37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 037
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1005
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| STATUTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-308. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION IN RESPECT OF WEST COAST PORTS
|
| Bill C-309. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Transgenic Aquatic Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Motions Nos. 8 and 12
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Motion No. 13
|
1015
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1020
1025
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1030
1035
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1040
1045
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1050
1055
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
1100
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 12 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 13 deferred
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Motions Nos. 10 and 11
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Motion No. 14
|
1105
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1110
1115
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1120
1125
1130
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1135
1140
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1145
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1150
1155
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1200
1205
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
1210
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 11 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 14 deferred
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motions Nos. 3 and 4
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 5
|
1215
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motions Nos. 6 and 7
|
1220
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1225
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1230
1235
1240
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
1245
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Hon. Robert Thibault |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1350
1355
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Official Report—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| AUTISM
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| WORLD THEATRE DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1405
| MINING
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1410
| TOURISM
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| MINING
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1415
| OAK RIDGES
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1445
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1450
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| The Speaker |
1455
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1500
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| The Speaker |
| Auberge Grand-Mère
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1515
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1520
1525
1530
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1550
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1615
1620
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1625
1630
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1655
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1700
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. André Harvey |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| THE ACADIANS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion M-241
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
1750
1755
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1800
1805
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1810
1815
| Mr. John Herron |
1820
1825
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Motion
|
1830
1835
1840
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1845
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1850
1855
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1900
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1905
1910
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1915
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1920
1925
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1930
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1935
1940
1945
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1950
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1955
2000
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2005
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
2010
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
2030
| Mr. Bill Casey |
2035
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
2040
2045
2050
2055
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
2100
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
2105
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
2110
2115
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
2120
2125
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2130
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
2135
2140
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
2145
| Mr. Grant McNally |
2150
2155
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
2200
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
2205
2210
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2215
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
2220
2225
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2230
| Ms. Monique Guay |
2235
2240
| Mr. Mac Harb |
2245
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2250
2255
| Mr. Mac Harb |
2300
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
2305
2310
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
2315
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2320
2325
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2330
| Mr. Rick Casson |
2335
2340
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2345
2350
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2355
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
2400
2405
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2410
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
2415
2420
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
2425
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
2430
2435
| Mr. James Moore |
2440
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2445
2450
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
2455
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Mr. James Moore |
2500
2505
2510
| Mr. Andy Burton |
2515
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2520
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
2525
2530
2535
2540
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
2545
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2550
| Mr. Pat Martin |
2555
2600
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2605
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2610
2615
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
2620
2625
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2630
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2635
2640
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2645
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
2650
2655
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
2700
2705
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
2710
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2715
2720
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
2725
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
2730
2735
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2740
2745
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 037
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to one
petition.
* * *
1005
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the agreement with respect to the Kanesatake
governance of the interim land base.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the second
report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which
represented Canada at a joint meeting of the defence and security
committee, the economic committee and the political committee of
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Brussels and Paris from
February 7 to February 21, 2001.
* * *
STATUTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act to provide for
evaluations of statutory programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bill which
would bring some regularity and conformity to the way we evaluate
programs to ensure Canadians get value for the $170 billion the
government spends every year.
The bill asks that each program be evaluated based on what is
the public policy a program is designed to achieve; is it
achieving what it is trying to achieve; and is it doing it
efficiently or can it achieve the same results in a better way.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION IN RESPECT OF WEST COAST PORTS
OPERATIONS ACT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act to provide for the
settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final
offer arbitration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which
would prevent work stoppages at west coast ports. Stoppages at
west coast ports have cost Canada billions of dollars over the
years in lost sales and exports of grain, not to mention the
impact they have had on the farming economy, on the unions and on
employers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Speaker: Motions. Presenting petitions.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 on the order
paper respecting the first report—
An hon. member: This is petitions.
The Speaker: I was unaware the member was moving his
motion. We will get to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Had you not called petitions
The Speaker: I mentioned that we were at motions, but the hon.
member did not rise.
I received no notice that the hon. member would propose his
motion, except that he told me yesterday that if he could not
propose it then, he would do it today. It was not on my list. I
really should have recognized him, because he gave notice to the
Chair yesterday.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He did not rise.
The Speaker: Maybe not fast enough.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, you should proceed to
petitions.
The Speaker: Very well, let us proceed to petitions.
1010
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, as you indicated, I did
mention to you that I would be introducing this today and when
you called motions I did stand. If you neglected to look my way
I think that was an oversight on your part, but I should still be
allowed to introduce the motion.
The Speaker: The Chair is not trying to be difficult. I
did call motions. I admit it went quickly. I did not see any
hon. members stand when I called motions.
The logical thing is to go back to motions if the House will
agree.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no agreement so the Chair's hands
are somewhat tied. I regret that is the way it is being done,
but there is nothing I can do.
* * *
PETITIONS
TRANSGENIC AQUATIC ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
introduce a petition signed by the great people of Toronto, and
thousands more will be coming, regarding prohibition of the
release of genetically modified aquatic organisms into the
natural environment.
The petitioners pray to parliament to prohibit the release and
to commence a full and open public consultation and review
process to determine the ecological, social and financial
consequences associated with the development and use of
transgenic aquatic organisms.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act to
establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend
certain acts in relation to financial institutions, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There are 14 motions in amendment standing on
the notice paper relating to the report stage of Bill C-8.
The Standing Committee on Finance considered this bill at
clause by clause on March 20, before my statement outlining the
guidelines for the selection of motions at report stage.
Since hon. members could not be aware at that time of the new
way to implement those principles, the Chair will once again be
generous and select motions which could have been proposed in
committee but were not.
[English]
May I remind all hon. members to use committee stage to propose
their amendments. If hon. members do not avail themselves of
this opportunity, the Chair will not select motions which could
have been proposed in committee at report stage.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13.
[English]
Group No. 2: Motions No. 2, 9 to 11 and 14.
[Translation]
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 3 to 7.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on
page 5 with the following:
“and report, subject to section 17, to the House of Commons
from time to time on all matters connected with the
administration of this Act, which stands permanently
referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, and of the
consumer provisions”
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 84, be
amended by replacing line 27 on page 39 with the following:
(4) Except in the case where an amalgamation is the
result of one or more of the applicants not being
financially sound, an amalgamation must be approved by a
resolution of the House of Commons supported by a majority
of the members of that House and a resolution of the Senate
supported by a majority of the members of that House.”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 183, be
amended by adding after line 44 on page 367 the following:
“978.1 On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, and on the expiration of every year
thereafter, all regulations made in the previous year by
the Governor in Council under this Act shall stand referred
to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or
of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established for that purpose and the committee shall, as
soon as practicable thereafter, undertake a comprehensive
review of such regulations and shall, within one month
after the review is undertaken or within such further time
as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report
thereon to Parliament including any recommendations
pertaining to the object, impact or necessity of such
regulations or any other aspects thereof that the committee
deems appropriate.”
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That Bill
C-8, in Clause 244, be amended by replacing line 9 on page
408 with the following:
“effect of the designation. The Minister must also provide
in writing:
(a) a statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the
Minister, it is in the public interest to designate a
payment system;
(b) the process by which consultation of the manager, the
participants, and other interested parties who could be
affected by the designation can take place, including how
the Minister's concerns can be addressed;
(c) a statement to the effect that where a system fails to
adequately address a Minister's concerns, the Governor in
Council may designate a payment system.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on
behalf of the Canadian Alliance Party to speak to Bill C-8 and in
particular to the motions we put forward at report stage.
Motion No. 1 deals with a clause in the original bill that would
require, upon the setting up and operation of the financial
consumer agency, the commissioner of the agency to report its
activities to parliament through the Minister of Finance.
1015
We have stood in the House on many occasions calling for the
independent arms of government agencies and commissions to report
not through a minister but directly to parliament, and in this
case to the Standing Committee on Finance. The motion reflects
that an amendment be put that would require Financial Consumer
Agency of Canada to report to the Standing Committee on Finance
on a permanent basis.
Motion No. 13 deals with the operation of Interac services. The
bill calls for the association to report every rule change during
the normal course of operation to the Minister of Finance. This
is an onerous demand. We would make an amendment that would give
the Interac Association a very clear and transparent framework to
operate under that is self-regulating. Its compliance people
would have a very clear understanding of what is required of them
by the Minister of Finance.
The motion would require that the Minister of Finance provide:
(a) a statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the
Minister, it is in the public interest to designate a payment
system;
(b) the process by which consultation of the manager, the
participants, and other interested parties who could be affected
by the designation can take place, including how the Minister's
concerns can be addressed;
(c) a statement to the effect that where a system fails to
adequately address a Minister's concerns, the Governor in Council
may designate a payment system.
The broad, transparent and clear framework included in the bill
by the Minister of Finance would be sufficient for the
association to conduct its normal day to day business
transactions. It would not burden it with a requirement to
report and discuss every rule change so long as it was operating
within the broad framework.
That is what I wanted to say as far as the motions put forward
from the Canadian Alliance in Group No. 1. Overall it is a
progressive bill. While we criticize the government for being
tardy on it, we are happy with the bill. It is bringing Canada's
banking system to a more progressive stage so that we can compete
with our competition around the world.
I ask government members to see the prudence and the common
sense in these amendments and I am sure they will support them.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Group No. 1 deals with Motion Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13. Two
of them are in my name and I wish to say a couple of words about
them.
Motion No. 2 deals with the powers of the Financial Consumer
Agency of Canada. The bill is a very complicated piece of
legislation dealing with financial institutions. It is 900 pages
thick and affects about 1,400 pages of statutes. It is perhaps
the most complicated bill ever debated in the House of Commons as
one particular bill.
1020
In addition to the bill and the statutes that will be changed,
much of what will happen will be through regulation by the
federal government. The regulations are extremely important in
terms of the purport and the effect of the legislation on the
ordinary person living in Halifax or in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
We should do a number of things to improve the legislation
before the House today. I would suggest one very small thing
that can be found in one of my motions. The powers of the
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada should be enhanced in terms
of penalizing corporations that actually violate the new law.
Under the present regulation it is suggested that an individual
would be charged up to $50,000 if there is a violation and a
financial institution would be charged $100,000.
My amendment would change the maximum penalty ceiling for
corporations from $100,000 to $500,000. Some may ask why
$500,000. It is because $500,000 was originally suggested by the
Liberal Party in one of its white papers a year or so ago. This
is not a very dangerous amendment. It is something that could be
supported by the House and is perfectly reasonable in terms of a
penalty.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Perhaps I am too late. The hon. member was speaking to a motion
that is not presently before us since we are still dealing with
Group No. 1. The motion he is speaking to is in Group No. 2.
However, I believe he was just moving on to the next one so I am
too late.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, that is why I was
speaking in generalities about improving the powers of that
financial agency. Motion No. 8, which is part of the first
grouping, would speak directly to parliament through a democracy.
If there is a bank merger, under the current legislation the
Minister of Finance would have the final say. That is the way it
is today. The Minister of Finance has the final say. My
amendment would, except in the case of insolvency, give the
Parliament of Canada the final say. There would be a vote in
parliament on whether or not a bank merger would go ahead. That
is not very radical, but bank mergers could potentially be
extremely important items on the public agenda or in terms of
public policy.
We remember how in January 1998 four of the large banks wanted
to merge: the Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank, TD and Scotiabank. We
had a great debate on the matter. I am proud to say that our
party at the beginning was very much opposed to these mergers,
arguing that they would not help consumers and that they would
concentrate more power into fewer hands in terms of financial
institutions. I remember people saying that there was no use in
fighting the large banks as they were powerful and would win.
However, we led that opposition and within a year or so there was
a lot of opposition across the country and in December 1998 the
Minister of Finance said no to the merger of those four large
banks.
As a result we now have a new mechanism in Bill C-8 before us
today. Instead of democratizing the process and making
parliament more meaningful in terms of the power MPs have to
speak on behalf of their constituents, the Minister of Finance
will have the final say as to whether or not a merger goes ahead.
We are saying in our amendment that a resolution of parliament
should be the final say. We should vote yes or no. It would
expand and empower the role of members of parliament so that
someone from Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, or anywhere
in the country would have the final say in terms of the debate
and the argument as to whether or not a merger is in the public
good. We would decide if it is good for the country, if it will
help consumers, or if it is good for rural Canada or different
parts of Canada where mergers are to take place. The power
should not reside in the hands of one minister, the Minister of
Finance.
Madam Speaker, please try to divorce yourself from the idea that
we will have the Minister of Finance for all time. This minister
and the next minister may or may not make the proper decision.
We should not leave that power in the hands of the Minister of
Finance.
1025
This is part of parliamentary democracy. It is part of
democratic and parliamentary reform. It is part of empowering
this place to be more meaningful and relevant to Canadians. When
we see the alienation from this parliament and we see fewer
people casting their ballots, it makes us wonder why we do not
empower ourselves and make this institution more meaningful.
The House of Commons has to be a check and a balance on the
powers of the executive and cabinet. Why do we not do that as
members of parliament?
If members across the way voted for the motion, it would not be
a vote of non-confidence in the government. In the case of a
merger, unless there is an insolvency, parliament would have the
final say. In the case of an insolvency the Minister of Finance
would have the power to make that decision and make it very
quickly. If the process is established under the bill, and this
item is on the public agenda, then why would the Parliament of
Canada not have the final say instead of the Minister of Finance?
My motion is a timid little step in the direction of
parliamentary reform and parliamentary democracy and would make
this place more relevant and meaningful. I hope members across
the way will see this as an opportunity to bring in parliamentary
reform and bring back more democracy to make this place more
meaningful and more important in the lives of the average
citizen.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will
start by informing you that we support some of the amendments
made by the Canadian Alliance, in particular Motion No.1 by the
hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley relating to
accountability to parliament and to a report on the
administration of the act being provided to parliament from time
to time.
Having gone carefully through the banking bill on more than one
occasion, and before that the white paper from the Minister of
Finance, following up on the MacKay-Ducros report, I noted that,
for perhaps the first time in a piece of legislation of this
significance, the Minister of Finance had incredible
discretionary powers.
Hon. members need only give this bill a cursory examination to
see, every ten pages or so, that the minister can intervene to
make decisions. These decisions are at his discretion. His
discretionary powers are such as have never been seen before.
Thus, Motion No. 1 by my colleague for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley is a marked improvement over what we had before.
Throughout the entire process, I will have the opportunity to
touch back on this important aspect of ministerial discretion as
opposed to what we ought to find in a bill, which is enhanced
parliamentary responsibility and better monitoring of decisions
taken by the minister or the governor in council.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I seek clarification. Will we
be debating group by group? It seems to me that we missed one
motion in Group No. 1, did we not? Was Motion No. 12 presented
by the member?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We are dealing with
Motions Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13. If I am not mistaken, the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle addressed Motions Nos. 8 and 12.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, I will be speaking to
Group No. 1. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the
House of Commons finance committee for their constructive
approach to this very important and very massive legislation.
I would like to comment on Alliance Motion No. 1 which deals
with the reporting of the financial consumer agency.
1030
I would point out that under Bill C-8, the Minister of Finance
is responsible for the financial consumer agency of Canada.
Reporting arrangements have been specified which would allow the
minister to appropriately monitor the activities of the agency.
However, the bill currently contains a provision that ensures
that the consumer agency will be fully accountable to parliament.
In particular, clause 34 of the bill requires the minister to
annually lay before each House of parliament a report showing the
operations of the agency for that year and describing in
aggregate form its conclusions of the compliance of financial
institutions with the consumer provisions. The financial
consumer agency of Canada accountability structure and government
reporting requirements mirror those that are currently in place
for OSFI.
The second motion in this group from the Alliance, Motion No.
13, deals with the Canadian payments system. The process for
designating a payment system in the proposed legislation is very
extensive and would require the minister to consult with payment
system managers and participants before notification of
designation.
It is not necessary to detail in legislation, as proposed in
Motion No. 13, process issues that would likely be part of any
consultation. It is likely that the minister would outline the
public interest reasons for the possible designation during the
consultative period. It is possible, but if the payment system
manager and participants addressed the concerns of the minister,
there would not be a need to designate.
I will go now to the motions presented by the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, the NDP finance critic. Motion No. 8
concerns itself with bank mergers. I should make it absolutely
clear to the House that the government recognizes the importance
of the role that parliament can play in assessing the public
interest impact of bank mergers in Canada.
That is why the merger review guidelines include referral to
both the House finance committee and the Senate banking
committee. Through the reports of these committees to the
Minister of Finance, the views of parliament would be considered
in reviews of large bank mergers in Canada. The report of the
finance committee would be presented to the House of Commons.
The Minister of Finance, however, is ultimately responsible for
the safety, soundness and efficient functioning of the financial
sector in Canada. The ultimate decision regarding whether a
merger is approved or not needs to rest with the Minister of
Finance and should not be conditional on approval by a resolution
in parliament.
Furthermore, the proposed change could seriously undermine the
safety and soundness of the financial services sector. Since
mergers involving troubled institutions would not require the
special resolution, this would signal to Canadians that at least
one of the banks involved is in financial trouble. This could
lead to a run on either one or both of the institutions, which in
turn could seriously undermine the public's confidence in the
financial services sector and the payment system.
I will now go to Group No. 1, Motion No. 12, from the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle. The motion deals with adding a new clause
that would require any regulations made under the new bill in a
calendar year to be referred to a committee of the House, the
Senate or both for a comprehensive review.
As members are aware, Bill C-8 is a significant legislative
initiative that sets out in comprehensive detail the key policy
framework announced in the government's June 25, 1999 white
paper. Within this framework, there are authorities to provide
flexibility to specify elements of the new regime in regulations.
Any regulations proposed under this framework would be subject to
the same rigorous oversight process that applies to regulations
proposed under any other federal statutes.
1035
The Privy Council Office will review the regulation to ensure
that it is consistent with the objectives of the legislation and
interested stakeholders will be given an opportunity to comment
on the proposed changes.
A key component of this regulatory flexibility is that it allows
the government to respond to rapid changes in the industry in a
more timely way than might be allowed by a five year review of
the legislation. The motion, as proposed, would negatively
impact on this flexibility.
A yearly review of the regulations would create uncertainty for
the industry as to any changes proposed by the government in a
particular area. To the extent that the review created delays,
the proposed motion could lead to regulatory initiatives not
being completed in a more timely way than a full fledged
legislative amendment. For this reason, the government does not
support this proposed change.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, a massive bill, as
has been mentioned. It is a bill which, when I hold it in my
hands, increases my weight by about 10%.
When we look at the proposed amendments in Group No. 1, we see
that they are there to improve the bill. I will speak
specifically to Motion No. 1 right now, put forward by my
colleague, which deals with the reporting section. The
parliamentary secretary just stated that there is a provision in
the bill for this. For clarity, I will read from page 15 under
“Annual Report”. It states:
The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of
Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House
after September 30 next following the end of each fiscal year, a
report showing the operations of the Agency for that year and
describing in aggregate form its conclusions on the compliance of
financial institutions with the consumer provisions applicable to
them in that year.
Do members notice who is reporting? It is the minister. The
minister shall lay a report on the table. Of course the minister
can say exactly what he or she wants. It is reported in the
House and we all know what happens to reports. Routine
proceedings take place every day in the House and someone
presents a report under the tabling of documents. Under one of
those proceedings, the minister could simply table a report
showing the operations of the agency.
Motion No. 1 is really quite different. It is difficult by
reasoned debate to persuade the members on the other side of the
House because I am not sure they are listening. If they are
listening, they do not show it by their body language. All we
see is a bunch of green foreheads over there that are not
really—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): As the hon. member
knows, since he has been in the House for quite a while now, the
hon. members in the House are to be addressed with respect. I
caution him to perhaps change the words he just used or to excuse
himself, if he wishes.
Mr. Ken Epp: My apologies, Madam Speaker. I was simply
urging the members opposite to listen carefully and perhaps even
to consider voting in favour of the amendments that have been put
forward.
I will digress for a second. A motion was passed by a majority
not long ago that said that amendments at report stage in the
House were not to be received by the Speaker. Then there were
some really broad, sweeping statements made. The fact is that
when we make amendments in committee, they are voted down by the
majority in the committee before they have been given serious
thought. I am contending that amendments made in the House often
get no serious thought. I think it is time that we change that.
1040
I would like members to seriously consider and support Motion
No. 1 put forward by my colleague. Instead of the minister
giving a report in the House, Motion No. 1 states that the report
should go to the House of Commons:
We are dealing with a balance. Banks have tremendous power but
we need them. They are an important component of the engine of
our financial well-being and our economic development. However
we need a balance between their powers and provisions and the
protection of individuals, small businesses and others. We say
that the report should automatically be referred to the finance
committee and to the House of Commons and not just simply be a
report tabled by the minister. I would urge members to seriously
consider supporting that.
I will now make reference to Motion No. 13 put forward by my
colleague, which deals with the designation of payment system.
Someone might read Hansard somewhere down the road, or may
be listening on television or perchance listening in the gallery
today, who does not even know what the payment system is. The
fact is that we have huge numbers of financial transactions every
day ranging from mega corporations transferring millions and
sometimes billions of dollars, down to an individual using a
credit card to make a purchase of a couple of small items at the
drug store.
We have a payment system that is the communications link between
all our financial institutions. When I write a cheque drawn on
the credit union to which I belong and it is processed by someone
who deposits it in one of the banks, there has to be a
communications system. The government, rightly, has the
authority to designate the payment system. Motion No. 13
suggests that the minister must provide in writing the rationale
for either declaring a payment system valid or not.
I will read subclause 37(3) of the bill on page 408. It states:
Before a payment system is designated, the Minister shall consult
the manager and the participants of the payment system and may
consult interested parties, with respect to the effect of the
designation.
It says “may consult”, not have to, anybody who is affected.
The provision of Motion No. 13 would strengthen this and would
require the minister to do the work much more thoroughly. The
motion says:
—the process by which consultation of the manager, the
participants, and other interested parties who could be affected
by the designation can take place, including how the Minister's
concerns can be addressed;
There is a strengthening of that. I would again ask members
opposite to give some heed to the actual wording of this
particular amendment. It is a good amendment because it
strengthens the relationship between the banks and the people who
use their services. It shows an accountability which exceeds
just simply a minister being able to do pretty well anything he
wants with a consultation which me may or may not use.
I would like to comment on the motions put forward by the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle in Group No. 1. My present inclination is
to be oppose his motions on a rational basis. Quite clearly we
have very few banks in Canada. If I read his amendments
correctly, they say that amalgamations should be approved by
parliament.
1045
It is probably true that we have five maybe six major banks in
Canada right now. It is foreseeable that some of them may try to
merge their operations for whatever reason, but I will not go
into those. We know we went through an exercise like that not
long ago. It is reasonable to expect that this could occur
again. The member is proposing that it should be approved by the
House of Commons and by the Senate. That is what his amendment
basically says.
I suppose one could not be opposed to that if we were looking at
one or two occurrences. However there are hundreds of smaller
financial institutions around the country. I think we would
probably err if each of those would come before the House every
time a little outfit in one town wanted to amalgamate and merge
with another one in a neighbouring town to strengthen their
position. It is not clear in the amendment that the member would
exclude many of these.
My inclination is not to favour that amendment for the reason
that these things could be held up interminably waiting for a
parliamentary calendar which would permit us to deal with them.
That would be my primary objection but in principle it is
correct. It is in the House where presumably members of
parliament have the voice to represent the needs of the people
who are dealing with the banks.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker,
since this is the first time I have addressed the House during
this parliament, I am sure that you will permit me a small
aside.
I wish to thank the 50% of the voters in the lovely riding of
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles who voted for me in the last election and to
assure the other 50% who did not that I am still their MP and
I will represent everyone in my riding, regardless of how
they cast their ballot.
Second, I especially wish to thank the volunteers, who played a
big role in my getting elected, as you know from your own
personal experience, Madam Speaker. It is thanks to the work of
your volunteers and mine, who worked their hearts out, that we
have a seat in this House.
Third, I wish to welcome the new recruits, particularly my
friend, the member for Châteauguay. He will find the House a
place of wonderful experiences.
Fourth, I would ask you to pass on a message to the Speaker and
to all your colleagues who were elected and appointed. I am
certain that you will do a splendid, non-partisan job, and that
you will ensure that we pay careful attention to the rules and
procedures under which we must operate. Madam Speaker, I thank
you in advance for the work you will do.
Now for the main topic.
As everyone knows, I rise this morning to address Bill C-8, an
act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to
amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions.
I will begin by giving a brief background to the bill. It will
be recalled that the MacKay report was tabled in 1998. My
colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, was a key player,
suggesting some interesting amendments.
However, although we supported Bill C-38 in theory, subject to
certain amendments, there was an exchange of correspondence with
Quebec's then finance minister, Bernard Landry, who is now, as
everyone knows, Premier of Quebec.
1050
However, this exchange of correspondence between the Quebec
minister of finance of the day and the federal Minister of
Finance went nowhere. Fortunately, Bill C-38 died on the order
paper because of the call of the precipitous election in
November, for wich most Canadians still doubt.
Here we are this morning debating Bill C-8, which replaces C-38.
Basically, the Bloc Quebecois can live with it, so long as a
number of amendments are made.
We have noticed in the new C-8, which is almost identical to C-38,
that a number of changes have been made as the necessary result
of the exchange of correspondence between the two finance
ministers.
However, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, since the concerns
of the Quebec finance minister of the day, Bernard Landry, are
not included in the bill. They are, rather, included in a
schedule setting out guidelines for the reclassification of the
banks, which had been in schedule 1 previously and whose owner's
equity was less than $5 billion.
With regard to this schedule, the Bloc Quebecois has some concerns,
since the schedule provides that:
—the Minister of Finance, in his sole decision, shall take into
consideration, before permitting an exchange or the sale of one
bank to another, the security and solidity of the bank, the
direct and indirect jobs, the location of the decision-making
centre and the management of the bank, the needs of consumers,
the banks business and activities and the banks prospects for
the future in the context of world markets.
The six points I have just outlined are just wishful thinking,
since the bill would allow the current Minister of Finance, who, I
believe, owns a shipping company, has adopted the practice since,
of being the only master on board, like the ship's
captain, when decisions are to be made.
So, the minister has all the powers to ignore these six points
without us being able to say or do anything about it.
Bill C-8 is much too important to allow a single individual, a
single captain, that is the Minister of Finance himself, make
the decisions about any changes to this legislation. This is
very close to dictatorship. It is also dangerous considering
that the government opposite has a great tendency to engage in
cronyism and take care of its friends. We should be
careful.
I strongly suggest that the final decisions be made by
parliamentarians. We are here to make decisions. We are not
decorating plants, we must make decisions. We must really be
careful.
Another issue that is of concern to me and certainly to my
friend, the hon. member for Drummond, is that the bill is three
tiered with the possibility for an individual to own a
bank.
1055
It begins with large banks, that is those with equity in excess
of $5 billion. The limit on individual ownership of shares is
20% of the value of the bank.
The second group includes banks with equity of one to five
billion dollars, such as the National Bank, the only Quebec bank
with a federal charter. Since equity for these institutions is
less than $5 billion, 65% of the shares of that bank can be held
by a single shareholder.
So we are back to the style of our finance minister, our great
shipmaster, the only person who can decide how a bank can run
itself. Will the bank defend the interests of its shareholders?
Surely, since it is the majority shareholder. However, it will defend
these interests to whose detriment. To the detriment of service
and employees. This is cause for concern.
Then there are small institutions with less than $1 billion in
equity, which can be owned 100% by one person. Unfortunately,
that was not what the MacKay report recommended, as it suggested
that ownership rules be changed to allow and foster the
regrouping of small and medium sized financial institutions in a
financial holding.
According to the MacKay report, several small
financial institutions could associate and form a large bank
with equity of $5 billion or more.
I see that my time is up, but I will indicate
two other issues of concern to me.
First, Bill C-8 does not meet the expectations of the Bloc
Quebecois about community reinvestment, not in the least.
Second, it provides no protection to savers and investors.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on
Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
1100
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the
Motion No. 8 is deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 12 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the
Motion No. 13 is deferred.
[English]
I will now propose Group No. 2, to the House.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 19, be
amended by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-8, in
Clause 98, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page
62 with the following:
“out by the affiliates of the bank;
(h) the best interests of the financial system in Canada;
and
(i) the impact of the transaction on the security and
soundness of the bank, on direct and indirect employment at
the head office and branch offices of the bank,
particularly professional and specialized positions, on the
location of the centre of decision making and management of
the bank, on the needs of consumers, on the business and
activities of the bank, and on the future prospects of the
bank in world markets, the best interests of Canadians and,
where the bank operates principally in one region, the best
interests of those living in that region.”
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 113, be
amended by replacing line 21 on page 72 with the following:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 125, be
amended by replacing line 14 on page 79 with the following:
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That Bill
C-8, in Clause 314, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36
on page 478 with the following:
(ii) the association is permitted by regulations made under
paragraph 396(a) to acquire or increase the substantial
investment; or
(iii) the entity is an association and the investment is
not restricted by regulations made pursuant to paragraph
396(d);”
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak primarily to
Motion No. 14, which was put forward by the Canadian Alliance.
1105
Let me preface my comments by saying that one of the things the
government sought to do as a result of the MacKay task force, and
indeed, one of the many recommendations in the MacKay task force,
was to give flexibility or give provisions in the bank
legislation to allow for the progressive restructuring of the
credit union system in Canada.
We have met continually with the people from Credit Union
Central, the credit unions out in B.C. and representatives of
that group. They have told us that they are prepared to
restructure their operations so they can expand their service to
Canadians, so that in the event there are bank mergers of
domestic banks and there is a perception that competition is
going to be tough, they want to fill that void. In order for
them to do that, they have to restructure their operations. They
want to be able to bring more branches in under an umbrella type
of structure. In order to do that, they need to have some
flexibility.
I believe I am correct when I say that the 10-50 rule applies to
credit union structures now. As I recall it, one can either have
a 10% interest or a 50% interest only. I am sure that the
parliamentary secretary will tell me if I am on the wrong track
here, but I believe that is the gist of it.
What they want is to have flexibility on the participation
between the umbrella group and the branches that would be
operating under this new business structure. I know the
parliamentary secretary is warm to this proposal by the credit
unions and by Credit Union Central.
This amendment would in fact give the credit union parties
looking for this change the flexibility to set up their new
structure and the flexibility to fill the void in customer
service at the ground floor consumer level.
I know that the secretary of state for banks and financial
institutions knows about this desire on behalf of the credit
unions. I am of the opinion that the government has perhaps said
to the credit union people who have been talking about this that
it does not have a problem with this but that perhaps the credit
unions should show the government how to do it. The government
has sought the advice of the people in the credit union
structure.
This amendment reflects a suggestion by the credit union people
to the government on how they can be given that flexibility. I
will close here and just assume that the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Finance will see the wisdom of this amendment
and ask his colleagues to say yea when it is called.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to tell
you how proud I am that the occupant of the Chair is a woman.
Women often have to work really hard to get certain prestigious
positions. So, it is always with pride that I take the floor
when you are presiding over our proceedings.
First, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois supports
Bill C-8, and to reassure certain groups, we agree that the bill
ought to be passed as quickly as possible so we can have a
swift and smooth transition.
Nonetheless, the bill as it stands does not meet all the
requirements of certain groups.
1110
The most important thing for Quebec is to protect the largest
bank in Quebec, the National Bank. This is a very important
concern for our nation. This bank is the Quebec's largest bank,
and Quebec businesses have their money there.
This bill will make the National Bank more vulnerable than the
big Canadian banks, and that is unacceptable. This bill provides
for a three tier system, as far as individual control of banks
goes.
I would like to explain once more something I have already
talked about in the House, and I think I made myself clear at
the time.
Let me just go over the general concept to show the people who
are watching, as well as you, Madam Speaker, what is going on in
that system that we want to create and that seems acceptable to
us.
As we all know, for the big Canadian banks, the Royal Bank for
example, voting shares that one shareholder can own increase
from 10 to 20%. So, for banks with assets worth $5 billion or
more, one shareholder could own 20% of the bank's shares.
The problem is, however, and this is the case in Quebec, that
small banks, those with assets worth less than $5 billion, the
Minister of Finance is allowing one shareholder to own up to 65%
of the bank's voting shares. This means that one shareholder
could purchase 65% of the shares of the National Bank.
That individual would control the assets of the Quebec people.
It is incredible. Why is there such a difference?
Why is one shareholder allowed to own 20% of the Royal Bank's
voting shares, but when it comes to the National Bank, a single
shareholder, it could be a foreigner, if he has the money and holds
65% of the bank's voting shares, could decide to transfer the
bank's head office, lay people off, transfer the bank's assets,
transfer Quebecers' money outside the country because he is a
foreigner, and the whole company will be administered in a
foreign country?
So, those are the people's concerns. What will happen? In fact,
jobs will probably be lost, and it is unacceptable to think that
only one individual can manage most of this financial
institution's assets. That is why we are denouncing this
situation.
However, there was a certain change while this bill was being
studied. Mr. Landry, now the Premier of Quebec, made demands
that were incorporated in this bill. However these demands are like
guidelines on the reclassification of the banks that were
included before in schedule 1, banks with equity capital of less
than $5 billion, of which the National Bank is one.
The idea was to include these guidelines in the bill, but they
remained guidelines. It is a small step, but not enough for us.
We must really ensure that these guidelines are incorporated in
the bill. I would like to quote some of them:
All transactions involving a reclassification will be evaluated
on the basis of merit.
It will have to be shown that the operation will add to the
bank's growth potential and that it will lead to better customer
service.
1115
The guidelines also state:
In determining whether a transaction involving a
reclassification is in the public interest, the Minister of
Finance shall take into consideration all the factors he
considers relevant, including the security and solidity of the
bank, the direct and indirect jobs, the location of the
decision-making centre and the management of the bank, the needs
of consumers, the bank's business and activities and the bank's
prospects for the future in the context of world markets.
These elements, as they are not in the bill, may be amended by
the minister as he sees fit. This is a matter of concern for
us.
It is all very nice that these guidelines were accepted, but
what bothers us is that they are not included in the bill. They
may be respected or not, as the minister sees fit.
The public as well as parliamentarians must put a great deal of
trust in the minister right now, because he tells us is
completely sincere. However if a new minister comes along, because
ministers do change, whose philosophy is different from that of
the current minister who wants us to trust him, how could we be
sure that what we ask this new minister with a different
philosophy will be respected? It is very important that this be
included in the bill.
This process has to become more transparent and it should not
cause us any more problem.
Right now, there is something of a sword of Damocles over the
National Bank because everything is up to the minister and
nothing is set out in the bill. If it were, we could always
refer to the legislation to show what the intent was, but it is
not the case.
As I said earlier, we support the bill. We have worked very
hard. My colleague from St-Hyacinthe—Bagot has even tabled a brief
with the committee. He has put forward points that were included
in the bill. However, we feel that we have been elected to
protect the interests of Quebec consumers in our ridings. We are
somewhat concerned right now, and when I say somewhat, I
really mean to say that we are very concerned about the
situation in which this bill puts the National Bank and the
small banks with less than $5 billion in capital.
I raise the issue, but this is a concern not only for members of
the Bloc Quebecois, but also for the directors of the National
Bank. In view of this, the National Bank decided a few weeks ago
to adopt a series of rules in order to prevent a hostile
takeover at its expense. Looking for strategic partners, the
president of the National Bank said that maintaining the head
office in Montreal was simply not negotiable.
The shareholders passed two resolutions to protect the National
Bank against a hostile bid. They agreed to drag things out so
the directors would have more time to examine other bids.
They also agreed to drop the limit on the number of common
shares that could be issued by the bank. These measures clearly
illustrated the concerns generated by the new environment.
With this bill, the Minister of Finance is giving himself the
power to determine at his discretion, the future of
Quebec's major banks. As I mentioned before, we find it
unacceptable that this discretionary power has such sway, more
even than the law itself.
In concluding, I would like to say once again that we will
support this bill, but we would like the Minister of Finance to
take into account the concerns of Quebecers and of the members
of the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, before I deal with my three amendments I want to say
publicly in the House that I support the position of the credit
unions in terms of amending the legislation to make it easier for
them to establish a national financial institution.
1120
I moved a similar amendment in committee and it was turned down.
We had the support of all four opposition parties: the Alliance,
the Conservatives, the Bloc and me for the New Democrats. We had
a recorded vote in the committee. Interestingly enough all the
Liberals voted against the particular amendment asked for by Bill
Knight, the CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada. The credit
union made its position very well known to the government, to the
members of the committee and to the House of Commons. It wants
an equal and level playing field with the banks.
The reason it needs this kind of amendment is that there is a
different culture in the credit union. It is one of a
co-operative where one entity does not own another entity, which
is the case with other financial institutions. In the credit
union there is one member, one vote. It is truly a democratic
structure.
Without an amendment to that effect it will make it very
difficult for the credit unions to establish a national credit
union system where people can go with their bank cards from one
province to another and still do their financial transactions
with the Credit Union Central of Canada. I indicate our support
for the amendment in that regard, which is part of this group as
well.
I have three specific amendments before the House today in this
grouping. One of them I referred to earlier in general in the
last round of debate: the changing of the penalties for the
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. Under the agency there will
be all kinds of power, regulations and activities it can do, but
when it comes to penalties, the maximum penalty for an individual
who is in violation of the act is $50,000 and for a financial
institution it is $100,000.
Financial institutions are very large. Some of them have
revenues in excess of $10 billion a year. Some of our banks are
extremely large. I am suggesting in our amendment that we move
the penalty for financial institutions from $100,000 to $500,000.
The reason is that it makes the penalty more real, more
meaningful for very large financial institutions than just a
penalty of $100,000. It is more in accordance with the size of
their assets and the kinds of business they do.
Our banks are doing very well. If we look at their balance
sheets and their retained earnings and profits in the last few
years, we see that they have gone up in many ways in an
astronomical sense. I am thinking of Royal Bank, TD Bank,
Scotiabank and Bank of Montreal, which is having a few more
problems but is still doing very well. All the big six banks are
doing very well as we speak. I think a penalty that is more a
reflection of their size would be $500,000 rather than $100,000.
The second amendment I am proposing is found in Motion No. 10.
It is to set up a no frill bank account and to have a charge for
that of $3 a month. I am very interested in hearing what the
parliamentary secretary has to say about this point. I am
ashamed to say that I have moved what is almost a Liberal
amendment today.
If we look at the government white paper in June 1999 it said
that there should be a no frills account established for 12
transactions for a fee of $3 to $4 a month. In the bill itself
the government dropped the idea of having a no frill account for
$3 a month. What I am doing is moving a Liberal amendment,
saying that there should be a no frill account and that the
maximum charge should be $3 a month.
Why are we doing this? We are doing this because many low
income people have difficulty with the cost of bank transactions
today. In my riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle I represent most of
the inner city in Regina. The poverty rate is extremely high.
Many people are on welfare. Many are earning minimum wage. Many
are struggling to make ends meet and have difficulty with bank
service charges.
Some banks have on a voluntary basis been introducing special
accounts with lower charges, but many people still find these
charges to be very steep and very excessive. We should have
legislation which says that there should be a minimum number of
charges for each and every Canadian, rich or poor, and that the
maximum charge for such an account should be $3 a month.
What is wrong with that? Our banks are making a lot of money.
Our banks are also making a lot of money on the poor people. We
do not have, as has the United States, a community reinvestment
act that forces banks to invest a certain amount of money in the
communities they take their money from.
We do not have many of those kinds of regulations. It is not
onerous for a bank to be asked to establish a no frills account
for low income people.
1125
I know my good friend from Souris—Moose Mountain, who
represents the neighbouring riding to mine in southern
Saskatchewan, certainly supports the idea as well. He also has a
number of low income people in his riding, a number of aboriginal
people in his riding who would certainly be in support of
establishing this kind of an account.
It speaks to equality, to a more egalitarian society and to the
common good. It speaks to opening up financial institutions to
every Canadian, regardless of the size of his or her pocketbook.
It speaks to what parliament should speak to: improving the
common good.
I am very anxious to hear what the parliamentary secretary will
say on behalf of the government about this issue. I remind him
once again that it is really a Liberal amendment. It was taken
out of the government's white paper of June 1999 when it
suggested a no frills account to the tune of some $3 per month.
The third amendment in my name is in Motion No. 11 which
provides for an amendment to the Bank Act to ensure that branches
could only be closed for reasons of non-profitability.
Today banks will often close branches even though they are
profitable, which leaves many communities without banking
services. What I am saying in this motion is that if a bank
branch is profitable it should not be closed down. If it is not
profitable, then it should have the right to pull out of a
particular community.
We have had some interesting things happening on the prairies.
In the last year the Bank of Montreal sold a number of its
branches to credit unions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
I have a couple of examples in my own riding of
Regina—Qu'Appelle where the credit union has taken over some
branches from the Bank of Montreal. The Bank of Montreal in this
case has made an accommodation with the credit union movement to
provide a very important service to a particular community. I
have seen in a couple of communities in my riding where people
appreciate that the service is there. They do not have to drive
an extra 20 or 30 miles to another town to be provided with
banking services.
This again speaks to fairness and equality. Coming from rural
Canada, it probably speaks to the fact that rural Canadians
should not be discriminated against in terms of banking services.
If the banking service is profitable, if the branch has made
money over the years by providing loans to farmers, to the small
business community and to consumers in a small town, it should
not be able to close down that branch. We think that should be
part of the legislation before the House today.
It is not only rural Canada. In parts of urban Canada, the
parts of inner cities where there is a lot of poverty, often a
branch will pull out even though it might be profitable but not
as profitable as it might be in a wealthier suburb.
One could go on at length in terms of what should be said here.
However I refer interested members to a presentation that was
made to our committee by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre when
it spoke about the accountability of banks, branch closings, and
the services that should be provided to Canadians and the
community at large.
Once again I commend these amendments to the House. They are
straightforward. In particular, I look forward to the response
from the parliamentary secretary when he talks about the $3 a
month bank account for consumers. I am also interested in seeing
what his reactions are to the suggestion of making amendments for
the credit union movement.
I have not seen his briefing notes, but he will say that the
government will try to accommodate credit unions through
regulation. In other words, he is asking us to trust him, trust
the government, trust the minister and trust the bureaucrats.
Even the minister responsible for sport will be cynical about
some of that. The parliamentary secretary will say that they
will bring in the proper regulations so that the credit unions
will be on a level playing field with the banks.
The credit union movement is saying that is not good enough. The
Credit Union Central of Canada has said that. Various centrals
across the country, such as the Van City Credit Union in British
Columbia, have also said that. They want an amendment to the
legislation.
If we do not do that in this House, I predict they will go to
the other house and lobby senators to make the change. It will
be sent back to the House of Commons and we will be debating this
piece of legislation and amendment in a few weeks' time.
1130
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to go back to the comments made by the hon. member
for Drummond on the importance of the whole issue of the
classification of banks and the degree of ownership.
For the benefit of those who are listening, I should point out
that the new bill on financial institutions establishes three
categories of banks: major banks, that is those with equity of
$5 billion or more; medium size banks, that is those with equity
of $1 billion to $5 billion; and small banks, that is those with
equity of less than $1 billion.
For each of these categories, the degree of ownership is
different. For example, in the case of major Canadian banks,
such as the Royal Bank, an individual cannot hold more than 20%
of the voting shares, while 80% of the shares must be widely
distributed among the public.
The bill has a major impact on medium size banks, such as the
National Bank in Quebec. For these banks, including the National
Bank, the new degree of ownership is 65:35. In other words, a
single individual can own up to 65% of the voting shares and
thus have full control over the National Bank, while the other
35% must be widely distributed among the public.
This new provision leads us to fear the worst in Quebec. This
bill discriminates somewhat against the National Bank, the
largest in Quebec, because the treatment of the Royal Bank, the
largest in Canada, where one individual is allowed to own a
maximum of 20% of voting shares, and the National Bank, where
one individual may own up to 65% of voting shares, creates
discrimination which is unjustified under the circumstances.
We are told that the purpose was to improve the National Bank's
funding flexibility. I have often asked the Minister of Finance
why one individual holding 65% of National Bank shares confers
more flexibility than 65 individuals with 1% each. I have never
had an answer.
These new provisions are cause for alarm.
Recently I read comments by economists to the effect that this
is no big deal, because the National Bank's equity is
increasing by leaps and bounds anyway, and soon will be in
excess of $5 billion. Such an analysis is wrong.
It is certain that the bill states that the banks can be
reclassified. This means that, should the National Bank one day
have over $5 billion in equity, it could be classified as a
major bank and therefore the voting share split would be 20%:80%.
In other words, with this bill a single individual could own 20%
of voting shares and the other 80% of voting shares would be
public, rather than the present 65%-35% split.
The point on which I disagree with the economic experts is that,
under this bill, which must be read carefully, the Minister of
Finance has three years to change the bank's classification.
That time limit can be extended as he sees fit. In other words,
even if the National Bank attains the $5 billion equity ceiling,
the Minister of Finance could decide to wait three years before
reclassifying it as a major bank subject to the 20%:80% split of
individual and public voting shares.
Not only may he wait three years before recategorizing it, but
he has the authority to extend this period. In other words,
even with equity of $5 billion and more, the National Bank would
not automatically be recategorized as a major bank and would
therefore still be in the 65:35 category, that is 65% of shares held
by one person.
There is a danger in this. Not only is the National Bank the
biggest bank in Quebec, but it is also the bank that finances
SMBs. As well, Quebec is proud to have such a large bank,
which, through the contribution of people like Mr. Bérard, has
grown at record speed to become the flagship it is today.
1135
Concern about this is so great that even Mr. Landry, former
finance minister and deputy premier, and now premier, of Quebec,
wrote to the federal Minister of Finance last June 2 to suggest
a number of public interest criteria for evaluating any banking
operation involving a mid-sized bank.
To my great surprise, just before the election, the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions had even agreed
to these criteria being part of the banking bill.
He had even signed beside the four criteria suggested by
Mr. Landry, saying “Yes, provided that it is not only for Quebec,
we can Canadianize—as it were—these criteria, and make them
part of the bill”.
A few days later, the secretary of state changed his
mind. I do not know why, but after putting his signature on
this document, he changed his mind and subsequently refused to
include these evaluation criteria in the bill.
There is no substantive difference between Bill C-38 as it was
before the election and Bill C-8 today. When the Minister of
Finance and the secretary of state released the new Bill C-8,
they also issued press releases and attachments, one of which
concerned the evaluation criteria for operations involving
mid-sized banks, such as the National Bank.
On reading these criteria, we realized that the government had
understood the message on additional criteria. We were
satisfied with that, but only half satisfied. What we called
for, and this is the heart of the amendment, it is the essence of
the amendment we are proposing this morning, is that these
criteria, which parallel the bill and are to be used as
guidelines by the Minister of Finance in making a decision
regarding the shares in a medium size bank, such as the National
Bank, must not be left to one side and left out of the decision
making process, but incorporated in the heart of the Bank Act,
to ensure reference is made.
In other words, we are not telling the government to reject all
transactions involving the National Bank. That is not the
intent. We want to ensure additional security, additional
criteria leading to the best possible decisions benefiting
Quebec's economy and finances and the financial sectors of
Quebec and Canada too.
We are not asking the government to be obtuse or to reject every
proposal. We would be the first to criticize this sort of
attitude, because we want our financial and banking institutions
to move ahead and to take their place in the world, the National
Bank and others too.
So, it is with an open mind that we are proposing these
amendments and we hope that the government will accept them. I
would say, and this is evidenced by all the representations that
we have made, that since the beginning of the process, the McKay
study, the white paper and the bill before us, the Bloc
Quebecois has always looked positively at the reform of the
financial institutions act, particularly since it is three or
four years late. The delay is getting longer by the week,
considering how quickly the financial sector is changing in
Quebec, in Canada and in the rest of the world.
We hope this bill will be quickly passed. However, would it
be possible for the government to show some openness for once?
We are not asking much; we are not asking for a complete
overhaul of the bill.
We are simply asking the government to reassure Quebecers who
are concerned about the new provisions that specifically apply
to the National Bank. They hope that this new reform of
financial institutions will have a positive impact on the
financial sector and will not raise concerns about takeovers
that would be detrimental, particularly to the interests of
small and medium sized businesses in Quebec.
I urge the government which, through its secretary of state, has
already agreed to the four conditions, the four criteria
proposed by Mr. Landry in June, to include these criteria in the
core of Bill. It recently tabled a document, along with Bill
C-8, that includes these criteria, albeit in a different format,
but it includes them nevertheless.
1140
So, I am asking the government to simply show some openness by
taking that document and including it directly in the core of
the bill. If it does that, the Bloc Quebecois will support the
bill.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak on these specific amendments
in Group No. 2.
First, with regard to Motion No. 2 and the stiffer penalties for
violations of the rules relative to consumer protection, while I
understand the hon. member's notion of making the punishment even
more onerous, the fact is that the legislation would give a
greater amount of intrusion and regulation of the financial
services sector than any other sector or industry in Canada. I
understand the hon. member's philosophical foundation for the
amendment but I disagree fundamentally with his intention.
On Motion No. 9, I generally agree with the notion that we need
to improve and increase levels of flexibility for the Canadian
financial services sector players which include the banks, credit
unions et cetera. The greater level of flexibility in ownership
rules for small banks makes a great deal of sense if we are
serious about increased levels of competition. I would not agree
with Motion No. 9 in general because I think it is contrary to
the principles of the MacKay report and to the general direction
that I believe is sound in terms of moving toward greater levels
of flexibility in the financial services sector to increase the
level of competition and ultimately services to consumers.
Motion No. 10 is very well placed. While I may disagree with
it, it is important that the hon. member presented it. It points
out the hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals. It was Liberal
policy to have a $3 basic account. Now the Liberals are lining
up opposed to it.
Are we prepared to have these kinds of rules for every industry?
For instance there is the food distribution business. Clearly
food is a necessity since we cannot live without food and we also
cannot live without shelter, unless we were to pass laws that
would require grocery stores and distribution companies or real
estate developers to provide a basic level of service to people
at very low levels of cost or perhaps even free. It is incorrect
and not logical for us to impose these same levels of onerous
restrictions and over regulation on the financial services
sector.
If I disagree with some elements of the legislation, they are
the parts that would lead to a greater level of intrusion and
over regulation of the financial services sector than any other
industry in Canada. The motion in some ways would make it even
worse, more onerous and unfair.
Probably it is good politics to present motions that are
anti-bank but it may also be very bad public policy if in fact
our interests are consistent with the long term interests of
Canadians. In general, greater levels of regulation can also
lead to greater levels of cost of compliance and ultimately
higher levels of services charges for consumers and/or lower
returns for bank shareholders. The bank shareholders include
about seven million Canadians indirectly or directly who are
counting on their long term returns from their investments,
particularly for retirement income.
Motion No. 11 deals with prohibition of bank closures for any
reasons but non-profitability. It is very intrusive and
difficult to determine.
Frankly this gets into issues of bookkeeping and cost allocation.
It would be almost impossible to implement the principle of the
motion.
1145
Again, there is a greater level of transparency and there is a
process put in place for branch closures in the legislation which
goes quite a long way further than we have seen in the past.
I do agree with the hon. member in terms of the notion that the
credit unions should be engaged more actively when there are
going to be branch closures in order to ensure that every
possible avenue has been identified and pursued to ensure
continued services to communities, particularly smaller
communities. I think the Bank of Montreal and the credit union
movement have created a very positive example of how that level
of co-operation can benefit consumers and citizens in smaller
communities.
I think it was about a year ago when a number of Bank of
Montreal branches closed in the western provinces, but instead of
waiting for public backlash the Bank of Montreal pre-emptively
negotiated with and announced a deal with the credit unions,
which resulted in only a minimal disruption of services to
consumers in those communities. I support that kind of
initiative.
In terms of Motion No. 14, again I am supportive. It is
consistent with the underpinnings of the co-operative movement,
the credit union movement and the distinct democratic culture of
the credit union and co-operative movements. If we are serious
about enabling the credit unions to compete more effectively with
banks, the amendment in fact makes a great deal of sense, because
it enables them to compete and at the same time remain consistent
with the democratic underpinnings of their movement.
As a result, I think this is a positive amendment and it is
regrettable that the government does not support it. On the one
hand the government is saying it wants to create greater levels
of competition from the credit union movement, and on the other
hand it is not providing the legislative vehicle through which to
ensure that the credit union movement can also take advantage of
this greater level of competition. I support Motion No. 14.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me at this time, which
actually accomplishes a couple of goals. First, since I have had
to stand five or six times to be recognized, I have been afforded
needed exercise. Second, I appreciate being able to speak before
the parliamentary secretary on this particular grouping because I
can hopefully change his mind since I think he may have
considerable influence on the way the votes are conducted on the
other side. At least I would hope he has, although I sometimes
even wonder about that.
Let me address the issues that are before us in this group of
amendments. I will begin, of course, with the matter of the
penalty that is proposed to be amended by the member from the
Bloc.
He proposes that the maximum penalty be changed. In order to
see how the clause reads now, I need to haul out this book, the
bill we are amending, Bill C-8. It says the maximum penalty for
a violation is $50,000 in the case of a violation that is
committed by a natural person and $100,000 in the case of a
violation that is committed by a financial institution. That is
for breaches of the act and of the regulations made by the
minister.
I want to draw attention to the fact that this states the
maximum penalty, so I think arguments could be made in favour of
this particular amendment. The maximum penalty right now is
$100,000 and the amendment says it should be a maximum of
$500,000. This does not mean it is going to be applied.
1150
As a matter of fact, if we read the next section, which is not
referenced in this amendment, it states that in assessing the
penalty these are some of the issues which are to be taken into
account: the degree of intention or negligence on the part of
the person committing the violation; the harm done; the history
with respect to previous convictions or violations; and any other
criteria that may be prescribed.
In assessing a penalty for a violation, I am sure that a large
bank, a huge financial institution, would, under that
prescription, be given a larger penalty than a small credit union
somewhere, depending on the severity of the violation. Yet at
the same time, I am somewhat inclined to have a substantial
penalty when a large business just will not comply. That could
happen. I cannot imagine under what circumstances, but it could
happen.
I think, for example, of a large but unnamed mall in Edmonton.
When it first started in business we had the Lord's Day Act in
place in Alberta, which meant that some days were available to
families to spend together because basically all of the stores
were closed and just essential services were provided. It was a
wonderful time, actually, when I look back at it, when we could
get together with our families. We had freedom. People were not
obliged to go to work. It was the same day for everyone.
Then that particular mall said that if it were to be fined
$10,000 a day every time it was open on Sunday that was a fair
and reasonable cost of doing business. It just paid the fine and
broke the law with impunity. There was no provision under the
law to escalate the penalty; it was just a straight $10,000 a
day. The mall gladly paid the fine and made a lot of money.
By the way, I believe that is where the erosion started. Then
it went right across the country, so that working people now no
longer have a day off each week that applies to all family
members. Very seldom do we see a family being able to get
together. Either mom has to work or dad has to work or one of
the kids who has a job at the store has to work. They cannot be
together.
That is an example of a penalty so small that the business was
not compelled at all to obey the law. In that sense, I have a
bit of a tendency to be in favour of just increasing the maximum.
It would not necessarily be applied, but this amendment would put
some teeth into this for those who were in blatant violation and
who continued to be so.
I must hurry because I have spent too much time on that
particular provision. The next motion is Motion No. 9. That has
to do with the application of a problem specific to Quebec at
this time but which could happen in other provinces as well. In
order to preserve my time, let me simply say that I have an
inclination to agree with it.
Motion No. 10 has to do with the provision that the banks should
provide for a low cost account. I do not really believe that we
should have this in legislation or in law, although I agree with
the principle of it. I would much rather see the banks provide
these necessary low cost accounts and advertise that fact.
If a bank were to have an ad in the paper that said there were a
number of people in our society from whom they just did not make
a great deal of money but for whom they felt obliged to provide a
banking service at a low cost, I think the bank would get a lot
of public relations benefit simply by advertising that and
providing a service. The bank could ask small businessmen in
towns and cities or wherever to support its business with their
business. I think it would benefit the bank.
I agree with the principle that a person of limited financial
means should have the ability to go into a bank and cash a cheque
and to have a low cost bank account. That is definitely a
principle I agree with. As I said, the only reason I would vote
against this is that I think would be overkill. I also do not
agree with putting in a fixed amount, because maybe the bank
could do it for less. Maybe of necessity it has to be $4 and a
bank would be in violation if we ensconced $3 in the legislation.
I am opposed to this particular motion on the basis that it is
too specific, and I think the same goals, which I agree with, can
be achieved by other means.
1155
I turn now to Motion No. 11, also put forward by the NDP member,
which proposes that the closing of the branches of a bank “can
only take place for reasons of financial non-profitability.” I
hate to say it, but this is a dreadful amendment.
I think it is a huge imposition on business operations. It is
like telling farmers they could plant only a certain kind of crop
and the only reason they could ever quit planting would be if
they were not making money on it; otherwise, they would have to
plant that crop. I disagree with that.
I believe the banks should have a certain degree of flexibility
to open and to close branches based on an efficient way of
providing services in the community. For example, let us say
that there is a branch over here and there is a branch over
there. With modern transportation it is now much easier for
people to get around, so if the banks decided to have one branch
operating in the middle instead of having two branches operating,
it would mean the closure of two branches. Neither of them might
be losing money, but the bank could be more efficient and provide
a better service for less cost, including services for low income
people. I do not think we should stand in the way of this. In
this particular instance, I would simply say that I would be
really hard pressed to support Motion No. 11.
The last motion is the one on the credit unions, proposed by the
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I propose that we
heartily support it. This is where I want to get the ear of the
parliamentary secretary over there and have him influence all of
his Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of this very fine
amendment.
I happen to believe in the credit union movement. My dad was a
leader in the credit union in Saskatchewan for many years. He
was on the board, on the finance committee and on the loans
committee. He did all sorts of things. As a result of having
grown up in that kind of an atmosphere, I guess, I am sort of
inclined toward credit unions.
Over the years I have given some business to the banks for
different reasons, but I have found that in a competitive market
my dealings with the credit unions have been most satisfactory. I
do not hesitate at all to give a little bit of free advertising
to them here today. They can use this clip if they want to. I
give them permission. I do not know whether the rules of the
House of Commons permit that, but I certainly support the credit
union movement and this amendment strengthens it. The reason we
should favour this amendment is that one of the best things for
the Canadian financial services industry is to have good
competition, where we can say to our financial institutions
“Treat me like that and I am out of here”.
I am going to run out of time here, but I remember when I had a
bank loan for purchasing a car. I asked the bank whether I could
pay the loan off more quickly. The bank said that I could but I
would have to pay a penalty. Members would not believe it, but
the total payment the bank wanted in order to have me pay off
that loan early was greater than the sum of the remaining
payments. I said to the bank that either it was nuts or it
thought I was. I was not willing to comply with that. I just
finished off my payments and said that if that was how the bank
did business I would look elsewhere. Sure enough, soon I found
another financial institution that pleased me more and I just
moved my business to it.
That is the very best thing we can do: provide competition.
Credit unions are one of the primary ways of holding the banks
responsible and giving them some real competition.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, what I propose to do is deal
with the motions in the following order: Motion No. 14 from the
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley; then those from the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc amendments; and then
finally the amendments from the NDP member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Dealing first with Motion No. 14, of course the members on this
side of the House do not need convincing about the importance of
the credit union movement and the kind of expanded and enhanced
role we would like to see them play in the Canadian economy by
providing consumers with more choice and by providing more
competition. That is a given. The Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions, when he spoke at committee,
gave the undertaking that the government would work with the
credit union movement to try to enhance its role in the Canadian
economy.
With respect to this particular motion, which was actually put
forward by the NDP at committee, I would just like to mention
that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle seems to argue that the
legislation does not provide equal treatment to credit unions.
1200
The credit union movement, when it came to the committee, was
looking for preferential treatment. We cannot accept having
treatment for the credit union movement that would be
preferential to the treatment we have for other financial
institutions.
Members on this side are not the only ones to work actively with
the credit union movement. The Department of Finance has worked
closely with it in developing Bill C-8. The resulting
legislation responds to the need of credit unions for greater
structural flexibility as they move to restructure their
operations and become more integrated.
However with this new flexibility come prudential concerns
resulting from a whole new set of ownership possibilities, most
of them unknown at this point. Because the landscape is changing
so quickly we must be concerned about the potential for
prudential risks. The control requirement is necessary to
safeguard against such risks and is designed to ensure the parent
company has the power to intervene in situations where a
subsidiary might get into financial trouble. These same
provisions apply to other financial institutions such as large
banks and insurance companies that are also widely held.
Given the broader risks associated with this new flexibility it
is more prudent, in the government's view, to establish a general
safety net or prohibition and to provide the regulatory
flexibility to make exceptions as necessary. This is a common
use of existing regulatory authorities. If unforeseen
circumstances arise, a general prohibition allows us to err on
the side of caution.
The change made to proposed subclause 396(a) at committee would
broaden the scope of the regulation making authority and provide
further comfort to the Credit Union Central Canada, CUCC, that
the government had all the flexibility it needed to provide
exceptions from the control requirements as necessary.
The Department of Finance is already engaged in an extensive
drafting exercise to prepare the regulations stemming from Bill
C-8. It has had early discussions with the CUCC on the
possibility of drafting a regulation that would provide the
required flexibility. Once approved, the regulations would have
the same effect as legislation.
[Translation]
I now want to speak to Motion No. 9 by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. This motion deals with the matters the
minister might take into account in determining whether or not
to approve acquisition of a significant interest in a bank.
The matters to be taken into account under proposed paragraph
(i) of the motion are contemplated in paragraph (f) on the
conduct of businesses and operations of applicants.
Consequently, the minister shall have the legislative authority
to take into account the matters outlined under paragraph (i).
Since there is no need to amend the legislation to allow the
minister to take these matters into account, it was determined
for reasons of clarity and transparency to have these matters
set out in the guidelines.
The guidelines indicate the government's commitment to take
these matters into account in category changes.
[English]
I will clarify a point made by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. In his speech he seemed to imply that a
bank with assets of over $5 billion may not be subject to the
widely held rule. Bill C-8 states that banks with assets over $5
billion would automatically be subject to the widely held rule.
We have other motions before us from the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, the NDP finance critic, and I will now refer
to them.
1205
I will move to Motion No. 10, which deals with low cost
accounts. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and others spoke
about how the government and the Liberal Party have talked about
the need for low cost accounts. The amendment from the NDP would
amend the definition of low fee retail deposit accounts in clause
439(1) to specify that such accounts shall cost $3. The members
opposite seem to be implying that we do not have a commitment to
low cost accounts.
Bill C-8 in fact establishes the low cost account and that is
exactly what the Liberal government has advocated for some time.
Rather than reneging on our promise, the bill delivers on that
promise. As members are aware, the Department of Finance has
successfully negotiated low cost account memoranda of
understanding with each of the major banks.
The views of consumer groups on the desired features of the low
cost account were sought prior to negotiating the arrangements.
Taking those views into account, the accounts adhere to certain
standards, including a maximum monthly fee of $4 and the
availability of some in branch transactions. Providing banks
some flexibility in pricing and designing the accounts ensures
consumers greater choice in obtaining low cost accounts that best
meet their needs.
Motion No. 11 from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle deals with
branch closures. I will comment on that briefly. Our proposed
reforms are intended to encourage financial institutions to be
more responsive to the public without unduly interfering in the
day to day business decisions of banks. Some members opposite
have clearly pointed out that the motion presented by the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle is intrusive into the day to day decision
making of banks.
Issues such as branch operating hours and closures are a matter
for individual banks and the marketplace to decide. That being
said, we believe consumers should receive adequate notice of
branch closures to facilitate adjustment to the closures. Under
our new policy framework, should a financial institution choose
to close a branch it would be required to provide at least four
months' notice. If the branch is the last one in a rural
community, six months' notice would be required. The notice
period would give the community an opportunity to discuss
alternatives with the institution or to approach other financial
institutions that could perhaps fill the gap. That deals with
the motions in Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 9 stands deferred.
1210
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 11 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 14 stands deferred. I will now put Group No. 3 to
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-8 be
amended by adding after line 20 on page 28 the following
new clause:
“54.1 Subsection 46(2) of the Act is replaced by the
following:
(2) The shareholders of a bank shall, by resolution at
the meeting of shareholders called pursuant to subsection
(1),
(a) approve, amend or reject any by-law made by the
directors of the bank;
(b) subject to section 168, elect directors to hold office
for a term expiring not later than the close of the third
annual meeting of shareholders following the election;
(c) appoint an auditor or auditors to hold office until the
close of the first annual meeting of shareholders; and
(d) adopt a code of internal procedure respecting the
conduct of meetings of shareholders.
That Bill C-8, in
Clause 63, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 33 on page
31 with the following:
“63. Subsection 138(1) of the Act is replaced by the
following:
138. (1) Notice of the time and place of a meeting of
shareholders of a bank and the complete minutes of the last
meeting of shareholders, whether that meeting was an annual
or a special meeting, shall be sent not less than twenty-
one days or more than fifty days before the meeting,
(a) to each shareholder entitled to vote at the meeting;
(b) to each director; and
(c) to the auditor or auditors of the bank.
(1.1) A bank with equity of five billion dollars or
more shall set out in the notice of a meeting the number of
eligible votes, as defined under subsection 156.09(1), that
may be cast at the meeting as of the record date for
determining those shareholders entitled to receive the
notice of meeting or, if there are to be separate votes of
shareholders at the meeting, the number of eligible votes,
as defined in that subsection, in respect of each separate
vote to be held at the meeting.”
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-8, in
Clause 65, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 32 with
the following:
1215
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-8 be
amended by adding after line 33 on page 34 the following
new clause:
“70.1 Section 160 of the Act is amended by striking
out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (h) and by
adding the following after paragraph (i):
(j) a person who is a director of another financial
institution; and
(k) a person who has, directly or indirectly, an interest
in the supply of products or services to the institution.
That Bill C-8 be
amended by adding after line 20 on page 35 the following
new clause:
“71.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after
section 161:
161.1 (1) The position of chairman shall be separate
from the position of chief executive officer and shall not
be held by the same person.
(2) For greater certainty, the role of the chairman
shall be to ensure that the board of directors assesses the
management of the institution, while the role of the chief
executive officer shall be to manage the institution's day-
to-day activities.”
He said: Madam Speaker, basically, these amendments have three
purposes. The first is to give more power to shareholders of
financial institutions. Earlier, we spoke about the special
ownership structure of the Canadian financial sector and that is
precisely the idea of the first motion. We said, for example,
that for large banks 20% of the shares can be held by a single
shareholder and that 80 % of voting shares would be widely
distributed in the public.
The effects of such a distribution can be negative since small
shareholders have very little to say, particularly during annual
meetings of the large Canadian banks, and the bill is designed
to strengthen the powers of those small shareholders.
We add our voice to that of the Association de protection des
épargnants et des investisseurs du Québec, the APEIQ. We want
to give our support to its campaign for more democracy at annual
meetings of banks, as well as in the way the boards of directors
of financial institutions operate.
On this point, in our first group of amendments, we say that
shareholders, no matter how small, have a right to be heard and
to participate in any decision made by the financial
institutions. To do so, they must receive prompt and timely
notice of a general meeting.
They must have all the documents relevant to this meeting and
they must also be allowed to be heard, not just on matters
having to do with the profitability of the financial
institution, but also on any other matter which directly or
indirectly affects the activities of the institution per se.
I will give an example. Right now, it is not possible for
shareholders at a general meeting to raise matters having to do
with the social aspects of a company's activities. Nor may they
raise political issues. For instance, they could not ask
questions about the activities of a company in which they were a
small shareholder in countries where democracy was not the rule
and where fundamental rights were not respected. It is not
possible at a general meeting to table resolutions along these
lines or even to question the board of directors.
It is time that this changed. It is now 2001 and the democratic
system in use at the general meetings of major financial
institutions is completely archaic.
There are also other motions, one of which was to avoid any
possibility of conflict of interest.
1220
A person cannot sit on the board of a major bank and also
provide that bank with goods and services. This would make him
or her both judge and party to the action when it came time to
make decisions relating to the financial institution.
For example, someone cannot be a member of the board of a bank
and a shareholder in a company of external auditors, for
instance, hired by the bank to audit its financial statements.
What we are proposing then is to ensure that there are new
provisions which would, for example, call for questions to be
asked and for it not to be acceptable for a board member to be
directly or indirectly involved in providing the institution
with products and services. Nor would it be allowed for a board
member of one financial institution to also sit on the board of
another. This could lead to problems.
That is the gist of what we are proposing. It is also the
position of the Association de protection des épargnants et des
investisseurs du Québec, APEIQ, which we totally endorse.
It is our hope that, in the spirit of greater democratization
and transparency of the activities of the financial
institutions, the government will support such proposals, along
with the members of the other opposition parties. They cannot
help but improve things from the point of view of equity, small
shareholder participation, democratization and, above all,
transparency of the activities of these major financial
institutions.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 brought
forward by the Bloc relate to the provisions of the Bank Act on
crown corporation governance.
As hon. members know, the Senate is presently considering a
separate bill, Bill S-11, to amend the provisions of the Canada
Business Corporations Act relating to corporation governance.
The government is closely monitoring progress of Bill S-11 with a
view to assessing the opportunity to apply the various
initiatives included in that legislation to financial
institutions.
After parliament has completed consideration of Bill S-11, the
government will consult interested parties on the changes.
The consultation process will allow parties who did not take
part in the amendment of the Canada Business Corporations Act to
express their views on the appropriateness of making similar
amendments to corporation governance provisions that apply to
financial institutions.
Since the general examination of provisions of financial
institution legislation concerning corporation governance will
focus on the issues raised in the motions, we think there
is no need to amend the bill at the moment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to speak to the motions brought forward by the
Bloc Quebecois and supported by my colleague for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who worked very hard on this issue. He
submitted a brief on the subject, listened to hundreds of
witnesses and also took to heart most of the recommendations
made by witness groups.
1225
The problem with this bill, and it was mentioned earlier, has to
do with banks with assets totalling under $5 billion.
We are also concerned with the recommendations made by the
Association de protection des épargnants et investisseurs du
Québec. It submitted a brief at the committee hearings on Bill
C-38, which is now called Bill C-8.
The Association de protection des épargnants et investisseurs du
Québec then said:
Bank ownership is widely spread in Canada and it is so intended
in order to limit a big shareholder's capacity to control one or
more financial institutions while these are considered to be
public services. Unfortunately, this widespread shareholding has
had a perverse effect—
I repeat, “a perverse effect”,
The Bloc Quebecois supports the recommendations made by the
Association de la protection des épargnants et investisseurs du
Québec, and that is why we brought forward the motions read
earlier.
We have moved many more in support of the association, but they
were rejected.
The association has made numerous representations to the federal
government, to the McKay Commission in 1997, to the Standing
Senate Committee on Banking in 1998 and to the House Standing
Committee on Finance in November 1998. Despite these many
meetings, Bill C-38 and Bill C-8 did not take any of the
association's recommendations into account.
For the most part, these recommendations refer to the
recommendations made by the association. I would like to quote
some of these recommendations if I have enough time, but I know
that time flies.
First there is the restriction on the number of boards a
director is allowed to sit on at any one time. Our proposal
dealt with the restriction on the number of boards a director
would be allowed to sit on at any one time. What exists now is the old
boys' club rule where “You appoint me, I appoint you, and we
appoint each other”.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for
interrupting the member's speech but it is a procedural matter. I
believe you would find unanimous consent to adopt Motion No. 3 on
the order paper without debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt have unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, an act to establish
the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain
Acts in relation to financial institutions, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 3.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
something I did not really understand with the adoption of
Motion 3. It would appear that you allowed something, but on
this side we did not hear what you said.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
requested the unanimous consent of the House on some report and
it was given. We are therefore resuming debate.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: As I said, our proposal dealt with limiting
the number of boards on which a director can sit at the same
time.
We were saying that, right now, what exists is the old boys'
club rule where “I appoint you, you appoint me and we appoint
one another”, which makes boards of directors increasingly less
efficient and less representative of shareholders. We believe
that the number of boards of directors on which a person is
allowed to sit should be very limited, because one needs time
and a minimum of dedication to do a good job. The bill
completely ignores those recommendations.
