37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 047
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-26. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Motion
|
1010
1015
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1020
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1025
1030
| Amendment
|
1035
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1040
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1045
1050
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1055
| Mr. John McKay |
1100
1105
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1110
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1115
1120
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1125
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1130
1135
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1140
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1145
1150
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1155
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1200
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1205
| Mr. John McKay |
1210
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1215
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1220
1225
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1230
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1235
1240
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1245
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1250
1255
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1300
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1305
1310
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1315
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1320
1325
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1330
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1335
1340
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1345
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SPACE EXPLORATION
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1400
| BILL C-331
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| SPACE EXPLORATION
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| VETERANS
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
1405
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| SYNCHRO CANADA
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| POETRY
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| HEROISM
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1410
| CRTC
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| TOURISM
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| LANDMINES
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1415
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1435
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1445
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| KYOTO PROTOCOL
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. John Williams |
1455
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| SPORTS
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1500
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1525
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1530
1535
| Mr. John Bryden |
1540
1545
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1550
1555
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1600
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1605
1610
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1615
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1620
1625
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1630
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1635
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1640
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1645
1650
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1655
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1700
1705
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1710
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1715
1745
(Division 78)
| Amendment negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1750
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill S-10. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1755
1800
1805
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1810
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1815
1820
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1825
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1830
1835
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1840
| RESOURCE INDUSTRIES
|
| Committee of the Whole
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1845
1850
| Mr. John Duncan |
1855
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1900
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1905
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1910
1915
| Mr. David Chatters |
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1955
2000
2005
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
2010
2015
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
2020
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2025
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
2030
2035
2040
2045
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
2050
2055
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
2100
2105
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2110
2115
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2120
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
2125
2130
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
2135
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
2140
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
2145
2150
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
2155
| Mr. André Harvey |
2200
2205
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
2210
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
2215
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
2220
| Mr. Bob Mills |
2225
2230
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
2235
2240
2245
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
2250
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2255
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
2300
2305
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2310
2315
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
2320
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
2325
2330
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
2335
2340
2345
2350
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2355
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 047
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 24, 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.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Finance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act to amend the
Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax
Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 8, 10 and
11.
.[Text]
Question No. 8— Mr. John Duncan:
How much was paid by the government to defend itself in the
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's lawsuit over the Airbus affair,
including payments to private lawyers and agents retained by the
government and the estimated salary and expenses of lawyers and
other staff employed by the government, based on the hours they
devoted to the file and their hourly rate of pay?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows:
The sum of $1,237,944.51 was paid to private lawyers and agents.
In addition, the sum of $252,807.00 plus 41,269 Swiss francs was
spent on disbursements including experts.
Eight lawyers with the Department of Justice worked on the file
as part of their regular duties at one time or another. A number
of support personnel also worked on the file as part of their
duties.
The justice lawyers did not keep hourly dockets at the time. An
estimate of the cost of their work on the file can be arrived at
using their salary ranges at the time for their respective levels
and an estimate of time spent on the file. These estimates are as
follows:
One lawyer from the Department of the Solicitor General,
assisted by administrative support, worked on this file as a part
of a regularly assigned workload.
During the period in question, lawyers working for the
Department of the Solicitor General did not keep hourly dockets
as part of their regular duties. An estimated cost of the
department's work on file can be arrived at by using the lawyer's
salary scale in effect at the time, as well as the estimated
hours spent working on the file.
The lawyer, Mr. Dubrule, was classified as an LA2B with a salary
range of $76,400 to $93,200 and the time spent working on the
case is as follows:
October 1996 to June 1997—40%
July 1997 to December 1997—25%
January 1998 to December 1998—25%
No outside legal services, agents or experts were hired by the
department on this matter.
Question No. 10—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to Alberta Court of Queen's Bench File No. 00-19047
and Supreme Court of Canada File No. 0001-09477: (a) what is
the total cost incurred by the government to date, whether
already paid or under commitment, in connection with these files,
including but not limited to legal fees billed by Fraser, Milner,
Casgrain, the Department of Justice in Winnipeg and Edmonton,
and/or other legal advisers, as well as travel and administrative
costs associated with the court actions and filings; and (b)
what amount has the government budgeted to cover all costs until
the cases are closed, including all appeal options?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (a) The total
cost incurred on this case to March 7, 2001, is $525,716.13. In
addition to the costs at trial, this figure includes the costs of
the interlocutory appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal and to
the Supreme Court of Canada where the interlocutory injunction
was set aside. The sum also includes costs for expert evidence
used at trial.
(b) As of March 7, the judgment of the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench was still on reserve. Whether further costs will be
incurred, and the extent of these costs, will depend on the
order and the reasons issued by the trial court, as well as
decisions taken as a result by either of the parties to appeal or
not to appeal that judgement in whole or in part.
Question No. 11—Mr. Svend Robinson:
Regarding the military contract worth $6.5 million announced by
Vector Aerospace Corporation of St. John's, Newfoundland, on
January 26, 2001, with the government of Colombia: (a) was an
export permit for strategic goods issued for this contract,
and if not, why not; (b) with which branches of the Colombian
military was this contract arranged; (c) does the work of this
contract involve servicing or repairing any equipment provided to Colombia
by the government of the United States for the counter-narcotics
batallions established under plan Colombia, and if so, which
specific equipment will be serviced; (d) if not, which
equipment and units of the Colombian forces will be serviced by
this contract; and (e) what guarantees does Canada have that
the equipment being serviced will not be used in operations which
violate human rights or international humanitarian law?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): (a) No permit has been granted, the
contract does not involve the export of controlled goods or
technology from Canada.
(b) We have no information about these matters.
(c) We have no information about these matters.
(d) We have no information about these matters.
(e) as the goods are not subject to export control we are not in
a position to seek any such end use assurances.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) moved:
That the
government put in place an open and ongoing process to keep
Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free Trade Area
of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to debate it and
civil society to be consulted before Parliament approves it.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you,
and our excellent clerks at the table, that for the duration of
the allotted day, that is until private members' business, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois will be dividing their time into
two ten-minute speeches.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Speaker, I believe everyone
will agree that to build a free trade area of the
Americas, which will be at the service of the peoples of the
Americas, the wall of distrust must be broken down.
Obviously, this past weekend in Quebec City the 34 heads of
state did not succeed in breaking down that wall. Why? Because,
in my opinion, despite the extremely significant efforts made in
recent weeks to appear more transparent, the process of
negotiation remains insufficiently so.
That is the reasoning
behind the motion I am introducing this morning on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois. It is intended to remedy some of the democratic
deficit and lend greater transparency to the entire process. I
will reread it to the House if I may.
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament
approves it.
As I was saying, the process of negotiating the free trade area
of the Americas has so far lacked transparency. I will give just
a few examples of this.
We were promised documents after the meeting of the
international trade ministers at Buenos Aires in early April. The
promised documents have still not been made public and, in this
connection, we would like to know sometime today when the
Minister for International Trade plans to do so.
There is no guarantee either that we will regularly get these
documents, especially since, as we know, these texts will change
with time, before ministerial meetings, so we can judge the
fairness of the Government of Canada's position.
We do not know Canada's position at four of the five sectoral
tables. We do not know its positions on such important issues as
investment, investment protection, services, dispute resolution
and intellectual property. This too is a source of confusion and
concern. It was apparent in the hours following the end of the
Quebec City summit.
On the subject of investments, for example, we know for a fact
that the Minister for International Trade said on several
occasions, including before the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, that there was no question of
copying chapter 11 of NAFTA on the protection of investments,
because there was in fact an imbalance between the rights of
investors and the rights of governments to protect public health
and public services the population wanted.
The Minister for International Trade therefore intimated clearly
that chapter 11 of NAFTA was not a valid basis for negotiation in
the context of the free trade area of the Americas. So, a few
hours after the conclusion of the Quebec City summit, the Prime
Minister of Canada announced that chapter 11 presented no problem
for him and that it might be an interesting basis for
negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.
The websites of the Government of Canada and the Minister for
International Trade indicate that the main problem with
investments is the conflict resolution mechanism.
1010
When I look at all these contradictory and confusing positions,
it seems extremely important to me to raise the issue of
transparency, and to have the government quickly state its
positions in the House and make them public.
These two elements I just mentioned cause confusion and show
that the process still lacks transparency. This lack of
transparency and democracy is primarily due to the fact that
parliamentarians and civil society are still not closely
associated, on an ongoing basis, with the negotiations on the
free trade area of the Americas.
Two days ago, the Prime Minister said that opponents to the
current negotiations on the proposed free trade area of the
Americas simply had to get elected to have an opportunity to
express their point of view. We members of this House were
elected, but we cannot express our point of view, even though we
want to.
On February 15, I tabled a motion in the House asking that any
final agreement on the free trade area of the Americas be brought
before the House to allow parliamentarians to debate it and to
vote on it. That motion had the support of all the opposition
parties, but was rejected by the Liberals.
That was before the Quebec City summit, before the 34 heads
of state made a formal commitment to strengthen representative
democracy. The government and the party in office
must now accept the obvious and agree that in order to strengthen
representative democracy in Canada, we must begin by allowing
members of the House of Commons to debate any agreement on a free
trade area of the Americas and to vote on it before it is
ratified by the executive branch.
Besides, Canada can draw from other countries where parliaments
are playing an active role in the approval of international
treaties, and British tradition parliaments like ours. In Great
Britain and in Australia, when an international treaty agreement
is signed, it has to be approved by parliament and then ratified
by the executive.
