am not mistaken.
1630
Today, we are doing 80% of our trade with the United States,
where our exports are going; we are more closely linked with the
United States than the European markets are among themselves,
yet the European countries, after ten years of discussion, opted
for a single currency.
Why are they closing their minds to any potential discussion and
study of such a possibility? Why do they absolutely want to rule
out a debate on that subject, in spite of the fact that the
Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. Chrétien, said
that it was something to consider, in spite of the fact that the
chief economist and vice-president of Nesbitt Burns said that
this was inevitable within five years, and in spite of the fact
that several economists and experts said that we should look at
this issue today?
Why should we Parliamentarians want it all done for us? Why
should we want the people at Finance to discuss this matter, and
then we will just vote on the bill to implement it, as was done
with the free trade agreement with Chile?
Why should we want to do as we did with the free trade agreement
with Israel, and just vote on the bill to implement it?
Is this what MPs should be, mere rubber stamps? Should we adopt
implementation legislation and say yes, this is fine, the public
servants did a good job? No. Like the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, I too believe our job is to study it, to examine
all the possibilities, and then to be in a position to make
enlightened decisions.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
opinion there is already a pan-American currency, one that is
used throughout the world, and that is the U.S. dollar. Many
countries do not like this situation, among them France, England
and the other European countries.
I have a question for the member across the way. Is it true
that the real reason the Europeans created the euro was to
protect European sovereignty?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, indeed, the
euro was created, among other reasons, to strengthen the
monetary policy and the world situation vis-à-vis the United
States, the U.S. dollar and the possible fluctuations of the
exchange rate.
Take, for example, what George Sauras did to the pound sterling.
Over a period of just a few days, he was able to get the value
of the pound sterling to go down by gambling on that value.
Today replacing these 11 European currencies by the euro
provides increased protection against this type of speculation.
We are not here to examine this issue, but to ask that a
committee be set up to undertake that task.
As we demonstrated today, in the past, speculators could gamble
on 11 different currencies that have now been strengthened by
creating a single new currency, the euro. These speculators will
have to look around to find a currency that is not as strong and
as economically important. They will be able to gamble on that
currency and, perhaps, create more problems for it.
Given that all these other currencies have now been grouped
together and are better able to protect themselves against such
speculation, it is likely that these speculators will turn their
attention to the Canadian currency and will target our dollar.
This is an issue which the committee could examine. I suggest to
the hon. member that he should submit this issue to the
committee. Said committee will determine if the Canadian dollar
is indeed strong enough to withstand international speculation.
If it is unnecessary, as in the case of trade rules, why is
Canada such a fervent supporter of the WTO? We might put this
question to my colleague.
Together, the various countries in the world can stand up to the
United States in the case of a trade dispute. Could Canada
withstand speculation over its dollar, given that the Europeans
will perhaps consider going elsewhere? That question could be
raised in committee.
Now, how financially and fiscally independent is Canada from the
United States?
1635
What is the extent of this independence when we look at the
curve since 1950? When 80% of our trade is with the United
States, how independent are we in trade terms from them?
In 1993, and during the last election campaign, in 1997, the
Canadian government said “In terms of foreign trade, we will
open our market to other sectors of activity, toward Asia,
Europe and Africa”. In the meantime the curve of trade with the
U.S. continues to climb.
We are economically dependent on the U.S as well as commercially
dependent on them. We must make sure that we are prepared for
potential speculation and for a potential change in direction in
relation to them. Perhaps a study on the subject could help us
prepare for an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, for
potential speculation on it.
This is the question my colleague from Charlesbourg is trying to
answer by asking parliamentarians to assume their
responsibilities. However if Liberal members wish to disregard
their responsibilities when they vote, the people of Canada will
know about it.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
one of the biggest features of our currency and its value today
has to do with uncertainty. A lot of the uncertainty has been
created by people across the way.
The Bloc motion alludes to the desire of the separatist movement
to copy the European Union. As we know, European countries have
come together to create a common currency. I think it is
appropriate that we ask ourselves why they did that. Basically
the reason is that they wanted to lessen their sovereignty
because their history has not been a happy one.
We can think of the two world wars and how nationalism
devastated some of those economies. People who have travelled to
Berlin or Warsaw have seen that most of the buildings date from
the 1950s. It does not take a lot of thought to realize what the
sovereignist movement in Europe has done. The people have said
they are trading sovereignty for economic growth and stability.
They want to come together to have a common currency. As other
speakers have mentioned, there are 11 independent countries. The
thought process is quite different in Europe than it is in North
America.
We talk about currency as if it is unique. People have traded
in coins. Indeed in this country we have used beaver pelts.
Seashells have been used in other places. These things only
represent a modicum of the exchange between people. The
important thing is the value of the trading relationship.
Members of the Bloc seem to think this is entirely in reverse,
that somehow exchange rates influence productivity. In fact
productivity and the underlying economics that exist in the
country reflect the exchange rates, not the other way around.
I will deal with the issue of a Pan-American monetary union.
Other members have alluded to the reality that within the North
American structure economic forces are divergent. We know that
our neighbour to the south dominates the economy of North
America.
I looked at the Canadian Almanac today because I was
interested in what the comparative economic relationships would
be in North America. The GDP of the province of Quebec is about
$185 billion. That represents approximately 20% of Canada's GDP.
The U.S. GDP, on the other hand, is something like $6.740
trillion. These figures do not include Mexico. Quebec's
economic strength just within the United States and Canada would
be less than 2%.
1640
Do these people really think they are going to have some say
about currency evaluations when they would only have 2% of the
economy in the Pan-American relationship? I doubt that. I think
we all know fundamentally that if we entered into an agreement
like that we would not be controlling the foreign exchange of
currency calculations, it would be someone in Washington.
It seems odd to me that separatists would actually bend
themselves out of shape. Now they want to give up their
sovereignty movement and make themselves simply a fiefdom of the
United States.
Why do we have our own independent foreign exchange rate and
currency? It allows us to manage the economy. The exchange rate
actually represents the underlying economic forces. It allows us
to adjust foreign exchange rates to deal with certain shocks that
occur in the economy.
Right now we are living through a period in which commodity
prices are depressed in world markets. Unfortunately Canada is
very susceptible to that because a significant portion of our
economy is related to commodity pricing. Commodity pricing has
changed through global forces which are quite often beyond our
control. Russia has been dumping commodity prices and the demand
in southeast Asia has also declined. These have all had an
impact on commodities in Canada.
Governments have choices. Do we change our foreign exchange
rate, our internal currency, or do we try to maintain an
artificially high exchange rate? I would suggest, in the
wonderful fairyland of the Bloc, that if it had an American
currency, suddenly that economic tool would no longer exist. The
only ways one could adjust for economic forces would be through
unemployment and high interest rates.
This is a commodity based economy to some extent, but in the
same almanac it was interesting to see the breakdown of the
province of Quebec and how the GDP figure is arrived at. It
basically stated: primary manufacturing, electric power, mining
and pulp and paper. Quite frankly, those are all commodity based
industries.
What members opposite are proposing is to adopt a Pan-American
currency, the result of which, under our current economic
conditions, would be increased unemployment in the province of
Quebec and increased local interest rates. On top of that, it
would also reduce their sovereignty.
I find it quite incredible that this is the debate that the Bloc
has brought forward to us today.
It is strange to have this kind of misguided approach to foreign
exchange. I was also surprised to find that the Conservative
Party supports this.
I think back to the history of this country, of John A.
Macdonald, the building of the great railway and the national
dreams. What has happened to them? They have become so demented
along the way that we are now accepting a separatist agenda to
reduce Canadian sovereignty at the behest of our big brothers to
the south? It is a sad day indeed for the House of Commons when
we have to go that full circle.
Speaker after speaker from the Bloc has given us an economics
101 lesson. I find it quite incredible that somehow we are in
bad shape in this country because of our foreign exchange rates.
I was greatly pleased to go to the unveiling of the KPMG book
that everybody has been talking about recently. It states that
Canada is number one in the world with respect to its competitive
position.
Yes, foreign exchange is part of that. They say that at a 79
cent dollar Canada will start to lose that competitive position.
1645
These people are suggesting that somehow we enter into a
monetary union, the net effect of which would be that we would
lose our competitive position that we now have, and at the demise
of the province of Quebec I might add. From sector to sector,
from the software sector to the high tech sector, Canada has been
rated as the number one place in the world to do business. I do
not think we want to give up that competitive position just at
some whim of the Bloc which is totally misguided. It does not
even seem to suit the Bloc's own agenda.