1230
Second, there is the elimination of potential conflicts of
interests between board members and those who provide goods and
services to the institution. Our proposal dealt with the
elimination of potential conflicts of interests between board
members and service providers.
Bill C-8 contains no provision to that effect, except the general
provision on very general conflicts of interests.
As we know, in the United States and even in Canada, there has
been some success in getting shareholders meetings to pass,
often against the will and recommendations of bank managers and
other corporate directors, resolutions making it a requirement
to disclose at least the fees paid to external auditors for
audit services, on the one hand, and general consulting
services, on the other hand.
For example, a consultant who is paid $1 million to audit
records, while at the same time being paid $10 million for
various consulting services could presumably have some
difficulty presenting a critical internal audit report. Everyone
understands that.
Third, there is the requirement to submit financial statements
for review and discussion during the annual shareholders'
meeting.
That proposal seeks to clarify the legislation so that the agenda
of the yearly shareholders' meetings include the item
“consideration of financial statements and auditor's report”.
In that regard, according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary,
the word consideration means more than just tabling, but
the act of considering and careful thought means not just tabling,
but giving careful thought.
Since the financial statements are the main report of the agents
on their management of the corporation, consideration and
discussion of that document is a basic right of the principal
shareholders, even those of banks.
There is also the presentation of the officers' remuneration
policy to the shareholders' approval. With respect to banks,
which are essentially public service companies operating in a
very protected environment compared to other companies in the
private sector, we find the remunerationpaid to officers
literally outrageous.
Of course we know the process through which they receive very
positive recommendations about remuneration systems providing
they are paid this or that amount. Nevertheless, the end
result is that the officers of these institutions are not
necessarily paid a basic salary, but aggregate remuneration with
a very generous option plan, and that is unacceptable.
As for the adoption of a code of procedure respecting the
conduct of shareholders' meetings, the purpose of this proposal
is to facilitate active and effective shareholder participation
in meetings and to protect them from the arbitrary decisions of
presiding officers who are anxious to cut short shareholders'
remarks. Our suggestion is that each corporation prepare a code
of procedure respecting the conduct of these meetings and that
this procedure be adopted at an annual meeting of shareholders
within a reasonable timeframe.
Some banks, and more particularly the Laurentian Bank, have
voluntarily adopted such a code, but it is not a requirement of
the bill.
Corporations should also be required to prepare a comprehensive
report on all shareholders' meetings and send it to all
shareholders. Our recommendation is that corporations be
required to do so. Some of them already do, but there is no
requirement to that effect in the bill.
Another suggestion is to reduce the barriers that prevent
shareholders from making proposals before and during
shareholders' meetings. This suggestion is being made generally
rather than by the board or the management of banks exclusively.
At this time, a shareholder must hold 5% of the shares of a
financial institution or public corporation or have control to
be entitled to present candidates as directors on the board.
1235
Do members know how much 5% of the Royal Bank shares represents?
It represents $900 million. I do not think any members has
that much money or has the proposed control of a bank to be
able to present candidates. I do not know too many people with
that kind of money.
An hon. member: Paul Martin.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Of course. Access should be given to all
bona fide shareholders: most shares are held in trust by
brokers, and these intermediaries are the registered
shareholders.
Only these intermediaries hold the list of actual shareholders,
so the corporation does not know who these shareholders are and
cannot communicate directly with non registered shareholders.
This would ease communication between the corporation and its
shareholders.
The position of chairman should be separate from the position of
chief executive officer. We are also proposing a reduction of
barriers to the shareholders' right to submit proposals for and
during shareholders' meetings. Thus, we recommend a reduction of
barriers to the shareholders' right to submit proposals.
At this time, the act and the bill provide that the
bank's management may refuse a shareholder's proposal that is
primarily for the purpose of promoting general economic,
political, racial, religious, social or similar causes.
It may essentially refuse almost anything and it is only public
pressure, so to speak, that forces banks to accept shareholders'
proposals.
Our proposal also deals with branch closures. We are told that
banks will now be able to proceed with branch closures. We would
like this to be very transparent. People, especially those
living in rural and isolated areas where there are less
services will be given a six month notice. How lucky; a six
month notice to warn them that their bank will be closed. And
who cares about where they will get the same services.
There is nothing in the bill on this. There is only the
minister who is convinced that his bill will help ordinary
people, small investors and small savers. I hope these flaws
will be corrected in the bill before it is passed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1240
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
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: The recorded vote on Motion No. 3
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No.4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No.5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division Motion No. 5 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the
members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded divisions stand deferred until
tomorrow, March 28, to the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
* * *
1245
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
Hon. Robert Thibault (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax
Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and
another act related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
present Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000 for second
reading today.
While the bill amends several sections of the Income Tax Act,
more important, it implements key elements of the government's
five year tax reduction plan which was introduced last year.
[Translation]
Briefly, this plan will provide $100 billion in tax relief by
2004-05, thereby reducing the federal personal income tax paid by
Canadians by 21% on average.
Families with children will receive an even larger tax
cut—about 27% on average.
[English]
The bill also includes many additional measures, including
technical amendments that were introduced in Bill C-43 last fall
but which died on the order paper when the election was called.
Many of these amendments are relieving in nature. Some correct
technical deficiencies in the act while others lighten the
administration of the tax system. Whatever the changes, one
thing is certain, each is based on the principles of fairness and
equity in the federal tax system to which our government has been
committed since coming to office in 1993.
[Translation]
Once we eliminated the deficit in 1997-98, we began to cut
taxes for all Canadians. The bill before us today is the biggest
step forward in our tax cutting efforts to date and is based on
four key principles.
[English]
First, our approach to tax reduction must be fair starting with
those who need relief most, middle and low income earners, and
especially families with children.
Second, we will focus initially on personal income taxes since
that is where we are most out of line.
Third, we will ensure that Canada has an internationally
competitive business tax system.
Fourth, we will not finance tax relief with borrowed money
because that means an inevitable return to higher taxes in the
future.
For the government, fiscal responsibility is fundamental and tax
cuts are essential. At the same time, it is essential that an
effective, fair and technically valid tax system be maintained,
which is the thrust of the legislation before us today.
I will now discuss the main measures in the bill beginning with
some of the personal income tax changes.
In 1999 the government promised Canadians that it would set out
a multi-year plan for further tax reductions. The 2000 budget
delivered on that commitment by making the most important
structural changes to the Canadian tax system in more than a
decade with a special emphasis on the needs of families with
children. The bill provides for tax rate reductions at all
income levels as of January 1, 2001.
[Translation]
The low and middle income tax rates fall to 16% and 22%
respectively. The top 29% rate is reduced to 26% on incomes
between about $61,000 and $100,000, which means that the 29% rate
applies only to income over $100,000.
[English]
While tax burdens will fall for all Canadians, the decline will
be felt substantially by middle income earners. In addition, the
bill would eliminate the 5% deficit reduction surtax as of
January 1, 2001.
One component of the five year tax reduction plan must be in
place by July 1 of this year because it benefits Canadian
children. I am referring to the increased support for families
with children through the Canada child tax benefit.
As hon. members know, the Canada child tax benefit is a key
element of federal assistance to families. It is an income based
benefit with two components: the Canada child tax benefit base
benefit for low and middle income families and the national child
benefit supplement for low income families.
The maximum Canada child tax benefit for the first child will
rise to $2,372 in July 2001, well on the way to the five year
goal of $2,500 by the year 2004.
1250
For the second child, the maximum Canada child tax benefit will
increase to $2,308 in July 2004. Together with increases
announced in previous budgets, annual Canada child tax benefits
will exceed $9 billion a year in the year 2004, of which low
income families will receive about $6 billion and middle income
families about $3 billion.
The bill contains other personal income tax changes that are
specifically designed to help those who need it most.
[Translation]
For example, the amount on which the disability tax credit, the
DTC, is based is increasing from $4,293 to $6,000 effective
2001. This tax relief will increase over time, as the DTC is
fully indexed to inflation.
[English]
The list of relatives to whom the disability tax credit can be
transferred has expanded to make it consistent with the medical
expense tax credit rules. In addition, speech language
pathologists will now be able to certify eligibility for the
disability tax credit with respect to speech impairments.
Another measure increases the maximum annual amount that can be
deducted for child care expenses to $10,000 from $7,000 for each
eligible child for whom the disability tax credit can be claimed.
The amounts on which the caregiver tax credit and the infirm
dependant credit are calculated are both going up to $3,500.
With full indexation, this tax relief will continue to increase
over time.
[Translation]
At present, individuals with certain mobility impairments may
qualify under the medical expense tax credit for renovation
costs that enable them to gain access to, or be mobile or
functional within, their home. Bill C-22 includes reasonable
incremental costs relating to the construction of a principal
residence to help these individuals.
[English]
To provide additional assistance to students, the annual
exemption for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries received in
conjunction with programs for which the education tax credit may
be claimed increases to $3,000, up from $500.
I also want to mention that self-employed individuals will now
be able to deduct one-half of their Canada pension plan or Quebec
pension plan contributions on self-employment income. The
remaining one-half will continue to be eligible for a personal
tax credit at the lowest tax rate. Without the bill they would
be entitled only to the credit on both the employer and employee
contributions, which would put them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis
owner-operators who can deduct the employer share.
[Translation]
The technical amendments in this bill are too numerous to
mention in the short time allotted to me in this debate.
However, I would like to highlight a few of them before moving
on to the business tax changes implemented in this bill.
[English]
On the personal tax side, some of the changes ensure that the
rules under which clergy can claim a deduction for their
residence are clarified. They also ensure that Revenue Canada
can release information about a former registered charity as long
as it relates to when the organization was a registered charity.
They ensure that municipalities do not have to file T4s for
volunteers to whom they paid not more than $1,000. They also
ensure that the exemption applicable to reasonable travel
allowances to part time teachers be extended to teachers who do
not have other jobs.
The five year tax reduction plan also goes a long way toward
making Canada's business income tax system more internationally
competitive. This is important because business tax rates have a
significant impact on the level of business investment,
employment, productivity, wages and incomes.
1255
[Translation]
With this in mind, Bill C-22 includes significant corporate tax
rate reductions. Corporate tax rates will drop to 21% from 28%
for businesses in the highest taxed sectors, such as
high technology services, to make them more internationally
competitive. These reductions begin with a one-point cut
effective January 1, 2001.
[English]
By 2005 the combined federal provincial tax rate, including both
income and capital taxes, will drop from the current average of
47% to 35%. This would put our businesses on a more competitive
level with other G-7 countries.
Two measures in the tax reduction plan involve capital gains.
The first provides a tax deferred capital gains rollover for
investments in shares of certain small and medium sized active
business corporations. It includes increasing the $500,000
investment limit, originally announced in the 2000 budget, to $2
million as announced in the economic statement and increasing the
size of small businesses eligible for the rollover from $10
million to include corporations with no more than $50 million in
assets immediately after the investment.
The second measure reduces the capital gains inclusion rate to
one-half. This would reduce the tough federal provincial tax
rate on capital gains in Canada from an average of about 31% to
about 23%, lower than the typical U.S. combined federal state top
rate of about 25%. Both measures would improve access to capital
for small businesses with high growth potential. High technology
industries would particularly benefit.
Consistent with this change to the capital gains inclusion rate,
the deduction for employee stock options would increase from
one-third to one-half. As a result, employees in Canada would be
taxed more favourably on their stock option benefits than
employees in the U.S. The bill defers the taxation for certain
stock option benefits and allows an additional deduction for
certain stock option shares donated to charity.
Another measure that I want to discuss relates to branches of
foreign banks operating in Canada.
[Translation]
These new rules stem from the 1999 amendments to the Bank Act,
which allow foreign banks to establish specialized, commercially
focused branches here. Previously, foreign banks could operate
in Canada only through Canadian incorporated subsidiaries.
[English]
The tax system for the new foreign bank branches would now be
comparable to that for Canadian banks. These new rules would
give foreign banks a time limit window to move their operations
from a Canadian subsidiary into a Canadian branch without undue
tax consequences.
As with the personal tax measures, the business tax changes are
too numerous to discuss individually during today's debate. I
would like to summarize a few of them.
The bill, for example, provides a tax deferred rollover for
shares received on certain foreign spinoffs. It strengthens thin
capitalization rules. It phases out over a three year period the
special income tax regime for non-resident owned investment
corporations. It treats provincial deductions for scientific
research that exceed the amount of the SR & ED expenditures as
government assistance. It ensures appropriate treatment of
foreign exploration and development expenses in computing foreign
tax credits. It introduces a temporary 15% investment tax credit
for grassroots mineral exploration and it amends the corporate
divisive reorganization rules.
Other technical amendments ensure that Canadian corporations
that hold shares of non-resident corporations through
partnerships are not subject to double taxation. The additional
capital tax on life insurance corporations is extended until the
end of 2000. Shares of one foreign corporation can be exchanged
on a tax deferred rollover basis for shares of another foreign
corporation. The tax treatment of resource expenditures and the
rules governing gifts of ecologically sensitive land are
clarified. In a chain of corporations, a corporation is
controlled by its immediate parent, even where the parent is
itself controlled by a third corporation.
Replacement property rules do not apply to shares of the capital
stock of corporations, and a member of a limited liability
partnership under provincial law is not automatically a limited
partner under the Income Tax Act.
1300
Those are some of the more technical changes incorporated into
the bill. There are three remaining measures that I wish to
discuss briefly before closing. The first involves changes to
the rules governing the taxation of trusts and their
beneficiaries.
[Translation]
Bill C-22 addresses the tax treatment of property distributed
from a Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary. It also
introduces measures dealing with the tax treatment of bare,
protective and similar trusts, as well as mutual fund trusts,
health and welfare trusts and trusts governed by RRSPs and
RRIFs.
[English]
For example, the existing rules whereby an individual can roll
over property to a trust for the exclusive benefit of a spouse or
common law partner would be extended to alter ego trusts and
joint spousal or common law partner trusts.
Several new anti-avoidance measures designed to ensure that
transfers to trusts cannot be used to inappropriately reduce tax
are also included in the bill. For example, there would be
limits on the use of rollovers where trusts were used to avoid
tax when a beneficiary emigrates. Also, income allocations to
beneficiaries could not be used by trusts to circumvent the rules
ensuring that spousal or common law partner trusts, alter ego
trusts and joint spousal or common law partner trusts would not
allocate income to others before the beneficiary, spouse or
common law partner dies.
In addition, rollovers to a trust would be denied if the
transfer was part of a series of transactions designed to defer
capital gains through the use of a trust as an intermediary
between a vendor and purchaser of property.
A final anti-avoidance measure would prevent certain pre-1972
trusts from using graduated income tax rates if they received
property from a trust not subject to these rates, and the
beneficial ownership of the property had not changed.
The second measure I wish to highlight involves the new taxpayer
migration rules, which are also part of the government's ongoing
commitment to greater fairness in the tax system.
Since 1972 Canada has had special tax rules that apply when
people give up Canadian residence. The basic entitlement of
those rules is a deemed disposition that treats the immigrant as
having disposed of property immediately before leaving.
[Translation]
For many years, questions have persisted as to the exact scope
of this deemed disposition on departure from Canada and its
interaction with Canada's international tax treaties. Under
Bill C-22, Canada retains the right to tax emigrants on gains
that accrue during their stay in Canada.
[English]
The bill would also clarify the effect of the new rules on
various kinds of rights to future income and would allow
returning former residents to reverse the tax effects of their
departure, regardless of how long they were a non-resident.
In addition, former residents would be able to reduce the
Canadian tax payable on their pre-departure and distribution
gains by certain foreign taxes paid on the same gains. This is
part of Canada's commitment to avoiding international double
taxation, a commitment that is reflected in our network of tax
treaties as well.
Since 1999, in anticipation of these rules coming into effect,
Canada has been negotiating its tax treaties to reinforce
protection against double taxation when immigrants' pre-departure
gains are taxed.
A final measure, deals with amendments to the Income Tax Act
that relate to the June 3rd, 1999 agreement between Canada and
the United States concerning foreign periodicals.
Since the 1960s the Income Tax Act has precluded the deduction
of advertising expenses unless a newspaper or a periodical is at
least 75% Canadian owned and has at least 60% original Canadian
content.
1305
As a result of the Canada-U.S. agreement, this rule no longer
applies to advertisements and periodicals. Instead, advertising
expenses and periodicals with at least 80% original editorial
content would be fully deductible and advertising expenses and
other periodicals would be 50% deductible regardless of
ownership.
[Translation]
In addition, after July 1996, the meaning of Canadian citizen
will include Canadian pension funds and other entities that own
Canadian newspapers to ensure that they qualify as citizens
under the ownership requirements of the Income Tax Act. For
periodicals, this amendment applies from July 1996 to May 2000,
after which time nationality of ownership is irrelevant.
[English]
In conclusion, while the bill is lengthy, very detailed and
technical in nature, its components are all very important and
deserve to be passed without delay. Most are relieving or
clarifying measures and a few are housekeeping measures.
As I indicated earlier, each measure is designed with the
principle of tax fairness in mind and there are many taxpayers
out there who will benefit from these changes. The measure with
the highest profile of course implements the key components of
our government's five year tax reduction plan. In summary, that
plan reduces the tax burden at the middle income level, increases
support for families with children and makes Canada's business
income tax system more internationally competitive. As I stated
earlier, the five year tax reduction plan will provide $100
billion in cumulative tax relief by 2004-05.
I urge all hon. members of the House to give the bill quick and
speedy passage and, most importantly, to keep in mind all the
Canadian children who will benefit from the increases to the
Canada Child Tax Benefit on July 1.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I
am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-22 which is, as the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has indicated,
a very substantive tax bill which appeared before this place in
the form of a ways and means motion several days ago in the
session. It seeks to give effect in part to tax changes proposed
by the hon. Minister of Finance in his economic political
statement here before the dissolution of parliament at the call
of the election.
Let me say at the outset that the bill before us is a classic
example of what has gone wrong with parliamentary oversight of
legislation, particularly with respect to taxation. The bill
before us has some 513 pages of technical amendments. I can say
with a fair degree certainty that not a single member of this
place, let alone the parliamentary secretary who just spoke or
the minister he represents, has read or will read. It is a bill
that exercises enormous power over the lives of Canadians through
the Income Tax Act which in itself has coercive powers delegated
to it by this parliament. The some 500 pages of
amendments in the bill are amendments to a tax act which runs
over 1,300 pages long.
Let me remind my hon. colleagues that in the House in 1917,
before it burned down, this same parliament passed what was
called the temporary Income War Tax Act. It ran all of seven
pages. The government of the day of then Prime Minister Borden
said that the bill was only necessary for a short period of time
to finance the war effort during the great war and that we would
be able to repeal it shortly thereafter.
This was an income tax which applied only to very wealthy
Canadians at the time, people who were in the top fraction of
income earners. The vast majority of Canadians were unaffected
by it. The politicians said that it was temporary and that would
be repealed.
1310
This does not look like a repeal bill to me. This looks like
another 500 pages of amendments on top a 1,300 page statute of
which I doubt a single person in this country understands the
totality. There might be a tiny handful of tax experts in
academia or in the Department of Finance who have even a vague
grasp of the myriad complexity of the Income Tax Act which we are
seeking to amend today. This is a testament to the enormous
complexity of the tax code with which Canadians must grapple
every day.
That act in 1917 was passed in good faith by parliamentarians
and committed to the Canadians, who they were taking money from
to finance the war effort, that it would be repealed. It was
not. Not only was it not repealed, it was added to, broadened and
expanded to bring more and eventually every single working
Canadian into its ambit.
Today we end up with an enormous, complex web of tax laws which
inhibit the wealth creating potential of this nation which
diminishes our productivity. It drives down our competitiveness
and undermines the standard of living of Canadian families who
are working harder to get ahead but who are falling behind
because of the tax act which the bill seeks to amend.
Let me say as a matter of principle on behalf of the official
opposition, the Canadian Alliance, that we stand four-square
against this huge complex and destructive system of penalizing
work, investment, risk taking and wealth creation. These are the
very virtues and habits upon which a prosperous and free nation
is built. All of those things are undermined by taxation in
general and this extraordinarily complex tax system that we have
in this country.
A political philosopher once remarked that the power to tax is
in fact the power to destroy. It is the power of government to
use its monopoly on coercive force to reach out the hand of the
state and to take from individuals, businesses and corporations
the fruits of their labours. We can never underestimate just how
destructive that power can be. We can never know how many small
businesses or how many dreams have been vanquished because people
were unable to realize their potential and dreams of starting up
and operating a successful business because they were unable to
keep enough of the fruits of their labours to keep their heads
above water. That is what the bill represents.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary who just spoke perhaps
does not reflect often on the first principles of taxation. It
is important for us every now and then in this place to remember
the enormous power that we wield through this taxing power. We
do so somewhat recklessly. As I suggested, I am certain that not
a single member of the House has now or will read the entire
bill.
I tried to make my way through as much of it as I can. I
consulted the experts in the finance department. I received the
bill a couple of days ago and I am supposed to stand here on
behalf of the official opposition, which has a quasi
constitutional obligation to be the watchdog of the government
particularly with respect to issues like this, and provide a
thorough, detailed, thoughtful analysis and assessment of the
bill, when these 500 pages of technical amendments were just
delivered to us.
I know for certain that the finance minister not only has not
read the bill, he is likely at best vaguely familiar with the
impact of the amendments contained herein.
1315
Even though the official opposition will vote against it for a
number of reasons, this will undoubtedly go on to the finance
committee which, I predict, will have fairly brief hearings
because none of the members will be able to penetrate the
impenetrable complexity of the Income Tax Act.
Well meaning and very bright officials from the Department of
Finance will appear before the committee to explain and analyze,
as best they can, the impact of the bill. The committee members,
who were elected to represent the best interests of their
constituents and to uphold any parliamentary oversight and scrutiny,
will have to take the bureaucrats at their word and then the bill
will come back to this place and be passed.
Members will not understand what they have passed because of the
complexity of the act. That is a very serious concern, but it
does not need to be that way. In a more functional democratic
institution, the American congress for instance, both the upper
and lower houses have ways and means committees with independent
legislators and adequate staff resources. The staff of those
committees have become experts on the complexities of tax
legislation and are able to frame and craft bills of this nature
with a real understanding of what they are doing. The U.S.
congress has specific committees to deal with taxing power and
taxing legislation.
As a result, congress and the people it represents have the
benefit of real, serious, substantive democratic oversight and
input into tax legislation. We only pretend to have such input
in this place because of the dysfunctional nature of parliament
and the complexity of the Income Tax Act.
How do I know that is the case? How can I prove that the
consideration of tax legislation does not work in this parliament?
It is very simple. This bill, and at least three other bills before the
House right now, include amendments to tax legislation that seek
to undo the drafting mistakes of previous bills passed by
parliament. It is unacceptable that we waste the valuable time
of parliament time after time by undoing mistakes made in the
drafting of legislation. Those mistakes were not identified by
members of parliament because they do not have the expertise, the
time or the resources. What is the point of digging down into
the depths of a bill if it will be passed anyway?
We do not have time to ensure at a meaningful level that the
bureaucrats have it right. The minister does not do that. He
receives draft legislation from bureaucrats, rubber stamps it and
sends it to parliament. We ought not spend time correcting the
errors that drafting officials and bureaucrats have made. If we
had more serious parliamentary scrutiny, oversight and
involvement in the development of tax legislation, and a tax code
which made sense to ordinary taxpayers, we would not need to
constantly revisit bills such as the one before us.
For those reasons my party stands four square for the reform and
simplification of the tax code. I will quote from the Canadian
Alliance policy declaration. It was not dreamed up by any one
person. It was the result of a grassroots, bottom up democratic
process. Our members agreed that:
We will restore public confidence in the fairness of the Canadian
tax system by reducing its complexity. We will restore
indexation and move towards a simpler tax system, built around—
This is a novel concept for a government which likes to play the
politics of envy and class warfare. It continues:
That is what we seek to do.
1320
The hon. parliamentary secretary suggested the bill would give
effect to what he called, disingenuously, the largest tax cut in
Canadian history. That is absolutely bogus. He argues the bill
would give effect to the political statement made by the finance
minister in October.
Let me give credit where it is due. After seven years of
advocacy in this place by the Reform caucus and then the Canadian
Alliance that tax relief be our nation's highest economic
priority, and after millions of Canadians demanded to see a
little more of what they earn and said they were fed up with
Liberal tax increases, the finance minister, days before an
election, finally came forward with some modest tax cuts.
However they are not real tax cuts for real people. I challenge
people to take the paystub test. People who watch the debate in
this place see me and my colleagues stand to demand the finance
minister cut taxes and they see him stand to say he has already
done so. How are people to know which of us is telling the
truth? I have a very simple test.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I need some clarification. The member said his party supports a
single rate of tax, and yet in the last election it did not even
include it in its platform.
The Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect, if I
looked high and low, nowhere would I find anything in that
statement resembling a point of order.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, not only was it not a
point of order. It was completely inaccurate. Our platform
included a policy for a single rate of tax.
I will make clear what I was saying. People are confused by
competing claims about whether taxes have been cut. They can be
the arbiters. They have very simple documentary evidence to
adjudicate the test. It is called their paystub.
I invite everyone listening to or watching the debate to look at
their paystubs and compare them to the paystubs for the same week
or month last year. They will see that the supposed Liberal tax
cut for this year was actually a tax increase. It is bogus.
When we combine the impact of Bill C-2 regarding Canada pension
plan payroll taxes, which was passed during this fiscal year by
the previous parliament and is the largest tax increase in
Canadian history, with the myriad of other tax increases imposed
by the government and the snail's pace at which its modest tax
cuts will apply, Canadians at most income levels will find they
are paying more than they did the year before.
If they are not, it is because of the foresight of provincial
governments. Provincial taxes in Ontario and Alberta have gone
down, thanks to the leadership of people like Mike Harris and
Ralph Klein, but federal taxes have stayed the same or gone up.
The finance minister and his parliamentary secretary claim the
bill includes $100 billion of tax relief. A nice round figure
like that is like pricing something at $9.99 in a department
store. The finance minister was told by campaign officials to
get the number up because he needed a nice, big round number to
talk about in the election. They decided it would be $100
billion. It is nothing of the sort.
The government claims $100.5 billion of gross tax relief in the
bill and $3.2 billion of that is an increase in spending. The
government has taken the Canada child tax benefit, which is an
entitlement program and a spending program, and booked it as a
tax cut. Once again the paragons of clean accounting in the
government opposite are misleading Canadians.
1325
Then there is the $29.5 billion by which the government
increased the Canada pension plan payroll tax. The government,
after enormous pressure from this party, from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation and from the Canadian people, finally
decided to stop the insidious back door tax grab on inflation
known as deindexation. Under deindexation people were bumped
into higher tax brackets and paid more taxes. They did so
because they were getting cost of living adjustments and not
because of any real increase in income.
The Canadian Alliance objected to deindexation. Finally the
government responded to our objection and stole our policy by
agreeing to reindex the tax system, but not retroactively to 1986
when the Mulroney government deindexed the system.
Let me say parenthetically that the Liberal Party in the 1988
and 1993 elections ran against the Tory Party, and rightfully so,
for having deindexed the tax system in 1986. However when it
finally came to setting things right, did the Liberals give back
the money that had been stripped out of people's wallets by taxes
and inflation since 1986? No, sir. They reindexed. They did
not give back the some $9 billion that people had lost to
deindexation.
The Liberals say they will adjust tax brackets, exemptions and
credits upward to account for the consumer price index so that
they no longer impose a tax on inflation. That is good. However
they count that as a tax cut. In other words, the government
counts a non-increase as a cut. They tell Canadians they will
not tax them on inflation and that Canadians should be grateful
it will be counted as a tax cut. There are accountants in this
place who would find that pretty specious. The government has
declared $21 billion worth of specious, non-existent tax cuts
which are merely non-increases.
When we add all that up, the real total net tax cut in the
government's bill is $47 billion over five years. That is about
half the tax relief proposed by the Canadian Alliance over five
years based on comparable accounting. It is a fraction of the
tax relief proposed by U.S. President Bush of $1.6 trillion to
$2.3 trillion, depending on how we count it, over 10 years for a
country with taxes that are already lower.
That would not be such a problem if Canada had its tax burden
under control. However it does not. Revenues to the federal
government last year were at their highest level in history. The
government is bigger in terms of the money it hoovers out of
people's wallets, purses and small business tills than any
government in the history of the dominion. Personal income taxes
in Canada consume a higher percentage of gross domestic product
than in any other nation in the G-8. At 17.6% of GDP we have
the highest personal income taxes.
According to a recent study by Price Waterhouse that was
published in The Economist, Canada has the highest
corporate income tax rates in the OECD, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, the 23 principal
industrialized countries in the world. Of those 23 countries,
yes, we are number one when it comes to business tax rates.
When we look down the line, we see that none of this will change
under the bill. When the tax cuts here have been fully
implemented, and after the Bush tax changes have been implemented
in the U.S., Canada will still have income taxes far higher than
those of the United States and our other principal competitors.
That is having an impact on our competitiveness and our standard
of living. We know that.
1330
We know that Canadians are working harder now than they ever
have and are falling behind. We know we have an
increase in the brain drain: the loss of talent and human capital
to the United States and other jurisdictions, in large part
because of the tax burden.
We know that Canada has fallen from second to 16th place in the
OECD in terms of our standard of living over the past 15 years.
We went from the second highest per capita GDP to the 16th, to
the middle of the pack. Over the past 10 years, by comparison,
Ireland leapfrogged over Canada in terms of its growth in per
capita GDP, which is the best measure of increases in the
standard of living, in large part because it provided huge tax
incentives.
A member opposite said that it was because of something other
than tax relief. My brother moved a company with 30 very well
paying jobs to Dublin because of the tax cuts offered in Ireland
and the huge advantage it offers over Canada.
This is not an agenda that would restore the competitiveness
of the nation. It would continue to impose on Canadians an
enormous burden of taxation into the future.
The bill would do a number of other things to which we object.
First, there are a couple of elements which do step in the right
direction. Reducing the inclusion rate on capital gains to 15%
is something that should have happened a long time ago. We would
like to see that inclusion rate go down to 33 1/3% so that we
stop penalizing people who invest their whole lives in a business
or in a property. This is a form of a death tax. We work hard
our entire life, we invest in a business or property and we look
forward to passing that on to the next generation. We, as
individuals, may not take any benefit from it, but guess what?
The moment we die, the Government of Canada comes in with deemed
capital gains, which is really a form of estate tax or death tax,
and grabs one-third of our lifetime earnings that were in that
investment. That is wrong. We should not penalize people's
lifetime investments. We should not diminish their abilities to
pass on to the next generation their life's savings as we do
through deemed capital gains.
There are a number of technical changes in the bill. One of the
technical changes with which we have a great deal of trouble is
the fact that the bill would continue the unfairness with which
single income families with children are treated under the tax
code.
The House will recall that this was a very hot issue at one
point in the last parliament. The Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions, in response to a question I
put to him about why the government discriminated against single
income families with kids and why there was as much as an 80% tax
penalty for those families versus their dual income counterparts,
stood in his place and said that the government discriminated
against single income families because they did not work as hard
or have as many expenses as the double income families. That was
pitting one kind of family against another.
As we said then and I say now, let me inform the secretary of
state that moms and dads who stay home to raise small kids, to
care for the elderly and the infirm, and to build families and
homes, work just as hard, if not harder, as those of us in the
paid workforce. They deserve and demand our respect and fairness
in the tax code.
The current tax code's discrimination against those families
must be eliminated and fairness must be brought in. The Canadian
Alliance has proposed, among other things, equalizing the spousal
or equivalent to spouse basic exemption with the basic personal
exemption.
Under the bill we would have two classes of citizens: those who
are primary income earners and their spouses. They have equal
worth and that worth should be reflected in the tax code by a
spousal exemption equal to the basic personal exemption. That
would not done here. We would continue to penalize the stay at
home parents.
1335
We would raise that exemption from $8,000, which it will
eventually get to pursuant to this bill after several years, to
$10,000. That would lift hundreds of thousands of working
families off the tax rolls so that instead of giving money to be
misspent by the government they could invest it in their own
priorities, their own children and their own homes.
We would bring in a child tax deduction. We would provide a
deduction of $3,000 per child so that families with children
would be able to keep more of what they earn to reflect the costs
of raising kids.
What does the government do? Absolutely nothing of the sort. To
the contrary, the bill before us raises the so-called child care
expense deduction from $7,000 to $10,000. This is another piece
of discrimination because only certain families would get to
claim the child care expense deduction. Only those dual income
families with receipted child care expenses could make use of it.
Only 17% of tax filers could claim this deduction, and even a
smaller fraction could claim it to the full amount.
If a mother with three children is the main income earner and
the father decides to stay home until the kids are in school, the
tax code says that the dad's work at home cannot be deducted. The
tax code says that it has no value to society and therefore will
not be recognized. However, if a parent decides instead to earn
a second income and drops the kids off at a day care on the way
to the second job, the federal government will give recognition
for the third party costs of child care. The at home costs, the
opportunity costs, the forgone income and the real financial
costs of raising children at home are recognized nowhere.
It is intolerable that we should be increasing discrimination
against single income parents. We will oppose the bill on that
ground alone.
The bill includes an element which further erodes parliament's
recognition of the unique and important role and status of the
institution of marriage in our society and culture. It does so
by bringing forward further amendments to change any reference
from spouse to common law partner.
This is a change which was begun in a bill amending the Income
Tax Act in the previous parliament, but in one of the many
drafting errors to which I referred earlier the officials
neglected to amend certain sections of the bill, saying that
in various sections reference to spouse as part of the
institution of marriage has been abolished for all intents and
purposes from the Income Tax Act. It is an institution which in this
and every other society I know of has been given certain
privileges because it is the basis of the family,
the basic institution of society.
We have said from time immemorial that the institution of
marriage should be given certain preferences and privileges to
protect the family. The bill would further erode the
distinctiveness of that institution by saying common law
partners, not spouses.
We as a parliament or as a country should not be ashamed of
declaring that the spousal commitment in the covenant of marriage is
a fundamental contractual relationship in the development of
strong and healthy families and that they are necessary to having
a strong and healthy society.
That is another reason we oppose the bill. It further
undermines and weakens marriage as an institution.
1340
There are a number of other provisions in the bill which the
Alliance finds objectionable. It does include certain technical
changes to which we do not object. Here is an interesting one: the foreign
actors' tax credit. Most people may ask what that is
all about. It turns out that we currently withhold 15% of the
income of Hollywood actors who come to Canada to act in Hollywood
movies. We then reserve the right to force them to file a tax
return and tax them even more.
The Hollywood movie actors have been shedding crocodile tears
about this unfair tax treatment by Canada. The same government
which cannot find the fiscal room to help out single income
families, has decided to give millionaire Hollywood movie actors
a tax break in the bill. Lo and behold, Sylvester Stallone and
Bruce Willis will be at the front of the line when it comes to
tax relief from the government. Single income moms and dads can
stay at home without fairness.
The government would do this by raising the withholding tax from
15% to 23%, a very modest increase, but then it says that the
actors would not have to file returns beyond that. These are
people making millions of dollars at the highest possible
marginal rates.
My office staff called the movie producers, the Hollywood
actors, the actors' guilds and so on to hear what they thought of
this move by the government. They were in favour of this because
it would be a big tax cut for the millionaire Hollywood movie
stars. They said that if we did not make this change, they might
not keep coming back to work in Canada. I find it very odd when
I look at the priorities that the government has for tax relief.
We in the Alliance have talked about raising the basic
exemption for individuals and spouses, or equivalent to spouses,
to $10,000. We talked about introducing a $3,000 deduction per
child. Let us just figure out what that means. If we had a
Canadian Alliance government, it would mean that a family with
two parents and three kids would pay no taxes on their first
$29,000 of income. It would mean that a single mom could give
her first child the equivalent to spouse deduction of $10,000, so
that a single mom with two kids would have $23,000 tax free.
These measures would lift 1.4 million low income Canadians off
the tax roles altogether, giving them a hand up so they could get
ahead. It would stop penalizing them for earning that small
incremental income to try to get ahead economically. The
government does nothing in the bill to lift Canadians off the tax
roles.
When our party came out with its bold and powerful proposal to
eventually get to a 17% single income tax rate and lift 1.4
million low income people off the tax roles and to restore and
create family tax fairness, the government said that it looked
popular. It said that it was testing well in the polls so it had
better try to outflank the opposition. What did it do? It came
up with a new basic rate of 16% in the bill and thought that
Canadians would be fooled by that because, after all, 16% is
lower than 17%.
Yes, it is. However, for the people, for whom it matters, those
at the lowest income levels, there are no increases in the basic exemptions
and deductions. Those are far more generous. What the Liberals want is
for a single mom working as a waitress to pay 16% of her paltry income.
Our plan would say that a low income individual would pay no taxes at all
because we want that individual to get ahead through higher
deductions and exemptions at the bottom end of the tax system.
In closing, I encourage the government to think about the
enormous complexity of the Income Tax Act and the destructive
effect it has on our economy and our society. It should
think of the tens of thousands of bright, young Canadians, whose
educations we subsidize, who leave the country every year to
pursue their economic opportunities elsewhere in large part
because of diminished opportunities and our tax system.
1345
I want them to think about the low income working families, the
single moms and the seniors on fixed incomes who are forced to
pay taxes today. I want them to join us in dreaming about
creating a tax system which is simple, fair and low, which
rewards risk taking, investment and productivity and which
rewards the virtues upon which a prosperous society is built.
I want to invite them to join us in the opposition in proposing
a tax system that lifts the low income people off the tax rolls,
that puts the family first and restores fairness to the tax
system and that stops the beggar thy neighbour, class warfare
politics of envy approach, which informs the so-called progressive
tax system that penalizes people who succeed, work hard and get
ahead.
I invite them to do all of those things by opposing Bill C-22, a
bill that once more adds yet another destructive layer on to the
tax act which was first passed in this place in 1917. I hope
they will join us in doing that and working together to create an
economic environment of opportunity which rewards risk taking,
saving, investment and hard work. That is what Canadians are
asking for and that is what we are fighting for by opposing
the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22 implementing certain
provisions of the latest budget of the Minister of Finance.
I can say right away that we will oppose this bill, because we
have repeatedly criticized, not only during the course of the
regular budget of March 2000, but also when the Minister of
Finance tabled his mini budget in the fall, the fact that the
huge tax resources at his disposal over the next five years were
being badly used.
When we speak of huge tax resources, the situation has not
changed, even with the prospect of a downturn in the States. We
will return to this later. In the next five years, even taking
into account a downturn in the economy in fiscal 2001-02 linked
to that of the States, the Minister of Finance will have some
$135 billion in surplus.
That is a lot of money, $135 billion. It is slightly down from
what he anticipated last year in fact because of the American
situation. Last year, the talk was of $147 billion or
thereabouts. Now the figure cited is $135 billion. However, the
possibility of making choices around these huge surpluses remains
essentially the same.
The Minister of Finance is faced with a situation in which,
through various unfair measures he created, on the
backs of just about everyone, annual surpluses that will reach
record levels in the next five years.
He has accumulated these surpluses and will continue to do so on
the backs of the unemployed. He will take from the employment
insurance fund between $5 billion and $6 billion annually to
create his budget surplus. Five to six billion dollars a year will be
taken from the contributions by employers and employees,
contributions which have nothing to do with those of the federal
government. The government has not contributed to this fund for
a number of years, but still takes $5 billion to $6 billion
annually from it. It is shameful.
In recent years, the Minister of Finance has taken $38 billion
from the EI fund surplus. This money came from the pockets of
employers, workers and mainly the unemployed.
What must be kept in mind is that, if the surplus in the EI fund
is accumulating as rapidly as it is, it is because of two things:
first, employer and employee contributions are too high, and
second, the majority of people who are out of work are excluded
from the plan.
I remind hon. members that only 43% of people who end up
unemployed are in fact eligible for employment insurance.
Corrective measures by the government will remedy some of this,
but only a tiny portion, not all of it. Despite the improvements
made by the bill on employment insurance, most of those who are
left out will continue to be.
1350
Year in, year out, the Minister of Finance is going to continue
to pocket at least $5 billion of the $6 billion EI fund surplus
to add to his budget surplus and to look good, as well as to be
able to give tax cuts to the richest members of Canadian society.
As well, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Minister of
Finance created this surplus, and will continue to add to it, at
the expense of the provinces.
For six years now, the Minister of Finance has cut transfer
payments to the provinces for the funding of education, health
and income security. This was money that the provinces did not
have, year after year, to meet their citizens' needs.
The surplus is in Ottawa, while the needs are in the provinces.
The health sector needs money, and the Minister of Finance had
plenty. Last year the Minister of Finance did restore some
funding, but year after year they are still some $2 billion short
of what is required to cope with changing health costs, caused in
large part by the aging of the population. Over the next five
years, the shortfall in transfers will total $10 billion.
Given the greying of the population, we know there will be
a natural increase of 3% in health requirements, in Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada. This increase is solely because of the fact
that the population is aging. The Minister of Finance has not
taken this phenomenon into account and the surplus continues to
accumulate in his coffers.
This year again, in spite of the downturn in the U.S. economy,
the Minister of Finance will have a surplus of about $18 billion
to $20 billion. It is easy to have such surpluses when one does
nothing and makes the provinces do the work by cutting
transfers, by not indexing in view of the urgent needs in health
and education, and by shamelessly dipping into the employment
insurance fund. It is easy to accumulate surpluses under these
circumstances.
We believe that with the surpluses for this year and the four
previous years, the Minister of Finance could do a lot more than
what he intends to do under his five year plan. He is in a
position to target groups that need help. The Minister of
Finance intends to give major tax cut to those who earn $250,000
and up.
From this year on, those, and there are not too many of them, who
earn in excess of $250,000 and others such as millionaires and
billionaires will enjoy significant tax cuts. They will get
about 70% of all the tax cuts planned by the Minister of
Finance. If a person is earning $250,000 this year, he is lucky
because he will get the largest tax cuts, because of the changes
related to the partial inclusion of capital gains, because of
tax cuts as such, or because of indexation. These people will
get at least $9,000 to $11,000 in tax cuts.
However, a single parent with dependent children is not so
lucky, because he or she will only get about $250 in tax cuts
this year. Talk about equity and social justice.
Under our proposals, with the same tax resources the Minister of
Finance has estimated for the next five years, we in the Bloc
Quebecois would have taken measures to ensure that starting
this year families earning $35,000 or less would not pay any
taxes. Everyone else would have benefited from a 50% tax break.
That is what I call being progressive. That is what I call
dealing with the needs of the people, the real needs of the
people.
The Minister of Finance could have diverted his resources to the
majority of taxpayers, as we have done. Nine out of ten taxpayers
would have benefited from a tax break under our proposals, not
just 1% of all taxpayers, the richest taxpayers in Canada and
partisans of the Liberal Party and our millionaire friend, the
finance minister, but nine out of ten, that is 90% of taxpayers.
If we can come up with these proposals using the same basic
figures as the Minister of Finance did, why has he not redirected
his policies?
1355
With the estimated tax resources for the next five years and
despite the downturn in the U.S. economy, because we adjusted our
estimates accordingly, the Minister of Finance could have used $5
billion of the $6 billion EI surplus every year to improve the
system, raise the benefits and expand the system to include the
57% of the unemployed who do not currently qualify.
Seasonal workers, women and especially young workers who are
particularly hard hit by the vicious employment insurance system
could have benefited this year from decent EI benefits.
Why are we able to come up with a scenario whereby each year
$5 billion stays in the EI fund to help young people, women and
also families? We are talking about a good parental leave plan in
Quebec City, not the useless kind of plan being proposed to us.
With our forecasts with regard to surpluses, why are we able to
do all these things? It is because we in the Bloc Quebecois
believe that our first duty is to serve the most disadvantaged,
those who belong to the middle income category, those into whose
pockets the federal government has been dipping since it came
into office in 1993.
Let is not forget that these nine taxpayers out of ten, to whom we
wanted to give tax cuts considering the huge surpluses that will
accumulate in the federal government's coffers, are the ones who
pay the biggest share of taxes. Indeed, the federal government
gets most of its tax revenues from families in the $25,000 to
$80,000 a year income range.
With all these surpluses, the federal government is not thinking
about those families. It is not thinking about those who have
been taxed to death these last few years. It does not want to
ensure that they benefit from these surpluses, but it wants to
ensure that millionaires do. That is the kind of social justice
practised by this government.
Let us not even talk about social housing any more. It is not a
priority for this government, as evidenced by the fact that it
has not invested a cent in this area since 1993. Yet, the needs
are enormous. Since that year, the number of families spending
more than 50% of their income on housing has almost doubled. If
one spends 50% of one's income on housing, it means that there is
only 50% left to buy food and clothing for one's self and one's
children.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he
will have 28 minutes left to conclude his remarks after oral
question period.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
OFFICIAL REPORT—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Before beginning Statements by Members, I have
something to say about the point of order the hon. House leader
of the Bloc Quebecois raised yesterday concerning the Prime
Minister's reply to a question posed by the hon. leader of the
Bloc Quebecois on March 21, 2001.
The hon. member for Roberval alleged that the office of the
Prime Minister had improperly intervened with the publications
process to change the reply given by the Prime Minister as it
appeared in the blues so that it read substantively differently
when printed in Hansard.
Specifically, he said that the phrase “nous n'avions pas
d'intérêt financier” was changed to “nous n'avions pas de parts”
and that this constitutes a substantive change that is
unacceptable under our usual practices.
[English]
I have now had an opportunity to review all the pertinent
information on this case: the video tape of the exchange, the
blues and the official Hansard, and I asked for and received
a report from my officials on this matter. This is what have I
learned.
[Translation]
The videotape of the exchange shows the Prime Minister's reply,
with the phrase “nous n'avions pas de parts” just as indicated
in the official Hansard.
1400
However, that portion of the tape is admittedly hard to
understand and the reply may have contained some additional
words that remain unclear in listening to the tape. It appears
that the transcriber preparing the blues, faced with a difficult
portion of the tape to decipher, sought, as is often the case,
the context of the question in the words of the questioner. So,
the words “nous n'avions pas d'intérêt financier” appear in
the blues, which, I remind hon. members, are the unedited
transcript of the first take on transcribing events in the
Chamber.
The change from the phrase in the blues “nous n'avions pas
d'intérêt financier” to the phrase in the Debates “nous n'avions
pas de parts” was made by the Hansard editors as a result of
their listening to the tape and coming to the conclusion, as I
invite members themselves to do, that this was the accurate
transcription of the phrase used in the Prime Minister's reply.
[English]
I am satisfied that there was no impropriety here and no
interference with the usual practices concerning the preparation
of the official record of House Debates. I thank the hon.
member for his intervention.
[Translation]
I therefore conclude that the allegations of the member for
Roberval are without foundation and the matter is closed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Premier of Quebec, who was appointed by only 203 Pequistes,
said that the dollars are in Ottawa, while the needs are in
Quebec.
However, Mr. Landry and PQ members made no mention of the
studies of Richard Le Hir on sovereignty, which resulted in a
major fiasco for the Parti Quebecois, then led by Jacques
Parizeau.
Quebec's treasury is full of money. This year an additional
$953 million will come from Ottawa under the equalization
program and another $500 million next year.
Quebec has only allocated $10 million out of the $730 million
that it invested in eight non-profit organizations, and it will
get an additional $1 billion in federal transfers this year for
health, also let us not forget the $840 million treasure still
sitting in a trust in Toronto.
What Quebecers really want is not a referendum, but substantial
tax cut and the elimination of the indexation of provincial tax
tables, just like the federal government did.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week I rose in the House reiterating the concerns
being expressed by my predominantly rural riding regarding foot
and mouth disease. The letters and calls have not stopped and
fears have not been abated as British soldiers continue to be
deployed to military camps such as Wainwright, Suffield and Cold
Lake.
Hopefully there will be some appeasement given news reports
indicating that no British soldiers who have assisted civilians
in the United Kingdom with the disposal of carcasses are being
sent to Canada and that stringent precautions such as submerging
shoes and other personal items in disinfectant are being taken.
I am putting the ministers of defence and agriculture on notice.
The cattle industry is the lifeblood of many of my constituents.
The economic vibrancy of Alberta depends significantly on a
healthy cattle industry.
The ministers must therefore do everything possible to stop foot
and mouth disease from invading the country. They are
responsible for safeguarding the livelihood of my Crowfoot
constituents.
* * *
AUTISM
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to support my constituents, Margaret McIntosh and
Karen Taylor, in bringing to your attention the situation of
families who are caring for autistic children.
Autism is a neuro-developmental disorder affecting
communication, socialization and behaviour. Statistics indicate
that 1 in 200 children have a form of autism, an increase of over
500% in the past 10 years. Parents are in desperate need of
services and support.
Margaret and Karen look to the Geneva Centre for Autism for the
necessary support and services. The centre cannot do it alone
and therefore has to seek financial assistance from the
community. I congratulate the Geneva Centre and encourage
support for its very important work with autistic children.
* * *
WORLD THEATRE DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I invite Canadians to celebrate World Theatre Day.
Inaugurated in 1962 by the International Theatre Institute and
UNESCO, World Theatre Day is celebrated in more than 90
countries.
In Canada, celebrations are focused on recognizing all Canadians
participating in theatre: actors, designers, directors,
educators, playwrights, producers and the many theatre patrons
and volunteers who support various theatre communities.
[Translation]
Theatre provides inspiration for all Canadians. It gives us an
opportunity to marvel, to laugh, to cry and to think. This art
form is well adapted to our society.
1405
This is evidenced by the increasing popularity of our
playhouses. This year, Montreal's Théâtre du Nouveau Monde is
celebrating its 50th anniversary. Throughout the years, this
theatre has presented quality plays that are appreciated by both
the entertainment world and the public.
[English]
By its various programs, the federal government is proud to
participate in the promotion of the Canadian theatre.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian mining industry is a global leader and one
of the few industrial sectors where Canadian knowledge,
technology, expertise and leadership dominate internationally.
It is certainly no holdover from the past. Investing $350
million a year in research and development, Canadian mining is
one of the most productive and innovative sectors of the Canadian
economy. It is inextricably linked to the knowledge based,
technology driven global economy.
[Translation]
The mining industry plays a significant role in Canada's economy
and is a major ally in the development of the new economy.
Mining accounts for close to 400,000 jobs in Canada, or one
worker out of 40, and pays the highest salaries for industry in
the country.
[English]
On this mining day in Canada, let us continue to work together
to ensure Canadian mining reaches new levels of achievement,
leadership and opportunity, because mining works for Canada.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan, which is very dependent upon the government to
act in regard to the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement.
My riding is covered with rain forest timber. Over the past
number of years the market has been hard hit by many negative
effects, particularly this agreement. Few people will be sorry
to see it expire on Saturday.
Literally thousands of British Columbians are dependent upon the
softwood lumber market. They have concerns over the solidarity
of the national softwood lumber coalition and fear that we will
look weak if the united front breaks down as we enter into some
form of negotiations with the United States.
The federal government needs to remain strong and firm with the
Americans. It needs to remind them of concerns which we all
face, including the erosion of foreign markets for North American
softwood lumber if we are not able to produce an economically and
competitively priced product.
The government needs to make the Americans aware of the changing
products that are now entering the marketplace as alternatives to
traditional building materials. Countervailing duties and other
discriminatory measures will only add to the cost of our products
and lead consumers to consider the alternatives.
There is too much at stake here. I ask the government to
strongly intervene on behalf of B.C. softwood lumber producers to
reach a North American agreement which will truly work for all
concerned.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
present government was elected on a platform based primarily on
the promotion of Canadian values. For our government, the
promotion of democracy, the rule of law and economic and
political liberalism must not stop at our borders.
With this in mind, the Liberal Party of Canada last March
passed a resolution to tie our globalization efforts to the
promotion of certain key values of our society.
Our party promised to maintain the fundamental right of citizens
to take part in the building and development of our society. We
could take a moment here to mention the contribution our
government is making to the holding of the peoples' summit, in
which the key players in civil society will be able to meet to
discuss the impact of globalization.
Through its international commitment, Canada has become one of
the principal promoters of an approach which balances social and
economic needs in the context of the new, increasingly
interdependent economy.
Too often, it is forgotten that the summit of the Americas will
not be just a forum for the promotion of free trade, but a place
where heads of state will get together to try to give—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pride that I announce that a travelling
exhibit on the history of volunteerism is going to be in my
riding from today until April 3.
This exhibit will be stopping in only three cities in Quebec,
and Lévis has the honour to be one of them. I wish to
congratulate Lévis's Service d'entraide, regroupement et
solidarité for obtaining permission to co-ordinate the holding of
this exhibit.
I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the
invaluable contribution volunteers make to our society. In this
International Year of Volunteers, we must recognize the value and
the vigour of social and community life in all our regions, and
thank these volunteers, who give so generously in such a wide
variety of areas.
Let the spotlight shine on all those who work behind the scenes
for the well-being of our community. I thank them all. Quebec
is deeply indebted to them.
* * *
1410
[English]
TOURISM
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tourism
is an industry on the move, with more people than ever before
travelling both domestically and internationally. In Canada,
tourism spending contributed over $50 billion to our economy in
1999 and 70% of that figure was spent by Canadians. Our
international travel deficit fell to $1.9 billion, which is the
lowest since 1987.
Tourism is important to Canadians because of the jobs. Tourism
has a high level of employment. Five hundred thousand people are
employed annually in 80 tourism related industries throughout the
country. Moreover, tourism related jobs are a major source of
economic activity not only in urban areas, but increasingly in
rural areas and with our first nations people.
[Translation]
The federal government, in association with the Canadian Tourism
Commission and the industry itself, will maintain and improve
Canada's place in the world tourism market.
* * *
[English]
MINING
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, mining in Saskatchewan has grown to represent a very big
component of the economy.
We have four potash mines in the Saskatoon area, which hosts the
head office of the world's largest potash company, Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan.
This morning I met with representatives from Cameco Corporation
and Cogema Resources. Cameco is the world's largest uranium
producer. Its operations include the world's largest high grade
uranium mines, located in Saskatchewan. Cogema Resources is part
of a larger corporation with the world's largest uranium
reserves. Both have head offices in Saskatoon.
We are at a nuclear advantage. Uranium is a clean energy fuel,
seen by many as the only possible long term energy source. It
evokes fear in some and a determination to protest against it for
others. Yet many of these same people would be surprised to
learn that nuclear power is now a proven middle aged technology
that accounts for 17% of the world's electricity production—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today Mike Harris visited Ottawa and spoke to the board of trade.
While everyone expected a big announcement, what we got was a
profound disappointment. The premier promised to study a ring
road, with absolutely no money announced. He might just as well
have stayed at home.
The city of Ottawa has the second fastest growing economy in
Canada and leads Ontario in economic growth. We need new
convention space, better transit facilities, fairer amalgamation
funding and more health care equipment. The premier's “don't
worry, be happy” speech was particularly disappointing from the
standpoint of health care. We still have an MRI crisis in Ottawa
with 7,000 people on the waiting list and only 2 MRIs for adults,
compared to 17 in Toronto, this after the federal government
transferred $189 million to the province for new medical
equipment.
When, oh, when will our local Tory MPPs stand up for the needs
of the nation's capital?
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today Greenpeace is bringing the
attention of the House to the rapid rise of genetically
engineered or transgenic fish. The New Democratic Party agrees
with Greenpeace that the government should respond to the Royal
Society of Canada's report by bringing in a moratorium on the
rearing of GM fish in aquatic facilities.
GM fish represent a huge potential danger to our oceans, plus an
added unknown risk to human health. The fisheries minister must
stop this dangerous new technology. The threat to our wild
stocks and our oceans is too great to ignore.
At this time, on behalf of the federal NDP and our counterparts
across the country, we would like to extend condolences to the
family and friends of Mr. David McTaggart, the founder of
Greenpeace and a great Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Micheline
Germain-Saucier, the president of the teachers' union in my
region, the Syndicat des enseignants et enseignantes de la
région du comté de Drummond, centre du Québec, has asked me to
support the Quebec consensus in favour of the rehabilitative
approach to youth crime, and to oppose Bill C-7.
Mrs. Saucier wishes to remind us that youth crime is constantly
decreasing, and this year has hit a 20-year low, which confirms
that Bill C-7 is based on a myth. She also points out that
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which requires two distinct systems to be
maintained, one for minors and one for adults.
1415
The members of the Bloc Quebecois will support the position of
Quebec stakeholders, while the Liberals will support their
Minister of Justice. The reason is a simple one: we in the Bloc
Quebecois are in Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec, while
the Liberals defend the interests of Ottawa in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
OAK RIDGES
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how
can we measure the importance of the Oak Ridges moraine to the
Greater Toronto area? By counting the acres that the federal
government has protected on the moraine as green space, all 5,562
acres.
We will work with the community, environmental groups, other
federal and provincial agencies and the local governments to
ensure that this acreage is protected forever.
The Oak Ridges moraine contains the headwaters of 35 Greater
Toronto area river systems. It is one of the last remaining
continuous green corridors in southern Ontario and has streams,
woodlands, wetlands, kettle lakes, kettle bogs and significant
flora and fauna. It is still 30% forested and is one of the last
refuges for forest birds in all of southern Ontario.
The members of parliament for the Greater Toronto area listened
to what their constituents were telling them and took up the
fight. We drove this issue, made it happen and got the
government on board, way on board, thanks to the transport
minister. Why? Because it was the right thing to do.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker,
imaginary multiculturalism issues must be replaced by a
government program on the real issues of Canadian socio-cultural
diversity.
The time is now for a fresh start on the government's
multiculturalism program. There are numerous real issues to be
dealt with, so many in fact that the minister responsible does
not have to combat imaginary problems.
In the past, Canada has had a solid record of concrete
achievements from Trudeau's achievements through to the enactment
of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act by Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney.
Recently, Canada's multicultural policy has been unfocused and
often wishy-washy when approaching the promotion and protection
of multiculturalism. This lack of leadership in the program
development of real contemporary issues has resulted in a focus
on either the imaginary or motherhood statements and soft issues.
The explosion of hate sites on the Internet is an objective
measure of the failure of the present multiculturalism programs.
The failure of the government to fully implement the cross
government commitment to diversify as mandated by the
Multiculturalism Act is further objective evidence.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for 134 years Canadians have looked
to the Prime Minister's office to be an example of integrity and
uprightness. Now we have the appearance of a Prime Minister's
office being used to expedite a private business deal.
First, the Prime Minister denied lobbying for money for the
hotel next to the golf course. Then he admitted it. He then
tried to cover it up and that was wrong. Tabling a few selective
documents like he did today just is not good enough for
Canadians.
The Prime Minister has still not come clean. Would he
immediately table all the documents that cover the transactions
between 1993 and 1999, between that timeframe?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was expecting the Leader of the Opposition to be a
gentleman today and get up and apologize.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: On March 15, 2001, in the House,
the member for Edmonton North—
The Speaker: I am sorry, the time has expired.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Well, I have made the point before. If you
pause for the applause, you lose the time. Unfortunately it is
not fair but it happens on both sides.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I asked the ethics counsellor to
check the corporate registry to see whose names were listed as
shareholders. The ethics counsellor said today that he did not
even look, that he had asked somebody else to take a look.
Someone else took a peak and said “Oops, we have a problem here.
We have to make a few changes”. However we still do not know
whose names were on that document.
Yesterday, three of the his MPs would not stand up for him, five
did not today and none of us will stand up and take this cover up
that is going on. We will not stand for it. Where are those
documents? Where are they?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Leader of the Opposition being so
preoccupied. He will not be there very long because he is afraid
of the leader of the fifth party. I would just want him to be a
little consistent. On March 15 the member for Edmonton North
said:
The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just
tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993.
It was done.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, nothing was tabled. For two years
the Prime Minister's office has been getting people to change
their stories about the ownership of the shares. Last week, his
office had Melissa Marcotte change her story about who owned the
shares. In 1999 his lawyers got Jonas Prince to change his
story. First he owned them, then he did not. Now officials at
Industry Canada have had someone change the records. They will
not even tell us what was on there. They said that they had to
make some changes.
Will the Minister of Industry tell the House whether the golf
club was in compliance with the law or not, and, if not, why did
his department ask people to retroactively change those records?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have never seen a more vacuous, empty drum in all my
life. Everyone knows that an empty drum makes the most noise and
there is no one emptier of substance than the Leader of the
Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition is not interested in information.
He is interested in trying to save his skin from the leader of
the Conservative Party. That is the reality of these questions.
Industry Canada has given no direction to anyone to change
anything.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it came back and said that it had to
make a few changes.
[Translation]
Two long years later, the Prime Minister finally lifted just the
corner of the veil over his involvement with “Shawinigate”. He
is, however, still a long way from unveiling the whole truth.
The documents tabled today raise still more questions.
Is the Prime Minister going to at last get to the end of his
dance of the seven veils and agree to an independent inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition has written four or five times to
the ethics counsellor, and has always received the clear reply
that the shares had been transferred way back in November of
1993. The counsellor has proven this as clearly as possible.
In allowing private documents to be tabled, I have done
something that is totally without precedent, something never
before done in this House. He has tabled those documents. He
has always said, and said again a while ago, that there was
neither a conflict of interest nor the appearance of a conflict
of interest. All I did was to help the people in my riding to
get—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is not giving us the documents for
which we asked. The ethics counsellor did not even look at the
register. He asked someone to check it and that person wrote
back saying “Oops, there is something here we have to change. We
will get back to you later”.
This morning, retired Justice W. D. Parker, who conducted the
Sinclair Stevens inquiry, has called for an independent judicial
inquiry into this. He said “A commission will make findings of
fact”. No one at that time was shrieking louder for an inquiry
into the Sinclair Stevens matter than these Liberals.
Will they now listen to the judge who conducted that inquiry and
call for a full inquiry into Shawinigate?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor released 11 documents today. This
is an unprecedented release of information only because consent
was given by the Prime Minister and other parties to these
arrangements to have these documents released.
However, we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition the
real motivation here. It is called revenge. It is called
payback. It is called getting even. It is called making up any
kind of allegation to get a headline because he is trying to hang
on to his job and he is on pretty thin footing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
documents released today—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1425
The Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible to hear the hon.
member, and he has the floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the documents released at
noon today show that the Prime Minister continued to have a financial
link with the Grand-Mère golf club after November 1993. His company
was a signatory to the September 1999 agreement.
Article 2.1 of the third document says that once the Akimbo
shares are transferred to Michaud, the Prime Minister's company
“will no longer have any right of ownership or interest”, I
emphasize “or interest in respect of these shares”.
How can the Prime Minister tell us that he had no financial
link, nor any interest in respect of the shares, when those
interests ended in September 1999, in an agreement which his
company signed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was an account receivable, and the lawyers wanted to cover all
the aspects with respect to any transaction in order to wrap up
matters as clearly as possible.
I would say this to the Bloc Quebecois leader. Not so very long
ago, the member for Roberval once again said:
Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter—the
only way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to
provide us with the record of sale, as we have demanded so many
times already? Let him provide that, and the problem will be
over.
This was said in the House on March 15, 2001, which proves
that is all they want. They are unable to attack the government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
was because we believed the Prime Minister at the time.
What I am getting at is that when the lawyers have made
provision for everything, they have also provided that an
interest in the shares remained. They provided for more than
that. They provided that the Prime Minister's company would be
responsible for compensating Michaud “for damages and costs of
any sort”, including article 3.6, “arising from proceedings or
inquiries of any nature”.
In other words, through this agreement, the Prime Minister is
proving to us that he has every interest in an inquiry not being
held, not even in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, because his company would have to pay the cost of
Michaud's lawyer. That is why he does not want an inquiry.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
like everyone else, the Bloc Quebecois leader has repeatedly
asked the ethics counsellor whether there was any conflict of
interest. He gave his answer when he appeared before the
committees in 1999. Today, the only problem remaining, he said,
was the deed of sale. That was tabled today.
What is sad is that, with real problems in the country, this is
what the opposition is focusing on. They want to go after the
Prime Minister's reputation. The Prime Minister is very well
known in this country. There were 172 members—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the most
serious problem in this country is the lack of credibility of
its leader.
In order to be complete, the sale documents must be accompanied
by the stock certificates, because the sale of shares only
actually takes place when the certificates are signed at the
back.
Why did the Prime Minister not table the stock certificates with
the bill of sale to certify that the shares no longer belonged
to him, assuming he endorsed them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let it be clear that, at one point, Mr. Prince returned all
these documents to the company, to Mr. Michaud. Last week the
lawyer clearly stated that a resolution was passed by the
company on November 1 saying that I had sold my shares and
that a few days later I was no longer a director of that
company.
As of November 1, 1993, I and my company had no interest in the
company, no connection with the golf club. This is clear, as
evidenced by the documents that we tabled today, which is
something unprecedented.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime
Minister signed away his shares in 1999 as a contracting party,
either he never endorsed the stock certificates and always
remained the owner since he had not been paid or else he
endorsed them and they were returned to him and endorsed again.
If that is the case, we would like to know when the Prime
Minister became a shareholder again.
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was a debt to be paid. I will quote the hon. member again
because he refuses to understand, and we know that opposition
parties have a very hard time finding things that are wrong with
our government. Again, the member for Roberval said “There is
only one thing to do and it is to table the bill of sale”.
This is what we did this morning in front the whole nation. All
Canadians are wondering when the opposition will deal with the
real issues in this country.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last fall in The Hague the
global accord on greenhouse gas reductions went up in smoke due
to a major disagreement over the carbon sink concept.
On the one hand we have the Americans tripping through the
forest counting the trees as their contribution to greenhouse gas
reductions. On the other hand we have Europeans backed by the
United Nations climate change panel rejecting the American
position as flawed science, as simplistic and short-sighted.
Could the Prime Minister explain why we have the environment
minister headed for Latin America to peddle bad science—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important problem. I am happy to say we
want to make sure that not only free trade will be discussed with
all the nations of the Americas but that all elements of good
government, environment, social problems and education will be
part of the discussions.
It is not only about free trade. It is about improving the
quality of life of all countries that participate in the
negotiations in Quebec next week.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us
get serious here for a minute. The Prime Minister knows
perfectly well the American president has served notice that he
has no intention of meeting the U.S. Kyoto commitments.
Why is the government doing the Americans' dirty work? It is
bad enough for Canada's reputation as a responsible environmental
citizen to be smeared because we refuse to take the lead on
tackling greenhouse emissions at source.
Why is the government adding insult to injury by urging the
poorest nations of the hemisphere to buy favour on the eve of the
FTA summit by associating with the unscientific and irresponsible
American position on greenhouse gases?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the principle of carbon sinks is embedded in the Kyoto
protocol itself. The Canadian position with respect to carbon
sinks in either agriculture or forestry is squarely based upon
sound science.
The hon. gentleman sitting next to the leader of the NDP, coming
from Saskatchewan, should know that the very best science in the
world on sinks comes from Saskatchewan. He should be proud to
stand up for that, to think of the world.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's letter yesterday said that Debbie Weinstein
was acting as an officer of J∾ Consultants when she negotiated
the final sale of the shares.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. There is a lot of exuberance
today, but we have to be able to hear the questions and the
answers in case somebody says something that is out of order. The
right hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor and the Chair
wants to be able to hear.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I will not, Mr. Speaker. The Prime
Minister's letter yesterday said Debbie Weinstein was acting “as
an officer of J∾ Consultants” when she negotiated the final
sale of the shares. Yet the official corporation profile report
of the government of Ontario shows that Ms. Weinstein became an
officer of that company only on September 1, 1999, mere weeks
before the transaction was completed.
1435
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ms. Weinstein was acting as
his lawyer and his agent in negotiations that began in 1996 and
included the period when he made his intervention on behalf of
the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that she was my trustee with another person,
because we all have two trustees for managing our assets. All my
personal assets, all the assets that had to be in trust from
J∾, are in trust and she was negotiating. She had the books in
her office. She was dealing with that.
She can be a lawyer at the same time as being a trustee,
something that probably the leader of the fifth party cannot do.
She can chew and walk at the same time.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
she was acting for the Prime Minister on this file at the same
time that he intervened with the Auberge Grand-Mère.
[Translation]
Was the Prime Minister consulted or otherwise involved in the
decision to appoint Ms. Weinstein, an employee of J∾
Consultants Inc., and why was that decision made so late in the
process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in November 1993, I put my affairs in the hands of my trustees,
who talked with Mr. Wilson, who is responsible for the trusts of
all members, ministers and public servants. Ms. Weinstein was
always in contact with Mr. Wilson. I am told that she has been a
director of the company since 1993, and that can be verified, and she
had a clear mandate from me to always follow Mr. Wilson's
instructions and advice and she did a very good—
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry, but we have agreed to
certain rules on the time allowed for replies. I am sorry to
interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but I did not make
these rules.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, even though not all relevant
documents were tabled today as the Prime Minister promised
yesterday, what was tabled made it clear that Jonas Prince did
not accept ownership of the golf course shares until the end of
1999. That was confirmed today by the ethics counsellor.
It was also confirmed that the Prime Minister had a receivable,
an asset, and therefore a personal interest in those shares for
six years between 1993 and 1999, all during the time he was
lobbying—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a clear sale with no relation at all to the
shares. From November 1, 1993, I was no longer a shareholder,
but what is very preoccupying for opposition members is that for
two years they have used smears based on no facts all the time.
They have refused to recognize the truth. They have it now.
They are embarrassed and what they should do is apologize, turn
the page and deal with the problems of the nation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said today that
there was a debt to be paid. That amounts to an interest.
1440
Why does the Prime Minister not just accept responsibility for
leaving himself in a position of an apparent conflict of interest
for three years and have the matter settled for Canadians by an
independent judicial inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a debt owed to me by Mr. Prince that was paid in
1999.
Now they are always moving the post. I just want again to say
the very simple fact. They challenged me here. It was by the
member of Edmonton North a few days ago. She said:
The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just
tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993.
I have done it. They are terribly embarrassed and they should
be all ashamed of themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when a minister of the government finds himself in a potential
conflict of interest situation, the Prime Minister, on the
advice of his ethics counsellor, decides on the situation and
asks the minister to change his behaviour.
In the case of the Auberge Grand-Mère, since the Prime Minister
himself is involved, he becomes judge and jury.
How can the Prime Minister allow himself to be the only judge of
his behaviour, finding himself not guilty of conflict of
interest, when all observers of the political scene think
otherwise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Wilson has appeared a number of times before committees and
has given all the facts to all the members. This man was the
government's assistant deputy registrar, appointed by the
previous government, applying rules that existed in 1993.
He never refused to appear before committees. He was on
television barely two hours ago, yet they will not accept
the truth. All they want is to try to tarnish my reputation,
but I know that Canadians know I have served this country for 37
years and have always defended my honour. My father gave me my
name.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in this whole matter involving the Prime Minister directly, is
it not time he appeared before his peers on the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so his conduct may be
judged not by himself, as has been the case up to now, but by
persons outside? If he refuses, is it because he is trying to
avoid, as section 3.6 of the 1999 agreement provides,
responsibility for the costs of representation and defence of
the purchaser?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the greatest committee of the House of Commons is the House of
Commons itself.
For at least three weeks I have answered hundreds
of questions. I have said the same thing all the time. I
divested myself of these shares on November 1, 1993, and that
was clearly proven with Mr. Wilson's tabling of the conveyance
this morning.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today's release of documents raises
more questions than answers. We know that the ownership of the
golf course shares was in limbo for six long years during the
time he lobbied for money for the neighbouring hotel.
Will the Prime Minister not admit that the debt, the dispute
over ownership, and his lobbying for the neighbouring property
placed him in a conflict of interest?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, documents have been released today, all of which
required the consent of the parties to this agreement, including
the Prime Minister and others. Some 11 documents in total have
been released by the ethics counsellor.
The ethics counsellor has made very clear in his release of
these documents that they make absolutely clear that
post-November 1993 the Prime Minister has not owned the shares of
the golf course and, more to the point, that Mr. Prince has owned
these shares as he has acknowledged in the document.