My motion today seeks to ensure that this also be the approach
of Canada, the House of Commons and the Government of Canada with
respect to the free trade area of the Americas.
I am still a bit anxious because in the final declaration signed
by the 34 heads of state, there is no mention of the role of
parliamentarians in the process of negotiating the free trade
area of the Americas. To me it is an inconceivable oversight,
especially since reference was made repeatedly, and rightly so,
to consultation and inclusion of civil society in the negotiating
process. I entirely agree with all that. However, I have a hard
time understanding why nothing is being said about the role of
parliamentarians, who are the elected representatives of the
people.
One might argue that parliamentarians are mentioned in the
action plan, but not in relation to the negotiating process. We
are talking about parliamentarians participating in an exchange
process, a co-operative approach to democratic processes. It
comes under transparency and good governance, but it is far from
being enough.
Canada must set an example by having parliamentarians play an
active role in the whole negotiating process, and this is
precisely the purpose of this motion; it asks that the government
put in place an open and ongoing process.
Incidentally, something else seems unacceptable, and raises some
doubts in my mind about the good faith of the government. In the
final statement by the 34 heads of state, there is only one
reference to a parliamentary association, the interparliamentary
forum of the Americas, FIPA. There was never any reference to the
conference of parliamentarians of the Americas, COPA.
I find this a little strange as FIPA was established only a
month ago, a few countries met here in March to establish it, and
it represents only national parliaments, while COPA, created in
1997, represents all parliaments, whether they are national,
provincial, federated, regional or subregional.
I hope that this omission of the conference of parliamentarians
of the Americas will not prevent the heads of state from calling
upon it because this forum is extremely rich, independent and
pluralist.
As I said, parliamentarians must have an active role to play in
the decision, as I think everyone will agree, and the motion
includes this, because we are accountable to the people.
1015
Civil society must also be involved, before a decision is made,
by contributing to the debate and informing parliamentarians
before they make a decision. Civil society must also be involved
after the decision is made in order to implement it.
I think the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, at the forum of
parliamentarians that took place within the people's summit,
described the process very well. I invite all members of the
House to take note of his contribution at this forum. The roles
of the different players are thus very clear, but they are
complementary and necessary.
In conclusion, I will say that besides transparency, two other
elements, and we will have the opportunity to get back to this
because the negotiations will end by 2005, are required to ensure
that the free trade area of the Americas meets Quebecers'
expectations. First, Quebec must be part of Canadian negotiating
teams. It must have a say on all its jurisdictions, whether they
are shared or exclusive. Second, in the agreement on the free
trade area of the Americas, a specific reference must be made to
the protection of fundamental rights, whether they are human
rights, labour rights or environmental rights.
Thus, I invite all members of the House to agree to the motion
that I just brought forward on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. It
seems to me that, if the motion is agreed to, this would
demonstrate the willingness of parliamentarians to play their
role effectively, that is as representatives of the population
and advocates of the public interest.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, not having to do
with the motion as much as with what is not in the motion.
The motion is very much concerned with process and seems to
assume that the conclusion of a free trade agreement of the
Americas is at some level a good idea but it has to be done
properly. It has to be done with the inclusion of civil society
and with parliament playing a proper role, et cetera.
There is nothing in the motion that indicates any substantive
opposition whatsoever to the free trade model or the free trade
paradigm that is on the table at the FTAA, that is already
enshrined in NAFTA, and that we find also at the WTO and in the
MAI.
Could the member indicate what the Bloc's position is not with
respect to process, not to how we come to a free trade agreement,
but on whether we should come to a free trade agreement? The
position of the Quebec government seems to be very much pro-free
trade. That is consistent with the position of Quebec
governments in the past, both sovereignist and non-sovereignist.
Given the thousands of Quebecers who were on the streets last
weekend making up a large portion of the march against free
trade, would he say whether or not they still find themselves in
the position of not having a single Quebec MP who is willing to
stand and say that he or she is against free trade as it is now
understood in the FTA, NAFTA, WTO, et cetera? What is the
position of the Bloc?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Speaker, it is really a shame to
still hear such prejudice against the position of the Bloc
Quebecois, the Quebec government and a good part of Quebec's
civil society.
Mrs. Beaudoin said it in Washington, we are in favour of free
trade but not at the expense of losing our soul. This is the
position of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Regroupement québécois
sur l'intégration continentale. We agree on opening up the
markets to improve, I would say, commercial transactions, but
neither at the expense of losing our sovereignty, and in
Quebec's case we wish to gain it, nor at the expense of having
rights trampled on.
It is clear that the proposal I have put forward deals with the
process to allow debate here in the House on the various concepts
of open markets we have.
1020
I know that the NDP often refers to fair trade. Let us talk
about it. I think its position is very close to that of the
Bloc Quebecois, which wants to see included in the trade
agreement some reference to fundamental rights that must be
respected so that we can reap the benefits of the agreement. If
those fundamental rights are not respected, we are not part of
the free trade agreement as such.
Clearly, we must hold that debate. We must have the texts to be
able to do so but we must have
the opportunity to hold that debate. We still do not have them.
By bringing forward the motion for the Bloc Quebecois,
we are taking advantage of the momentum created at the summit of
the Americas, where the heads of state said that their main
concern was to reinforce democracy, to ask the Canadian
government to take some real measures in favour of representative
democracy by giving parliamentarians the possibility to debate
these negotiations regularly and to give their approval before
the government ratified the resulting document.
I am ready to discuss with the member the whole process,
but we must have an opportunity to do so. I know that in the
motion the accent is more on process than on content, but I am
also very eager to debate content. I am not sure we will agree on
everything, but I think that members' views will converge on some
extremely important points and that will contribute to improved
negotiations and perhaps to an improved final agreement.
I can assure the member that if we do not find the elements we
are seeking in this agreement, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it.
That being said, I do not want to prejudge the outcome; I want
us to have all the necessary tools for the democratic debate to
be held and I want us to have all the opportunities to bring
about an agreement that will promote co-operation among the
countries of the Americas, which in turn will promote the
betterment of all peoples of the Americas.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the member. I want to congratulate
him for his decision to initiate this debate.
[English]
It is a very important debate. Unfortunately we did not have an
opportunity to do this in advance of the meeting in Quebec City.
However, when one looks historically at these types of agreements
in the past and at the original debates, one sees that we did
have an opportunity not only to debate it in the House but to
actually have an election on the issue, it was of such great
importance.
Is it not fair to say that the position of the Bloc is one of
concern that is consistent with other Canadians, that we want to
know in advance, in a transparent way, the position the
government is taking on a whole array of issues: environmental
issues, trade issues and civil rights issues? We want to know
prior to the government signing these agreements.
It is ironic to note that if this were held in Quebec City in
1988 the government would have been on the other side of the
fence. Would the member agree with that comment?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Joliette really has almost no time but, if he wishes to reply or
to allow his colleague to reply after his speech, that would be
acceptable.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Speaker, I wish to reply to the
question. What I mean is that it is in the interest of all
parties and members present in this House that this motion be
adopted so that the people of Canada and of Quebec not only have
the impression, but truly feel that their elected
representatives are playing the role they are supposed to play,
which is to defend the general interests of Canadians and
Quebecers.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to take part in this morning's debate, which
was initiated by the hon. member for Joliette, whom I
congratulate, by the way, on his excellent work in connection
with the whole FTAA issue.
I will begin by saying that I have some questions regarding the
NDP member's criticism of all forms of free trade.
I have trouble understanding how the NDP, which claims to be
progressive and to want to improve the general lot of the peoples
of the three Americas, can object for even one instant to our
being able to sign a co-operation agreement, a free trade
agreement which, along with the appropriate mechanisms, social
clauses, and policies for redistributing resources among the less
fortunate countries, could improve people's living conditions.
I have never understood why the NDP was so opposed to the idea
of free trade and misrepresented what Quebecers and Canadians
really thought.
1025
We are in favour of free trade but not under just any
conditions. We are opposed to free trade, for example, if it is
going to favour only major transnational companies. We are in
favour of free trade because we are convinced that, at the end of
the day, if the job is done well, if the government is able to
show some openness, transparency and intelligence in its
negotiations, everyone stands to gain.
So far, however, we have remained dissatisfied. Why so? Because
we do not know what is going on with these negotiations. That is
the purpose of the motion by my hon. colleague from Joliette.
The government must give us parliamentarians access. We are not
elected without a purpose. If we are, it ought to shut down.
Let it shut down parliament. If we are serving no purpose as
parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, let it shut
down this parliament. It is no longer appropriate, perhaps, in
the context of globalization and the requirement for
supranational forums.
Until we have proof to the contrary, however, parliamentarians
are necessary. They are the representatives of the people. We
cannot allow negotiations to be held on free trade agreements or
the WTO multilateral plan without the public being brought into
the process, without it being consulted, and without the elected
representatives of the public being brought into the process to
analyze the draft agreements and to authorize ratification by the
government at the end of these negotiations.
I would like to return to a point raised by my colleague from
Joliette on investments, on chapter 11. Of course, this is
something one could hardly be against. Yesterday, I heard the
Minister for International Trade say “We stood up for investors,
in order to protect investments”. We never said we opposed
protecting investments, but there must be conditions for
protecting investments.