We should be celebrating the fact that the Canadian economy is
robust. It has the opportunity to be competitive in world
markets. I would encourage all members of the House, including
those in the Conservative Party, to stand up four square and
object to losing our sovereignty and losing our ability to make
our own economic decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this does not
make sense. First of all, the member says that, if we had the
same currency as the United States, Quebec would have no input
into monetary policies.
Quebec forms 25% of Canada, and we already have no input into
Canada's monetary policy. Is the member making fun of us? We had
no input into the Constitution or the social union agreement. We
never have any input. This will not change in an American
context.
Now let us look at the facts.
Canadian businesses already have bank accounts in U.S. dollars.
Why? Because there is a tremendous amount of trade between
Canada and the United States, to the tune of $1 billion a day.
What country is the United States' largest trading partner? Is
it Japan? Not at all. Is it Great Britain? Absolutely not. It is
Canada, and 55% of Quebec's exports go to the United States.
Our businesses here in Canada already work in U.S. dollars. They
try to stabilize uncertainties due to fluctuations by buying
what is called future contracts on the value of the U.S.
currency. We already have a highly integrated economy.
So, Mr. Know-it-all over there, holder of the absolute truth, who
refuses that a committee of the House of Commons be struck to
consider these issues, really does not know anything at all and
above all does not want to know anything.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would
take a lot of intelligence to realize we do not start studying
something which means the demise of our own economy and of our
own constituents. The member talked about what he believes to be
the fact that somehow the Quebec people have no say in monetary
policy. I would like to point out the obvious. Some of the
directors of the Bank of Canada come from the province of Quebec
and Quebec does have a say in how we arrive at monetary policy.
We deal in foreign exchange relationships all the time. As a
matter of fact I was surprised to learn the other day that the
largest flow of American dollars outside of the United States is
not in Canada but in the Soviet Union. People are using the
American dollar as a source of foreign exchange in world
denominated currency. That does not mean we have to be part of
that hegemony of the American system. In fact foreign exchange
conversion is quite healthy and quite easily done.
A lot of countries thought the American dollar was so wonderful
that they were going to peg themselves to the American dollar and
this would create stability within their own economies. We do
not have to think back further than Southeast Asia and the
Indonesian crisis and so forth and of countries which were unable
to make it. Brazil just devalued its currency. Countries could
not maintain that support level because it was artificial.
1650
The reality is that if countries cannot adjust the foreign
exchange rate domestically, someone will do it for them by the
loss of jobs, by high interest rates. It would be a brutal and
costly tool to inflict on their own population.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
listening to the hon. member's comments, I wish to clarify our
party's position on this motion. We are supporting this motion.
We believe this is an important issue that deserves discussion
by members of parliament. Economists are discussing this issue as
we are here today. They have been discussing this issue for
months. I suggest that there are probably bureaucrats in the
Department of Finance who are discussing this issue. As their
elected officials, we owe Canadians at least that amount of
respect to discuss the issue in this House.
I spoke to the reasons I am personally opposed to a common
currency at this time. They are many of the same reasons the
hon. member articulated. His party was the same party that
opposed free trade in 1988. His party in the 1993 election in
which he was elected opposed the GST. We cannot take the
Liberals seriously.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the
opposition from time to time comes out and says “Is it not a
terrible thing that you whip your caucus?” This man just said
he disagrees with his own party's support of this motion yet he
is going to stand up tonight and support it. Where does that put
him?
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Yukon, Aboriginal affairs; the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, The budget.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not really a debate about monetary policy. My
colleague from Durham came closer to the truth when he mentioned
words like sovereignty in this debate. This is really a debate
about national identity and the preservation of national
identity.
As far back in time as money began, in the ancient city states
of Greece, money represented and contained on it the images of
the state. Usually on one side was a god or goddess and on the
other side, some symbol of the state. In Roman times, the Romans
put the effigy of Caesar on their coinage. They used that effigy
to establish their identity throughout the civilized world at the
time, all of the Mediterranean. In about 100 AD a coin with
Caesar's head on it could be found anywhere, even in Britain.
That coin said Rome.
Money still conveys that image. It still has that purpose. No
country knows that better than the United States of America. The
Americans know full well that when their dollar is circulated
around the world, it says to the world “We are the most powerful
country in the world”. It also says “We are successful. These
are our values”. As the member for Durham mentioned, in the
Soviet Union the real money of commerce is the American dollar.
Earlier this year I was on holiday in Belize. Belize is a
small English speaking country on the shoulder of the Yucatan
Peninsula
in Central America.
Belize uses the Belizean dollar. It looks identical to the
Canadian dollar, complete with the Queen. On the reverse of the
Belizean dollar, the paper currency, there is a scene of Belize.
Nevertheless, when it is flipped over, the Queen can be seen. It
is similar to a Canadian bank note. I suspect that the Belizean
dollar is actually manufactured in this city. Of course, the
Canadian authorities print money for many countries around the
world.
In Belize things can equally be bought with the Belizean dollar
or the American dollar. I suggest there already is a
pan-American currency in use everywhere in the western hemisphere
and that is the American dollar.
In any store on Sparks Street paying in Canadian currency is
fine, but paying in American currency is fine as well.
We already have precisely the kind of pan-American currency that
is proposed by the Bloc motion.
1655
In Europe there is a long tradition of national independence,
especially in France and England. The arrival and the power of
the American currency in Europe has caused great concern and
distress. Particularly France is concerned about losing its
national culture, symbols and sense of identity to a kind of
American hegemony worldwide.
This sentiment is echoed worldwide, the fear that the United
States will establish its values everywhere. We have reason to
fear that because global television now penetrates every corner
of the world. English and American values are dominating the
cultural message that is going out across the world.
One of the few things we as national identities have left to
preserve our sense of self is our money. I was absolutely
mortified and distressed in the 1980s before I ever became an MP
when the previous government, the government of Brian Mulroney,
came along and changed the Canadian currency, changed it to make
it more neutral, less patriotic, less Canadian.
When I was young, as a paper boy I can remember the first time I
obtained my own earned money. Collecting door to door I would be
given a one dollar bill or a five dollar bill. Money in those
days had scenes of Canada. I remember as a child looking at
those bills and thinking that is my country.
Mulroney came along and as part of this whole pandering to the
Quebec nationalists, the Quebec sovereignists, Mulroney tried to
take away many symbols that represented Canada from things like
our postage stamps and our money. I suggest that if we, and when
I say we I mean all of us, French-speaking Canadians and
English-speaking Canadians, want to preserve a sense of who we
are, whether we think of ourselves in one region or another
region, then we have to preserve those few symbols that are left
to us as Canadians.
I suggest that in no independent country of Quebec is there ever
going to be a currency that could survive for more than two
weeks. Even in the proposition of independence was the
suggestion that a separate Quebec would adopt a Canadian
currency.
If that is the rule, that Quebec separate, alone or together,
cannot have anything better than the American dollar bill to
represent the French-speaking fact of this country, then how long
would that French-speaking fact survive? It would not survive
because the Americans are not tolerant of the nature of this
land. The nature of this land is this beautiful country that
includes two very strong linguistic cultures. That has no part
in the American plan.
I see members of the Bloc Quebecois smiling. If they were to go
to France they would hear the French talk about the Americans and
the dominance of the English language in France, of Disney World
and all the symbols of the United States that are invading
France. The French understand how necessary it is to protect
their country with its own symbols.
I suggest there is a reason for the Euro. It was recognized in
Europe among those 11 countries that if they were going to
survive not just as an economic entity but as a sovereign entity
against the American cultural power, they had to have their own
currency.
What is behind all of this is not monetary policy because it
really has nothing to do with that. We are in a global economy.
This really has to do with images, symbols and a sense of
ourselves, be we Canadians or Albertans.
1700
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think the member said “be we Canadians or
Albertans”. I think Albertans are Canadians as well.
That being said, I agree with what the hon. member said in his
speech today. I just want assurance that the Liberal Party will
not change its position.
I remember back in 1974 when Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau
campaigned against price and wage controls against Bob Stanfield
from Nova Scotia and the famous line “zap, you are frozen”. He
won a majority government and all of a sudden in came wage and
price controls.
I remember the famous GST debate when the predecessor of the
Reform Party, its hero Brian Mulroney brought, in the GST. Who
campaigned against the GST? The Liberal Party. It is in power.
I just checked today and the GST is still there. The Liberals
changed their minds.
I also remember a famous free trade debate once again brought in
by the Conservative Party. I see free trade is still there. The
Liberals changed their minds.
Will the Liberal Party to be a chameleon from here to eternity
or can we trust that what the member is now saying will remain as
Liberal policy for at least the next four or five years?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to inform
the member that since 1993 with this Liberal government,
backbench Liberal MPs have been fully engaged in helping to
create policy. I can assure him that through committee, through
caucus, we will set the government on the right course,
protecting our national sovereignty.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the chronicle by the previous speaker is so
accurate. All this was of course set out in the red book, which
is almost as red as some of the government members' faces
whenever these inconsistencies are brought up.