1445
The leader of the Conservative Party can stand, puff out his
cheeks, turn red and look outraged, but he cannot change the
facts.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor today
refused to release some of the most important documents, the
share registry of 161341 Canada Inc., but he did disclose that
the Canada Business Corporations Act was broken, even though both
the Prime Minister and Jonas Prince are corporate lawyers and
know the requirements of the law.
Why is this department going to change the record to suit the
Prime Minister's version of the facts?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have two leaders in the House, one of whom has cost
the taxpayers of Alberta $800,000 and taken a $70,000
contribution from the firm that defended him, and the other
leader who saw his leadership disappear with German money
involved in his leadership convention. Both of them, if they
wanted to investigate conspiracies, should look in their own
backyards, not across the floor of the House.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
famous 1993 contract through which the Prime Minister claimed he
had got rid of his shares has finally been released. There is no
clause indicating that, even in the event of non-payment, the
Prime Minister could not resume ownership of his shares, unless
he had endorsed the share certificates.
Why has the ethics counsellor stated that the Prime Minister
absolutely could not take back his shares in the event of
non-payment, while it appears obvious that he did not endorse his
certificates, thus completing the transfer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I read in this morning's La Presse that a legal expert, Paul
Martel, has made the following statement: “Even if shares are
not paid for, the purchaser becomes the owner, according to the
Civil Code. Once the sale is concluded, the parties cannot
change their minds without going before a judge to get the sale
cancelled”.
This is an opinion given by a lawyer to a La Presse reporter,
and certainly for my benefit. This is a man who knows his law.
When there is a sale, the sale is effected at the time the two
parties give their consent.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
Prime Minister's participation in the 1999 agreement as a
contracting party not confirmation that the Prime Minister still
had a direct ownership tie to his shares and that, by stating
otherwise, he and his ethics counsellor have misled the entire
House of Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have to keep repeating the same thing. My apologies to the Liberal MPs,
who are ladies and gentlemen showing a great deal of patience
with the irresponsibility of the opposition, when they would
prefer to discuss real problems.
For the thousandth time, I repeat: I sold my shares on November
1, 1993; the record of sale was tabled here this morning. We
were owed money, most of which was collected in 1999. We gained
nothing. We acted in the interest of the constituents of the
riding of Saint-Maurice, by creating jobs in a riding with one of
the highest rates of unemployment in Canada.
* * *
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the chair of the standing committee
on industry, which has been tasked by the standing orders of the
House to examine the ethics counsellor and the operations of the
Canada Business Corporations Act.
This morning she ruled out of order a motion to call Mr. Jonas
Prince to committee, a man whose testimony pertains to the act
and the ethics of the government. Why did the chair deny
democracy in order to protect the Prime Minister?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member who asked
the question and the entire House know the rules of the House.
They know very well that this excellent chair of the standing
committee, supported by all members of the House, rendered
excellent decisions in ensuring that the work of the committee
was properly done. I wish hon. members across had similar
interests at heart.
1450
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think most Canadians would see the action of the chair
this morning at committee as simply outrageous.
When a real ethical question comes up, a question that speaks to
the heart of the ethics of the government, the chair and other
Liberals on the committee would not even allow it to be
discussed. So much for democracy that she claims to uphold over
there.
Why did the chair use her parliamentary office today to cover up
for the Prime Minister?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the
question. Questions directed to chairs of committees concerning
the business of the committee are in order in question period,
but I cannot hear the question.
I do not know whether it concerns the business of the committee.
I was hearing a good long preamble but I need to hear the
question. Perhaps the member could put the question with no
preamble.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat the
question. Why did the chair use her parliamentary office today
to cover up for the Prime Minister?
The Speaker: I am not sure the question is in order. I
am not sure it concerns the business of the committee, but the
government House leader may wish to answer.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is telling us
that if he brings a point to committee and he is wrong it means
that others are undemocratic.
The fact is that he is wrong because he is wrong, because the
facts are not right. We all know what the real answer is. These
are false accusations against the Prime Minister. That is all
that is being made. He does not respect the rules of the House,
and he knows it.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
Canadians, we are proud of Canada's leadership role in the Ottawa
process to ban anti-personnel mines.
[English]
An important effective instrument of international law, the
convention demands that signatory countries destroy their
stockpiles of landmines.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada
is doing to help Ukraine deal with its significant stockpile of
anti-personnel mines so Ukrainian authorities can meet their
Ottawa convention obligations?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday during the visit of the foreign minister from
Ukraine to Canada we were able to enter into a framework
arrangement on the destruction of anti-personnel landmines with
Ukraine.
This is a very important development. As members will know this
will enable us, together with the co-operation of NATO partners,
to begin the destruction of 400,000 landmines that have been
stockpiled in Ukraine.
We have managed to begin to make the world a safer place with
the elimination of landmines. This is something of which all
Canadians should be very proud.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns
the Talisman Energy complicity in the bloody civil war in Sudan.
Earlier this month the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa urged all Canadians to sell their shares in Talisman and
called for a much tougher Special Economic Measures Act. Last
week his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, was on a
PR show for Talisman promoting the oil industry.
Will the minister accept the recommendation of his colleague,
the secretary of state, to toughen the Special Economic Measures
Act? Will he explain to the House who speaks for the government
on Talisman in Sudan? Is it the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa who condemns it, or is it his colleague who
supports it? Which is it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly share the hon. member's deep concern about
the continuing conflict in Sudan. He will know that a number of
members of parliament from different parties in the House have
recently visited Sudan investigating the situation for their own
part.
I received, for example, a report yesterday from the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who provided a very thoughtful view of
the situation in Sudan.
I certainly will be taking into account all these points of view
as we consider what if anything Canada should be saying with
respect to the developments in Sudan.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the minister again specifically whether he will
agree to toughen the Special Economic Measures Act.
While he is at it, the minister referred to a group of members
of parliament that travelled to Sudan. How does the minister
feel about the fact that the tickets for that trip were paid for
by Talisman Energy?
Does the minister feel it is appropriate that two Liberal
colleagues and one Alliance member, one of the Liberals being the
vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee, should be travelling
to Sudan, paid for by Talisman Energy? Is that acceptable to the
minister?
The Speaker: I do not believe that question is in
order. It has nothing to do with the administrative
responsibilities of the government.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister still has a few little problems when it comes to
the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
I remind hon. members that the documents tabled this morning did
not include the official bill of sale. What we have is a
photocopy of a sheet of paper signed but not witnessed.
Moreover, there are no documents for the 1993-99 period, when
the Prime Minister was actively lobbying for the Auberge
Grand-Mère.
Where are these documents? Where is the original bill of sale?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we now know what is the next line of attack by the
Conservative Party. It has now discovered something powerful and
important.
We do not have 300 original copies of the bill of sale to be
tabled in the House. This indeed is proof of wrongdoing by the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister stated in yesterday's letter that he was in full
compliance with the conflict of interest code for public
officeholders. The code that the Prime Minister signed states
that a public officeholder shall make a confidential report to
the assistant deputy registrar general of all assets that are not
exempt assets.
The debt owed to him by Akimbo Development Corporation was a
declarable asset. Why did the Prime Minister not declare the
asset?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who sits
very close to the member who just spoke said on March 26, and I
think that was less than 24 hours ago, that the Prime Minister
could have put this matter to rest a long time ago by providing
definitively that he did not stand to gain himself by his actions
by tabling a document that would lay out the details of a sales
agreement he had with an individual named Jonas Prince. That is
precisely what the Prime Minister has done today.
The people of Canada are tired of this nonsense. They want
parliament to go back to work on behalf of all citizens of the
country.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the
minister of multiculturalism contacted the RCMP to find out if
there were any cross burnings or racist incidents after her
statement to support her horrible accusations against two British
Columbia cities.
This fishing expedition to use the powers of the RCMP to attempt
to incriminate people after she smeared them is a clear violation
of cabinet ethics. When will the Prime Minister see that it is
time for this junior minister to go?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after the question was asked on the subject yesterday I
verified that there were no phone calls made by the minister or
anybody in her office about that.
We checked with the department and now apparently it is not sure
that there were. There were no instructions and no
communications from the minister or anybody on her staff dealing
with the RCMP on that. It is not even sure that somebody from
the department contacted the RCMP. What was written in the
press yesterday was not the real fact. It was not true.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. This
junior minister has destroyed any credibility she might have had
in fighting genuine racism. She has a record of making false
accusations. She will not produce a letter to the House because
no such letter exists.
She has tried to use the power of the RCMP to support her smear
campaign after the fact. When will the Prime Minister fire the
minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that nobody has called the RCMP. When the
Prime Minister of Canada stands and says he has inquired and
there were no phone calls by the minister or her staff, the
burden of proof is on the opposition and it has no leg to stand
on because there were no phone calls made by anybody.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister was asked whether he had endorsed the stock
certificates in 1993, when he is alleged to have sold his shares
once and for all.
I put the question very simply once again and clearly. Did he
or did he not endorse the stock certificates in 1993?.
1500
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the statements by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois are totally
false. The facts are clear. This is my first opportunity to
respond in French and I am pleased to be doing so in response to
this question.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
he would do well to continue his French lessons, because I was
not making a statement, I was asking a question.
Section 3.6 of the September 29, 1999 agreement provides that if
Michaud, the company, its representatives, administrators or
shareholders were called to testify or be part of proceedings,
the company of the Prime Minister would have to cover the legal
and representation costs, for example, if they came before the
Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
Is this not proof that he had an interest, since it is always to
the Prime Minister's advantage that there be no investigation or
appearance because his company would pay and he does not want us
to hear the full truth about the matter?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the questions that need to be answered and that have
been asked in the House over the last period of time have been
dealt with this morning in the release of the documents by the
ethics counsellor.
We have had questions to the RCMP. The RCMP has opened the
books and closed the books. We have had the ethics counsellor.
We have had a request for a tabling of the document of sale and
other relevant materials. All of that has been done.
It is time for those opposite to recognize that this fishing
expedition, so described by the leader of the Conservative Party,
has yielded no catch. It is time to put away the poles, go back
home and get back to the real work of Canadians.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime
Minister that nobody wrote a letter to that junior minister of
multiculturalism, no mayor from any city in British Columbia,
about any cross burnings ever in that province.
She made it up. She fabricated that story. She lied to the
House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member knows that is out of order
and I would ask him to withdraw the words.
Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.
She fabricated that story and misled the House. Why does the
Prime Minister not just fire her?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said, and I will repeat, that last week the minister
got up in the House; she said she made a mistake and she
apologized.
The day before there was a member of parliament on the other
side, and it was not in reply to a question, who had planned to
have somebody speak on his behalf. It was a mistake. He came to
the House and said “I am sorry. I apologize”. We have
accepted his apology. I do not know why they do not want to
accept the apology from this side.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Brad Clark, Minister of
Transportation for the province of Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order arises from the decision of the Chair to rule
my supplementary question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
during question period out of order.
I want to appeal to the Chair, perhaps on reflection, to
recognize that the question I was asking related specifically to
the implications of three members of the House accepting a trip
to Sudan paid for by a corporation which has been heavily
criticized by a minister of the crown. Clearly that may have
implications on Canada's foreign policy.
My question was put specifically to the foreign affairs
minister. It raised serious concerns about the implications of
the decision of these members to accept this payment, but more
specifically it sought guidance from the minister with respect to
his administrative responsibilities as minister.
In Marleau and Montpetit, at chapter 11, the relevant provisions
on questions, I would draw the attention of the House and the
Chair to two citations:
Then it goes on to refer to the specific criteria of the
question, saying that members should “seek information” and of
course:
With respect, one of the members who made the decision to accept
this funding from Talisman is the vice-chair of the foreign
affairs committee, and clearly this could have an implication
with respect to Canada's role in this important issue.
I would hope the Chair would recognize that this is entirely in
order. I would appeal to the Chair to acknowledge that and to
permit the question to be asked at the earliest possible
opportunity.
The Speaker: The Chair is quite prepared to rule on
this issue immediately. I refer the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas to Marleau and Montpetit, as he has done, at
page 426:
—In summary, when recognized in Question Period, a Member
should—ask a question that is within the administrative
responsibility of the government or the individual Minister
addressed.
Furthermore, a question should not—seek an opinion, either
legal or otherwise—
The hon. member asked the minister for his opinion on what some
other hon. member had done. It had nothing to do with government
expenditure. It had nothing to do with the Department of Foreign
Affairs.
Apparently there was a choice by these members, on the face of
the hon. member's question, to take a trip from someone else.
That is not the business of the minister and in my opinion it is
clearly not part of the administrative responsibility of the
government. The member was seeking an opinion. He violated the
principles on two counts. The question was out of order. I have
no doubt on the issue.
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I rise on a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have checked with the Clerk as
to whether the documents relating to the Auberge Grand-Mère have
been tabled.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have both
insinuated, if one might put it that way, that they have tabled
documents. I would remind hon. members that the tabling of
documents must be done here in the House, so that all hon.
members may be aware of them, not in the press gallery.
There are two possibilities: either you remind government
members that they have a duty to table the documents in the House
and that, if they have not tabled them officially, they should
withdraw the statements to that effect made in the House or let
us finally see them table the documents officially, which is not
the case at present.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be
confusing two or three different matters.
First, he knows very well that a Minister may table a
document, not that he must do so.
Second, it was not a minister. The hon. member ought to check
with his leader, who no doubt is aware of this. The documents
were made public, not by a minister but by the ethics counsellor.
1510
That said, however, if the House so desires, I will commit to
tabling them. Moreover, as soon as I obtain a copy in the other
official language, within the next ten minutes probably, I will
do exactly that; in other words, I will make the documents public
by tabling them officially in the House personally.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been
on my feet on a number of occasions, and would have been today
during routine proceedings, regarding questions that I have
placed on the order paper. You are very familiar with this, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to refer you to yesterday's Hansard,
page—
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member is going
to raise the same point again might I suggest that he wait until
tomorrow's routine proceedings when we come to questions on the
order paper. I am sorry he was not here this morning and I must
say I was sort of surprised he was not.
However, I do not think we should go into questions again now.
Questions were dealt with this morning. The House agreed to
allow them all to stand, so it is off the face of the record, as
it were, until tomorrow. The hon. member will be free to raise
the issue again then and I would invite him to do so.
I am not going to listen to a lot. The hon. member had better
get to his point very quickly if he has something new to say.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond that. It
is misleading the House. I have been informed that these
questions were coming. They have never been tabled. Why not?
How many times do I have—
The Speaker: The hon. member should have asked that this
morning when the questions were allowed to stand. If he had a
question, that was the time to raise it, not now.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another Act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to be able to go on with my speech.
As I was saying before you so politely interrupted me for
question period, despite the expected downturn in the U.S.
economy during the current year, the federal government has
accumulated surpluses that will increase federal tax revenues
over the next five years.
Even using conservative estimates of federal tax revenues due to
a possible economic downturn in Canada during the current year,
we could get surpluses over the next five years totalling some
$135 billion, and this is based on pessimistic estimates of
economic growth rate.
As I was saying before question period, it is easy for a finance
minister to accumulate surpluses when he does not need to make
any special efforts. He only has to squeeze annual surpluses of
$5 billion to $6 billion out of unemployed Canadians to create a
budget surplus.
He was also able to save money by cutting provincial transfers
for social and education programs. He has generated revenues
since 1993 through hidden personal income tax increases, by
refusing to index tax tables before last year.
This just goes to show that the Minister of Finance has
incredible opportunities to make the right choices and promote
social justice.
The minister knows full well, since he is the one who has been
emptying the pockets of middle income families, that a
large part of the tax reductions he brought in does not go to
middle income families or to those families who made sacrifices
by paying high taxes or by being subjected to EI cuts. They are
not getting the share of surpluses to which they would be
entitled if the government wanted to reward those who have been
most responsible for putting our fiscal house in order.
The Minister of Finance could have taken exactly the same amount
he intends to spend on tax reductions over the next five years,
which is about $73 billion, to reduce taxes for low and middle
income families.
1515
According to our own calculations, if the Minister of Finance
redid his homework, he could bring in measures that would ensure
that, as early as this year, families with an income of $35,000
or less, particularly single parent families, would not pay a cent
in federal income tax.
They pay taxes now and they are not the ones who will benefit
the most from tax reductions this year. Those who will benefit
from significant tax reductions are those who make $250,000 and
more. They will save at least $9,000 to $11,000 in taxes this
year. For a single parent family with dependent children, we are
talking about savings of some $250 this year. They
are laughing in people's faces.
It is also tantamount to laughing in the faces of nine out of ten
taxpayers who have significantly helped to get Canada's public
finances back in order and helped the finance minister amass huge
surpluses, but are still unable to benefit from our financial
house being put back in order.
The poor will still have to wait for social housing, since the
Minister of Finance has announced no new measures in the last
budget or in last fall's mini-budget to help thousands of
families who are hurting because they have to spend too much
money on shelter, compared to what they spend on basic needs like
food, clothing and heating.
When the Minister of Finance took over the department in 1993,
about 500,000 households in Canada were spending more than 50% of
their income on shelter. Nowadays, we have over 850,000
households spending more than 50% of their income on shelter.
What it means is that these people have to feed and clothe their
children and heat their house with only half of their income.
People spending more than 30% of their income on shelter are
considered as the less fortunate since they have to cut spending
on other basic needs in order to pay the rent.
In light of these devastating figures, with estimated surpluses
of some $135 billion over the next five years even with the
expected downturn, why has the finance minister not thought about
reinvesting in that area?
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both
official languages, the documents concerning the sale of the
Auberge Grand-Mère shares, which were requested earlier today by
the member opposite.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are days when no amount of effort moves things forward.
This is only the third time I have tried to finish my speech. I
hope that no other prerogatives of the House will prevent me from
making it all the way to the end. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you
will show some understanding.
Before I was interrupted I was saying that when one puts
30% of one's income into accommodation one is viewed as needing
assistance.
In view of such outrageous figures, which reveal that an
additional almost 60% of homes in Canada spend over 50% of their
income on accommodation, how is it the Minister of Finance did
not give a moment's thought to spending a cent on social housing?
It would have been easy to allocate $2 billion or $3 billion of
the $135 billion expected surplus over the next five years. Why
did he not think of that?
1520
Why, on the other hand, did he think to turn to the
millionaires, people who are not having a hard time, people who
do not need $9,000 or $11,000 in savings this year? However,
people earning less than $15,000 a year would certainly like to
have had better housing for their family. No, this is not one of
the Minister of Finance's priorities, not at all.
With the billions he has, how did he end up taking money out of
the pockets of the unemployed, the disadvantaged and the sick,
those who cannot benefit from proper transfers corresponding to
the needs of the people in the health care sector? How did he end
up picking the pockets of students, too, who could have used some
of the manna going into the government coffers? Why did the
Minister of Finance not think of putting money into these
sectors? Why did he not give a moment's thought either to
increasing Canada's contribution to international aid, which has
shrunk since this heartless minister has been Minister of
Finance?
How can this man continue to believe that the best way to fight
poverty and unemployment is to continue to make off with the
surplus in the employment insurance fund every year? How can he
not have given a minute's thought to doing something for the 57%
of people who are excluded, the people out of work who are not
eligible for employment insurance? It is because he needs the
dough, because he needs to make use of the surplus to offer tax
cuts to those with annual incomes of $250,000 and up.
How can this man not have thought that it would be a good idea
to raise the old age pension, particularly for older women living
alone?
Barely 16 months ago, a National Council on Welfare report
informed us that the situation of seniors who are on their own,
particularly the women, is getting worse, and that additional
funding was needed to help them and keep us from returning to the
vicious circle we were in prior to 1960s. Back then, there was
no safety net for these people. How can this man still want to
make women and children the first ones that have to pay?
The Minister of Finance's reaction to that, when I said it the
other day, was to laugh.
I would love it if, at some point, the camera would catch his
smile when we confront him with such evidence, when we tell him
that women and children are paying for his negligence, when we
tell him that his grabbing billions of dollars from the
employment insurance surpluses, $38 billion since 1994, directly
hits women and children first, and further marginalizes young
people. He is still smiling. I would love it if the camera would
catch him.
He also smiles when we tell him about elderly women living
alone. There is nothing funny about the plight of elderly women
living alone and getting increasingly poor.
Why did this man think of reducing taxes for millionaires before
using money to help the poor and the homeless?
Recently, an alderman from Hull, whom I salute and congratulate
for his work, told us that in the Outaouais region there are not
only more and more homeless people who lose their jobs, who lose
everything, but that entire families are also homeless. There are
no shelters for these people.
Why did the Minister of Finance, who must know the Outaouais
since he has been living here for several years, not to mention
the fact that he is a member from Quebec, not think about using
part of the billions that he is taking from the poor to build
facilities to house these homeless families?
One sometimes wonders if the minister and his government have a
heart. Mr. Speaker, you know what a heart is. You do. I am sure
that you have one, but I sometimes have doubts about whether the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister do.
1525
When we see how priorities are set with regard to budget
allocation and when we see the savage cuts in social programs,
particularly income support programs, over the last few years, we
cannot help but wonder if he has a heart. If he has one, he must
have one since he appears to be alive and well, it is not in the
right place, as my grandfather would have said.
If his heart were in the right place, with the means available
to him today to really meet the needs of those in difficulty, of
middle income families that have been bled white by taxes for
almost two decades, he could have made the right decisions.
I urge him to go back to the drawing board and to make sure that
these billions of dollars that will be coming are allocated in a
way that will benefit the right people, low and middle income
people, particularly families, as well as the unemployed. These
people would benefit from a true reform of the EI plan, which now
excludes 57% of the clientele it is supposed to serve. These
funds should also be put toward full indexing of federal
transfers for health, education and income security.
In the area of social housing, there are crying needs. Will our
shouts be loud enough to make the finance minister understand
that there are people in the street who are cold and hungry? Will
we have to shout louder and louder to express the pain of those
helpless people who cannot speak for themselves here, who cannot
speak directly to this heartless government? How loud will we
have to shout to express their pain?
There comes a time when we do not know anymore what data we should
bring here, because we have the impression that the people
opposite do not care. We can mention facts that speak for
themselves, talk about the 25% increase in child poverty since
they took office, the 60% increase in people who must spend more
than 50% of their income for housing, we can tell them that 57%
of the unemployed, mostly women, are excluded from EI benefits,
the people across the way just do not care. What will it take to
make them understand?
It should not be so difficult for the Minister of Finance to
re-examine his forecasts. Incidentally, he will be making an
economic statement in May. I hope he will have the decency to
stop taking us for morons and come up with concrete numbers. Even
if these numbers are a bit pessimistic due to the U.S. economic
downturn, I hope he will not have the outrageous idea to try to
pull the wool over our eyes once again. I hope he will not take
us for what we are not and take Canadians for fools. At one
point, one has to stop laughing at people.
Last week, he said that it was a good thing he made conservative
forecasts in spite of the fact that the opposition blamed him for
being cautious. However there is a difference between being cautious
and hiding the facts. There is a difference between being
cautious and accurately stating the facts. There is a difference
between being cautious and being cynical when people say they
need information.
The Minister of Finance has shown cynicism these past few years
by forecasting surpluses that were half the real surpluses.
I even remember one time when, within a six month period, the
finance minister, who claims to be competent, open and
transparent, was off by 130% in his surplus forecast for a four
or four and a half month period. Who was he trying to kid? He
said he was happy he erred on the side of caution. What caution?
He was not the least bit cautious.
He has spent the surplus he has creamed off the EI fund, to the
tune of $38 billion since 1994. He has put it towards debt
reduction. He has used it to lower taxes to millionaires. Where
is this so-called caution? Where is the EI cushion?
Suppose there is a downturn in the economy resulting in an
increase in the number of unemployed, then we will need more
money to help them. Where is the cushion to do that? It is gone.
Where is the finance minister's caution? It has gone by the
wayside.
1530
I will give you the real numbers. Before the downturn in the
U.S. economy, we were expecting a surplus of roughly $148 billion
over the next five years. For once we were in agreement with the
finance minister, and we will not start arguing about a few comas
or decimal points. With this year's downturn, and we have also
taken into account next year's downturn and a normal real growth
of the GDP, the gross domestic product, we came up with a
projected surplus of $136 billion at worst. This would mean a
shortfall of about $12 billion over five years. A little over two
billion a year is not that bad.
If the finance minister would only stop lowering the taxes for
the rich and use the bulk of the surplus to lower the taxes for
middle and low income earners, invest in social housing, correct
the inequities and injustices of the employment insurance
system, and index the health, education and income security
transfers, there would be no problem. Every year he could even
pay back some of the federal accumulated debt. He would be able
to do that. He better not come up with numbers lower than this
projected surplus.
If he does, we will travel across Quebec, and Canada if
necessary, to let everybody know that the finance minister is
taking everybody for a ride. People are not stupid. He should
take his responsibilities.
Consequently, we will be voting against Bill C-22 because it
does not serve the interests of the majority of taxpayers. When
they talk about tax reductions, we must know to whom they are
addressed. They are for the finance minister's friends. It is not
you and me, it is not middle income families, it is not low
income families. They will get almost nothing this year. It is
the people who earn $250,000 and more who are benefiting from
these cuts.
With regard to his tax reduction plan, the finance minister should
go back, take a good look in the mirror and ask himself if he is
proud of what he did. I am sure the mirror would tell him that he
is not proud of himself. He will have a second thing to do: sit
down at his desk, do his homework again and rethink the tax cuts,
give them to low and middle income people and consider the
unemployed. For once, he should have the heart to look at what he
has done since the beginning of his mandate.
It would be a good idea if he started having more feelings, if
he behaved a little more like a human being, if he developed a
little of what is called social partnership. I do not know if he
is aware of this concept. He talks about compassion, a more
liberal and bourgeois value. However social partnership means
partnering with people who live in poverty to try to bring them
some relief. He is in a major position and he could bring some
relief to these people.
I simply ask him to reconsider his past decisions, to do his
homework over and to reflect on what I have told him: to help
people, to bring them some relief, to demonstrate some social
partnership and to show some heart. It seems to me that this is
easy, that one does not need magic to do it.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the budget
implementation bill. Like my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois,
I wish to indicate that the NDP will also be opposing the bill at
second reading because it speaks to the general economic
direction and position of the Government of Canada. The bill
tells us what the government and House of Commons priorities
should be in terms of the direction of our economy for the next
three to five years.
The Minister of Finance believes that the most important
priority is to have a massive tax cut of around $100 billion over
the next four years. That is not in sync with what Canadians are
saying.
Based on public opinion polls and from speaking with people on
the street the most important priority is not a tax cut primarily
directed at the wealthy, unless they are members of the Canadian
Alliance. That is their big priority.
The Alliance has convinced the government that the number one
priority is to cut taxes massively. That is being applauded
enthusiastically by one member of the Canadian Alliance from
Manitoba. What I am saying must therefore be accurate. However,
the Canadian Alliance priority, and now the government's
priority, is not in sync with what Canadians want.
We have seen in all the polls where approximately 7% or 8% of
the people say that the most important priority is to cut taxes.
1535
People want to invest in people. They want to invest in health
care, in education and in the environment. They want to invest
in our farmers who are in the biggest crisis since the 1930s.
Those are their priorities and those are the areas they want us
to spend the important part of the money.
In terms of tax cuts, Canadians want a more progressive and fair
tax system. They do not want the flat tax system that has been
advocated by the Canadian Alliance. The minister himself is
going in the direction of having a flat tax. He is doing this by
changing the taxation regime in terms of capital gains.
Until recently, 75% of capital gains was included in taxable
income. If someone made $10,000, $100,000 or $1 million on the
stock market or anywhere else, 75% of that was included in the
taxable income and taxed at the marginal tax rate. Now the
minister would reduce that to two-thirds of capital gains,
instead of 75%.
If that was not good enough, in the mini statement last fall he
reduced it from two-thirds to 50% of capital gains. If someone
happens to be a very wealthy dishwasher in a restaurant and
happens to make $1 million in capital gains, only half of that
would be included. That is what the minister thinks.
There are very few ordinary people who would be able take
advantage of this tax change. It would help the wealthy. They
would get the biggest bang for their buck in terms of having
their taxes reduced, and reduced drastically. The major measure
in the bill would be a tax cut for the wealthy, for people who
make a lot of money in capital gains, for the bankers, for the
large corporations and for the privileged. This is happening
under a Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have been a member for a while and you
would probably agree with me that what we have across the way is
probably the most conservative Liberal government in the history
of the country. It is much more conservative than the
governments of Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson or Liberal
governments that went before. It is more conservative because of
the agenda of the Reform Party and the Alliance that are driving
it to the right. That is what is happening and that is why the
issue has to be debated.
I agree with the hon. member who spoke before me, that the
priorities of the government are wrong. Canadians do not want to
spend almost all the fiscal resources that we have, two-thirds or
three-quarters, maybe 80% or 90%, depending on how strong the
economy is with the recession or near recession we are entering
into, in terms of a massive tax cut. The want the money to be
spent on health care.
If we go back to 1995, the government across the way, again on
the advice of the Reform Party, massively cut expenditures to
health in terms of transfers to the provinces. Canadians want
those transfers to the provinces increased. They want the best
first class health care system anywhere in the world to be
restored.
I turn to another big issue that the government is ignoring
because of the tremendous priority placed on massive tax cuts,
and that is aid to the farmers. A little while ago the
government announced some $500 million to farmers. Our farmers,
particularly the grain and oilseed farmers, are going through the
biggest crisis that they have gone through since the 1930s. As a
result of that crisis, many farmers have now left the land.
Between the fall 1999 and the fall 2000, over 20,000 farmers in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have been forced off the land,
largely because of federal government policy that is not
supporting our farmers like it should be.
A few days ago there was an article in the Globe and Mail
which stated that the American government supports its farmers or
subsidizes the grain farmers to the tune of eight times more than
we do. That is why American farmers are better off. The
European farmers are better off yet in terms of money that they
get from Brussels. The government across the way is staring a
big farm crisis in the face and instead of providing more money
for the farmers, $1 billion or $1.5 billion instead of $500
million, it is giving $100 billion in tax cuts, many to the
wealthy and the big corporations.
That is wrong and that is why we should be changing the economic
and fiscal direction of the Government of Canada.
1540
That is what the bill is all about. We are implementing the
fiscal moves and the taxation cuts of the Minister of Finance.
What he is doing is wrong in terms of the direction of Canada. We
only have so much money. We only have a pie of a certain size.
If $100 billion goes into cutting taxes, how much will be left
for farmers and for health care? How much will be left to fight
poverty and to fight the problems of the environment which are
worsening day in and day out? We do not have a very proud record
in terms of the environment.
If $100 billion goes into cutting taxes and padding the pockets
of big bankers and the wealthy, how much will be left for the
first nations and the Metis? How much will be left for social
housing, students, tuition fees and the education system? How
much will be left for science and technology in terms of research
and development? How much will be left for the infrastructure
needs in the towns, cities and municipalities? How much will be
left for fishermen on the east and west coasts, for the lumbering
industry in British Columbia and elsewhere, or for the mining
industry?
If we spend $100 billion out of $100 billion, depending upon the
slowdown in the economy, or $100 billion out of $130 billion if
the economy does not slow down as much as feared by many people,
how much will be left for the real priorities of Canadians?
When we have the government party and the official opposition
party applauding a massive tax cut—in fact the opposition wants
an even larger tax cut than provided by the Minister of
Finance—it shows how out of touch those parties are with the
priorities and needs of ordinary Canadians.
Canadians want to have money invested in people. They want a
people's agenda. In 1995, when the present Minister of Finance
brought down his budget, it was the people of the country who
suffered through the most massive cutbacks we have ever had by a
federal government in Canada.
Some of those cutbacks had to occur because of the tremendous
problem of the debt and the deficit, but instead of just cutting
back in a more moderate and selective way we had the slash and
burn policy by the minister across the way.
My Liberal friend from Winnipeg was horrified by the big cuts to
the health care system. He knows the health care system very
well. My Liberal friend from Peterborough was horrified by the
cutbacks in transfers in terms of education. He knows
post-secondary education very well, being an old professor from
Trent University in Peterborough. When I say old, I mean a man
with a lot of seniority.
We have a parliamentary system where government members have to
sit on their hands, be mute and say “Aye, aye, good soldier”
when they vote in the House of Commons on particular bills. It is
up to us to try to persuade the Minister of Finance of the error
of his ways.
In the last decade, the decade of the nineties we saw the gap
between the rich and the poor widening once again. Throughout
the sixties, seventies and into the eighties the gap between the
wealthy and the poor was narrowing. In the sixties and into the
seventies we had the advent of proper old age pensions and the
Canada pension plan. Between 1972 and 1974 we had a minority
parliament with the Liberals and NDP working in combination. We
had the indexing of social programs like the old age pension and
an increase of transfers to the provinces for health care.
As a result of the real emphasis on social policy and on social
justice we saw the gap between the rich and the poor narrow
throughout the sixties, seventies and into the eighties. What
happened in the nineties, particularly after 1995? There has
been a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, where
the wealthiest 20% of the people are making more and more of the
national income and the poorest 20% of the people are making less
and less.
One only has to look at two studies, one by Statistics Canada
and one by the Vanier Institute of the Family. Both had the same
conclusion. The gap between the rich and the poor was widening
and not narrowing throughout the nineties.
1545
When we talk about the budget, taxation and monetary and fiscal
policy, we should be looking at how we can narrow the gap between
the rich and the poor. We should look at how we give more
opportunities to each and every single Canadian. We should look
at how we can create more of a common good in terms of our
policies, in terms of greater equality of condition and sharing
and opportunities for every Canadian.
Instead we are going the other way. We are creating more and
more poor and disadvantaged people. All one has to do is go to
the inner cities of Regina, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or
Winnipeg to see that there are more homeless people.
Walking from my hotel this morning, I saw a couple of homeless
people sitting on the street begging for money. It was around
7.30 a.m or 8.00 a.m. That is a common scene in Ottawa and it is
only two or three blocks away from Parliament Hill. Yet we have
the Canadian Alliance and the government saying we need more
money for big tax cuts for the wealthy.
[Translation]
The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik comes from a
relatively poor riding. When the Minister of Finance decided to
cut taxes for the rich and large corporations in Canada, the
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik stayed in his seat and
did not say a single word about the fiscal policy of the Canadian
government.
It is time for a member such as him, who represents a region
where there is much poverty, to stand up and tell the finance
minister that his fiscal policy is all wrong, that it is unfair
for the country, that it is inequitable for Canadians.
We do not see that happening in the House.
[English]
I mentioned the widening gap between the rich and the poor. I
mentioned the cutbacks in education and health. I mentioned the
cutbacks to our farmers. We had millions of dollars cut from
farm programs in the last number of years. I believe the time
has come to reverse the direction of the Government of Canada and
to once again start investing in programs that help ordinary
people.
Instead of having a $100 billion tax cut, let us spend most of
that money on health care and education, on opportunities for low
income people and on giving opportunities to the first nations
and the Metis people, who in many cases live in situations that
are very similar to countries in the Third World. We are not
doing.
There are still parts of the country where the unemployment rate
is much too high. There are more and more soup kitchens. There
are more people living on the streets. There are more shelters
for homeless people and more food banks. These are opening all
the time. At the same time we see the closures of bank branches,
we see the opening of food banks. All this is happening in a
country that is extremely wealthy and in a country with
tremendous advantages, education and resources.
What we need now is the public policy to make the proper
decisions. We need to invest in our people. We need to invest
in our farmers to make sure they have the equality of condition
with the American and European farmers, which would put them on a
level playing field. If we do that, the farmer will produce.
Farmers will be selling their products and creating jobs in urban
Canada. This will benefit the whole economy.
We need to invest in health care and education. We need to
invest in the people to create in the future the most highly
skilled workforce in the world second to none. If we do that, we
will be a stronger, more viable country.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member opposite had to
say. I appreciated his mentioning me even though it was in a
slightly disparaging way. He talked about tax cuts, tax changes
and things of this type. I would like to ask him a few
questions.
First, what are his thoughts about the extension of parental
leave to 12 months? That is a measure which involves an
expenditure by the government and, by the way, by others. There
was an increase in the disabled tax credit, which I was very
pleased about. That is a tax cut and a tax measure. The
caregivers tax credit, which is still a fairly new thing, will
increase. He also mentioned if I interest in higher education.
We have increased the student tax credit. All these are tax cuts
by the government.
Not that he is old, but I know of his enormous experience in the
House of Commons. I think he was here before anyone who is
present here at the moment.
1550
I noticed the Speech from the Throne mentioned the lifelong
learning account. The idea, as I understood it, is that each of
us should have something like an RESP where we could put money
aside in the same way as we do with an RRSP, so that our children
could use the tax free funds for their education. This money
would be tax free as long as it was used for furthering our
educational opportunities.
What does the hon. member think about that proposed tax measure?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there are many things in
the Speech from the Throne and the budget that one agrees with.
Anything that tries to redistribute income and wealth to make
this a more fair and egalitarian society, I agree with. Some of
those measures are very positive like reinvesting in the social
fabric of our country and in the people's agenda. However, a lot
of these things were cut back in the budget of 1995, as the
member across the way knows.
Now that we have a fiscal surplus of well over $100 billion
projected for the next five years, most of the money, maybe 75%
or 80% of the it, should be invested be invested in people. These
are good examples of where some of the money is going.
My quarrel with the government is that instead of putting 75% or
80% of the money into social programs, infrastructure, farm
programs, programs to help students, education, science and
technology, research and development, health care and so on to
rebuild the social infrastructure and human deficit, the
government has gone the other way by putting 75% or 80% into tax
cuts.
I believe in having some changes in tax fairness and a more
progressive tax system. Rolling back the GST is a good example
of that. We should create more marginal tax rates. Instead of
having three we should have five. This would be a more
progressive tax system. We should make sure we have tax
fairness.
However, my quarrel with the government is its priority. It has
not done that. Most of the money is going to cut taxes, a lot of
which is for the wealthy people. It is not going to the ordinary
farmer in Prince Edward Island who is having problems with the
trade war on potatoes with the Americans. It is not going to the
ordinary farmer. In many cases the money is going to people who
do not need it.
First, wealthy people do not need big tax cuts. They invest it
often in offshore stock markets or projects. Second, with
respect to stimulating the economy, the middle class the
household debts are now at the highest level I think they have
ever been. Their tax cuts will go to pay down some of the
household debts and this does not stimulate the economy.
For low income people, of course the tax cut is a stimulative
measure but they get little of that tax cut. At a time when the
economy needs to be stimulated, when it needs a shot in the arm,
these overall across the board tax cuts of the Minister of
Finance are not the way to go. The way to go is to put the money
into people to build up our human infrastructure.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-22.
These amendments to the Income Tax Act represent a collection of
baby steps, some of which are in the right direction. Some
represent a significant further complication of an already far
too complicated tax code. Most represent politics and the
triumph of politics over public policy.
If we look at the general direction of these tax measures, we
will find that there is no general direction to the these
measures. In fact, they resulted from a flimsily put together
pre-election document, sometimes referred to as a mini budget. It
is referred to as a mini budget but I suggest it reflects the
government's mini vision of Canada.
1555
The fact is these baby steps, these tinkerings, these policies
do not reflect what Canadians need and are particularly not what
the tax code needs. We need a significant level of tax reform in
Canada. Tax reform can be used as a vehicle for economic growth.
Instead of making tax tinkering part of its pre-election policy,
Canadians would be better served if the government was to utilize
tax reform as a vehicle for long term economic growth. That
would benefit all Canadians and improve our competitiveness
globally. These tax measures do not do much to provide for
greater long term competitiveness for the Canadian economy.
If we look at the government's record since the election in 1993
relative to international confidence in Canada's economy, the
most damning reflection or gauge by which to judge the government
is our falling dollar and the fact that under this government our
dollar has lost over 11 cents of value. That is the dollar
reflects the share value of Canada Inc. Under this government we
have seen an 11 cent decline in our country's dollar.
Every time there is a loss in the value of the Canadian dollar
in comparison to the U.S. that leads to a pay cut for every
Canadian. We depend greatly on the goods and services we consume
from our neighbours to the south. A loss in the dollar
represents a direct loss in our standard of living and ultimately
in our quality of life in Canada.
The tax policy and fiscal policy provide a very important key to
providing long term strengthening of the dollar. The government
refuses to discuss the falling Canadian dollar under the guise of
deferring to the Governor of the Bank of Canada and his
responsibility over monitoring policy. Fiscal policy levers in
the long term are as important as monetary policy levers in
providing long term strength to the Canadian dollar. The
importance of fiscal policy, that is tax and debt policies and
strategic spending policies to the long term strengthening of the
Canadian economy, is where the government's record has been a
less than impressive one.
Some of the types of tax reform measures that we would like to
see and that would make a great deal of sense are those that
address some of the most pernicious and uncompetitive natures of
our Canadian tax burden. One is our capital gains tax.
Even after there was some tinkering in this economic statement
and some reduction of capital gains taxes, we still have a higher
tax burden in capital gains than the U.S. For the government to
eliminate personal capital gains tax would cost the federal
treasury about $4 billion a year. This would put us ahead of the
U.S. in a very important area of taxation, particularly in areas
of new economy, biotechnology and in some of these other areas
that are emerging.
In terms of encouraging new economy venture investments,
particularly during a time when market conditions are so
turbulent and we need to try to provide whatever incentives we
can to maintain early investors' interest in these areas, the
elimination of personal capital gains tax would provide a great
incentive for Canadians to invest and help continue to grow the
economy.
1600
It would be even more important now than it was a few months ago
as we see the economic downturn that we are experiencing in
Canada, in the U.S. and indeed globally at this point. It
becomes even more important in some areas. I have referred in a
specific sense to capital gains taxation. It is even more
important now that we try, for once, to be ahead of the U.S. as
opposed to constantly trying to keep up and in fact always being
a couple of steps behind. That is one area where we would have
liked to have seen a more dramatic and visionary step as opposed
to the tinkering the government has done.
The fact is that most of these tax measures occur over a five
year period. If hon. members look at the degree to which these
tax reductions will impact Canadians in the short term, it is
actually much less than what the government would like Canadians
to believe, particularly when combined with the payroll tax hikes
that became effective recently with the CPP payroll tax hikes. It
is clear that the net tax benefit or the net benefit to Canadians
in a take home pay context is minimal or in fact none if members
again take into account payroll taxes.
Whatever way the government would like Canadians to view these
measures, it will become painfully obvious to Canadian taxpayers
when they are receiving their cheques and with their tax
deductions that these measures have been half measures and have
not really addressed the fundamental issues of high taxes in
Canada. Canadians have the highest income taxes in the G-7 and
the second highest corporate taxes in the OECD. Even after full
implementation of these tax measures over a five year period, we
would still end up having about the third highest corporate taxes
in the OECD. That is assuming that none of the other countries
reduce their tax burdens, and we already are aware that at least
seven of them are entertaining and moving toward lower taxes.
Even as we see a slight narrowing of the gap between Canada and
the U.S. in terms of tax burden in the short term, we see the
U.S. now introducing the largest tax cut in its history. The tax
cut is being negotiated currently and is making progress through
congress. We are still behind. The mini budget introduced prior
to the last election did not do much to get us caught up to the
U.S. economy in the current context and yet we are now going to
see, under President Bush, a leapfrogging further ahead. Again,
Canada will be further behind.
A recent report from the Fraser Institute drew, in a convincing
way, a direct linkage between Canada's low dollar and Canada's
systemically high levels of taxation on all fronts. We have yet
to see a firm commitment from the government, not just on tax
reform as a vehicle for long term strengthening of the Canadian
economy, but also for debt reduction. Debt reduction, when we
have approximately four times the per capita debt of the U.S.,
should be a much higher priority than the government has made it.
In fact, many of these tax reduction measures are simply
spending measures in the form of targeted tax cuts. Rewarding a
particular kind of behaviour is nothing more than spending. It
is another way to encourage people to do something that they may
not do otherwise. People end up making decisions based on tax
policy as opposed to what makes sense from a business policy,
from an investment policy or from a personal perspective.
The fact is, this mini budget, this pre-election document, was
far from what Canadians needed in the most turbulent February we
have seen in the last seven years. In the last seven years there
has not been a worse February for the government to avoid having
a budget in than this last February, when the government ducked
the issue and decided arbitrarily not to have a budget.
1605
The fact is, Canadians, particularly with the difference in the
economic conditions between the time when the mini budget was
introduced and today, need a budget more than ever. Whether it
is the decline in the global capital markets or the dramatic
declines in the TSE, the NASDAQ and the New York stock exchange,
Canadian investors and individual Canadians have seen their
retirement savings diminish sharply in recent weeks. At the same
time, they are seeing their standard of living decline because of
a weakening dollar. There is a significant and reasonable
concern among Canadians which should be addressed, not through an
economic statement in the spring and not through a state of the
union address which the finance minister has talked about
providing, but through a full budget.
It is also offensive from a democratic accountability
perspective, because this parliament, with its new members in
some cases, has not actually been asked to approve a budget
introduced after the last election. There are a number of new
members of parliament in the House and government spending and
government estimates ultimately should be accountable to this
place, to parliament. For the government to determine that it is
not important to engage parliamentarians in the approval of
government spending and tax policy through the support of a
ratification of a budget in the House is really and truly
offensive.
There are a number of reasons why we have concerns with the
government's policies, with its tax policies and general fiscal
policies. However, these concerns are not just our concerns.
These are concerns shared by many Canadians, particularly by some
of Canada's top economists. We are seeing a unified front from
Canada's economists relative to the lackadaisical approach of the
government on specific tax policies. In the words of Terence
Corcoran, a journalist, “If weak currency created growth, Canada
would be a world leader”.
The Prime Minister once said that a weak dollar is actually good
for tourism. I think this indicates his economic naiveté but
also his genuine belief that a country can devalue its way to
prosperity. The fact is, a weak dollar is no way to guarantee
long term growth and an increase in the standard of living of a
people. In fact, it is quite the contrary. If the Prime
Minister's argument is correct, that somehow reducing the dollar
can improve tourism, let us think about this. The logical
corollary of his argument is that if we would reduce the dollar
to zero ultimately we could become the largest exporting nation
and the most successful exporting nation in the world. Of course
we would be giving away our products.
The finance minister said in 1990, I believe at the time when he
was running for the Liberal leadership the first time, that he
would, if given the opportunity, manage the dollar's decline down
to its natural level of about 78 cents to 80 cents. He has done
so well that he has managed the dollar's decline down to the 63
cent range.
1610
Canadians are asking a legitimate question. They want to know
why the finance minister is not doing more to strengthen the
intrinsic value of the Canadian dollar as opposed to accepting
its decline. Is it that the Liberal government has accepted that
currencies such as Canada's will in the long term be marginalized
and that the best way to get rid of the independent Canadian
dollar is to simply euthanize it, to let it wither on the vine
and let it decline to such a level that Canadians will say, as
they have already started to say, they would be better off with a
common North American currency?
I do not believe we would be better off with a common North
American currency. To give up our monetary policy levers would
be a mistake. If we give up our floating currency with the U.S.,
there needs to be another operative mechanism to reflect things.
For instance, the commodity crisis that occurred about two years
ago in Asia would have manifested itself not in a reduced
Canadian dollar at that point, but in higher levels of
unemployment. Without the floating Canadian dollar, I would
argue that the operative mechanism that would reflect differing
levels of productivity or commodity price valuations would be
unemployment rates. I am concerned about the notion of losing
that very important tenet of economic sovereignty that is the
independent monetary policy and the Canadian dollar.
Why would the government watch over the decline of the Canadian
dollar and not defend it? If we in this place do not take steps
to strengthen the Canadian dollar in the long term through more
aggressive and innovative tax and debt reduction policies and
more innovative tax reform packages, and if we do not deal with
this in a more forward thinking and visionary way, we and
certainly the government will have to accept the blame for the
Canadian dollar withering on the vine.
At some point, and I am not sure when it will be, if we continue
to see the cyclical decline of the Canadian dollar, Canadians are
going to ask why we have an independent currency. I do not want
to see us get to that stage and I am concerned that we are
precariously close to that position right now.
With a government that has seen the Canadian dollar drop by over
11 cents under its seven year term, it is important to remind the
government that under the previous Mulroney government the dollar
lost only one cent during the same period of time. If the value
of a country's currency reflects global investor confidence in
that country, I would suggest that investors do not have a great
deal of long term confidence in the government.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it strangely ironic that
parties on the right, if we want to call it that, always talk
about the Canadian dollar. Of course there is a concern about
the Canadian dollar, but on the one hand those members talk about
the markets and how we should worship at the altar of the
markets, but in the same breath they talk about how the
government should be doing something about the Canadian dollar.
Although the member is not indicating this to the House, he
knows that recently the Canadian dollar has actually been doing
better than other currencies. I am talking about the European
currencies, the euro, and the Australian dollar and the New
Zealand currency. That is nothing to take a lot of relief from,
but we do know the story, and that is that people are flocking to
the U.S. dollar as a safe haven, which is strangely ironic in the
context of the marketplace because markets in the U.S. are taking
a beating and some of the economic fundamentals are not
terrifically strong.
1615
Nonetheless, there we have it. It is a migration to the U.S.
dollar. The member for Kings—Hants talked about income taxes.
This bill implements the $100 billion tax reduction package so
that average Canadians will see their personal income taxes
reduced by 21% and Canadians with families will see theirs
reduced by 27%. No matter how we cut it, that is a very large
cut in personal income taxes.
I have five small questions, if I may. The member talked about
taxes. I wonder if he forgot that large businesses in Canada on
average pay 5% less income tax than those in the U.S. I wonder
if he neglected to mention that for small businesses earning up
to $75,000 a year corporate taxes in Canada and the U.S. are
similar but that for small businesses above $75,000 corporate
rates in Canada are significantly lower.
I wonder if he forgot to mention that capital gains in Canada
are two percentage points lower than the average top tax rate. I
wonder if he forgot to mention the more generous treatment for
employee stock options here in Canada.
I wonder if he neglected, just as an oversight, to mention the
permanent 20% research and development tax credit for all R and D
expenditures in Canada, a country with one of the most
progressive and advantageous R and D regimes in the world. I
wonder if he forgot that.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his question. He is quite right. The Canadian
dollar is doing very well compared to the ruble. That being the
case, I suggest to the hon. member that there are other measures
we should use. One might be the U.S. dollar, given the degree to
which our trade relationship with the U.S. exceeds our trade
relationship with Russia.
For our dollar to be strong relative to the ruble, as my
grandfather used to say, is like peeing oneself in a dark suit.
It gives one a nice, warm feeling, but nobody knows. It does not
make any difference. That is not why, I am sure, the hon. member
is wearing a dark suit.
He also said I had neglected to mention a few points. The
reason I neglected to mention that taxes are lower in Canada than
in the U.S. was because they are not. There is a reason we
neglect to mention things we know are absolutely, completely and
utterly false. Because I understand the differences between tax
levels in Canada and those in the U.S., I neglected to mention
some of the mistruths he introduced in the House today. I am
certain those mistruths were unintentional.
Our capital gains taxes, regardless of income level, are still
considerably higher than those in the U.S. Our corporate tax
burden is still the third highest of the 31 OECD countries, and
after five years of tax reduction it will still be about the
third highest.
We still have some of the highest marginal tax rates for
successful Canadians. If we look at basic levels of income,
Canada's cutoff point for taxing low income earners is about
$3,000 lower than in the U.S. In Canadian dollars the difference
is closer to $4,000. The hon. member would like to think, I am
certain, that we are a kinder and gentler nation, but Canada
taxes low income earners far more harshly than does the U.S.
While he crows about the baby steps his government has taken in
the right direction, I suggest he should remember that a tortoise
moving in the right direction on the autobahn is still roadkill.
1620
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two methods by which the dollar could go up
immediately. We could raise interest rates or we could cash in
the 63 cent dollar right now, join the United States and allow
Washington to make decisions for us. I wonder if that is a
method the member thinks we should use to get our dollar up.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. No, I certainly do not support a single North
American currency.
We are not looking for a short term, band-aid solution for the
dollar but a long term strengthening of our currency through
fiscal policy levers. I would certainly not present fiscal
policy as an immediate overnight solution to strengthening the
dollar, but in the long term it can have a significant impact.
There are only two levers we can use to strengthen our dollar in
the long or short term: monetary policy, which is in the hands
of the Bank of Canada, or fiscal policy whether in tax and debt
reduction policies or spending policies.
Those are the policies that in the long term will require vision
and commitment. If we are to strengthen Canada in a comparative
sense, particularly with regard to tax policy, we must cut not
only taxes which are politically unpalatable but those which have
the most deleterious impact on long term growth.
Also, reducing our debt over the long term, not simply as a
percentage of GDP but in real terms, would have a significant
impact on strengthening the Canadian dollar.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would not want to pass up this opportunity to speak to
Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, which was
recently tabled.
We have examples from families in resource regions. I have here
letters written in September and addressed to the Minister of
Finance of Canada. Other letters were addressed to the Minister
of Finance of Quebec.
I do not want to pit provinces against provinces, but as a
result of the changes made by the Quebec government to its
family policy in 1998, the amount of the Canada child tax
benefit has been lowered.
Today I received a letter from Clémence Côté. Her husband, Louis
Germain, works in the mining industry in Val-d'Or. She said
“Today, my children are being penalized”. One must understand
what it means when someone writes that her children are being
penalized. She wrote “Today, my children are being penalized by
the Canadian tax system. I have a large family; I have 10
children. Dear Minister, I would like to ask you for an
exemption so that I may receive the full amount of the Canada
child tax benefit regardless of our family income”.
The Canadian tax system does not make allowances for families
with 10 children or some have 11 or 12.
Her husband, who makes a good living working in the mines, earns
in excess of $60,000, $62,000 or $63,000, and does overtime in
order to help finance his children's education. With 10
children, a mother has a lot of work at home.
This mine worker, Mr. Germain, does a lot of overtime because
several of his children are in school and have been allowed to
take up only one sport either at school or at the community
level. Even if a child wanted to take up two or three sports,
his parents could not afford to pay for it. The same is true of
transportation for children who go to school in Val-d'Or. She
pays the school board for their transportation and she still has
to pay back her benefits.
What I found bizarre in all this is that several years ago, as a
result of a 1999 letter from the Minister of National Revenue,
they asked why the Canada child tax benefit had been changed in
Quebec.
1625
Provincial governments may enter into agreements with the
Government of Canada to change the amount of the Canada child tax
benefit that their residents will receive depending on the number
or the age of children, or both.
Before July 1998, the method used to calculate the benefit was
different for Alberta and Quebec compared to the other provinces
and territories. These two provinces had chosen a calculation
method based on the age of the child and his or her rank in the
family.
This means that, before July 1998, Quebec residents were
entitled to a base benefit of $869 for the first child, $1,000
for the second child, and $1,597 for the third child and each
subsequent child. After making changes to its family policy, the
government of Quebec advised the Minister of Finance of Canada
that, starting in July 1998, the benefit paid to Quebec residents
would no longer be based on the rank and age of the child.
Now the Canada child tax benefit is calculated the same way for
Quebec residents as for residents of other provinces and
territories, except Alberta. The base benefit is now $1,020 per
child, regardless of his or her rank in the family, since the
amount of the Canada child tax benefit to which a family is
entitled has been reduced following a decision made by the
government of Quebec.
Regardless of the two jurisdictions, we must realize that
several families in Quebec have seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven,
twelve or thirteen children. They have to repay the tax benefits
when the husband's income is too high, because of overtime work
especially.
That is the message I want to send. We have to find a way to
help large families. Nowadays, families with five or six children
are considered large families. For families with ten children,
the Government of Canada should find way, through some kind of
exemption, to help them out, especially in resource regions, but
also in urban areas.
We all know how much it costs to look after children's
education or to enrol them in a sport program. That is the
message I want to send. We should take into account the number of
children in all Canadian families. We count one, two, three, and
then it seems that senior officials tell their ministers “We
stop at three. Passed the third or fourth kid, it does not make
any difference”.
On the contrary, it is important, which is why I want to send a
message to the finance minister. We need to find a way to help
out these large families.
I do not think members will find it surprising that I want to
address another issue here today. A poll published on March 9,
2001, and I mention the year because some people might think it
was carried out a number of years ago, show that four out of five
Quebecers are in favour of a salary being paid to the stay at
home parent. At least 82% of those surveyed said they strongly or
somewhat agreed that a salary should be paid to the parent who
stays at home to take care of the kids.
Why? There is another way about it. I have made several speeches
on this issue in the House.
I have tabled motions and petitions to have a salary paid to the
parent, mother or father, who stays at home to raise children.
This would actually help reduce poverty.
I saw an article written by a woman who lives in Montreal, which
said “The important thing is to be at home with the children
during their first three years of life”. Parents are given a one
year parental leave. What should we pay a person who stays at
home? Maybe we could, like Germany or other countries, provide a
supplement of $250 a week in order to help the family or the
person who stays at home with the children.
I would like to raise one final point. It is the issue of
pensions, those paid to seniors living below the poverty line.
Steps should be taken to increase their income upon reaching
retirement age, especially after retiring.
Members will recall that a few years ago, we had interest rates
of 16%, 17% and 20%, and things were going pretty well. Today,
retired seniors are relying on assets deposited in banks or
invested mutual funds with a 2% or 3% rate of return.
This is why a majority of Canadians are in favour of pension
reform.
1630
The important thing is to raise pensions, to reform the pension
system so that people, and particularly seniors, have a decent
income. Some single seniors always receive the same amount.
Sometimes, their cheque is increased by $1.04 for a three month
period, as a cost of living adjustment. The pension system
should be reformed and people should have a decent income.
That is why I mentioned these three cases. We often hear about
them in my community. Long term solutions must be found.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech via
the courtesy of the interpreters, since unfortunately I am
unilingual.
I would like to ask the member a question with respect to what
he was saying. He was talking about the problem of mothers and
fathers who want to stay home with their children after the one
year is up. Under the Liberal scheme, the only way that could be
arranged is to have a child every year. The limit is a year. If
a person has not worked in between, then they would probably be
ineligible. After the first year, the second and third child
that may come would not be eligible for those benefits.
Does the member have any solution to that quite clear dilemma in
the Liberal plan?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, nobody can replace the mother
during the first three years in the life of children.
The hon. member raises a good question. Regardless of the
government in office, the important thing is to work together
with the opposition parties in order to find real long term
solutions. Now is the time to do it.
He mentioned the first year, but I can tell members that all
Canadians think it is important that a mother stay at home
during the first three years of her children's life.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak in the debate. The Liberal
government is getting slack. This morning we debated a bill
which was over 900 pages in length. This little itty-bitty bill
of 500 pages now seems like child's play in comparison. My party
will have a look at it. We are debating it for the first time
today, so the debate is on general principles. After this it
will go to the finance committee where some of the details will
be dealt with.
The whole study of taxation is intriguing in the academic sense.
We have come to accept a level of taxation that is on the verge
of being obscene.
I have told this story in the House before, and if any members
recall it, my apologies, but it is very important. About three
or four years ago I gave one of those one minute members'
statements. I told the Speaker about a tragedy we had in our
home. A guy came to the house. He backed his truck up to the
door and proceeded to move everything out that we had accumulated
over the years. He took half of our sofa set. He looked
upstairs and saw four beds and he took two. He cut my beautiful
old grandfather clock in half and took half of it and put it in
the truck. I phoned the police before they took all the phones
and asked them to get over to my place. I told them that we were
being robbed. The police said that I should give them more
details. I did and they said that they could not come and that
they could not help. As a matter of fact the police did show up
a little later and they insisted that I help the guy load.
This is an absurd story, but this is what happens every year to
average Canadians. One half of our earnings are taken from us
through the various levels of taxation from the federal,
provincial and municipal governments. Tax freedom day in most
provinces is around July 1, which says that half of our income is
confiscated every year.
If we do not help the guy who is owed and if we do not deliver
the money that we have earned, we are held in contempt and can go
to jail.
1635
I do not want to characterize the levels of government as though
they are crooks, yet I know I am right on the verge. I do not
want to say that, so I will not. They are not really stealing
our money because it is taxation. However it is still money I
have earned that I cannot use for my family. I have very few
needs. We can see that all I need is a square meal a day, or
two, some basic clothing and basic shelter. Give me a bicycle to
ride or preferably a motorcycle. My needs are simple and I
simply want the best. I do not have many needs.
However I do have a great need to provide for my family.
Fortunately my children are now grown up and on their own so
things are a little easier. Now I only have a very expensive
wife to provide for. When the children were younger I was
teaching at a technical institute. All hon. members probably
know this. I worked there for 27 years. We also made the
decision that mother would be a full time mom. The children
needed to have someone there when they came home from school to
care for them and to show them that they were important.
In order to supplement our income, which even back then was not
quite adequate to meet all our needs, including paying the
mortgage, the utilities and everything, the decision was made
that I would teach part time in the evenings. I taught a night
class almost always two nights a week. This was way back and it
dates me. Hon. members can tell by my grey hair that I am an old
guy. I used to say that I worked Tuesday nights for Trudeau and
Thursday nights for my family. It was a 50:50 deal.
Even though we are dealing with Bill C-22 to amend the Income
Tax Act, the question that is not being addressed is the overall
huge load of taxation which burdens our families and burdens
individuals.
I have also indicated recently, and I will repeat this because I
feel it is important, that my family and I not only pay our taxes
but we also believe in charity. Due to the fact that we needed
to look after our future, and as we have always felt insecure
about the inadequate provisions of the government, namely the
Canada pension plan, we have tried to put a bit of money into
RRSPs. We ended up living on about 30% of my income as 70% of it
was gone: 50% to taxation; 10% to charity, plus or minus a bit;
and 10% to future savings, usually a little less because I could
not afford that much. It was a struggle.
That is one of the reasons I became a member of parliament. In
1988, when the Reform Party was just starting, I picked up one of
its brochures and all these things attracted me: the elected
Senate, true democratic responsibility, and a justice system that
would work on behalf of law-abiding citizens. However the one
that really struck me was the belief that governments should live
within their means so that we could reduce and not increase the
debt. That was during the Conservative years when the debt was
going up by $25 billion, $30 billion and peaking at $40 billion a
year, just before they were finally turfed. That was one of the
reasons they were turfed.
I was attracted to the principle that said we should have a
balanced budget so that we would no longer increase the debt, the
principle that we should start paying the debt down so that we
could relieve ourselves of the necessity of interest payments and
thereby have more money available to governments for programs
that citizens value.
I guess the rest is history. We came here in huge numbers in
1993.
When I first joined the Reform Party I did not anticipate that I
would be transposed from my career at NAIT's teaching
mathematics, computing and interesting things like that into
trying to persuade a Liberal government to reduce taxes, balance
the budget, hopefully pay down the debt and reduce interest
payments.
1640
However I stand here proudly this afternoon when I see what has
happened in the last seven years. We have been the beneficiaries
of a very robust economy in the United States which has a huge
influence on our economy. That is undeniable. At the same time
I believe it was our presence here which made it respectable to
talk about fiscal prudence and to reduce the amount we were
spending. The government was also able to exercise, with our
help, a little discipline in not spending all the additional
revenue that came rolling in that was beyond its expectations and
certainly beyond its planning.
I like what happened in the year 2000. I am a little
disappointed in the election. I wish we would have the Liberals
in opposition. That would have been a lot more fun. One of the
things which did happen just four days before the election was we
had a mini-budget, the primary election document for the
Liberals. That is what the bill is about.
I must give the Liberals a grudging commendation here. They
sure do know how to run elections. I saw a cartoon of the Prime
Minister right after the election. It showed the increase in the
number of seats. He was reading a paper that said “Liberals
re-elected with a resounding majority”. The Prime Minister,
speaking to Canadian taxpayers, was saying that was the best $200
million of taxpayer money he ever spent.
We know that an election costs around $200 million. It is quite
an expensive project. That is what it took to put the Liberals
back into power. I am giving the Liberals a weak commendation in
that their pre-election document showed they were ready to go the
way we were saying Canadians were asking parliament to go, namely
to exercise some fiscal responsibility and implement tax cuts.
If we look at the polling data right now and if we ask Canadians
what they think is important, the number one issue is health
care, and rightly so. Whenever we are ill and we need some help
from the medical profession, we live in a country where we have
come to accept that it will be available. It ought to be that
way. I believe very solidly in our principle, which is also a
principle of the Canada Health Act, that no one should be denied
needed health care because of financial situation. I concur with
that.
Canadians are saying that is the number one issue. The number
two issue is either crime, punishment or the justice system. Down
the line a bit comes tax cuts, as the member from the CCF said
just a moment ago. He usually calls my party by the wrong name,
so why can I not?
He said that tax cuts were actually quite low. That is because
when Canadians are asked to priorize something they put these
things in rank order. We make the mistake of drawing the
conclusion, because tax cuts are maybe third, fourth or fifth on
the list, that they are not important to Canadians.
If we look at the importance that Canadians place on those
issues they would probably all be close to equal. If we asked
how important health care was on a scale of one to ten, a person
might say ten. When asked how important tax cuts are, they might
say that is a nine. It is not as important so it ranks out that
way, but it is still important to them. I hear that from many
people who ask why they work like slaves from early morning until
late at night and do not seem to get ahead.
1645
Very frankly, even with these timid tax cuts that the Minister
of Finance introduced in budget 2000—and of course most of the
things in the mini budget from last fall have not yet been
implemented—the actual reduction in the total deductions in the
average person's paycheque is not huge, if it is there at all. As
a matter of fact, with the new payments for Canada pension the
bottom line for most families is about the same or sometimes even
a little worse.
In broad generalities as I am leading up to my talk on Bill C-22
today, I really think we need to address very carefully the level
of taxation in the country.
Second, I want to talk a little about the complexity of it. I
talked a bit this morning on Bill C-8, the banking bill, but we
have had other bills in the House that have to do with changing
the taxation system or the revenue system, and sometimes we deal
with government expenditures. I find it frankly astounding, and
I hope I never lose my astonishment, that a week ago in one
evening we sat here as members and in a matter of about 20
minutes approved the expenditure of some $15 billion or $16
billion. Those were the supplementary estimates just to get the
government to the end of this fiscal year. The amount of money
we approve here is amazing. I believe the responsibility we have
as proper stewards of the money entrusted to us is of the utmost
importance.
One of the things I want to see happen is a reduction in the
complexity of our tax system. My goodness, I remember not long
ago reading an interpretation bulletin on the GST which
differentiated between buying cooked shrimp and cold, frozen
shrimp. There is a different rate of GST applied to the two of
them. In one case it was considered that because they were
cooked they were a meal and therefore the GST applied. In the
other case they were frozen, therefore they were groceries. GST
is not charged on groceries. That is only one minute example.
Bill C-22 discusses proposals for amending the Income Tax Act as
well as the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and
another act related to the Excise Tax Act. All of this is
included and does not increase the simplicity of it. It
increases the complexity of it.
Already I am led to believe that there are very few Canadians,
even among our best tax lawyers, who know that code. As a matter
of fact, any of our citizens who have had the occasion to go to
one of the tribunals to get a ruling on a tax dispute are hoping
for some reasonable hearing there because, depending on who one
gets, one gets different interpretations.
One person in my riding told me that he phoned Revenue Canada to
ask about a certain issue. He got an answer that he did not
think was right, so he phoned again, got a different person and
got a different answer. Then he thought, just a minute, there
are two different answers here, so he went for two out of three
because he still did not really know. He phoned again, hoping
that he would get one of the other two answers, and lo and
behold, there was a third answer. The complexity of it is a
great frustration. The bill, among other things, increases that
complexity.
During the election campaign the Alliance Party was proposing
that we go to a single rate tax. That is not a flat tax. That
is a misnomer we are often accused of. A single rate tax is
simply the same kind of a tax system we have now with basic
exemptions and other deductions, but instead of three rates as we
had at that time, we said we would reduce them all to the same
rate of 17%. I suppose we could have achieved the same result by
simply saying that the amounts where these rates kick in are some
high number and it would have probably been more saleable than
the way it was presented.
1650
The fact is that we are proposing deductions. We are proposing
huge tax breaks for middle income and lower income families. The
Liberals are crowing about the fact that people who are now
making a family income of $20,000 a year are going to get a tax
break of maybe 16% or 20% or whatever number it is that they use.
Under our plan that reduction would be 100%. They would be
removed from the tax roll completely.
Under our plan, a family of four, a mum, a dad and two kids,
would pay zero tax on the first $26,000 of income and then a
straight 17% on the remaining, whereas the Liberal government
goes on and on with exemptions of maybe $15,000 or $16,000 and
then 17% on everything after that, although they are proposing to
reduce that to 16%. That, by the way, is also a bit of sleight
of hand. If we just talk about the rate but apply it on more of
the income the total tax bill is higher than if there were a 1%
higher rate but a great deal more of the income exempt from tax.
In wrapping up, I would simply like to say that some of the
measures in the bill go in the right direction. I am rather
concerned about some of them. They go in the right direction but
not far enough. In any case, there are some things in the bill
that are woefully inadequate. I am looking forward very much to
hearing about the bill in committee, not only from officials but
also from witnesses who will come to our committee and give us
their read on it. I am sure that in the finance committee we
will have a great time analyzing the bill and reporting back to
the House in due time.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague opposite had to
say, just as I have been listening to presentations all
afternoon.
I know the member takes a great interest in these things.
Frequently today concern has been expressed about the economy in
one way or another and we have had suggestions as to where the
problem is. I heard the member say that it was the dollar and so
perhaps by manipulating the dollar we could help the economy.
There are different things.
However, it does strike me that whatever we read in the media
lately about the economy and what could be done about it, it is
all speculation by economists. They all have different theories
as to what we can do.
It seems to me, and this is where my question lies for the
member, that in times like these we should not rely on economic
theories which are just that, theories. In times like these,
times of modest uncertainty, the only thing we can do that we
know is going to pay off in the future is invest in the future.
Our tax policies and our spending policies should be geared to
that.
As we say, we should invest in people. We should invest in
prenatal care and post-natal care. We should invest in our
elementary schools and make them as effective as possible. For
example, we should put them all on the Internet in the modern age
so that kids in kindergarten can get used to computers and used
to being on the Internet. Going further up the system, we should
give scholarships to make it possible for young people to go to
college and to university. We should make the tax environment as
good as is humanly possible for research and technology. We
should have tax breaks to educate not just scientists but people
in the trades and things of that type.
My question for the member is this: what does he think about
that? Does he not think that in fact what has been happening
these last several years has been exactly that and that by
investing in people in all of those ways we are laying the best
foundation we can for a strong economy?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
astute question. I agree with a lot of what he says. I too
believe that children ought to have a pretty good head start in
their lives. I think it is primarily the responsibility of the
parents to make sure it happens and the responsibility of
government to get out of their faces so they can do it.
1655
That is true for most of them. Then there are some who need
assistance from the larger community, be it the municipal, the
provincial or the federal community. Tax dollars are involved in
giving grants and helping people in genuine need. I have some
reservations about that, but I do agree with it in principle.
I regret, as I said in an earlier speech, that one of the things
that has happened is that the Liberals, trading on the fact that
as Canadians we are indeed compassionate, have instead taken away
from us the fiscal room to be compassionate as individuals. They
are taxing us to death, such that now when I see a needy person I
am more likely, not speaking for myself personally but as an
average citizen, to see whether I can help get them on some
government program rather than simply ask them to come to my
house for help in getting a job. That is what we did when I was
a younger man. It worked well, because there was some personal
accountability and mentoring. It works much better than a
government program which unfortunately in many cases produces
dependence.
With respect to the dollar, it is like driving along in my car
in an 80 mph zone and my speedometer is telling me I am going 30.
I say to myself that I had better get a new speedometer. No, the
speedometer is showing my actual speed. I do not need a new
speedometer. I need to step on it so that I can get with the
program and get to the speed the traffic is moving at. To a
large degree, I believe that is what our Canadian dollar is like.
It is simply an indicator of our economic health. It should be
of huge concern to the government that right now our economic
indicator is showing that we are running at about 65% efficiency
vis-à-vis the Americans, our next door neighbours. We are only
about two-thirds as productive.