Chapter 11 in NAFTA could well be recycled in the agreement on
the free trade area of the three Americas. It is a very
dangerous business, given the governments' capacity to intervene
in certain sectors. It is very dangerous as well because
complaints could be lodged with the governments of the 34
countries when the free trade area of the three Americas is
established, by major corporations. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA and
their narrow interpretation of it, they could find a way to
obtain compensation in the government's coffers, paid out of the
taxes of the people of Quebec, Canada and the United States, as
well. They find a way to get compensation for the potential
profits they say they would have enjoyed had the government not
been present in the market they wished to operate in.
It is serious enough to have raised some doubt in the mind of
the Minister for International Trade, of the chief negotiator and
of most experts who considered the question.
So great is the concern that, not too long ago, the Minister for
International Trade said that he would not sign an FTAA agreement
if it contained provisions similar to those in NAFTA's chapter
11, which is already causing problems for the Canadian
government. The problems are not insubstantial and I will come
back to this in the final minutes of my speech.
Seventeen companies have already filed complaints under the
environmental protection laws and are jointly claiming several
billions of dollars in compensation from the Canadian government,
based on a very broad interpretation of chapter 11 in connection
with expropriation and unrealized potential profits.
On December 13 of last year, not ten years, but a few months
ago, the Minister for International Trade said:
[English]
I will not sign a deal if it includes a chapter 11 equivalent.
That is my position. I am very preoccupied with this.
[Translation]
He said he would not sign an FTAA agreement containing
provisions equivalent to those in chapter 11.
The day before yesterday, at the end of the summit of the
Americas, the Prime Minister said that he had no problem with
chapter 11, despite the fact that 17 large corporations have
filed suits against the Canadian government for compensation on
the basis of a narrow interpretation of chapter 11. The Prime
Minister did not see a problem. As we know only too well, this
is not his money; it is taxpayers' money.
The government is currently being sued for several billions of
dollars. It is not concerned about how chapter 11 is being
interpreted.
1030
Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade gave us another
interpretation. He said there was no problem with the wording,
but that there could be some problems with the implementation.
We do not know where the government stands. In fact, there is a
fourth position within the Canadian government. That position is
stated on the Internet site and reads as follows:
Canada is not advocating the replication of NAFTA investor-state
rules in the FTAA and has not supported the proposals made so far
by other FTAA countries to include such a type of dispute
settlement mechanism.
This is from the government's Internet site. Therefore I will
repeat my question to the government. There are four government
positions on chapter 11 on investment. Which is the right one?
Is it that of the Minister for International Trade, who said
that he would not sign any free trade agreement involving the
three Americas if it includes provisions similar to those found
in chapter 11?
Is it the Prime Minister's position, who says there is no
problem with chapter 11? According to him, there is no problem
with that chapter but taxpayers could run into problems. Also the
governments' ability to get involved in economic, social and
cultural sectors, and even in health, could be compromised
because of chapter 11. However the Prime Minister says there is no
problem.
Is it the position stated on the Internet site? Is that the
government's position, or is it the latest find of the Minister
for International Trade? It is important to know that. This is
why we need transparency. This is why we need to know.
For example, could the narrow definition found in chapter 11,
which could be replicated in the FTAA, allow an American investor
who is currently investing in health, because the private sector
plays a significant role in health in the United States, to
demand that governments withdraw from health, or that he be
compensated, given that the profits which he could potentially
make would be jeopardized because of a provision such as the one
in chapter 11?
The free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and
Mexico has only been in effect for three years and 17 complaints
have already been filed. Seventeen court actions have been taken
by major companies against the federal government, and this could
end up costing Quebec and Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars.
Is this going to be extended to all 34 countries in the free
trade area of the Americas? Is that what they have in mind? With
an agreement covering three countries there have already been 17
suits by Canadian businesses against the federal government.
When there are 34 countries, the potential number of businesses
that could be launching suits against the state coffers, which
could demand compensation, will be multiplied with such a limited
definition.
Will the government presence in certain sectors also be at risk?
Just taking the example of the Caisse de dépôt et de placement,
could the Chase Manhattan Bank come along some day and say that
the Caisse de dépôt et de placement, a semi-governmental body
governed by Government of Quebec regulations and a statute, is
preventing the bank from making a profit in the Canadian market?
It could go as far as that.
Certain companies are involved in suits. For example, Ethyl is
suing the Canadian government for $250 million, Metalclad, for
$150 million. In all, when all the companies are combined, the
figure is $17 billion.
We must question the capacity of the government to provide us
with real information, to take a real position on fundamental
questions, if only on this single issue which lays open to
question the integrity of governmental tax bases and their
ability to fund such areas as health. The lack of transparency
must be challenged. This transparency must be demanded.
I propose an amendment to my colleague's motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “consulted” and substituting the following thereof:
“before official ratification by the government, authorized by
Parliament”.
I hope all my colleagues will support this motion which is so
important for democracy, the future of parliamentarians and the
well-being of civil society.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the
amendment is in order.
1035
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I wish to pursue the debate with my Bloc colleagues. I
congratulate the member for bringing forth the motion and for
providing us with an opportunity to talk about the FTAA and the
process that attends it.
However, in the response to me earlier and in the remarks of the
hon. member who just finished, the Bloc says that it does want to
prejudge the outcome. Members already know what the outcome is
in the sense that we know what NAFTA is. NAFTA is not something
that one has to prejudge. NAFTA is something that we have had
since 1993.
The member does not have to prejudge the FTAA. He can judge
NAFTA, not in a prejudging way but on the basis of eight years of
experience with various things like chapter 11, about which the
member spoke very eloquently and thoroughly. These are things
that are part of the agreement now and they are intended to be
part of any future agreement. That is one of the reasons the NDP
is against these agreements.
Could the member tell the House what the position of the Bloc is
with respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement? I
cannot understand why people who are concerned about issues of
sovereignty cannot see that in these agreements there is a real
and serious threat to the sovereignty of democratically elected
legislatures and parliaments. There is a threat to the
sovereignty of the Quebec National Assembly, whether it continues
to be a provincial assembly or whether some day, as my Bloc
colleagues hope, it may become a national parliament.
Regardless, there is a question of sovereignty here. Many other
people have made the judgment that these agreements affect the
sovereignty of these particular legislatures, not to mention the
FTQ, which was out marching alongside the NDP in Quebec City on
the weekend.
Are they wrong? Have they prejudged the FTAA or is there
something in the nature of these agreements that no amount of
good process and no amount of openness can fix, because the
underlying agenda of these agreements as they are now understood
is in fact to replace democratic rule with corporate rule?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the NDP
members' insistence on opposing something they are not familiar
with.
It seems to me the first logical thing to ask for is what we are
asking for and that is to see what is being negotiated and how.
Is there a way to improve things so that these agreements play a
redistributive role somewhere? We do not want to end up in a
situation in which people are denied a better standard of living.
I am not speaking here of a few millionaires or of a few
transnationals worth billions, but of people in general. Is
there a way to provide for mechanisms that would ensure fair
treatment and the possibility of a better standard of living for
workers in Mexico, as has been the case in other countries?
Since 1957, since the Treaty of Rome, they have been building
Europe, and the standard of living has increased. Even the small
countries that were having difficulties, such as Portugal or
Greece, can become partners in this great body. People's wealth
has increased, not just that of multinational or transnational
companies. Can they understand that on the other side?
We cannot be closed and not demand that members of parliament have
a role.
We must demand that this government open its books. We must take
our responsibilities as parliamentarians, something which Liberal
members opposite are not doing. We must demand to see the
documents and take part in the ratification process on behalf of
the people, as did the 30,000 who rallied in Quebec City.
The Bloc Quebecois was there and it was even among the organizers
of the summit for parliamentarians. These 30,000 people, who
represented the public, along with parliamentarians, must feel
comfortable with any agreement. They must not be ashamed of it.
They must feel that their leaders are serving them well, unlike
the Prime Minister, who looked condescendingly and contemptuously
on them at the end of the summit and said “Get elected if you
want to oppose or debate the FTAA”.
We were elected, and we did not even have a say in the drafting
of the basic texts. We do not even have a say in the ratification
process. What is the use of this parliament? Members opposite
should ask themselves such questions. Why are they here?
1040
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member who
just spoke had a number of comments to make, and rather loudly at
that. This is the latest in several opportunities that members
of parliament have had to discuss the FTAA. I will be splitting
my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough East.
I would like to address the great success of the Quebec summit.
I would also like to indicate how consultations with Canadians
contributed to that success. I was very honoured as
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade
to be present, along with some other colleagues on our side as
well as the other side, to meet with parliamentarians and leaders
from a number of countries and to talk with some of the peaceful
protesters.
During Canada's chairmanship of the FTAA negotiations from May
1998 until November 1999 it was instrumental in establishing the
committee of government representatives on the participation of
civil society. This committee meets regularly as a consultative
body in the negotiations and serves as a forum for input from
citizen based groups, the business community and NGOs. It is an
unprecedented step in international negotiations.
The motion calls for transparency and I would indicate that
there has never been a more transparent trade negotiation process
in history. A lot of what the member calls for has already been
done.
As host of the FTAA ministerial that took place in Toronto in
November 1999, Canada supported a civil society forum. It was
organized by hemispheric organizations to parallel the American
business forum. As my colleague opposite knows, a record 22 FTAA
ministers and country representatives were present to hear civil
society's views and recommendations on trade investment, labour
standards and the reduction of poverty.