I think the hon. member does raise a very good point when he
talks about the actual issue here being sovereignty. It is not
so much sovereignty. The Bloc, in fairness, has brought this
motion forward to examine the issue, an issue that is taking
place everywhere else in the world and, as previous speakers have
indicated, something that is very likely going on right now in
the Department of National Revenue. The issue is not necessarily
about sovereignty today. It is about examining something that
needs to be looked at.
We want to make it very clear. I do not know if there is some
hidden agenda here that was alluded to by the hon. member.
Perhaps we should beware the ides of March. The Conservative
Party is not supportive in any way, shape or form of having a
dollar tied to the Americans or having a common currency. We are
supporting, however, looking at this issue further in a
committee. That is the position we are putting forward.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I submit that when a party
supports a motion like this, it has to take whatever is behind
the motion as well as the motion at face value.
It is very obvious in my mind that the question of money and the
symbolic importance of money is very central to how we identify
ourselves as countrymen. I caution the member that perhaps he
has not thought of this aspect. I have raised this aspect and I
had hoped in view of that he might consider how his party will
vote on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to the debate from the very beginning, and I think the
last Liberal speaker gave us a very good illustration of the
Liberal position. Liberals are stuck with symbols of the past,
they are looking to the past, and they have a hard time getting
involved in modern debates that are forward looking, because
they feel threatened and they are afraid of coming to grips with
their own identity.
In his remarks, the hon. member has never mentioned economic
arguments or the impact on exports, which would make an
interesting debate, or the transition to be made if we are to
have a new currency. There is not a single economic argument in
his remarks. His favorite words were pride, symbols, and value.
That reminds me a lot of the debate on free trade.
Here is my question to the hon. member. Since he said that our
currency represents his pride of being Canadian, his identity,
the sense of belonging he feels when he looks at the Canadian
dollar, could he explain why this proud symbol represents the
Queen of England? Is that symbol of the past what makes him so
proud of being Canadian? He is not even able to have on his own
currency more proper symbols of Canadian culture.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the member
more for his observation because I believe absolutely that it is
high time we changed those symbols. I would like on all Canadian
dollars and all Canadian currency the symbol of the Canadian
flag.
The hon. member is absolutely right. It is high time this
country cut those symbolic ties to Britain and stood up for
itself, Canada united, all of us.
1705
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to address the Bloc motion today which I shall read
into the record so members and people watching this on television
will understand what we are doing:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special parliamentary
committee of the House of Commons should be struck in order to
consider the possibility of Canada's participation in the
creation of pan-American monetary union.
On behalf of the Reform Party, I think my colleagues do not have
anything against the motion or do not have great concerns about
this motion. It is well and fine to discuss this and send it to
some kind of committee. That is not a problem at all. What I am
concerned about is that in doing this we will start to take some
of the attention away from the dreadful record of this government
when it comes to the Canadian dollar. I will address that in a
moment.
First let me address some of the pros and cons of having a
pan-American currency. Many people have discussed this lately
with the advent of the Euro. There are some good aspects and
some bad aspects. The sovereignty issue is one of the biggest
issues people are concerned about. Their concerns are very
valid. The Canadian currency is a repository for many of our
symbols. My colleagues in the Liberal Party have made some good
arguments about that. That is fine. We acknowledge that that is
a big issue.
Some of the pros of doing this, of having a pan-American
currency, would be things like business issues. Some businesses
have for a very long time been sheltered from competitive
pressures because the dollar has been used as a buffer to protect
them. All of a sudden that would be gone. They would then be
forced to compete and improve their products and services. In
doing that they would raise the standard of living of Canadians.
That is one of the great advantages.
There are disadvantages too. We are in a country where so much
of our GDP is dependent on commodity prices. We have seen this
recently. If all of a sudden commodity prices go in the tank and
the dollar cannot adjust for it, we run into a situation where we
may have some dislocation, some unemployment and those sorts of
things. We should have that discussion but it is not timely to
have that discussion today.
The real issue today and the things we have discussed in the
House of Commons in the last couple of days are the ones we
should keep discussing. I am talking about this government's
dreadful record in protecting the Canadian dollar under the
system we currently have.
This is an important issue not because it is important that our
dollar be at some particular number or figure but because where
the dollar is tells us something about the state of the Canadian
economy. Many people regard the dollar and the level it is at as
a barometer of the health of the Canadian economy. We should
become concerned when we see it fall to record lows. We saw that
happen this summer. Frankly, it has barely budged from that
point.
It was not long ago, in fact just a few years ago, when we had
the current finance minister, at the time running for the
leadership of the Liberal Party, rip the Conservative finance
minister at that time, Michael Wilson, because the dollar had
fallen below 80 cents. He said it would be a free fall. It
would collapse if it went below 70 cents. Under this government
it is at 65 cents. It is bad enough that the dollar has fallen.
When our dollar is that weak it effectively means that Canadian
families have to face a pay cut because they are now buying
imports with those cheaper dollars. That in and of itself is a
bad thing.
It goes beyond that. As I said, the state of the dollar is also
a barometer of the health of the economy. When the dollar falls
that dramatically and is so listless as it is today that tells us
a lot about the policies of the government. It tells us a lot
about the fiscal policies of this government.
1710
Let us discuss some of those. We know Canadian productivity is
absolutely in the tank. We have report after report drawing
attention to this. We see the OECD issue a report that talks
about Canadian productivity falling dramatically although at one
point we were one of the leaders in the world. We know from
companies like Nesbitt Burns that our productivity is in the
tank. The industry department of the Government of Canada has
pointed out that Canadian productivity is lagging.
As we know from economics 101, if we are producing less, not as
much as other countries, if our productivity is not staying up
there, we are not producing as much wealth and our standard of
living is falling. That is one of the primary reasons why
Canadians today feel hard done by. They do not necessarily
understand all the arguments being made in this place today but
they know they just do not have as much money as they used to
have at the end of the month to pay the bills. That is a
tragedy. This is not just an economic debate. It is a debate
about the situation many Canadian families are in today.
Just before Christmas the industry minister revealed, perhaps
unwittingly, the policy of this government when he said that high
taxes aid productivity in Canada. That is what the industry
minister, the would-be finance minister, said. The Reform Party,
the official opposition, thinks the industry minister is off his
rocker. We say that high taxes are one of the things that kill
productivity in the country. We say that high taxes make us less
competitive. We say that when you have high taxes you have a
weak currency. That is exactly what we told the government again
today.
The government's defence is to drag out a report done by KPMG
consulting that states that the two biggest selling advantages of
Canada when we try to promote it around the world to attract
investment are low wages and a weak currency. Talk about trying
to put the best face on a bad situation. It does not talk about
how our taxes are so competitive and how we are attracting
business that way, in the manner Ireland has done it over the
past several years, or the United States, the U.K. or other
countries.
The government trots out these arguments which at best would
seem to be acts of desperation when it starts boasting that we
have low wages. The fact that we have low wages may attract some
business but my friends across the way would have to admit it is
a third world argument. The people who are being paid those low
wages are not very thrilled about it. They want to see wages
going up.
We see this pattern over and over again where the government is
faced with all this bad news and tries desperately to put some
good face on it. It would take 100 Mary Kay beauty consultants
to dress that argument up and make it look good. Canadians do
not buy it for a second. They are tired of seeing their standard
of living eroded, and they see it over and over again under this
government. They see taxes going through the roof, they see a
$580 billion debt and they intuitively understand that is
connected to the state of the Canadian dollar and their eroding
standard of living.
We ask the government to set aside the feeble arguments it has
been making about Canada being attractive because we do not pay
our people very well and Canadians are willing to work for
peanuts. Set those arguments aside and address the issue head on
and say we have a tax problem. Our taxes are 30% to 40% higher
than in the United States.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Say don't come to Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I am being dressed down by the junior
minister of finance, the selfsame member who dressed down
homemakers the other day. Do not get me started on that. I do
not think the minister wants to hear about that again.
We encourage the government to face this issue head on. Instead
of getting engulfed in a debate about a pan-American currency,
which is a fine debate to have at some point, let us address the
things we can do something about to not only improve the
productivity of the Canadian workforce and make our businesses
more productive but to put more money into people's pockets, to
reward them for the job they have done in balancing Canada's
budget, to reward them for creating the wealth that makes Canada
one of the greatest countries in the world to live in.