There is no excuse for that. We have a land that is rich in
resources. I could list them all. We have a tremendously
energetic population and we need to have to survive in our
climate. There is no reason in the world why we would not have
the capacity to be above the Americans on a true measure of
standard of living, yet we know that our standard of living is
way lower than theirs on many measures. It is indicated again by
the value of the Canadian dollar.
Again, it is an indicator. I do not think one should fiddle
with the indicator. Rather, one should try to correct the
factors that have produced that particular measure in our
productivity and economic efficiency.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened as the member for Elk
Island described in his story the length of time it took him to
get his tax holiday. As he talked some of the reasons suddenly
began to emerge. I saw the scenario wherein he had big parties
and invited people over and they had tons of shrimp and then ran
around his house using six or seven phones to make phone calls. I
am sure that the average Canadian gets his or her tax holiday
much sooner than the member for Elk Island.
He talked about positioning for elections. He also talked about
the single rate tax, not the flat rate tax, and of course we know
that leading up to the election the member's party went from 17%
to 17% and 25% because of concerns the party had.
I was in British Columbia not too long ago. A lot of good parts
of B.C. are Alliance territory. A lot of people told me that
the single rate tax would be great because they could take their
incomes and multiply by 17% or 25%. However, the member today
and at other times in the House has really affirmed the fact that
they would still have all the deductions, such as medical
expenses over a certain amount, the charitable donations, RRSPs,
et cetera. I suspect we would still have a big Income Tax Act.
I wonder if the member could talk about how we would reduce
complexity under the 17% and 25% scenario he described earlier.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that cleaning
up the complexity of the tax act goes far beyond just going to a
single rate or even to two rates.
1700
It is interesting that under Bill C-22 the government proposes
to go from three categories to four beginning next year. That is
because it loves high taxes.
We must look at the complexities of the issue. Some formulas in
the bill are illustrated very well, but others are really quite
convoluted. The Income Tax Act is full of that. The question of
what applies must also be addressed. The categorization of which
tax bracket a person falls into is one question but it is a minor
one. I will concede that.
With respect to the tax itself, we must recognize that when
taxes are reduced there is a tremendous spinoff in the economy
because the money is not destroyed. When taxes are reduced
taxpayers do not throw that money into the fireplace. They use
it to provide for their families and give the local economy a
kick. I would much rather hire a guy to fix my leaky roof, which
would give him a job and get my roof fixed, than send the money
to Ottawa where it is spun in circles and nothing really happens
with it.
I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary,
although I did not have time to give him a full answer. He is
certainly on the right track by asking if we should simplify the
code. My answer is a resounding yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to
point out that I raised this issue in the House during the 36th
parliament, in our reply to the economic statement or
mini-budget. Bill C-22 is the exact copy of this mini budget.
I am surprised that nothing has been changed. The government
could have addressed certain problems or weaknesses in the
economic statement that was made just before the election.
Throughout the election campaign, the Liberal government boasted
a lot, through its members and candidates, about the upcoming
tax reductions. There would be something for everybody, they
said, because they had put the nation's finances in good shape,
and were making a surplus. They said they would help all those
that had been affected by drastic cuts.
The finance minister had room to manoeuvre with $147.9 billion,
including the agreement on health signed with the provinces on
September 11. We can safely guess that right now his room to
manoeuvre is much bigger, but today our discussions centre on
the $147.9 billion.
Tax cuts can be expected for 2004. I think that this is the time
of year when everybody in Canada and in Quebec is checking their
tax returns before submitting them to the Department of National
Revenue. Few are lucky enough to be able to say “I have
benefited this year of a real tax cut that has allowed me to put
my finances in order”.
1705
Here are some examples of what tax cuts will probably look like
in 2004. A single parent family with an income of $30,000 and
one dependent child would have a $550 tax cut and would still
pay $1,545 a year. That is for a family with a $30,000 income.
With a $50,000 income, the same family would have a tax cut of
$1,200 or twice that of the single parent family with a
$30,000 income. With a $80,000 income, the same family would
have a $2,300 tax cut or four times more than that of the
family with a $30,000 income. With a $100,000 income, the tax
cut would be $3,200, or 5.8 times more than that of the
family with a $30,000 income.
The tax reduction for Canadians earning $250,000 would be
$6,500, 11 times higher than the tax reduction for a family
earning $30,000.
For the more than four million women, that is 60% of women, earning
less than $30,000, this statement is a slap in the face. A
family with an income of $30,000 and one child should not pay
any taxes.
The reduction of the capital gains inclusion rate means average
gains of $11,600 for taxpayers earning $250,000 or more,
compared to average gains of $320 for those earning between
$80,000 and $150,000, 36 times less than the average gains for
those earning $250,000. As members can see, these tax reductions
are for the rich.
There is nothing in this bill for women, for young persons, and
for single senior citizens, most of whom are women.
In your riding, Mr. Speaker, there are probably many single
senior citizens. Unfortunately these are mostly women who are
poor. Their pension income comes to about $12,000 a year. What
can one do with $12,000 a year? It is a shame that the
government did not think about these people.
Since our population is aging, there will be more and more
single older women. These are women who have lost their
husbands. We tend to forget widows. With huge surpluses and
$147.9 billion to play around with, it is unacceptable that the
government did not think about those single women.
There are no provisions for the basic financing of women groups
working within organizations. They were completely forgotten.
These women are often volunteers. They earn unacceptable salaries
in those organizations. Their work is aimed at keeping the
centres open in order to help and support single women, older
women, women going through difficult times or facing problems of
domestic violence. These women groups do their best to keep the
centres open, and there is nothing in the budget to help them
carry on their work.
There is nothing either for old workers, men and women, who lost
their jobs. We had been vocal in the House, trying to convince
the Minister of Finance to take into account people hit by plant
closures. There will be others, because it is a given with
globalization. There will be plant closures. New plants are
opening, but there is also rationalization. Big companies are
rationalizing.
In my riding, Celanese was the backbone of the economy in
Drummondville. Some 50, 40 or 30 years ago, everyone in my riding
knew someone who worked at Celanese. That company once had 6,000,
7,000 and 8,000 employees. It was really the cornerstone of the
region's economic development. As the years went by,
transformations took place, and the plant moved to Mexico last
year.
1710
There was a good proportion of middle-aged workers, between 50
and 60 years old, who were nearing retirement and who received
early retirement benefits. These people were not eligible for
employment insurance. They had to use money they received as
separation pay. After a year, they had to rely on employment
insurance and, later, on social assistance.
In the past, we had measures aimed at helping older former
workers. Perhaps they were not the best measures, perhaps they
had shortcomings, but at least these people could keep their
pride because they did not have to rely on social assistance
while waiting to receive their pension.
They were totally abandoned. These people who worked hard for 30
or 40 years in the same factory, for the same employer, were
forced to retire because of globalization and the closing of
factories. They were told “Go home now; you must rely on social
assistance”. It is totally scandalous.
There is nothing for social housing either. There is nothing for
international assistance. There is nothing for transfers for health and
education. Now, I want to say a few words about indexation,
because we know that even if funds were injected into health,
costs were not taken into consideration. As the population ages,
the cost of equipment, new technologies and drugs is
skyrocketing, and we have to take this into account.
There is nothing for shipbuilding. The government has earmarked
$1 billion to cover the increase in heating costs, but is sending
each person a small cheque.
We talked about it in the House. I met with single elderly
people with incomes of $13,000 or $14,000 a year, who heat their
home with oil, and have seen their heating bills double and
nearly triple.
Someone who used to pay $400 for heating oil will have paid by
the end of this winter between $800 and $1,000. This is
outrageous when their yearly income is $13,000. The government
issued cheques for $125 instead of keeping the money to target
people who really needed it. The government took this initiative
and sent cheques to help with heating expenses to everybody,
including those who do not use heating oil. It does not make
sense.
I have nothing against giving money to people who qualify for
the GST rebate; I am happy for the people who received a $125
cheque. It was certainly welcome, especially during the holiday
season. However, what did the government do for people such as single
women who have only $13,000 a year to live on, whose heating
expenses went up? It could have tried a bit harder.
It is similar to distributing goodies before an election is
called, to make everybody happy; this creates a lot of visibility
but solves nothing. People will get even deeper into poverty to
avoid freezing this winter, as their heating bill doubles and
nearly triples.
What does one do when one is poor and does not want to freeze?
One goes without food or without heat and one literally freezes
in order to be able to eat a little bit. This is unconscionable
on the part of a government with a $147.9 billion surplus.
It has done a lot to pay down the debt. This is called fancy
accounting. The finance minister has been very cautious. With the
surplus he did not announce, he was able to reduce the debt. I
have nothing against reducing the debt, but people who were put
through the wringer and literally bled to death should come
first.
1715
A lot has been done for debt reduction and for millionaires. As
a matter of fact, a family with one child and a $250,000 income
will benefit from a tax reduction. However, a family with one
child and a $30,000 income will not get much of a break. I would
call that exploitation.
With these huge surpluses that made the Minister of Finance
burst with pride, we were expecting him to give a break to those
who were really instrumental in getting our fiscal house in
order, those to whom we owe the fact that we have not had a
deficit for four years, those who continue to be bled white by
federal taxes, those thanks to whom the finance minister can be
thrilled about having these surpluses right now.
We thought the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would be low
and middle income families, not very high income families that
can benefit greatly from tax loopholes. With the help of a good
tax expert, people earning $250,000 can save a lot of money.
The government has the audacity to say that surpluses will not
exceed $6 billion this year, whereas close to $12 billion has
already been accumulated in the coffers of the federal
government. I know my figures are not correct because it is
actually more than that.
The Minister of Finance could have done more for the
disadvantaged, and for low and middle income taxpayers. I am
talking about the workers who contribute to the EI fund as well
as small and medium size businesses. They are the ones that end
up paying for tax cuts for the rich.
I am also talking about the unemployed men and women who are not
receiving any EI benefits because of the drastic cuts made and
because of the tightening up of the eligibility criteria.
The ones who are paying now for the tax cuts to the rich are
rural families, and I think my colleague from Jonquière, who has
responsibility for this issue, knows this well and will no doubt
inform the House at some point about what is going on in the
regions, young people, women and seniors.
We know why the government has presented this statement that has
now evolved into Bill C-22. It was because the election was
about to be called and they wanted to thumb their noses at the
Canadian Alliance. What the Alliance was proposing at that time
was a uniform rate, and the government wanted to win over the
electorate. So, it adopted as its own the Alliance's uniform
rate, which was universally denounced as favouring millionaires.
It now has included it in its bill.
The $100 billion in surplus has come from the pockets of low and
middle income taxpayers and, let me say again, from the
unemployed, women, young people, sick people and the most
disadvantaged members of our society. This is absolutely
indecent.
We must not be too hasty with our rejoicing. Tax cuts are
always welcome. Certainly, no one can be opposed to a tax cut.
We must not be too quick to rejoice, however, because, as I have
said, it will not show up in our tax returns this year. It will
probably be in 2004.
The Minister of Finance could have had a budget this year, not a
year and a half down the road, and let us have the benefit of
these tax cuts this year. I mentioned earlier that, according to
the information available, a single parent family with an income
of $250,000 and over will benefit from a far greater relief to
its tax burden, 40 times greater, than a family with one
dependant and an income of $30,000.
1720
Families with an income of $250,000 get a $20,000 net tax
reduction, while those with an income of $35,000 and one
dependent get a mere $500. These families should not pay any
taxes. They do not in Quebec.
With all the money it has, the government still manages to go
after these families. There are 1.5 million children living in
poverty in Canada. Does that make any sense? Children
are poor because women and families who are poor.
A family with a $35,000 income and one dependent is poor, but
still must pay taxes. It will pay $1,425 in taxes. It will
benefit from a $500 tax reduction, but not this year, only in
2004.
The minister kept saying, even in this House, that people with
an income of $35,000 do not pay any taxes. He said it several
times in the House. It is strange to hear him say that they do
not pay any taxes and then announce that they will get $500 in
tax reduction. Very strange indeed.
I would rather rely on the figures from our own research. People
cannot be fooled that easily. The minister said repeatedly that
those families do not pay any taxes and then announced that they
would bet getting a $500 tax reduction. I truly believe
those families are paying taxes.
We can also see in the budget that the government shamelessly
keeps on accumulating surpluses, because, as was mentioned
earlier, the tax reductions will take effect in only a year and a
half. Meanwhile, the government keeps fiddling with the figures.
I can say that we were opposed to the statement and to the
mini budget, and that we will not support this bill because it
does not meet the needs of the Canadian and the Quebec society.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I wish to thank my colleague from Drummond for her comments.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois has to kill time between now and
the next referendum is held. Everybody knows that. In that
spirit, I would like to note and ask my colleague—
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I raise on a
point of order. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is mocking
the intelligence of my colleague from Drummond. I find it totally
unacceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would not want to serve
as an advisor to every member's conscience. It would certainly be
advisable for everyone to choose their words carefully, but if
the member wants to defend himself, he may do so.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I will do just that and ask
the member for Jonquière whether she received a response from Mr.
Clinton to her letter.
I was elected to represent the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area.
It does not seem possible to me that the federal government can
be held responsible for all the problems in Quebec.
In that vein, I would point out that this year the federal
government is going to make $14 billion in equalization and
Canada social transfer payments. The problem does not always lie
with the federal government. The problem is that the Bloc
Quebecois does not direct the equalization and social transfer
payments to the regions in accordance with objective guidelines.
I will give an example. It is too bad that the member has fled
the House of Commons.
1725
In the area of health, our region has an annual deficit of $75
million. This is not the federal government's fault; it has been
going on for years and years, to the point where I would like to
tell the member for Drummond that more and more people in our
region would like the federal government to transfer less money
to the government of Quebec and invest more money directly in the
region, so that we can manage our own development.
The losses we are suffering in the management of natural
resources, such as aluminum and lumber, are occurring in sectors
that do not come under federal jurisdiction. We have lost 8,000
jobs in the aluminum sector. It is not the fault of the federal
government if we have not yet begun to process aluminum.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the
federal government is going to invest $52 million in an aluminum
processing research centre.
Would the member for Drummond agree to let the federal
government invest more directly in resource regions, because
everyone agrees that the government of Quebec is neglecting the
resource regions in all sectors? As for regional development,
all it is doing is creating committees, such as the CRCD, and the
CSD. The PQ has a bad case of committeeitis.
Enough of saying that the federal government is responsible for
all Quebec's problems. One might wonder whether the problem did
not lie with the government of Quebec's management and its lack
of respect for the regions. I am in favour of the federal
government investing directly in the regions.
An hon. member: That was not what you said when you were on
this side of the House.
Mr. André Harvey: It is what I have always said.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): If members want to ask
questions, they may take advantage of the question and comment
period to do so. The hon. member for Drummond.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Madam Speaker, what is outraging is the fact
that this hon. member was not saying the same thing when he was
on this side of the House. Now that he is on the other side, he
has changed his tune.
When plants were closing and my colleagues and I were raucous in
the House, calling for help to be provided to former older
workers of the Canadian Celanese and the Cavalier Textiles in my
region, as well as in his, he told me “When my party gets into
office, we will restore measures for former older workers”. He
is now on the other side and his party is in office, but I am
still waiting for the measures that will be implemented to help
these people.
With regard to the CHST, I would point out to my hon. colleague
that initially the federal transfer for health and education was
supposed to be 50%. Since 1993, the federal government has
withdrawn support and its share has now declined to 14%. That
doesn't make sense.
There have been drastic cuts. All the provinces, not just Quebec,
but all the provinces agree that, if our provincial health
systems are in danger, it is because of the cuts made by the
federal government. So it is very insulting to come and tell us
things like that.
When the minister made his financial statement, for once we had
calculated the same flexibility as the finance minister. We too
had calculated $147.9 billion. We had the same forecasts.
Each year we used to come up with forecasts and the finance
minister would say that we were mistaken. However, we were right, our
figures were right and he had to recognize it.
This time, he came up with the same figure as us, as I was
saying, that it $147.9 billion, but it is probably more than that
now.
With regard to the tax burden reduction, the Minister of Finance
forecast personal income tax reductions of $75.2 billion over
five years. What I wanted to say it that we were suggesting a
different way of allocating the $147.9 billion to assist those
who suffered drastic cuts, particularly in the area of health.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
THE ACADIANS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British
Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for
the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that
I rise today in the House to launch the debate on Motion No. 241,
a highly solemn and truly historic motion for Acadians and
everyone throughout the world who is of Acadian descent.
I think I understand the symbolic and historic meaning of this
motion that I have the honour to sponsor. It reads as follows:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British
Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for
the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.
In spite of its very formal presentation normally used for
communications between parliament and the British crown, this
motion may, at first glance, seem impertinent and even slightly
offensive to Her Majesty.
I submit respectfully that it is not so. The motion does not
violate the oath of office that each of us has taken in order to
sit in this House. It is not disloyal to ask for formal
recognition of indisputable historical events and for the
presentation of an official apology, which should have been made
a long time ago.
When one asks for an apology, does it mean that one is prepared
to forgive the descendants of those who were responsible for the
exactions? Most certainly.
We should not be spiteful toward those people who cannot be held
responsible for the actions of their ancestors. However, we cannot
ever forget.
More than 200 years after these tragic events, nobody has ever
admitted to responsibility for, and hence the occurrence of
those events. It is as if, historically, it were a non-event.
Curiously, this matter is both taboo and ubiquitous. The British
crown did some serious wrongs to the Acadian people, who is very
aware of that wrong; it even strengthens its national identity.
However, it would appear that no one dares to ask for an
accounting, probably because people fear it will spark a painful
debate. Yet, we should be able to look at our past with
lucidity and serenity.
While we cannot judge the past by today's values and principles,
some people state without hesitation that such exactions, if
they were committed today, would be considered as genocide or as
a crime against humanity.
In situations such as this, experts generally agree that
impunity and more particularly the refusal to acknowledge the
facts are the main breach of elementary justice, something that
can prevent forever normalization of relations after the events.
Maybe that is why, more than 200 years later, these events are
still taboo and ubiquitous, as I said earlier, as they still
permeate the collective psyche of the Acadian people.
In my opinion, acknowledging the facts and presenting an apology
would be the least the British crown could do to make amends, in
view to the abuse committed on its behalf against the Acadian
people.
If the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the embodiment
of Canadian democracy, refuses to look back at our past and to
ask the British crown to acknowledge these historical facts, who
will do it?
1735
Of course, I know that this initiative of mine does not meet
with the approval of all members. I have to admit I expected
that kind of reaction. Everything the Bloc Quebecois does on
behalf of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada is
almost always viewed with suspicion.
When my party takes an initiative on behalf of francophone and
Acadian communities in Canada, somebody always finds a way to
accuse us of trying to make political hay at the expense of
these communities. However when the Bloc Quebecois makes the mistake
of remaining silent on a problem they have, we are accused of
not caring about them because we are too concerned with
separation.
I must stress right from the start that it is not as a member of
the Bloc Quebecois that I took this initiative. I say to my
potential critics that I have a right to exist outside of my
party.
It is rather as a Quebecer of Acadian descent that I took this
initiative. If today I am a Quebecer it is because my ancestors
had to take refuge in Quebec, more specifically in
Saint-Grégoire-de-Nicolet, as a result of the deportation of the
Acadians.
My first ancestor to come to America, Barthélémy Bergeron, came
from Amboise, in Touraine. He landed in New France in 1684 as a
volunteer for the King. He first settled in Quebec City where he
is thought to have worked as a baker. A member of the first
Compagnies franches de la Marine, created to serve in the
American colonies, he took part in campaigns and raids led by the
famous Pierre LeMoyne d'Iberville. After 1673, he settled
in Port-Royal, in what is now Nova Scotia. He married Geneviève
Serreau de Saint-Aubin, the daughter of an Acadian nobleman, with
whom he had several children.
In 1704, after the raid led by Colonel Church
against Port-Royal, Barthélémy Bergeron and his family were taken
prisoner and kept in captivity in Boston for two years. After the
Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, Nova Scotia fell into the
hands of the British.
Since 1604, the control of Acadia had switched between France
and England no less than seven times. In 1730, at the urging of
church authorities, Barthélémy Bergeron and his family moved to
what is now New Brunswick, becoming one of the pioneering
families in the village of Sainte-Anne-du-Pays-Bas, which is now
called Fredericton, the capital of the province.
Faced with an impending war against France and doubtful about
the loyalty and neutrality of His Majesty's French and Catholic
subjects in Acadia, British colonial authorities came up with a
strategy which has unfortunately been a source of inspiration
throughout human history, and which the Romans had successfully
used many years before. They were simply going to deport these
supposedly subversive populations and scatter them throughout the
various British colonies in America.
On September 5, 1755, in the Minas area, Lieutenant-Colonel John
Winslow read the deportation order to the men of the community
who were held captive in the church. Here is an excerpt from
that order:
—it is ordered that your lands and tenements, cattle of all kinds
and livestock of all sorts, be forfeited to the British Crown,
along with all other effects, saving your money and household
goods and you, yourselves, be removed from this Province.
Between 1755 and the months following the signature of the
Treaty of Paris in 1763 more than 10,000 Acadians were
deported.
Of that number, at least one third died in shipwrecks, from
diseases due to the terrible conditions on the ships carrying
them to unknown destinations or from the weather conditions and
the hardships they faced once they had arrived at their final
destination.
To the physical suffering were added the pain of exile and the
humiliation of destitution and poverty felt by this peaceful
people who, through effort and ingenuity, had succeeded in
making the salt flats of Acadia productive, to ensure their
subsistence. For many of them there was also the
heartbreaking experience of the forced separation of families.
This is what explains the poignancy of Longfellow's epic poem
about the tragic destiny of Évangéline, who was separated from
the man she loved at the time of deportation and spent her life
trying to find him.
For many, the exodus lasted many years, because most of the
colonies where they were intended to settle did not have the
infrastructure to integrate these unexpected immigrants, often
seen as undesirable.
1740
During that exodus, many of them were brought to the colonies in
New England and others ended up in the Caribbean, in France, in
England, but also as far as French Guyana or the Falkland
Islands.
A number of these exiles later settled in Louisiana, then a
Spanish colony, while others began a long and difficult journey
back to Acadia. However, they were never again to see the
beautiful and fertile land they had cleared and farmed,
because it now belonged to English settlers.
At the beginning of the 19th century, close to a third of the
Acadian people had found a safe haven in what would later become
Quebec. After 1763, tired of hiding to escape from British
troops, the children, grand-children and great-grand-children of
Barthélémy Bergeron were among the last to leave Acadia to take
refuge in Quebec.
After a winter in Cacouna, most of them finally settled, along
with many other Acadian refugee families, in
Saint-Grégoire-de-Nicolet, which came to be known informally as
“Petite-Cadie”.
Other members of the family of Barthélémy Bergeron, though there
were fewer of them, chose to settle in the Gaspé Peninsula, in
the area of Carleton, and in Louisiana.
For four generations, my ancestors contributed to shaping the
face of Acadia.
Besides the Bergerons of Amboise and the Serreaus of Saint-Aubin,
I also count the Héberts, the Bourgs and the Moricets among my
ancestors.
I am proud of my Acadian origins and, despite what some might
want to say or do today, nobody can make me renounce them. Some
may suggest that I am not an Acadian and that I therefore have
no authority to take this initiative, but one undeniable fact
remains: if it had not been for the deportation, I would
probably be an Acadian today.
This is why the Acadian diaspora resulting from the deportation
is directly affected, as much as the Acadia of today, by the
motion now before the House. As a matter of fact, the
deportation made us what we have become today.
It was a few years ago that I really became aware of my Acadian
origins. This new awareness prompted me to embark on a real
search for my roots, which led me to visit the Atlantic
provinces several times.
I travelled throughout historical Acadia and today's Acadia,
from Port-Royal to Louisbourg, from Fredericton to Plaisance,
from Grand-Pré to Moncton, from the Acadian peninsula to Prince
Edward Island, from the Magdalen Islands to
Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, and as far as Louisiana. I met many
people who are interested in this issue as well as experts,
including Stephen White, genealogist at the Université de
Moncton's Centre d'études acadiennes.
However, it is a combination of three events that led me to
bring forward this motion in the House of Commons. Having
attended the last Congrès mondial acadien held in Louisiana, I
was able to see the considerable damage caused by the
assimilation of the descendants of exiled Acadians in those
areas.
I have since come to espouse the powerful idea of a great
Acadian community, proud, united and transcending borders, an
idea that permeated the latest Congrès mondial acadien.
I was also troubled by the controversy surrounding the choice of
Moncton to host the latest Sommet de la Francophonie. It will
be recalled that a number of activists criticized this choice as
being too symbolically charged. We need only remember that
Colonel Robert Monckton, whose name the city now bears, was
guilty of behaviour toward the Acadians that would today earn
him, as I mentioned earlier, an appearance before the
international criminal tribunal.
However, this apparent downplay by Canadian authorities of the
tragic events surrounding the deportation of the Acadians might
have been considered negligible had a member of this House, a
member of the federal cabinet at the time, not also tried to
minimize the effects of the deportation by saying, in France,
that she had forgotten the year this unfortunate operation had
begun.
In order to put an end to this apparent offhandedness of
Canadian authorities with respect to this tragic period of our
history, it became important to me to have the House of Commons
give formal consideration to the matter and recognize
officially, for the first time in its history, that these events
did indeed occur.
1745
I therefore put this motion on the order paper of the House of
Commons at the end of October 1999. However, losing out in the
draw, it died on the order paper with the dissolution of
parliament last fall. I therefore put it back on the order
paper of the House with the start of this parliament.
I did this in good faith, wanting to pay tribute to the courage,
tenacity and determination of the men and women who valiantly
faced adversity and assured the survival of these astounding
people, the Acadians.
I would like to pay tribute to our mothers and fathers and to
our sisters and brothers who have tirelessly defended their
language and their culture in the past and who keep on doing so
today in many corners of America, promoting them in a colourful
way well beyond Acadia. I want to pay tribute to the
organizations that defend and promote the rights, interests and
specificity of the Acadian communities.
They should not be forgotten, or their struggles, and their
ceaseless efforts will have been in vain. This motion is not
about changing history. History cannot be changed and there is
nothing we can do today that will take away the sufferings of
the past.
However, if we want to be able to learn for what happened in the
past, we need the courage and the vision to face facts.
The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt had understood that the only way
for them to guarantee their own immortality and to ensure that
their achievements would not be forgotten was to carve them in
stone, as if engraving it in the collective memory. They
therefore thought that hacking out such carvings, making them
disappear, would automatically doom the events and the people
they depicted to indifference and oblivion.
We have no right to maintain this apparent indifference toward
one of the most dramatic events in our history, as we dooming it
to oblivion.
Imagine that, on hearing about the motion being debated today,
some members of this House had never heard of the events
surrounding the deportation of the Acadians, and could hardly
believe that such events could really have happened in
Canada.
This gives some idea of the scope of the problem is, and shows
that we should address it immediately.
As elected representatives of the population, we have a
historical responsibility. We do not have the right to commit a
sin of omission. The memory of a people is at stake. The memory
of what happened should not be mere folklore for Acadians only.
Our duty today is to officially acknowledge these historical
events and ask that an official apology be made. It is that
simple.
This is all the more important since the deportation order,
which was in effect until 1764, has never been officially
lifted, it would appear.
I should mention that this motion does not provide in any way
for the compensation of families and descendants of those who
were deported.
We will soon have in the House the great privilege of making a
historic gesture by voting on this motion. I urge all my
colleagues in the House to set aside partisan considerations and
support this motion massively. This is a fundamental question
that transcends party lines. The House should make the necessary
solemn gesture toward history and toward the Acadian people.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer the
member for Verchères—Les Patriotes and his motion asking the
Governor General to intercede with Her Majesty the Queen of
England to cause the British crown to present an official apology
to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them between 1755
and 1763.
The history of Canada, like that of any other country, has its
sad moments of which we all agree we have no reason to be proud.
1750
These moments are made up of events sometimes centuries old.
This is the case with the deportation of the Acadians. History is
sometimes cruel. However, the history of Canada is not made up of
injustices only. It is, for the most part, based on progress,
advancement and growth. Today, we must look toward the future.
The least we can say today is that the sudden interest of the
member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is surprising. Surprising,
indeed, because if we go back a little in time, it is quite
obvious that this initiative goes against the logic of the Bloc
Quebecois. I know that the Bloc's logic may sometimes remind us
of the Twilight Zone. Nevertheless, the colleagues of the
member of Verchères—Les-Patriotes and even the leader of his
party have rarely shown a true and honest open-mindedness
regarding the fate of Acadians and of francophones outside of
Quebec.
Not so long ago, in October 1997, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois said in an interview to the Fredericton Telegraph
Journal that the salvation of Acadian artists was conditional
upon their exiling themselves to Montreal.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This debate in incredibly non-partisan.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: To be recognized, to reach the top, in
other words to succeed, every Acadian artist must pack up and
move to Montreal.
This reasoning is simplistic but not new. Outside Quebec, there
is no salvation. We have heard that one before.
But what we had never heard is what the Bloc Quebecois leader
added at the time. He said, in reference to Acadian artists that
“they themselves were proof that it simply does not work outside
Quebec”. Allow me to be sceptical as to the real intentions of
the Bloc Quebecois in bringing this motion forward in the House.
Bloc Quebecois members are interested in our history or our
existence to the extent that it serves their interests and their
objective. They want people to believe that they are trying to
correct the mistakes of the past, to shed light on a dark episode
of our history. One would think that such an initiative would be
made in consultation with those concerned, namely the Acadians.
That is the least the Bloc Quebecois could do. But its logic does
not work like that.
The Bloc Quebecois' logic is based on an out of date and
disrespectful paternalism toward Canada's francophone and Acadian
communities. Again, this is nothing new. In 1994, the member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, whose riding is close to Acadia,
told the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to
mind its own business, because that organization had dared get
involved in the debate on sovereignty. Now, they are telling us
not only to mind our own business, but that they will meddle in
our affairs, with or without our agreement. Let me make one thing
very clear: Acadians are not the wards of the Bloc Quebecois.
Acadians form a thriving community that is proud of its roots and
that is looking to the future. We do not need a self-appointed
guardian.
The average observer of the Canadian political landscape can
easily be led to confuse the logic of the Bloc Quebecois with
that of the Parti Quebecois. This is perfectly normal, since one
complements the other. It is particularly easy to illustrate.
Again, not so long ago, the PQ government refused to take part in
the Year of La Francophonie in Canada. That was not long ago,
that was in April 1999.
The Quebec minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental
affairs, Joseph Facal, explained his government's refusal by
pointing out that “Quebec cannot, within the Canadian
Francophonie, be put on the same level as francophone minorities
in the rest of Canada”. So it all comes down to the statement by
the Bloc leader: there are those who are saved, who live in
Quebec, and those who are lost, who live outside of the promised
land.
It is not easy for Acadians to listen to such remarks. Remarks
inspired, as I said, by the offensive, insulting and hurtful
paternalistic attitude of the Bloc Quebecois separatists. Who has
forgotten the now famous words of the member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis “They have been assimilated—the
francophones—poof.”
The Acadians helped build this country. They worked hard and
with determination for the conservation and protection of their
culture and of their identity.
1755
The Acadians have founded schools, colleges and universities.
They have created playhouses, newspapers and publishing houses.
They have made exceptional breakthroughs in the areas of culture,
such as theatre, movies, visual arts, music and literature. They
have given the world writers, poets, artists, dancers, musicians
and singers. They have set up an impressive network of businesses
and have created jobs. They did not wait for anyone to take them
by the hand and decide for them.
The Acadian community in Canada is not comprised of one, but
several communities spread out across the whole Atlantic region
and elsewhere.
In New Brunswick, the Acadians are concentrated in the southeast,
the northeast and the northwest of the province, and there are
also Acadian groups in Fredericton and Saint John.
In Nova Scotia, there are vibrant Acadian communities in St.
Mary's Bay, on the southwest shore, on Madame Island and in the
Chéticamp area, in Cape Breton.
In Prince Edward Island, the Acadians live in the Évangéline
region. In Newfoundland, they are concentrated near Cape St.
George, in St. John's and in Labrador City. Many also live on the
Magdalen Islands, in Gaspé, in the Montreal area and in western
Canada. All of these communities, some of them large and others
not so large, illustrate the vitality of the Canadian people and
of its two official languages.
The Acadians take part in the success and prosperity of our
country. The Government of Canada recognizes their vitality and
their essential contribution to Canadian society. They are part
of the seven million people in Canada who speak, sing, write,
work and live in French. These francophones are evidence of the
vitality and the extraordinary determination to move ahead and to
flourish in a continent where the majority is anglophone.
The English and French languages and the people who speak these
languages have shaped Canada and helped define its identity.
Canada's linguistic duality has its source in the very roots of
our country. It is impossible to be interested in today's Canada
without acknowledging the importance of these two languages and
these two linguistic communities in Canadian society.
I will get back to the main subject of this debate. While Bloc
Quebecois members claim the opposite, recent history has taught
us that the interest this party shows for francophone and Acadian
communities in Canada is always motivated by a hidden political
agenda. This motion hides the real intentions of the mover, and
we cannot accept it. In this sense, intellectual honesty demands
that we refuse to support this motion and this is why I invite
members of this House to oppose it.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on
private member's Motion No. 241 which reads:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that
she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to
present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs
done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.
I appreciate the sentiment, the emotion and the sense of
personal justice at the heart of the motion. For the benefit
Canadians watching the debate, I will sketch some of the details
that have given cause for the motion.
Acadia was explored initially by the Italians who named the
region Arcadia in 1524. A treaty passed the area back to the
French in 1697. Beginning in the 1670s French colonists left the
major settlement at Port Royal to found other centres.
After the war of the Spanish succession of 1701 to 1713, Acadia
came under English rule. From 1713 to 1744 the relatively small
English presence permitted the Acadian population to grow at a
pace that surpassed the average of the whole region. This period
was referred to as Acadia's golden age.
England demanded from its conquered subjects an oath of
unconditional loyalty, but the Acadians agreed only to a position
of neutrality. This was accepted at that time. England began
bringing its own settlers into the area around 1749. The British
in Halifax decided to settle the Acadian question once and for
all. By refusing to pledge an unconditional oath of allegiance,
the Acadian population risked deportation.
1800
The Acadians initially refused to make the pledge, then
acquiesced. Lawrence, the English gentleman in charge of the
settlement, was unhappy with a reluctant oath and executed the
plan for deportation. Why deportation? Lawrence feared a
combined attack by Louisbourg and Canada against Nova Scotia
joined by the Mi'kmaq and the Acadians.
According to historical record, the deportation process lasted
from 1755 to 1762. The Acadians were put onto ships and deported
to English colonies as far south as Georgia. Others managed to
flee to French lands to hide in the woods. It is believed that
three-quarters of the Acadian population was deported.
There was no distinction whatsoever made between the innocent
and the guilty. The tyrannical decision to deport was carried
out under circumstances of the harshest cruelties. More than
7,000 third and fourth generation persons were transported from
their homes and dispersed among the colonies bordering on the
Atlantic, from Massachusetts to Georgia. Their lands and
possessions were forfeited to the crown without compensation.
What is to be done now? The motion demands an apology.
Let us review a recent apology made by the Canadian government.
Let us consider an exchange between Brian Mulroney and the late
Pierre Trudeau concerning the apology to Japanese Canadians for
their internment during the second world war. Mr. Trudeau said,
as per the June 29, 1984 Hansard:
There is no way in which we can relive the history of that
period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can
express regret collectively, as we have done.
He further stated:
I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which
we or these people in this House were not a party. We can regret
that it happened. But why mount to great heights of rhetoric in
order to say that an apology is much better than an expression of
regret? This I cannot too well understand.
He went on to say:
Why does Mulroney not apologize for what happened during the
Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this
House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr.
Speaker. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians
of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who
went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second
World War. Why do we not apologize to them?
He further said:
I do not think it is the purpose of the Government to right the
past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just
in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the
Charter of Rights.
On December 14, 1994, the Liberal's position on redresses was
articulated by the then secretary of state of multiculturalism
and status of women, and not the one who is not apologizing for
our gaff. At that time it was Sheila Finestone. She said:
Seeking to halt the wounds caused by the actions of previous
governments, 6 ethno cultural communities have requested redress
and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The
government understands the strong feelings underlying these
requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.
By the way there are now eight ethnocultural communities. She
continued:
The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to
address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only
choice lies in using limited government resources to create a
more equitable society now and a better future for generations to
come. Therefore the government will not grant financial
compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation
lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring.
I believe this latter quote is most significant because this is
what the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois is up against in
trying to have the government support his motion.
1805
I seriously doubt that he will be successful. The apology and
compensation package given to the Japanese Canadians has sent a
precedent from which Italians and Ukrainians interned in World
War I and World War II have also demanded apologies.
The Ukrainian group, according to the recommendations issued by
the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has requested
principally that Ottawa fund educational programs and provide for
historical plaques, not direct compensation to victims.
The Italians were not happy with Mulroney's expression of regret
issued November 4, 1990 and are seeking a full apology and
compensation. Both these groups cite the apology given to
Japanese Canadians as the reason they are deserving.
Let me also remind the House of another situation. One of the
political parties in the House was in power in 1914, when 376
passengers who were British subjects arrived on a ship named
Komagata Maru. They were not allowed to land on Canadian
soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race
and the country of origin.
The policy had its origin in the 1880s when the Canadian
government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The
government erected a variety of barriers until 1962. The
passengers on the Komagata Maru thought they had the right
to enter Canada because they were British subjects. Ninety per
cent of the passengers on the ship were Sikhs. The rest were
Hindus and Muslims, but they were all from Punjab.
Sikh soldiers who had served throughout the British empire
thought they should be able to work wherever the British flag was
flying. The passengers went without food and water on several
occasions for more than 24 hours and the immigration officials
held them incommunicado. Even the lawyers hired on their behalf
were not allowed to see them.
The Punjabi residents of Vancouver raised money to pay for the
charter. After two months of detention in the Vancouver harbour,
the government brought in the cruiser the Rainbow and aimed
its guns at the Komagata Maru. The ship was escorted with
352 passengers still on board. It was a bitter and disappointing
moment for the friends watching the ship disappear.
A voyage that began on April 4th did not end until September
29th in Calcutta, India, where the police opened fire on
passengers and killed 19 of them. Others were arrested. In a
more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru remains a powerful
symbol for Sikhs and one that other Canadians should understand.
As a consequence, we are beginning to reassess our past. Will
the government offer an official apology?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I join
with my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes to speak on Motion No. 241 praying Her
Excellency to intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British
crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for
the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.
I want to remind the House that this is private members'
business, a private member's motion, which means that normally
representatives of the various parties had to sit at a table and
determine unanimously if the motion would be a votable item.
If members sitting at that table had disagreed, if, for
instance, some Liberal and Alliance members had decided at that
meeting to say no, we would not even be able to debate this
motion for three hours and then vote on it. What it means is that
members agreed with this motion. So, the House has to realize
that this is a private member's motion and not a Bloc Quebecois
motion.
I wanted to make that clear. That is the reason I support my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, who is half Acadian, wants to
speak for the Acadians and is asking for an apology. Let me turn
now to my speech.
As a full-blooded Acadian, I know about this historic period, as
all Acadians do. What we call the deportation of the Acadians is
surely the saddest period in the history of Acadia.
The fact that I am sitting here, in this House, as an Acadian
proves that it did not have the desired results.
1810
They were asked to take the oath of allegiance to the British
crown, in the hope that this would prevent these neutral people
from taking up arms against the British.
It so happens that any self-respecting Acadian is a Catholic,
and believe me, a practising Catholic. The Acadians refused to
take the oath for two reasons: as Catholics, they were concerned
about losing their right to practise their religion freely, and
they were also concerned about being forced to take up arms
against their motherland, France, or their cousins from Canada.
All they wanted was to remain neutral.
Unfortunately, the authorities in London at the time, as a
result of the correspondence sent by the lieutenant-governor,
decided to let them go, since they refused to take the oath of
allegiance, and thus acquire their lands, which were considered
the best in the region.
However, a judge from Nova Scotia ruled that any Acadians
refusing to take the oath of allegiance would lose their property
rights.
Unfortunately Acadians were never invited to appear before the
judge to plead their case, and the decision was fatal.
It is following this ruling that it was decided that Acadians
would be deported from the province of Nova Scotia.
Let us not forget that this was in 1755. Seasons were sometimes
difficult and resources very scarce. In the summer of 1755,
preparations were made for the deportation of these neutral
people.
After the whole issue of the oath of allegiance, several
thousands Acadians had already left the area, because relations
had become very tense between the two groups.
At that time, in Acadia, there were about 180,000 Acadians.
Impressive, is it not? So the order to send enough ships to
transport them to the chosen destinations was given.
Everything had been well organized. The plan was to arrest all
the Acadians they could in the most populated areas of Acadia,
to embark them on ships and to disperse them in the
Anglo-American colonies along the Atlantic coast, from
Massachusetts to Georgia.
An important meeting was called in every local church where the
heads of families, young men 10 years old and older and old men
were held prisoner. Several Acadians, sensing danger, had fled
into the woods.
However, several thousand were prisoners. Entire families were
separated forever. Women never saw their husband again and
hundreds of children became orphans.
Is was a tragedy. One can imagine the suffering and the distress
of these families. The same operation was carried out in several
Acadians villages in 1755.
In the words of Colonel Winslow, who was in charge of putting
the Acadians from Grand-Pré and from all the area around Minas
Basin on board the ships, according to Bona Arsenault, author of
L'histoire de l'Acadie:
The inhabitants, wrote Winslow
that very day, left their houses with sadness and regret. Women
were very distressed, carrying their newborns in their arms;
others brought along in carts their infirm parents and their
personal effects. In short, it was a scene in which confusion
was mixed with despair and desolation.
I read these words with emotion, and I am certain that all those
present can understand and share the consternation experienced
by my ancestors.
Once they were separated, the Acadians were crowded into ships
and sent to the Anglo-American colonies. Some 7,000 Acadians
were to be deported in this way to the colonies to face their
fates alone, while others were enslaved. Some fled into the
forest, where they met death from cold, illness or starvation.
This deportation went on for several years. The Acadians were
chased mercilessly from their homeland and plunged overnight
into abject poverty, separated from their loved ones.
1815
As any one familiar with Acadians will know, an Acadian can
never be kept down. Many came back to the maritimes, to
restore their dear Acadia. They settled in New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island and even the Gaspé, never again to
see their family members or the members of their former
communities from whom they had been separated by deportation.
I invite Canadians to visit the maritimes some day to
learn more about the events in history that left their mark on a
people, but also on Canada. I am sure some of my colleagues
in the House have Acadian blood in their veins, as my
colleague for Verchères—les-Patriotes has just discovered.
They have Acadian blood in their veins and do not know it.
An hon. member: I don't.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Maybe not, but one never knows. We could look
into it. It would be a discovery of some significance for these
individuals to find out that they have Acadian blood in their
veins.
In supporting Motion No. 241, I am speaking on behalf of all the
Acadians who lost their lives, their families and their children
in that part of Acadian history that has shaped the history of
Canada and my own history.
The Acadian people are still around and have their own
distinguishing characteristics and culture. Over the years, they
have never been as vibrant and proud of their identity.
Today, I was disappointed to hear the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche turning the debate into a partisan issue
because I believe that every member elected to this place has the
right to be here and to introduce a private member's motion,
regardless of his political affiliation.
I am sure that the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes was
sincere in introducing his motion. I have trouble accepting that
members would rise in the House and accuse another party of being
at fault. We are Canadians. As a pure-blooded Acadian, all that
I am asking is that, when an error has been made or atrocities
committed, it is not hard to say “I am sorry”.
I too have children. If I make a mistake as a father, if I have
done something wrong, I assume my responsibilities and I say “I
am sorry, I made a mistake”. This is how one wins the respect of
others.
We perhaps cannot forget certain disciplinary actions that were
taken, but we can at least accept them. We can see the future. I
am forced to make this comment because I am disappointed at the
speech made by the member across the way.
I wonder whether a minister did not write his speech for him. He
calls himself the Acadian MP, but I think they will always say
that they are Brayons. I do not want to start another debate.
The Bloc Quebecois motion will not turn back the clock, but it
will right a terrible wrong.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is a great
pleasure for me to take part in this debate.
[English]
I congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for
bringing the motion forward. I believe the motives of the hon.
member are genuine. This is part of his personal history of
which he is very proud. From my brief conversation with the
member this evening I believe it was in that spirit that he
brought forth the motion.
We are talking about a people with a proud history. Anyone who
has done even peripheral reading on the history of the Acadians
before 1755, during their expulsion in 1755 and after their
return in 1763 or 1768, depending on the situation, knows that it
is almost surreal.
1820
While the Progressive Conservative Party is indeed supportive of
the principle of the motion, we are also respectful of the
Acadian community's right to generate its own request for an
apology based on the desires of its people.
No one should be too territorial in that regard. It would be
wrong for me to say that because the province of New Brunswick,
the province I come from, has the largest Acadian population it
should have the largest say in the matter. We should consult all
Acadian peoples whether they reside in Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island or Nova Scotia. I point out that on their return
from Louisiana many Acadians made their home in Quebec as well,
where they have lived quite proudly for generations.
The Acadian identity is intrinsically linked to the tragic
events that surrounded the deportation. The community has
survived the centuries based on that common historical link. I
am very proud to live in a province that is proud of its history
and its origins.
We need symbols to remember our collective history, and I am
proud of how we embrace our linguistic and cultural duality in
New Brunswick. On the front lawn of the legislature in
Fredericton, where I understand the hon. member has roots, the
Acadian flag flies proud. Except for the star of Mary, it is
essentially the same as the flag of France. The Acadians chose
that flag because of their French roots but added the star of
Mary, a symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, because they had an
independent history of their own.
We have some concerns regarding a letter the Societé nationale
de l'Acadie wrote to the hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes. The letter said:
[Translation]
Although, obviously I agree with the principle of the motion, I
must tell you that we are indignant about the fact that it was
brought forward without anyone having the courtesy to consult the
Société nationale de l'Acadie beforehand.
[English]
The Societé nationale de l'Acadie is very concerned about not
having proper consultation, and we should be respectful of that.
We should also be respectful of the provincial legislatures that
are involved. The premiers and legislatures of other provinces
might want a say in the issue as well.
I have always been respectful that the province of Quebec has
the right to speak for its own future. I would argue as well
that the Societé nationale de l'Acadie has the responsibility and
the right to present the position of Acadians in requesting an
apology of this nature.
The Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of what I
would say is the genuine motivation of the hon. member for
putting the motion forward. We say to the hon. member that it
would perhaps be best if the motion were not taken away but set
aside until the member has a chance to consult Acadian groups to
see if a consensus can be achieved regarding the timing of the
initiative.
1825
Is there a solution or a compromise? We live in a nation
founded on compromise, and that spirit exists in all cultures in
Canada. Upon further consultation with the provinces, the
Societe nationale de l'Acadie and perhaps other organizations
representing the francophone and Acadian communities, we should
be able to determine the timing. At the end of the day, and I
think the hon. member would agree, the timing of this should be
decided by those collective bodies.
Perhaps there is a negative implication to the motion. Again,
it is perhaps better that the motion be tabled because a vote by
parliament against it may send the wrong message to the public
that parliamentarians do not support the motion in principle.
That is simply not the case.
It would be prudent for us at this time to set the initiative
aside until a broader consensus is built and to let the Acadian
community make the decision for itself.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous
consent of the House to see the clock at 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 6.30 p.m., the hour
provided for the consideration of private members' business has
now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order
of precedence on the order paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order adopted Wednesday, March
21, 2001, the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Motion No. 4 under the heading of government business.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Hon. John Manley (for the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, in a little over three weeks, Canada will have the
honour and privilege of hosting the third summit of the Americas.
1830
It is an event of major importance to Canada and our hemisphere.
It is entirely appropriate that the House take note.
The past twenty years have seen remarkable change in the
Americas. Democracy and the growth of free markets have raised
new hopes and opened up new possibilities.
[English]
Dialogue and co-operation among the democratically elected
governments have intensified in every field of endeavour and in
every sphere of common interest.
Canada has played an active role in supporting democratic
transition and bringing out beneficial economic and social
change. We are engaged in the Americas because it is the right
thing to do and because it is in our interest to do so. Our
future prosperity and stability are linked to our ability not
just to recognize opportunities, but to act as a leader in this
hemisphere.
[Translation]
Our economic relations with the hemisphere have expressed our
overall successes. They have grown faster in the past 10 years
than with any other region of the world.
Over 90% of our trading is with the Americas, including the
United States. Its value has increased 170% in this period. But
our relations are far from limited to trade.
[English]
Last year we celebrated the 10th anniversary of our membership
in the Organization of American States and hosted perhaps the
most remarkable general assembly in OAS history. We are also
working with other governments in the hemisphere across a range
of sectoral interests that would have seemed unimaginable 20
years ago. Ministers in virtually every cabinet portfolio, not
just foreign affairs and trade, meet regularly.
The government is strongly supportive of the contribution of
legislators in furthering understanding and co-operation in the
Americas. The inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum
of the Americas, known as FIPA, was hosted by Canada's parliament
earlier this month. Its recommendations across a wide range of
interests and the constructive input we have received from civil
society have contributed to the policy development process for
the upcoming summit.
Preparations for the Quebec City summit are nearing completion.
The summit implementation review group, the intergovernmental
body developing a declaration and plan of action for the summit,
is setting out a coherent and balanced agenda with three main
themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and
realizing human potential.
[Translation]
We want to ensure that summit initiatives reflect the priorities
of our hemisphere. Moreover, we are working with international
and regional organizations, and with multilateral development
banks, to get the necessary human and financial resources to
turn our commitments into reality.
This is fundamental for the credibility of the summit process.
I alluded to the major themes of the summit. I do not believe
that anyone can question their importance or relevance.
[English]
The strength and unity of the hemisphere is based fundamentally
on collective undertakings to consolidate democracy, protect
human rights, promote the rule of law and enhance human security.
A commitment to improving the quality of democracy is at the top
of the summit agenda and will be further strengthened at Quebec
City. The summit declaration should, and I have every confidence
that it will, make democracy an explicit condition for
participation in summits. Such a clear and vigorous statement
would be an important outcome of the Quebec City summit.
The summit will also mandate increased hemispheric co-operation
to strengthen democracy by supporting improved electoral
processes and systems, an area where Canada has been making
important contributions for a number of years. It will seek to
rally support for international human rights instruments and for
national institutions that promote and protect human rights
within hemispheric countries.
1835
[Translation]
Strong democracies must also be inclusive and put in place a
forum for reasoned debates.
Canada has worked to ensure that the process leading to the
summit in Quebec City is open and transparent. Our country has
been a leader in terms of consulting with and informing its
civil society, through open meetings of the OAS special
committee on the management of summits, and in other
circumstances.
As I said earlier, a commitment to democratic principles and
institutions, and to human rights, is the main criterion to
participate in the summits.
[English]
Governments in the hemisphere have expressed serious concerns
about democracy in Cuba. It is this reason before any other that
prevents Cuba from participating in the summits of the Americas.
Let us be clear: it is the government of Cuba, not of Canada or
the other summit countries, that is keeping Cuba from
participating in the summit process. If Cuba wants a seat at the
table, and we would hope that it would, it will need to
demonstrate acceptance of democratic principles, including
freedom of expression, political pluralism and international
norms respecting human rights. It is Cuba's choice to make.
[Translation]
The issue of the criteria governing participation in the summit
was raised regarding a number of other countries in the
hemisphere.
The transition to democracy in the hemisphere is often a recent
occurrence. Societies that are establishing or restoring
democratic institutions often do so after years of authoritarian
or military government.
[English]
There have been setbacks and progress has been uneven in some
cases, but there has also been a continuing commitment to
dialogue and to joint efforts to enhance democratic processes.
There is ample proof that the hemispheric community is actively
and effectively engaged to enhance democratic processes. In
particular, that engagement has been in defence of democratic
institutions in Ecuador, Paraguay and Haiti. I would refer
anyone with doubts on this score to the events last June in
Windsor and the manner in which the OAS member states united to
defend democracy in Peru. As a result, new national elections
will be held there on April 8.
[Translation]
Commitments to democracy and prosperity go hand in hand with the
determination to encourage all people to take part in the
economic, political, social and cultural life of their country
and their region.
Social initiatives at the summit will support education,
improved health services, gender equality, participation and
dialogue between governments and native peoples, as well as
cultural diversity.
[English]
For example, the hemisphere will reaffirm its commitment to good
health as a fundamental building block for political, economic
and social stability. It will also carry forward commitments to
improve access to and the quality of education. Canada has also
taken the lead in promoting gender equality as part of the summit
commitments.
The summit will promote partnerships between indigenous peoples
and governments to advance co-operation among the hemisphere's
indigenous peoples on matters of common interest, notably in
education, health and economic development. I am pleased to
welcome indigenous peoples from the Americas to Canada this week
for the first indigenous summit of the Americas and to recognize
the leadership of Canada's aboriginal communities in this
important initiative.
Fundamentally, the human potential theme aims to empower
individuals and provide an equal opportunity to realize their
potential and contribute to and benefit from the societies in
which they live and work.
[Translation]
The Minister for International Trade will deal with the issue of
the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
[English]
The summit countries are concerned about reducing poverty,
promoting equity, creating more opportunities for enterprise,
sharing in the benefits of growth, managing migration and
improving our collective ability to prepare for and mitigate
natural disasters.
1840
Let me conclude by describing the summit in these words.
[Translation]
It represents a step taken in co-operation with 34 different but
equal partners to develop and implement a political, economic
and social action plan that is consistent and balanced for the
benefit of all residents of this hemisphere.
[English]
It is a vehicle for making this vision a reality and realizing
the rich promise of the Americas.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think a lot of people in this place pay lip service to
the idea of free trade, but sometimes we do not practise what we
preach.
I specifically want to raise the issue of tariffs still in place
in Canada on products like textiles. It always strikes me as odd
that on the one hand we are prepared to send all kinds of aid,
for instance, to Caribbean countries to help them out because in
some cases they are in difficult circumstances, but on the other
hand we will not open up our markets to textiles, for instance.
I wonder if the minister could explain why we have taken that
position and why we will not reduce these tariffs in order to
ensure that the people in the Caribbean have a chance to prosper
in the way they should.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if it were question period
I would refer to my colleague, the Minister for International
Trade. Indeed, he will have an opportunity to speak momentarily.
The member for Medicine Hat may want to put his question to the
minister as well.
Let me say that in fact the objective of our negotiations toward
a free trade area of the Americas is essentially to effect the
very result the member is talking about. I agree with him that
if we are going to create prosperity, not just in the Caribbean
but in developing countries around the world, fundamental to that
is providing for them access to the markets of the developed
world. Otherwise how can we ever expect them to share in the
prosperity?
We see the example of that actually happening now in Mexico. We
see in the northern tier of that country increasing prosperity,
falling levels of unemployment and rising wages. In effect,
NAFTA has worked for Mexico the way we would have expected it to
happen. It is not a transportation of jobs à la Ross Perot from
the United States or Canada. In fact, what is happening is the
growth of a middle class in Mexico that is a big market for U.S.
and Canadian goods, which is why our trade with Mexico has
increased 100% since NAFTA. Certainly the principle that the
member for Medicine Hat espouses is one that I agree with.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, sometime when
we talk about free trade it is as if we, in the NDP, were
against free trade. We are not against free trade but in favour
of fair trade. This is what we need here in Canada.
When we entered into free trade agreements such as, for
instance, NAFTA, it was to increase the living standard. This is
not what has happened, on the contrary. In Mexico, the standard
of living has increased, but it has diminished in Canada. The
idea was to increase the living standard in countries such as
Mexico to bring it to the level of ours.
I will explain. Today in Canada there are more food banks than
ever before. Every day new ones are being created.
This is the kind of thing that is happening.
Second, let us look at what has happened in the workplace.
Workers have been deprived of their rights over the last few
years, which is unacceptable. Free trade agreements such as the
ones we entered into have not brought us, I believe, what we, as
Canadians, were expecting.
I would like to know what the minister has to say about that.
1845
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, first, since NAFTA came into force,
the unemployment rate has gone down here in Canada. The average
salary for Canadian families has gone up. The unemployment rate
went from 11% to around 6.5%.
Wealth is being created here in Canada because the most
important right of workers is certainly the right to work. This
is what is at the heart of the negotiations.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the evening is off to a good start. We are
certainly going to have some very interesting exchanges and I am
very pleased that we are holding an exploratory debate on the
summit of the Americas in the House this evening.
Following on the enthusiastic remarks of my colleague, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would like to focus on the trade
dimension because, of course, that is the dimension which comes
under my immediate authority and which has to do with
negotiations for the FTAA.
I am very happy to be taking part in the exploratory debate this
evening. Our country, Canada, is now resolutely committed to
the Americas.
Canada is now strongly rooted in the Americas and I am delighted
at the leadership our country is now showing in the hemisphere.
I believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, who will host the
third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, is demonstrating
very well how firmly our country is now committed to this
hemisphere. I am very proud that the Prime Minister will be
hosting his 33 counterparts, the heads of state and government
leaders of 33 other countries.
[English]
Trade can help create stability and prosperity. The trade
element of the summit of the Americas is a very important
contribution. It is a contribution to wealth and to growth. It
is also leading directly to improving the stability and
prosperity of our hemisphere. Canada belongs to the Americas and
to this hemisphere. It is imperative that we do whatever we can
to contribute to stability and prosperity which go hand in hand.
Open economies lead to more open political systems. There is a
direct immediate link between open economies and more open
political systems. We see it across our hemisphere. We see the
extraordinary example of Mexico which joined the United States
and Canada in NAFTA. What do we see? We see a country that has
achieved in five years the economic development that we thought
would take twenty years. NAFTA has helped Mexico to prosper, to
develop, and it has contributed substantially to making Mexico a
more democratic country.
The fact that Mexico has progressed so fast within NAFTA is
allowing that great country to have stronger institutions and a
stronger democratic system. That is what trade can lead to and
contribute to. These are the facts.
We have lived it with Chile as well. I remember how moved I was
when I represented the Government of Canada in Santiago last year
when Ricardo Lagos was sworn in as president of that country.
What an emotion it was for the Chilean people to move in the
direction of democracy. Trade is of great importance and we
already have a free trade agreement with Chile as well.
There is a deep conviction on the part of the government to
contribute to stronger trade links. We believe that trade leads
to stability and we need that stability in our hemisphere.
We believe in our hemisphere. We have seen the extraordinary
progress over the last several years. The FTAA is a vote of
confidence for the hemisphere's future.
1850
We know that, after several hundred years of theory and
practice, free trade raises overall incomes. That happens
everywhere all the time. It is extremely important that we
continue to do it. Canada has based its economy on export. We
are a country that has been very successful at international
trade. Only 10 years ago we exported 25% of our GDP.
[Translation]
We exported 25% of our gross domestic product in 1990. Now we
export 45% of our GDP. This shows the progress we have made
over the last ten years, from 25% of GDP to 45%.
Canada has managed to create two million more jobs in our
economy since 1993. We must therefore reject the prejudices
that the jobs are going elsewhere, to Mexico or Latin America,
when we are negotiating free trade agreements. Free trade is
good for us, good for everybody.
Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and leader of
the Labour Party, pointed out here in this very House to what
degree “free trade is for the poor”. It is absolutely obvious
that we need to give the rest of our hemisphere the same
opportunity we have for prosperity and development.
[English]
Canada has a lot to gain in the FTAA. Today 94% of the goods
from Latin American countries can enter Canada duty free. That
is not true the other way around. Canadian access to Latin
American countries is not nearly as good as their access to ours.
We need to negotiate better access for Canadian businesses in
Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean.
We need rules. The FTAA is about rules that will avoid the
continuous arbitrary evolution and rule changes. It is very
important that Canada continue that important trend.
The developing countries of the world also want to be part of
these trade agreements so that they too, like Canada, can also
benefit. They want the chance for wealth and prosperity that we
enjoy and that we received largely by participating in the rules
based system of GATT. We must move on.
A lot of things have been said in the House and elsewhere about
the transparency of the negotiation. Tonight I will be quite
clear and open. Never have I seen such an open and transparent
trade negotiation. Canadian leadership has been at the forefront
of that effort. Canada was the first nation to post its own
negotiating position on a website a year ago. We were followed
by the United States, Mexico and Chile. We now have transparent
website access to the negotiating positions.
Canada has been an architect in the most open free trade
negotiation that was ever undertaken. I have challenged the
opposition to give me one single example of a more open and
transparent international trade negotiation. The NDP, which
keeps talking about these things, could not provide one single
example. I am very proud of Canada's contribution to it.
We want even more. We hope very much that when Canada goes to
Buenos Aires in a few weeks that we will be able to convince and
persuade our colleagues from all countries to put their positions
on the table.
In conclusion, I would like to say that in Buenos Aires we will
be in mid-term negotiations. A lot of people are getting very
agitated and saying that in Quebec City a radical decision will
be made about our future. Let us put things into perspective.
The Quebec City summit is extremely important for Canada's role
and future in our hemisphere.
1855
[Translation]
There will be a meeting of ministers of international trade in
Buenos Aires next April 6 and 7.
That will be our mid-way meeting on the negotiations, but people
need to realize that there are three years of negotiations left.
There is therefore all the time needed to continue to consult
Canadians, this House, the standing committee on foreign
affairs, the business community, the unions and the NGOs.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was quite interesting listening to the Minister for
International Trade talk about trade. He stated that the FTAA
was all about a rules based system that we needed. It was his
government that unilaterally created bad relations with Brazil
when it retaliated and stopped importation of meat without much
evidence. We all know that it was retaliation against Brazil for
not following the WTO.
Now there is a danger that countries like Brazil will ignore WTO
rulings and will not follow the rules based system. What is the
point of having all these things signed when there is a danger of
countries not following the rules?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the
member's question I would like to correct what I said earlier,
that Mexico had released its negotiating position. It was Costa
Rica, not Mexico. I wanted to correct that for the record.
The member's question is very surprising. We know what the
situation is in Europe and in England. We know how much it has
cost that country. Never has the government ever protected the
safety and the public health of Canadians more than on the
important issue of meat. It was Canada's duty to stop the
importation of meat. We defended public health for the security
of Canadians. It had absolutely nothing to do with the trade
challenge that we are having with the Brazilians at the WTO.
The dispute between Canada and Brazil on the aircraft issue is
to be dealt with at the WTO panel. We do not want to contaminate
our relationship with Brazil. When the government made a stand
for public health reasons alone, we would have liked opposition
members not to have encouraged the Brazilians who may have
believed some of them that it was a retaliation to trade when it
was not.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I would
like to present very briefly a few figures to the Minister for
International Trade and ask for his comments on this subject.
What he is saying is that opening new markets fosters economic
growth and, as a result, enriches all participants.
However, let us take the world average of the per capita GDP and
say it is equal to one hundred. In 1980, the United States had
a per capita GDP that was equivalent to 482; in 1998, it had
increased to 625. The world average was 100. As for Mexico, in
1980, its per capita GDP was 134; in 1998, it had fallen to 84.
After NAFTA, the differential between the United States and
Mexico grew,
but during the same period, Brazil, and we have just spoken
about this country's protectionist practices, showed an increase
from 70 in 1980 to 96 in 1998.
Does the minister not agree that in addition to the opening of
markets and the upholding of commercial rights we must include
in these accords the protection of human rights and labour
rights in order to ensure a real distribution of wealth?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I always find it
interesting to hear the hon. member for Joliette, the new critic
for the Bloc, condemning free trade so vigorously when his
party, as well as the party we could in a way call the mother
party in Quebec City, that is to say the real Parti Quebecois,
have always supported free trade.
1900
The hon. member for Joliette rose in this House today but
unfortunately ,he did not have a blackboard so we could not
understand all his sophisticated arguments.
However, the wealth gap is an issue our government is dealing
with. This is of concern to us. The Canadian International
Development Agency is making a difference.
Here in Canada, we have social policies to compensate the wealth
gap, but I can assure the House that there is absolutely no
contradiction. Free trade and international trade raised the
revenues of the richest and also of the poorest of Canadians. We
must ensure that the latter benefit even more from free trade.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the
special debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas. I think
we all agree that it is an honour for Canada to be hosting this
summit. I hope it will prove to be a milestone in the creation
of a new free trade area of the Americas. The Canadian Alliance
has consistently championed free trade as being in the best
interests of Canadians and others.
It is well known that the Liberals once opposed a Canada-U.S.
free trade agreement and NAFTA. They promised that once they
were in government they would abrogate those agreements. We are
happy they did not follow through with that commitment.
However, even Liberals can learn from their mistakes. Just a
few weeks ago the Minister of Industry, in Davos, apologized to
former Prime Minister Mulroney and acknowledged that he was right
about free trade and they were wrong. We appreciate that
acknowledgement. They should acknowledge that because in
1989 two way Canada-U.S. trade was $235 billion and by 1999 it
had grown to $626 billion, an increase of more than 150% in 10
years.
I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for
Medicine Hat.
Far from damaging any of our identity or sovereignty, free trade
helped to establish rules and procedures to clarify our trading
relationship with the U.S. We would benefit from a similar
approach with the rest of Latin America. Now we can build on the
success of free trade and NAFTA to deepen and improve these
relations with the rest of the hemisphere.
The FTAA would provide the mechanism to begin to extend some of
our prosperity and the opportunity for prosperity to other
countries. Therefore, we welcome these negotiations on the FTAA.
While the Liberals have learned to mouth the rhetoric of free
trade, the reality is they cling to protectionism in their hearts.
Some of the actions taken by the Liberals in recent months may
threaten the prospect of negotiating a successful FTAA.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the foreign investment provisions, give
protection to Canadian businesses abroad and also to foreign
businesses in Canada. Under NAFTA, from 1998-99 U.S. investment
in Canada increased by $15 billion to $168 billion, while
Canadian investment in the U.S. jumped by $10 billion to $120
billion. Both countries have seen large increases in foreign
investment and in both directions.
Most countries in the Americas actually feel that foreign
investment provisions similar to those in NAFTA would be to the
mutual benefit of all countries. We believe that. However, the
Government of Canada appears to be leading the charge to
undermine those foreign investment rules. We should not fear
including chapter 11 in the FTAA when its inclusion in NAFTA has
brought benefits to Canada and the United States alike in a
reciprocal way.
The Minister for International Trade, who appears at times to be
unsatisfied with the decisions of NAFTA tribunals in a few
selective cases, has called for new side deals. Those side deals
would amend the meaning of the NAFTA chapter 11 provisions. The
official opposition is concerned that retrograde stand will limit
free trade and deny protection for Canadian businesses operating
elsewhere in the Americas, and perhaps prevent the 34 countries
of the Americas from reaching a broader trade agreement. That is
our concern
Another concern we have with the government's trade policy is
the centralist, father Ottawa knows best approach that the
federal government takes toward consultation with the provinces.
1905
[Translation]
First the provinces expect the Liberal government to include
them in the context of the negotiations on the free trade area
of the Americas.
Contrary to the federal government of the day and its openness
when the free trade agreement was negotiated with the United
States some fifteen years ago, and then NAFTA after it, the
Liberal government is refusing to put a formal mechanism in
place for co-operation with the provinces in matters involving
their participation in negotiations with other governments.
Without questioning the federal government's foreign policy
jurisdiction, there is a way to have the provinces participate
fully in the negotiation of international agreements and to
extend the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction to the
international scene.
Australia should serve as an example. In recent years, it has
reviewed the international treaty and agreement negotiation
process. This exercise has resulted in significant reform in
order to include each of the states in the process, including
through the establishment of a council of treaties comprising
the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers as well, along
with a representation of the provincial officials on the
standing committee on treaties. With a little imagination and a
lot of goodwill, a consensus may be found in which all Canadians
win.
Quebec, for example, has been at the forefront in having the
provinces participate in international forums and organizations.
This theory is known as the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, following
interventions by Paul Gérin-Lajoie, a former minister of
education under Jean Lesage.
Unfortunately, Ottawa's stubbornness is what catches the eye,
when we should all be busy developing a strong position in
support of Quebec and all the provinces in the perspective of
the free trade area of the Americas.
[English]
I know there are many other citizens, especially young
Canadians, who have fears about the consequences of the FTAA and
other global trade deals. I know many young people are planning
to protest in the streets of Quebec during the summer. I respect
the protesters' right to free speech, the right to disagree and
even at times to loudly disagree. That is one of the privileges
we have living in a democracy. However, I hope the government
will ensure that there is law and order in the streets of Quebec
and that the summit itself is not disrupted. I also hope that in
doing that the government will be fair toward legitimate
protesters and not attempt to use police authority to prevent
political embarrassment as it appeared to have done in Vancouver
during the APEC summit. We hope that can be avoided.
What concerns me most about the prospect of wide scale protest
in Quebec City is that it shows that perhaps we as leaders in
democratic societies have in some ways failed some of our young
people. We have not been able to demonstrate to at least some of
these members of the next generation that democracy, freedom of
trade and freedom of markets are not just about making money for
multinational corporations, but also ensuring individual freedom
and holding out hope for the future.
The free market system allows a university student sitting in a
college dorm to dream up a computer program that will make IBM or
Microsoft tremble, and says that the law will protect these
innovators against large monopolies that might try to intimidate
them out of business. International trade agreements protect the
intellectual property rights of entrepreneurs against companies
and governments that would profit from their ideas.
In trying to expand free trade, whether in the Americas or
globally, we are trying to broaden the circle of productivity and
exchange so that the same right to create and innovate which we
uphold for our citizens will be extended to citizens of the less
developed world as well.
1910
We want the property and the commercial rights that are enjoyed
by a computer science student in St. John's or a small business
person in Burlington to be extended to the citizens of Santiago,
San Salvador and Bogota as well. We have to demonstrate to our
young people that free trade, free markets and democracy are not
about favouring the rich but that it is a noble, principled cause that
enables the poor to enjoy opportunity and experience progress,
prosperity and peace.
Last year when the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank held meetings in Prague and the Czech Republic there were
protests, as there have been in other global trade and finance
meetings. It was striking that most of the protesters were from
western Europe and the United States. The majority were not the
local Czech students. However these young people were not
complacent. Hundreds of thousands of them crowded in Wenceslas
Square in 1989 during the so-called velvet revolution and forced
out the communist dictatorship that had ruled the country with an
iron fist since the Dubcek reforms were crushed in 1968. Those
young people of the Vaclav Havel generation had lived under a
government that had denied free trade, free markets and free
speech. The young people of Prague saw the alternative and they
knew what the democratic west had to offer was a better and more
principled alternative.
We as politicians and business leaders in the democratic
developed countries have to learn to make not only an economic
case or an intellectual case for free trade and free markets, but
in fact a moral case as well that upholds the virtue of freedom.
We have to show our youth that a democratic form of freedom of
enterprise respects individuals, respects their individual
potential and respects their freedom to grow, to achieve and to
become all that they were providentially intended to be. That is
why we support these initiatives and that is why we will continue
to stand for these principles.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short comment and question for the Leader of
the Opposition. I as a western Canadian support trade. It is a
very important part of the economy of western Canada. I support
free trade and expanding trade. It is very important for jobs,
productivity and so on. However, one concern I have about NAFTA,
and some of the other trade deals, is the argument that it takes
away some of the democratic control from local countries and
communities. Decisions can be made that affect the environment,
social standards and issues of that sort.
A case in point was the Metalclad Corporation in Mexico. In
1996 it wanted to establish a waste disposal plant in one of the
Mexican states. The governor of the state and the local
community said they did not want it in their state. Metalclad
sued that particular state of Mexico and was awarded some $17
million U.S. That is now being appealed to a higher court.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he has some
concerns about the lack of democracy in the trade deals. It is
not a question of trade, or more trade in the world or free
trade. In many cases there is a lack of democracy for countries
to make decisions that affect them.
Does he share some of those concerns in terms of trying to build
in some of these safeguards in the trade agreements? Democracy
is a very important thing. People elect parliaments and those
parliaments should be sovereign over those communities. In some
cases these trade deals are just a charter for investors and, in
my opinion, run roughshod over democratic rights.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that
concern which is an important one. The point the member made was
that it was in a process of appeal. As in any agreement there
will always be those who will try to move a particular agreement
to benefit them.