As the House knows, at the recent trade ministerial in Buenos
Aires the Minister for International Trade took the lead, as he
has for months, and was able to convince his counterparts to
release the draft text of the FTAA agreement. It was agreed that
soon after the conclusion of the summit these texts would be
released. They are in translation now. The summit only
concluded on Sunday, and today is Tuesday. The texts will be
released in the near future, as was agreed to through the
outstanding leadership of the Minister for International Trade.
I have heard the Prime Minister state in the House that he would
very happily release the texts, but he was not prepared to do so
unilaterally until there was an agreement. That agreement was
achieved through the efforts of the Minister for International
Trade.
I saw, as Canadians saw, the Prime Minister doing an outstanding
job in chairing this very important multilateral meeting in
Quebec City. We can all be very proud of the efforts that were
made by the government, by civil society and by the peaceful
demonstrators who expressed their views in Quebec City.
At the summit of the Americas this past weekend the government
provided some $300,000 in funding to help the parallel summit
take place. Labour leaders in my own city have said that the
government has no interest in civil society and that it will not
listen to them. That is just ludicrous when the government has
put forth taxpayer money to help the very people who are
levelling that criticism participate in a parallel summit. It
cannot be both ways.
There were some 20 countries and five international institutions
that met on the weekend with more than 60 representatives of
civil society networks, groups and associations. These
representatives who have been closely involved in the development
of the summit's action plan came from across Canada and the
hemisphere.
The Quebec City summit was a resounding success. In signing the
declaration, the 34 leaders committed themselves to furthering
democracy and to making democracy an essential condition for
participation in the FTAA process.
1045
This is a quantum leap forward from the few short years ago when
a lot of the leaders of this meeting, if it had taken place,
would have marched in in jackboots, epaulettes and military gear
because they were dictators.
We ought not to dismiss so lightly the tremendous progress that
has been made in this hemisphere toward democracy. Many experts
would say that the democratic election of the Mexican president,
Vicente Fox, is in no small part due to the liberalization of
that society, which is also signified and enhanced by its
participation in NAFTA.
In the same spirit, the leaders made a commitment to more
specific support for the efforts being made by Haiti towards
democracy through the good offices of the OAS and the CARICOM.
There is great concern about Haiti. The Prime Minister and the
other leaders have indicated that they want to do everything
possible to support that society on its path to democracy.
During the summit the leaders decided, in order to ensure
equitable distribution of the benefits and prosperity resulting
from economic growth, to pursue discussions on the economic
integration of the Americas and to continue negotiations to
create a free trade area of the Americas, the world's largest
free trade area, by the end of 2005.
The leaders also approved a series of measures to promote
participation by citizens in the social, economic and political
life of their countries in order to fully realize their human
potential. This inclusive plan of action is targeted at
everyone, including groups that all too often find themselves on
the margins of society such as youth, seniors, women, persons
with disabilities and aboriginal people, and ensures a full and
fair opportunity to be properly included in the process.
The leaders went on to reach an agreement on a declaration of
connectivity, which is a clear statement of their political
intent to bridge the digital gap, and on the use of information
and communications technology to achieve the summit's objectives.
Canada again showing its leadership also announced the
establishment of an institute for connectivity in the Americas
which would make it possible for us as Canadians to share our
world renown expertise in this field with other poorer
countries of the Americas, which simply have to be given the
wherewithal to fairly participate in this FTAA. Canada is quite
prepared to do everything to make that possible.
The government, supported by the multilateral development banks
and other international institutions, satisfied itself that the
necessary resources were available to support the objectives set
by the leaders.
Those who participated in the summit in a violent way, and
unfortunately some small minority did, created quite a bit of
tension and damage to the beautiful city of Quebec. However
they knew nothing about democracy nor did those who condoned such
violent actions. It simply was not necessary for that to take
place. There has never been a more transparent trade negotiation
that Canada has been involved in. There has never been such a
wide consultation for months and months and which will continue.
What the member's motion calls for is being done now, has been
done for many months and will continue to be done as we move up
to the conclusion of this treaty in 2005.
The Quebec City summit also provided an unprecedented
opportunity for people right across Canada to be involved. I
believe what the peaceful demonstrators helped to do was focus
attention on the summit. Unfortunately, I suppose some would say
that was achieved really by the violent demonstrations. I regret
that that view exists because all it did was detract from the
very real and important debate that was taking place in Quebec
City.
I would like to just conclude by indicating that I would be
remiss in not saying that the Minister for International Trade
worked diligently on this file. Indeed the member from Joliette
has shown consistent interest in the file. I know that. I worked
with him at committee and we debated in the House. I believe
this is his second motion already as a new member on a very
important topic in the House. I do not know how it could be said
that there was not been ample opportunity for members to be
involved.
1050
There have been a lot of opportunities. No, the texts are not
yet public. However, through the leadership of the Minister for
International Trade and the Prime Minister, an agreement was
reached that they would be made public in the very near future. I
await that with alacrity, as I know the whole House does.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary said that the process was the most
transparent ever seen. It may be so but I do not know, because I
am not an expert on that issue.
However, I find it difficult to understand how the process can
be considered to be transparent when members of parliament cannot
have their say on the issue. This is why I hope the government
will support the motion I have introduced, as well as the
amendment.
I would also remind the government that members of parliament
have a role to play, which they have played, though,
unfortunately, within the limits imposed upon them.
With regard to what I call the basic texts issue, I remind
the parliamentary secretary that, at first, it was almost
suggested to us that those texts did not exist. We were referred
to the website on the Canadian government's negotiating
positions. Then, the government admitted that those texts
existed. Later on, under the pressure of the opposition parties
and the questions asked, the Minister for International Trade
promised to ask his counterparts to make those texts public. To
his own surprise, the other parties accepted.
Had the House not played its role, I am convinced that the
Minister for International Trade would not have played his own
role within that forum. It is, therefore, of the outmost
importance that all members of parliament be involved in the
negotiating process, to ensure that the goals are being met.
What I want to know very precisely is whether, in Buenos Aires,
the international trade ministers agreed that the texts of
what has come to be known as the draft agreement be regularly
made public before ministerial meetings. I insist on the phrase
“before ministerial meetings”.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, first I would like to
address some of my colleague's comments.
He talked about the transparency of this process. He may have
been present when I repeatedly put the question to expert
witnesses at committee. I put the question to the NDP party, the
only party in the House speaking against this, to give us just
one example of any trade negotiation that was even anywhere close
to as transparent to this one. Nobody replied. So there was an
acknowledgement by their silence that this was certainly been the
most open and transparent trade process to date. The government
is working very hard to make it become more transparent.
On the hon. member's point that parliamentarians have not had an
opportunity to participate, quite frankly I do not know how he
draws that conclusion. As I said, this is the second motion that
he has put in the House causing a full day of debate, a very
important and useful debate, and I congratulate him for it.
However he must realize by having this debate today he is having
some of the participation which he says he was denied. I do not
understand the logic there.
The member well knows that the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade has held extensive hearings on
the FTAA and on the summit process. Before the last election it
held hearings it. Those hearings were resumed after the election
and started to include more and more of the summit process.
There is a subcommittee on trade which is specifically tasked to
deal with this issue and other trade issues.
In this very Chamber I and I believe the hon. member opposite
and other members participated in FIPA, the first forum of the
interparliamentarians of the Americas. It was a very useful and
extensive discussion. There have been repeated opportunities for
parliamentarians to be involved.
He spoke about our negotiating position. For weeks and weeks
five of our nine positions were available on the website. Many
Canadians visited that website to see what our position was.
I challenge the member to go back some weeks and look up the
comments of the right hon. the Prime Minister in the House of
Commons. He said he would be very happy to release the text but
he was not going to do so unilaterally. The for Joliette knows
full well, because I asked him that at committee, that he agreed
it should not be done unilaterally.
In Buenos Aires the Minister for International Trade showed his
outstanding leadership in convincing the other ministers to
release the text, which was supported by the Prime Minister. That
is the kind of leadership that has made this transparency become
even greater and that will continue in the future.
1055
On the specific question that the member asked, I was not
present in Buenos Aires so I cannot speak to the specificity of
what the Minister for International Trade and his colleagues
decided on what text would be released. We know it is the
negotiating text. The timetable of which I am aware is as soon
as possible after the Quebec summit. That will be honoured.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am somewhat hesitant to engage in this debate as it seems to be
something of a daunting task.
Like most members, I do not have any professional expertise in
the area and I have not studied trade issues at a university.
Frankly, at times my understanding of these issues is something
of a newspaper understanding, but like many Canadians I can get
myself exercised about countervails, softwood lumber, P.E.I.
potatoes and rail against American protectionism.
I can work myself up into quite a lather about American trading
practices. I could even give a bit of an historical view on how
trade has affected this nation.
Nothing seems to animate Canadians more than debate about trade.
Going back to Prime Minister Macdonald, he had quite some trade
debates in his time, as did Laurier, Mackenzie and Prime Minister
Mulroney. Even our current Prime Minister has a few political
scars about the issues of trade in this country.
Why do Canadians get so animated about trade debates? I would
suggest that trade is in some respects more than merely economic
relations that it goes to the very essence and viability of our
nation. No country in the world is more dependent upon trade
than we are. Something in the order of 40% of our gross domestic
product is directly related to trade. Compare that with our
major trading partner, the Americans, where 20% of their gross
domestic product is related to trade. Our trade with the U.S. is
a billion dollars a day, and 80% of all our trade is with the
U.S. The old saying goes that when America catches a cold we get
pneumonia. Seemingly try as we might to diversify, we still seem
to go to our old trading partners, particularly the United
States.