1715
Those people should be rewarded. In so doing we will find that
our dollar will start to strengthen. My friends in the Bloc, in
the Liberal Party, in the Conservative Party and in the NDP would
agree that if we ever had a debate on a pan-American currency and
decided for some reason to actually proceed with a pan-American
currency, it would be an awful leap to go from 65 cents Canadian
to a full $1 and not have all kinds of dislocation as a result.
In the meantime, why do we not take some steps with the tools we
already have to improve the strength of the Canadian economy and
thereby the Canadian dollar? Why do we not start to cut taxes?
Why do we not pay down the debt?
The government had a golden opportunity with the last budget.
What did it do? It blew it. Instead of taking what would have
been a very large surplus and using it to start to cut taxes in a
meaningful way, it dramatically increased spending. Its spending
budget was $104.5 billion. Instead of sticking to that budget it
decided to go over budget by almost $8 billion.
If I were in the private sector and did something like that, I
would be kicking stones down the road and without a job. However,
each and every year the government goes over budget. It raised
next year's spending projections by $4 billion. It goes on and
on.
The government has the tools to begin to address the problem of
a weak Canadian currency. It simply refuses to act. Despite all
the rhetoric we heard from the finance minister when he was on
this side of the House and pursuing the Liberal leadership, the
government has the tools and it refuses to use them.
Now all of a sudden the spectre of a pan-American currency is
raised as some way to get us out of this mess. We say that
debate is much too premature. We do not need to have that
discussion today. In fact, we think it takes the heat off
government which for too long has delayed dealing with the issue
of productivity and strengthening the dollar. We would much
rather see it address this issue head on.
I have talked a lot about the failure of the government's
record. It is a record it should be embarrassed about. I simply
ask my friends across the way to not take my word for it. Let me
quote from people who watch the performance of the government.
Here is a March 5 press release from Nesbitt Burns:
Canada's poor productivity performance is the result of
confiscatory and uncompetitive tax rates—and dramatic tax cuts
are urgently needed in order to boast economic activity, job
creation and income growth.
We have all kinds of quotes from the Conference Board of Canada,
CIBC, Wood Gundy, and on and on they go, about the horrible
performance of the government when it comes to productivity.
I will not only criticize. I will offer some concrete solutions
on what to do about this problem. The first thing we should do
is not get sidetracked on this debate about a pan-American
currency.
The second thing we should do is take the surpluses we have and
instead of spending them on all kinds of ridiculous programs, as
the government does each and every year—
Mr. Tony Valeri: Like on health care and education.
Mr. Monte Solberg: My friend across the way says “health
care”. No, I am not talking about health care. I am talking
about regional development grants which the government uses year
after year despite the fact that the auditor general and many of
the pro-business groups in the country find them completely
distortionary and completely wasteful. They actually do much
more harm than they do good.
Once we freeze the level of spending at $104.5 billion and
reallocate money within that envelope toward higher priority
programs like health care, we argue the government would be able
to run up some large surpluses and use those to start the process
of giving Canadians tax relief.
1720
The government will argue it gave tax relief. If we look at the
numbers and calculate the tax relief the government gave against
the tax increases it brought in, we find that over the next three
years Canadians will be $2.2 billion worse off. That is no
solution. We need to have dramatic net tax relief.
That is why we are advocating $26 billion in tax relief, which
would amount to $4,600 for the average single income earner with
a family of four. This would be a tremendous amount of money
left in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. That money could be
used to spend on things they want to spend it on. That would
help our productivity. We need $17 billion to pay down the
record high levels of debt in Canada today of $580 billion. We
need to start paying that down.
Instead of getting into the argument about a pan-American
currency, instead of trying to hide behind the very feeble
arguments that we found in the KPMG report which came out the
other day, we urge the government to face the issue head on.
It is time to give Canadians a break. They are the ones who
balance the budget. They are the ones who produce the wealth in
the country. Let us give them a break. Let us not continue to
find ways to waste this money like the government always does,
without fail. No matter what government it is, Liberal or Tory,
it seems to find a way to waste it. Let us give that money back
to taxpayers. They are the ones who balance the budget. They
are the ones that deserve to benefit from the money going to the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
to the arguments of our Reform Party colleague and I was under
the impression he agreed we should study the issue but then it
became clear that he wished there were other priorities.
I would like the member to answer my questions. Recently, our
dollar has been falling and this helped Canadian companies in
the natural resources area to maintain their export levels.
However, as the dollar falls, other businesses in Quebec and
Canada see the cost of importing raw materials and finished
products rise. Our economy is not just based on primary
products. Our economy is more diversified.
We have problems with the rate of exchange.
Let us consider hockey players, for instance. Earlier, another
member talked about the symbolic importance of a currency for
national pride. Now in our national sport, hockey, players want
to be paid in U.S. dollars. I think something is wrong and we
should ask ourselves questions.
Executives of large businesses also often ask to be paid in U.S.
dollars. Why? Because our dollar can be worth 66 cents today and
only 64 cents a year later. This represents a loss of salary of
almost 3 to 4% for someone who is paid in Canadian dollars
compared to U.S. dollars.
Let us consider the long term development plans of a business
wishing to export to the American market in five years.
How much will the Canadian dollar be worth then? Let us go back
five years. Our dollar was worth 70 cents. It lost about 12%,
but regained some of its value. How can we have long term export
plans to the American market in those circumstances? We have
problems.
There are many issues we should address and I will conclude on
that. Should we have a common North American or pan-American
currency? Should we have a floating dollar or a dollar on a par?
Should we have new monetary instruments? The bottom line is there
are solutions but we will find them only if we raise issues. This
is why the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that a committee be
struck.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I recognize and agree
with many of the points my colleague from the Bloc has made. I
think we need to have this discussion somewhere down the road.
I am concerned that in getting involved in this discussion the
heat will come off the government for its disastrous track record
when it comes to the Canadian dollar. The government has allowed
the productivity of the country to fall because of its high tax,
high debt policies. As a result we see the ability of many
Canadian companies being in peril when it comes to competing
around the world.
The way to fix this is not to let the government off the hook by
becoming involved in some wide ranging debate about monetary
union and that sort of thing.
The way to deal with it is to go back and undo the disastrous
policies of the government.
1725
We do not need any more high tax policies. We have to reverse
the trend to regulate the Canadian economy to the point where
business almost chokes on the amount of paperwork it has to go
through in the course of a day.
We are saying the emphasis is the bone of contention of the
Reform Party. We need to put emphasis on fixing the fiscal
policies of the country. Then we will see a stronger dollar and
at that point have this debate in full.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat connected the standard of
living with the low dollar on several occasions in his speech.
Would he not agree that the standard of living is actually tied
to purchasing power as well as to the level of the dollar? As a
matter of fact it is more tied to purchasing power.
All the member has to do is travel to Italy, England, any
European country or Japan, for that matter, to find that the real
cost of consumer goods, particularly essential goods, is far
higher in comparison to Canada. I am talking about rent,
foodstuffs and whatever.
This is probably the reason we are still considered by the
United Nations as one of the richest countries in the world. Our
standard of living is very high. Even though our dollar is low
relative to other countries, its purchasing power in Canada is
still very high.
The argument he presented, in particular with respect to the low
dollar, does not hang together very well. What we are talking
about is that when we have a low dollar relative to other nations
it attracts investment in the country and encourages the buying
of exports. It is a net positive thing rather than a negative
thing.
I would like to pose a direct question to the hon. member on the
suggestion that somehow the Americans would agree to set their
dollar aside for some kind of pan-American special currency. Does
he not agree that is pie in the sky, a total dream? The
Americans are tough guys in the world when it comes to monetary
policy, fiscal policy and economics, and there is no way they
would ever give any time to such an idea.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, as the member knows,
never is a long time. In a sense I think the debate is
irrelevant. At this point we are far from being in a position
where the Canadian public would even consider having a debate
about it. I do not see the point of going down this road at this
time.
The far more important issue, and the issue that is important to
the pocketbooks of Canadians today, is the fact that our low
productivity means we have a lower standard of living and that is
reflected in a low dollar.
My friend has said that a low dollar is a positive thing. I say
to him that if a low dollar is a positive thing we should hope
for a 40 cent dollar, a 20 cent dollar, a 10 cent dollar. Then
we could imagine how prosperous we would really be.
We heard about the KPMG study where the government is saying low
wages are a great reason to come to Canada. The government
should be bloody well ashamed of that argument. It is
embarrassing to the government and to members across the way that
they would trot that out as a reason for people to come to
Canada. I hope they apologize.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As far as I am concerned bloody well is not appropriate
language for the House of Commons.
I think you should rule, Madam Speaker, that the member is out
of order and should ask him to apologize. We are on television.