I remind the member that when NAFTA was being constructed, it
was recognized by the provinces of Alberta and Quebec that in
some nations different areas fell under provincial jurisdiction
and others under federal jurisdiction. Two areas which were
identified as falling under provincial jurisdiction in Canada
were labour and the environment. Therefore side accords were
constructed to acknowledge that. With those side accords came
the process of developing regulations and a dispute process so
that when these came into conflict they could be attended to.
1915
I appreciate the democratic concerns. With foresight in the
negotiations, these types of things can be put in place to
prevent somebody from trying to take over and suppress democratic
rights. In this case we will hope that when the appeal is heard
there will be a proper reflecting back to those side accords.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, first I must
say that I really appreciated the reference to the Gérin-Lajoie
doctrine made by the leader of the Canadian Alliance.
Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois also shares the idea that, as long as
Quebec remains within the Canadian federation, its jurisdiction
should extend to international issues, and if other provinces
want that too, it would be good for them also.
My question deals with cultural diversity.
I would like to know if, with the opening of markets within the
free trade area of the Americas, the Canadian Alliance has
included in its policy a provision for the development of
cultural diversity, for the maintenance and development of all
the different cultures of which the Americas are made up.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Speaker, I can say tonight that the
Canadian Alliance will support the provinces' jurisdictions,
particularly with regard to culture, as the member described.
It is important to recognize that these are very important
things for a province or a state. I can say tonight that the
Canadian Alliance will continue to support a province or a state
on this issue because, if it is important to them, it is
important to us also.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise and debate the issue
today, the summit of the Americas. While I was not going to just
at this point, I do want to pick up on the theme at the point
where my leader left off because I think it is very important.
That is the idea that we as leaders in this place need to make
the moral argument, along with the economic argument, for the
idea of free trade.
For too long I think a lot of us in this place and outside of it
have been cowed by people who make the argument, sometimes by a
protest, that we will lose our democracy if we give into the idea
of a radical notion like free trade. I want to dispel that.
First, it is simply not true historically, ever since Adam
Smith, Adam Ferguson and David Hume sat around and talked about
these ideas in Scotland 250 years ago and ultimately brought them
about and made Scotland a leading country at that time. At the
time they were first debating this, Scotland was a poor second
cousin to its friends below in England. They embraced the idea
of free trade and actually exceeded what was being done in
England.
The idea spread and ultimately became the new orthodoxy, to the
point where we of course have it all across North America and in
the European Union, but also to the point where we have Labour
Party prime ministers like Tony Blair coming into this place
saying that we must have free trade, that free trade is the
answer for people who are on the low end of the economic scale
and that if we really want to help people who have been poor
throughout their lives then we need to embrace ideas like free
trade.
I make that point especially to my friends in the New Democratic
Party, who I think sometimes have resisted this idea far too
much, to the point where I think they are hurting the very people
they would help.
It is time for us in this place to stand up and make the
argument, without fear, for free trade. There is no question
that not only does it affirm the principle of freedom that the
people in this party, at least, believe in so strongly, but it
also does leave people better off economically.
1920
I have to congratulate the foreign affairs minister, who made a
very good point and presented a good argument about how the North
American Free Trade Agreement has benefited the poorest people in
Mexico. He pointed to northern Mexico, particularly around
Monterrey, where people have prospered to the point where their
unemployment rate has dropped quite dramatically. People who
have been unemployed or certainly underemployed now have well
paid jobs because of NAFTA, because of free trade.
I think we need to extend it and try to help people in other
parts of the Americas as well. I talked during my question
period about free trade for the people in the Caribbean. Those
are economies that are completely underdeveloped. Canada to some
degree stood in the way of that, because we have tariffs in place
on things like textiles, a value added product that they could be
sending here.
Now we want reciprocity. We want to be able to get into their
markets as well, but we must remember that when we lower our
trade barriers and they lower theirs, efficiencies are created.
Productivity increases. Jobs are created. Wages go up.
Everybody is better off. That is why we must have free trade. It
helps people.
It is not a question of undermining democracy. In fact, it is
the most pro-democracy idea around, because what we have when we
have free trade is people who vote with their dollars. They say
they do not only want to have the choice of buying the high
tariff product that their country has protected from competition.
They want to be able to choose from all those products out there,
products that in some cases are much less costly for them than
those that have been protected by tariffs in their country for a
long time. They want that option.
People who can scarcely afford a tariff economy are the ones who
benefit the most when they have free trade. They can use those
dollars to purchase the things that are important to them. There
is a real democracy that occurs when we finally allow people to
choose the goods and services they want, with their own money. We
need to recognize that idea of voluntary exchange. We get away
from the idea of forcing people to choose from a very limited
scope of products and allow people to voluntarily exchange goods
and services across borders as well as within their country.
That is a very democratic idea, this idea of freedom and
voluntary exchange. We should embrace those things if we believe
in democracy.
I do want to switch gears now, if I may. Just a couple of
minutes ago, my friend the foreign affairs minister said that
Canada, as part of the agreement, would spread the news about
democracy and make the case that other countries should become
more democratic.
I want to argue that it is precisely because this place has
fallen into disrepair that in some cases we have undermined our
own argument for democracy. We have to resort now to holding
parallel summits at the summit of the Americas, in part, I would
argue, because a lot of people today can argue that this place no
longer represents their point of view. Therefore, they try to do
an end run around what is supposed to be the most democratic
institution in the country. The result is that the government
caves in and says it will set up the people's summit as well.
We would not have to resort to that if this place were reformed
along the lines that many of my colleagues have argued. I think
of the House leader for the Canadian Alliance who has made a
powerful case that we could do a lot in this place to give
confidence to people that their views will be represented in the
House of Commons.
If people across the country felt that way, then they would not
be doing the end run around parliament. There would not have to
be a people's summit. They would come to committee and make
their case for free trade or against free trade. The people on
that committee would take their views seriously and would make
recommendations that would have weight in this place. People
would know that this democratic institution counted for
something.
However, they do not have that confidence today. As a result,
we have people who in many cases, I would argue, do not represent
very many people, but who can make the plausible case that
parliament is no longer representative so they want to have this
parallel summit.
I want to make the point that I do not agree with those groups.
I do not even necessarily agree with the people's summit, but I
do think this place should represent the views of those people
who are going to that people's summit. There should be room for
those people to come before whatever committee, make their case
and have representatives in parliament carry their case forward.
1925
For reasons that are not clear to me, the NDP in particular has
not been successful in carrying the case for some of those people
who are opposed to the free trade agreement, but that is the
NDP's problem. I simply want to say that parliament could be a
lot more effective than it has been in reflecting the views of
people who feel strongly about free trade.
Finally I want to make the point that several years ago the MAI,
the multilateral agreement on investment, was being discussed by
the government, along with many other countries. I think they
had a good end in mind. They basically wanted to encourage rules
based trade in investment, but unfortunately because they
conducted everything in secrecy the whole deal was ultimately
torpedoed.
It was the Reform Party at the time that sponsored the only
debate on that issue. We in the Reform Party were the only ones
who brought that issue forward. We said that the best way to
ensure that there was not all kinds of conjecture and speculation
about the MAI, which in some cases was unwarranted, was to
sponsor debate, get the information out there and allow people to
find out what was really going on. Ultimately that deal
collapsed because there was not enough scrutiny of what was going
on. People did not have confidence in it.
However, let that be a lesson. This place could stand more
debates like that one we sponsored several years ago. We are
happy about this debate tonight, but it should go beyond that.
When this free trade agreement is ultimately consummated, as we
hope it will be, and comes to this place, as we hope it will, we
would like to have a debate. We would like to have a vote in
this place on the free trade agreement of the Americas. It
should not be something the government just signs and then that
is all there is. We want to have a debate here and we want to
have a vote on that agreement, yes or no.
I will conclude by again affirming what my leader has said,
which is that we need to have free trade. It is the morally
correct thing to do for the people of the western hemisphere
because it leaves those people better off no matter what income
group they are in. Second, we need to reform this place so that
we do not need to have these parallel summits, so that people can
have confidence in what should be highest democratic forum in the
country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to comment on this debate.
I do hope that perhaps somewhere a bureaucrat is taking notes of
the debate tonight, because there is not a whole lot else.
The member for Medicine Hat has made a strong case, as has the
leader of the Canadian Alliance, about the morality, if we will,
of the free trade movement that is going on around the world. I
think the free trade agreement of the Americas has the potential
to create a strong middle class in parts of the world that have
not experienced it. They have very poor populations with a
wealthy group at the top, but no strong middle class.
It is the creation of a strong middle class that should be the
aim of any international trade agreements we have with other
countries. A strong middle class is the best guarantor of a good
clean environment. A strong middle class is the best guarantor
of human rights and democratic reform. A strong middle class is
the best assurance of strong labour laws, because a strong middle
class will be working in a society and will want to have rules. A
strong middle class is the best assurance of the creation of
wealth, and the creation of wealth is what the free trade
agreement could bring to parts of the Americas that have not
experienced wealth in any meaningful way in their entire
existence.
However, I agree with the member about the danger we are facing.
I fear we are going to see it. The NDP has encouraged some
rather scurrilous behaviour, I think, in Quebec. I do fear for
the free trade movement, because the government refuses to accept
parliament's role in approving, debating and ratifying any future
free trade agreements. It is done in Australia, which has a
system of approving in parliament. It is done in New Zealand.
1930
In the United States the president can try to fast track it, but
he knows that he has to have the senate on board. If it is
Switzerland there would have to be a referendum on it. In most
jurisdictions of the world all the power is not with the
executive. It is spread out among parliament, as it should be,
which creates a sense of confidence in the agreements that are
being signed.
I plead with the government in its negotiations and in
negotiations to come on the free trade agreement of the Americas
and other free trade agreements to bring those agreements to the
House of Commons for ratification. By doing so, by opening up the
debate, it can get all Canadians on side. These debates and
these arguments could be made in a free way in the House and in
committee by bringing in witnesses and so on.
I have a question for the member for Medicine Hat. Does he
believe that bringing agreements like the free trade agreement of
the Americas to the House of Commons would make any difference?
Would it satisfy those people who will go to Quebec City, bound
and determined to shut down the free trade agreement? Would it
help them to understand and to give us an opportunity to carry
the argument, as Tony Blair said, in a passionate way about the
value and the importance of free trade agreements?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my
friend's intervention. He made an impassioned plea for free
trade in the course of asking his question.
He made a point about the middle class. Mexico now has a larger
middle class than we have in Canada. It is a more populous
country, but it started out as a country that had a lot of
wealthy people and a lot of poor people. However, free trade and
other economic reforms that it has undertaken have now turned
that country into a real emerging nation, one that is becoming
much more prosperous with each passing day.
My friend asked whether a vote in this place on the free trade
agreement would quell some of the opposition we are hearing from
NDP members and some of their friends. I am not convinced it
would. The NDP is philosophically so opposed to this that in
some cases it pays lip service to the idea of democracy and uses
it as a bit of a stalking horse because it is completely opposed
to this idea. We see that almost daily in this place where it
offers up example after example of arguments against the concept
of free trade.
We need to remember that free trade itself is a democratic
principle. It is the freeing up of people to trade goods and
services as they see fit. It allows people, like my leader said,
who are just starting out and have an idea to produce that idea
and exchange it with others around the world or across borders.
It is a democratic idea. If my friends in the NDP cannot
understand that and do not appreciate that, I do not believe they
are truly committed to the idea of real democracy.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, let me begin
by saying that I will share my time with the hon. member for
Joliette. We will each speak for ten minutes.
First off, I want to stress the major role played by Quebecers
in 1988, when they supported free trade for Canada. I remind all
my fellow Quebecers and Canadians who are listening that, had it
not been for Quebecers, Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime
Minister at the time, would probably not have had a mandate to
negotiate the free trade agreement with the United States.
This happened, however, after a debate that often generated
strong opposition on the part of the labour and social
movements. However, a real debate did take place and in the end a
majority of Quebecers supported this initiative.
1935
Incidentally, I would remind hon. members that, at the time, the
party now in office opposed the free trade agreement. Not only
were the Liberals opposed to it, they condemned it with every
ounce of energy they had.
I should also point out that the free trade agreement was the
result of a recommendation made by the Macdonald commission,
which was set up by Prime Minister Trudeau during his last
mandate.
I would like to add, for the benefit of those listening, that
when the Macdonald commission recommended the adoption of a free
trade agreement with the United States, it did mention that it
might not be the best of worlds but that, in the North American
context, with multinational companies controlling 70% of the
trade between the two countries, Canada did not really have a
choice, because other corporations were being penalized.
I like to recall this because, when the current government came
to power in 1993, it also ran against the other free trade
agreement negotiated by the previous government, the free trade
agreement with Mexico. Speaking about this agreement known as
NAFTA, the current Prime Minister had said he would not complete
it, that he would reopen the negotiations, but he has not done
so.
Since then, we have gained experience.
I am sure that Quebecers are still in favour of free trade.
However, it is for a reason that there is a strong movement in
Quebec, in what has become known as the civil society. People
are concerned that the free trade area of the Americas that we
are developing will not be specific enough when it comes to
social rights, the power taken away from corporations as
compared to the former NAFTA, and democracy.
The civil society, to which the Bloc Quebecois subscribes, is
saying yes to the free trade zone of the Americas. However, we
should be cautious and use any leverage we have to make sure
that the social and cultural requirements of Quebec, which is even
more in a minority position, with its French language and
culture, within the three Americas than within North America, and
the requirements regarding the place of Quebec are met. At this
point, I will deal with the first point I want to talk about,
that is the transparency of these negotiations.
What do we mean by transparency? We mean the ability for
parliamentarians, the civil society, citizens and organizations,
and not only corporations, because they are involved and
in the know, the ability for these groups and individuals to know
what is at stake, and be able to monitor what is going on in
order to try to influence the government.
We are not naive; we know that the Government of Canada, the
provincial governments and foreign governments are subject to
strong pressure on the part of corporations, especially
multinationals, that, under the guise of seemingly legitimate
reasons, want to have more opportunities to expand and make
bigger profits.
1940
Therefore, to be able to monitor what is at stake, transparency
is required. For us, transparency starts with having access to
the basic documents which will be used during the negotiations,
documents which will be presented in Buenos Aires on April 6 and 7.
Transparency also means that parliament should vote on the
agreement. I intend to introduce in the House, as early as
tomorrow, a private member's bill, which hopefully will be
supported by my opposition colleagues and by the party in power.
This bill was originally introduced by my colleague Daniel Turp,
who was unfortunately defeated, and had received broad support
at the time.
It is essential that we have a power relationship in which
citizens and groups can tell as forcefully as they can that they
do not want to be subjected to purely commercial imperatives.
Quebec should also be involved in this negotiation. I want to
emphasize that as strongly as I can. Why should Quebec be
involved and not be merely consulted? It should be involved for
two main reasons.
The first one is its language and culture, which it shares
completely with Haiti only. When Canada stands for that, on the
one hand, but, on the other, it is one of the countries that—
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: What about the Acadians?
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to
complete my remarks.
When his turn comes, I will listen to my colleague with great
attention.
I would like Quebec to be involved because it is a
French speaking nation and it has its own development model. I
know the international trade minister can understand this kind
of argument.
The Quebec model is found in many service sectors where private
non-profit agencies are largely but not totally financed by the
government. They often operate in a commercial environment. We
should find a specific and sufficiently flexible solution so
that the government does not have its hands tied. This model
must be protected.
I should also talk about supply management in agriculture and
agrifood. It may be a problem elsewhere, but it is an integral
part of the structure of the Quebec society.
Quebec must be allowed to join in the negotiations. I realize
that Quebec is not the only province to have made this request.
It has done so along with the Canadian provinces that are
specifically asking to join in the negotiations, something
which, as I said, is much more than a consultation.
Because our speaking time is limited, I must unfortunately
conclude. I will point out that this summit of the Americas and
this free trade area of the Americas are unique. As former
Quebec premier, Pierre-Marc Johnson, said in committee the day
before yesterday, the United States represent 75% of the total
GDP. Four other countries, namely Brazil, Canada, Mexico and
Argentina, account for 20% of the total GDP, and the 29 other
countries, 5%.
1945
That is an extraordinary challenge, far greater that NAFTA, to
ensure that this enrichment, which is said to flow directly from
trade, although that assertion is put more and more into
question, can be complemented by measures, including, why not, a
structural fund like the one that Vicente Fox requested when he
came to power, and from time to time—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
ten minutes go by extremely fast.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened in
amazement to what my colleague said. I have heard her raise the
point about transparency before as if to suggest that there has
been no consultation by the government.
The hon. member should consider the following. The issue has
been raised at the standing committee as recently as today. A
colleague and I were at two different meetings of the standing
committee on this very topic.
There have been extensive meetings with the Minister for
International Trade with NGOs, including the province of Quebec.
There have been ongoing consultations with the Minister for
International Trade and his provincial counterparts. Our
positions are on the website, the first time ever that such a
thing has been done. The minister has committed to raise the
need for greater transparency at the upcoming meeting in April in
Buenos Aires.
I put a question in committee earlier today and I put it again
on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to give the
member an opportunity to respond to it. Could she give us a
specific example of any trade negotiation involving Canada that
has been more transparent or even as transparent as the current
one?
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to
listen to me even more carefully.
With respect to transparency, texts are not for consultation
only; they are for learning. I have taken part in negotiations
for 15 years. Consultation has a specific purpose: to ask people
what they want, but the negotiation process is to know what
people want and eventually to come to some agreement.
Yet we know there are issues such as chapter 11 that involve
corporations on one side and countries on the other side. We
must know what is happening there to be able to bring some
pressure to bear.
My specific answer to your question is that this little website
that contains your partial positions, if you understood the
first part of my speech, is not enough; it is not enough for a
democratic exercise.
I am happy that the Minister for International Trade has
understood this by committing to ask the other countries if they
are willing to make the documents public. If not, he will
consider doing the same as the United States and making them
available at least to parliamentarians.
I repeat, for a democratic exercise, we must not only say what
we wish for, we must know what the stakes are.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois that in my own personal view this is not
really a talk about free trade. It is more a talk about the
protection of investor rights.
Would her party not agree that prior to any sort of
profitability being discussed or the protection of investors or
the movement of goods and services, that environment and human
rights should be discussed? The protection of our environment is
so sacred to any agreements that it must be discussed first.
Agreements must also be discussed in terms of human rights
throughout a country, so that a country's workers are not
exploited to the advantage of another country. Would the hon.
member agree with this statement?
1950
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my hon.
colleague that if he had listened to the speeches of the Bloc
members, he would know that they covered what he is talking
about, except that we do not say no. In fact, a no would not
translate into more power relationships in free trade. We say
yes.
However, I would tell him to lobby with us so that the
negotiations do not start from chapter 11 as it is, which would
lead to a double standard for investments and social rights.
The issue is extremely important, but I want to also tell him
that the southern countries do want access to our markets.
We must give them that access, while protecting our rights, our
environment and our culture.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind hon. members to begin with that this take note debate on
the summit of the Americas is in fact the consolation prize the
federal government has awarded to members of the House of
Commons after the defeat of my motion of February 15.
I would remind hon. members that the motion, which was supported
by all opposition parties, called for the government to bring
any final draft of the agreement on the free trade area of the
Americas before the House so that it might be debated and put to
a vote before anything whatsoever was signed.
Even if it is clear, since my colleague from Mercier has already
begun to do so, we are going to take advantage of this
opportunity to remind hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois
position. It must also be made very clear that at no time is
this exercise we are engaged in this evening to be seen as
replacing a true debate and a decision by this House concerning
the final free trade area of the Americas agreement, with all
pertinent information.
For us, this means not only disclosure of all texts currently
being worked on by the nine negotiating tables, but also regular
reports on the progress of negotiations at those same tables.
As we know, one of the themes of the summit of the Americas is
enhancing democratic development. We find it somewhat
paradoxical, if not downright contradictory, that at the very
moment the federal government is telling us proudly about this
theme of the summit of the Americas, we are here in this very
House in the process of watering down representative democracy
by refusing to allow MPs to debate and vote on the free trade
area of the Americas.
This calls to mind a proverb in French which could be
paraphrased this way “Dictatorship is: shut your mouth, and
democracy for the Liberals—my addition here—is: keep talking”.
Not only we parliamentarians have this impression, but so does
the public. We are made to talk and talk, we are informed, but
what people say, be they parliamentarians or the public, is not
taken into account.
In this regard, the debate we are having is not enough to really
speak of true transparency. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that
transparency is vital to the success of the free trade area of
the Americas, which we support.
As the member for Mercier mentioned, the Minister for
International Trade is also a supporter and also believes that
the current process is not transparent enough, since he agrees
with the fact that the basic negotiation texts should be made
public. This is tantamount to admitting that the current
processes is not transparent enough.
Two weeks ago as well, it was making public the supplementary
proposals in order to strengthen ties with the public. Clearly
this all arises from the fact that there is social mobilization
across the Americas, across Canada and across Quebec, and that
the Liberal government should take note of the fact.
I think we are witnessing more of a monologue by the public and
parliamentarians and, at best, a dialogue of the deaf.
Bridges must be built if we are to prevent demonstrations from
getting out of hand. Not simply at the Quebec summit, because we
have been rightly reminded that negotiations will continue over
several years, but so there will be debate throughout Quebec and
Canadian society.
1955
The sponsorship system put in place by the federal government to
fund part of the summit of the Americas will certainly not send
the right signals to civil society and to all Quebecers and
Canadians. It is clear that the business world has privileged
access to decision makers in the whole process, and this is
unacceptable.
The business forum will soon meet. I believe that international
trade ministers will meet almost at the same time in Buenos
Aires. The business forum has access to the heads of state and
ministers concerned.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking that such access be made available
to all segments of civil society and not just business people,
as is currently the case.
The federal government should show leadership and propose, at
the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City, that the
continental social alliance be recognized as an essential
component, as a stakeholder in the negotiation process.
The continental social alliance includes major union
organizations, social groups, international co-operation bodies,
women's groups and environmentalists from across the Americas.
These people have made extraordinary efforts to set up a network
across the Americas, and they will be in Quebec City for the
people's summit.
This network should have a voice, just like the business forum.
As my colleague pointed out, the provinces also have a role to
play. A formal mechanism is needed, particularly for Quebec, the
only truly francophone state in the Americas. Because we account
for 2% of the population of the Americas, we have specific needs
that must be protected and that must be taken into account in
the negotiations. Therefore, officials from the Quebec
government must be part of the Canadian negotiation teams and
binational teams, to protect the interests of Quebec and ensure
that the right decisions are made.
I also remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants to see the
FTAA agreement contain references to fundamental rights such as
human, labour and environmental rights. This is true and it was
mentioned by many: Quebecers are already favourably predisposed
toward free trade. That is understandable, given that 51% of
what is produced in Quebec is exported to Canada, the United
States or other countries.
Quebecers are well aware of the principle of international
trade, by which one imports what one cannot produce or produce
cost effectively, and exports in order to be able to pay the cost
of imports, but one must not export for the sake of exporting.
This is the principle of free trade which Quebecers are
defending, not the principle of exporting at any cost, to the
detriment of labour, human and environmental rights.
Unlike the Minister for International Trade, Quebecers learned
some lessons from NAFTA and the MAI. They have a better grasp of
the situation than the minister. They are only too aware that
free trade did not resolve all the problems of inequality in our
society, or in the NAFTA nations.
I would remind the House that even if the minister is more
visual than auditory—something I learned today—the figures are
there. All he has to do is refer to the World Bank figures.
Canada and Mexico have lost ground compared to the United States
since the early 1980s, and these are the 1998 figures. He can
deny the facts all he wants, but the facts are there and they
are verifiable.
I am not saying that the problem concerning what workers in
Mexico are paid is to be blamed on free trade only, but the fact
is that free trade is not the cure-all for all societies'
problems, and that other mechanisms are needed besides merely
protecting the rights of companies and investors. In Mexico,
people were being paid 22% of the American wage in the early
1980s and now the figure is 10%. That is a drop by half. Those
are the facts.
This is why, within the agreement on the free trade area of the
Americas, the signatory states commit, in exchange for
commercial and financial benefits, to respect human rights,
labour rights, the basic conventions of the International Labour
Organization and the environmental rights.
This does not mean that we should take a penalty based approach
to protecting those rights, but there must be a political
commitment on the part of all states to respect them. If working
plans are necessary to ensure that these rights are respected,
and a structural fund has to be put in place, as my hon.
colleague suggested, to help states with such problems as child
labour, then that will be done.
2000
If one country refuses to respect fundamental rights, it will be
excluded from the FTAA because it will no longer belong there.
I believe Canadians and Quebecers would never have accepted to
be part of a free trade area with Pinochet's Chile. We might as
well recognize that right now, instead of putting our heads in
the sand like some of us are doing here in the House.
Finally, I want to say that the free trade area of the Americas
could be a wonderful opportunity for additional co-operation
among countries of North America, Central America and Latin
America, provided we provide all the ingredients required for
that FTAA to succeed.
The ingredients are not there yet.
This is why, at the summit of the Americas, the Bloc Quebecois
will join forces with the civil society in Quebec to prepare an
alternative to the project now tabled, which we disapprove of
intensely.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in another life I
too was involved in negotiations. I would like to ask my
question of the Bloc Quebecois collectively, but I will direct it
to the member for Joliette even though similar comments were made
by his colleague, the member for Mercier.
The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister have
made it clear that they are looking toward the greatest
transparency possible. Is the member for Joliette suggesting
that we actually release these texts unilaterally without the
agreement of our trading partners? Is that what he is seriously
suggesting? Would he not consider that highly irresponsible?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I must say that since the
minister has informed us that he was going to propose at the
Buenos Aires meeting that the texts be made public, I think that
this process can enable us to wait for the Buenos Aires meeting.
After Buenos Aires, it seems to me that we will need to ask some
serious questions about the way parliamentarians and the general
public can gain access to more information than at the present
time.
The government of Quebec has made the texts to which access has
been refused us available, and will continue to make them
available to its MNAs who are members of the Commission des
institutions du Québec.
I would like to hear the minister identify the countries opposed
to public access to these documents, so that there can be a
debate thereafter in this House on all the ins and outs of the
question and a decision can be reached.
Clearly, I am not in favour of unilateral action, but I am not
totally excluding it either. I am waiting to see a full report
of what goes on in Buenos Aires, in order to have a better idea
of the situation. If the countries opposed to making the texts
public are the ones already known for their conservative,
sometimes even reactionary, policies, then the situation will,
in my opinion, be different than if Canada were the only one.
That said, regardless of the situation, the texts should be made
available to parliamentarians, particularly if they are members
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the
member for Medicine Hat and the member for Fraser Valley, both of
the Reform Party, get very afraid when the New Democrats and
their leader stand up for the environment and human rights. They
get very frightened of that because they do not understand the
issues.
I want to mention something to the member from the Bloc for whom
I have great respect. He mentioned the growing inequality, not
only around the world but in this country. Since free trade, the
wage, earning and social gaps between the poor and the rich have
expanded tremendously. We see it every day. This is a result of
the free trade agreement which is not balanced and equitable to
all people of all economic status in the country.
Could he comment on that? Would he agree that there is a
growing inequality among the various levels of the economic
ladder?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who
blindly endorses free trade, but I will not blame free trade for
all the ills we are experiencing in Canada and Quebec as well as
globally.
2005
I think one of our big problems stems from the fact that, in the
last few years our governments made the wrong decisions in
facing free trade issues. They all moved toward a lowering of
labour and social costs instead of looking for answers on a
higher level.
I hope that as a society particularly in Canada and in Quebec,
we will be able to meet the free trade challenge while
maintaining and raising our social standards. I think we can do
it, providing the political will is there.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in the take note debate
this evening on the free trade of the Americas trade agreement
that is under negotiation.
I want to pick on that brief exchange that took place a moment
ago around the concern that we have expressed again and again, as
have members of the Bloc Quebecois, about the lack of
transparency of the government in making available to Canadian
citizens precisely what it is negotiating on our behalf. Of all
the unconvincing, disingenuous arguments that the government has
put forward, the worst is that it would like to be free and would
be in favour of releasing the text. However because some of the
other governments are not in full agreement with that, it cannot
do it.
I think the test of whether the text ought to be released or not
to Canadian citizens is whether Canadian citizens are asking that
it be released. I do not think there is any question that
Canadians, who have concerned themselves with the corporatist
agenda of the government and the fact that by and large the trade
agreements that the government has signed on to or has been
actively promoting in recent years that are corporate driven and
corporate dominated, absolutely want to know what it is that is
being negotiated on their behalf.
Who is opposed to the details and the text of the FTAA being
released? It is not the citizens on whose behalf the government
claims to be negotiating, it is the corporate elite who want to
be sure that they have their fingers all over it. They want to
have the kind of preferential access that the government seems
quite prepared to give them and to heck with whether citizens are
happy or not with what is being negotiated on their behalf.
I am sure some members may have heard Bruce Cockburn. He is a
well known and much admired Canadian artist, singer and musician.
He recently spoke at his induction to the Canadian Music Hall of
Fame. On that occasion he expressed, in a way that I think was
very dramatic and welcomed and which struck a really responsive
chord with a lot of people, his dismay over the fact that a
genuine citizens' movement around the world to build community is
being effectively hijacked by the greedy movement of global
commerce.
He summed up his feelings in the following way “The mercantile
system sucked when they tried it in the 1700s and it sucks now.
This is our community. This is our world”. I think the reason
why Bruce Cockburn struck such a responsive chord is that this is
exactly the way citizens are increasingly feeling about what the
government claims to be doing on their behalf in negotiating the
FTAA.
We welcome the debate this evening. I listened carefully to the
words of the international affairs minister and the foreign
affairs minister. I listened to the words of the international
trade minister who basically said, and I could not believe my
ears, that everything is fine and that there is nothing to worry
about because the FTAA represents a vote of confidence for the
hemisphere's future.
2010
What on earth does that mean? I would say that is about as
vague as most of the answers the Liberals have given to the
dozens of questions that we have been posing in parliament day in
and day out, week in and week out, to try to get at the
substantive issues that citizens are genuinely concerned about.
We heard government members again tonight, as well as official
opposition members, suggest that the New Democratic Party is
somehow not in favour of trade. For the record, let me say at
the outset that we unequivocally represent the importance of
trade to our economy, to jobs and to future prosperity. It is
precisely because we recognize the importance of trade that it is
critical that we enter into proper trade deals. That is why New
Democrats talk about free trade not in some absolutely open ended
uncritical way, but about fair trade. That is why we insist on
talking about the model for trade and about the specific
principles that underlie the kinds of trade agreements that we
enter into.
Let us say again very clearly for the record, and I do not know
how many times we have to say it, that we are absolutely in
favour of rules based trade. That is what it means to enter into
trade agreements. However the rules that are contained in the
trade agreements that we sign need to be rules that protect the
rights and advance the interests of our citizens.
The reason there is a growing mobilization of civil society in
this country, and in many other countries around the world
against the model of free trade that is being advanced by the
Government of Canada and many other governments, is that the
principles underlying those trade deals and the details contained
in them are not about advancing and strengthening the rights and
improving the prospects of citizens. They are about responding
to the dictates and the demands of corporations in our society.
The concern that is growing goes beyond that. It is a struggle
to get our governments to address the genuine and legitimate
concerns that exist regarding the trade deals to which we are now
a party, concerns that have been documented and that have arisen
out of decisions that were made out of the implications which
have flowed directly from trade deals. The government is
completely ignoring these concerns. In a very real sense, a lot
of our citizens see that it is more than a struggle for a
particular kind of trade agreement. It has become a struggle for
democracy itself.
One thing under negotiation regarding the trade agreement, which
is of enormous concern, is the extraordinary powers that will be
awarded to corporations. It is absolutely unprecedented. It is
literally true that the FTAA will be the most extensive trade
deal negotiated in the history of the world. It is not an
exaggeration to say that.
2015
What would the trade deal do? We would be very happy to hear
that we are dead wrong about this, but that trade deal would
take some of the elements of NAFTA that already are a concern and
clearly need to be addressed and remedied. It rolls them
together with some of the very elements of the MAI, that
undemocratic multilateral agreement on investment that caused
people to mobilize around the globe. It wraps them in a bow and
says that this trade deal will literally reinforce the right of
corporations to sue democratically elected governments that dare
or have the audacity to stand in the way of their maximizing
profits.
That is why it has taken on the aura of a struggle for democracy
itself. It is not just because of what is in the proposed NAFTA.
It is also because of how the government refuses to react, to
respond, to engage with civil society in any meaningful way, and
to allow for citizens to have some real input into the FTAA
agreement which is so extensive in its scope and in its detail.
We have heard the minister ask what we are talking about. He
said that the government is letting citizens have a say, but we
should look at what is shaping up with respect to the Quebec
summit scheduled for mid-April. People are genuinely dismayed at
the extent to which the government is preoccupied with the
protection of visiting politicians, decision makers and
bureaucrats who will be coming together in Quebec. They are
being protected from having to even know about, let alone take
into account, the genuine concerns of citizens who will be there
to protest.
It is a fundamental democratic right of citizens to have the
opportunity to engage in meaningful peaceful protest. It is a
right that has been practised with important effect in the world.
Democracy itself depends upon it. It has been through meaningful
peaceful protest that some of the most important progressive
gains around the world have been made.
One of the reasons the New Democratic Party caucus has made a
decision to be in Quebec during the FTAA summit is that we intend
to stand shoulder to shoulder with citizens who are coming
together by the tens of thousands to say that we do not want to
have our world transformed in the image of corporate demand and
dictates. We want to ensure that we have a say in what is
happening.
A lot of people are very concerned, as we are, at the
extraordinary attempts that have gone into trying to discredit
and dismiss the concerns of protesters. That is why my
colleagues and I have been participating in community meetings
across the country. There is an unprecedented mobilization of
citizens who are saying they want to inform themselves. The
government is not interested in informing them so they are
informing themselves. They are coming together in teach-ins,
forums, debates and discussions to talk about what a citizen
based, citizen centred free trade deal would look like.
What would a fair trade deal be? How could we ensure that we do
not embrace a corporate model of trade that drives a race to the
bottom, a model that says we would do nothing to protect labour
standards that have been hard fought and won, nothing to protect
environmental standards and nothing to protect cultural
diversity? How could we ensure that human rights are absolutely
at the centre of trade deals and do not get sacrificed?
2020
That is why a people's summit is taking place. I heard a member
of the Alliance somewhat dismiss the notion of the importance of
a people's summit. A people's summit is a coming together of
people who say that they understand the importance of trade but
insist that trade deals should address the real needs of people
and are not just crafted to respond to the dictates of
corporations.
We will be at that people's summit. We will have the
opportunity to hear what the people who come to Quebec have to
say. I hope government members will take the opportunity to be
there to listen to those people.
I have had the opportunity in the last week to be at two major
mobilizations with a lot of young people coming together, but not
exclusively young people. I was in Halifax last week and in
Fredericton last night, where literally over 150 people came
together to say that they want to talk about what kind of trade
deals they want the government to negotiate on their behalf.
We insist on registering our protest over the extent to which
the government seems intent on walling off democracy by putting
up a three metre fence and cordoning off where the discussions
will be taking place so that the leaders who are coming together
do not even have to be aware of the kind of protest that will be
expressed in Quebec. People are concerned about what it means
when there is a kind of criminalization of dissent taking place.
It is so ironic to have heard the trade minister and the foreign
affairs minister say that the FTAA was about enhancing democracy.
This is being said while the government virtually ignores the
democratic demands of citizens to have their concerns addressed
in Canada, in many other parts of the world and throughout the
Americas with respect to this hemispheric agreement.
I am proud of the fact that I represent a political party which
when it met in early February talked about the issue of the FTAA
being one of the top priorities for the parliamentary agenda. I
wish to make reference to the resolution that was adopted by the
New Democratic Party federal council. I will not read it in its
entirety, but the resolution reiterated its support for an
alternative approach to globalization to achieve a stable rules
based global economy which promotes and protects the rights of
workers and the environment, provides for cultural diversity and
ensures the ability of government to act in the public interest.
Of all the concerns that are widely shared by citizens who have
informed themselves, and they are doing so in increasing numbers,
the concern that is most profound is that it appears the
government is intent on entering into another trade agreement
which basically erodes the capability and the powers of
government itself to serve the public interest.
The government seems absolutely intent on the notion that we
should commercialize, commodify or treat as a commodity to be
traded, bought and sold everything that is important to people in
their daily lives. This is a concern with respect to the FTAA
despite the government's insistence that our concerns are not
well founded. It is also a major concern with the GATS round of
negotiations that are under discussion. It is the notion that
things as fundamental and valued by citizens as our health care,
education, environmental apparatus, and other things as basic as
our water and sewer services should be treated as commodities,
not understood to be part of the public good, to be traded,
bought and sold.
2025
The government cannot pretend it does not understand that
chapter 11 of NAFTA is a very major concern. It has placed
Canada in the position that when it acts in the public interest,
when it insists upon protecting our environment or health care,
it could be sued by corporations which demand compensation
because it interfered with their profits.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity this evening for
all members to participate in this important debate. I look
forward to the government beginning to address some of these
questions now that it has engaged in the usual rhetoric about how
all of society's ills will be solved by the trade deal that it is
intent on signing on to in the form of the FTAA.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
referred to rhetoric from the government side. That is
interesting, given her speech.
I would like to hear her thoughts on the fact that a former
colleague of hers, Nelson Riis, is saying that the NDP has no
place being in the streets in Quebec City as an elected party,
that it has a duty to participate in the democratic process.
I would also like her views on the speech that Mr. Tony Blair
made in the House when he said:
It is time I think that we started to argue vigorously and
clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for
our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the
poorest parts of the world.
The leader of the UN, Kofi Annan, made similar comments recently
where he put a figure of $100 billion that could go to the poorer
nations of the world through a liberalized globalized trade.
Could the hon. member drop her comments about government
rhetoric and address the comments of her former colleague, Mr.
Riis; the labour prime minister of the U.K., Mr. Blair; and the
secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Annan?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the
details of the comments made by my former colleague from
Kamloops. It is not just the right of elected officials,
parliamentarians, to participate in extra-parliamentary activity
in solidarity with ordinary citizens. It is an absolute
responsibility.
Furthermore, most of the major struggles that have taken place
in our lifetime which resulted in important human progress came
about in exactly that way: through an active, creative
partnership between progressive parliamentarians or legislators
together with citizens engaging in direct political action. That
is how we brought an end to the apartheid system. Universal
suffrage is another example. I could go on and on.
I was profoundly disappointed with respect to the comments made
a few weeks ago by Prime Minister Tony Blair. I guess out of
ignorance or out of an agenda that had to do with the fact that
he was making this a stop on the way to meet George Bush, he
absolutely and erroneously talked of the FTAA as if it were the
same as the European model for free trade.
2030
I had the opportunity to say to Mr. Blair very directly that I
was very disappointed about that, and that it was very important
that he keep in mind there was no way in the world that he
or any other European leader would get away with signing on to an
agreement like the FTAA. The European model is based on a
fundamentally different concept. It is based on raising
standards, not lowering them. It is based on improving, not
eroding, working conditions, environmental protections or human
rights.
The European model may not be an approach that is perfect, but
if the government wants to bring forward a fair trade agreement
based on the principles of the European Union, it will have our
support for doing so. However until it does that, we will stand
up and put forward an alternate model and try to persuade the
government that a citizens based model and one not based on the
corporate demands for how trade should take place, is the model
we will be advancing and the one which increasing numbers of
Canadians are willing to stand up and be counted on to fight
for.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest as the hon. member
mentioned that her party supports engaging society and that
citizens should have real input into this issue, but that it
reserved the right to protest in a meaningful and peaceful
manner. This is in direct contrast to her colleague, the hon.
member for Burnaby—Douglas, who in the foreign affairs committee
the other day was advocating and outlining a plan to participate
in civil disobedience.
The witness at the time was Warren Allmand. The hon. member was
even trying to get the former member of parliament to support him
in advocating civil disobedience during the summit of the
Americas.
I would ask the hon. member if she could clarify this
contradiction. Does her party advocate civil disobedience in any
way, shape or form?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I
already said. I said that it was absolutely fundamental for
citizens to have the right in a free and democratic society to
engage in peaceful, meaningful, legitimate protest.
I have said before and I will say again that it is my view that
the overwhelming majority of citizens who will be going to
demonstrate in Quebec, including the NDP caucus, will be there to
engage in peaceful, meaningful protest.
I had the opportunity to be in Windsor and that was the case in
Windsor. My colleague for Winnipeg—Transcona was in Seattle. In
a phone conversation I had with him he told me about the tragedy
in Seattle of 30,000 to 40,000 citizens who came together in an
earnest search for an alternative, progressive, global vision, a
progressive model for international fair trade deals, and that
the world was not even hearing about it because a tiny group of
people had a different agenda and were prepared to use violent
tactics to put forward their point of view.
Let me make it clear that the New Democratic Party caucus in its
entirety will be in Quebec to participate in peaceful protest.
Let me also say that peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience has
also been a time honoured tactic that has often been an element
of winning important struggles for justice and democracy in the
world.
The NDP caucus is not going to Quebec to engage in civil
disobedience or to break the law, but let us not try to mobilize
public opinion against the thousands and thousands of—
2035
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you remember South Moresby National
Park? We would not have that forestry today if it were not for
us. We protected that park. You would have had every tree cut
down in that park if you had your way.
An hon. member: Nonsense.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hope the Chair and
others will have an opportunity to hear the debates, the
questions, the answers and not get lost in these shouting matches
across the floor when colleagues do not have the floor.
I will give the opportunity to the hon. member for Halifax to
give her closing remarks, if she has any. I did not hear the
wrap up. If she is finished I will go to another question.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to go to another
question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address a couple of the substantive
issues that the leader of the New Democratic Party raised in the
debate tonight, which seems to have been lost in the paranoia of
the parliamentary secretary and even the Conservatives, about the
New Democratic Party engaging in peaceful protest in Quebec City
around the FTAA.
Let me focus in on a couple of issues that are critical to the
debate at hand in one minute or less. They have to do with the
very future of our public health care system.
I think the parliamentary secretary is fully aware of the number
of learned articles and academic publications that have pointed
directly to the problems that we face in terms of preserving
medicare if we proceed down this path of NAFTA, followed by FTAA,
followed by GATS, followed by even further liberalization on the
trade front.
When we asked the question in the House before, the minister
responsible for international trade said that we should not
worry. He said that everything was protected and that everything
was okay, but he had no specifics. All the academics and all
the people who are well versed in this issue suggest otherwise.
What is my caucus leader's understanding of the minister's words
in giving those assurances? Furthermore, would she have any idea
what the minister means when he said that Canada will protect the
margin of manoeuvre of our government?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the
concerns expressed by my colleague. I think there is a concern.
I do not know whether they are weasel words or a way of evading
the topic altogether when the minister says that we are not
putting public health or education on the table.
The fact is that they are all on the table. The fact is that
all these matters are on the table for commercial trade purposes.
We need to hear from the minister and from the government that
they are not prepared under any circumstances to sign on to a
trade deal, for example, that has, in any way, shape or form, a
clause or a chapter comparable to chapter 11 in the NAFTA
agreement. That would deal a death blow to our system of
public health and public education. We need to hear from the
minister and the government tonight that under no circumstances
will they enter into any such trade deal.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my colleagues will be joining in the debate discussing the wide
range of important and complex issues that are involved in both
the trade question and the summit of the Americas generally,
ranging from means by which we ensure we are able to preserve
unique Canadian systems, such as our supply management system,
through to the importance of generating the growth which is the
basis of any society's ability to afford social and economic
programs.
One of the unique qualities of Canada is how much we are
connected to all the world. One of the challenges of policy is
to build on those connections. For too long as a country we did
not engage enough in our hemisphere. That was due in part to
earlier Liberal governments wanting to avoid conflict with the
United States over issues in the Americas. That was why we
waited so very long before we joined the Organization of American
States.
2040
I am proud to have been part of a government that put that fear
aside and brought Canada fully into the family of the Americas.
As foreign minister, I was privileged to be the first Canadian
minister to occupy the seat of Canada at the Organization of
American States and to participate in the meeting of heads of
government in Costa Rica at which the idea of a summit of the
Americas first appeared.
We have a multitude of interests in common. Many of them we
have pursued through the Commonwealth and la Francophonie in the
Caribbean, but there is much more to do in the Americas on issues
ranging from fighting poverty, to encouraging trade, to ensuring
fair labour practices, to dealing with the threat of drugs, to
encouraging gender equality, to other human rights issues.
However most public attention in these next days will be on
trade issues, so let me begin my intervention in this debate by
expressing my very strong support and that of my party for more
open, freer rules based trade in the hemisphere and in the world.
I am proud to be the leader today of the political party that
had the vision and the courage to break Canada out of a
protectionist mould and to prepare us to face and to lead the
inevitable transformations that occur to any society in a
globalizing economy.
My friends in the New Democratic Party have a different view of
that decision than I do. To their credit, their view today is
the same as their view was when we initiated the free trade
agreement. That same honour and consistency cannot be claimed by
the Liberal Party, which did everything it could to stop the
changes it celebrates today.
The Minister for International Trade noted last year, and I
quote, “Most of the two million new jobs created since 1993 are
related to our growth in trade”, yet the Liberal Party fought
that agreement, fought that growth and fought those jobs with
every resource it could muster.
The word hypocritical is unparliamentary so I will not use it
even though it applies precisely to the Liberal Party's position
on trade.
[Translation]
As regards this debate, I still remember how, barely 15 years
ago, the top guns of the Liberal Party argued that regional
trade agreements would jeopardize the signing of broader
international trade agreements. That argument was not valid back
then and is still not valid today.
By continuing to push for the regulation of liberalized trade in
our hemisphere, we will get closer to our objective at the world
level.
It should also be mentioned that, for years, Liberal governments
did not want Canada to fully participate in our hemisphere.
The symbol of these years of Liberal government remains Canada's
unoccupied seat at the Organization of American States. The OAS
always reserved that seat for us, in the hope of benefiting from
our balanced position and our leadership. That opportunity and
that responsibility were ignored until a Progressive
Conservative government decided that Canada should take on its
responsibilities as member of the Organization of American
States. It was then that our country strengthened its reputation
as a leader in the world community and in the Americas.
This is an altogether different issue, but I believe that the
progress we have made toward regulating liberalized trade must
absolutely be part of any serious commitment to reducing
poverty, misery and despair in the world.
[English]
One of the most damning charges against the government, a
government formed by the party of Lester Pearson, is how cruelly
it has cut Canada's contribution to official development
assistance and let languish Canada's reputation as a leader in
international development.
I am proud to lead a party today which was committed to both
international development and a freer trade. I hope the present
government will follow both those examples.
We have learned lessons at home that we can apply
internationally in these discussions and in others, lessons about
the difficulties that can be created for certain members of any
society by freer trade arrangements and certainly the
difficulties that can be caused to sectors of our society by the
forces of globalization.
2045
It is foolish for a parliament or a government to ignore those
problems. It is foolish to pretend we can turn our backs on the
world. We must recognize that when we deal with globalizing
forces and trends problems are created for groups of citizens
within Canada and throughout the Americas that must be addressed.
They must be addressed by social, educational and other policies.
In that context I will speak tonight about rules in
international trade. We should seek reforms that not only bring
down barriers but build up standards, practices and rules that
are strong enough and respected enough to acquire authority.
Obviously the question of who sets those rules is critical.
Part of the broad popular concern about globalization is the
sense that powerful countries or corporations either write the
rules in their own interests or have the power or skill to ignore
or circumvent rules that apply to others. Those fears are real.
Some are based on the hard experience of abuse of power while
others are rooted in a simple fear of size and sense of
powerlessness. Both can be addressed by an effective system of
rules.
That, I would argue, is the only way they can be addressed
because superpowers will not suddenly, magically become more
sensitive to their neighbours or their competitors. The
efficiencies of size and scale will not disappear in this
respect. The world community is like any local community. We
need rules that are fair, effective and accepted. That reality
has a double meaning for Canada.
On the one hand, we are not a superpower. We cannot cast a
threatening shadow like the United States or China. We are
innovative, educated, enterprising and lucky. However we need
rules as much as any other nation that is not a superpower. More
than that, the distinguishing advantage of Canada is that we are
a nation that other nations trust.
That brings me back to the question of who will write the rules.
If any nation in the world has an unusual authority to set rules
and standards which others will reflect and accept, that nation
is Canada. That is no small distinction. It is an asset which,
among other things, should make Canadians much more confident
about our ability to shape the forces of a global society.
Others in the House will raise or have raised legitimate
concerns about the lengths to which the Liberal government has
carried the commercialization of public business. The issue is
about much more than sponsorship and the names of companies on
napkins, delegate bags, tea cozies or whatever is for sale. It
raises a more serious issue. It is about access to public
policy.
Ordinary Canadians, including members of parliament, are shut
out but the rich can buy their way in. Under the Liberal
government access is for sale, whether one owns the Auberge
Grand-Mère or wants to make a direct commercial pitch to a
visiting head of state. That is a new kind of corruption of the
public policy process and it is wrong.
The controversies over sponsorship also highlight a fundamental
attitude of the present government which in my judgment puts
Canada's international interests at risk. I am speaking of the
government's pugilistic attitude toward the provinces.
That attitude was made clear again in the deliberate double
standard applied to the premier of the host province of Quebec.
Any business willing to spend half a million dollars is offered
an opportunity to speak to the heads of government gathering in
Quebec. However the premier of that province, who represents not
half a million dollars but seven million people, is not allowed a
speaking opportunity in his own capital. That only makes Canada
look foolish in a world that knows we are a federation and that
respects us because we respect diversity and freedom of speech.
[Translation]
Another consequence that is just as serious is that, in
practical terms, this fuels the accusatory atmosphere here in
Canada and it could undermine our ability to act in the world
that surrounds us.
International trade is of course a federal jurisdiction, but
while the federal government can sign treaties, their
implementation requires the co-operation of the provinces. This
is a lesson that we learned with the free trade agreement
initially signed with the United States.
2050
I recall very well the arguments advanced by the hard line
constitutionalists of Ottawa that the provinces did not have
the right to negotiate in matters of international trade and
thus should not be at the negotiation table. We rejected these
arguments, because we rejected the vision of Canada based on
confrontation.
We knew moreover that if the provinces were excluded from the
negotiations, they would invoke their own constitutional powers
in order to prevent the agreement from taking effect. Our
negotiations succeeded because we treated the provinces as
partners.
[English]
Not this government: the government does not believe in much,
but among its articles of faith is that on any given issue the
provinces are wrong and should be resisted. That is not an
antagonism it reserves for Quebec. Ask Premier Klein. Ask
Premier Harris. Ask any Atlantic premier interested in changing
the equalization system.
In the case of this summit the Canadian government could have
found a way to give the premier of the host province a place and
a voice in the program. On the contrary, the government went out
of its way to be offensive to the elected government of the host
province.
What is the predictable response? The government of Quebec is
contemplating legislation which will make it even more difficult
for Canada to honour and give effect to the FTAA agreements we
might sign.
There is a fundamental conflict in the government's own
purposes. While it is looking for agreement in the Americas it
is looking for a fight at home. It will get that fight. That
will put at risk Canada's ability to advance our interests and
exercise leadership in the world.
A major factor on the trade side is that the United States of
America is not coming to Quebec summit with fast track authority.
That means that any agreement it might sign is subject to the
nitpicking, changes and evocation of special interests that occur
in its congress. As a practical matter, because the U.S. is not
there with fast track authority, no other country will make
significant concessions that the United States congress may pick
apart and undercut.
That is particularly so for countries where there is so much
distrust of the U.S.A. Issues that are boutiquish or simply of
special interest to the congress are life and death to the other
countries involved. That would be a problem in any event. It is
aggravated by the position of Brazil, a natural leader and
superpower of the south which harbours deep suspicions of the
United States and, these days, deep suspicions of Canada.
Rather than build on the North American model of NAFTA, Brazil
would prefer to build on Mercosur which among other things is a
much less open model. Those are realities which will not
dissolve in a weekend in Quebec. Canada, as host and given our
traditional reputation as a trusted conciliator and innovator,
can use the conference to build agreement that might find
acceptance. We should have in mind a NAFTA model, but we should
certainly not seek to impose a replica of NAFTA. If any
hemisphere wide agreement is to be struck, it will need to
reflect the concerns of the giants in Mercosur and the quite
different interests of the multitude of smaller states in the
hemisphere.
While we seek that consensus we should also continue our
attempts to negotiate bilateral arrangements such as with Chile
and Costa Rica. It is my strong view that those bilateral
arrangements help the process of breaking down barriers. They
can create a confidence in moving beyond the status quo, a status
quo which in many countries in the hemisphere is a guarantor of
poverty, abuse and reliance on harmful practices including the
drug trade.
I mentioned official development assistance earlier. There is a
reality to face. Trade can be at least as powerful an instrument
of progress as international development policies have been.
Canada's role at Quebec and beyond should be to find ways in
which the wide range of countries in the Americas can feel their
fundamental interests are advanced by trade agreements and not
threatened by them.
In that process Canada and other North American countries must
resist the temptation to impose our models on other countries.
That is true with respect to instruments in NAFTA which allow
companies to take states to court. It is also true in terms of
environmental and other issues where common progress must be made
in a common interest.
2055
The question of human rights is in a special category,
particularly for Canada. We have a reputation for respecting
human rights, a reputation which must constantly be renewed. We
have proven that Canada can encourage trade and respect for human
rights at the same time. We are one of the few countries in the
world which can do that, certainly the only country north of the
Rio Grande.
On questions of human rights, we must always ask: If Canada will
not step forward to defend those rights, who in the world will?
There are other nations in the hemisphere who share our concerns.
We have learned that even in the defence of human rights account
must be taken of particular circumstances. Quite simply, we have
an obligation here.
This summit represents a great opportunity for Canada to
continue the leadership in the hemisphere that was pioneered by
the first free trade agreement and the decision to take an active
place in the Organization of American States. It will not
resolve the problems or meet all the challenges of the hemisphere
in one stroke, but it is an important step forward. We in this
party look forward to supporting the initiatives Canada might
take at the summit and to hearing responses from the government
when the summit is over.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the
member for Calgary Centre trying to tell the people of Canada
that the premier of Quebec will not have the same access to the
leaders of the countries that the business people will? That is
utter and absolute nonsense. The leader of Quebec will be able
to meet them at cocktail parties and dinners, as will the
business people.
Is the member for Calgary Centre playing the same game Brian
Mulroney played, playing to the nationalists of Quebec to get
their vote? Is that what the hon. member is doing? We all know
what that brought us. That brought us the Bloc Quebecois. It
brought us many problems. I wonder where his head is at that he
would think such things. When he was the minister responsible
for trade he followed the same protocol we are following now.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, the activities of the
Progressive Conservative government, of which I was a part,
brought us the free trade agreement which was primarily a
coalition between western Canadians and Quebecers. The agreement
would not have occurred had we not been able to appeal to the
nationalist pride of Quebec and turn it into a pride in Canada,
instead of responding so negatively and in such a critical
fashion to every expression of pride by the province of Quebec.
Let me come to the direct question asked by my hon. friend. She
asks if the premier of Quebec will not have the same
opportunities. He will not, according to the advertising of the
member's own government. The member's own government offered to
business leaders who could pony up $500,000 not just an
opportunity to ride in an elevator with a head of state, but a
speaking opportunity. The premier of Quebec, the host province,
does not have that opportunity.
The real issue here is whether it is possible in a system like
ours to take account of the real interests of provincial
governments. We proved in the free trade agreement that it is
not only possible but essential. We do not make progress without
it. Would it have been possible for the Government of Canada to
find a place and a voice for the premier of the host province of
Quebec if it had wanted to? Of course it would have been
possible, if it had wanted to. The point is it did not.
The government seeks agreement in the hemisphere but seeks a
fight at home. So long as it seeks that fight at home it puts at
risk Canada's opportunity to give effect to whatever agreements
it might sign exercising the undisputed federal responsibility
for international trade.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to make one very short comment. We must give
credit where it is deserved. If it had not been for the right
hon. member's party when he was in government, we would not have
free trade today. I applaud him for that.
2100
Very clearly the Liberal Party campaigned vigorously against
free trade and it is through the leadership of the Progressive
Conservatives of the day that we have free trade.
I would like the member's comments specifically with respect to
the people's summit. The minister just mentioned a good
opportunity but we will not go there right now. We will save
that discussion for another day.
I would like the member's comments specifically with respect to
the people's summit and the $300,000 funding for it from the
federal government. Of course I believe everybody should have a
right to be heard as long as it is in a legal way, but I have a
problem with groups that are advocating civil disobedience and
being funded by the government.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that kind of
support by the Government of Canada, whether the sum is right, is
appropriate. There is no question that in many issues of public
debate access to groups and to interests that have legitimate
things to say is limited, and there have to be ways to overcome
that.
Certainly if we can charge corporations $500,000 for a speaking
opportunity at a conference, it is not out of line for the
Government of Canada to provide a lesser amount for groups who
have things to say and would not otherwise be heard.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask the Conservative leader about the pride and satisfaction
he has expressed in regard to the free trade agreement his
government negotiated. I wonder if he would he be able to
suggest whether there are any aspects of the free trade
agreement, for which his government was responsible, and of its
successor, NAFTA, that he would see as inadequate or in need of
improvement in order to ensure that Canadian citizens' concerns
are protected and, for that matter, to ensure that citizens in
other countries of nations with whom we are entering into
agreements have their interests and rights protected and
enhanced.
Would there be changes in the FTAA based on the experience we
have had under the two previous extensive trade agreements?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
there would be changes in the way we should approach some of
these issues and there are lessons we can learn. I agree with
the leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to her
concern about the application in any larger hemispheric agreement
of the chapter 11 provisions in the NAFTA. Not only would it be
counterproductive, but we would resist it. It would be a
non-starter. It would not happen.
If I have a great regret about the free trade agreement into
which we entered, it was that we did not do enough in a companion
way with that agreement to deal with groups in Canada who were
disadvantaged. There is no question that whenever one takes
major initiatives, initiatives that literally change history,
there will be people who are helped and there will be people who
are hurt. There were people who were hurt by the free trade
agreement. We had undertaken as a government that we would be
more active in social policies and policies related to education
than we were. In hindsight, that was a mistake and we have to
take account of that in future agreements into which Canada might
enter.
There is a very difficult question that deserves serious debate
in the House and it is about the degree to which we try to impose
internationally standards to which we adhere at home. My own
view would be that on human rights issues we have to impose
internationally the high standard we try to respect at home,
partly because if we do not, no one else in the world will and
those issues will fall off the table.
However, on some other questions, including some environmental
issues and others, we have to recognize that countries in states
of development different from ours have a set of circumstances
different from ours and they must be taken into account.
If the question is whether there are there aspects of those
negotiations that we might have changed with the benefit of
hindsight, of course there are. If the question is whether it
was right to take those initiatives, the answer is of course it
was right to take those initiatives. We have to get ahead of the
future, not be at its mercy.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the leader of the Conservative Party.
I must say I think a number of us in the House might want to
reread the economic policies of the party that the hon. member
leads and of the party I am a member of. I recall prime
ministers by the name of Macdonald and Diefenbaker who were
hardly great free traders. Even my colleague opposite in the
Alliance might benefit by a little rereading of Canadian history
with respect to the positions of the two parties.
2105
My question for the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
is this. When his government was in power and la Francophonie
summit was held in Quebec City and then the G-7 meeting in
Toronto, were the premiers of those two provinces invited to have
the full blown participation he is advocating now for the
separatist premier of Quebec, Mr. Landry?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I assumed the hon.
member had read our economic policies since he and his government
adopted so many of them.
His second question is almost too easy, but I will accept the
invitation. On the question of the economic summit in Toronto,
my recollection, and I stand to be corrected but I think it is
correct, is that there was no interest expressed by the premier
of Ontario, the host province, in being present.
I think I can fairly say on behalf of my colleagues in the then
government that had there been an interest we would have found
some way to reflect the presence of the host province. We are a
federation. The world knows we are a federation. Let us not try
to pretend that we are not. Let us reflect the reality of Canada
abroad.
Let me come to la Francophonie. Let me say in passing that
there would never have been an association of la Francophonie had
Canada continued to follow the rigid anti-provincial policies
followed by the Trudeau government. It was only because a
Progressive Conservative government was able to find a way to
accommodate the legitimate interests of Quebec.
[Translation]
It also found a way to accommodate the legitimate interests of
New Brunswick and the other provinces with a francophone
population so we were even more successful with the issue of the
francophone community.
[English]
It was welcomed by the world because other francophone countries
were very apprehensive that with the absence of Canada too much
would be run by France. Under the rigid rules of the Liberal
government preceding ours, that was impossible. Under our more
open attitude toward Canada and its reality, we achieved la
Francophonie.
Did the premier of Quebec take part? He chaired some of the
sessions. Did the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs take
part? He chaired some of the sessions.
Now it is not fair to compare la Francophonie with the summit of
the Americas. It is a question from the hon. member and I am
responding to that. However, it certainly would have been
possible in this context, had the government had the will, to
have found a place and a voice for the premier of Quebec. The
government did not because it did not want to. The repercussions
are clear.
Already in the national assembly of Quebec, legislation is being
prepared to get in the way of giving effect to agreements that
Canada might sign exercising our undisputed competence in
international trade. It is cutting off our nose to spite our
face. It is dangerous and divisive in Canada. It should stop.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening.
I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.
Let me begin by saying that in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore
there are many who have expressed concerns about this agreement
and this summit and I hope these concerns will be addressed in
the discussion tonight.
As we know, the Prime Minister and other heads of state will be
discussing the FTAA at this very important summit. The FTAA is
indeed a good news story. I think this is a good news story that
we hear tonight from the members on this side of the House and
others: the expanding of trade and investment and those
advantages which will allow Canadian companies to grow, to
innovate and to create better jobs.
However, much has also been said about the FTAA and the
knowledge that the Canadian public has about the agreement and
its potential impact on communities, and especially for some of
my constituents, and smaller states. The discussion this evening
is one which I hope all those who have expressed their concerns
to me are watching and participating in with us.
2110
The idea of the free trade area of the Americas was brought to
the fore at the first modern-day summit of the Americas, held in
Miami in 1994. At that summit, all countries, including Canada,
agreed to conclude an agreement by 2005. At the Quebec summit,
Canada will engage in negotiations with over 30 heads of state
and government to bring this to fruition. The free trade
agreement of the Americas will build upon and strengthen existing
bilateral and subregional free trade agreements with countries in
the hemisphere.
As we know, democracy and the expansion of free markets around
the world are transforming the Americas. Canada has been playing
a leading role in responding to the challenges of economic and
social change.
At home, the government is committed to creating opportunities
for Canadians in global markets and will work to foster
favourable environments in which Canadians can take advantage of
opportunities. Canada has a vested interest in the economic
development of the hemisphere and will demonstrate leadership
where it can to strengthen and integrate relations in the
Americas.
We have heard from our Minister for International Trade that the
small economies will be given assistance to participate not only
in the summit but in regard to further participation in the
discussions, which will go on until 2005.
Canada's economy depends on trade, which constitutes 40% of our
gross domestic product and creates or sustains one Canadian job
in three. The people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore should know that on
a daily basis more than $2.5 billion worth of business occurs in
two way trade with the world.
Today over 90% of Canada's trade is with the Americas, including
the United States. Canada's foreign direct investment in the
Americas reached $182 billion in 1999. Over the last 10 years,
the value of trade has increased more than 170%.
These are advantages for us, but again we pose the question,
what about the small economies? The summit of the Americas is
about more than just free trade. It will be a forum where heads
of states and ministers will engage in discussions around three
broad themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity, and
realizing human potential. Those three broad theme areas are
where the small economies can see themselves moving forward and
benefiting from whatever agreements are made.
Canada's position on strengthening democracy in the hemisphere
is based on the premise of consolidating democracy, protecting
and promoting human rights and enhancing human security.
In any trade liberalization agreement, democratic development
has a place. It allows economies to become more open and
countries to prosper, and it compels nations to create rules and
institutions needed for global governance. The small economies
need help in that specific area.
Creating prosperity for Canadians and the citizens of the
hemisphere entails addressing issues such as poverty and
promoting equality of opportunity. This principle is emphasized
in the summit plan of action on key social initiatives that would
support education and the acquisition of needed skills, improve
the health of people, advance gender equality, promote cultural
diversity and expand access to new technologies.
I am putting emphasis on those areas because I think of the
islands of the Caribbean and the other states to which some
improvements and some advantages could be given.
These initiatives will help the citizens of the Americas to live
with dignity, realize their full potential and contribute to the
economic and social development of their communities.
These three themes are juxtaposed against several issues of
concerns as raised by civil society and the small nations.
2115
At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade deliberations, my colleagues and I had the opportunity to
hear the sentiments of Canadians on the implications of the FTAA
on such matters as environment, labour standards and income
disparity. Many witnesses appeared before us and spoke to those
issues. From these hearings was a growing consensus that the
FTAA could not ignore environmental and labour standards.
Canadians are concerned about economic disparities and the
competition will make worse already poor environmental and labour
standards among smaller countries in the hemisphere. The
majority of these countries are at a disadvantage since they do
not have the capacity to develop sustainable development
strategies on the environment or improve upon standards of
labour.
I can think of instances in Mexico where the results of NAFTA
have come under intense scrutiny for problems relating to the
environment and declining labour standards. I know we have
benefited from those experiences and it is the hope that whatever
negative was done will not be repeated here. Careful
consideration must be given to these issues so that we will not
repeat some of the challenges that NAFTA created.
Canada and other countries in the hemisphere must work to ensure
that these issues are reconciled and that they are incorporated
into the FTAA. I am encouraged to hear that the summit will
provide an opportunity for environment and labour ministers to
address these very important issues.
I would like to turn to the issue of income disparity. There is
no doubt that the FTAA will have to raise the standard of living
in the hemisphere. However, large income disparities between
countries will make it difficult for small ones to implement the
FTAA.
We must be conscious about how the benefits will be distributed.
There are over 800 million people in the hemisphere, the majority
in smaller states.
The issue of tariffs is of importance when we talk about income
disparities. Economies of smaller states rely on tariffs as
their main source of revenue. Social programs and debts are paid
from tariffs. The elimination of tariffs as proposed by the FTAA
could force small nations to introduce income tax systems in
order for them to participate in the agreement. Many simply do
not have the technical expertise to do so.
Small countries must have some kind of assurance that they too
will benefit from the elimination of trade barriers and should be
provided with the necessary assistance to help them to deal with
the challenges of tariff elimination. I know that technology and
connectivity are very important to those states and the Canadian
minister has assured us that some assistance will be given to
those small states.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
address a critically important theme of the upcoming summit of
the Americas, namely democracy.
Democracy has been at the very core of the summit of the
Americas process since the beginning. Indeed it was the
transformation of our hemisphere in the 1980s and early 1990s
toward democracy that in the most substantial sense made the
summit of the Americas possible. The commitment of countries of
the hemisphere to democracy was a major reason why Canada joined
the Organization of American States in 1990. It is the reason
why, as a result of a Canadian initiative, the unit for the
promotion of democracy was established in the OAS to help
countries strengthen their democratic institutions.
This transformation to democratic governments resulted in a
generation of political leaders in the Americas ready to embrace
a collective commitment to strengthening shared values and the
pursuit of common goals.
[Translation]
We believe that the 2001 summit provides the hemisphere with an
opportunity to vigorously affirm its commitment to democracy and
to move forward a coherent and balanced political, economic and
social action plan.
2120
This has been a key consideration for Canada and its hemispheric
partners since the preparations for the summit were launched
last June in Windsor, in the form of a dialogue by foreign
ministers at the OAS general assembly.
The foreign ministers agreed on a approach whose point of
departure was an emphasis on populations and the need to obtain
real benefits for the citizens of the Americas, through
collective action structured around three major themes:
strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human
potential.
This approach was also important because it was a clear and
convincing demonstration of the fact that OAS member states are
united in their commitment to the values and institutions
underlying democracy and human rights.
[English]
The summit of the Americas in Quebec City will be the third
gathering of leaders since 1994. Since we all know that
commitment is one thing but taking action is quite another, what
has the summit's process achieved? What tangible results can we
hold up to Canadians as examples of how conciliation and
consensus building have been placed ahead of confrontation and
condemnation? We need look no further than the OAS general
assembly last year in Windsor.
The decision to send a high level mission to Peru, led by the
OAS secretary general and Canada's foreign minister, reflected a
broad, open and transparent effort by the OAS to establish a
clear responsibility for supporting the evolution and development
of democracy in Peru. With that one act, the OAS took ownership
of democracy in the hemisphere. Strengthening democracy is about
more than free and fair elections. It is about addressing
threats to our societies which can undermine the institutions
that are fundamental to guaranteeing that democratic values
remain strong.
[Translation]
The governments of the hemisphere have taken the lead in the
area of drugs and crime. Through the summit process, countries
have developed new programs to fight drug trafficking.
It has culminated in the creation of a multilateral evaluation
mechanism, or MEM, the first multilateral drug initiative in the
world, which was ordered by the leaders gathered at the last
summit in Santiago, Chile. Reports from individual countries and
an overall report for the hemisphere detailing achievements and
making recommendations for the future are to be presented in
Quebec City.
The establishment of the Justice Studies Centre, which was also
requested in Santiago, is another example. The goal of the
centre is to help modernize the justice systems and institutions
through training programs and the sharing of information. The
board of directors of the Centre has approved a vast working
program for its first year of operation with as a top priority
the reform of criminal justice.
[English]
Another example took place a few short weeks ago. At the Miami
summit in 1994 leaders underscored that changes among legislators
were essential to strengthen democratic traditions in our
hemisphere and were fundamental as countries in this hemisphere
interacted to an increasing degree in more and more sectors. As
a result of the inspiration, leadership and hard work of members
of this parliament, the interparliamentary forum of the
Americas, FIPA, was created in Ottawa earlier this month.
The inaugural meeting, under Canada's chairmanship, focused on
finding solutions to the challenges of drugs and crime,
corruption, economic integration, protection of the environment,
poverty alleviation and debt relief. The forum will meet once a
year in different countries throughout the hemisphere.
As one final example, I point to the inclusion of Canadians and
citizens throughout the hemisphere in the summit process.
Ministers and officials have engaged in regular consultations
with members of civil society in Canada and the hemisphere to
ensure an open dialogue on the objectives of the summit and to
factor their views into the planning process.
2125
Each of these achievements has at its core a clear demonstration
of the commitment by leaders to the promotion of democracy,
protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law, which
brings us to this year's summit of the Americas. What, in real
terms, will leaders be discussing that will strengthen and
consolidate democratic reform in the hemisphere?
The summit will be an opportunity for leaders to discuss ways of
making democracy work better. The democratically elected leaders
of the hemisphere will examine, for example, how to improve the
way elections are held through improved citizen participation,
media access, rules for political party registration and finance.
They will look at promoting human rights and fundamental
freedoms, for example, and examine ways that new information and
communication technologies could be harnessed to improve and
strengthen human rights institutions throughout the Americas.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the summit of the Americas is the forum and the
fundamental vehicle to make good on our vision of the Americas.
The development of a strong democracy must be based on the
acknowledgement of the fact that we must try to be more
inclusive, that the setting up of a forum for reasoned debates
must and should lead to greater understanding and serve as a
foundation for a constructive dialogue and fruitful co-operation.
This commitment to individual rights, transparency and openness
in government and the involvement of citizens is of paramount
importance if we want our democratic institutions to remain
dynamic and vitally important.
Canada is honoured to have been chosen to host the 2001 summit
of the Americas in Quebec City. I am convinced that our area is
on the verge of an era of great achievements and that it is
essential that we now make the commitment to work patiently,
indefatigably and reasonably in order to assure for our
hemisphere a future which has indeed always been and remains
full of promises.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her remarks and her
very clear enthusiasm for this upcoming summit. It is
interesting to note that that same enthusiasm for trade issues
and the vigour with which Liberals are promoting this particular
summit is the type of vigour that we saw in opposition to free
trade not that many years ago.