Canadians are uniquely positioned to know how vulnerable we are
on trade. Therefore our trade vulnerability makes our
sovereignty vulnerability even more open to us. Sovereignty
vulnerability in my view goes to the essence of who we are as a
nation. The irony is that the more we trade, the more we plant
our flag worldwide and the more Canadian we feel. Is that not an
unique irony? Ironically, in some respects we also give up a
great deal of our sovereignty.
What is it that Chris Hadfield is doing as we speak? He is
planting a Canadian on the next frontier, the Canadarm. How did
he get there? He got there basically because of a trade deal.
Canadians in the family of nations are responsible for 2% to 3%
of the overall cost of putting up the space station. As a result
we get to play in our area of expertise. Our area of expertise
is robotics and in some respects it is a quintessential Canadian
trade deal. We establish a niche, make it very important and
expand from there. Meanwhile we brand our product so that
literally everyone in the universe knows that the Canadian
astronaut up there is exercising Canadian expertise and planting
it in the best advertising position in the world.
It is a Canadian style trade deal because we are not big enough
to do a meaningful space program on our own. We end up giving
away some of our sovereignty, our means to be independent and on
our own, in order to take part in something that is larger and
that we could not do on our own.
1100
I submit that the summit of the Americas reflects that kind of
tradeoff. At one level it is merely a trade deal. I have it,
someone wants it, what is the price? At a more profound level it
is a sovereignty tradeoff. What level of national sovereignty
are we prepared to give away in order to get a trade deal from
someone else?
I do not think my speech is the most insightful in the world but
generally they do not turn the lights out on me at the same time.
Chapter 11 is at its essence a simple tradeoff. If I, the hated
multinational corporation, for which, by the way, all our sons
and daughters want to work at very good rates of salary, am to
invest $100 million in a country I want to know what its rules
and laws and regulations are. I do not want Mr. or Mrs.
sovereign nation to change its rules or laws after the fact to
make my investment worthless. At its core chapter 11 is that
simple.
How much sovereignty is a nation prepared to give up? How much
sovereignty, i.e. the right to make rules, regulations and laws
unilaterally within a jurisdiction, is Canada or any other nation
prepared to accede to a trade panel or to courts in a foreign
jurisdiction? The answer is a lot and nothing, simultaneously in
contradiction.
There is a rule in tax law that the taxpayer is expected to
arrange his or her affairs to maximize the benefit to himself or
herself and to minimize his or her tax liability. The courts
recognize that rule. Revenue Canada has volumes of rules and
regulations that would choke a horse in order to minimize that
taxpayer intent.
When a sovereign nation enters into a trade deal the question
is: What is it losing? If a nation is powerful like the U.S. and
gets to change the rules ex post facto, the answer is not much.
For a large nation such as Japan which can culturally frustrate
virtually any trade deal, the answer again is not much. However
leaders like Mr. Fox from Mexico or the prime minister of Costa
Rica or Chile must make a bit of a Faustian bargain and hope the
access they secure to the market is worth the sovereignty they
must inevitably give up.
The lights have gone on so my speech must be very insightful at
this point.
This is where it gets tricky because smaller nations, even
nations such as Canada, have a lot of sovereignty to lose. I
sometimes wonder whether those from the so-called civil society
have appreciated that the more elements which are raised, i.e.
environment, labour, working conditions, et cetera, the more
difficult the equation becomes. It is particularly difficult if,
as with many small nations with minimal democratic traditions,
one has virtually nothing to give.
The commitment by the 34 leaders in the hemisphere to strengthen
democracy has significance beyond the appreciation of both sides
of the debate. It is something of a Trojan horse clause. Can
one imagine APEC entering into a similar clause? Virtually half
the nations in APEC are dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships. The
situation is similar for the Organization of African States. I
cannot imagine that hemisphere entering into an agreement where a
democracy clause is a significant part of the deal.
Trade deals only work in democracies where the rule of law
prevails. Therein lies the irony. As nations mature in their
democracy, trade increases. When trade increases and democracy
matures, sovereignty is a fact. It is quite ironic that
Canadians have become a nation of flag wavers in lockstep with
trade deals which apparently devolve significant elements of
their sovereignty.
It is clear to me that the status quo will not prevail. A deal
or deals will be made, be they bilateral or multilateral. The
process contemplated by the motion will happen regardless of the
will of government. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be
put back in. My only hesitation is that the debate should be
informed and that government should reserve unto itself some
strategic room to negotiate in the best interests of the nation.
1105
Some interests will be contradictory, such as softwood. The
Atlantic position is different from B.C.'s position, B.C.'s
position is different from Quebec's position, and Quebec's
position is different from Ontario's position. If we go into
negotiations divided we will get the worst of all possible
worlds.
It has been said that heaven is British government and French
food. If this debate is poorly managed we might well get the
reverse, French government and British food, and that would just
be hell.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest and I thought it was very
interesting that the member who just spoke on the government
benches reduced the debate around the FTAA to one simple
question: How much sovereignty are we willing to give up to
enter into a trade deal? I think Hansard will show that is
what the member said.
I have a question for the hon. member. I will take a moment to
outline the flip-flops that have occurred. The trade minister
created some optimism when he said that by endorsing chapter 11
of NAFTA we would give up too much sovereignty. He is on record
as saying we would not sign such a provision in the FTAA
agreement or in any other agreement. He said that a year ago. We
have seen a flip-flop on that.
The Prime Minister has said that chapter 11 of NAFTA is working
well and that we may review it, change it or even sign on to it
in the year 2005. What level of sovereignty are we willing to
give up to enter into a trade deal? Does he feel chapter 11 of
NAFTA would give up too much sovereignty? If so, does he share
the concern of growing numbers of Canadians with respect to the
most recent flip-flop on the issue by his own government?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the question by the hon.
member is well taken. Chapter 11 has been somewhat problematic
in both the FTAA and the NAFTA. Sovereign nations are starting
to face the reality of the sovereignty they gave up to get that
deal. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that chapter 11 is
somewhat problematic for us. In the event a free trade agreement
is entered into in the hemisphere, chapter 11 or the successor
version of it will likely get a great deal more attention from
the government.
One of the major frustrations in dealing with the Americans is
that their trade rules apply for the initial period of the trade
dispute and then we go to a dispute resolution mechanism, which
is where we all wanted to be in the first place. However the
result of that mechanism is like an interim injunction. It is
all over once we have our interim injunction and the permanent
injunction is somewhat useless after the fact.
I therefore agree in some respects with the hon. member that the
clause must be looked at carefully and that other mechanisms can
be used. I look forward to her contribution in that respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
heard government members talk about space. I think they are way
up in the clouds, and so much so that they do not see things
clearly. Actually, they do not see a thing. They have shown a
lack of respect for the Quebec government. This is a breach of
the integrity and sovereignty of Quebec's jurisdictions.
Will they allow Quebec to participate in the negotiation tables,
in all the sectoral groups so that, at last, areas under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction can be really represented, and
their interests really looked after? They are showing us that the
only way for Quebec, as well as Canada, to have international
negotiations is for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.
1110
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, Mr. Hadfield is up beyond
the clouds where transparency is as good as it ever gets for any
of us. I listened to the transmission this morning on the CBC
and he was looking down on Earth while fixing the Canadarm. He
could see an amazing distance, clouds or no clouds.
As to the issue of Quebec being at the table, Quebec is
necessarily at every table because it is well represented by the
federal government. We are a sovereign nation. We have 10
provinces as far as I know. Every debate about sovereignty has
been lost by the side opposite. Quebec will be represented there
by the federal government and seems to be doing very well, thank
you very much.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I notice that members have been talking about
Colonel Hadfield and his mission to space, although I did not
really follow why.
I had the opportunity last week to be in Cape Canaveral for the
launch. It was an extremely proud day for Canada. I understand
Colonel Hadfield has just completed his second space walk. On
behalf of all parliamentarians and people in my riding, I wish
him great success. We are extremely proud of his
accomplishments. I will leave my comments to that with respect
to our astronaut currently looking down upon us.
Let me read the Bloc supply day motion so I can frame the
debate.
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament
approves it.
I will be recommending that my colleagues support the motion,
although I believe there will probably be an amendment. In
general I agree with the process. Parliament should be
consulted. We should have an opportunity to debate the agreement
here and strengthen it. Canadians across Canada should be
consulted before it is approved.
I will talk about three or four things during my 10 minutes. I
will talk about free trade agreements in general. I will talk a
bit about NAFTA and transparency and I will conclude by talking
about the Quebec—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the hon. member
sharing his time?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, yes, I believe I am.
I will talk a bit about the Quebec summit and the security that
was there, as I had an opportunity to witness it firsthand.
Let me talk first about free trade agreements in general. I and
my party believe free trade has been very good for Canada. Under
NAFTA, our trade surplus with the United States has been $95
billion. Despite some problems, our trade surplus has been
skyrocketing under free trade. I looked at some numbers
yesterday. I do not have them in front of me, but our trade
surplus has gone up from 1995 to $110 billion or $115 billion. A
trade surplus of that magnitude is almost unheard of.
I had an opportunity in Quebec to talk with trade ministers from
34 countries in the hemisphere. They are very excited about
embarking upon free trade. It will open up new markets for their
small economies. They will have access to the United States,
Mexico, Brazil and other larger markets. That is very exciting
for them.