School is out completely in Ontario and in many other parts of
the country. Children are watching this broadcast and I do not
think bloody well is appropriate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member to be very prudent in his choice of words.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, our Reform
Party colleague scornfully tells us that the debate is
irrelevant.
1730
He would like speedy tax reform to increase productivity, but
there are always two ways of attaining one's goals in life: get
there directly through tax reform, and he knows very well that
the present government does not seem to want to move quickly in
that direction; or get there indirectly.
If one wants to establish a balance of power during
negotiations, this debate about striking a committee to consider
the matter will certainly put us in the position of having to
carry out a tax reform.
I think the debate is badly aligned. If the motion is well
drafted, and I believe that it is, it contains no mention of a
common currency.
It talks about a pan-American monetary union. This in no way
excludes national currencies.
I would like to ask the member if he in fact makes a distinction
between a common currency and a pan-American monetary union that
retains national currencies as is, with a strict variation in
the rate of exchange.
I think the motion has been well drafted but very badly
understood by all members of the House, and I would ask him to
provide some clarification.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I guess I see the
actual motion as a bit of a distraction from the important issue
of the day which is that Canadians are seeing their standard of
living eroded. We see the government coming up with trumped up,
very feeble arguments as to why that is somehow a good thing and
the way to attract business.
I would hate to see the debate get off track and get away from
that when the government has something to account for. That is
why I am not really opposed to having the discussion but opposed
to having any amount of emphasis put on it at this time. It may
be a discussion for somewhere down the road.
There is no magic bullet to fixing this problem. There is no
single solution that will fix it. The best way to address the
issue of a weak currency is to ensure that Canadian business and
investment is competitive. The way to do that is to start to cut
taxes and pay down debt. That is the way to address this.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I feel like I have been watching a ping-pong match and
wondering who the players are because we have a member of the
Conservative Party saying this is not about common currency. We
have a member of the Reform Party saying the Canadian public does
not want to have this debate but he thinks it should go to a
committee anyway.
It is really quite bizarre but it has helped me today in one
way. I finally discovered what the united alternative is. I see
the member for York South—Weston who would be their leader. Let
me tell the member what he will be leading. He will be the
Conservatives and the Reformers, and the bed will be awfully
crowded because it will be full of separatists. It is truly mind
boggling. That is what we are hearing.
We should take this debate today and play it back for the
members opposite just to see how much they have gone from here to
there during today's debate. It is quite remarkable. The member
for Saint John must be shaking her head. She is coming out to
give some leadership to her caucus colleague, to say “you didn't
really say we were going to support this”. She is probably
having apoplectic attacks over the fact that someone in her
caucus has committed her caucus to vote in favour of this.
Why would that bother a true Canadian? My colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington hit the nail on the head. For someone else
to suggest there may be a hidden agenda is bizarre. What is the
driving force behind the Bloc every day?
An hon. member: It's the Bloc.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says it is the Bloc. It is
worse than that. Every day its raison d'être, its reason for
coming to work, is to destroy Canada.
An hon. member: It's a paycheque.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe it is a paycheque. That is a
bonus, and only in Canada would we be stupid enough to give
paycheques to people who want to destroy the country. It is
absolutely amazing.
An hon. member: Point of order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: There is a point of order over there.
He does not like the amount of his paycheque, I guess.
1735
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member opposite is trying to say that I do not earn my pay
cheque. I am a duly elected member just as he is. I do my job
and I ask him to withdraw his words.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Once again I advise
members to please use their words very judiciously.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I thought I did. I
made the point and I will make it again. Only in a country like
Canada, where our dedication to democratic principles is clearly
the highest in the world, would this institution allow for
paycheques to be handed out to individuals who are dedicated to
the destruction of this place and this country. If they want to
take offence that is their problem. It is really quite amazing.
What we see is this crowded bed. It is clear to me that the
so-called hidden agenda is not really so hidden. Their
counterpart, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, a former
cabinet minister in a Conservative government, has said that he
is dedicated to creating winning conditions. Those would be
winning conditions so that he could win a referendum, so that he
could lead the province of Quebec out of the federation of
Canada. That is their goal. No one can deny that. They can rise
all day long if they wish.
Since Bloc members have been elected by certain people in the
province of Quebec I presume that they support Mr. Bouchard's
position. If not they should rise on a point of order and tell
us they do not agree with their premier. Clearly they are
attempting to create winning conditions so they can take their
province out of this country.
This motion is supposedly not about common currency. It is
about a united pan-American monetary policy without currency. We
will have funny money, Canadian Tire money. Maybe they will
accept that.
An hon. member: What is wrong with Canadian Tire?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Nothing is wrong with Canadian Tire.
It is great. This member would obviously try to build an economy
on a foundation of coupons. We have a policy on the books being
debated that we should convert to a system of coupons. It would
not surprise me if that is where the supposed would-be leader of
the united alternative tried to lead this great country.
The point I want to make is that the Bloc is interested only in
undermining anything Canadian. It would undermine anything that
stands for principles of democracy in this country. That is its
goal. It wants to destroy the country. It is in its interests
for it to pass a motion if it believes or subscribes to that
particular policy.
Let us be soft and gentle. Let us send it to committee. It
really will not hurt anybody. It is interesting. This is an
opposition day. This is the opposition's opportunity to put on
the floor of the House of Commons issues of concern to its
constituencies, to its party, to the people of the nation.
Why would it not talk about some of the things that concern all
parliamentarians if it is doing its job on an equal footing? Why
would it not talk about poverty? It is a problem. We in the
government have to acknowledge that. It is a problem that we
intend to do something about. We will work with the Canadian
people toward ending it.
Why would it not talk about housing programs? We know what the
provinces have done across this land. I know what happened the
minute Mike Harris took office in Ontario. He cancelled all
social housing in the entire province.
1740
Why would we not have a debate about that? Maybe it is time the
federal government got back involved along with the provinces,
along with the area municipalities, along with the regions, along
with the non-profit housing corporations, along with the
charitable sector and along with the private sector. It is time
we got involved in housing.
Why would we not have a substantive debate over something like
that? Opposition members want to put forward nonsensical motions
the Canadian public could care less about. It is concerned about
those issues that hit it.
I want to talk about the Reform for a minute. I do not often do
that. I will take a minute because I was very interested to hear
the member for Medicine Hat say Canadians are not producing. It
is fair game for these members opposite to stand up in this place
and take their best shot at the government. Go ahead, we are big
boys and big girls. We can handle it. They have trouble taking
it back.
Why would that respected member, the finance critic for his
party, criticize Canadians and say that they are not producing?
Why would he lead an attack on the Canadian people? The truth is
the Canadian people are hardworking, honest, dedicated and
community oriented. We have a wonderful country with wonderful
people in it.
It seems to be in the interests of members of the opposition to
stand up and denigrate Canadians right across this land. I fail
to understand it. He then said Canadians do not understand what
we are debating here today. I wrote it down the minute he said
it.
Let me tell the member what they do understand. They understand
they are not Americans. They understand they are not
separatists. They understand they are not extremists. They are
Canadians. They understand and they do not want to be any of
those things.
A Conservative member made reference to the ides of March. It
reminded me that we are only two days away from St. Patrick's
Day, which then reminded me of that wonderful photo op that
occurred when Ronald Reagan and then Prime Minister Mulroney sang
“When Irish Eyes are Smiling”. There was a wonderful sense of
warmth and feeling in this country as Mulroney climbed into bed
with the elephant on one side and the separatist on the other
side. This is clearly déjà vu all over again.
The Tories will support this motion. That is remarkable. The
Tories are actually agreeing that we should go to committee and
discuss what amounts to the break-up of this nation. I find it
astounding.
An hon. member: Every sparrow that falls.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am not sure what the member means by
that.
The opposition is uniting to support a motion because its
members see an opportunity to derail and to set the agenda. The
NDP has not said it will support this, so there is a tad of
common sense on the left extreme in this place. I am pleased to
say that.
In this section why are those members doing this? They want to
drive the agenda. They want to throw a cog into the wheel of
government any way they can. It does not matter. They have
principles and if we do not like them, they have others. It is
not a problem.
If we have to mess things up in this place by supporting a Bloc
motion, one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever
heard of, they are not beyond doing that. They will lower
themselves to whatever level of expectation or non-expectation,
and the Tories agree.
Why would they not? If they were prepared to go dancing with
Mr. Bouchard, why would they not climb into the sack with these
guys here? It does not surprise me at all.
What we have is a regionalization of the political spectrum
across this country.
An hon. member: Who did that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Brian Mulroney did that. I thank the
member for asking the question. Keep throwing me more little
tidbits. It helps.