However more to the point, my question, with particular emphasis
on trade, with this upcoming summit looming in the near future is
this. Would it not have put Canada in a better position to have
addressed some of the very serious trade issues that are looming
as we approach this summit in Quebec City? For example, we have
the expiration of the softwood lumber accord which will happen
this weekend. The way Canada handled the Brazilian beef issue
caused severe harm to our trade relations with that country. Of
equal importance is the ongoing challenge for Prince Edward
Island potato farmers because of the government's lack of
leadership on that issue and its paltry attempts to compensate
them for their losses.
These issues are all still outstanding. The borders for Prince
Edward Island potato farmers are still closed. With the upcoming
expiration of the softwood lumber accord, this is going to throw
softwood lumber producers around the country into complete
disarray. We have not even resolved a common position between
provinces, let alone how we are going to approach this with our
American trading partners.
Is it not true that we are somewhat lacking in moral credibility
when we go into this summit and start to approach some of these
larger equally important issues? Would it not have been in
Canadians' interest for her government to try to resolve some of
these issues before we went to this summit?
2130
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, all agendas have to move
forward. If we do not move forward on one because there might be
problems on the other we would never go anywhere. We will
continue to address these major challenges, the softwood lumber
one being a very important case in point.
As we know, we have gone to the world court three times and won,
but the United States continues to bring action against Canada.
The reality is that we have a very competitive softwood industry
and unfortunately some of the northern states, the northwestern
states in particular, continue to want to fight us because they
cannot compete with us. That will be a problem, as it has been
for some time. We are very hopeful, because we do believe in
free trade and we want to have free trade with the U.S.,
especially on softwood lumber. We will continue to fight on that
one and I am convinced that once again our good industry with its
good practices will prevail.
When it comes to the summit of the Americas, this is but one
step. There will be many more, I am sure, before there is any
kind of an agreement. We really have to start from somewhere. We
are speaking of democracy. We have a number of countries in the
Americas that have become much more democratic. It is important
to work with them. Canada can play a major role and is expected
to play that role. We have values that we want to project to
other countries in the Americas. We want to be there when the
rules are put together so that those countries can take our
values into consideration.
It is absolutely essential for us to be at that table, to
encourage the dialogue with parliamentarians, as we are doing
tonight, to encourage the dialogue with civil society, and to
tell the people of Canada that we are concerned in the same ways
they are and that is why we are at that table. We want to
protect those values that are so important to us as Canadians. If
we are not there, the rules will be made without us.
We must remember that we are a large country with a small
population. It is better to deal with rules. That is what this
is about. It is better to deal with rules that take into
consideration what we value than to have other rules imposed upon
us about which we have absolutely no say.
I really believe that we must continue to work on all fronts to
ensure the best deal for Canadian citizens.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the debate. I
will be sharing my time with the member from Dewdney—Alouette.
I want to talk for a minute about what the debate is all about.
Sometimes we get caught up in all the legalese, but basically the
debate is about the Quebec summit.
There has been a lot made of the free trade area of the Americas
that is coming up. In reality, that free trade agreement, of
which I am very supportive, is not going to come to fruition
until 2006 at the earliest. We hear about the draft text, which
is really the negotiating position of the 34 member countries
participating at the Quebec summit. However, there are a lot of
other issues.
I do want to speak a little about free trade, about why I think
it is so important and about why I think the government has put
us in a somewhat compromised position.
As we go into the very preliminary stages of these discussions,
with the heads of state there to discuss a free trade agreement
for the hemisphere, our government, only months before with
respect to Brazilian beef, took a very political position and
banned beef when it had no grounds to do so. Yet we will be
arguing with the Americans over the softwood lumber agreement,
which could cost the Canadian softwood lumber industry $2 billion
a year. We will be arguing that they should follow the rules.
Only months ago in regard to the aerospace industry, the
Canadians very clearly had a right to impose trade sanctions
against Brazil. The government could have imposed sanctions at
that time, but then hid behind this veil of safety in regard to
Brazilian beef without any scientific evidence. Of course that
is arguable, but when the government sent our scientists down
there they very clearly could not find any grounds for the ban.
2135
I greatly regret that. As well, leadership has not been shown
on the issue of the P.E.I. potatoes. Clearly there are some
concerns.
Let us go specifically to the summit that is ahead of us. I
will state a few of the concerns of the Canadian Alliance. One
of them is in regard to the people's summit. There should be an
opportunity for all people to put their views before the
subcommittee on international trade, where some of those groups
are coming forward, and they should also have an opportunity to
protest very peacefully and, quote, legally at the Quebec summit.
What I find very frustrating is that the government has given
funding of $300,000 to these groups that have very openly and
blatantly said they will break the law. In fact, they are
holding workshops right now and training people in civil
disobedience. A number of groups are participating. The NDP
caucus right here in the House of Commons has said it will
participate. The Council of Canadians said in the media very
openly that it is holding workshops in civil disobedience. As
well, there are the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian auto
workers and many other groups.
It is interesting that the former member from Kamloops, Nelson
Riis, said yesterday that the NDP is abandoning parliament and
dangerously risking its reputation by deciding to “lock arms”
with protesters at the summit.
I have very grave concerns about the government choosing to fund
the people's summit with $300,000. I think these people should
be given an opportunity to have their voices heard, but not at
the table and not at the plenary sessions because obviously that
is a place for the heads of state. We are a very open, free and
democratic country and I believe there are opportunities for them
to have their voices heard. Again, I think there are some
concerns in that area.
The flip side of it, as we heard in the debate earlier, is the
corporate sponsorship. There is a cloud of uncertainty when the
government allows different corporations to sponsor coffee breaks
for $75,000 or to supply a vehicle for $500,000 or to have a
speaking opportunity for $500,000. People who are influential in
the business community should be invited, I think, but I do not
believe that they should be paying for a service. As a country
we are hosting the 34 heads of state. I do not think we want to
turn this into a three-ring circus by having people who can
afford to pay. We know who the leaders are from both sides. It
is the government's responsibility to take the input from the
NGOs, from the business community and from members of parliament
to ensure that there is real and meaningful dialogue as we
proceed in these negotiations.
That brings me to the process. If there is one very legitimate
group of people that has an absolute right to have meaningful
dialogue it is members of parliament. Yes, we can do it through
committees, but the government will argue that it is not allowed
to release the text of the document. I am not saying it has to
release the absolute text, but let us face it, there are 34
member states and their negotiators and they know exactly what
the other countries' positions are. There are no secrets. The
government's suggestion that it cannot reveal exactly what is on
the table and what is being discussed is not right. The other
countries Canada is negotiating with know our position, as we
know theirs. That is what is done in negotiations.
Michael Hart from Carleton University talked about openness and
transparency. I am paraphrasing, but he said that we do not need
to be under any illusions, that all the countries know the
positions, so we should make this information available. Members
of parliament should have full participation and access. We can
speculate as to what is in there. We can go back to the Uruguay
rounds or we can go back to the NAFTA agreements. There are
texts out there.
2140
However, it is speculation on our part about what there is in
the text. The government could provide more information without
releasing the text. It could say “Here are the issues on the
table, this is exactly what is being discussed and this is what
needs to happen”. Most important is that absolutely nothing be
ratified or signed on to until there is an opportunity for a full
and open public debate in the House of Commons and a vote by
members of parliament. Members of parliament are the ones who
are democratically elected and they should have the final say.
I want to say again that the Canadian Alliance is very
supportive of free trade. We believe that free trade will
benefit all Canadians. As well, it will benefit people from some
of the poorer countries who want access to these larger markets
in the United States and Canada. The poorer countries want to
see free trade opened up.
However, in the same breath, we are about to embark on a very
difficult time. I will summarize this with respect to the
softwood lumber agreement. The agreement will expire this
Sunday. I have to admit that we are trying to stay united. The
government is stating its position. The government wants the
agreement to expire and wants free trade, which we in the
Canadian Alliance do as well.
The biggest argument of the Americans has been that they allege
we subsidize our stumpage, which is absolutely false. In fact,
stumpage in British Columbia has gone up significantly. It was
the government's responsibility to make sure that the American
administration and the American industry were fully aware of
that. The government has failed. The Americans have made it
very clear that the American industry will be launching a
countervail duty case and possibly an anti-dumping case, which
will cost our industry billions of dollars.
It was the responsibility of the government to ensure that the
Americans knew the facts. The government has had almost five
years to do that and has failed miserably. The Americans just
believe that we are providing all these subsidies, which is
absolutely false. Now, at the 24th hour as the agreement is
about to expire, the government is scrambling. It will have to
deal with this. The government is looking at how it will deal
with the CVDs, the countervail duty cases, that will be brought
forward. That could be very damaging. It would be very damaging
for our industry. I believe the government has failed the
industry in preparing as we come to the expiration. Some would
argue that the softwood lumber agreement was in fact the bridging
agreement to reach free trade. Now that we are in the 24th hour,
very clearly the Americans would seem to be back at ground zero
after over $100 million in legal fees in the last 20 years.
The Canadian Alliance supports the free trade agreement of the
Americas. We hope the government shows leadership and makes
wiser decisions than it has in the past.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that
the official opposition, for the most part, is supportive of our
efforts in the FTAA.
However, I want to take up my colleague's last point about
softwood lumber. The hon. member says the government has not
done enough to make the Americans aware. With all due respect, I
think that is wrong. Surely my colleague is aware that the Prime
Minister of Canada raised this personally with the President of
the United States. It was one of the first issues they
discussed. Surely my colleague is aware that the Minister for
International Trade raised this issue with U.S. trade
representative Robert Zoellick at their very first meeting.
Surely my colleague is aware that American consumer groups,
American senators and American congressmen are calling on their
government not to do what it has done three times and launch a
countervail action against Canada.
Canada simply does not control what the Americans do. With all
due respect to my colleague, it is incorrect to say that the
Americans are not aware of the facts. The Americans know the
facts. Some choose to ignore those facts even when the courts
rule them to be offside on the issue. Frankly, I do not know
what else the government could have done to make Americans aware.
2145
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that. I was
with the minister in Washington and I met privately with the
chairman of the industry, trade and commerce committee and a
number of U.S. officials.
The point I am making is that this has only happened within the
last four to six weeks, after the Prime Minister and the Minister
for International Trade went to the United States to present
their case, when they have had five years to do so. They should
have informed the industry in the United States that we do not
subsidize our lumber and that we are competitive. The United
States wants free trade and it is advocating for free trade. We
should be telling the Americans that if they want free trade they
should honour previous rulings. We want to and should provide
co-operation in other sectors but we should tell them that we
will take them to the wall if they start imposing $1 billion to
$2 billion in duties against the Canadian softwood lumber
industry of which 45% is from my home province of British
Columbia. This would cripple the economies of the many one
industry towns. That is just not acceptable.
The parliamentary secretary was absolutely right when he said
that the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president and
that the international trade minister has been in Washington.
However it has only been in the last four to six weeks that we
have seen any activity at all. We have had five years of
stability with the softwood lumber agreement. During that time
we could have been raising this issue because of its importance.
We all want to see free trade. We will work with the government
and do everything in our power to ensure that we have free trade.
We will use all the powers within our means to go after the
United States administration if it brings in a countervail duty
or an anti-dumping case. The Americans must respect the
decisions of the world court.
We will work with the government but the government needs to
provide stronger leadership. What we have seen with the
Brazilian beef and P.E.I. potatoes has given us cause for
concern. The government did not provided the leadership that was
required on those files.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate tonight on a
very important issue. I commend my colleagues for bringing the
issue forward. I hope we can work together in a reasoned way to
talk about the free trade agreement of the Americas.
Let me state unequivocally that the Alliance is in support of
free trade. We have heard that throughout this evening and we
are four square behind the principle of free trade.
I want to focus my comments on a few areas. I want to speak
first to the way free trade agreements are arrived at and how the
process has at times given rise to some of the current concerns
that individuals have had with regard to free trade, such as the
groups my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned which
are going to protest. All citizens have the right to do so and
should do so in a peaceful way. Many people are concerned about
this issue, as are many of my own constituents who have consulted
me on this topic. They are concerned about the environment,
health care, natural resources, water and culture.
When free trade agreements are entered into, people become
concerned when information on very important topics is not
forthcoming. The government should be providing Canadians as
much information as possible on these kinds of agreements. It
should communicate to Canadians that they will have the
opportunity to voice their concerns on important issues like
this. If the government would, through reasoned debate, explain
why free trade would be good, it could then win the hearts and
minds of Canadians.
2150
We know that the Liberal government many years ago fought an
election against free trade. Things can change. I know most of
my colleagues on the Liberal side would support notions such as
free trade, although there are ministers of the crown who we have
questions about in terms of their sincere commitment to the
principle of free trade.
It was refreshing in the debate earlier tonight to hear the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade speak in a sincere way from their hearts as to why they
believe free trade is a good thing. That was encouraging. I
think those two ministers will have to contend with their
colleagues in cabinet who in many ways have demonstrated in the
past that they do not believe in the principles of free trade as
strongly as they do. I think of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, the Minister of Industry, and several other members of
cabinet.
We hope that voices, words and beliefs uttered by those
ministers carry the day in the cabinet because this is a very
important issue.
I want to touch on some of the words said earlier in debate
about how trade can help to develop economic prosperity and how
it can be a key to helping people, not only here in our country
but in other nations where we enter into these kinds of trade
agreements. It can be the engine of prosperity. It can help to
develop better economies in countries where there is not a
strong, stable economy through the free trade of goods and
services, and even ideas and intellectual property, where
individuals can be rewarded for ideas and initiatives.
We believe that is a good thing. We believe that is a way for
individuals to grow in their prosperity, to get ahead and to have
better lives for themselves and their families no matter what
nation they are in.
I believe we need to clearly establish our sovereignty in any
deals in areas such as health and culture. We need to make sure
that natural resources are taken care of. Water is a big issue
that we need to be very clear on in any agreement we enter into.
I want to quote a world leader who was visiting here in our
Chamber in February. Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great
Britain said:
Finally on trade I just want to say this last point. It is time I
think that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why
free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to
prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of
the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair.
However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in
the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case
with force and determination.
We certainly agree with the prime minister. We would hope that
our colleagues from all parties would look seriously at the
implications of arguing against freer trade and what the end
result of that would be, because for the people who we say we
want to help who are at the lower end of the economic scale, when
we take free trade out of the equation, what is the alternative
answer by those who would advocate for a tariff based economy or
a protectionist approach to our economy and our trading
relationship? What is the answer?
The answers I have heard coming back are ones that are not
strong. They are not steeped in logic. In many ways they have
become red herring arguments, such as the argument that we cannot
enter into free trade agreements because it will attack our own
sovereignty, our own democracy.
I believe that by informing people on the topic, we can build in
to that process answers to the concerns that individuals would
have in a particular area.
We can do that when we work together and when we give people
information and the opportunity to openly look at all the
possible solutions. We believe that is the best way to go when
there are concerns.
2155
It is like having a vision. If we know there is a better place
to go and that where we end up will be a better place for our
citizens, our trading partners and the citizens of other nations
with which we deal, will it be worth it to get there? Will it be
worth it to put in the work? Will it be worth it to negotiate
and spend hours putting together a rules based method of trade or
will it not? Those are fundamental questions that our citizens
need to debate. In the past the majority have accepted moving
forward on those issues but they have also wanted other
solutions.
Free trade has been a positive economic reality for our country
and for our trading partners. It has provided an opportunity for
people who need help. If we demonstrate and lead through our
actions on these issues, taking into consideration the concerns
of the people and move forward, we will end up going to a better
place. It will lead to prosperity for many people.
A worthwhile goal is for us to work together and to put aside
our differences. Obviously we will not agree on everything but
we can move together toward a bigger vision and because where we
end will be a better place than we were when we started.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's well stated comments
in this debate.
It is interesting that members of the New Democratic Party have
talked about winners and loser in these trade deals. They fear
that Canada will be the loser and have sided with the
protesters, which is a sad commentary.
If we think back to the pre-1988 years, we remember that several
members of this government opposed the free trade agreement that
the Conservatives brought forth. Members, including the Prime
Minister, the industry minister and the heritage minister, sided
with the protesters against that agreement. They protested
against a free trade agreement that has brought much wealth and
prosperity to our country. It is an agreement that has allowed
our cattle industry to more than double in Alberta, the high tech
industry to develop in Ottawa and the financial and service
industries to develop in Toronto and Vancouver.
All those things brought prosperity right across the country.
However, many members of the government spoke out against that
agreement and protested side by side with protesters in 1988. Is
it not funny what a few years have done?
Why does my colleague think there has apparently been a change
in heart from those cabinet ministers and other members of the
government on this fundamental and very important issue of free
trade?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that there
are probably many cabinet ministers who are still not
wholeheartedly behind the notion of free trade.
It would seem that within cabinet, within the leadership of the
governing party, that at this particular point those who are
committed to the principle of free trade, must be outweighing,
within the internal divisions that are a part of any group, those
who are not free traders at heart.
I would balance those comments by saying that when we have a
group like that moving forward on this kind of issue, there is
always a possibility, if changes occur within the party, that the
balance could be tipped in favour of going back to a
protectionist type of attitude when it comes to the economy, and
that would be a negative.
2200
Canadians are innovative, creative, flexible, intelligent and
can compete in any field not only within our nation but globally
because we have as our most tremendous resource skilled
individuals who have a big picture in mind. With that we have
the world in our hands and we need an environment that will be
able to foster it.
That is why the Alliance has supported the notion of free trade
for so long. We can do even better with government policy that
encourages freer trade in all sectors of the economy, taking into
consideration the concerns which I mentioned earlier. I would
hope that the current governing group for the short period of
time it will have left in its mandate before we become the
government will stay committed to the principles of free trade.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join
in this important debate where elected members of parliament from
all parties have the opportunity to share their thoughts and
concerns about this important process and to reflect the concerns
and feelings of their constituents. This is the place for
elected members of parliament to make their views known, and I am
pleased to do so.
The Americas is one of the world's most dynamic regions. Though
its 800 million people are not even one-sixth of the world's
population, they account for more than one-third of the world's
economic activity. At about $17 trillion dollars, the combined
gross domestic product of the Americas is greater than that of
the European Union. It is no wonder then that the leaders of the
western hemisphere believe in the potential of the Americas. They
knew that their countries could work together more efficiently on
every front, social, political and economic, to promote
democracy, development and growth.
At the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994 leaders endorsed a
declaration and plan of action that expressed their common
commitment to strengthening democracy and creating greater
prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures
to improve health care, to increase access to quality education,
to protect biodiversity, to take collective action against the
scourge of drugs and corruption, and to expand and deepen the
dialogue with civil society on regional priorities.
At the second summit in Santiago in 1998 this co-operation was
carried forward and deepened. Once again leaders endorsed action
to support the development of democratic institutions, protect
human rights, and enhance transparency and respect for the rule
of law. They gave specific instructions to begin the process of
negotiating the free trade area of the Americas. Once it is
complete the FTAA will be the world's largest free trade area.
The summit of the Americas process offers numerous opportunities
to further enhance Canada's openness to the western hemisphere.
The FTAA is one of the most tangible opportunities on the
economic front with its potential for enhanced market access for
Canadian exports.
If there is one sector where new access could lead to
significant benefits for Canada and Canadian business, it is
services. The services sector is a key engine of Canada's
economy. It is responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's
GDP, almost three-quarters of employment, 10.5 million jobs and
nearly 90% of new job creation in Canada. It is leading the
transformation of the Canadian economy into a knowledge based
economy.
Many employees in the services sector are highly educated and
enjoy weekly earnings well above average. Services are at the
heart of Canada's innovative society. For example,
telecommunications, financial services and technical business
services are among the most innovative industries in Canada.
As a leading trading nation Canada counts on its services
exports to strengthen its prosperity. Not counting Canada's
direct investments abroad in services companies, Canada is the
12th largest exporter of services in the world, exporting some
$51.8 billion worth of services in 1999 alone.
2205
Canadian companies like SNC Lavalin, Teleglobe, Enbridge and
Hydro-Québec are among the world's leaders in their fields. Their
expertise is sought across the hemisphere.
Those services exports only account for 12% of total Canadian
exports. Canada's trade in services is increasing at a much
faster pace than our trade in goods. Given the importance of
trade for our economy we can say without fear of exaggeration
that improving market access abroad for our services providers is
vital to sustaining our prosperity.
The argument for supporting Canada's services exports is
particularly strong when it comes to the Americas. Canada's
commercial services exports to FTAA countries, excluding the
United States and Mexico, were worth $1.9 billion in 1998, up
from $787 million in 1993 and growing at an average annual rate
of 19% during that time. Countries such as Argentina, Chile,
Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil are all key existing or
potential export markets for Canadian services providers.
Three sectors are particularly noteworthy: telecommunications,
financial services and engineering services. The Canadian
telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous success,
exporting services valued at over $2 billion per year and
employing some 104,000 people. As a consequence, since 1993 the
sector has been growing by over 9% per year.
Canadian exporters of telecommunications services face market
access and regulatory restrictions in some countries of the
hemisphere in part due to the presence of telecommunications
monopolies in addition to a lack of transparency, predictability
and timeliness in the process for awarding operating permits and
licences or prohibitive fees for licensing or interconnections.
Reducing such barriers would significantly increase export
opportunities for Canada's telecommunications companies.
In recent years Canada's financial institutions have been very
active in Central and Latin America. One leading example is
Scotiabank which is active in Argentina; Chile, where its
subsidiary is the seventh largest bank in the country; Brazil;
Costa Rica; Belize; El Salvador, with 33 branches in that country
alone; Guyana; Panama; Peru; Uruguay; and Venezuela.
Another good example is the National Bank which recently teamed
up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean
partner to form the Corp Banca Consortium to purchase banking
institutions in South American countries. The same is true for
the insurance sector. Our insurance companies have in fact
identified Latin America as a growth market for the future.
Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the
world is engineering and other related services. Canada is
currently the world's third largest exporter of engineering
services. The very high calibre of Canadian engineers is
internationally recognized. Business opportunities are
significant, especially in Central and Latin America where
Canadian engineer expertise in resource based, energy related and
infrastructure projects is in high demand.
In this regard Hydro-Québec's recent acquisition of Chile's
Transelect, which owns 50% of Chilean power transmission lines,
is a good example of the type of business opportunities the
countries of the western hemisphere have to offer. This is why
Canada is actively participating in services negotiations under
the free trade area of the Americas.
Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a
comprehensive set of rules on trade and services under the FTAA.
Canada's general objective in the services negotiations is to
seek improved market access for Canadian services providers under
a transparent and predictable rules based system. In the
elaboration of FTAA rules on services Canada will be guided by
its existing rights and obligations in the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the
WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services, more commonly known
as GATS.
These objectives can be achieved without putting at risk the
values all Canadians cherish. The FTAA services chapter will
allow countries to file exceptions for those measures they wish
to maintain. In addition, and I wish this to be very clear,
nothing in these negotiations will jeopardize our health and
public education systems. They are not negotiable.
2210
We have heard fearmongering as late as today at the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is
absolutely ill-founded, incorrect scaremongering to suggest that
our public health system and our education system are on the
table. They are not negotiable.
I have shown how much services and service exports contribute to
the dynamism of the Canadian economy. I have shown how world
competitive Canadian telecommunications, financial services and
engineering services, to name only three sectors, look to the
Americas for their market growth. I have tried to show how we
will shape the rules of the game to achieve our objectives
without imperilling the things we hold dear.
Let us join the hemisphere's leaders in having confidence in
ourselves and in our region. We now have the stability, the
transparency and the economic growth record that allows trade to
increase and thrive. The countries of the region are good
economic partners for Canada and for each other. For all of us,
the FTAA is a vote of confidence in our common future.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I
can tell the House that the Minister for International Trade, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are taking very careful note of
what hon. colleagues raise this evening.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
concerned about cultural diversity and the safeguarding of
Canadian culture within the FTAA and also within the larger WTO
agreement.
We know that the Americans have put their negotiating position
forward and it includes putting culture on the table. It also
includes full coverage of the cultural sector and the extensive
application of the most favoured nation status and the national
treatment.
There is a great deal of enthusiasm right now amongst cultural
coalitions in Canada and around the world for a new international
cultural instrument which is separate all together from the trade
agreements. We also know that any separate cultural agreement
would mean nothing if the government locks itself into certain
clauses in the FTAA, such as the most favoured nation status and
national treatment. Our ability to subsidize our cultural
industries, to safeguard Canadian content, to protect our public
broadcaster, all of those things would be in jeopardy.
Will the government guarantee that our negotiators will not sell
Canadian culture down the drain by allowing the most favoured
nation rule to be applied across the board in all services?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from
the member with whom I served for a time on the Canadian heritage
committee. With all due respect to her question, I think she
knows full well that the government has stood up for Canadian
cultural industries time and again.
Important institutions, such as the CBC, the magazine industry,
and many of the examples where we have stood up for the cultural
industries of the country, answer very eloquently the member's
question.
There is an important discussion about an international cultural
instrument and the government is fully participating in that. The
government will stand very strongly for the preservation of our
culture. It understands very clearly just how threatened our
culture can be living beside the behemoth that we live beside. We
cannot change that. The government has always stood for Canadian
culture and it will continue to do so.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. member questions in two areas. One
of the most serious concerns that many of us who are critics of
the proposed FTAA have voiced is with respect to the extension of
the investor state provisions, the chapter 11 provisions of
NAFTA, throughout the entire hemisphere.
We know that these provisions have been profoundly undemocratic.
They have been used by corporations to attack policies which have
been democratically determined by governments at the local,
provincial, state or national level in areas such as the
environment and health care.
I ask the member who just spoke why is it that Canada apparently
has no position whatsoever before the FTAA on this fundamentally
important issue of investor state provisions in chapter 11 of
NAFTA? We have been told by the minister on many occasions that
if we want to know Canada's position on these issues we should go
to the government's website.
2215
I have a printout of the government's website in front of me. On
the issue of investment, this is what it says:
Summary of Canada's position—To date, Canada has made no
submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment.
If the government is so concerned about chapter 11 of the
investor state provisions, why has it made no submissions on that
fundamentally important issue?
I have a second very brief question. The member indicated that
at the summit in 1994 the government leaders made a commitment to
do whatever they could to promote biodiversity within the
hemisphere. What steps have been taken to promote biodiversity
in the context of the FTAA?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, regarding the member's
first question on chapter 11 of NAFTA, the member has been in the
House on several occasions, as I have, when the Minister for
International Trade expressed the same reservations and concerns
about chapter 11, though certainly not to the degree of those who
do not think we even need to be involved in this international
trade discussion.
The minister has expressed reservations about the way the
chapter 11 clause under NAFTA has been expanded by some of the
rulings that have come out of that dispute. The minister has
expressed serious reservations about signing any deal which would
include a chapter 11-like NAFTA clause. He has made that clear.
I am not sure if the member was present for those comments but
they are very easy to see and I can make sure he gets—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt, but a large
number of colleagues still want to participate in the debate.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to take part tonight in this important
debate. The objectives of the upcoming third summit of the
Americas in Quebec City include increased prosperity throughout
the Americas by increased free trade and, also, most important,
the spreading of democracy throughout the hemisphere and the
opportunity for every person in the hemisphere to reach their
full potential. When we consider the importance of the summit we
must keep in mind those broad objectives and ensure that Canada
as a government represents us all in pursuing them.
I will speak on a few aspects that have not been fully touched
on in tonight's debate, starting with the issue of process.
Having been a bit of a process and public participation junkie in
a previous career, I am extremely interested by the degree of
transparency and public participation in our move toward free
trade of the Americas. I will give the House my observations of
what has taken place to date and what I think must continue and
perhaps be enhanced.
In my experience in dealing with public issues in Canada and
internationally, I have never seen such a transparent and
participatory process through the leadership of a government. The
executive branch of Government of Canada has, and we must
acknowledge it, sole responsibility to negotiate international
treaties of this type.
It is for federal and provincial legislatures to debate and pass
laws required to implement any treaty. That is where their
obligation lies. However in spite of the lead role of the
executive branch, the Government of Canada has provided
unparalleled transparency and opportunities to participate in the
process, including full federal, provincial and territorial
ministerial meetings, consultations and public forums across the
country, and the website which includes all of Canada's
negotiating positions to date. The website has been up for a
year and we will continue to try to post everything the
Government of Canada puts forward.
We hosted, this month in Ottawa, the interparliamentary forum of
the Americas with parliamentarians from throughout the hemisphere
talking about issues for the upcoming summit. We are having the
debate tonight. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister
for International Trade appeared before a standing parliamentary
committee to answer questions and provide perspective on the
Canadian proposals.
2220
Even before getting to Quebec City we have had broad public
participation and disclosure of negotiating positions. When we
get to Quebec City we will have, and Canada has been the leader
in encouraging, the full participation of a civil society
committee in all the free trade of the Americas talks. That will
be enhanced in Quebec City.
As we heard tonight, the second people's summit of the Americas
will take place parallel to the meetings of the heads of
government and heads of state in Quebec City. The Government of
Canada is financially supporting that to the tune of $300,000
with a further $200,000 from the government of Quebec. These are
important opportunities and are not to be made light of. In
international trade agreements they are unparalleled in their
scope.
Let me deal with one substantive complaint by Canadians about
the process: The full negotiating positions and texts of the
other countries are not yet public. Canada has taken the lead in
making its positions public and has been followed by the United
States, Mexico and Costa Rica. At the planning meeting in Buenos
Aires in two weeks, Canada will argue that other countries should
make their positions, as well as the full text of their
negotiating framework, fully public. Canada will continue to be
a leader and a model in that practice.
Canada is not doing this simply out of altruism and
farsightedness. Modern governance goes far beyond any one
government or country. It includes civil society and the market.
The best information will not be accumulated and the best
decisions will not be made or implemented unless we have broad
participation and transparency in the development and
implementation of public policy. This is a good example of such
leadership by Canada.
Let me turn briefly to the question of security and freedom.
Canadians cherish their political and civil rights and freedoms
perhaps above anything else in our society. We take them
seriously and demand they be respected. However we also enjoy,
appreciate and demand that we live in a secure and protected
society. For that we entrust to our police the heavy and onerous
duty of ensuring that all our rights are respected, and our
behaviour is appropriate to that.
I will now turn to Quebec City. Security is a challenge and a
matter of complexity and concern for police authorities in Quebec
City. Thirty-four heads of government and heads of state will be
attending the summit. There is a topographical situation in the
old town of Quebec, as was pointed out yesterday by the mayor of
Quebec City. Because of the narrow streets and the hills, people
gathering in large numbers could be injured.
The mayor of Quebec City stressed that security must be
maintained by police so the summit does not descend into the
debacle we saw in Seattle during the WTO meetings. The greatest
threat to those who wished to publicly exercise their right to
protest and free speech in Seattle was the few who disrupted and
discredited the many. We entrust to our police the duty of
maintaining order. However, that is a major challenge and we
must have perimeters. I do not know whether the fences are too
high or the area too large, but we must trust the police to make
the difficult operational decisions given their responsibilities.
Let me turn finally to the issue of trade and democracy. We
have heard a lot from both sides of the House tonight about the
importance of trade to Canada and the prosperity it has brought
us. The freer the trade the more prosperity we seem to enjoy.
That is in context. The Government of Canada has been forthright
and must be held accountable to ensure that as we engage in free
trade agreements we do not sacrifice our health, our educational
or social services or our cultural integrity.
2225
It goes beyond our internal interests. Trade is about balance.
It is about taking advantage of economic opportunities globally
through freer trade, but it also means meeting our global
responsibilities. That is why the Government of Canada has
pledged to link freer trade to issues of environmental integrity,
human rights, democratic development and education. The
government's objective is to ensure everyone in the hemisphere
has, as an example to the world, the opportunity to reach their
full potential.
Let us come together, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, to
make sure the Government of Canada meets its obligations to
ensure that human potential is realized beyond our borders as
well as inside them.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech
and it reminded me of election night on November 27. Throughout
the election campaign, I never imagined myself telling my
constituents: “You know, if ever a free trade area of the
Americas is established, we are going to leave everything in the
hands of the government, and all Parliament will have to do is
rubber stamp any decisions that are made”.
Just as the premier of Quebec undertook to do in the Quebec
national assembly, before the treaty takes effect and the
Government of Canada is bound by its provisions, would the
member not like to see adopted in parliament an accord that
would be the end result of discussions and debate among
members of the House?
[English]
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, we must respect the
opportunity we have this evening to debate these issues. We must
make our views and the views of our constituents known in terms
of what should be contained in the treaty. We should debate what
is fundamentally important to both this treaty and any parallel
treaty that may address issues linked to our relations with other
countries.
As parliamentarians we have this opportunity. We have had the
opportunity in standing committees to question the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade. We
have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians of other
countries throughout the hemisphere to discuss the issues of the
upcoming summit.
As parliamentarians, let alone as general members of society, we
can take advantage of the opportunities for discussion and the
information that is available. This is a fulsome opportunity for
engagement not only of parliamentarians but, more important
perhaps, of Canadians to negotiate and provide information and
advice to the executive of government which is responsible for
negotiating international treaties.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has spoken about democracy,
transparency and the unprecedented extent to which his government
has been reaching out and consulting Canadians on the FTAA.
Would the hon. member care to comment on the issue of corporate
sponsorship at the upcoming summit of the Americas? Does he not
agree there is something obscene about major corporations being
able to buy their way into the inner sanctum of the summit? For
$500,000 they can make a speech at the opening reception. If
they pony up about $75,000 they can choose which leader to sit
beside at a lunch.
Is that not a perversion of democracy? How can the hon. member
talk about the great triumph of transparency and democracy when
wealthy corporations are able to buy their way into the summit
and civil society is kept outside a perimeter four kilometres
long? How can the member call that democracy?
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my ears
in hearing the hon. member challenge the issue of democracy in
Canada in such strident terms. It is a gross overstatement. It
is an insult to the House, to the freedoms we enjoy and to the
democratic privileges we exercise.
2230
As to the question, the member mentions buying privileged
access. We have talked in the House tonight and before about the
civil society committee that will be assisting and that will have
access to the negotiators in the free trade of the Americas
process. We know this is a long process. It is going to unfold
over the next three years. It is not a matter of simply one
meeting with one access.
However, there is also an economic interest of cost recovery. It
has become commonplace in international gatherings around the
world for both the large public expense to be recognized and for
some attempts to be made at cost recovery. Whether this crosses
the line of propriety in any way, I am not sure. Perhaps the
public discussion we are having and raising the issue as to
whether it should be appropriate in future is a good thing. That
illuminates the opportunity in this debate.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by
saying that I will split the time I have been allocated with the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques.
In less than a month, from April 20 to 22 next, 34 heads of
states and democratically elected governments from North
America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, with
the exception of Cuba, will meet in Quebec City for the third
summit of the Americas.
In short, the themes addressed during this meeting will include,
among others, the strengthening of democracy, where it will be a
question of promoting peace and the protection of societies.
Another theme that will be discussed is the realization of human
potential. This topic will include the alleviation of poverty
and the promotion of education and training; social rights will
also be discussed. Another theme will be community
connectivity. These discussions will involve the Internet and
new technologies. Lastly, the theme that will undoubtedly be
discussed at greatest length is the theme referred to as
creating prosperity. This is where we will find the
negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas, the FTAA.
The FTAA represents an extraordinary challenge. This free trade
zone will, of course, provide us with new economic
opportunities; it will also provide opportunities for people.
It represents an openness toward the Americas, toward new
cultures; it means becoming acquainted with new peoples and new
economic, social and political practices. It is a pool of
800 million people with a combined gross domestic product of some
ten trillion, ten thousand billion, American dollars.
This said, the economic practice of free trade is by no means a
panacea, a cure for all that ails us. Let us look back. Let us
go back to the time of the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA, which covered an economic zone including the nation of
Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico.
Although the agreement has had some positive impact, the
creation of this free trade area has not prevented certain
calamities, such as the collapse of the Mexican peso, a decline
in living standards, the growth of social disparities, an
increase in human misery, and an increase in the number of
workers earning minimum wage with few if any benefits or
favourable conditions. Yet NAFTA was supposed to bring about the
opposite of what we are witnessing today.
Are we going to follow NAFTA's example? Do we want to expand
and increase human misery? Of course not. We have to do
everything we can to avoid such an outcome. If this were the
case, it would be out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to
support the establishment of such a free trade area.
The other question we must ask ourselves is this: is the Liberal
government really and sincerely prepared to do absolutely
everything—even it means leaving the negotiating table—to avoid
the impoverishment brought about by NAFTA? It is highly
doubtful.
It is doubtful because the federal government is concealing far
too many things, in particular the working documents used to
negotiate the FTAA. Let there be no mistake about it: these
documents represent Canada's main negotiating position.
2235
These texts may well change our lives, and the only thing the
minister can say to us is, “Trust me, no questions asked”, as
if members of parliament and civil society were incapable of
judging the validity and content of these texts.
How do you expect parliamentarians and civil society to trust a
government that negotiates an agreement, on our behalf and in
secret, that may very well change our lives? How can we
determine whether these negotiations were justified or properly
carried out? The answer is simple: by being handed a done deal.
That is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. The people in
the Laurentides riding have a right to know what is happening
behind the curtains.
It is now fair to say that the Liberal government does not want
to take the initiative and show leadership, as the United States
has done, by making public the FTAA negotiating texts.
On the social front, there is reason to doubt the Minister for
International Trade's willingness to give priority to social
issues in these negotiations. When I see the position and views
of the minister on these issues, the situation is far from
clear.
I want to refer to the testimony of the Minister for
International Trade when he appeared before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on June 14,
2000. The minister stated, and I quote:
I think it's very important to separate the progress on trade
matters and not link it inextricably to all environmental and
labour standard issues.
The minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. Not
only does he not want to take any action regarding social and
environmental rights, but he goes even further and affirms that
trade does not necessarily have any connection to workers'
rights and environmental issues.
This is an absolutely irresponsible statement and it reveals,
beyond a doubt, the minister's intentions. I say to the people
of Quebec and Canada, as well as to workers: This is the man who
will be negotiating on your behalf. He is the one who will be
defending your rights, who will be putting them on the
negotiating table.
Does this inspire confidence? Personally, I do not feel
confident and my point of view is shared by all members of the
general public except, obviously, the members opposite.
Not the slightest leadership is being shown by the government
and its international trade minister on social and environmental
issues. What he is really saying is that they will go with the
crowd. The government is not demonstrating any initiative.
Here is one last quote from the same committee hearing. This one
provides very clear information to the House and to the people
of Quebec and Canada as to the intentions of the government and
its minister in charge of negotiating the FTAA.
My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, was asking the
Minister for International Trade if he was prepared to include
the basic rights recognized by the International Labour
Organization in the FTAA. Here are the contents of those seven
conventions. It is important that I mention them to the
members.
Conventions number 29 and 105 concern the abolition of forced
labour. Conventions number 87 and 98 deal with union rights,
collective bargaining and labour organization, including the
right to elect union representatives without the interference of
employers or of government authorities, as well as the right to
strike. Conventions number 100 and 111 deal with equal pay for
work of equal value and the elimination of discrimination in the
workplace. Convention number 138 concerns the minimum age for
admission to employment, that is the complete elimination of
child labour.
This was the minister's response to my colleague, and I quote:
I believe that trade must remain as open as possible, and that
for some countries to reach the point of being able to comply
with some of the conventions you have mentioned, what they need
is precisely more open economies than those they now have.
We believe that through involvement in a given society,
particularly though trade, we ultimately have a greater
influence because we allow them to become aware of our values
and to experience the economic development that will allow them
to achieve this.
That is what we are advocating. We do not want to close the door
on a country that is not following a particular course of
action. We believe that by practising isolation or adopting
exclusionary policies toward a particular nation, we are merely
encouraging it to harden its position on the social values which
we hold dear, values which we would like to see this country
embrace.
2240
It is now crystal clear, in light of the response given by the
Minister for International Trade, that the federal government
does not intend to defend with vigour and leadership fundamental
social rights in the FTAA agreement. This is unacceptable, and
even a blatant step backward.
In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, this position is
inconceivable. I would like the minister to demonstrate some
good faith and leadership in this matter and to put on the table
for all to see those documents which will serve as a basis for
negotiating the FTAA. Without these documents, how is it
possible for parliamentarians like us and for members of civil
society to form a real opinion and to bring some added value to
this debate?
Will the Minister for International Trade undertake to defend
fully and without any reservations the fundamental social rights
which Quebecers and Canadians hold so dear? The start of the
summit of the Americas is only a few days away and we are still
awaiting an answer to this question. The public is right to be
concerned.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib): Mr. Speaker, in her speech,
my colleague referred to problems. I just want to ask her a
question and hear what she has to say. I want to know if she
agrees that the only problem we face is the problem of isolation.
Isolation is the enemy of progress.
Lastly, free trade is an irreversible phenomenon. At the end of
the day, we have to open new borders to our products, whether
these products are from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, or another
province of Canada. We must open borders for these products.
An individual who works in Quebec City or Montreal will enjoy
direct benefits once we are able to sell products from Quebec
City or Montreal in Mexico or Chile.
If we are concerned about defending the rights of workers, be
they in Quebec or another province of Canada, we must realize
that we will be able to defend them much more effectively in a
North American context, where there are more than two, three or
four countries, than in isolation, whether in Quebec or in Canada.
I want to hear my colleague's reply and her comments on the
following: that free trade in the end means freedom for workers
in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I find nearly insolent what I
have just been told by a member of the Liberal Party, the party
that voted against free trade, that was against any possibility
of free trade, that had no free trade vision, whereas we in
Quebec pushed for free trade and ended up winning.
Free trade cannot be achieved at just any cost. Agreements like
the FTAA cannot be reached in a sneaky, secretive fashion.
There is a malaise all around right now, especially in
parliament, which is made up of people representing all the
regions. The Bloc Quebecois are not the only unhappy ones. There
are other parties and other members here in the House that are
unhappy. I am sure that there are even Liberals who are unhappy
because they do not have access to the documents.
This is not the way to negotiate an agreement as important as
the FTAA, which may bring enormous progress throughout the
Americas. It has to be done properly. It requires a concerted
approach. And the provinces, which are included in this
agreement, need to be consulted.
Quebec, like some other places, has clean drinking water. We
have large quantities of clean water. The Government of Canada
must not make decisions that go against our environmental
positions in Quebec. It does not have the right to do that. It
does not have the right to make decisions and then tell us: “The
decision has been made and you are going to have to live with
it.” That is out of the question, and we will fight it.
That is why Quebec must become a country, because Quebec is
capable of taking care of its interests. Quebec should have a
seat at the FTAA.
What is more, the summit is happening in the very heart of
Quebec. How very brazen of the federal government to come and do
this here, and not even show us the documents. It is shameful.
2245
Do not worry, we are used to that in Quebec. We can fight back
and we will continue to do so. I can guarantee that, if the
decisions contained in this agreement go against the laws of
Quebec, things will heat up. The government will have to be much
more democratic than it is at the present time, it will have to
sit with all levels of government, it will have to be able to
negotiate, and these decisions must not be detrimental to the
environment and the social programs that we have and that we all
hold dear, both in Canada and in Quebec.
I think that what is needed here is clarity; there must be a
vision of the future and there must also be a lot of democracy.
That is not the case at present.
I hope that tonight's debate will be of use to the government,
that it will listen to all of us, and that the Minister for
International Trade will use the ideas we will have proposed to
make a decision and open the door to democracy by tabling his
documents if they contain nothing that will put anything at
risk. Let him put them on the table, let us sit down, let us
look at them, and let us do this with all the wisdom and
knowledge we possess.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part tonight in this
take note debate on the impact of the summit of the Americas.
I think that the purpose of this debate is ultimately to send a
message to the international trade minister, to give him an idea
of what this parliament expects from these negotiations.
I would like to point out that the reason we are here today is
that we were given a mandate by the people in November of last
year. These are the individuals who, regardless of whether they
are listening to this debate or not, entrust us with defending
their views regarding certain matters on which each party had
made its position known, as well as regarding other matters
which had not necessarily been discussed in detail at the time
of the elections. The people placed their trust in us and, at
the end of the day, we must be able to act on this trust.
As far as the FTAA negotiations are concerned, what people want
is for us, as parliamentarians, to monitor the negotiations
effectively, in other words, to know where they are heading, how
we are progressing toward an agreement, so that we will not be
hit with something unexpected, as we were in the case of the
negotiations for the MIA, the multilateral investment agreement.
The agreement collapsed at the last minute because, all of a
sudden, people realized that it would put states at the service
of multinationals, rather than ensure the opposite, that is,
allow states to exercise real control over the circumstances in
which free trade will take place in the future.
This is the condition imposed by the men and women who elected
us so that we would end up with agreements that provide better
access to markets. That is definitely the case.
With the North American Free Trade Agreement, we saw proof of
the advantages of developing free trade. In my region, for
example, there are interesting aspects regarding exports.
At the same time, this experience has taught us that we must
ensure that the framework for the new free trade negotiations
regarding working conditions and social and environmental
conditions is well defined. Otherwise, we risk aggravating the
situation, creating situations in which we end up making poverty
worse. Even if growth increases, we must at the same time
ensure—it is our duty as members of parliament—that there is
an adequate distribution of wealth.
To give you an example, I say as human resources development critic
that there was a reform of employment insurance approximately five
years ago that was lauded by international organizations such as
the OECD, but we saw the implications in real terms of the Canadian
government's choosing to go along with international demands.
There was some kind of tacit understanding that the unemployment
insurance plans should, for example, pay out an average of 50%
of the average wage in benefits. Although here in Canada the
percentage is higher, we passed legislation in order to comply
with this international demand.
The decisions taken in the FTAA will apply for decades to come.
Our children will have to live within this framework. It is
important that we be able to participate in order that there be
a truly democratic debate.
2250
What you hear everywhere today about people who want to
demonstrate peacefully, or even more aggressively, is that they
are determined to hang on to this train to make sure that it
gets to where the people, collectively, want it to go. They do
not want to end up with an agreement that will be great for, let
us say, the multinationals and the big commercial interests but
that will result in the general public becoming poorer down the
road. That is the kind of message we want to send to the
minister.
We know that free trade aims at improving commercial dealings
between countries. In the past, it has been possible, and we have
examples of this, to carve out exceptions.
The free trade agreement needs to leave enough room for small
economies as well as big ones.
Take the case of softwood lumber. Under NAFTA, it became
apparent that even if there was a free trade agreement in place,
the more powerful partner, the United States, forced Canada to
come to an agreement, which is about to expire, that is not in
the overall interests of Canadians.
Would it not be important to ensure that the upcoming FTAA
agreement has a defensible balance between the strong and the
weak? I believe that this is the very principle behind the
desire to encumber international trade. Yes, we need to
facilitate international trade and free trade.
Moreover, even the smallest countries that are
represented—unfortunately, Quebec will not be there—need to have
the power to intervene before the decision making bodies that are
created so that they can obtain rulings based on law and not
just on economic strength.
What I want is an agreement that meets the expectations of the
workers in my riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, who depend on exports for their living. I want the
employees at the Bombardier plant in La Pocatière to have a
framework within the FTAA that enables them to work and to sell
what they make throughout the Americas.
Hopefully, these workers will not wake up one morning to
discover that their factory is about to be relocated to a
country in South America as a cost cutting measure and because
clear game rules were not established in advance in so far as
working conditions are concerned.
These workers need assurances that the development framework
will respect their rights as workers. High tech firms must also
be at ease with this situation. Our farmers, perhaps the group
that could be placed in the most tenuous situation of all as a
result of future free trade agreements, need assurances as well.
This does not mean that the discussions in Quebec City will
result in any real changes. However, groups that have developed
systems such as, for example, supply management for dairy
products will be assured of having their say before any system
changes in fact take place.
They need to know that their elected representatives can express
their views and intervene in the debate in a relevant way.
Earlier, I made a reference to softwood lumber. What I said
holds true for all forestry companies.
I would also like to see an accord that allows the government of
Quebec the opportunity to continue to intervene whenever it
feels the need to do so to avoid situations where, once the
accord has taken effect, the use of certain development tools
such as the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec,
Investissement Québec, and so forth, would be prohibited.
Thirty years ago, there were sound reasons for wanting Quebec
sovereignty, specifically a desire to better control Quebec's
own universe and destiny.
We felt that we were losing many of our powers because the
federal government was exercising its rights in areas outside
its jurisdiction. What is more, it continues to do so,
regularly. Because of its vast financial power, it also proposes
programs that are not necessarily in harmony with Quebec
programs.
Today, when I speak to my children, especially my 17 year old
daughter, what she wants to be certain of—and the reason why she
is a sovereignist—is rather that Quebec will have a place in all
the international agreements that will be concluded in the years
to come.
In my opinion, the FTAA is teaching us a valuable lesson.
We know that countries like Costa Rica and Panama will be
present at the negotiating table and will make their points of
view known, while Quebec—land of the only French-speaking people
in North America, with a culture unique in the Americas—must beg
in order to have its point of view considered by the government
of Canada.
2255
I think this is a fundamental argument we can use to tell
Quebecers: “Yes, when you ultimately have to decide whether you
want a sovereign Quebec in the next few years and in the next
few decades, whom do you want to speak on behalf of Quebec,
someone who was elected 75% by people from outside Quebec or
someone who was elected 100% by Quebecers, people who have
chosen to live in Quebec?”
The answer is obvious, and in the years to come, it will not be
enough just to have control over domestic issues in Quebec and
in Canada.
We need to have some influence over the decisions made at the
international level, something we do not have during the current
negotiations.
As a sovereignist and an elected representative here in Ottawa,
I think it is important to express our viewpoint and give
Quebecers the opportunity to express their opinions.
I hope this debate will help the Minister for International
Trade understand the mandate he is given and I hope that,
following the various negotiations, he will assure the House
that he was able to defend our positions.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite
frankly surprised by what my colleague has just said here in
this House. I have to remind him that the talks currently being
held do not run counter to what we have. At the present time, we
are members of the World Trade Organization. The majority of
countries belong to it. This agreement that the countries of the
Americas, including Canada, the United States and Mexico, are in
the process of negotiating, is in keeping with the World Trade
Organization, in the final analysis. It is not out of line with
it.
What this arrangement will in the end give workers, in Quebec and
elsewhere, is the opportunity to do even better, to have a better
quality of life. It has nothing to do with sovereignty. My
colleague knows that full well.
In Europe, we now have over 12, 14 or 15 countries with
different languages, cultures and histories, that are discussing
not just political union, but also economic union.
Here in the House of Commons, there is still a small minority,
in Quebec and in Canada, that continues to talk about the issue
of sovereignty, even though the majority of Quebecers have
already said, more than once—two, three and four times—that the
only things they are interested in are a good quality of life and
a good justice system, as well as jobs and education for their
children.
They have said this several times, but my colleague
here is talking as though Quebecers had already voted for their
own country. The answer is no.
They have already voted no several times. They want to continue
to live chez eux, in the place they call home, which is Canada.
The place they call home is Quebec, it is Ontario, it is North
America, it is the whole world. We are all members of the same
family. I am sure that my colleague agrees.
Would he give us his opinion on that?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's
comment, and it makes me smile. I will ask him to consider the
following: would he agree to the Americans representing him in
the negotiations for the free trade agreement of the Americas?
Would that be par for the course for him? Eighty-five percent of
our trade is with the Americans.
When he says that the issue of sovereignty is not important,
would he in fact be prepared to say “Go ahead, Americans, and
represent Canadians, you would be capable of doing this for us.
We will leave you to it”. I do not think this is the case.
Canada aspires to having a distinct personality, and Quebec
aspires to the same thing.
I reiterate that, as far as culture is concerned, we are in a
unique situation in the Americas. It is the only place in America
where the majority of people speak French, that has a francophone
culture in America and that represents an entire people that
lives a different lifestyle, a distinct society that is not
Canada, that organizes itself in a particular way.
2300
I would remind him that it is the third election in a row
Quebecers have sent the federal government a message: we elect a
majority of sovereignist members to parliament. This means
there is a certain unease, a fundamental problem, and when the
federal government wants to ignore the situation, it only
confirms that something has to change.
The member said that Quebecers have refused to become a country
several times. I will remind him of the facts. In 1980, we got
40% of the vote and in 1995, we got 49% of the vote.
The lesson we are getting today on the FTAA negotiations
will probably be the main reason that, next time, we will be
over 50%. We will become a country, and we will be able to
speak for Quebec throughout the world.
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to
participate in the debate on the summit of the Americas as a
former chair on the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade
Disputes and Investment in the last parliament and also as the
current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for
Mississauga South.
I would like to use the time I have been allocated, not only to
speak about the free trade area of the Americas but also to speak
about the themes of the 2001 summit, the history of the summit,
and what we hope as a government to accomplish at the summit,
especially in the area of cultural diversity.
I also believe that it is very important to stress to the people
who are listening to us this evening that the summit will not
just be about the free trade area of the Americas. In fact the
ministers of international trade will be meeting in Buenos Aires
on April 6 and 7 to pursue the negotiations of the FTAA prior to
the summit. While economic integration will be on the summit's
agenda, the summit is much more than a vehicle to promote
economic growth.
From April 20 to April 22, 2001, this will be the third occasion
on which the presidents and the prime ministers of the
hemisphere's 34 nations will come together to consider the most
important issues affecting the region.
The leaders of the hemisphere's 34 democratically elected
governments met for the first time in December, 1994 in Miami
with the belief that strong hemispheric partnerships would
encourage mutual interests which included peace, democracy,
economic integration and social justice.
At the first summit the leaders released a declaration of
principles which focused on four major themes: first, preserving
and strengthening the community of democracy of the Americas;
second, promoting prosperity through economic integration and
free trade; third, eradicating poverty and discrimination in our
hemisphere; and fourth, guaranteeing sustainable development and
conserving our natural environment for future generations.
The summit's resulting plan of action contained 23 initiatives
covering the four theme areas. Then on April 18 and 19, 1998,
four years later, the leaders of the 34 countries which had
participated in Miami met for a second time at the summit of the
Americas in Santiago, Chile to continue the dialogue and
strengthen the co-operation that began in 1994.
In preparing for Santiago, Canada identified a number of
priorities and carefully considered the views expressed by
Canadians during civil society consultations which took place in
six Canadian cities in October of 1997. The human rights and
democracy theme continue to be a priority for Canada and in the
summit process. Our country presented the civic proposals to
improve key aspects of the administration of justice in the
Americas.
I am also pleased to report it was Canada that placed indigenous
issues on the agenda as a separate item and placed importance on
ensuring that women and people with disabilities be given
particular attention.
Canada participated actively in all areas of discussion at the
summit of Americas in Santiago. Among the issues addressed was
how to combat the elicit drug trade in the hemisphere.
During this second summit of the Americas, and I stress it was
only the second summit, the FTAA negotiations were initiated with
the understanding that they be concluded by the year 2005.
Also in Santiago, Canada's leadership role in trade
liberalization was recognized when it was announced that Canada
would chair negotiations for the FTAA for the first 18 months and
host the fifth meeting of the hemisphere's trade ministers in
1999.
It was and remains Canada's position and belief that the creation
of the free trade area of the Americas is important to the
economic prosperity of the hemisphere and, in turn, to the
consolidation of democracy in the Americas. At the conclusion of
the summit in Santiago, Canada was chosen to host the next summit
of the Americas in 2001.
2305
In September 1998, the hon. Sergio Marchi, the former minister
for international trade, asked the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade to report to him on positions
Canada should take in negotiating an agreement that would create
a free trade area of the Americas. The minister's request was
then referred to the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade
Disputes and Investment.
From March to June 1999, the subcommittee structured its
hearings in a way that would enable it to hear from as many
Canadians as possible, covering a wide range of public concerns
from many and diverse perspectives.
The committee also held joint meetings of the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade when travelling across
the country in undertaking its study of the WTO in the millennium
round of negotiations.
Apart from hearing from the public at large, the subcommittee
organized round table meetings of experts to address and debate
principal stakes of an FTAA for Canada and to comment on key
issues such as its opportunities and challenges, social and
economic development of smaller economies of the Americas and the
preservation of Canadian culture.
In the end 48 witnesses appeared before the subcommittee and 35
briefs and submissions were received. In addition, of the 394
witnesses who appeared before the joint meetings of the standing
committee, many chose to address the question of the free trade
area of the Americas.
In October 1999 the subcommittee tabled its report along with 29
recommendations to assist our trade officials in achieving a
result that serves Canada's best interests. The committee also
specifically stated that it wished to make known that the report
was not a final report. It was a first report in what was
expected to be an ongoing parliamentary review on an FTAA until
the final deadline for concluding such an agreement in 2005 is
reached.
In March 2000 the current Minister for International Trade
presented to parliament Canada's priorities and objectives for
negotiating the free trade areas of the Americas.
Last Thursday, officials from the Department of International
Trade and the Department of Canadian Heritage appeared before the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to address the issue of
culture within the framework of the FTAA. Claude Carrière,
Canada's chief negotiator for the FTAA, confirmed Canada's
position that Canada would not make any commitment which would
limit our cultural objective and cultural policy, while at the
same time we would work with other countries to develop a new
international instrument on cultural diversity.
At that time Mr. Carrière tabled a proposal for the language on
cultural diversity in the preamble to the declaration of the FTAA
which I would like to share with the members here in the House of
Commons and with Canadians. The proposed wording is as follows:
Recognizing that countries must maintain the ability to preserve,
develop and implement their cultural policies for the purpose of
strengthening cultural diversity, given the essential role that
cultural goods and services play in the identity and diversity of
society and the lives of individuals.
The concept of a new international instrument on cultural
diversity was recommended in a report by the cultural industries
sectoral advisory group on international trade, known as SAGIT,
in February 1999. The SAGIT report recommended the new cultural
instrument on cultural diversity should: recognize the
importance of cultural diversity; acknowledge that cultural goods
and services are basically different from other products;
acknowledge that domestic measures and policies intended to
ensure access to a variety of indigenous cultural products are
significantly different from other policy measures; set out rules
on the kinds of domestic regulatory and other measures that
countries cannot use to enhance cultural and linguistic diversity
and; and establish how trade disciplines would apply or not apply
to cultural measures that meet the agreed upon rules.
In 1999, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
both endorsed the SAGIT report.
2310
In the Speech from the Throne in October 1999 the government
committed to developing a new approach internationally to support
the diversity of cultural expression in countries around the
world.
In 1998 the Minister of Canadian Heritage invited the ministers
of culture of many countries to attend an international meeting
to discuss a strategic approach to the pressures of globalization
on the expression of cultural and national identity. The end
result was the launching of the international network for
cultural policy.
When it was first established there were 19 members. Today
there are 45 and even more countries want to join. Every region
of the world is represented.
This international network on cultural policy has strongly
endorsed the instrument approach and has mandated that the Department
of Canadian Heritage chair a working group to develop the scope
and framework of an instrument for the 2001 annual meeting.
The summit of the Americas is about much more than just trade.
We hope this will be an opportunity for the new international
instrument on cultural diversity to be taken forward. I would
also like to remind everyone that there are three themes:
strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human
potential.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was also
at the heritage meetings the member was at recently where the
chief negotiator for the FTAA was present.
At that meeting I asked if he could tell me where the
interconnection between culture and commerce met, given the fact
that we now see Nike International, Michael Jordan, Benneton and
all sorts of multinational corporations involved in what they
would say are cultural enterprises, and how would they would fit
into Canadian culture. The chairman also asked the same
question. The negotiator said that he had to beg
“incompetence” on that question. That response did not give me
a very strong feeling.
The government continues to say that culture is not on the table
and the idea of a stand alone international instrument is one
that many groups globally support and I support as well. The
coalition for cultural diversity supports that. I want to quote
one comment about its concerns and I would like the member to
address these concerns. It said:
—that Canada continue to resist the U.S. pressure that is
certain to escalate as these negotiations unfold. What also
remains is that Canada show proof of extreme vigilance in these
meetings as the United States undoubtedly attempts to push
through the adoption of certain general principles that apply to
all sectors across the board, principles that could seriously
reduce the ability of the other countries to refuse specific
trade liberalization commitments in the cultural sector when the
time comes.
Could the member address that because it is a major fear that I
and many people in cultural communities across the country feel?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is
committed to preserving cultural diversity in Canada as she knows
I am as well.
Last Thursday when I was returning to my riding I ran into one
of Canada's foremost actors, R. H. Thomson. He had recently been
summoned to a meeting in Ottawa. There are other groups meeting
on this issue besides the coalition of diversity which is headed
by Robert Pilon. I asked Robert Thomson what was the purpose of
his trip to Ottawa. He told me that he was part of a discussion
on the new cultural instrument.
I know Robert Thomson's position and I am sure the member knows it as
well. He was against the multilateral agreement on investment.
However, he told me how wonderful it was that the minister was
bringing together different groups to discuss this new
instrument. He assured me that one of the first things we had to
do as a government, as individuals, as organizations and as
artists was to bring together all the different countries to
encompass the whole idea of a new cultural instrument.
2315
He felt that we were doing this little by little. We have gone
from 19 countries to 45 countries. Not just governments but NGOs
as well will be at the meeting and will be talking about cultural
diversity. I hope the coalition will be there as well. We must
get more people to buy into this idea. The more countries we can
convince and bring to our side in understanding how important
this is, the better.
We speak about the United States. I know that our minister,
quite frankly, if I may say so, is not afraid of the roar of the
United States. One of the great things I always like to use as
an example is people saying “The United States said we could not
do it”. Do members know what the United States said we could
not do? The United States said we could not have a convention on
the anti-personnel landmines because the United States was
against it. The United States was against it because it was
worried about North Korea and said to forget it, that we would
not get consensus anywhere in the world. Not only did we get
consensus to sign the Ottawa convention, but we have also since
then ratified the treaty.
As we heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs say today, the
Ukraine, which was not one of the original signatories, has now
come together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss how
it is going to destroy all the landmines it has there.
I do not think we should be afraid of the Americans. Let us
take heart from what we did with the Ottawa convention and the
anti-personnel landmines treaty as a way to show that we do not
need the Americans to make our point known and to have other
countries come onside and ratify the things that are important to
all of us.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the summit
of the Americas to be held next month follows the first summit,
held in Miami in 1994, and the second, held in Santiago, Chile in
1998.
The summit, which is being hosted by the Prime Minister of
Canada, will bring together the heads of state of 34
democratically elected governments in the western hemisphere.
I want to repeat what the previous speaker mentioned because it
is important. The summit will deal with three themes:
strengthening democracy, including human rights, justice, local
governments, the illegal drug trade, security and civil society;
creating prosperity, including the free trade area of the
Americas, infrastructure, labour, environment and the issue of
inequalities; and realizing human potential, including education,
health, gender equality, indigenous peoples, cultural diversity
and children.
When I heard that we were going to debate the issue in the
House, I wanted to try to speak on an area which I felt might be
downplayed. It is an area about which I feel very strongly. It
is the role that our children play in allowing us to achieve
stronger democracies, to improve prosperity and to realize human
potential.
I believe that the leaders coming to the summit of the Americas
must advance the principles and values that underpin the essence
of a democracy, such as fairness and equity, respect for human
rights, caring for those unable to care for themselves, and
representing the interests of those without a voice, particularly
the generations of children to come.
I wanted to talk about children and about the need to strengthen
the family in the context of poverty. I believe the conditions
we have in Canada are somewhat reflective of the conditions we
would find in other countries in the Americas. The only
difference is the degree to which those conditions may present
themselves.
I believe that poverty is one of the least understood issues in
the Americas. Advocacy groups call it child poverty and it tugs
at the heartstrings of every caring person. They have invoked
the images of children starving in the streets and report that
the problem has increased more than 50% over the last decade.
Who could possibly be against eliminating child poverty? The
bold reality is that the poverty in Canada and in the Americas is
more a matter of social poverty rather than economic poverty.
We know that in November 1989 parliament passed a resolution to
seek to achieve the elimination of poverty by the year 2000. That
actually was our first millennium project. Over the last 10
years, it has been the raison d'être for virtually every
anti-poverty voice in Canada.
2320
No one will dispute the nobility of the gesture, but it was
hollow and without substance. I say this because if the root
causes of poverty were understood, we would come to the
conclusion that to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty is
in fact not possible.
Anti-poverty groups are growing in size and influence. They
report annually on the growing level of poverty in our country
and fiercely lobby governments to act. More jobs, more social
assistance, more social housing, more tax benefits for families
with children, more money for health and early childhood
development, more employment insurance benefits and subsidized
day care are but a few of the demands of these advocates.
They universally accept the low income cutoff known as LICO as
the measure of poverty, for one simple reason. It is an economic
measure which calls for economic solutions. If they had to
address the root causes of poverty, it would open up a Pandora's
box which I believe most fear to face.
Homelessness has also become one of the latest focuses for the
poverty groups. As an example, in January 1999 a task force
headed up by Anne Golden issued a report on homelessness in the
city of Toronto. Declaring that there were workable solutions,
the task force engaged all levels of government to step up to
their responsibilities.
However, if hon. members look very closely at the conclusions of
the report they will find some interesting statistics. Of the
homeless identified, 35% suffered from mental illness, 15% were
aboriginals off reserve, 10% were abused women and,
significantly, 28% were youths who had been alienated from their
families, of which 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse.
In addition, they found that 47% of the homeless in Toronto did
not even come from Toronto. In fact they have been migrating to
urban centres from all across Canada. Sadly people who live in
squalor on the streets of our country represent those who no one
loves.
Lone parents now represent about 15% of all families in Canada
but, sadly, account for about 54% of all children or families
living in poverty. The rate of family breakdown is almost 50%
when we include the breakdown of common law relationships.
The incidence of domestic violence continues at record levels.
Alcohol and drug abuse in our schools and our communities has
escalated with tragic consequences. Unwanted teen pregnancies
continue to rise. Close to 30% of students are dropping out of
our high schools and are becoming Canada's poor in waiting.
Statistics Canada and Health Canada have concluded that 25% of
children in Canada are entering adult life with significant
mental, social or behavioural problems.
These represent the social poverty of our society and they are
the root causes of the vast majority of the economic poverty in
Canada.
If poverty in Canada is a horror and a national disgrace, then
the breakdown of the family is the principal cause of that
disgrace. Those who express outrage at poverty but who do not
express the same outrage at the breakdown of the family are truly
in denial.
However, in these days of political correctness, the family and
its structure and condition represent a minefield through which
few are prepared to tread. Anti-poverty groups have meekly
sidestepped the social poverty dimension. However, if we are not
prepared to address social poverty in our country, then we
effectively choose to tolerate—
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member and am listening
with rapt attention to his speech, but I wonder if he might in
some way relate it to the subject of the FTAA, which is currently
being debated.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member realizes the
importance of relevance and will of course make his remarks
entirely relevant.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more
relevant to strengthening our democracies, to improving
prosperity, which involves trade, and to realizing human
potential than the health and well-being of children. It is a
precondition and that is the relevance.
Let me conclude. I believe that if we could raise one healthy,
well adjusted generation of children, poverty as we know it
throughout the Americas would be a condition of the past.
In that context, I mean that it should be physical, mental and
social health that we are looking at for our children.
2325
It also contemplates that our social, moral and family values
and those of our families, educators and legislators promote,
protect and defend those values. Our children are a function of
the society in which they live. Those who become our future poor
do so because of our failure to put their interests ahead of our
own.
Collectively we are responsible for the poverty that exists in
Canada today and it is therefore our collective responsibility to
resolve both its social and its economic causes.
In conclusion, I quote from Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices for
Children, in a perfect point of relevance, particularly with
regard to the FTAA. He stated:
With one in four children entering adult life significantly
handicapped, we can look forward to a society that will be less
able to generate the economic base required to supply the social
supports and services needed by one in four adults unable to
carry their own weight.
In that context, investing in children, particularly in the
early years, is an imperative, not an option. My humble message
for the leaders of the democracies, the 34 countries coming to
meet at the summit of the Americas, is to put the interests of
our children ahead of all other interests because I truly believe
that it is a precondition to strengthening our democracies, to
achieving greater prosperity and to realizing human potential.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for his comments about child poverty and
ask him a question on the idea of strengthening democracy.
Last week a Quebec man went into a Quebec superior court to ask
if his constitutional right to peaceful assembly is going to be
denied by police security in Quebec City at the summit of the
Americas. His question is a very good one. The police will be
sealing off the heart of Quebec City for the summit, with a 3.8
kilometre security perimeter. Mr. Tremblay is a solid citizen.
He is a 41 year old Montreal bankruptcy lawyer and he believes,
as he says, that “I am no protester but I know that why this
country of ours is so beautiful is because of its democracy”.
He wants to argue that the essence of democracy depends upon the
free market of ideas. He will argue that his right of entrance
to the marketplace is being excessively limited by the distance
police are keeping him from the venue where the 34 western
hemisphere heads of government will be meeting.
Does the hon. member feel that Canadians' right to democracy
will be compromised by the 3.8 kilometre security perimeter and
that their rights to open debate are being compromised and
jeopardized?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pretty
well answered her own question because she referred to
constitutional rights to legal assembly. It is a constitutional
right and it will be protected and defended by the laws of
Canada.
The member referred to security issues with regard to the
fencing and other security measures. It is about protection of
large delegations of visitors to our country. We have the
statistics. A great many people are going to be there and their
protection is extremely important. It is a serious
responsibility for Canada as the host of the summit.
I do not believe that the member should ever suggest that
somehow in Canada the views of Canadians from coast to coast to
coast can be stifled by a fence. Our words, actions and beliefs
and our accessibility, freedom and democracy in Canada allow all
Canadians to express themselves in whatever ways they wish.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I too want to thank the hon. member for his comments with respect
to the issue of child poverty.
However, to bring this debate back to the question of the
upcoming summit of the Americas and in particular the proposed
free trade of the Americas agreement, I wonder if the hon. member
is aware of the fact that the hemisphere which is the site of the
FTAA in fact has the most unequal distribution of wealth on the
entire planet.
2330
There is nothing whatsoever in the proposed FTAA that would in
any way reduce the gap between rich and poor. On January 1,
1994, the date that NAFTA came into force, the indigenous people
of Chiapas rose up because of their concern that this would lead
to greater poverty as they were pushed off their subsistence
farming lands so that cash export crops could be grown by giant
corporate agribusinesses.
We know as well that as a result of social dumping the number of
Canadian families who are unemployed, who are now eligible for
employment insurance, has risen dramatically. It is now about
35%, which means more children living in poverty.
I would like to ask the hon. member how he can defend a proposed
agreement, the FTAA, that would lead to greater poverty and even
more attacks on families throughout the hemisphere.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, globalization undoubtedly is
a fear. To some it represents fear of the unknown. The member
is quite right when he says that we have examples of where
globalization efforts can lead and have led for adverse consequences
for a broad spectrum of humankind.
One of the challenges of the leaders at the summit of the
Americas is to not be in denial of the realities that we have
seen. However, the member asked if this would help us. It is
the position of the Government of Canada, and from the last two
summits, that the leaders collectively have agreed that these
summits and the FTAA will provide us in part, along with other
initiatives, the tools we need to deal with some of the
conditions that the member just mentioned.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to get up and debate this important issue. I
will start by going over a little bit of how we got to this
point, what this free trade area of the Americas and the summit
of the Americas is proposing to do in Quebec City in April. If I
have time, I would like to finish off with some of the local
issues that I am concerned about that will be coming up, or
already have, in this negotiation process.
The idea of a free trade area of the Americas started in 1990
with George Bush, the then president of the United States. At
that time it was enterprised from the Americas initiative. It
came on the heels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and in
the beginning of the negotiations for what would become the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Subsequently the idea was revived as a free trade of the
Americas at the first modern day summit of the Americas held in
Miami in 1994. Like the upcoming summit, the heads of state and
government of 34 countries of the western hemisphere discussed
the advancement of economic prosperity, democracy and security of
the Americas.
At the summit in 1994, all countries agreed to conclude an FTAA
by 2005. This was a very ambitious schedule but it was one they
agreed to try to work toward. Canada and Chile, the most
enthusiastic supporters of the FTAA, later proposed that it be
moved up to 2003, but there are some concerns that this deadline
will not be reached.