President Bush and the Prime Minister said that free trade would
bring democracy and greater human rights to these areas. I do
not think free trade in itself will bring these things but it
will provide us the opportunity to attain them. It will be up to
us as parliamentarians to seize that opportunity. The heads of
state from these 34 nations have democracy and human rights very
much on their minds. As we negotiate these free trade agreements
it will be incumbent upon us to ensure we seize the opportunity.
1115
I really do believe all the players will benefit. The global
economic borders are now evaporating before our eyes. We are
seeing that in the European Union as their trade barriers are
evaporating. It is important that we participate in this process
and create a larger trading block in our hemisphere.
I cannot emphasize enough that the smaller economies, the
smaller countries in the Caribbean community and Central and
South America, will greatly benefit from this. In fact, they
will probably benefit most.
I would argue that our experience with free trade has been very
positive. I know that some of my colleagues in the NDP have
raised concerns and they do not believe in free trade. Yes,
there have been a few cases under chapter 11 on the investment
protection measures. There need to be some measures. We can
debate that. We can have that ongoing public debate. It would
be very positive for Canada.
Let me talk a little about transparency. The Bloc motion is
really focused on the transparency issue. I argued with the
minister and I was with him in Buenos Aires when we were
successful in getting the text of the FTAA released. We should
be proud of what we are doing. We should not be afraid. If we
do not release it then some of the anti forces we saw in Quebec
will be out there spinning it, turning it and not giving out the
real information.
Our job as parliamentarians is to make sure we get the text out
to the public, and in regard to the parts we do not agree with,
to engage in that debate and put forward constructive solutions.
It is very important that it be ongoing as negotiations progress
in the next four or five years. It is very important that this
transparency not be just a one-off right now. It is important
that we get updates as negotiators scrap parts of the text and
bring in new parts, because it will change very much as it
evolves over the four or five years. It is important that we
engage the civil society in that open and public debate. It
would be very positive for all of the countries and would
definitely result in a much more positive free trade agreement.
I want to talk a little about what I observed in Quebec. This
needs to be said. I had the opportunity to be in Quebec City for
the summit. I had an opportunity to speak with a lot of people.
I had dinner with Don Evans, the U.S. secretary of commerce. I
had some very positive discussions.
I watched the media all weekend long and all I saw were the
protesters and demonstrators. I first want to say that on
Saturday in Quebec City I had a meeting outside of the security
area. When we came back in we were caught up in literally
tens of thousands of demonstrators. They were demonstrating very
peacefully. They were marching and expressing themselves in a
very peaceful manner. There were masses of people.
The picture painted of the protesters was that they were
violent. Some were very violent and I will get to that in a
minute. However, 98% or even more were demonstrating in a very
responsible and peaceful manner, as they should in Canada and as
they have a right to do. We not only accept that, we encourage
it, because that is how we get feedback. These people are part
of civil society. We had part of the business community giving
input as well as the demonstrators. That was not said at all. I
was right in the middle of it. They were having parades far
away, and some quite close, but in a very peaceful manner.
I will now talk about the 2%. They were absolutely crazy. I
have no problem in saying that. They were insane. I watched
them. These people threw bricks, bottles and everything
imaginable at the police. The restraint shown by the police was
phenomenal. I absolutely applaud the security.
Some are trying to turn the summit security into a political
matter. My colleague for Burnaby—Douglas is calling for an
inquiry. I do not support that at all and I want to be on the
record as saying that. Security is not a political decision.
Security is something we should leave to the experts and the
police forces. The RCMP, the provincial police in Quebec, the
military and the municipal police force from Quebec City were
working together. They took proactive measures.
1120
They did a very good job. We felt very safe, secure and
comfortable walking around inside the perimeter. These people
took abuse in a few areas from about 500 or 1,000 incredibly
violent people who were absolutely crazy. That is not acceptable
in our country.
Our police should have taken action. They should have taken the
measures they did. I watched them from a few blocks away as we
went into the convention centre. I want to be on the record as
saying that they did an outstanding job. It was very impressive
and I support their efforts.
I will conclude by saying I support the Bloc motion. It is very
important that parliament engage in this debate, that this is
open and transparent and that we be proud of the agreement. We
need to engage in a positive dialogue in regard to the parts we
do not like and we need to offer constructive solutions. It is
most important that the transparency and openness be ongoing. It
is most important to ensure that as negotiations move forward in
the next three, four and five years, leading up to 2005, we keep
this engagement and engage the business community, the NGOs, the
civil society, all the people involved in this, and most
important, the elected representatives of the people. We need to
listen to their concerns.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
so much for the official opposition. After hearing the comments
of the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance in the debate
today, I must say that the difference between the positions of
the so-called official opposition and the government is
indistinguishable.
It is very interesting and ironic to note that both the
government and the opposition are now hiding behind saying “This
is good for you. This is good for democracy. This is good for
the environment. This is good for education, health care and our
water”. In actual fact, just the opposite is true.
It is astounding to hear the line being peddled today by the
government and the opposition, which is that the FTAA is so good
for us. In a column that the leader of the Alliance wrote just a
couple of days ago, he actually had the audacity to say that the
FTAA also means good health, education, a clean environment, good
working conditions, justice and human rights.
Where have these people been? What have they been reading? Any
objective analysis tells us that the FTAA is about transferring
rights to fewer and more powerful corporations. It is not about
the distribution of wealth among people. It is not about a clean
environment or labour standards or protecting our public
services.
I would like to ask the member to explain to the Canadian public
how his leader and his party can come to the astounding
conclusion that somehow the FTAA is going to improve working
conditions when there is nothing in the agreement that will
actually lay out standards to ensure that workers' rights are
respected in any of the countries that are now part of this
agreement. It seems to me that this line being peddled is
exactly the same line the government is using and that the
government and the official opposition are in cahoots on this
agreement.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that
we just need to look at the record of NAFTA. It has been very
positive for Canada. We have a trade surplus of over $100
billion each year with the United States. Mexico's economy is
growing even more rapidly than Canada's. Mexico started much
further behind, but as a result of NAFTA the Mexican economy is
growing incredibly rapidly. Literally tens of thousands of jobs
are being created in Mexico and people's livelihoods are
improving. Along with that comes health care and education.
We can talk about the rhetoric of the NDP member. We live in a
democracy. We in the Canadian Alliance are very proud that we
have been promoting free trade since the beginning of the Reform
Party all the way through to today. We are very proud of that
and people elect us on the platforms for which we stand. We
stand in the House with 66 seats. I would remind the hon. member
that her party has 12.
Ms. Libby Davies: Thirteen.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Thirteen. I apologize. She is correct.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that her NDP cousins
in British Columbia are in the middle of a provincial election
campaign. The election will be held on May 16.
Let us see how her NDP cousins make out in British Columbia on
May 16, because they are standing on these policies and the
people get to decide.
1125
I am very proud to stand up and say that I believe free trade is
great for Canada. It will create meaningful, lasting jobs. I
think it will help our people; I really do. I applaud the Bloc
Quebecois for bringing the motion forward, because openness and
transparency are needed. This has not been open and transparent
up to now. I appreciate that the text is about to be released,
but it is very important that openness and transparency are
ongoing. We have nothing to hide. There is no veil to hide
behind. I believe this is very good for Canada and Canadians.
The record speaks for itself.
We hear the rhetoric that comes from the New Democratic Party.
It is just fearmongering, based on no facts at all. Again, I
will very proudly stand up in the next election and campaign by
supporting the free trade agreement of the Americas, as the heads
of state of all 34 countries are engaging in these discussions.
They are all engaging in the discussions and are all very
positive that this would support their countries. They have all
been democratically elected. It is very encouraging to me.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of
Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to ask the member why, in their election
campaign, the reformed Alliance people had absolutely zero in
their platform. What they did have was in section 96 of their
leaked document, the leaked document to candidates, which was a
so-called secret document. They had some reference with respect
to free trade in the Americas, but they had nothing,
diddly-squat, in the election platform itself. I wonder why they
did that. Is that typical of their modus operandi?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, the way the question is
framed and the language that is used is very indicative of how
the member wants to play partisan politics. I am trying to put
forward constructive solutions. Again, I emphasize that both the
Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance have been some of the
first people out there supporting free trade. We are very proud
of it. We will continue to do so for all Canadians.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this
bill.
I would like to tell the member from the opposite side who just
got up that if he had some intelligence he could read the blues
and everything and he would probably find out what our position
was, which we articulated very well in the last session.
On rising here I do not know who to take to task, the government
or the NDP. However, I will make my points and try to debate
this issue more intelligently than has been done here with the
rhetoric that has been going on.
Globalization is here to stay. It does not have to be a case of
winners and losers. I believe it can make winners of all of us,
but for that to happen, our government, all the groups and all
the international agencies must recognize their responsibility to
educate and inform the public.
While the motion talks about free trade of the Americas, the
protests and the issues raised in Quebec City touched on the
broader issue of globalization. A lot of people were protesting
and, I must say, protesting peacefully. I will address my
remarks to the issues of those who were protesting peacefully.
They brought forth the concerns of globalization, which are part
and parcel of the creation of a free trade zone. They tried to
lump everything under a trade agreement. They felt all the
concerns they had, created by globalization, should be addressed
under a trade issue. That is where we differ and that is where
we feel the approach they have taken is not the right approach.
1130
Globalization is here to stay. Groups and governments must
recognize their responsibility to educate and inform the public.