1745
We have regionalization. We have a western based party that is
so confused it has actually gone to the rank and file in the
Reform Party and said it wants to close shop. It does not think
it can go any further than it has been.
I had an interesting opportunity when I was an observer delegate
on behalf of the federal Liberal Party at the united alternative
conference. It was like sticking a thousand pins in my eyes for
the entire weekend, but I did it and saw the most incredible
thing I could not believe.
When Jean Allaire, a committed separatist, stood to speak to the
gathered throng of some 1,500 mostly Reformers, there was a
standing ovation. Can anyone imagine a standing ovation? Then
Rodrigue Biron, a noted economist from the province of Quebec who
is also a committed separatist, addressed this august or not so
august body, and once again a standing ovation occurred. I could
not understand how this could happen.
For the last couple of weeks I travelled throughout the west on
a task force meeting with folks from Richmond, Vancouver, Calgary
and Winnipeg. There are no separatists out there. They are all
true, red blooded Canadians. They believe in this land and the
sea to sea to sea motto in spite of the fact that the political
poobahs of the Reform Party ran those disgusting adds during the
last election campaign. People in western Canada want Quebec to
stay in Canada. Of course there are some who do not but the vast
majority in their hearts want to keep this land strong and
united.
It was quite remarkable to sit at this united alternative
conference, which I must admit was only attended by two members
of the Conservative caucus who were there more as spies than as
any kind of supporter. They were not very happy and a little
confused. I am sure they have been whipped into shape now and
are back in line.
A number of the Conservative riding associations fired any of
the delegates who attended. They kicked them right out of the
party. That is called inclusiveness. It was quite interesting.
In a certain way I do not blame the Conservatives. Why would
they want to do that? They just went through a process where
they elected an old leader to come back and help lead them to the
promised land. Even though the leader of the Reform Party is
throwing his entire party into the waste bin, at least the
Conservative Party had the common sense not to do that.
We all agree in this place, even the Bloc members, their main
goal or reason for being here is to lead their province out of
Confederation. They want to enter into negotiations to have a
pan-American monetary policy. The question has been put as to
whether it would be the American dollar. Would the Americans
just sit down and say that it does not matter, that they will
cash in their chips and start a new dollar of some kind?
If that happened, would that be the thin edge of the wedge that
would eventually lead Canada to no longer having a currency, an
identity or a position on the international monetary scene? We
would be seen as just sort of a hick-up on the side of some new
pan-American dollar. That might lead to the break-up.
We would have a Canada divided along monetary lines. Its
characteristics and its strengths would be totally destroyed and
Quebec would see itself as being on its own. Who would Quebec
have to deal with in that event? It would have to deal with the
Yankees.
I want to know how many here think the Americans would tolerate
separatism for more than a hick-up. Not a chance. In no
circumstances would separatists be able to go into the hallowed
halls of congress and debate that they should be allowed to
separate from that body. It just would not be accepted or
tolerated.
1750
One Bloc member made the comment that living beside an elephant
can be quite expensive. It is a heck of a lot better than
sleeping with one in case it rolls over. That could be a little
more than expensive. In essence that is where this would lead us
if we were to follow it.
What a terrible waste of time, effort and money in this place
and in our committee system when we should be talking to
Canadians about what we will do for our youth, how we will help
our young people. I am chairing a task force on youth
entrepreneurship. I am honoured to do so, to be able to travel
the country to meet with young people, to listen to their hopes
and their dreams, to listen to what government should be doing to
assist them in creating a future for themselves.
The reality is that young people realize economic times have
changed. They may not simply be able to rely on a job from a
large company any more. They might have to be more creative. It
is amazing how creative our young people are. I met with eight
young entrepreneurs in Regina at a round table. They told me
their stories of how they had opened their businesses, how they
were proud to be Canadians, and how they were proud to be young,
working and succeeding.
There is such a positive story to tell but all we hear is the
doomsayers, the negatives, the Reformers, the sky is falling. I
have news for them. The sky is not falling; the sky is the limit
in this great country.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, should we
laugh or cry? It would appear some people are suffering from
microcephaly.
First, my colleague across the way suggested sovereignist
members from the Bloc were lucky to receive a salary. Quebec
contributes 24% of the funds in the federal coffers. Year after
year my riding alone sends around $400 million to Ottawa, and my
paycheck is paid by my constituents, like every member of this
House.
It is insidious on the part of my colleague opposite to suggest
that because we are sovereignists we are lesser democrats, we do
not do our job as well as others and we are less deserving of
our salary. This is unacceptable, and I hope my colleague
opposite will withdraw what he said.
Second, the motion introduced in this House by the Bloc is aimed
at striking a committee to review extremely important matters
regarding trade within the Americas. This issue deserves to be
reviewed. It is extremely timely, which is being raised not only
here, but also in Argentina and in the United States.
I point out that for years Panama's currency has been at par
with the US dollar. Of course, its trade situation is very
special because of the Panama Canal.
In my previous life as a computer consultant, I visited Panama
and realized that using the American dollar made trade a lot
simpler.
Would it be the same here if we had the tools to prevent
exchange rates from fluctuating? These are questions we have.
They are important.
In conclusion, the Liberal member, and all his Liberal
colleagues who took part in the debate today, would be well
advised, instead of showing their ignorance of facts, to let
such a committee do what it takes to inform us.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, with a pan-American monetary
agreement, Canada would no doubt have to adopt the American
currency or a new currency, a new, completely new dollar system,
which would be dominated by the American political interests.
Under that new system, Canada would give up its national
monetary policy, which is an integral part of its sovereignty.
1755
[English]
This is about giving up sovereignty. This is about destroying
the country. I do not care if the member is happy with his
paycheque. I am not happy that he is getting paid to sit here
and destroy Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very solemn moment for me. I have been sitting here in silence
for some 20 minutes while the member illustrated to me, to the
House of Commons and to the people of Canada why there is a
separatist party and why there is a Reform Party. I did not
create it.
We in the west, the people of Quebec and the people of Atlantic
Canada have tolerated for too many years being denigrated, being
minimized and being insulted. It went all the way from Trudeau
and his famous one finger salute to his denigrating statements
against farmers. It continued with Mulroney and his arrogance
and his father knows best attitude over the whole country, and it
continues. I humbly want to say that illustrates why the Reform
is here.
It would be good advice for Liberal members to watch the speech
on television again, to review it and ask themselves the heart
rending question: “Do you win friends by ripping into them the
way the member did?”
We had a speaker at the united alternative who told us about the
concerns of Quebec. He saw in our group some hope for solving
the problem and staying in the country. We gave him a proud
standing ovation and I would do it again. This member who was
present has it all wrong.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was fumbling around
looking for some Kleenex and I am sorry I could not find any. Are
members aware of what the separatist said at the united
alternative conference? He closed his remarks with these words:
“My language, my country”, and the member across gave him a
standing ovation.
As a Canadian it is my view that no one who believes in the
country should give a standing ovation to an avowed separatist
who came before a group legitimately trying to start a new party
because the old one is dead. I understand that. Obviously they
have to do something. For them to give a standing ovation is
nothing more than an embarrassment to the people they represent.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too have a question for the quiet, shy, unassuming,
modest, very low key, low profile member from Toronto.
An hon. member: Mississauga.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mississauga. I want to know whether
the member will maintain his position of being against the common
currency for the next few weeks or months because Liberals tend
to speak one way and then suddenly change their minds.
I think of the promise against wage and price controls in 1974
when Trudeau said “Zap, you are frozen”. What did he do? He
brought them in. I think of the GST. The member for York
South—Weston is here. He campaigned against the GST. The GST
is still here. I think of the free trade debate and all of the
sanctimonious speeches made on this side of the House when they
were here, and the free trade accord is still with us.
How long will it be before the member changes his mind?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—for
Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, what is the problem?
Scarborough. Toronto. It is Mississauga. It is a beautiful
city. It is the fifth largest city in the country. It has a
wonderful mayor and a wonderful council. It is a great place. It
never rains or snows in Mississauga. What else can I say?
Let me say to the hon. member that I do not have the longevity
in this place that he does and I cannot answer for what happened
in the era of Mr. Trudeau, but I can tell him that when I was
elected in the last election I did not run on cancelling the GST.
Not this member. This member will not run on that.
I believe most Canadian subscribe to what this party stands for.
It was obvious in the election results.
We have eliminated the deficit, no thanks to the Tory party. We
have the country working again. We have created 1.6 million new
jobs since we took office.
1800
I cannot help it if members from Kicking Horse Pass or wherever
cannot see the success that has accrued during the term of this
government, but that is the reality. Let the hon. member read it
and weep.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member speak and he
certainly likes rhetoric. But surely the member does not think
it is helpful to the efforts of Canadians right across the
country, who are trying to unify this country, for him to be so
partisan and so disrespectful of the people of Quebec.