I will now speak on the relationship to the summit of the
Americas. The FTAA is only one of the items, albeit an important
one, that will be on the agenda at the summit of the Americas in
Quebec City. The summit is organized through the Organization of
American States. It was originally guided by four principles:
first, preserve and strengthen the community of democracies of
the Americas; second, promote prosperity through economic
integration of free trade; third, eradicate poverty and
discrimination in our hemisphere; and fourth, guarantee
sustainable development and conserve our natural environment for
future generations. I would suggest that those are four worthy
goals to reach in any agreement.
At the Quebec City summit, issues have been divided into three
interconnected baskets. They have described them as
strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human
potential.
It is the potential of the FTAA that has gained the most
attention both from people who support it and those who do not.
2335
I would like to speak about the economic background. How big is
the free trade area of the Americas that we are talking about? It
would cover 800 million people in the western hemisphere. We
have slightly less than 15% of the total world's population, but
we produce 35% of the world's measured economic activity.
The combined gross domestic product of all the countries is $11
trillion U.S. The Americas is by far the largest and most
productive economic region of the world. It surpasses even the
European Union, which is the second leading region, by $3
trillion U.S.
Canada's main trading partner is the United States which takes
over 86% of our exports. The countries with which Canada has a
free trade agreement, the United States, Mexico and Chile,
account for 97% of our hemispheric trade. Even without the FTAA,
a full 94% of goods from FTAA countries already enter Canada duty
free. It is no big change for Canada because we are almost
already there.
What are some of the potential benefits? Canada's economy is
highly trade dependent with about one in three jobs depending
directly on trade. About 80% of jobs created since 1993 have
come from trade. The reasons for all free trade agreements is to
increase the size of our economic pie and to improve our
prosperity and well-being.
Canadian priorities in the FTAA are threefold: zero tariff rates
with our trading partners, the removal of wasteful custom
procedures as barriers to trade, and strong investment protection
measures through the Americas region. In my riding there is a
big port into the U.S. To streamline the procedures to
allow the trade to flow back and forth more freely is something
the people who use it on a regular basis would really like to
see.
A successful FTAA should not have a large structural impact on
Canada's economy because we are almost already there. Canada is
already a relatively open market. Some 94% of goods from FTAA
countries already enter Canada duty free. The big adjustment for
Canada came with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which
currently covers 86% of our exports.
An important benefit of an FTAA for Canada is to open and secure
market access for Canadian exporters through the elimination of
tariffs. Some sectors face significant tariffs on paper products,
technology products, auto parts and potash.
At a recent committee meeting on international trade one witness
representing the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of
Canada said that 79% of its members favour this issue and only 6%
see the FTAA as a threat to their businesses. These are the
people who are in business and who are working to improve markets
and market share for their products.
The parliamentary secretary earlier this evening indicated that
the government would be listening to all the comments brought
forward tonight by all parties. He also indicated that the
government would be taking heed of some of the issues and would
look into them.
One that I want to raise and I have raised before is the issue
regarding sugar refining. I am speaking of raw sugar
imports, exports and refined sugar. My riding has the only
sugar beets grown in Canada. They are refined in the neighbouring
constituency in Taber. A deal has been partially struck with
Costa Rica and the concern is that the deal will be used as a
pattern to extend it to other Latin American countries that have
large sugar producing capacity.
The tariff in Costa Rica on refined sugar is 50% whereas
Canada's is 8%. The idea is to reduce both those tariffs to zero
but over the same period of time. If both tariffs are reduced to
zero within a year of each other, it will place our producers and
our refiners at a definite disadvantage.
This is something the government needs to be aware of. If it
does offer up sugar, the government should deal with it as an
individual commodity and not trade it off against other issues as
has been done in the past, because there is potential for growth
in this industry in Canada. If we handled this trade situation
properly, particularly through the FTAA, then we will have
potential to solidify the industry and maybe even grow it to some
degree.
2340
Some of the issues that have been talked about earlier have to
do with the site and what is happening in Quebec City to prepare
for the summit. I support the issue that the laws must be obeyed
but people's right to be heard or the right to have peaceful
demonstrations should not be interfered with. The full force of
the law needs to be brought to bear should anybody step over that
line and get out of hand because this is an important issue.
There is far more to be gained by being in on the discussions
than being outside the room causing a disturbance. If people are
serious about wanting change and having input, they should take
part in the discussions. I am hopeful it will all go off without
too much trouble.
Foreign subsidies which distort production, as we have seen in
our grain and oilseed sector, are something that we need to be
aware of. Such things do exist. If the trade agreements can
reduce those subsidies to get everybody on a level playing field
we would be far better off.
Another issue that is very important is water. We want to make
sure that Canada retains sovereignty over its water. I want the
government to hear that. We have to make sure that absolute
control of that precious resource is maintained.
The other day one witness in committee said that a free trade
agreement would bring absolute free and fair trade on all
commodities. Then we would have 3,000 pages of exemptions. I am
hopeful that this agreement will not go that way and that we will
be able to come to a solid agreement.
We support free trade and the process that it is going through.
However we would like to see any agreement that is reached come
back to the House for debate, for Canadians to have a look at and
for parliament to ultimately have a say in.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to
the free trade area of the Americas. Canada has an absolutely
unique opportunity next month to deal with a number of challenges
to our hemisphere. Being the host, we have the opportunity to
introduce and put forth creative solutions to deal with a number
of the challenges. I will get to them a little later on in my
speech.
Why pursue the free trade agreement? It is because free trade
is good for everybody if it is fair trade. The challenge of this
meeting is to ensure and convince the Canadian public, and indeed
people throughout our hemisphere, that we are pursuing a fair and
transparent free trade agreement: one that considers all parties
and one that is prepared to work with members from across society
so that we will have a trade agreement that will benefit
absolutely everybody.
I want to talk about a couple of the challenges in our
hemisphere. One of those is the issue of illicit drugs and the
war on drugs. President Vicente Fox recently said that the war
on drugs had been lost. We are losing it across our hemisphere
and the countries that are really paying a price are those that
are producing them.
The president of Colombia, Andres Pastrana, whom I met with last
month, as well as the heads of state of Mexico, Uruguay and many
others, is giving the same message: the war on drugs hurts
everyone, but it hurts them more, not only the drugs but the ways
to combat them.
We must decrease consumption if we are to deal with the war. We
must look at our own homes if we are to deal with the problem.
We could try to do what we have done before when we took the war
to Colombia, buttressed up the armaments, supported the army,
built up the forces and tried to cut the head off the cartels.
We did that successfully but all that happened was like a hydra:
they came up in other areas. That is indeed what is happening
now in Colombia where 140,000 hectares of land has been
destroyed. FARC guerrillas, the ELN, the paramilitary and other
drugs lords have come into the picture to produce these drugs.
2345
They are producing them cheaper and better, such as heroin which
costs $2 a gram. The war on drugs is being lost. It is almost
universally accepted that we are not going to win it unless we
decrease consumption at home. For the first time the Americans
have admitted to this.
How do we do that? First, we have to decrease consumption by
dealing with new European models that focus not only on detox and
treatment but also use new medical models in ensuring that people
who are drug addicted develop skills training, have jobs and live
in a secure environment away from their drug environments.
Speaking personally from my professional experience, we cannot
get people off drugs if they are living in an environment where
drugs are abundant. We have to take them out of that. We have
to give them the skills training so they will be employable in
the future.
Second, we have to talk about prevention. The headstart program
that was passed in the House in 1998 deals with children in the
first six to eight years of life to ensure they live in a secure
environment and strengthens the parent-child bond. It has been
proven to decrease consumption and drug use later on in life.
On the trade issue, we have to remove both tariff and non-tariff
barriers to trade as well as double taxation regimes. One of the
things that Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN, has
said, as well as countries in South and Central America where the
drugs are being produced, is that these poor people who are
forced to produce the drugs need something else to grow if we are
going to remove the poppies and the coca. The only way to do
that is to give them a chance to compete with other countries.
The House may be interested to know that the major obstacle to
removing tariff barriers to enable the poor and developing
countries to progress is the west. We are the ones who obstruct
the ability of these developing countries to get their houses in
order and improve their economies. In short, these countries do
not need aid, they primarily need trade.
Under the judicial issue, we need to implement RICO amendments
as they have done in the United States. Seventy-five per cent of
revenues from organized bike gangs come from drugs. The way to
hit them is to go after the money by implementing the RICO
amendments. If the government does that, we will be able to hit
them where it counts.
We need heavier and stronger penalties for those individuals who
are trafficking in drugs, but we need to treat the users from a
medical model. We need to hit the producers and the organized
crime gangs hard, use the RICO amendments and chase after the
money. Then we will go a long way toward addressing the
organized crime epidemic that the Canadian Police Association
said we are losing.
We also need to deal with import and export controls over
chemicals used in the precursors for drugs. We were nailed by
the United Nations, as were other western countries, for allowing
chemicals used in the development of illicit drugs to be freely
sent in amounts far in excess of what these countries could
possibly use. We are allowing that and we turn a blind eye. We
pretend we are lily white but we are not.
Import and export controls over the chemicals used in the
production and removal of coca paste, cocaine and the production
of other illicit drugs would prevent these companies and
countries from using them illegally.
The third issue is environmental protection. Acid raid, air
pollution and water pollution know no boundaries. We have to
take a collective view and collective action against these
challenges.
Regarding environmental security, in 1998 hurricane Mitch
devastated Central America. There were 19,000 people killed and
there was $5 billion in damage. The world has been unable to
deal with the humanitarian and natural disasters.
What I propose is to build a rapid response centre somewhere,
preferably in the Central America region. The centre would have
non-perishable food, tenting, blankets and heavy lift
capabilities as well as DART response teams and medical teams.
They could be rapidly accessed using a rapid response model and
brought to an area where there is a natural disaster. Time is of
the essence in these disasters. If we constructed one of these
areas somewhere in the Central American region, we would be able
to save a lot of lives and a lot of money when these natural
disasters occur.
2350
On the issue of human security, in issues of conflict the
international community has been absolutely unable to deal with
conflict in a preventive way. In order to do this it requires a
multilateral effort. I suggest using the international financial
institutions, particularly the World Bank and the IMF as well as
the Inter-American Development Bank, to press economic levers to
the precursors of conflict.
This is cutting edge foreign policy. I believe our country, and
indeed the House, could take a leadership role on this issue. If
we present this policy on the floor of the free trade of the
Americas at the end of April in Quebec City, we will start the
ball rolling. We will be able to address conflict before it
happens, instead of expensively trying to patch up the problems
after the fact.
To my colleague from the NDP I would say this. The member's
efforts to try to destroy and obstruct the meeting are nothing but
destructive. The member should use the ideas and questions which
are very legitimate and for which all people want answers. The
member's efforts should be put toward building constructive
solutions to address them. The member should talk about
transparency and work with us to make sure that all agreements be
brought to the House to be debated on the floor before they are
passed.
On the issue of trade liberalization make sure it is fair trade,
not only free trade. On the issue of transparency let us work
towards that.
The issue of globalization is a way for all of us to work on
good labour and environmental laws. Collectively we can work
together to elevate the standard of living for all people. Surely
the NDP and others will listen to the secretary general of the
U.N. who said that developing countries and the poorest of the
poor need free and fair trade.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
hoping to ask this question of one of the next speakers, but
sometimes I have a hard time being recognized. Perhaps the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, from the Canadian Alliance, could
answer the question for me.
In my riding there is a constituent who believes the FTAA would
impact on our sovereignty and the legal ability of governments to
maintain environmental and social standards. Does the hon.
member believe this is true?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
question and it is often asked by the NDP and other members. That
is why the free trade area of the agreement is going to be
pursued.
We have to develop a rules base to improve the horrible
situation in the maquiladoras in Mexico, where there are no
labour or environmental standards whatsoever. We have the
opportunity today and will have it in April to develop a rules
based system to ensure that we have fair labour standards.
Workers in the maquiladoras will then be able to say that the
company must adhere to the standards because it was signed in the
free trade agreement of the Americas.
We will have good environmental standards so that mines will not
be able to dump tailings and poison the rivers in South America
and Central America. We will have standards of democracy and
human rights that will be respected across this hemisphere.
That is what the agreement is about. This is what the challenge
is about. I am sure members from the NDP would like to ask
questions along the same line. I hope they put their efforts
into working toward solutions to these challenges.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the hon. member a question about his comments on
Colombia to try to determine what the position of the Canadian
Alliance is with respect to one of the most serious issues and
concerns that has been raised. That is the quite misguided
proposal called Plan Colombia, in particular the military
component of that plan.
I know the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was in Colombia
last month. I myself was in Colombia in January and had the
opportunity to meet with elected representatives, senators,
members of the house of representatives, as well as many human
rights defenders and others.
The very strong message that I received from them was strong
opposition to the military component of Plan Colombia. They
pleaded that instead there be a recognition that it is social and
economic concerns that must be addressed and in particular land
reform.
2355
What is the position of the Canadian Alliance? Is it like the
Liberal government, which refuses to condemn the military
component of Plan Colombia, or is it prepared to very clearly
speak out in opposition to the military component of that plan
and call for an approach that recognizes the importance of
tackling poverty, land reform and dealing with the massive human
rights violations in Colombia?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct
that Colombia needs land reform. It needs a better economy. It
needs to address the human rights abuses. Plan Colombia
deals with two aspects; a military component and a social
development component.
The unfortunate thing in the real politik of Colombia is that
the vast majority of the land area is controlled by guerrillas
from the FARC and the ELN as well as paramilitaries and drug lords.
Part of the problem is that, with the lack of control the
government has from a military perspective, these guerrillas,
paramilitaries, narcoterrorists and cartels are allowed to
massacre civilian populations in the surrounding area.
Currently the Bogota government in Colombia does not have the
military capability to do that. My personal view, not that of
the Alliance, is to support Plan Colombia, including the military
component, for the simple reason that the military component has
to get control over the country. It has to defeat the
paramilitaries that are basically thugs with weapons.
It is very important that national verifiers go along with the
Colombian army to ensure that it is not engaging in human rights
abuses and in collusion with the paramilitaries. They are doing
that in some areas, which is completely unacceptable. If we
verify this and allow the Colombian government to get control
over its area in a multifactorial approach with other trade
issues, then we will be able to ensure that Colombia secures
peace.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am splitting my time with the member for Oak Ridges.
Let me begin by thanking the Minister for International Trade,
who, it will be recalled, in response to a question I asked of
him in the House during question period some time ago, agreed, on
behalf of the government, to hold a take note debate, the debate
we are having tonight, on the question of the free trade zone
of the Americas, before the Quebec summit takes place.
I am very pleased to see that, even at midnight, there are still
a number of members who wish to take the floor.
I am not an expert in international trade. I am not a lawyer,
and I have not had a chance to really explore the international
trade aspect. Like all of us here, I have had several
constituents speak to me and, in some cases, voice concerns and
encouraging words. I agreed to share these comments with the
House. That is why I am here tonight.
A number of people who spoke to me or wrote to me seemed to be
concerned about the preponderant, or at least growing, role of
the private sector in international trade. They would like to
see the introduction of mechanisms to balance what some perceive
to be a growing influence.
If I base myself on our Canadian economy, which is essentially a
capitalist regime in which we encourage the creation of wealth,
but a system that still has strong socialist leanings, which
taxes this wealth and has established a mechanism to
redistribute it, we end up with a country that is nonetheless
very interesting and very welcoming and which, all told, is a
model from several points of view.
2400
For example, if we compare ourselves to our neighbours to the
south, we see that income polarization is not increasing in
Canada.
[English]
Indeed, the income gap in Canada, after taking into account
redistribution, such as social programs and so on, has not grown,
whereas in the United States it has. On the wealth side,
unfortunately, we will have to do something because we have not
measured that since 1984. Statistics Canada measured it recently
and we had a report a couple of weeks ago showing that the wealth
gap, as opposed to the income gap, is increasing. I think it
behooves us all to find ways to make sure that gap does not widen
but becomes narrower.
However, if we take our approach on social programs, human
rights and environmental standards, there is room for improvement
in many of those fields, but as a rule we are doing very well by
international comparison. If we take this and move it onto the
international scene it would perhaps be Canada's greatest
contribution.
[Translation]
I have to state my position on this international issue. I am
one of those who believe in free trade. I think that history has
shown that more wealth is created wherever there is free trade.
If sovereign countries can then find ways to share this
wealth, their people will end up better off.
I am basically in favour of free trade. However, Canada's
position embraces other elements in addition to free trade; it
includes considerations such as human rights, democratic
principles and environmental standards. I am delighted to see
that the holding of this summit in Canada is giving rise to
these debates and that our government is encouraging them,
because they will be feeding into the summit itself.
In this sense, I believe that the trend is an encouraging one.
We receive reams of documentation from all kinds of places. Last
week, I was sent a little folder from the Export Development
Corporation. I would like to quote a passage from it, from a
letter from the president and CEO. These are words that we would
perhaps not have found in this type of literature a few years
ago. It reads as follows:
At the same time, EDC operates as a successful business and an
integral part of society. As such, we are working alongside
other leading businesses that are increasingly committed to
socially responsible corporate practices.
These practices include policies and measures aimed at
establishing a business code of ethics, making improvements at
the social and environmental levels, public accountability and
community participation.
In fact, it is becoming increasingly obvious that, by adopting
these socially responsible corporate practices, corporations are
achieving reciprocal successes for themselves and for their
communities.
According to a recent study, the Dow Jones Sustainability Group
Index surpassed the Dow Jones Global Index by 15% between 1994
and 1999. In other words, it pays to do good.
I do not think that this type of comment would have been found
in the literature of the Export Development Corporation some ten
years ago. This is encouraging.
I would like to quote another statement, which appeared in the
lead editorial in La Presse yesterday. I am citing the paragraph
at the end of Mario Roy's editorial:
It is not a matter of seeing nothing but the good in people,
and believing that it is possible to change overnight a problem
of civilization that has persisted for centuries. Nonetheless,
the opportunity is there. Elected officials, whose mandate in
their respective countries is not only economic but also
political and social, will be sitting at the Summit of the
Americas.
Canada, which, as has been said, very much enjoys giving
lessons, can certainly take advantage of its role as host to
place the question of human rights at the heart of this round of
negotiations, which will continue until 2005. We can do it in
such a way that it cannot be ignored, so that it is clearly
understood that a free trade agreement will be inconceivable
unless a certain level of normality is achieved in the countries
that are the most negligent with respect to rights and freedoms.
This is a strict obligation for Canada's political elite.
And there is no doubt that in the public mind the Summit in general,
and Canada's performance in particular, will be judged from this
point of view, as much as from the point of view of the advances
that will be made with respect to trade.
2405
Again, we see reflected here in this newspaper, which is after
all well regarded, the desire to emphasize these values. That is
why I am encouraged by this evening's debate on the summit of
the Americas.
This evening, as MPs, we have an opportunity to take a hand in
the phenomenon of globalization, to be part of this trend, which
one day may be reversed, but which nonetheless is currently very
strong.
Most countries in the world are moving toward free trade
agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral in nature. The
trend is toward the creation of free trade zones. This reflects
clearly the will to create much greater wealth and it is on this
front that we have a role to play.
In my view, it will become very important in the years ahead to
create new mechanisms for sharing wealth on a global scale.
[English]
We have created a means of encouraging free trade. It behooves
all of us as parliamentarians and as people who have the public
good at heart, to bring forward ideas and create mechanisms that
will allow us to share some of the wealth among nations that
international trade and free trade helps to create.
I understand this is an extremely complex situation but the
complexity of a problem does not negate the necessity to address
it. The one wish I would like to leave with the government, as
it is taking note tonight, is that we must put in gear efforts
and thinking to create such mechanisms so that the living
standards for citizens around the world will be improved.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
could the hon. member perhaps share his views with the House with
respect to the importance of ensuring environmental standards
within the framework of trade agreements?
I recall that at the first summit of the Americas in Miami in
1994 one of the commitments made was to strengthen the protection
of biodiversity within the hemisphere. That was seven years ago
and I am not aware of any steps that have been taken within the
context of the summit of the Americas, free trade of the Americas
negotiations or anything else.
Could the hon. member indicate to us what there is within the
context of the current negotiations on the FTAA that would in any
way strengthen the protection of the environment throughout the
hemisphere, an objective which I know he shares?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will try to pick up
on the question asked by the member for Yukon and try to address
both.
If we were able to reach an agreement on environmental
standards, that might mean that a country such as ours and all of
the countries participating in such an agreement would have to
give up some of their sovereignty. As people live as neighbours
in a society they give up some of their sovereignty by virtue of
having to respect their neighbours and the environment they live
in.
I cannot predict, nor would I pretend to be able to predict, the
outcome of negotiations and how environmental considerations
might be included in any FTAA. I would hope that we could arrive
at that, just as I would hope that we would cover in any
international agreement, matters of cultural diversity.
I believe that biodiversity is as important as cultural
diversity. My colleague for Parkdale—High Park addressed that
issue earlier this evening and I share her views.
I say to the hon. member that is not to say that things are
perfect. I would hope that he would keep at it and try to
improve it as he has over the years. I applaud him for that. As
we do so collectively, things will improve. Unfortunately,
reality being what it is, we take too long to get where we want
to be but we will not get there by giving up.
2410
The complexity of an issue does not negate l'exigence de s'y
adresser. I would hope that because he is not satisfied that
things are not improving fast enough that does not mean we will
all give up to make it happen. On the contrary, I think probably
we have to increase our efforts to make it happen.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I
ask my question, last week when we went past midnight there was a
motion proposed and passed unanimously that we would let most of
the pages leave. I would ask for unanimous consent that those
who need to leave be allowed to do so.
My question has been partly answered but I will pose it in case
the hon. member would like to add anything.
[Translation]
One of my constituents believes that a free trade agreement of
the Americas would affect our sovereignty and the ability of
governments to maintain our social and environmental standards.
Is this true?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying earlier is
that when people agree to live in a community, in the same
village, on the same street, or in the same city, they have to
agree to limit their own rights to make room for their
neighbours' rights.
In order to live in society, we have to agree that our rights
are fundamentally, basically and necessarily limited. I think
it is the same thing for countries that by mutual consent enter
into international agreements on behaviour, free trade, respect
for the environment and certain environmental standards.
If a country wants to promote respect for the environment and it
does so by becoming a signatory to international agreements, it
is very likely that it will give up some portion of its
sovereignty for the international common good.
The same holds true for the members of the United Nations. We
agree to be a member of a group like the United Nations; we
accept its rules, we agree to submit to them. By doing so, we
essentially limit our own sovereignty, but we do so for the
common good.
Even though my time has expired, I hope this was helpful to my
colleague from the Yukon.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before we go any
further, I am advised by the table that there was an agreement
among the House leaders that no unanimous consent would be passed
during the whole length of the debate. Therefore I have to deny
the hon. member's request.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to talk, in particular, to the service sector, but I will first
highlight the fact that issues regarding trade and democracy are
critical in this discussion and Canada's national interest must
be the overwhelming issue for Canadians. Whether the issue is
health care, the environment or culture, we must protect it.
There are potentials in terms of the free trade agreement of the
Americas. However, we must move, in my view, slowly and
cautiously, keeping in mind that issues are being raised and
being raised in a very thoughtful and lucid manner.
The Americas is one of the most dynamic regions in the world.
There are 800 million people, not even one-sixth of the world's
population, and they account for more than one-third of the
world's economic activity. The combined gross domestic products
of the Americas, about $17 trillion, is greater than that of the
European Union.
The leaders of the western hemisphere believed that the Americas
had tremendous potential and that the countries of the Americas
could work more effectively, particularly in areas to promote
democracy, development and growth.
We have seen great changes in the Americas over the last 10 or
15 years in terms of democratic growth in the hemispheres. We
have moved from military juntas to fledgling democracies, which
Canada has a very important role to help promote and protect.
2415
The leaders also committed to strengthening not only democracy
but greater prosperity. They also committed themselves to
practical measures to improve such things as health care, to
increase access to quality education and to protection of
biodiversity, to collective action against the scourge of drugs
and corruption, to expanding the deepening dialogue with civil
society and regional priorities.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to participate in a forum
of parliamentarians from the Americas which was held here in this
very Chamber. Issues such as democracy, drugs and trade were
discussed. It is very important to bring parliamentarians from
this hemisphere together to talk about these key issues.
At the second summit, held in Santiago in 1998, issues were
talked about and moved forward. Once again leaders endorsed
action to support the development of democratic institutions, to
protect human rights, to enhance transparency and to respect the
rule of law. I believe these are critical issues for all
Canadians. The leaders gave specific instructions to begin the
process of negotiating the free trade agreement of the Americas.
If the free trade agreement of the Americas is eventually signed,
it will create the largest free trade area in the world.
In short, the summit of the Americas process may offer numerous
opportunities to further enhance Canadian openness to the western
hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the most tangible opportunities
on the economic front. It certainly does have potential for
enhanced market access for Canadian exports.
If there is one sector where new access could lead to
significant benefits for Canada, and particularly for Canadian
business, it is obviously the service sector. This is a key
sector. It is the engine of the Canadian economy. It is
responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's gross domestic
product, almost three-quarters of employment with 10.5 million
jobs, and nearly 90% of new job creation in the country. It is
leading the transformation of the Canadian economy into a
knowledge based economy. Many employees in the service sector
are highly educated and enjoy earnings well above average.
Services are the heart of Canada's innovative society. For
example, telecommunications, financial services and technical
business services are among the most innovative industries in the
country.
Canada is a trading nation and it counts on its service exports
to strengthen its prosperity. Not counting Canada's direct
investments abroad in the service companies, Canada is the 12th
largest exporter of services in the world, exporting $51.8
billion worth of services in 1998 alone. Canadian companies such
as SNC-Lavalin, Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro-Québec are among
the world leaders in their fields and their expertise is sought
across the hemisphere.
Though service exports account for only 12% of Canadian exports,
Canadian trade in services is increasing at a much faster pace
than our trade in goods. Given the importance of trade in our
economy, we can say without fear or exaggeration that improving
market access abroad for our services provides an opportunity for
sustaining our prosperity.
The argument for supporting Canada's service exports is
particularly strong when it comes to the Americas. In Canada's
commercial services, exports to FTAA countries, excluding the
United States and Mexico, were worth about $1.9 billion in 1998
and $787 million in 1993. Clearly this is a growing market, with
an annual rate of approximately 19% growth during that period.
Countries such as Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela,
Colombia and Brazil are all existing or potential export markets
for Canadian service providers. There are three sectors of
particular note: telecommunications, financial services and
engineering services. Many of these are in my own community.
The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous
success, exporting services valued at over $2 billion a year and
employing over 104,000 people. As a consequence, since 1993 the
sector has been growing by an average of 9%.
2420
Still, Canadian exports of telecommunications services face
market access and regulatory restrictions in some countries in
this hemisphere, in part due to the presence of
telecommunications monopolies and, in addition, a lack of
transparency, predictability and timeliness in the process of
awarding operating permits and licences or prohibitive fees for
licensing or interconnection. Reducing such barriers would
significantly increase export opportunities for Canadian
telecommunications companies.
In recent years Canadian financial institutions have been very
active in Central and Latin America. One leading example is
Scotiabank, which is active in Argentina and in Chile, where its
subsidiary is the seventh largest bank in that country, as well
as in Brazil, Costa Rica, Belize, El Salvador, where it has 33
branches in that country alone, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and
Venezuela. Another example is the National Bank, which recently
teamed up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local
Chilean partner to form Corp Banca Consortium in order to
purchase banking institutions in South American countries.
I had an opportunity, along with other colleagues in the House,
to be in Chile for the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum in
January. I had an opportunity to talk to representatives of
Chilean congress with regard to not only the FTAA issues but
issues in the financial services sector.
Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the
world is the engineering sector. Canada is currently the world's
third largest exporter of engineering services and the high
calibre of Canadian engineers is internationally recognized.
Business opportunities are significant, especially in Central and
Latin America where Canadian engineering expertise in resource
based energy related infrastructure projects is in high demand. I
would refer hon. members to such companies as Hydro-Québec and
its recent acquisition of Chile's Transelec, which owns 50% of
Chilean power transmission lines. This is a good example of the
type of business opportunities the countries in the western
hemisphere have to offer. That is why Canada is actively
participating in the service negotiations under FTAA.
Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a
comprehensive set of rules on trade services in the FTAA.
However, again I caution members that we must proceed cautiously.
We have to make sure the interests of this country are protected.
As we know, sometimes some of the biggest free traders are the
Americans but often in name only. We have to be careful and we
have to be aware that the negotiations are going to be difficult,
but I certainly support a transparent and open process.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member a question about the upcoming
agreement of the Americas.
We have been living under NAFTA and the Canada-United States
Free Trade Agreement for over decade now. These have been years
during which we have been forced to give up access to affordable
generic drugs, to support for Canadian magazine publishing, to
standards for toxic fuel additives and to the right to ban bulk
water and PCB exports.
In return for giving up democratic sovereignty, those deals were
supposed to give us free access to the American market for our
goods. However, as recent disputes over P.E.I. potatoes and
softwood lumber demonstrate, things have not worked out that way.
When their economic interests are threatened, the Americans
ignore trade deals or insist on exemptions to protect their own
producers.
Instead of dealing with these problems, our federal government
is taking the lead in promoting, through the FTAA, the expansion
of a trade deal that further weakens democratically elected
governments while strengthening the power of global corporations.
Since the hon. member seems to be promoting the fact that this
is a good deal for Canadians and Canadian industries, I would ask
him this: with the examples I have just given, how is this deal
going to strengthen our position as a country and our position as
a trading partner?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, clearly the member
opposite was not listening quite as attentively as she could have
been.
2425
First of all, I said that we have to move cautiously. I talked
about a particular sector, the service sector. In looking at the
service sector, I said there were opportunities. We are looking
at opportunities. I made the comment that the Americans are
often the biggest free traders, but when it comes to having their
own interests at heart they often put up barriers. The member
mentioned P.E.I. potatoes as an example.
I am not suggesting and have never suggested in my comments this
evening that we simply go straight ahead without being cautious
and without making sure that our interests are protected. I
presume the member understands the fact that the national
interest is paramount. Therefore, if in fact under free trade or
under NAFTA there are issues we feel are not serving our
interests, there are, as there have been, mechanisms to address
those issues.
However, I would think that under the FTAA we have to make sure
that the right mechanisms are there, whether they are tribunals
or whatever they happen to be, in order to make sure we are
protected. Not to do so would not be in the national interest.
Therefore I have highlighted only one area in which I feel that
there may be enhanced opportunity for Canadian companies.
However, I did say as well that we have to make sure we protect
and have control of our health care, culture and environment. If
in fact at the end of the day we are not able to do that, then I
would not support it.
When members are listening to what I am saying, they have to be
very careful. I am looking at one area in which I do see an
opportunity, but again we must go slowly.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will be very brief. The hon. member is a former president of
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I wonder if he would
like to comment on a motion adopted by the city council of
Vancouver expressing very grave concern about the implications of
the FTAA for the rights of cities to make decisions about their
own future, about their environment and about the health care of
their citizens.
The city of Vancouver unanimously passed a motion urging the
federal government not to sign any trade deal, such as the
proposed expansion of NAFTA being negotiated in the FTAA, which
includes investor state provisions similar to those included in
NAFTA. Does the hon. member agree with the motion that has been
passed by the city of Vancouver?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the
motion of the city of Vancouver. I have not read it. However,
again, clearly anything that does not protect interests, whether
they are of cities or Canada as a whole, obviously I could not
support. Again, I believe that any treaty that would be proposed
should come back to the House for full and honest debate.
Mr. Svend Robinson: It is a done deal by then.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: You do exactly what you're told. You
might as well be unconscious.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to participate in this take note debate with some sense of
sadness and almost despair about what the ultimate outcome of
this debate will be.
I have participated in many debates in the House. We have
debated motions and we have debated bills, but let us be clear
about what is being debated here today. We, as members of
parliament, are being told that we have to debate, in a take note
debate, a fundamentally important subject about the future of
this country and the future of this hemisphere and this planet.
Yet we are being denied the very essence of what it is that we
are supposed to be debating.
An hon. member: Where's the text?
Mr. Svend Robinson: We are being denied the text that is
being negotiated by the 34 countries involved in this hemispheric
deal, the free trade of the Americas agreement.
It makes a mockery of democracy when we are being told that we
are able to pronounce ourselves on the implications of the FTAA,
the summit of the Americas, and yet we do not have the text
itself. That is the first point I want to make.
2430
It is a perversion of democracy to suggest that somehow we could
have a serious debate or a serious dialogue on the issue when in
fact we have no opportunity to view the text itself.
I might just add that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I should have
mentioned that at the outset of my comments.
Not only are we denied access to the text that is being
negotiated behind closed doors, but the government says that it
has been totally transparent and that all we have to do is go to
its website to see its position on the key issues that are being
negotiated in the framework of the FTAA.
Some of us have actually gone to that website. What are some of
the most critical issues? They include things like the dispute
settlement mechanism, intellectual property, investment and
services. Here is what the Government of Canada has to say on
its official website about its position on investment:
To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group
on Investment. Any submission made by Canada will be made
available on the website.
So much for transparency: it has nothing to say about
investment. In response to a question from my colleague, the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, this same government said that it
was very concerned about the implications of chapter 11 of NAFTA.
It was to make sure that no similar provision was being
negotiated in the FTAA. What a fraud when, by its own admission,
it has not bothered to make any submissions at all on the issue
of investment.
That means quite clearly that the government does not care. It
certainly does not care enough to make submissions about what
this investor state provision might mean for Canada's
sovereignty, for our ability at all levels of government to make
decisions in the best interest of the citizens that we have the
honour of representing.
When we look at what the FTAA is really about, or what NAFTA and
the WTO are really about, more and more they are about taking
power away from democratically elected governments and putting it
in the hands of corporate elites that are unaccountable to
anybody but their shareholders.
The House does not have to take my word for it. I will quote
from a couple of people who have made very clear that this is the
agenda. One is Renato Ruggiero, former director general of the
World Trade Organization. Here is what he had to say:
God forbid, a surplus of democracy. We have to build up trade
deals like the free trade of the Americas and NAFTA which will
prevent democracy from actually influencing corporate power at
all. Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute said:
A trade deal simply limits the ability to which any statutory
government may respond to pressure from its citizens.
Ain't that the truth? God forbid that citizens should be in a
position to actually influence their government over things like
the future of health care, education, culture, social programs or
the environment. We know that all these areas are at grave risk
in the so-called trade negotiations.
Just yesterday, for example, the common front on the World Trade
Organization released a document voicing its deep concern about
the implications of the current negotiations on the General
Agreement on Trade in Services, the so-called GATS. It has made
very clear that the sole purpose of the current GATS negotiations
is to open up public services to privatization and international
competition. In other words, it would replace services which are
now delivered in the public interest through the public sector
with private for profit companies. That would destroy many of
the social programs we have come to take for granted.
This is a totally undemocratic process. I want to point out as
well with respect to the process that we are witnessing in the
context of the summit of the Americas an increasing
criminalization of dissent.
2435
We know that Quebec City itself is being turned into an armed
fortress and that any dissent, and I am speaking of non-violent,
peaceful protest, people marching in the streets voicing their
concerns about what these deals will mean not only for the people
of Canada but for the people of the hemisphere, is being
criminalized in many areas.
We have the obscene spectacle of the corporate elite buying its
way into the corridors of power. Half a million dollars gets the
opportunity to say a few words at the opening reception. If they
can only afford $75,000, all they can do is decide which of the
leaders they want to cozy up to and lobby in the context of the
free trade of the Americas agreement. What a contempt for civil
society.
Civil society outside that four kilometre parameter, with the
friends of the government and the corporate elite inside wining
and dining, having paid the necessary fees to have access to the
process, is an appalling spectacle.
I want to say a word about another element that troubles us as
New Democrats. This is not a process that includes all 35
countries in the hemisphere. Indeed one country has been left
out because the United States made very clear that it is its rule
about the summit. That is Cuba. It is totally unacceptable that
Cuba should be isolated because of American pressure.
It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister said Cuba
should be a member of la grande famille, should be invited to be
at the table, but now we have seen in a profound reversal of
Canada's policy the new foreign affairs minister saying no,
Canada does not support Cuba's presence at the table. It is
clearly unacceptable.
It is a process that is totally undemocratic: denial of access
to the documents being negotiated and criminalization of dissent
by people who object not only to the process but to the
substance. There are concerns around the participation at the
table and about corporate influence in the whole process, but the
substance of the WTO, NAFTA and now the FTAA is of deep concern
to us as New Democrats.
I know the member for Winnipeg—Transcona will elaborate on some
of these concerns, particularly around the impact of chapter 11,
the so-called investor state provisions. We have seen the impact
of corporate power in the so-called intellectual property area
with pharmaceutical companies trying to stop Brazil and South
Africa under the WTO from making cheap generic drugs available to
aid in the fight against AIDS and HIV. That is what we have seen
as a direct result of the so-called trade deals.
In closing, I again say that these trade deals are not about
trade. They are about corporate power. We as New Democrats say
that it is time we had a government that negotiated a fair trade
deal. We believe in a rules based economy and rules based trade,
but rules that put ecological sustainability, worker rights,
human rights and the environment ahead of corporate profit and
the bottom line.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
member for Burnaby—Douglas. He speaks passionately against the
concept of free trade but speaks in favour of fair trade.
There was some talk a while ago, and Canadians might want some
clarification, of the federal NDP perhaps changing its opinion on
free trade and becoming more proactive in terms of free trade,
actually believing that the concept of competitive and
comparative advantage is good and should be embraced.
The NDP premiers of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba
were all part of the most recent team Canada trade mission to the
Asia-Pacific region. Has the member for Burnaby—Douglas
informed the three premiers of those provinces of his distaste
for the concept of free trade? Has he brought as much scorn on
them as he has brought on the government for its pursuit of free
trade?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly as New
Democrats we have said, as I indicated in my closing comments,
that we reject the model in NAFTA. We reject the model in the
proposed free trade of the Americas agreement. We have certainly
voiced deep concerns about the model in APEC.
2440
I spoke out strongly, as did my colleagues, on that model. We
voiced those concerns in the context of APEC. We have certainly
raised serious concerns about human rights and respect for the
environment, issues like the sale of Candu reactors to China,
concerns around the Three Gorges Dam and a number of other
similar grave concerns about human rights violations in the
context of religious freedom, whether it be Falun Dafa or other
serious abuses of human rights. Certainly we have spoken out on
those issues.
I might say that we are waiting for members of the Canadian
Alliance to take a strong and forceful stand with respect to
grave human rights violations in this hemisphere. I was
astonished to hear the member for the riding of Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca speaking of Colombia and defending the United States Plan
Colombia, saying that as a member of parliament he supports the
military component of Plan Colombia.
If we want to talk about human rights, I suggest to the hon.
member from Coquitlam that he speak with his colleague for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and remind him of the concern about
respect for human rights in this hemisphere, which is what is
being debated in this take note debate this evening.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
points. Maybe it was the phrasing of the member's words when he
was talking about the private sector doing some things the
government is doing, but to me it seemed to cast aspersion on
business workers. I think all workers in both business and
government in Canada by and large work very hard for whoever is
providing a particular service.
My question is related to services. The hon. member was
suggesting that health, public education and social services
might be at risk. Last week the Minister for International Trade
made his announcement of Canada's position on the GATT. He made
quite clear that those things would not be at risk in the GATT or
in the free trade agreement of the Americas.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why we
should believe anything the minister says in light of the track
record of the Liberal Party on trade issues. I remember the 1993
election when the Liberals campaigned vigorously against NAFTA.
They were to have nothing whatsoever to do with NAFTA.
I remember the previous parliament when the now industry
minister campaigned strongly with all his colleagues against the
pharmaceutical drug legislation, that gift to multinational drug
corporations. In the interim we have seen one of the most
disgraceful flip-flops. In fact the Minister of Industry gave a
grovelling apology to Brian Mulroney at Davos, Switzerland: “You
were right, Brian. We were wrong in the Liberal Party”.
Just last week in front of the Senate committee the minister
apologized for the Liberal position on pharmaceutical drugs when
he said in 1987 that the pharmaceutical drug bill would suck the
lifeblood out of Canada's poorest citizens. That is what he said
then. He has said the opposite now. Why should we believe
anything that the trade minister tells parliament or the country?
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to follow my colleague, the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas, in putting on the record the very real concerns
of the NDP about the FTAA. We have concerns not just about the
FTAA but also about various other trade agreements which contain
the same elements as the government would like to see included in
the FTAA.
Our opposition to the free trade of the Americas is consistent
with our opposition to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the
North American Free Trade Agreement, the multilateral agreement
on investment and the World Trade Organization. All these
agreements, some in place like NAFTA, some historical like the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, some defeated like the
multilateral agreement on investment and some in process,
like the WTO, all these agreements have in common the fact that they are
agreements which were conceived in the first place to restrict
the ability of democratically elected governments to act in the
public interest, to act on behalf of the common good.
2445
As my colleague referred to earlier when he was quoting Renato
Ruggiero, the former director of the WTO, it has been the view of
the corporate elite both nationally and globally for some time
basically since the early mid-seventies that there has been a
surplus of democracy in the western world. Things were getting
out of hand. The economy was regulated in a way that did not
permit the maximization of profit in the way that corporations
would like.
There began a corporate backlash in the 1970s, which by the late
1980s took the form of free trade agreements. It took the old
concept of free trade and protectionism, which sometimes had been
supported by various elements of the political spectrum and which
basically had to do with the elimination of tariffs, et cetera,
and applied it toward an entirely new phenomenon that included
not just what free trade used to include but entirely new sectors
with respect to energy, investment and now services, the latter
being the latest addition to what the corporate elite would like
to see brought under the authority of these agreements.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas said that he was sad to see that
we were debating the free trade agreement of the Americas without
the text. It is not a coincidence that we do not have the text.
The one time that we did have the text before there was an
agreement it was defeated. Somehow the text of the MAI,
multilateral agreement on investment, was put on the Internet and
everybody had a copy of it. That agreement did not survive
because people could actually point to what it was that their
governments were planning to do to them.
I do not believe the minister of trade when he says that he
would really love to release the text of the draft agreement but
he cannot get the other countries to agree. It is clear to me
that there is an agreement among all the countries not to release
the text. If they release the text they know there would be a
lot more people protesting in Quebec City, more than those
already planning to protest what it is that their governments are
planning to do to them.
It is not just what the governments are planning to do to their
citizens in terms of taking away their rights and their ability
through their governments to act in the public interest. The
real question is: Why do governments want to do this to
themselves?
It is the most pathetic element of what we have seen
in the last decade of the 20th century and what we are seeing
more of in the beginning of the 21st century.
When the history of western liberal democracy is written 100
years from now, it will be about the decline of liberal
democracy. It will be similar to the books we now read about the
decline of Athenian democracy, the decline of the ideals of the
Roman republic, or various other historical epochs that started
out with an idea which flourished, reached its zenith at some
point and then for some reason began to deteriorate.
Since the late 1980s we have seen through the free trade
agreements the relentless but willing advocation of power by
elected representatives, both by parliamentarians individually
and collectively, by democratically elected governments with
power vested in them by their citizenry and electorate, to
corporations, either to corporations directly or to international
or regional trade agreements which embody the values and the
interests of those corporations.
2450
The really interesting point for historians 100 years from now
will be to try to understand what went on in the 1990s and in the
early part of the 21st century, if we survive, if we can breathe
the air and drink the water that a deregulated global market
economy will bring us. However, if we survive, somebody will be
asking what possessed these people to surrender the control of
the economy, the trust that had been placed in them by the
citizens who voted them into power. What possessed them to give
up that power?
That is what people in Quebec City will be protesting. That is
what they protested in Seattle and Windsor. They will be
protesting at the next meeting of the WTO in Qatar, those who can
get there. I will put on the record now that the next summit of
the Americas will probably be in the Falkland Islands. These
things will have to go beyond being held in artificially created
gated compounds. They will have to be held on islands that can
be defended by various navies because more and more people are
seeing that this is an attack on democracy.
The real shame is that the people who should be in the forefront
of defending democracy, the people who are actually elected, are
the ones who are being sucked in royally by it. We have heard a
lot of that tonight, people getting up and singing the praises of
free trade without seeing that they are singing the praises of
their own continuing demise as parliamentarians both individually
and collectively.
What is this all done in the name of? As I said before, it is
done in the name of constraining the power of government. However
it is also done from a Canadian perspective, as a Liberal member
said earlier, in the name of enhanced market access. The Liberal
member who was talking about enhanced market access was talking
about enhanced market access for Canadian service corporations.
We are being asked to trade away the mechanisms and the public
policy instruments through which we have built up a different
kind of society and through which we have regulated the economy
in a way that accrued to the public interest rather than the
private interest and corporations. We are being asked to give
all that up so that our Canadian corporations will not run into
similar public policy instruments in other countries.
In the interest of their corporate profits and their profit
strategies we are being asked to give up our way of life. That
is what it amounts to. We are told that this leads to jobs. It
may well do so. If at the same time we have to give up our way
of life and give up the possibility of being a distinct country
having distinct social and economic values, it will be a classic
case of having sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. It will
not be worth it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that I have only the highest
regard for him as an individual and for his history in
parliament. I have been very impressed in the last few weeks
with some of his sage wisdom that he has given to parliament.
I will not debate him on the issue that he has just put forward.
I have a fundamental disagreement with his thesis. I would like
to give him and perhaps the New Democratic Party an opportunity
to go on record about a related issue. I sincerely respect the
New Democratic Party, particularly this member, and the fact that
they have a particular perspective.
They want to go to Quebec to make those statements.
2455
I also sincerely respect other thoughtful Canadians who hold to
that perspective. I would like to give him the opportunity to
make some comment about those who take the credibility of
thoughtful people like him and others who want to protest and
take it to the anarchistic extreme.
It is unfortunate that the government has had to put up barriers
and walls and take other security measures. I would like to give
the member and his party the opportunity to say that they want to
have the right to democratically attack this summit, that they
want the right to demonstrate peacefully and that they want the
right to make their statement as forcefully as they possibly can,
but that they resent and reject the anarchistic tendencies of
some who will be coming with the avowed intention to get up to
anarchy and public mischief.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member
that there has never been any doubt in any of the statements that
have been made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas on behalf of
the NDP as trade critic; by myself, formerly the trade critic; or
by our leader that we are going to Quebec City to be in
solidarity with the people who want to peacefully protest against
the free trade area of the Americas.
I was in Seattle representing the NDP. This was not
inconsistent with what we will be doing in Quebec. It was not
inconsistent with what had been done before. Tens of thousands
of people in Seattle were demonstrating against the World Trade
Organization who had nothing to do with the planning, the
executing or the approving of the actions of a minority of
protesters who had a different philosophy that chose to break
windows.
There are people who are against any kind of world governance.
We have already said we are not against a multilateral rules
based economy. We want one that is designed not in the interests
of multinational corporations but in the interests of the
well-being of all peoples. That means we have to include core
labour standards and environmental standards, et cetera, all the
things that the corporations do not want included in these
agreements.
I thank the hon. member for the question, but the answer is
something that has been given many times by myself and other New
Democrats.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will ask a brief question. It is a complex issue, but I do
want to give the member an opportunity to comment briefly on one
of the most dangerous provisions in the existing NAFTA which is
being proposed as quite possibly extending into the FTAA. It is
chapter 11 dealing with the investor state provision.
We have seen challenges by UPS of our public postal service, by
S.D. Myers on banning PCB exports and by Sun Belt Water regarding
bulkwater exports. Could the hon. member comment briefly on his
concerns with respect to this very dangerous provision?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if I had more time to
elaborate on how these agreements affect democracy and how they
threaten democracy, I would have turned to chapter 11, the
investor state dispute settlement mechanism, as a prime example.
The things the member for Burnaby—Douglas listed, and one can
list others, are basically a list of public policy options or
public policy decisions that democratically elected governments
have made in the past or could make in the future which could now
be challenged through this investor state dispute settlement
mechanism.
Not only do those decisions then become challenged, but we have
this chill effect whereby governments never make other
possible decisions because they are afraid of this mechanism.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Skeena. From April 20 to April 22,
2001, 34 democratically elected heads of government representing
a territory that spans from Iqaluit to Tierra del Fuego, with a
combined population of some 800 million people, will gather in
Quebec City for the summit of the Americas.
2500
On the agenda are such topics as economic integration, improved
access to education, alleviation of poverty, enhanced respect for
human rights and democratic development.
The goal is to take a collective step forward toward
implementing a free trade area of the Americas, a hemispheric
free trade zone which would offer increased economic integration,
increased economic growth and broad development that would
benefit all concerned.
Those of us who accept and encourage the dynamic competitive and
comparative advantage hope the talks will be frank and
productive. However the talks might pale in comparison with the
vigorous and shrill anti-summit disruptions that will occur
throughout Quebec City. The press, always seeking to sell a racy
story, will have to choose between dry stories predicting
increased Canada-Costa Rica trade or explicit, loud and
disruptive images of anti-summit protesters.
In the end protesters may succeed in selling their trade is bad,
anti-capitalist message to an apathetic public, as they partially
did in Seattle. However the average Canadian, using common
sense, will know that just the opposite is true. Not only is
trade good, but fair rules based trade is a goal we should pursue
with vigour.
A mere look into the average Canadian kitchen, where Latin
American fruits and coffee sit side by side with Mexican beer,
Chilean wines and Canadian cheese, confirms the very obvious
benefits of trade for all, benefits we often take them for
granted. At its heart, the Quebec City summit of the Americas
seeks to define rules that will ensure free trade of the Americas
benefits all concerned. Unfortunately the popular focus has
fallen victim to anti-free trade propaganda, propaganda that,
frankly, is devoid of truth.
I will deal with some of the more often uttered objections to
free trade.
We heard a minute ago from the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona and, before him, the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas. They claim, as does the Canadian Union of
Public Employees, that:
Under NAFTA Chapter 11, virtually any action by a government that
limits the current or future value of assets held by a foreign
corporation is subject to a claim for compensation.
While that statement is true, CUPE conveniently forgets to
mention, as do opponents of NAFTA, that in Canada citizens and
corporations alike, both foreign and domestic, have long had the
right to sue the government for compensation for actions of the
government that unjustly and unfairly damage them.
Many Canadians will probably remember the famous Pearson airport
privatization scandal. It resulted from the sale, during the
dying days of the Mulroney administration, of Pearson airport
terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium that included some political
allies.
During the 1993 election campaign the Liberals campaigned on a
promise to scrap the deal and re-examine the contract. They won
the election and cancelled the deal. The consortium sued. When
the Liberals responded that a government could not be sued for
keeping an election promise, the Ontario Court of Appeal
disagreed. It ruled in 1995 that one could sue a government for
breaking a contract and claim lost profits.
Faced with that reality, the government settled out of court
with the consortium and paid it $265 million.
Canadians and Canadian companies and foreigners and foreign
companies can sue the Canadian government. Not more than two
blocks from this Chamber is the Federal Court of Canada which has
jurisdiction “in all cases where relief is claimed against the
Crown”. It recognizes the right of individuals and companies to
sue the federal government. Naturally, that right includes the
right to sue the government for lost profits or for compensation
for loss of property.
Our trade agreements have not granted new rights to foreign
companies in Canada. What they do is export Canada's standards
of legal and political rights to other countries.
A second myth, often propagated by the detractors of expanded
trade, is the belief that global trade is an evil which only
benefits large corporations and must be fought at all costs. We
heard that in the previous two presentations. This view is
simply devoid of facts and serious economic reasoning. We have
seen a dramatic increase in prosperity and growth as a result of
the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA. We have seen
firsthand the tremendous benefits of structured, rules based
trade with a like minded democracy to the south.
Through the expansion of the proven principles of NAFTA to a
Canada-Chile free trade agreement and to a now proposed
Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, we have sought to
diversify Canada's export market, in part to make Canada slightly
less dependent on trade with the United States. That is a step
in the right direction.
2505
Today Canada conducts more than 80% of its trade with the United
States and we trade more with Japan, our number two trading
partner, than with all of Latin America and the Caribbean
combined. If trade is good then multilateral trade, trading with
many partners, is even better.
The FTAA seeks to create a regime of rules based trade that will
serve the interests of everyone. Think back to October of 1999,
when the WTO, acting on a complaint from Japan, struck down the
longstanding Canada-U.S. auto pact. By striking down the access
of Canadian car plants to U.S. markets, the decision could have
meant disaster and the loss of thousands of jobs in Ontario and
Quebec.
Instead, the open trade rule of the Canada-United States Free
Trade Agreement kicked in. Since then Canadian exports to the
U.S. have increased by more than 15% in that sector. That
benefits auto workers, especially members of the Canadian Auto
Workers union at plants in Ontario and Quebec which now build
cars for export to such distant markets as Chile and Saudi
Arabia.
While the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, denounces
free trade, exports are paying the bills for Canadian Auto Worker
union members. Perhaps CUPE's leaders should listen to their CAW
brothers and sisters who would tell them that rules based free
trade is good and that their jobs are proof of it.
That argument has not been lost in the sovereignty plans of the
Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. They have always been
careful to suggest separation would not remove Quebec from either
the FTA or NAFTA. Whether such a status would persist is a
debate for another time, but the fact is that free trade is good
for Quebec's economy, and its representatives in Ottawa and
Quebec City recognize and are actively reflecting that.
An argument can be made that the recent election in Mexico,
which has rightly been hailed as the first open and honest
election in Mexican history, was due in part to Mexico's
involvement in NAFTA and to the commitment of democracy expressed
in that agreement by Canada and the United States.
Similarly, it would seem that in South America a genuine
commitment to democracy and all that it entails is seen as a
necessary requirement to participation in the free trade area of
the Americas.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas asked earlier and at committee
why Cuba will not be at the FTAA summit. I told him at
committee, and I will tell him again today, that Cuba will not be
in Quebec City because there is no consensus among the 34 nations
for it to be there. That is, I might suggest to the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, because since 1959 the Castro regime has driven
out, incarcerated or murdered a fifth of its population. That
might have something to do with it.
Many of those protesting the summit are union activists who are
staunch defenders of the collective bargaining process.
Canadians have long respected that process, and they accept the
need to conduct union-management negotiations behind closed doors
as long as the rank and file are consulted before negotiations
start and have a chance to ratify the final agreement.
Those principles must apply to the Quebec summit. Anyone who
says otherwise is not truly interested in greater transparency
but is using the plea for greater openness as a Trojan Horse to
scuttle the FTAA process. We must recognize that behaviour for
what it is: anti-democratic and contradictory to their own
practices and self-interest.
In short, they selectively use closed door bargaining when it is
in their best interests but not when it is in the best interests
of those with whom they disagree. True democrats recognize this
inconsistency as a lack of courage for an assumed, unassailable
principle of collective negotiation.
I will end by quoting one of Europe's leading socialists, the
Right Hon. Tony Blair, prime minister of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He said in this House:
It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and
clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for
our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the
poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided
and, worse, unfair.
On behalf of the official opposition, I say amen to Prime
Minister Blair. Greater truth has not been spoken by a prime
minister in this place for a very long time.
2510
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to speak on the matter of the upcoming
summit of the Americas in Quebec City on April 20 of this year. I
will address my remarks to the issue of trade and, more
specifically, trade in softwood lumber between the U.S.A. and
Canada.
It would seem the Liberal government is not taking the matter
seriously. We on the Alliance benches want to see the current
agreement end and free trade instituted, as was supposed to be
the case when NAFTA was signed. We do not feel enough is being
done to ensure that.
Trade in softwood lumber will revert to NAFTA rules in the
absence of a softwood lumber agreement. On June 7, 2000 the
Canadian Alliance posted on the Internet its position to return
to free trade in lumber. During the November election we could
not smoke out the Liberals on their free trade position, and only
in dribs and drabs since January has it been clarified somewhat.
After signing a misguided agreement in 1996 that placed all
kinds of restrictions on Canadian lumber producers, Canada is now
staring down the barrel of the U.S. trade gun. The Liberal
government let down Canadian lumber producers by not staking out
its ground a long time ago in favour of free trade in lumber. One
wonders what it has been up to.
I will give some background as to why the matter is important to
me and to my riding of Skeena, British Columbia. B.C. accounts
for more than 50% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the
U.S.A. Those exports have an approximate value of more than $5
billion annually. With the end of the Canada-U.S.A. softwood
lumber agreement and no free trade agreement in place, my riding,
as well as many others in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, will
suffer.
In my riding the major producer, Skeena Cellulose Inc., has no
U.S. quota as it has focused their exports on the Asian market.
However now that those markets have gone cold, SCI is looking to
the U.S. as a potential market. The problem is that the softwood
lumber agreement is based on trade history. What one has shipped
into the U.S. in the past determines what one is allowed to ship
now. SCI, a major producer of lumber, has no history of shipping
to the U.S. The potential for shutdowns and layoffs is imminent.
Over the past five years, the four provinces that signed the
1996 agreement have struggled to meet and not exceed their quota
to the U.S. while the six exempt provinces have seen an increase
in market share of up to 130%. B.C. alone has seen its share
reduced by 20%. Quebec's share has seen a modest increase of
2.8%. The four covered provinces combined have seen a total
reduction in U.S. market share of up to 14.5%.
The government needs to set things straight with the U.S.A.
before the argument costs Canada billions in countervailing and
anti-dumping duties. The ministers on the government benches do
not even have their stories straight. The Minister of Industry
has been quoted as saying that a renewal of the existing
agreement will be part of the negotiations, while the Minister
for International Trade said there would be no renewal at all.
Which is it?
How can Canadian lumber producers have any faith in what the
government is willing to do for them when it does not know what
it is doing? It does not instil a great deal of faith in my
heart.
Meanwhile, 50 U.S. senators from both sides of the political
spectrum have sent a letter to the president saying they need
action to keep Canada from flooding lumber into the United
States. What course of action will they be taking? According to
the letter, they are calling for Ottawa to voluntarily impose a
20% export tax on Canadian lumber. That is a measure we had in
the 1980s. Are we so far advanced that we must go back in time?
The U.S. is also looking into launching an anti-dumping and
subsidy investigation under a rarely used trade law to make sure
Canada pays when the current agreement is over at the end of the
month. The critical circumstance law is used only when a flood
of cheap imports threatens to enter the country. Under normal
U.S. trade laws, import duties cannot be imposed for at least 90
days from the end of a trade agreement. Should the investigation
find in favour of the subsidy claim by the U.S.A., the critical
circumstance law will then allow the U.S. government to impose
punitive duties retroactively for those 90 days.
What does that mean? It means that even though we will have
some form of free trade for three months, when that time is up
Canadian producers will be hit with duties for that month as well
as for the months prior that were supposed to be open to free
trade.
To make matters worse, Canadian producers have no idea what the
duty amount may be. It could be anywhere from 15% to 45%. That
could cost Canadian producers tens of millions of dollars.
According to the Byrd Amendment enacted last fall, that would be
paid to United States lumber producers. Not only would Canadian
producers be unable to ship lumber into the U.S. without paying
heavy duties, the payments would go to their U.S. competitors.
2515
There is a subsidy there, Mr. Speaker, but it is too bad it is
the Canadian producers subsidizing the U.S. producers. The real
victims are American consumers and Canadian jobs and the
recipient is a noisy U.S. lumber coalition. This could turn into
a national crisis, but we would never know that by the way the
government is handling the situation. Is it prepared to meet
with its U.S. counterparts during this summit to ensure free
trade in softwood lumber? Or, when the ministers meet later on
in Buenos Aires to discuss the new free trade area of the
Americas, the government should be prepared to ensure free trade
in softwood lumber with the U.S.
At the moment President Bush is prepared to fast track the
approval of the FTAA. This is the time for the Liberal
government to take control and look out for the interests of the
Canadian lumber producers and their tens of thousands of
employees.
If under NAFTA the Canadian government cannot guarantee that the
softwood lumber industry will ever have free trade with the U.S.,
then how can we be certain that, with the FTAA, when a U.S.
industry feels threatened by a counterpart from Canada it will
not go into protectionist mode like it has done with our softwood
lumber?
Canada is just one of the major industrialized countries that is
dependent upon trade. The trade sector accounts for one out of
every three jobs in Canada. This nation has been a strong
advocate of the FTAA as an opportunity to promote regional
prosperity, increased business activity and jobs in Canada. It
would stand to reason that part of this opportunity would come
from the lumber industry, yet it would seem that the Canadian
government would rather see trade centre on what is termed the
new economy, the high tech industries. Do not get me wrong.
There is always a need to improve our technology. However,
should it be done at the expense of the other more traditional
industries? No.
Every industry in Canada should be afforded the same opportunity
to grow and prosper. It would be interesting to see, for
example, if there had been a five year trade agreement with the
U.S. in fibre optics that was to run out in three days whether
the government would be sitting around on its hands or working
toward a resolution of that situation to keep the industry from
losing millions of dollars at the hands of their American
counterparts. Would the government not try to work out a free
trade agreement in that industry? Why then does it leave the
softwood lumber industry to fend for itself when it comes to
trade interests?
We get the strange feeling that the government does not realize
that the country, as it grows, depends on these industries as
much, if not more, than it did in its fledgling days. These
so-called old economy industries are what drive the high tech
industry into research and development. They are one of the
biggest consumers of high tech advancements. Why would the
government not fight for free trade in the lumber industry?
One thing this country does need is consensus. We need to join
together as a country and face the American lumber industry as a
whole, with all provinces in agreement, not the west versus the
east as we are seeing at the moment.
We are all in this for the same reason. We must see that we do
indeed have allies in the U.S., such as the group called American
Consumers for Affordable Homes, which has much in common with the
Canadian Free Trade Lumber Council. This group also enjoys
support from 49 members of the House of Representatives, members
who introduced a resolution at the beginning of March to simply
allow the softwood lumber agreement to lapse. Why would they do
that? It is because the homebuilders' coalition has said that
restrictions placed on Canadian lumber add approximately $1,000
U.S. to the end cost of each new home built in the United States.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter came out in support of
Canadian lumber in an editorial on March 24. He calls for an end
to the current softwood lumber agreement and a permanent free
trade agreement to be used to give both countries equal footing
in the softwood lumber market. If members of the House of
Representatives, U.S. citizens and even former presidents are
willing to fight their own American government for Canadian
lumber, why then will our government not?
We need action on this issue now, not later. I am calling on
the Liberal Government of Canada to take a stand and save the
Canadian lumber industry. Do not leave Canadian lumber producers
out in the cold.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the
Alliance Party for bringing up the issue of softwood lumber
because, as he knows, in Atlantic Canada the maritime accord,
which has given us an exemption over the recent agreements, has
been very beneficial for us in Atlantic Canada.
Do the member and his party support Atlantic Canada being able
to maintain the maritime accord when it comes to any future
softwood lumber agreements?
2520
Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, my party and I support
equal and open access to the market for all Canadian producers. I
firmly believe that the industry across Canada has the ability to
compete very effectively with its U.S. counterpart. It is a
matter of having free access to that market on a equal basis
across the country. Until we achieve that, there will be no
satisfaction or consensus from the producers across Canada. They
all require equal access to the U.S. market on an equal footing
and on a free and open basis.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the constituency of
Skeena who has done an excellent job here in consistently
defending the interests of his constituents with respect to the
pending economic disaster of potential softwood lumber tariffs
being imposed by our American friends.
This is a very important debate on a major trade accord. Indeed,
this take note debate was brought forward to this place in the
form of a motion by the government, which holds, if I am not
mistaken, 172 seats in this place.
An hon. member: It's 171 and Lynn Myers.
Mr. Jason Kenney: That would make 171, less the member
for Waterloo—Wellington.
There are about 130 opposition members. I just wondered if my
colleague would care to reflect on the fact that in this very
important government motion on which he just spoke at 1.20 a.m.
eastern time, there are eight times more members of the
opposition in this place right now than members of the
government—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member for
Calgary Southeast knows full well that he cannot allude to the
absence of any members here. I would ask him to please listen to
what I have to say, at least.
Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague has
a very valid concern. It is very obvious. I recognize the
member for Yukon over in the corner there.
It is very strange that there is not more interest in this
extremely important debate. Looking around the House, my
colleague is quite correct. There are, I believe, nine of us
here now compared to one across the floor. It is not
particularly—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that at this hour of the morning we have reached a
consensus about something I heard earlier from my colleagues. We
seem to agree that this is indeed an important debate. This day
is a happy one, because we have an opportunity to debate the
issue in the House.
I must admit to the members that my happiness decreases sharply
when I see what time it is: it is 1.25 a.m. It does not bother
me to be debating at 1.25 a.m. The public seems to be saying to
us that it is important.
Yet we are having it in the evening. We are having it at night,
and the impression is that we are trying to get rid of it, that
it will be swept under the carpet and that what is said will not
be given much weight, or something like that.
It is very sad to see the context in which this debate is taking
place. It does not bother me one bit to get up in the middle of
the night in order to come to debate something as important as
this. I have wanted us to debate issues such as this one—economic
integration—for a long time. I am not against it, far from it.
However, I am suggesting that we do our job and really debate
the issue.
What are we talking about today? We are talking about the summit
of the Americas, the discussions on the free trade area of the
Americas which will take place on April 20. For me, this is a
very, very important date.
In addition to being the date of the summit, it is the
anniversary of a date on which I once took an enormous risk by
trying to launch a public discussion of the potential impact of
globalization and economic integration on society and democracy.
Indeed, I took this chair that belongs to my fellow citizens of
Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I brought it to them and I told them,
“Listen, after two years in politics, I wonder about the power
of this chair to reduce the disparity between rich and poor in
the context of globalization”.
2525
Initially, we had difficulty finding documentation on
globalization. I do not claim to be the one who sparked the
debate, but I think I became involved in a popular movement from
which emerged a degree of concern that is still present and that
will continue to be present on April 20 and 21. Unfortunately or
fortunately, many people will descend on the streets of Quebec
City.
I say unfortunately because of the potential for violence. I
deplore any kind of violence that may erupt in connection with
the demonstrations and other public gatherings that will be
held. Violence is completely unacceptable and a threat to
democracy.
I will be joining the people who plan to take to the streets to
voice their concerns or protest the lack of debate. I agree with
them that there is a problem.
When I carried out my chair, I was hoping to generate some kind
of debate. Moreover, 50,000 people signed a petition calling on
members of parliament to examine these issues. It is the least
we could have done, in my view. However, given the absence of
debate and the presence of lack of communication, this is what
happens.
Even if the proposed FTAA was a positive initiative, the average
person in the street would not know if indeed it would benefit
him or her because there has not been any kind of debate. Some
discussions may have taken place, but there has been no societal
debate. Thus it is extremely relevant that we debate this matter
here this evening.
As I said, I find it very regrettable that this debate must
unfold in the wee hours of the morning, when the public and
parliamentarians may not necessarily be listening.
I am not saying that I oppose everything that is happening. That
is not at all the case. However, as I said, if we had had an
opportunity to set eyes on the FTAA texts during the course of
our discussions, and I am certain many people would like to get
their hands on these documents, then people would have been able
to give an informed opinion. This was not to be. All we have to
go on are snippets of information.
During a recent visit to Chile, I had an opportunity to meet
with the minister of international co-operation who informed me
that he was doing a great deal of work parallel to this accord
to ensure that the FTAA agreement would have positive spin-offs
for the other countries of the Americas. So much the better.
As that issue is not a subject of debate, and we are not
really sure what is being done around us, it is hard for me to
go out and meet with the people of my riding and tell them not
to worry, that everything is all right, that I think it is a
good agreement. I do not know if I can go to the businesses in
my riding and tell them it will be good for them. I do not know.
This is what I criticize and this is why I will march
peacefully in the street on April 21.
Next Sunday, there will be a teach-in on the free trade
agreement of the Americas here in parliament. A people's
committee is coming here, into parliament, to debate these
issues. These people are so worried that they are prepared to
practise civil disobedience. I do not want to say that I
support them, but a member of the NDP and I opened parliament up
because I believe these people deserve to be heard.
They have things to say and they are prepared to be run
over in order to say what they have to say. It must be serious.
There are all kinds of things we could discuss in this free
trade agreement, in particular something like chapter 11. If I
could see the texts I could perhaps say whether I think mistakes
were made in the framework of the NAFTA text that should perhaps
not be made again in the text of the FTAA, but I do not know.
Therefore how can I judge? When in doubt, what is one to do?
Go down and protest in the streets because we feel the process
is undemocratic.
However, there are things that can be done. We, as members
of parliament in this House, can act. Several people are
sleeping, as it is more normal not to be in the House at this
hour.
2530
Still, as a parliamentarian, I think there are some interesting
things being done. Some of the world's parliamentarians are
saying: “Our role, as the people's representatives, is to do our
job. We do not agree with what is happening. We have to express
our views.”
Moreover, that is what led to the establishment of
the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, COPA, an
inter-parliamentary association founded in Quebec City
recently—one and a half years ago—when parliamentarians from
throughout the Americas came together to discuss our problems,
our issues and our shared concerns. It is a very good thing.
I feel that parliamentarism should go beyond borders and debate
these questions more fully. It is urgent.
Naturally, Canada answered the call of the COPA because, through
it, it has a place among the countries that make up federations,
and parliamentarians from the provinces are included. Recently,
we had the inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum of
the Americas here in Ottawa, which was attended by
parliamentarians from every country. The provinces were
excluded, but we will not dwell on that, that is not what
matters.
Parliamentarians from throughout the Americas met in this House,
and it was very rewarding to have the opportunity to dialogue
with a parliamentarian from Honduras, with one from Chile, from
Mexico, and from the United States. The participation of the
United States was perhaps somewhat lacking, but after all we
should focus on the end goal, not the current results.
In any case, if there is one thing, I think, that must be done
in the House, given the reality of continentalization and
globalization, it is to leave this parliament to speak with
fellow parliamentarians from the Americas and around the world.
Members of parliament will tell me, “Yes, but it is not that
easy to travel, to meet, to get parliamentarians to move”. I
came back from Chile last week. Travelling in the southern
hemisphere requires a lot of energy.
What I proposed at the interparliamentary forum of the Americas
pertained to technology, which is advancing at such a hellish
pace. It is for this reason that I suggested that the technical
secretariat of FIPA support the development of a virtual
telecommunications mechanism that will allow parliamentarians to
meet more frequently, by means of virtual meetings.
I am being serious.
When I say frequently; perhaps once a week,
like a national parliamentary committee of this parliament,
which meets once a week in order to pursue debates, study issues
and listen to the people. I think that we will now have to do
this kind of work as parliamentarians.
Since the earth is a sphere and it is difficult to meet with a
parliamentarian or groups on the other side of the world, I
recommend that we adopt these instruments which would allow us,
for example—I know that it is perhaps futuristic, but I have no
trouble looking ahead to the future—to sit in a committee room
here in parliament in Ottawa, where I would have the
impression, not only the impression, it would be a reality,
that my colleagues, parliamentarians from across the country,
the continent and even the world, were present and that I could
debate.
We parliamentarians could work together and present a common
front in the case of such matters as the Tobin tax.
I am a parliamentarian who favours a tax such as the Tobin tax.
Of course, such a measure requires concerted action by all
countries. Groups of parliamentarians could push for action
simultaneously on the same issues, the environment, for example.
In short, all cross-border issues could be debated seriously and
frequently through such a process.
Do we have the technology do this now? Perhaps it is not quite
perfected at this time, but I think that in five or ten years it
will be there and we will be able to conduct what I call a
virtual parliament that will have no borders and that will be
able to meet frequently. That is something concrete for which we
as parliamentarians must prepare.
We are experiencing a revolution in more ways than one.
I think that the work of a parliamentarian must also go through
a revolution and follow this path that opens onto the rest of
the world. As I said just now, I am absolutely not against this
type of globalization.
2535
What I think we should aim for is globalization with a
democratic face, in which wealth will be distributed and every
human being will be able to achieve his or her potential.
Of course, if we want to set up a free trade area—and I want to
stress that I do not oppose trade between countries—I have a
small problem with the word free, because free trade in my
opinion means a total absence of rules. If the economy is not
bound by any rules, it is not, I am sorry to say, going to work. If
we let the market alone dictate the political agenda of our
societies, I have a problem with that. I believe that the
economy should be subject to a minimum of controls—no, controls
pure and simple.