This world of information left by our governments, international
organizations and business leaders have given footholds to
non-governmental organizations and other organizations.
These groups have banded together and have called themselves the
civil society. They have gained tremendous influence in the last
decade. The problem is that these are unelected, unaccountable
and self-interest groups that have successfully tapped into the
fields brought about by the uncertainty of global trade or
globalization.
An example of the power of the so-called civil society is the
government's $300,000 donation to the people's summit, the
gathering of civil society to protest negotiations in Quebec
City. Similarly, the publicity given to protesters in Seattle,
which I witnessed firsthand, demonstrates the powers of this
organization. I feel many of these organizations have legitimate
concerns. I would even agree that the NDP may at times have some
legitimate concerns. However, in general, where they are trying
to address this issue under trade agreements is not the right
approach.
I attended the WTO summit in Seattle in December and recently,
with the Canadian parliamentary delegation, I spent many hours
with international organizations in Geneva. I met with officials
from the ILO, the WTO, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights and the United Nations Commission for Refugees.
At this time I must say that I was a little disappointed with
our representative in Geneva, Ambassador Sergio Marchi, who, in
obtaining the position of ambassador, is supposed to be
non-partisan. I found him to be the most partisan ambassador I
have ever encountered in my meetings with officials. I feel it
is disgraceful to be partisan when one is in that position.
Nevertheless, in my meetings with the United Nations' officials,
and especially the international labour organizations, I came
back with a very disturbing observation. These are international
organizations that have been mandated to address the issues of
labour, environment and human rights and, in talking with them,
my conclusion was that these organizations were 10 years behind
what is going on in the streets of Seattle, Quebec City and
anywhere. They are not even addressing the issues of labour
standards, the issues of environment or any other issues.
Because the government has failed to hold these international
agencies accountable, it has led to the rise of groups, which
want to address these issues, taking these issues to trade
tribunals and clouding the importance of the issue of free trade.
Free trade has been in the world for a long time. We have been
trading with everyone and we will continue trading. Nothing will
stop us.
We keep hearing our colleagues in the NDP say that they do not
mind trade but then they suddenly do mind all the other issues. I
say that they do not go hand in hand. The labour issue needs to
be addressed but they should campaign other bodies that will
address those issues. Instead they try to put the burden onto
one body, which has become a successful body. If they do have
questions they should hold the United Nations and those types of
organizations accountable. They should ask them to address the
issues that need to be addressed and that they have been talking
about.
I want to talk for a second about the FTAA and the failure of
the government to communicate what the FTAA is all about. The
debate we have had in the House has been nothing but huffs and
puffs, where we stand up, we talk about it and the parliamentary
secretary listens to it but no one cares. The chairman of the
foreign affairs committee, under whom I work, has held FTAA
hearings and even WTO hearings.
We have listened to the groups. The Minister for International
Trade said that he has listened. However we know on this side
who has been talking about these issues. The Liberals have not
listened. They only allow others to huff and puff to let off
steam. The protests we have had are a message that something is
seriously wrong.
1135
Before the government signs the FTAA agreement will it bring the
agreement into the House so parliamentarians can discuss it and
ratify it, and not just sign it and say that the deal is done? It
should bring the agreement into parliament and let the elected
officials, those who are the actual voices of Canadians, talk
about it, debate the issues that are important and then say that
we agree or do not agree with the agreement. That is the
commitment we want from the government.
If the government believes in transparency, it will bring the
agreement to parliament and allow parliamentarians to discuss it
before it is ratified.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of
Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for
Calgary East. He of course challenged my intelligence, which I
always find interesting. Those are the kinds of extremist views
and mud slinging that those reformed Alliance are prepared to
stoop to.
That aside, he admonished me for not checking the blues with
respect to what the reformed Alliance people have been talking
about on international trade. I would like to inform him that I
have in fact checked the blues. In the recent history of this
parliament, the only reference to international trade came from
the trade critic, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, on
April 2 of this year. He said:
Is the government prepared to tell the Americans that our
co-operation with respect to energy and on a pipeline from Alaska
to the lower 48th state depends on a positive resolution of the
softwood lumber issue?
My question to the hon. member for Calgary East is simple. Is
he, along with his colleague, prepared to gamble away oil in this
country and tie it strictly and solely to softwood lumber? He
represents Alberta. More to the point, he represents Calgary
East. Is he prepared to stand today and say that he is in
agreement with the trade critic in linking those two issues in
that kind of fashion?
I would like to hear his response because these reformed
Alliance people always go on about how they think they know what
negotiations are all about, how they think they know what trade
is all about and how they think they know what is good for
business. Let us see whether or not they have the kind of acumen
that justifies that kind of statement.
The only reference in the last little while was on April 2 of
this year, and he says, “Oh, we have been on record for quite a
while saying all kinds of things”. I would like to ask him and
challenge him, does he, representing Calgary East, agree with the
hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that softwood lumber and
oil should be intricately linked in that kind of fashion?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, what I said was that
the hon. member should be listening at what has been said. It
would be my pleasure to say to the hon. member what I said
publicly about trade when I was the international trade critic.
It would be a nice debate over here.
What the hon. member said shows his ignorance. We have
discussed and talked about trade in the House. He finds it
difficult to even know what the Alliance has said. We know from
the past how partisan he is. I do not think I want to debate
with this fellow.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
noted with interest that the hon. member for Calgary East, who
represents the Alliance Party, referred to and visited the WTO,
and in fact talked with Sergio Marchi at the WTO, who is Canada's
representative and the former trade minister for the Liberal
government. Mr. Marchi, interestingly I think in the context of
this debate around FTAA, said that we should forget any
opposition to MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment,
which had Draconian measures in it, because “the train has
already left the station”.
In other words, he said that it is too late, that the MAI was
going through no matter what and that we should just forget it.
1140
It of course did not. I suppose the view of the four other
political parties in this House is that the FTAA is a fait
accompli, the train has already left the station. We cannot do
anything about it anyway so why are we so concerned.
I would like to ask the member for Calgary East whether he had a
chance to ask Sergio Marchi whether the statement made by the
former director general of the WTO, which has sent shock waves
through the veins of all people in this world that care about
democracy, remains the kind of watchword and the driving force of
the WTO.
Here of course is that infamous quote “There is a surplus of
democracy in the world which is interfering with the free
movement of capital investment.”
Could the member for Calgary East indicate whether he had a
chance to discuss that with Sergio Marchi and whether he is
concerned about the fact that these trade deals are being
negotiated under that kind of thinking?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the leader of the NDP for asking that question.
As I alluded to in my statement, our ambassador at the WTO, who
was a former international trade minister, is absolutely
partisan. Therefore, he will be holding the views of the
government and is not over there as an ambassador listening to
everyone else's views, including the NDP.
We must understand that the members of the NDP are elected. They
are in the House and are representing some portion of Canadian
views that the ambassador should as well be addressing.
With reference to what the leader has said about the statement
made by the WTO regarding the democracy issue out there, I would
say that there are many issues, such as democracy and health care
issues, that have been brought to the table. I agree that those
issues should be discussed and addressed but I disagree with the
NDP's approach that this should be addressed through the WTO and
trade tribunals. That is not where it should be addressed. There
are other international organizations, such as the ILO and UNEP,
that should be held accountable to address them.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona.
I congratulate the Bloc on bringing forward, in its first
opposition day, a motion concerning the Quebec summit so that we
can deal further with the issues that are very much on the table
with respect to the FTAA.
I have read the motion very carefully and have listened to the
comments made by members of the Bloc. I have to say that I think
the motion is eminently supportable. It probably reflects the
absolute bare minimum of the notion of what a democracy should be
and why it is so reasonable for there to be a responsibility on
the part of the government to bring it to parliament for full and
open debate, what its position is on behalf of Canada, to share
that with Canadians widely and for there to be no possibility of
signing on to any such deal until there has been that kind of
input.
The one thing that causes some concern but also tells us
something about where the Bloc really is on the issues of free
trade and fair trade, is that the final four words of that
opposition motion, which calls for openness and keeping
parliamentarians and civil society informed, goes on to say in
its conclusion “before parliament approves it”, that is, before
parliament approves the free trade area of the Americas
agreement. I believe that is probably an honest expression of
where the Bloc stands.
1145
We heard with my own ears last week in Quebec City the leader of
the Bloc saying quite proudly that nobody should question where
the Bloc stood on NAFTA or the FTAA because if it were not for
the Bloc we would not have NAFTA in the first place.
The Liberals were opposed to it, at least they said they were
until they had the reins of power and then they reversed
themselves. And, as the leader of the Bloc said in Quebec last
week, it was basically the provincial governments of Quebec and
Alberta that made it possible for the NAFTA to go
ahead. One would have to say that they made it possible for the
Liberals to flipflop on their previous anti-free trade position.
I guess that is an honest admission.
What I find distressing and puzzling is how members of the Bloc,
who, to their credit, took a major initiative, for which I
congratulate them, and brought parliamentarians together from
throughout the Americas on the eve of the Quebec summit, could
not understand how flawed the trade agreements are? How could
they have met and talked with those parliamentarians from many of
those other countries in the Americas, go to sessions of the
people's summit and not understand how fundamentally flawed NAFTA
and the FTAA are?