Well over one and a half million Canadians in the province of
Quebec voted for the Bloc Quebecois. As distasteful as he may
find it that there are members of the House who believe in a
separate Quebec, they were given a mandate by about one and a
half million Canadians in that province. Surely he should
respect the people of Quebec.
What I read between the lines, between the rhetoric, is an
anti-French attitude that is simply not helpful. Surely the
member from Mississauga owes the people of Quebec an apology for
some of the disrespectful comments he made a few moments ago. I
am wondering whether the hon. member is speaking with the
authority of the Government of Canada. I noticed that the House
leader was here. The least he could do is—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing to
hear this member make remarks like that. If we want to research
Hansard we will find three words uttered by that very
member. These are not my words; they were his words. He said
“Separatists are traitors”. Is he telling me that he would
make a remark like that and somehow be denigrating the people of
Quebec? That is nonsense.
At no time have I spoken against the people of Quebec. I speak
against the Bloc. I will always speak against the Bloc because
they are trying to destroy my country.
The future leader of the united alternative had better watch
out. As I have pointed out before, if he is on their hockey
team, they should not let him shoot on their net because he will
score against his own team.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will share
my time with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
I am pleased to rise today in this debate on a motion put
forward by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, asking for a committee
to be struck in order to consider the possibility of the
creation on a pan-American monetary union.
This is a very serious issue and I am very proud to speak to it.
I am not dealing with it the way opposite members are doing nor
in the way they have been behaving for the last few minutes.
On the eve of the year 2000, in a world where economy, science,
politics and energy are changing rapidly, we must deal with this
issue within the broad modernization process in the context of
globalization.
Every day, the media report large business and economic mergers.
How can we remain passive in the face of the strong possibility
of the creation of a joint pan-American currency?
The arrival of the Euro on the market last January was the
trigger and the real beginning of this important reflection.
Who would have thought that only 40 years of negotiation would
be needed for European countries to decide to create the Euro?
The creation of the Euro gives back to Europe the look of an
economic power resulting from the interdependence of eleven
different countries.
The printing of the first Euros is the tangible result of the
hard work of European countries after the second world war on
the economic and social reconstruction of Europe.
We will soon be in the third millennium, and we will enter into
multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization.
1805
The debate on a common currency for the three Americas should
start right now. While the Prime Minister of Canada and the
governor of the Bank of Canada oppose this concept, the deputy
premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, who was an adamant
proponent of the free trade agreement in 1988, is supporting the
position of the Bloc Quebecois and its leader.
The FTA, followed by NAFTA have given Canada and Quebec a better
access to the American market, and exports from Quebec have
risen annually by 7% or 8%. Mr. Bernard Landry was right, and
this trade agreement was fitting nicely in our agenda for Quebec
sovereignty.
The creation of a common currency is another political and
economic issue that should be dealt with seriously, in the
context of discussions and negotiations over international trade
agreements and more particularly in the context of a sovereign
Quebec.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is requesting that a committee be
set up to study this important issue. Even if the Prime Minister
of Canada and his finance minister are completely opposed to
this, all members in this House should do something concrete and
demonstrate that a common pan-American currency is a most
realistic project that should be examined right now.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois is that a sovereign Quebec
should keep the Quebec-Canada monetary union, but we should go
further than that in our thinking. We know that sovereignists
are for change.
They are open to this worldwide debate, contrary to the federal
Liberals who do not want to move away from the status quo and
who refuse any kind of change.
I remind members of the position taken by the Liberals in the
1988 debate on free trade. They were against the idea, including
the then premier of Ontario, David Peterson. In 1999, it is the
same scenario. Ontario Liberals are opposed to change and show
no openness to prepare for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
A few weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois, a democratic party that
listens to its grassroots members, formed a task force to
examine the place of a sovereign Quebec in the world. The issue
of a common currency will also be considered.
Personally, I support the creation of a common currency, as do
my colleague from Charlesbourg and our leader.
I am still convinced that, by the year 2020, three currencies
will dominate the world market, namely the U.S. dollar, the
Eurocoin and the Japanese yen. Twenty years is not a long time.
Therefore, we must prepare ourselves for that economic
possibility.
Members of the House of Commons must follow our lead immediately
and consider the possible creation of a common currency. The
federal Liberals still have closed minds and are incapable of
dealing with such an important issue. They just refuse to get
away from their old conservative way of thinking, from their
unhealthy obsession with the status quo and from their narrow
vision of Canadian nationalism.
I understand them.
How can we expect them to be proactive and to renew their
rhetoric when they are led by a man who is mostly inspired by
the Trudeau philosophy of the 1970s? And what about the position
of the New Democrats, who are also stuck on their old
centralizing paradigms that are very close to those of the
federal Liberals who are unable to have a world vision?
The Bloc Quebecois has taken the lead. Our members want to talk
about this issue right now. We are a sovereignist party that
anticipates the exceptional interdependent relationship of a
sovereign Quebec with its other economic partners throughout the
world. We are a party that looks forward to the future, not an
old fashioned party like the Liberal Party opposite.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the
last member who spoke.
I think this is a very important motion and certainly one which
is worthy of debate. I am not one of those who believes we
should not be discussing this issue. This is probably an issue
which will be the subject of discussion in the House and in the
country for the next 10 years.
As the last member who spoke said, it is very clear that we are
moving into a new community in the world where there will be
three major currencies. The establishment of the Eurodollar has
established conditions where in fact it will be very difficult
for other currencies, smaller currencies, those that are not part
of a block, to survive, whether it is the United States currency
or the European currency.
People who are interested are very concerned about this.
However, I think that the problems Bloc members have in terms of
bringing up this issue are several.
The first is the paradox of wanting to jump immediately into a
Pan-American currency over which they will have no control, when
they would be leaving a currency which they presently, through
the Minister of Finance who comes from Quebec and through their
members of parliament from Quebec, have a direct interest in
preserving.
I do not understand that paradox from their perspective.
1810
I ask the member another question. For those of us who are
looking seriously at this issue, and who recognize that it is an
issue, we realize that we are going to have to deal with the
Americans. We are going to have to deal with the American
Congress.
The member opposite and every member of the House knows that
the American Congress today acts in a very unilateral way. Does
the member seriously think that it is in the interests of
Quebecers to abandon a system in which they have a direct role in
participating in the decision making process to go to a system
where the Americans will not allow us to have any input? Or does
the member actually believe that we will get a seat on the
federal reserve board of this new currency?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that
there is at least one hon. member who is open to the possibility
of a committee being struck. The pan-American currency is a
project for the future. We have to talk about it. This is our
position and we want to set up a committee. Is there anything
more democratic that a committee?
Members opposite have chosen to address today the issue of
Quebec's sovereignty. Let us be serious here. What we are
proposing today is becoming a more and more distinct possibility
in a global environment. The hon. member opposite, who is the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, should know this.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Mississauga West early on in his speech
today severely insulted me along with many western Canadians. He
also gravely inflicted damage on the people of Quebec.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is my understanding that we are in questions and comments
following the speech of a member of the Bloc. Is this relevant
to that speech?
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is
correct. The hon. member making his comments is supposed to make
the comments and questions on the speech just heard. I am sure
he was getting to that point.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that
point, precisely.
The records of this House are meant to reflect what went on in
the House and to reflect what happened.
I stand once again to ask the member from the Bloc if the debate
today from the Liberal side does not make him want to cry out, as
I do, for an apology from the Liberal government for what it has
said and done to the people of Quebec and to the people of
western Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure
that I rise to demand one too.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just
learned a few moments ago that, according to a poll the FM 93
radio station in Quebec City held during one of its shows, 91%
of its listeners are in favour of a pan-American monetary union.
So, my question to my hon. colleague from Lotbinière is the
following: Is he surprised at the results compiled by the FM 93
radio station?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, radio listeners in Quebec
City are open people who believe in the future, so I am not a
bit surprised by these results, and I am sure that if such a
poll had been held throughout Quebec, its results would have
been positive. It just goes to prove that Quebeckers are all for
change and not for the status quo, unlike the federal Liberals
opposite.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m. it is my duty to
interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary
to dispose of the business of supply.
1815
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1845
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Guimond
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Matthews
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Turp
|
Wayne – 49
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Desjarlais
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Williams
| Wood – 192
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: I believe there is unanimous consent to apply
the vote taken on the last motion to the motion now before the
House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1855
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Before Your Honour announces the result of the vote I
would like to be sure that my vote is cast in the affirmative to
support the motion.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Grewal
| Guimond
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Jones
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Meredith
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Turp
| Wayne – 67
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Williams
| Wood – 175
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means
motion relating to the National Parks Act be concurred in.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March
11, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions on the Ways and Means Motions Nos. 23, 24 and
25. The first recorded division is on Ways and Means Motion No.
23.