We need environmental and social rules. We need to think about
those who do not have ready access to the new economy. A number
of challenges lie ahead. Of course, we can get discouraged and
lament that the situation makes no sense. However, we can also
roll up our sleeves, look for solutions and fight for a world or
continent in keeping with our vision and values.
Basically, this is the message that I want to convey to you
today and it comes from the heart. Over the course of the next
month, things are likely to get rather intense. I am pleased
that the summit is taking place in our backyard because it has
generated a great deal of debate, notably among CEGEP and
university students. Unfortunately, one phenomenon appears to
pose a threat to democracy, namely the public's waning interest
in politics. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am certain that
members have observed the situation firsthand in their ridings.
Conversely, another phenomenon is emerging, namely a growing
interest in all questions of this nature. We saw it in Seattle,
in Prague, in Nice, in Washington and elsewhere. Concerns have
been expressed and it is our job, not to reassure people, but
rather to encourage and promote debate.
Increased trade and broader economic ties between nations may
well result in a redistribution of wealth and I have no problem
with this. If, after thoroughly analysing and debating the
situation, we conclude that a particular course of action is
warranted, then I do not have a problem with that either. I am
quite receptive, provided of course that I am able to go to my
constituents and explain to them how matters stand. However, I
cannot do this now because I do not know how matters stand. Some
discussion has of course been taking place here and there.
Once again, the minister for international co-operation said to
me: “Stéphan, these negotiations cover
more than just economic aspects; there is also the aspect of
international co-operation, there are social, environmental and
educational considerations.” The minister's approach is
appropriate in some respects, in terms of access to education,
which is the engine of development. There is worthwhile work
being done.
Furthermore, she told me that the media, unfortunately, do not
cover these things. Unfortunately, the media are attracted to
what is sensational. This is perhaps a little sad. There is
worthwhile work being done, I agree. However, if a person is not
participating in the debate, or closely involved in all these
things, it is difficult to be for or against. That is basically
my point of view.
We recently learned that Quebec, which is hosting the summit,
will not be able to address the participants unless it sponsors
cocktail receptions, unless it is a summit sponsor. In that
case, it is the people's elected representatives who have to pay
for an admission ticket. In any event, as the Prime Minister
said, this has absolutely no influence; let us hope not.
However, if it does, I believe this is deplorable, especially
when a nation like Quebec, which would like to be present at the
negotiations, has to contemplate paying for access to all these
people.
The same applies to me. I am an elected representative, and I
would like to be able to tell my fellow citizens what is
happening, tell them not to worry, that everything is fine, or
that if something does go wrong I will be there to defend them.
2540
My only option is to come here to express my views at 1.30 a.m.
Will they be heard by the government party? Obviously, I may not
allude to the number of members present in this House, and so I
will not do so. Suffice it to say that I am certain my comments
will not be heard by as many as I had hoped. That is all right,
we will continue to do our work. We will continue to hold
conferences, to encourage debate and to ensure that there is
greater transparency and democracy.
I will continue to do my research on how we can adopt
telecommunications instruments because I believe that, as
parliamentarians, we have a job to do. Despite my criticism of
this socioeconomic and political reality, I find it exciting to
be involved in politics because of these challenges. It is very
exciting: we are facing major challenges and it happens that we
are among the parliamentarians of this era who will have to
adapt to this new reality and play a greater role in these
matters.
Unless the leaders of government continue to sweep us under the
rug and tell us, “Get yourselves elected and come make nice
little 1.30 speeches in the morning. You will be able to let
off some steam and you will feel better”. But no, this does not
help me to unwind; I will be going back to bed.
Nonetheless, I will tell my fellow citizens, “We were able to
debate the FTAA, but we debated it at 1.30 a.m.”
I don't want to seem disdainful of those who work nights; I
raise my hat to them. I think we all need people who work at
night. However, I do not think it will have the same impact at
this time of night. Fortunately, there will be Hansard.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the
House, who always work at this time.
This basically concludes my comments. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from colleagues who are still present and
feel strongly about this issue.
[English]
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
quick comments. First, the hon. member mentioned many times that
people were not here. All people in Canada are distinct. There
are distinct time lines in the west. It is only 10.45 p.m. in
British Columbia and Yukon, and people are still awake. We
have another Yukoner in the House, which is great.
My second point is about Quebec not being there. All Quebecers
who are part of the Canadian delegation will have as much access
as anyone from the other provinces. In fact I think the leader
of the Canadian delegation happens to be a Quebecer, so Quebec is
going to have more access than any other Canadian.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a time
difference. I would like to send greetings to the people of
British Columbia and the Yukon who may be getting ready for bed.
However, the residents of the maritimes probably went to bed a
long time ago.
As for Quebec's role, the Prime Minister is of course a
Quebecer, as is the Minister for International Trade. However,
their perspective on things is totally Canadian, and while I am
not saying that this is a bad thing, it seems to me that when
you pay a visit to someone, it is normal that that they be
allowed to greet their guests.
In my opinion, the premier of Quebec and leader of all
Quebecers—and I am not indulging in partisan politics, in fact
I am making a real effort not to during this debate—could have
been invited to address some welcoming remarks to the delegates.
At the very least, he should have been extended this courtesy.
Even though we are part of a federation—one that is becoming
increasingly centralized perhaps—under the constitution, Quebec
has jurisdiction over such areas as health and education.
Therefore, if issues that concern Quebec arise, then I feel it
should, at the very least, be more involved in the discussions.
We could debate this issue at some length, but I am convinced
that where Quebec's role is concerned, there has been negligence.
2545
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. He is still a very young
member of the House but was able to claim a third term as a
member of parliament. That is quite a record to achieve. He
obviously has great respect from his constituents. I wish that
he would speak more often in the House as it would be very
enlightening for us.
One thing I have noticed in his speeches throughout the years is
his approach toward young people in universities. Could he
elaborate more on his perspective about university students in
Quebec and what their approach or attitude is toward the FTAA and
the upcoming talks in Quebec City?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant
question.
I spoke earlier about young people's involvement in politics.
When I refer to young people, I include those at university who
are more and more overwhelmed by their studies and work. I
think there is a lack of involvement.
At my college in Alma, I try to hold mini-debates. I meet with
students. I tell them that what is going on concerns us all and
that there will be consequences of this for the rest of their
lives, so it is important to deal with it now.
It is the foundation of my political commitment. When I was
first elected, I was 22 years old.
I told myself that the decisions taken today would have
consequences throughout our lives. That is why it is important
to have a balance between youth and experience in the House. I
think that unfortunately, whether it is through lack of time or
because they have too many responsibilities, young people do not
participate enough in the debate. That is what I think: they
are not sufficiently involved.
If you tell me that they participate as much as they did 20
years ago, it is not enough. We are facing challenges on a
scale never seen before. We need creativity and imagination in
order to face up to these challenges; we need everyone.
At one university I was told “Look, Stéphan, university is no
place for politics”. If university is no place for
politics, where can we be political other than in the House of
Commons?
I think there is a serious problem, perhaps because the media do a
poor job of covering politics, or because they only cover the
bickering that goes on during question period; whatever the
reason, there is a malaise in the democratic process. I feel
that this issue is highly pertinent.
I would also like to tell you what is happening in Quebec.
Surveys conducted during the Quebec youth summit revealed that
globalization issues are of the highest priority for young
people 19 to 24 years of age. This is something new. The day
before yesterday I celebrated my fifth anniversary in politics,
and I know that when I started there was not this degree of
interest. Interest in such issues has therefore grown, and I
think this is a very good thing.
In my opinion, our role as parliamentarians is to see the
students and listen to their points of view.
When I refer to chapter 11 of NAFTA, who knows what I am talking
about? I can tell the public that, under chapter 11 of NAFTA and
perhaps even under the free trade agreement of the Americas, a
corporation unhappy with the legislation passed by a government
will be able to take legal action against that government. This
has already happened and is still happening. I believe one of
the most recent cases involved a municipality in Mexico taken to
court because it was establishing environmental rules. When I
see that companies can now take legal action against countries,
I have to ask myself some serious questions. It is my role to
meet with students and the general public and to explain to them
what is going on.
If we had debates, we could talk about these issues. We are
having a debate now, but with all due respect to my colleagues
who are here tonight it is really only a semblance of a debate.
In any event, there is an enormous amount of work to do.
2550
Let us hope that young people show an interest in these issues.
Moreover, there was a reason why I carried my chair out of the
House. I was trying to make a point in a way people would
remember. I was trying to tell young people that here was an
issue that threatened democracy.
If in fact parliamentarians have fewer powers in an era of
globalization, then should we address this problem? All of
democracy is threatened in the process. I am not saying that
democracy has disappeared. We need only travel to certain Latin
American nations where democracy is seriously undermined to see
that our problems are quite different.
However, does this mean that I should disregard what is
happening here at home and pretend that everything is fine? No.
I wonder about the kind of society I will be living in twenty
years from now. When I look at what is going on, I am concerned
and I have a duty to convey my concerns to the public.
That is why I felt it was important to launch a debate involving
the whole society. Three years later, I find myself again at
1.30 in the morning demanding greater transparency and
democracy.
We still have quite a way to go. That is why I will continue to
make the rounds of CEGEPs and universities and to debate these
issues. I encourage young people to follow the debate, to become
politicized and to criticize the system in a constructive way.
Next April 20, there will be protesters in the streets. I have
talked to people my own age who have told me “Listen, Stéphan,
if these kinds of things are going to happen, then I prefer to
be run over”. This is what informed young people have been
telling me. I have talked with them and they are well informed.
They are prepared to get arrested.
The fact remains that there is a problem. Either they are wrong,
or there is a communications problem, with the public not
understanding the government's decisions. Unquestionably,
there is a problem.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is almost 2 a.m. and we do not need the pages in the
House. They have to go to study. I ask for unanimous consent to
allow the pages to go home.
The Deputy Speaker: I am made aware that in the debate at
this time there is no unanimous consent, but we can look after
that matter in another fashion. I will intervene on everyone's
behalf.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank many of the other speakers we heard tonight for some very
interesting debate and points of view. I also wish to inform
you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the
member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I begin my remarks by restating something that was said by the
member for Burnaby—Douglas. He started his speech with a quote
from the head of the former head of the WTO, Renato Ruggiero, who
said that these trade agreements were necessary because:
There is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering
with the free movement of capital and investment.
That more than anything, perhaps, sums up the NDP's objections
and apprehension about trade agreements like those we are
entering into. There is a significant group of people in the
world today who honestly believe that there is a surplus of
democracy in the world that is interfering with the movement of
capital.
Those same people would have us believe that the globalization
of capital is a fait accompli, just a matter of fact that cannot
be changed. Yet when we come to them with the question of why we
cannot have the globalization of human rights, labour standards
and environmental standards, suddenly these are impossible. They
cannot even be debated. There is no room for them at the
negotiating table. Those issues are not issues of any substance.
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, in one of the most visionary
things I heard tonight, asked if it would not be wonderful if the
world's leaders would come together in some kind of virtual
global assembly and actually talk about those issues.
2555
We would not be as apprehensive about these international
agreements if we were comfortable that those things were being
dealt with.
The reason it took the European Union 20 years to negotiate the
EU agreement was that it dealt with those substantive issues. It
dealt with the issue of raising up the lowest common denominators
to a harmonious average instead of gravitating to the lowest
common denominator, as is contemplated in the virtually unchecked
free trade agreements that we have now.
That is why I am proud to say the NDP caucus will be in Quebec
City. We will be there in solidarity with those who have similar
fears and apprehensions. We will be involved in peaceful
protest. We were at APEC in Vancouver. I was there, along with
the members for Burnaby—Douglas, Yukon, and Vancouver East. We
were also in Windsor and Seattle. We have been a part of this
growing movement around the apprehension that more and more young
Canadians feel about our democracy being diminished and that
these trade agreements do constitute a legitimate threat to
democracy.
We need no further evidence than the quote I gave, but another
world leader, a former member of parliament, Donald Johnston,
said “Free trade agreements by their very nature are designed to
force adjustments on our societies”. In other words, they
dismantle the public policy instruments that we have laboriously
put in place in the post-war era to take care of our personal
needs and to grow independently with some autonomy. Now we are
told we must harmonize, at least when it comes to those public
policy instruments, and dismantle them so that we do not
interfere with the movement of capital by corporations.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona made a brilliant point. He
pointed out the bizarre spectacle of watching us willingly
dismantle the nation state of Canada and our own economic
sovereignty in order to accommodate a foreign corporate interest.
Why would we do that? When somebody does write the history of
this era they are going to look at it as if we were crazy. We
are taking something as precious as true free democracy and we
are knowingly and willingly weakening our ability to have our own
domestic economic sovereignty.
If we need a graphic example, these spiralling out of control
energy costs that most Canadians have been reeling with all
winter are a good example. Natural gas is a resource that we all
own which is part of our birthright and part of our common
wealth. Yet we are not allowed any preferential pricing to
Canadians because of NAFTA. When we ask why it costs so much for
something that we have in abundance underneath our own feet, the
answer is that we cannot sell our natural gas any cheaper than we
sell it to our export customers because of NAFTA. We traded that
away.
No wonder Canadians are apprehensive about what is in the actual
text of the FTAA. Every time we raise it we are assured that the
government would not do anything foolish to jeopardize our health
care system or our education system. When NAFTA was negotiated,
it was like Jack and the Beanstalk taking his cow and
trading it for three beans with no guarantee that any of them
would sprout.
The government will not tell us what it will be talking about or
what it will be negotiating at the FTAA. Members of parliament
in the federal House of Commons do not have a right to know what
the government is negotiating on our behalf around the table. It
is absolutely scandalous.
I know why we are not allowed to see that text. It was pointed
out in earlier speeches. We found out the text of the MAI
because somebody posted it on the Internet. Within days every
college kid in the country was reading this negotiated MAI text.
They saw what was being given away. They also saw a charter
of rights for corporations at the expense of freely elected
governments. They recoiled with horror, took to the streets and
they stopped it. When we see the text we have a fighting chance
to put an end to it or at least have our opinion known and be
part of that debate.
2600
That is why I think it is an international conspiracy to keep
this text secret. If the government were serious about how it
would never do anything to jeopardize the legitimate right of
nations to dictate their own social policy instruments and that
nothing it would do would interfere with social policy, then let
us see the text. We could put this whole thing to bed. We would
be in bed instead of being up in the middle of the night right
now.
There are other graphic illustrations. How do we know that we
are not going to get sucked into the worst properties of NAFTA
with this FTAA. It really is a super NAFTA that we are
witnessing being created here.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was raised earlier, gives the
investor state status whereby a foreign corporation can sue the
Government of Canada if the government interferes with what the
corporation perceives to be its right to make a living, and
suffers some lost opportunity by something the government did.
A recent example of this was when Canada wanted to ban MMT as a
gasoline additive because it did not think it was healthy. In
fact, we think it is poisonous. Ethyl Corporation that made MMT
said that we could not interfere with its right to sell its
product in our country and successfully sued us for many millions
of dollars because of lost opportunity.
This is what I mean about how we are losing our ability to take
care of our own domestic interests because of trade agreements we
have signed. It is not just radicalism. It is not anti-anything
to be apprehensive about the free trade agreement. If anything,
the NDP caucus is for free trade. We are free traders. We agree
we are a trading nation and that it is absolutely necessary.
The old definition of free trade used to be eliminating tariffs
and barriers so that we could trade openly with other countries
without barriers being imposed. The new definition of free trade
agreements goes very far beyond anything that was ever
contemplated before.
Now we have a good reason to believe that even the services that
we offer, because some of those services have been privatized or
commercialized per se, are now subject to challenge under free
trade agreements, things like education. The more we flirt with
the privatization of our public school system or our health care
system, it could be that we will be subject to challenge by some
American or international corporation that feels that they should
be able to make a profit on offering that service in the country.
These are our fears, which we believe are legitimate. We are
proud to go to Quebec City and make those fears known. We
condemn the government for doing everything it can to stifle
legitimate peaceful protest.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the rest of the country had just
listened to my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre, they would
truly understand the apprehension that we in this party have
toward the upcoming trade talks.
Foreign corporations can sue Canadian crown corporations for
legitimate services, as in the case of UPS suing Canada Post.
Could the member elaborate a bit on what exactly happens when a
foreign corporation sues a Canadian crown corporation?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to elaborate on that particular case.
UPS is the largest postal courier service in the world today.
Canada Post offers a very good service to its customers with its
Priority Post courier service. Since that goes beyond basic
ground letter mail service, UPS felt that it should be allowed to
bid on that work. In fact, UPS is suing the Government of Canada
for $160 million U.S. in lost opportunities because it believes
it could do the job better. It believes it has a right to bid on
that work. It does not believe that the Government of Canada has
a right to withhold that.
Imagine the impact of this. It is not just somebody else
providing that service. Canada Post offsets the cost of
providing regular ground and household mail through the profits
it makes in its courier service. If somebody picks the low
hanging fruit as we say, or in other words cherry picks the most
profitable part of the corporation and takes that away from
Canada Post, it will seriously impact its ability to offer ground
mail service at the 46 cents or 47 cents that we enjoy today.
2605
It has real, meaningful pocketbook implications for Canadians
when we are faced with these kind of challenges by foreign
corporations.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity, however late the
hour, to participate in this debate on the upcoming summit of the
Americas in Quebec City where, as we have all noted tonight, 34
heads of state will gather to discuss creating the free trade
agreement of the Americas and where thousands of concerned
Canadians will gather to express their dreams and aspirations
about the country and about our responsibility as a nation on the
global front.
It is very fitting that we are having this parliamentary debate
at the same time and in the same week an extra-parliamentary
organization came together to press for a moratorium on expanding
worldwide talks to liberalize trade. I am referring to a
coalition of non-government organizations that believes, quite
legitimately so, that the expansion of trade talks opens the door
to the privatization of essential public services and, as many of
my colleagues have said tonight, erodes the authority of
democracies over such vital programs as health care, education
and a vast array of public service sectors.
That is really the issue of the hour. That is at the heart of
the concerns being raised by my colleagues in the NDP. Certainly
it is at the heart of the matter being addressed by concerned
Canadians everywhere. After all, what we are talking about is
our identity as a nation, our sense of who we are as Canadians,
the ties that bind and the values that we bring to the world.
Clearly, we are talking about our ability as a nation to control
our own destiny and the ability of our own government to shape
the future, to set the agenda, not to leave it to multinational
corporations that these days seem to be determining every aspect
of our day to day living. We are talking about national programs
that serve the public good, as my leader the member for Halifax
said, now being reduced to commodities to be bought, sold and
traded on the market for private gain. This possibility is
really at the heart of this debate, and I think it is that which
motivates so many Canadians to get involved, to rise up and to
speak out about the FTAA.
One of the questions for us today is this. Are health,
education and other public services actually protected under
FTAA? I do not think we can answer that because there is so much
secrecy, such lack of transparency and so many barricades around
this issue that it is impossible to really know. Just as the
government refuses to share the draft agreement with all
Canadians, it has not released its proposals for services being
negotiated under FTAA.
However, I think it is probably reasonable, based on past
practice of the government, to assume that the approach by the
government will be consistent with its approach to the WTO
negotiations on GATS, or the General Agreement on Trades in
Services.
The whole point of those talks is increased liberalization of
trade in services. That is the essence of the whole exercise.
So it is reasonable to assume that we are talking about opening
up trade opportunities in such lucrative areas as health,
education, energy, water and the list goes on and on.
It would seem to us that the Canadian government has actually
taken no steps in those negotiations and has made no commitment
to fix the flaws in the proposed the GATS and in the wording of
the GATS that make all public services, including Canadian
medicare, vulnerable to a challenge. Any exclusion being
contemplated is being done on the most narrow of terms, only
covering services and sectors which are completely within the
public sector.
2610
Given the degree to which privatization is occurring all around
us and given the government's passive response to such
developments as Alberta's private for profit hospital
legislation, the situation really does look bleak. It is really
a double whammy of trade liberalization and passive privatization
which is so deathly and so worrisome.
It is a threat. It exists now under NAFTA. We have heard all
kinds of opinion on that. It looms even larger under GATS and is
no doubt perpetuated, based on everything we know about the
government, under FTAA. It flows from the notion of equal
access, and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre referenced it, to
foreign opportunity and treatment that is no less favourable than
that given to domestic interests. It means allowing
international trade tribunals to intrude into our own domestic
health policies and other domestic policies.
As I referenced in a question last week in the House, the
Canadian Medical Association journal had an article that stated
“There is reasonable certainty that a trade tribunal will be
asked to rule on issues that are germane to the Canadian hospital
sector”. In other words, the exclusion of health services
totally within the public domain no longer applies. Hospitals
become fair game for foreign investment and private competition.
The same opinion was given in another reputable medical journal,
The Lancet which said last December that public health is
being traded for private wealth. It referenced Canada's
predicament because of bill 11 and how it will have an impact on
all of this country's ability to govern our health care sector.
It is the same conclusion we heard from a major study done by
the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, authored by Matt
Sanger, whose report was entitled, “Reckless Abandon: Canada,
the GATS and the Future of Health Care”. It concluded that
whenever any part of health care is operated by a mix of
government and private organizations, foreign corporations are
thus entitled to join the competition on an equal footing with
local ones. It means that any new programs or any innovative
health care reforms would be restricted. We would lose control
over the cost drivers while maintaining responsibility for paying
the cost. That is ridiculous. Non-profit endeavours slip away,
we are left to pay and foreign corporations are laughing all the
way to the banks.
While talking about cost drivers, I want to look very briefly at
drug prices because that gives us a good insight into how much we have
already catered to multinational corporations. Look at the fact
that we are dealing with enormously escalating drug prices and
yet the government feels compelled to cave in to multinational
drug companies to protect their patent protection. It broke its
promise to rescind Bill C-91. Now it has slipped through the
back door Bill S-17 which would extend patent protection even
more for brand name drug companies.
If anything points to how captive we have become to this global
international corporate agenda, this is probably the best
example. We can apply this as well to the situation we have all
been hearing about in terms of South Africa. It is being sued by
some 40 pharmaceutical companies because it is trying to provide
cheaper generic drugs to deal with the millions of people who are
infected with HIV and AIDS. I think that shows just how much of
a problem this whole free trade agenda has become. I could go on
with many other examples.
I will conclude by saying that we are not opposed to global
actions and treaties. We know that there are discussions going
on with respect to a global treaty on tobacco control. That
could be a good thing. It might be one way we can stop the kind
of massive control that tobacco companies have over the world,
never mind just in this country.
2615
We would certainly support global solidarity in terms of
elimination of child labour, protection of refugees and dealing
with environmental degradation. That is all desperately needed,
and what we are saying is that it is where we must be: pursuing
justice locally and globally, never forsaking our nation's
sovereignty and our Canadian values.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg eloquently
stated the fact that drug companies are asking for further
protection. After their 20 year protection laws, now they are
asking for 23 to 25 years, if I am not mistaken.
The fact of the matter is that since that protection law came
into effect under the Conservative government, drug prices have
risen almost fivefold. We now spend more on drugs in the country
than we do on doctors' fees. That is an incredible problem the
country has to face.
I was wondering if the member from Winnipeg could elaborate a
bit more on that. If this trade deal goes ahead as it is, does
she see more escalating prices on drugs and a lowering of the
effect that doctors have in the country as well?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague for that question and for all of the questions he has
been asking throughout the debate. He has played a very
important role in ensuring that we have a thorough vetting of the
discussion on the free trade agreement of the Americas.
I believe that in fact one of the critical issues at stake under
FTAA is Canada's public health care system. We all know we have
big challenges ahead. One of those challenges is escalating drug
prices. In fact, we know that drug prices are now the fastest
rising element in our health care system. Costs in terms of
drugs have now surpassed costs associated with physicians and
services provided by doctors. That tells us a lot about the dire
situation we are facing. It demands action on the part of the
government.
We are hearing from the government of the day that in fact its
hands are tied because of trade agreements. That has been the
excuse for not following through on a promise to rescind Bill
C-91, which was the patent protection legislation brought in by
the Mulroney Conservatives. We are now hearing, through new
legislation introduced in the Senate, that the government has to
comply with more WTO rulings and in fact extend patent protection
even more for drug companies.
That will mean drug prices will rise considerably. It will mean
that the burden is placed on governments and on individuals to
pay for drugs that are desperately needed for medical conditions.
That is an untenable situation.
While there are things we can do domestically and actions the
government can still take, in the end if we do not find a way on
the trade front to loosen the ties that are restricting us from
acting, we are going to be in very serious difficulty. That
applies not only here in Canada but in countries like South
Africa and Brazil, where there are huge problems and a desperate
need for generic drugs and access to cheap alternatives. It is a
serious situation globally. I think we have to play our role
through every avenue we can, which means through FTAA, GATS, and
any other trade negotiations underway.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, after almost eight hours of debate and coming up to
2.20 in the morning, it is very interesting that there are still
members in the House who are really interested in contributing to
the debate, myself being one of them.
We may ask what new we can talk about, there having been eight
hours of debate. We are debating the issue of the meeting in
Quebec, the summit of the Americas. I would like to approach it
from a tack that is slightly different to what I have been
hearing over the last couple of hours. I will approach it from
the point of view of us ensuring that we maintain a civil
society, that we maintain civility within not only Canadian
society but indeed within all societies of all the countries that
will be represented at the conference.
2620
Unfortunately, a couple of years ago in Seattle we saw bullies,
goons and anarchists who wanted to shut down debate and
discussion. They used thoughtful people. They used protesters
who were sincerely and deeply concerned about the issue of free
trade and related globalization issues. They used those people
as shields.
Therefore we have seen elaborate arrangements for security, in
Calgary recently at the petroleum conference and now again for
Quebec. It is something that I personally have a lot of
difficulty with. I think that in Canada we have a unique
situation. For example, in the House of Commons we have one or
two RCMP vehicles which are the only visible security on the
Hill. We know there is more security behind the scenes, but
basically we are doing everything we possibly can to maintain
civility and maintain a civil society.
Let me say that I have already mentioned in the House that I
have some aggressive fundamental differences of opinion with the
members of the NDP who have just spoken. I do not see eye to eye
with their concerns at all.
However, that is a right I have and that is a right they have
within a civil society. This is what democracy is all about. We
have a right to disagree. There are, within the confines of
Canada, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of
people who share their perspective, who have the right to
disagree.
I would suggest, with respect, that an awful lot of the
information they have is built on misunderstanding or
misinformation. Certainly the kinds of things that have been
talked about do unfortunately breed fear, but I believe what it
really comes down to is the fact that there is a fundamental lack
of faith on the part of many citizens, not only in Canada but
indeed within the hemisphere and perhaps within the world, in the
presidents and the prime ministers who are negotiating these
agreements. There is a lack of faith in the governments that are
negotiating these agreements.
We come to acronyms, which of course are simply abbreviated
letters that stand for things. For example, the World Trade
Organization is shortened to WTO. The International Monetary
Fund is shortened to IMF. We have the FTA, NAFTA and now we have
the FTAA, and of course we have the World Bank. We have many of
these things, and many Canadians who are concerned about these
issues are asking what all these letters stand for, what these
acronyms are all about.
I would like to draw their attention, and with respect to my
socialist friends at the other end of the House, I would like to
draw their attention as well, to what Tony Blair, who is a
leading socialist in Europe and the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in the House
not 25 feet away from me. I heard him say:
It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and
clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for
our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the
poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided
and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be
allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should
start to make this case with force and determination.
That does not change the fact that there are tens of thousands
of people in Canada who have a deep and abiding concern about
these kinds of negotiations. What is the answer? I would like
to humbly propose a solution to the government through the debate
today.
I suggest that one of the ways in which we could overcome this
fear, this mistrust, would be to, as part of the trade
negotiations, actually set up parliamentary associations that
would represent parliamentarians from all parties, not only in
the House but between the Republicans and the Democrats in the
United States, and in all of the countries that are part of this
agreement and have government and opposition. Thus,
parliamentarians would have an opportunity to be part of an
ongoing oversight of the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and any of
these organizations about which Canadians are concerned.
2625
Why would I be suggesting that? As parliamentarians, we are not
in the security bubble that our Prime Minister finds himself in.
Unfortunately, because of the malevolent forces that there are in
the world, he is by necessity in a security bubble. As a
parliamentarian I am in and out of coffee shops, schools and
shopping centres. I conduct town hall meetings. I speak in
rotary clubs. I meet people on the street. People come by my
yard when I am at home on a Saturday and say hi. I am reachable,
I am touchable, by the people in my constituency.
Through a parliamentary association, we would have the
opportunity to have input. We would have the opportunity to have
insight. I suggest we would have the opportunity to build
confidence on the part of people who are concerned about these
organizations because we would be there and would have part of
the oversight.
I happened to be in Valparaiso, Chile in January for the
Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which is a forum much along the
lines of what I am talking about here. There were 26 nations
around Asia-Pacific involved in that meeting.
A person in the House, in Canada, who is perhaps noted as
being quite outspoken, to put it mildly, would be the member for
Burnaby—Douglas. He also was a member of the Asia-Pacific
Parliamentary Forum. He had the opportunity at that forum to go
around to the various parliamentary delegations and bring forward
a point of view. He received a resolution on the floor that
would not have happened had he not been there. That is the kind
of access I am suggesting we want to have as parliamentary
associations, as ordinary parliamentarians, so parliamentarians
would be able to oversee outfits like the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA
and the FTAA.
We must have accountability. I believe we have to build trust.
We must have the ability to afford Canadians the opportunity to
make their views known. In regard to those concerns, those
people who want to make those views known have a responsibility
to denounce the bullies, the goons and the anarchists who take
advantage of them and those demonstrations. However, I also
recognize that the thoughtful Canadians who do want to go and who
do want to speak out must have a feeling of comfort, therefore my
recommendation for a parliamentary association that has an
oversight.
I believe that all thoughtful Canadians must be confident in the
process. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the idea of
parliamentary associations, as part of the ongoing process, to
oversee the process would go an awfully long way in taking the
steam out of the fear and concern of thoughtful Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the views of the
member from Kootenay when he speaks of getting together with a
group of parliamentarians, not necessarily from the House but
maybe from provincial legislatures and from other democracies
around the world as well, to discuss these issues on a continuous
basis to see where they can be changed. Nothing is written in
stone. We need to alter, reflect, review and renew exactly what
is going on. I respect his views and it is something I believe
the House could seriously look at.
However, he discussed Mr. Blair, the prime minister of England,
and his views. I remember the speech very well. Our party was
the only party that did not clap when Mr. Blair spoke of the
nuances in terms of free trade. Our point is that Mr. Blair had
a woeful ignorance toward the NAFTA deal when he tried to portray
free trade or NAFTA as being similar to the European economic
union deal. That was simply nonsense. They are simply two
different things.
My question for the hon. member from Kootenay and the Alliance
Party is this: does he not believe that the environment, human
rights, labour standards and the ability of municipal, provincial
and federal governments to enact laws to protect their citizens
as they see fit should be paramount in any trade deals that are
discussed in the near future?
2630
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question,
and again, we would have a fundamental difference of opinion on
this issue.
We must have trade rules because trade constitutes 50% of
Canada's $900 billion a year gross domestic product.
Interestingly, NAFTA covers 80% of that 50%. In other words, we
are talking about almost $400 billion a year in gross domestic
product which is generated by Canadian workers and industry.
Therefore because we have NAFTA, we have been able, going back
about five years, to dig our way out of the deep recession in
which we found ourselves.
The difference of opinion that I have with my friend in the NDP
is that on balance, although there are exceptions, I believe that
with the trade rules we presently have, NAFTA has been a net
benefit to Canada in all of the areas the hon. member is talking
about. I am not inclined to believe that we are any poorer in
environmental standards, labour standards or in any other area.
On balance, I believe we are ahead of the game as a result of the
negotiation of NAFTA.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your forbearance and that of the House
officers and servants of the House in making it possible for
myself and colleagues to continue this important debate on the
upcoming summit on the free trade agreement of the Americas.
I point out at the outset that this is an important matter, so
important that indeed the government itself placed the issue
before the House in the form of a take note debate. Yet I am
discouraged to report that it appears evident that far more
members of the opposition parties, which represent 40% of the
seats in the House, will have participated in the debate than
members of the very government that brought it forward. That
reflects in part, I think, the esteem in which members of the
government, with the very notable exception of the member for
Yukon, hold this place as a chamber of democratic deliberation.
Canadian Alliance members have been very active in articulating
their views about the positive elements of free trade and the
impact it has on democracy. I make special note of the very
committed participation in this debate of the small but spirited
and thoughtful contributions from the members of the New
Democratic Party caucus, with whom I disagree for reasons of
principle. However, one cannot question their willingness to use
this opportunity to express their very genuine concerns about
this upcoming summit and the agreement which it will conclude in.
Many members of my party have outlined our general support for
the principle of free trade and the objectives of the upcoming
summit. However, let me just say as a matter of first principle
that we often take for granted the incredible wealth of our
society. We hear Liberal politicians say, almost as a truism,
that Canada is the finest country in the world in which to live
and I concur.
One of the principal reasons it is such a great country in which
to live is the high degree of economic development that has
resulted largely from a system of free markets. As well, as a
country that is an enormous exporter of goods and services, we
benefit enormously and are enriched as a nation by trade across
the world, particularly with nations within this hemisphere and
in particular the United States of America.
We do take for granted this level of development. We ought to
occasionally reflect on the fact that today an average Canadian
middle class family enjoys a standard of living that is virtually
inconceivable for most of the world's population, most of the
population of the western hemisphere and certainly most of the
people who have ever lived throughout history.
2635
Middle class Canadians, people of relatively modest means, enjoy
goods and services, comforts and security, life expectancy and
health, a level of education, disposable income and political
freedom which is in the long context of human history almost
unparalleled.
It would be fair to say that a middle class family today enjoys
greater economic benefits, in many respects more luxuries, than a
Tudor king would have 500 years ago or a Roman emperor 2,000
years ago. We should think how tremendously we benefit from the
advanced standards established by the free market system and the
free trade system upon which it is predicated.
In the past couple of centuries the countries of the west,
particularly northern Europe and North America, have seen by far
the fastest rate of growth in the standard of living, increases
in life expectancy, human health and wellness of any time in
history. That again is because of the system of trade which has
allowed for efficiencies in national economies by exchanging the
value of the goods which they produce.
One of the leading contemporary political theorists, Michael Novak,
wrote a brilliant book entitled The Spirit of Democratic
Capitalism in which he attempted a theory to explain this
tremendous political and economic freedom from which we benefit
in this and other similar western societies. He said that
democratic capitalism stood on a three-legged stool.
Those three legs consist of first, a free market system
predicated on private property and its entrenchment, and on the
principle that people has a right to possess and retain the
fruits of their labour.
Second, it is predicated on a political system which itself is
based on a conception of the human person which see the human
person as possessing an inviolable dignity created in the image
and likeness of God and, because of this inviolable dignity,
entitled to self-government and a free democratic political
society.
The third basic foundation of democratic capitalism according to
Michael Novak is a moral culture based on virtue where the
tendency of human nature to pursue one's best interests in the
marketplace or in the political sphere is tempered by the moral
impulse to try to be virtuous. He said that these three things
together were what have created a society with unparalleled
wealth, prosperity and health.
As a matter of principle, and as the hon. Leader of the
Opposition said earlier today in his remarks on the motion, it is
important that we make the moral case for free trade. There are
some 800 million people in this hemisphere, roughly 300 million
of whom are participants in this cycle of prosperity. However
the vast majority of them live beneath what we in Canada would
consider the poverty line and live with limited economic
opportunities.
We should be generous and bring those people into the cycle of
prosperity through trade, allowing them to sell to us the goods
that they produce, the services which they provide and similarly
to benefit from the additional economic choices and efficiencies
from goods and services which we can export to them. That is
what the free trade agreement of the Americas is all about. It
is about expanding the cycle of productivity and hence prosperity
to all 800 million inhabitants of this hemisphere.
2640
We know there are many hysterical voices suggesting that this
represents some hidden agenda to undermine democracy. Many
people with this point of view will be gathering in Quebec City
engaging deliberately in campaigns of civil disobedience to
disrupt the summit.
How dare these advocates of civil disobedience claim to
represent the people and the civil societies of their respective
countries and of Canada in particular? Canadians who will be
attending the summit in protest and who have been funded,
shockingly, to the tune of $300,000 by the government in the
so-called people's summit, represent a point of view so marginal
that it obtains virtually no meaningful political support in the
democratic elections of the country.
With respect to my colleagues in the NDP, their party received
8% or 9% of the popular vote in the last general election, I
believe, meaning that over 90% of Canadians rejected their
message of protectionism vis-à-vis trade.
I say in closing that those opponents of the agreement have no
legitimate right to claim to be the champions of democracy. Each
of these national governments is accountable to its electorate.
As we continue to increase economic prosperity we will create a
middle class in these societies which will increase the stability
of democratic institutions and democratic accountability. That
is the virtuous cycle into which we should invite all of the
nations in the western hemisphere.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that
the hon. member from Alberta, who I have a great respect for,
mentioned the Mexican economy and the uplifting of that economy
because of free trade. The reality is that post-NAFTA in Mexico
free trade has created one new billionaire and 100 new
millionaires, but the average Mexican income since NAFTA has
declined. That is the reality. That is the truth. Also, the
environmental concerns in Mexico have declined.
My question for the hon. member is similar to a question that I
had for the member for Skeena about the softwood lumber
agreement. The member for Skeena said, if I am not mistaken,
that the Alliance Party supports equal access to the U.S. markets
for our country's softwood lumber. The reality is that in the
maritime region 80% of the harvested lumber comes from private
lands, whereas 80% to 90% of the harvested lumber in British
Columbia comes from crown land. Already there is a difference.
In order to maintain the economic well-being of those lumber
industries within Atlantic Canada, would the hon. member not
support the maintaining of the maritime accord, which is in place
and has been very beneficial for the people of Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I will do something a
politician does not often do, which is to admit my ignorance with
respect to the maritime element of the softwood export industry
with regard to the United States. I cannot intelligently comment
or respond to his questions and I will not attempt to do so.
I will say, however, that we are four-square for free trade in
lumber generally because the countervailing measures the
Americans are about to impose would be very detrimental to tens
of thousands of working Canadians, including many members of
unions who no doubt support my hon. colleague's party.
Regarding his assertions with respect to Mexico, my
understanding is that living standards and incomes have risen as
a result of the free trade regime. Indeed, Mexicans recently
elected, in the first really vibrant democratic election in their
history at the national level, President Vicente Fox, a strong
champion of free trade, who will be at the FTAA summit in Quebec
City and will later travel to my own home city of Calgary.
2645
President Fox was elected in part by the Mexican people because
they saw his advocacy of freer trade, less protection, less
regulation, better multilateral relations within the hemisphere
and bilateral relations with the United States as an integral
part of paving the way to prosperity for that country. Mexicans
had a choice in their election.
The hon. member's colleagues talk a lot about democracy and
suggest that the FTAA somehow undermines it. When it comes to
the Mexican people making a sovereign, democratic decision, and
the most significant democratic decision in their modern history,
they chose a free trader. They chose an advocate of the FTAA.
I do not suggest the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore is guilty of this, but I do believe there
are some in this place, and in the country, who are guilty of a
paternalistic attitude toward people in the developing world,
that they do not know what is best for themselves.
The Mexican people spoke pretty clearly about what they thought
was in their best interests in a democratic election when they
endorsed President Fox's agenda for free trade and economic
growth. If we are truly committed to democracy, rather than
throwing Molotov cocktails at police in Quebec City, we should
listen to the citizens and the electorates in the developing
world who are choosing democracy, free markets, free trade and
rejecting closed economic systems that have failed them for too
many decades.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Acadie—Bathurst.
I rose at this time in particular because I sensed the debate is
nearing an end. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about the
impact that the trade agreements, NAFTA in particular, have had
on the environmental position in the country.
Throughout this debate there have been various references made
to some of the cases that have arisen. The one I want to
mention, because I do not think it has been touched upon other
than in passing, is the S.D. Myers v Canada case. The company
was suing Canada, as it was allowed to do under the NAFTA
agreement, because we would not export hazardous waste to the
United States. We closed our borders to that.
We had the sovereign country of Canada taking a very
environmentally sound position, one in fact that we were required
to take under the Basel convention which deals with transboundary
movement of hazardous waste. We were required under that
convention to deal with our own hazardous waste. S.D. Myers
wanted to treat our hazardous waste in the United States. When
we closed our borders to that, the company sued us and won the
decision.
Canada ended up being punished for being a good international
citizen, if I could put it that way. We followed the convention
that we entered into in good faith with a number of other global
partners but were then confronted under NAFTA to breach that
convention.
2650
One of the lawyers looked at this and speaking of the S.D.
Myers v Canada decision said “It offers an interpretation of
NAFTA rules that is so vague and confusing that it is tantamount
to saying Canada is in breach of its NAFTA obligations because we
say so”. I will come back to this later because one of the
points I want to make is about the impact of NAFTA and trade
agreements on our sovereignty, and more important on our
democracy.
The other case I want to deal with is the Metalclad case to
which other speakers have referred. From the environmentalist
standpoint, it shows the essential lack of integrity that is part
of the whole trade arrangement. I mean integrity in terms of
protecting the environment.
This case involved a relatively impoverished municipality being
faced with a claim that it had to accept toxic waste. Anyone
would say that a municipality could not be forced to accept the
waste. There is no arrangement in the world that should make a
municipality take into its relatively impoverished municipal
structure, by international standards, a huge toxic waste. Lo
and behold to its surprise and shock it was told that it had to
accept the dump. As we all know, that case is under appeal.
Given the past practises of interpretations under NAFTA, one has
to wonder about the possibility or even hope of success on that
appeal. There are also a number of other cases.
A resolution was passed a week or so ago in the House and was
supported by all parties I believe, except the NDP. It was moved
by our friends in the Bloc. We voted against it out of concern
for the environment. The resolution dealt with the softwood
lumber issue. If we continue to go into these types of trading
arrangements, we continue to expose ourselves to the types of
rulings I just mentioned.
What we are really talking about in a trading arrangement,
whether it be with the United States, Mexico or the rest of the
hemisphere, is one that recognizes the sovereignty of Canada,
recognizes democracy and recognizes our rights as a country to
protect our environment, human rights and labour standards. We
hear these themes on a continuous basis.
I would like to speak briefly about democracy. I made a list of
the abrogation of democracy that we see and have seen since the
free trade agreement which came in in the late eighties. At the
top of that list is our loss of sovereignty. Faceless
bureaucrats sit someplace making decisions that affect us.
In spite of the comments from my friend from Alberta, we have a
situation where our youth feel that the only way they can express
their opposition to these agreements is by taking to the streets,
not as he suggested with violence in mind but simply exercising
their democratic right to say this is their country, they live
here and they have a right in terms of freedom of expression to
say what the country is doing is wrong.
What will they be faced with? Barricades and what, in effect,
will amount to a police state in Quebec City in the latter part
of April. This is something I can attest to very strongly. We
faced the same thing in my home riding last June.
2655
There is no opportunity in effect within the existing
parliamentary system for these people to be heard. We do not get
to vote on it. We do not even get to see the text. We are
elected officials, elected by our constituents to come here and
represent them and to act in their best interest. In fact we are
muzzled.
One issue we will have to debate in the coming months and years
is the alternatives which are available to us in what would be a
much more democratic and useful trading arrangement with the rest
of the world.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague for
Windsor—St. Clair this question. The auto pact, which
served Canada extremely well since 1965 if I am not mistaken, is
now gone.
Could the member please tell the House exactly what fears those
auto plant workers and their families have now that the auto pact
is gone?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the Windsor-Essex county
community was a major beneficiary of the auto pact. The term we
always heard about the auto pact was managed trade and fair
trade. We did not hear the same for free trade. The auto pact
allowed Windsor-Essex county to develop, what was in fact
historically a huge development, the auto industry in our area.
As my friend pointed out, we lost that agreement last month,
again because of a trading arrangement ruling. Our residents are
very concerned about the consequences. We no longer have a fair
trading arrangement.
Let me use one example. The Mexican jurisdiction, that economy,
is building cars in significant numbers now. To compare the
arrangements, on average a worker in Windsor in one of the large
auto plants is earning in excess of $20 an hour. With benefits
and all the rest it is roughly $30 an hour. The same auto worker
in Mexico, building the same type of vehicle, is being paid on
average $1 an hour. That is not fair trade. It may be, by some
of the other definitions we have heard of trade, free trade.
However, it is not fair trade.
The Mexican economy seriously undermines the position of labour
in Canada and does little, if anything, to advance the cause of
labour in Mexico.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as some people
are saying, right now, at 3 a.m., it may be midnight in British
Columbia, but in my riding it is 4 a.m. Miners may be getting
out of bed to go to work, and they will see me just before
leaving home.
First, in April, Quebec City will be welcoming the heads of
state of the 34 countries of the Americas, who will be pursuing
negotiations on extending North American free trade to all the
nations of the Americas except Cuba.
2700
This meeting, the summit of the Americas, follows on meetings in
Prague, Seattle and Washington.
The New Democratic Party is squarely opposed to such an
exercise. It believes that civil society should be able to
participate in the negotiation of international trade agreements
and discuss the adoption of fair trade practices.
Giving the green light to the free trade area of the Americas at
this summit will seriously compromise citizen-based democracy and
the principle of fair trade practices.
Canada is a country based on trade. International trade is an
important part of our economy.
Since Canada's approval of the free trade agreement, we have
negotiated a series of trade agreements that put the interests
of multinational corporations and international investors ahead
of the interests of workers, the environment and democracy.
It should be noted that a number of Canada's public policies
have fallen victim to international trade agreements. For
example, the conservation of fish stocks, support for Canadian
publishers, standards for toxic gasoline additives, generic
drugs legislation, funding for research and development in
Canada's high tech sectors, and the auto pact.
Not so long ago, we had the negotiations of the MAI, where we
tried to reproduce the NAFTA rules for investment with
industrialized countries, and use the NAFTA as a model for trade
agreements with the rest of the world. The New Democratic Party
has always been against the MAI negotiations.
In 1988, public protests managed to put an end to the MAI
project. Even France and Australia rejected it as a threat to
their democracy, whereas our government, incredibly, was in
favour. We were lucky enough to get hold of the documents.
As has been said time and time again in the House this evening,
the document was posted on the Internet and people around the
world were able to see it, and were able to talk about the
changes that were to take place and that would hurt society.
The New Democratic Party is not against trade.
Quite the contrary, we support fair trade, managed in a social
context of respect for social development, the environment, and
the rights of workers.
These negotiations are far from being rooted in this context.
The federal government is constantly telling us that these
negotiations are being held with all respect for Canadians and
in the best interests of Canada. Then why not make the
negotiating documents of these trade agreements public?
Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a serious lack of
transparency. If we look at the Grand-Mère issue and now the
summit of the Americas, this is becoming a daily problem for the
Liberal government. The New Democratic Party firmly believes
that trade agreements should be tabled in the House of Commons
and debated in depth by members of the House and the public
before being signed by the government.
What is the government hiding in this agreement? Why hide an
agreement from Canadians? Why should we trust cabinet? Why
should we trust a head of state? Why should we trust heads of
state who are incapable of presenting it to the public? What are
they hiding?
When the word democracy is used, one very quickly realizes
that in the context of the summit of the Americas this word no
longer has the usual meaning. On the contrary, values and
interests are reduced to commercial and economic ones, to the
advantage of private, selected corporations.
The federal government has a duty to look after the interests of
all its citizens, including the public services that make Canada
a model country as regards its social policies: health
insurance, health care, health protection regulations, public
education, social service programs, water programs and
environmental services.
2705
Previous negotiations have had a direct impact here in Canada,
resulting, for example, in an increase in child poverty. The
number of children living in poverty in Canada has risen by 60%
since 1990, even though parliament committed itself to
eliminating child poverty. In our view this is unjustifiable
and unacceptable.
In Quebec alone, there has been a marked increase in social
assistance recipients, from 595,000 in 1991 to 793,000 in 1997.
It is fine to say that the unemployment rate has fallen, but you
have to remember that the welfare rolls have grown.
Moreover, Canadian are working harder to maintain the same wage
levels they had 20 years ago, because they work longer hours.
It is hard to imagine they will improve their lot in life this
way.
Two weeks before the Seattle negotiations in 1999, the Minister
for International Trade clearly confirmed that he favoured the
freeing of health and education services as a priority for the
discussions of WTO negotiations. The NDP believes that this
approach will lead to a two tier health system, as well as an
education system for the poor and another for the rich, which is
unacceptable.
On April 20, the NDP and I will be there to protest against the
closed negotiations.
Activists from all over will state their opposition to the free
trade agreement of the Americas loudly and clearly, as well as
their opposition to the commercial and economic goals of big
business and the attack on democracy.
As the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress
said at a press conference in Ottawa on March 19, 2001:
Canadians expect their government to listen to them. When that
doesn't happen, we have to find other ways to get their
attention.
This is what the activists will do on April 20 in Quebec City.
Even though summit organizers have arranged for tight security,
protests and shows of solidarity will be the order of the day
and this will be reflected in our presence.
I will conclude by quoting the head of the CLC who spoke at a
seminar on June 3, 2000 in Windsor:
Solidarity will prevail because we want to fulfil our dreams for
the sake of our children: our dream of a skilled and able
society; our dream of an economy in which there is full
employment; our dream of a sustainable environment in which the
air is pure and the water clean; our dream of communities in
which people care about one another, work together and help one
another out; our dream of families and children who look to the
future with hope and optimism; our dream of solidarity among
families in our respective countries, on this continent and
around the world who share the same dreams and who are prepared
to fight together to make these dreams a reality.
[English]
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since I
told the member for Burnaby—Douglas about the statement
of the Minister for International Trade, three members of the New
Democratic Party have brought up public education. I will repeat
that last week the Minister for International Trade,
stated categorically when he was talking about the
GATT and FTAA positions, that public education was not at risk.
People cannot really complain about not having positions if when
there is a position given they complain about that position.
People cannot have it both ways. The member for Burnaby—Douglas
gave the weak answer that he did not believe this from something
that happened quite a while ago, but governments change.
2710
A number of NDP members talk very positively about trade now,
which they did not do a few years back. I am not taking issue
with that. People change as the world changes. The member's
argument was a weak one. I would like to address some of their
other admirable points they have on things where the position is
not on the table and things might be in jeopardy, but it has been
made categorically clear that this other one is not the case.
If I heard the point right, it was that we have less disposable
income now than we did 20 years ago. Is not at least part of
that because of the increased social programs we have now? Health
care is much more efficient. More drugs have been invented and
we have to pay for them. We have higher levels of international
aid than we did 20 years ago. There are a lot more environmental
controls than there were. All these have costs, but I think
these are all things that the NDP generally agree with. Are they
not part of the reason that disposable income is less?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, it is not because of that.
We agreed to fair trade not free trade. The NDP was very clear
about that.
Why do we have people with less income? We have them because in
1989, 1990 and 1992, when the Conservatives were cutting the
employment insurance, for example, the Liberals promoted the
idea that if they were ever to come to power they would not make
those cuts but would restore employment insurance.
Instead, they cut employment insurance to the point where only
35% of Canadians who pay into it can collect employment
insurance. We now have poor that we have never seen before, with
800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance. The
Liberals did that. Approximately 1.4 million children are hungry
in our country. The Liberals did that during their term from
1993 to now. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I believe the reason they made the cuts was free trade. They
had to answer to the Americans and to the Mexican people. That
is what they did to free trade. The free trade we were supposed
to get was supposed to bring up the standard of living of those
people, not bring down the standards for Canadians. That is what
the Liberals have done.
That is why we do not trust what the minister says: because
what the Liberals say is not what they do. We cannot trust them.
If they want us to trust them, they have to give us the document
to read. We are not stupid. We have a responsibility as
parliamentarians and we should be able to have the document. It
does not belong only to the Minister of Industry or the Minister
for International Trade. It belongs not to them but to
parliamentarians and Canadians.
We should be able to make our decisions, not just put our faith
in the Liberals, who have hurt the country very badly. They have
very badly hurt the working people in Canada. That is why we do
not trust the Liberals.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am very
pleased to participate in the take note debate on the upcoming
summit of the Americas on this early morning. I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
For the benefit of those caring and dedicated Canadians who are
still watching this debate on TV, on April 21 and 22 Canada will
host 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas in Quebec
City, 21 being new leaders. Cuba is the only country not
participating in the summit. The FTAA would cover over 800
million people. The Americas have a combined GDP of over $11
trillion American.
This will be the third summit of the Americas. The first summit
highlighted trade and was held in Miami in 1994. The second
highlighted education and was held in Santiago, Chile in 1998.
This third summit will discuss the proposal to phase out trade
barriers from the Arctic to Argentina by 2005. The plan of
action for the summit includes 18 different fields, including
drug trafficking and money laundering.
2715
Let me give some background facts on the free trade area of the
Americas, commonly called the FTAA.
There is a political and economic transformation taking place in
this trading bloc. Today there are no military dictatorships,
while in 1995 there were 14. In 1950 Canada and Argentina held
similar developmental levels but there is a disparity today.
Canada has invested $12 billion in Chile, three times more than
we have in Japan. Canada invested $42 billion in the Americas
outside the U.S.A. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central
America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free these days.
Canada exports about 45% of our GDP.
I will go over the enormous benefits of free trade. It will
broaden our trading rights. It is mutually beneficial to
participating countries. It gives consumers better choice of
goods and services, and at a cheaper price too, as compared to
tariff protected economies. It helps us get value added
products. It brings about prosperity, development, job creation
and economic developments. It enhances freedom of enterprise,
democracy and good governance as well as the voluntary exchange
of goods, services and money. It protects intellectual property
rights.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA gives protection to Canadian investors.
The Canadian Alliance supports free trade and, in principle, we
support FTAA initiatives. The liberal Prime Minister of the
U.K., Tony Blair, emphasized in this House the importance of free
trade. I will politely remind our NDP colleagues of that.
We must also remember that it was the Liberal Party of Canada
that fought hard against free trade between Canada and the U.S.
The Liberals lost the 1988 election based on that policy plank.
The Right Hon. John Turner led the members opposite to a crushing
defeat because he opposed expanding trade with our largest
trading partner. At that time the Liberals said that Canada
would cease to exist as a country and we would lose our
sovereignty if the FTA was passed. Canadians did not fall for
that.
The Liberals have made a 180 degree turn. We all know what we
call that in politics. Today we are wary of the Liberal
government's trade policy. We have seen failed team Canada
missions. In the majority of them, our exports to those
countries dropped significantly and our trade declined after the
team Canada visit. That is a matter of record. The facts and
figures speak for themselves.
There are some people who say that Canada should be
investigating this kind of summit with western Europe. East-west
trade may also be beneficial to Canada in the future.
It is also notable that trade barriers within Canada remain in
place. There are more barriers to trade between British Columbia
and New Brunswick or other provinces than there are between B.C.
and Washington state. That issue is not on the thin soup agenda
of the House because the Liberals are not serious about it.
There has never been a serious dialogue for federal and
provincial co-operation. The government has always had a
confrontational approach with the provinces.
Canadians have a number of questions to which the government has
failed to provide clear answers. What exactly would be Canada's
role in the FTAA? How exactly does Canada benefit from the
summit? I am afraid Canada will go to the summit with poorly
done homework and with its usual weak position. It is difficult
to debate the issue because so little has been made public by the
government. What criteria should the government be using to
promote trade relations in the FTAA?
Will the Liberal government expand its aid for trade policy? That
scenario plays out with the Liberal government using Canada's
foreign aid like a carrot and then invoking trade policies with a
stick on underdeveloped and disadvantaged nations.
2720
Will the Liberals measure the benefits of the FTAA against the
cost of dealing with countries that do not follow good governance
practices? Will the government hold those nations accountable
for their human rights records? What about democratic values and
how will they be defined? What about trade sanctions? The
government is all over the map when it comes to applying trade
sanctions against rogue states.
We could say that there is a double standard, but it may be a
triple standard or even worse. There is no method to the madness
that the government uses when deciding about trade sanctions.
The government does not listen to Canadians. The Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended
separating into two categories the sanctions we have against
Iraq. The committee recommended that military and humanitarian
sanctions be separated and that humanitarian sanctions be
discontinued. What has happened since that unanimous 1999
committee report? Absolutely nothing has been done.
The weak, arrogant Liberal government negotiated the MAI in
secrecy for over a year before Canadians found out. If the
Liberal government had been listening to Canadians, there would
have been no need for the people's summit that is running
parallel to the Quebec summit.
What about Canada's disputes with other nations when it comes to
agriculture, softwood lumber or fisheries? Are any of these
issues in the briefcase that our government is bringing to the
summit? Canadians do not know because the Liberals are not
telling us.
What are the Liberals doing about the low Canadian dollar and
high taxes? These issues are barriers to Canada's abilities to
negotiate free trade agreements and attract investors. The
Liberals have to drag our low value dollar with them around the
world, which does not help us in negotiations with other nations.
Are trade subsidies on the table? Is our dispute with Brazil on
the table?
Most notably, Canadians are wondering about international crime
and organized crime. Will we be expanding our trade with nations
that are affecting our country as a result of the drug trade,
human smuggling, money laundering or bank and computer fraud?
We must also carefully assess whether all countries
participating in the summit are abiding by existing international
trade agreements. Unfortunately, parliament has had no role in
helping to set the parameters of Canada's negotiation position in
the talks.
In conclusion, we in our party believe that it is essential to
allow parliamentarians in on the process, including a full debate
and a free vote on any agreement. We believe it is important to
foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of
consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad. We
support securing access to international markets through the
negotiation of trade agreements, but we must proceed carefully.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member
from British Columbia is simply this: does he or does he not
believe that subjects like health care, education, and water and
sewer systems in major centres should be part of the negotiation
process in the FTAA? A yes or no answer would suffice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes.
In the second summit, the main theme was education. It would be
very healthy to promote other social services agendas as well,
for example, health care or other services that are offered to
the 800 million people in this trade bloc. It would be a very
good idea.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of comments. The hon. member talked about the provinces.
One of the things I could never countenance in the Alliance
platform is the weakening of the federation of Canada through the
powers it wants to pass on to the provinces. That would make the
state very ineffective.
2725
There have been numerous federal-provincial agreements this
year. There was a major agreement on health care. It is not
fair to say that the provinces and the federal government do not
work together.
Talking about the high tax regime, the largest tax cut in
Canadian history has just come into effect.
My question is related to the hon. member's comment on the level
of the dollar. What would the hon. member do about that? What
would he do about the jobs that would be lost in the Canadian
export industries if the dollar was artificially raised?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's interest in this issue.
He talked about the provinces. The Canadian Alliance strongly
believes that there should be a co-operative approach in dealing
with the provinces, not the confrontational approach which his
party is practising at this time.
The Liberal government has an absolutely confrontational
approach with the provinces. That is why many issues are not
being resolved, particularly the trade barriers which continue.
That is why the confederation is not working. It could work
better if the provinces and the federal government shared
responsibilities and if they had dialogue and co-operation on
various issues.
Regarding high taxes, he alleges that the highest tax cuts in
Canadian history have recently taken place. That is nonsense. It
is not true. The highest tax hike since the Liberals took power
in 1993, was in the CPP. I remember it was the first bill we
debated in the House. It implemented a 73% tax increase. That
was the largest tax increase in Canadian history and it took
place under this regime.
The member spoke about lost jobs. When the Canadian dollar is
strong we do not lose jobs. It helps to restore credibility and
trust in our economy. I would appreciate it if the hon. member
would go over these issues in detail. I probably answered his
questions contrary to his opinion.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House
to speak on this particular issue. It is maybe on account of the
hour of the day but there is an incredible level of peace in this
place, peace that I am not used to on a normal basis. It makes
it somewhat exciting to be able to speak under those conditions.
Speaking in this particular debate is like déjà vu when I
reflect on the last parliament and the issue of the MAI. The
official opposition, by way of a motion on opposition day, raised
the issue of being able to debate what the government's position
was going into the negotiations on the MAI. Here we are again
having somewhat of an emergency debate to try to find out what
the government's position will be in this particular round of
negotiations on the FTAA.
With respect to the MAI, the official opposition put its cards
on the table. We said we were in favour of free trade, as we had
always been, however we wanted to know exactly what the
government's position would be going into the negotiations. We
did not get the type of transparency we would have liked at that
point in time. Ironically enough we are not getting it now as we
enter into this particular round of negotiations on the FTAA.
The other ironic thing is that this particular government, prior
to 1993, was adamantly against free trade. Now it is a great
defender of it. However, once again it is under the table and is
not as transparent as Canadians would like.
Looking at the agenda planned for the Quebec round of meetings,
the three areas of discussion are very honourable. We have
strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human
potential.
All those topics are of great interest to Canadians and to the
different countries involved in the negotiations.
2730
The official opposition is, as I say, in favour of free trade,
but clearly we are concerned about issues of sovereignty that
pertain to all topics on the agenda. If the government were
forthcoming about its negotiating position and allowed public
consultation and debate, we would not have the unfortunate
violent demonstrations we have seen in the past. Instead it
could encourage a constructive agenda for managed globalization
that is consistent with the rule of international law.
With a large part of the global economy at stake, the FTAA
agenda and issues are enormous. The meetings are a tremendous
opportunity to further the interests of Canadian consumers and of
our agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. They are
also an ideal forum for promoting human rights.
Clearly the world's political and business leaders have a
responsibility to take seriously issues of democratic freedom,
sustainable use and development of the environment, and the
preservation of national and cultural identities within a global
economy.
However as Canadians we also must take seriously the challenge
to be provocative, rather than reactive, agents of change within
the global economy. I am convinced that is the greatest thing we
can do to protect and advance our unique national interests.
I would especially like to say a few words to younger Canadians.
Young people know the forces of change at work today. We are
being ushered into a revolutionary digital age. Information
technology has already begun to transform the way we live, work,
do business and communicate. During our lifetimes we will
witness another revolution yet unknown to humankind. The
challenge is to take our place within the revolution of change
and globalization, not to resist it.
The future for innovators in business, job creation and policy
making will be a delicate dance of balancing interests. We must
seek to balance economic interests with the environment and to
balance national interests, identities and cultures with
international ones.
As Canadians we have much to protect but just as much, if not
more, to offer the rest of the world. Not only do we have goods
and services to trade, we can offer energy and hope. We are a
young country brimming with potential.
We can offer a quality of leadership formed from centuries of
pioneering a new frontier in the face of adversity. At meetings
like the FTAA, Canada has a much better chance of creating a
level trading field globally and ensuring member rights are
protected and national interests are balanced.
Without such meetings there is much less hope for balance and
for just societies within the emerging global economy. We should
seek to use our position of influence as a world leader to set
the agenda at the FTAA and future WTO meetings. We must find our
voice among the nations of the world and demonstrate leadership
and courage as we embrace globalization.
Global change is inevitable. We can only determine how we will
respond to it and where and how, as leaders, we can make
globalization something to be celebrated rather than feared.
That is why we cannot emphasize enough the importance of a
transparent and open process. We need to engage Canadians and
make them feel they are part of the democratic process. That is
why many of my colleagues, and I think many Canadians, continue
to insist we have a full and open debate on the issue and even,
to some extent, public consultation. Hopefully we can move it to
a free vote in the House of Commons so that Canadians truly feel
the government has their interests at hand before it signs any
form of international trade agreements.
2735
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member for Surrey
Central if he believed health, education, water and sewer and
public services should be part of an FTAA agreement, and his
answer was yes.
I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona would agree
that health, education and public services such as water and
sewer should be on the FTAA negotiating table.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer
that question with a yes or no. However to qualify my answer it
is important to note that, yes, those things should be discussed,
but only in the context of protecting our sovereignty.
As I said in my speech, it is important that we not cover our
eyes on issues that I think are of great concern to Canadians. I
think many countries have an interest in what we have to offer on
these issues. However we need to put it in the context of the
negotiations. We need to have the attitude that we can protect
those things Canadians feel are so important. In the process of
trying to make them better we need to make sure that we do not
lose the balance we have been able to create in protecting those
public institutions that are so sacred.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient with me
so far today and I appreciate it. I will say, as probably the
last speaker in the House today, that we in the NDP and many
others throughout the country and around the world, believe
democracy itself is threatened by the FTAA. We need go no
further than the Metalclad decision, the one that should be
coming up in the appeals, or the UPS decision.
UPS is now suing Canada Post because Canada Post had the
audacity to have a courier system, which, by the way, supplements
other postal services in the country. UPS, an American firm, is
saying Canada Post cannot do that and that it will sue.
The government of British Columbia is being sued because it had
the audacity to try to protect its bulk water. Across the
country, we believe, environmental concerns such as water, lumber
and everything else are at stake.
It was absolutely shocking in the House to hear, once and for
all, a member of the Alliance Party tell it like it is and say
that, yes indeed, health, education and other public services
should be on the table when we negotiate the FTAA.
We knew all along that was the Alliance's position. We knew all
along it was the Conservative position. We had a sneaking
suspicion all along that it was the government's position. It is
amazing what happens at this hour of the morning. The truth
eventually does come out. It is shocking.
I wonder if the hon. member for Surrey Central has told the
people in his riding that health, education and other public
services should be on the table. I do not think he would
represent the riding for long if he were forthright enough to
tell them that.
When the Conservatives negotiated free trade they forgot to
include a shipbuilding policy. The United States protected
itself with what is called the Jones Act, which says a ship
carrying freight between New York and Miami must be American
built, American crewed, American registered, everything American.
Canada forgot to protect its own shipbuilding industry, and it
will now be virtually impossible to institute a shipbuilding
policy in this country.
We would encourage the Minister of Industry to include one and
to do everything in his power to rebuild the industry so that
thousands of people can go back to work in shipyards in Saint
John, Marystown or Halifax. However, I suspect that with talks
continuing the way they are it will be virtually impossible for
him to do so unless he takes a stand and says no.
We have heard the member from Calgary say in the House that
there will be Molotov cocktails, violence and everything else
like that.
No one in the NDP has said that. We have said only that we have
the democratic right to attend a people's conference, a citizens'
initiative from a broad section of society in Canada and around
the world, to register our protest to people on the other side of
the fence.
2740
To suggest we would disrupt the proceedings in the buildings
behind the fence is to suggest we would be going over the fence.
That is simple nonsense. More than 5,000 police officers will be
there to make sure we do not. I was planning to wear a scarf in
case it got cold, but I understand there will be a bylaw in
Quebec that if people wear scarves they could be arrested.
Imagine that. The member wants to know why we are nervous about
the talks going on behind the fence when the municipal government
enacts a bylaw to prevent people from wearing scarves. It is
simply incredible.
The Alliance, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc are
concerned about the NDP attending the people's conference. I
attended a civil disobedience event in my own riding. A few
years ago the Volvo plant was to leave Halifax and move to
Mexico. It was to leave without looking after the workers. What
did the workers do? They occupied the plant, but in a very
peaceful way. That was civil disobedience. They occupied a
private piece of property and just sat there.
Who attended the rally to support them? That great dissident of
all time, the current premier of Nova Scotia, John Hamm, was
there to support the workers of the Volvo plant. Guess who else
was there? Another great dissident of democracy, former Halifax
mayor Walter Fitzgerald, was there to support the workers.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Anarchists, that is what they are.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, anarchists. How dare they, a
Conservative premier of Nova Scotia and a self-professed Liberal
mayor of Halifax, support working people in the country?
Guess who else was there? Lo and behold, yours truly. Imagine
that. We had a Conservative, a Liberal and a New Democrat
standing together outside the plant to listen to speeches in
support of the workers and to support their quest for fair
compensation for the years of service they had dedicated to
Volvo.
Guess what? Not one light bulb was broken. The plant was
cleaner after the protest than when we went in. The workers got
what they deserved. They did not maintain their jobs, but they
kept their dignity and respect and received better pensions. That
is civil disobedience 101. That is how it is done.
Lo and behold, the premier of Nova Scotia was there, the mayor
of Halifax was there, and I was there: the great anarchists of
our society. Imagine a member of parliament, the premier of Nova
Scotia and the mayor of Halifax, great dissidents of democracy.
It is absolutely incredible that those three anarchists could be
there supporting working people.
Why would the Alliance, the Liberals, the Bloc and the
Conservatives be so nervous about the NDP going there? I think
there is an underlying tone to what they are saying. I believe
that in their heart of hearts they know the FTAA will be a very
frightening proposition for Canada. Municipal, provincial and
federal governments in the future will lose the ability to enact
laws or bylaws to protect the citizens of Canada.
What will happen? All of a sudden we will hear that they cannot
do something because of the trade agreements, or that they cannot
enact protective laws because of the trade agreements.
2745
Since NAFTA and free trade have come in never in the history of
this country have seniors found life harder. If we really want
to see the inadequacies of this trade deal, we can look at what
it has done to our seniors, one of the most vulnerable groups of
people in the country. Ask the seniors in my riding and across
the country. The choices they have to make now are among food,
home heating fuel and prescription drugs.
We put them in that position. These people worked hard their
entire lives, but because of these trade deals we cannot do
anything about energy prices. Because of these trade deals we
cannot do anything about drug prices. Because of these trade
deals we cannot support and protect our farmers. Our seniors are
saying that they elected us to do something about it and are
asking us why we have not done anything. However, we hide behind
the cloak of the trade deals.
We in the NDP have never been against trade. We are a trading
nation. All we are asking for is fair trade, fair trade that
benefits all working people and the environment of this planet.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to close
this debate at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock in the morning, I would
like to make one point related to loss of freedom. Loss of
sovereignty has recently been mentioned by a few members.
When people join a family they give up some freedom, some
sovereignty. For example, they cannot choose the same holidays.
However, there is a larger benefit. When I chose to live in a
subdivision I could not drive as fast as I wanted. I had to give
up some freedoms, some sovereignty, but it was for something
better in my life. When I decided to live in the city of
Whitehorse, one of the great cities of Canada, I was not allowed
to light firecrackers indiscriminately and I could not make noise
late at night. However, it is a great city to live in and what I
have gained is more than what I gave up. It is all part of the
great social contract.
When I chose to be part of the Yukon territory I gave up certain
things. I cannot drive at certain speeds. I cannot take my boat
to go fishing down Teslin Lake from Yukon territory into B.C.
without another fishing licence. However, the Yukon territory is
a great place to live and there is a great co-operation among
Yukoners. They are wonderful people. What I have gained is
greater than what I gave up.
When I decided to live in Canada, I accepted laws and rules that
I have to follow as part of the great social contract. For
example, I must have a passport to leave Canada and to get back
in. However, I chose that because what I have gave up is less
than what I have achieved.
When countries joined the United Nations after the second world
war, they gave up some of their sovereignty so that such horrific
things as the two world wars would never happen again. They gave
up sovereignty for something better.
The same applies to world treaties on landmines and to
anti-nuclear treaties. With the FTA we gave up tariffs between
Canada and the United States so that companies could not hide
behind tariff barriers, stay uncompetitive and not create as many
jobs as they could otherwise. They could have high prices
because of the tariff barriers, thus affecting poor people in
both countries. We gave something up, but I believe it was for
the better. As the member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said
earlier tonight, we gave up some international control so we
could have better social programs and a better environment in
some of the countries abusing these things.
From my perspective, we gave up our sovereignty to join the
United Nations and rid ourselves of the dictatorships in the
world and rid ourselves of the autocratic governments that were
abusing people, as well as to prevent the possibility of such
things happening in the future. To me, it was worth it to give
up that sovereignty and join the larger sovereignty of humanity,
the greatest democracy of all humankind. To me, that was worth
it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have no question, just a comment.
I would like to thank you and the staff of the House of Commons
for participating in this debate and helping us to get the
message out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my best to all the
pages and the clerks and to everyone who helped make this evening
a success. I thank them.
The Deputy Speaker: Good night and good morning. There
being no further members rising, pursuant to order made
Wednesday, March 21, the House stands adjourned until later this
day at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 3.50 a.m.)