1905
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wood – 186
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lill
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Strahl
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 56
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
THE BUDGET
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that a ways and means motion
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
parliament on February 16, 1999 be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is
on Ways and Means Motion No. 24.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
1910
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who are
present vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would vote in favour of this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Williams
| Wood – 192
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 50
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act,
to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the
Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War
Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax
Act, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: The next recorded division is on Ways
and Means Motion No. 25.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good
people of York—South Weston I would vote in favour of Motion No.
25.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wood – 153
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Strahl
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Williams – 89
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday,
March 11, 1999 the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading
stage of Bill C-66.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who are
present vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York—South Weston I would vote in favour of Bill
C-66 at second reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the
motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wood
– 138
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 104
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1915
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by
foreign periodical publishers, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the
third reading stage of Bill C-55.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wood – 196
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Penson
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Williams
– 43
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caplan
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Hubbard
| Longfield
|
Mercier
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
1925
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
carry on with my question to the interlocutor for the Metis about
first nations housing.
More and more first nations are forced to live off reserve for
social and economic reasons, but it does not matter where they
live. Either on reserve or off reserve, conditions are
appalling, they are disgraceful, they are dangerous, they are
cold, they are unheated. They are third world conditions as
confirmed by the United Nations. These are Canadian conditions
if one is a native person in Canada.
The federal government has a responsibility for accessible
social housing, but in particular is responsible for first
nations people in this country. Our first nations people should
not be dying in garbage dumps in Ontario or freezing to death on
city streets. There is enough wealth in this country for
everyone.
I received a letter today from the Lubicon which states that in
the richest province in one of the richest countries the Lubicon
live without even the necessities of life, such as running water
and sewage disposal. Families of 10 to 15 people are crowded
into a single, uninsulated house with no money to repair even a
broken window. Tuberculosis, diabetes and cancer rates have
soared. With 95% of the adults unemployed, social ills have
taken an enormous toll. All the while, over $9 billion worth of
resources have been extracted from Lubicon lands. This is a
similar situation faced by first nations people all over the
country.
This could be avoided by making the “Gathering Strength”
document actually work to treat the first nations as if they are
partners, not as if it is a master-servant relationship.
The booklet of the National Aboriginal Housing Association of
May 1998 asks for the transfer of housing to be halted. The need
for housing can be justified either as a fundamental human right
recognized by international law or as an aboriginal right
specific to the aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Canada is signatory to many international covenants and
conventions, including the United Nations charter. It is
involved in the working group which is drafting the universal
declaration on indigenous rights. These covenants and
conventions were fully discussed in a paper entitled “First Our
Lands, Now Our Homes” in response to the urban and rural native
housing cutbacks in 1993.
There is absolutely no reason that we cannot properly house the
first nations people of this land. They are not in an equal
situation and they need housing as a basic human right so they
can attain equality in other areas.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon.
member for Yukon for raising the issue of Canada's aboriginal
people who live in poor conditions off reserve, which was the
basic premise of the question some time ago.
Unfortunately far too many aboriginal people across Canada live
in very poor conditions. We recognize that.
1930
However, it is worth noting that our government has put in place
a government-wide action plan that addresses the key challenges
facing all aboriginal people whether they live on or off reserve.
This action plan, known as Gathering Strength, was announced more
than a year ago and includes partnerships as one of its key
principles.
It recognizes that a new partnership with aboriginal people is a
prerequisite if we are going to effect real change. It also
recognizes the importance of involving other partners such as the
provincial governments. In fact it is the provinces that are
particularly important players when it comes to issues facing
aboriginal people living off reserve since they have the primary
responsibility here.
Having said that, it is important to stress that Gathering
Strength was developed in the spirit of working together to find
practical solutions.
Continuing on the theme of partnership, the federal interlocutor
has actively engaged the aboriginal groups to listen to their
ideas and concerns. More than ever, the interlocutor has been an
effective advocate within this government for Metis and off
reserve aboriginal people.
Over the past year he has met a number of times with the
aboriginal organizations representing all aboriginal peoples. The
interlocutor has personally met with over 20 organizations on a
bilateral basis and a great number more through multilateral
fora. His door has always been open to aboriginal people and it
remains so.
These meetings have resulted in several key accomplishments, for
example, a number of signed agreements, an aboriginal trade
mission to Latin America, and the hosting of a round table
discussion on urban aboriginal issues in Regina, which is a
first. All participants have found these meetings to be
incredibly useful and necessary if we are going to make a
difference.
THE BUDGET
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am trying to get to the bottom of why this government
decided to spend $3.6 million advertising its federal budget. I
raised this question after we received this information.
We were shocked and appalled as were many Canadians across this
country, especially Canadians who are facing enormous
difficulties gaining access to quality health care services.
These are people who are in line for hip surgery, who are waiting
for MRIs and for personal care homes, who are struggling to make
ends meet in order to care for elderly family members and for
needy children.
Today I hope Canadians will get some clarification on this very
important question. I hope the parliamentary secretary is not
going to simply say that this is what governments always do and
it is doing a great service for Canadians. These $3.6 million
ads that were taken out do not offer one iota of public service.
They are sheer propaganda and speak only to the fact that this
must be about political crisis management and not about
worthwhile and meaningful remedies for our health care system.
Since the budget was tabled in the House there has been
incredible coverage. There have been over 750 references to this
budget in the major media outlets. This does not even include
many of the weeklies. I am sure the tally comes up to well over
1,000 hits in the media just in terms of the health care budget
alone.
Let us not forget that 10 days leading up to the budget the
government decided to leak out bits and pieces of the budget so
that people were inundated with news about what was in store for
Canadians. We heard that there was $2.5 billion for health. Then
came the big leak to Canadians about $11.5 billion. Canadians had
it up to here about what was going to be in the budget and what
was in the budget.
Canadians do not want to see $3.6 million spent on advertising
this government's political agenda. They want to see every penny
go into health care where it is absolutely needed.
What would that $3.6 million have bought? By our calculations
it would have bought 150 personal home care beds. It would have
paid many times over for training of emergency nurses. It would
have paid for an MRI and then some. All these things are
absolutely needed.
I would suggest to the minister, the parliamentary secretary and
the government that they listen to the voices of Canadians on
this critical issue.
I particularly want to reflect on what has happened in the
province of Manitoba where the Conservative government decided to
spend $500,000 advertising its so-called health care agenda.
Let me paraphrase the words of the Winnipeg Free Press and
apply them to this government.
The Minister of Health here in Ottawa should scrap the
government's $3.6 million campaign for health care reforms. The
move would show that a new firm hand is now steering health care
in this country. It would show that the ruling Liberals can get
their priorities straight.
1935
That is the message Canadians send to the government. That is
the message the Liberals ought to hear. It is far more important
to deal with the health care needs of Canadians than to try to
manage the political difficulties of this present government.
One really has to ask the last question of all which is if this
budget was more about substance and less about smoke and mirrors,
would this money actually have been necessary? Would we have to
spend taxpayers' money to sell the news to Canadians that this
government is finally moving on health care? In fact the
government is merely trying to recover lost ground and put back
some of the money it has taken out.
I look forward to an answer from the government on this critical
issue.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for pointing out that indeed this budget has received a
significant amount of media attention. In fact there have been
thousands of hits as the hon. member described, thousands of
placements in the media. This budget has been a very, very
powerful good news message. The media has been anxious to analyse
its content exactly for Canadians.
The hon. member quite rightly stood up to say that we are always
interested in making sure that the money is spent wisely, that it
goes to the purpose for which it was intended. I do not have any
reservations in saying that $3.6 million spent on a budget of
approximately $150 billion as a percentage of the actual budget
is not a huge amount of money. It is very important however that
it be spent wisely to make sure that all Canadians understand the
details of exactly what is in the budget. This is what affects
them most deeply.
The hon. member pointed out that in her opinion $3.6 million
would provide approximately 150 chronic care beds. I would
simply ask the member to do the calculation as to what $11.5
billion will do to the health care system in terms of providing
chronic care beds, MRI and other equipment, additional nursing
staff in hospitals, and additional recruitment opportunities for
doctors.
That is exactly what this budget does. It provides $11.5 billion
in additional health care funds to the provinces over the next
five year period. That is quite a substantial amount of money.
In comparison to $3.6 million, quite frankly it is a very
powerful addition to the health care system. That does not
include the additional funds that have been put in place for
existing federal government programs.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.38 p.m.)