We have now lived with NAFTA for seven years. What we know for
a fact from NAFTA is that we cannot take a leap of faith and say
that it is hoped that people will be better off if they go with
this trade model. We know the outcome. Despite the sort of
vague notion that the people of Mexico would be better off under
NAFTA and the FTAA, the reality is that seven years after NAFTA
three-quarters of the people of Mexico continue to live in
poverty. The real wages of workers in that country are lower
than they ever were. Unemployment is rising and environmental
degradation is totally horrifying.
Given all of those conditions, instead of NAFTA doing something
to assist in raising standards, it has actually had the effect of
lowering the standards to the absolute bottom of the barrel.
I congratulate the Bloc for giving members the opportunity to
put their positions forward. I want to say that the New
Democratic Party takes seriously the commitment that we made when
we went to the people's summit as a full caucus, all 13 of us, to
participate in the people's march. That commitment was that we
would take the concerns that were expressed in Quebec City at the
forums and on the streets, and that we would bring them back to
parliament. We would continue to push, not for unfettered free
trade, which is what these trade deals are based on, but for fair
trade. We ran our campaign against the FTAA on that very
concept, fair trade not free trade. There is a world of
difference.
We need to put forward very clearly that the our position is not
one that is anti-trade and pro-protectionism. It is not a
position that is anti-internationalism and somehow
pro-isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. That
is why we welcome the opportunity to put our own position
forward, not to have it distorted and represented by others as
being somehow anti-trade. That is ridiculous. We know that
trade is a critical part of our economy and that trade is a
reality.
Our position is one that rejects fundamentally the economic
model under which these trade deals are being negotiated. It
rejects fundamentally the notion that we should make subservient
to trade deals the democratic powers that we need to address the
fundamental problems, the biggest problems that we face as a
society and that every nation faces, and that is how to develop
economies that are based on the notion of sustainability and how
to develop economies that put trade, commerce and economic
development at the service of people and that recognizes that
trade is an instrument to achieve genuine human progress and
social development.
1150
We are absolutely unapologetic and resolute in continuing to
represent the widely shared concerns that growing numbers of
people throughout Canada and the hemisphere have about the model
for trade deals that is being embraced so uncritically by the
government.
The estimate of the numbers of people who made it to Quebec
City, and many more would have been there had the opportunity
been available to them, is 68,000 people. The overwhelming
majority of those people recognize the importance of trade but
want to see a fundamentally different approach. They do not want
to see a model that says, based on the astounding description by
one of the government members earlier, it is just a deal, that we
give up a bunch of sovereignty and then hope that things will be
better. That is not the price we should pay to enter into a
trade deal.
Our party is categorically opposed to what is now contained in
chapter 11 of NAFTA although it seems to be quite all right with
the government. The Prime Minister said earlier this week that
chapter 11 is working well and that maybe the government would
look at it and maybe it would not. It may be in the final FTAA
agreement as far as the government is concerned.
This represents an unprecedented transfer of power to
multinational corporations that already have astounding power and
particularly worrisome astounding amounts of power in developing
countries. The poorer countries of America need to be able to
use democratic instruments to make progress and to raise their
standards.
That is why this has become a discussion about democracy itself.
One does not give up democratic powers that one needs to deal
with things as fundamental as acting in the public interest when
it comes to the environment, health, education and so on. Our
party will continue to represent those concerns.
Let me sum up by quoting the Canadian Council for International
Cooperation:
The world needs new rules to trade by, rules that reflect common
concerns for the welfare of all the people and the sustainability
of development and the environment. We are all impoverished if
many of us are hungrier and poorer after trade liberalization
than we were beforehand.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax for her interesting
comments. We are here today discussing the issue of our role as
parliamentarians in the trade process and I would like to ask the
member a question, given the fact that she is aware of the work
that the foreign affairs and international trade standing
committee has done in this area.
We have been working on exactly what she says, putting trade in
the service of people. Our reports speak of the need to relate
trade to the environment, to human rights, and to building
democracy. All of us in the House are seeking the best way to
achieve those goals. It may be that we differ in our direction
in terms of the specifics but the goals remain the same.
Instead of criticizing the summit process she should be saying
that the Quebec summit was the first time that we had an
opportunity in the Americas to address the very issues that she
is raising here. We got a declaration out of there that talks
about a democracy clause. We have a plan of action that talks
about building health in the Americas and of financing it.
Finally we have concrete proposals that look at issues of labour
and the environment, and we are getting some real concrete action
in this regard.
1155
Why does the member not come forward and say that there is good
being done? Why does the member not admit that the government
has done great things here? More needs to be done. It always
does. Why do we not get some recognition for the positive steps
being made?
Most of the members sitting on this side of the House say that
the government did a remarkable job of bringing together NGOs,
civil society and parliamentarians to come up with an excellent
result this time. Why can we not work together to make that
result better rather than being critical all the time?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, we accept that
challenge. That is why we are working with progressive
parliamentarians and progressive representatives from civil
society in Canada and across the hemisphere to look for a better
approach, to search for a better model and to work together to
try to achieve it.
I wish to be very clear regarding some of the things that were
announced. Perhaps it was to provide sugar coating, to engage in
PR, or to pave the way for the FTAA come hell or high water. I
did not hear much at the summit about the actual instruments to
do something about addressing the issues affecting the
environment or the problems of the growing gap between the rich
and poor. I heard a lot of lofty objectives and that is fine.
However we cannot allow for the provisions of a trade deal to
strip away the ability of democratic governments to raise
standards to deal with these things.
It is not about lofty objectives and it is not about giving
corporations rights. It is clear that is part of the deal. It
also has to be about enforceable provisions to deal with the
things that matter to people most in their daily lives. People
sit around the kitchen table and talk about real concerns such as
their standard of living, their wage levels, their working
conditions and whether they have clean air and safe water to
drink. People are concerned about whether they have education
and health care for their families.
Nothing in the model of free trade being pursued does anything
to address the issue of ensuring that existing standards remain,
and that those standards would be raised. That is why we keep
looking to the European example and we wish the government would
pay attention to it. It is based on a democratic process,
through a parliament, that sets standards and ensures that trade
deals do not erode those standards but in fact are based on the
opposite concept.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, a quick
answer is that the goal of this proposal is to create a
democratic forum for all our discussions. This is quite
acceptable.
To be frank, the NPD position seems to be overly simplistic to
me. It is the very opposite of the position held by those who
think free trade will solve all our problems. Not all the
problems we have in our society are caused by the opening up of
markets, something that is happening anyway.
Let me conclude by asking a question of the NPD leader. Did she
not also conclude from the COPA meeting that parliamentarians,
while extremely critical of the current process, should co-operate
with governments in order to influence the choices that will be
made? Does she agree with such a co-operative approach, even if
she is extremely critical of the current process?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, once again I would like to
congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for facilitating the debate and
the discussions among the parliamentarians of the Americas. I
think it is a very good idea, as well as an important concept of
co-operation.
However, we have to recognize that many of these
parliamentarians have raised numerous problems with the free
trade model put forward by the Liberals and by the other
governments of the Americas. To me, a very important co-operation
is the one we have embraced, that is the co-operation between the
progressive forces in the Americas.
1200
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the
debate today, because as some members will know I was up earlier
asking questions of members of the Bloc.
I want to explore the theme of democracy which we find in the
motion in terms of trying to set out appropriate process and
which we find in the ongoing nature of the debate. The member
for Toronto Centre—Rosedale just mentioned the democracy clause.
The debate today is all about democracy. The democracy clause
that was adopted in Quebec City, and which has been put forward
as such a great accomplishment, is at a certain conceptual level
a genuine accomplishment.
There is nothing wrong with the United States of America and for
all the countries of the FTAA area to say that they want all the
countries who come to the table to be democratically elected.
But the absence of military dictatorships is not a guarantee in
itself of authentic democracy. It is a bit simplistic, while at
the same time being important, to say if they are not a democracy
they cannot be at the table.
Our claim is a much different and deeper claim about democracy.
This is what I would like to try to explain and which other New
Democrats have tried to explain over and over again. It is not
enough to just have elected democratic governments. Those
democratic governments must have a full range of choices
available to them in terms of how they organize their own
national economies, how they provide services to their citizens
and what kind of demands they can put on foreign investors who
are investing in their countries in terms of job performance or
environmental regulations.
There is a variety of things that democracies have had at their
disposal traditionally, which if these free trade agreements are
adopted, as some have already been, this range of options will
not be available to these democracies. We say that is not
democracy.
One of the reasons there is this tolerance for democracy by the
Americans in Central America and South America now is because
they have the prospect of free trade agreements and because the
free trade ideology has been generally accepted.
When they used to have to have an authoritarian right wing
government in order to achieve, they can now do through a free
trade agreement. The world is now not safe for democracy, the
world is now safe from democracy.
We can have all the elected democracies we like because these
free trade agreements have drawn an ideological perimeter around
what these governments are able to do. What can they not do?
They cannot get in the way of the patent rights of giant
multinational drug manufacturers. They cannot get in the way of
the producers of various toxic additives to gasoline.
1205
They cannot get in the way of American media interests that do
not like the way Canada has subsidized its cultural industries,
in particular its magazines.
They cannot get in the way of the freedom of multinational
courier companies to make profits. In other words, they cannot
do what Canada has done for years, which is to have a public
monopoly of the post office and have that public monopoly
subsidize other activities of that same post office.
They cannot get in the way of the ability of multinational
corporations and others to exploit certain resources, whether
they be energy or water.
It is all fine and dandy to have democracies, but if these
democracies have to behave in a certain way, and in a certain way
only, and if they do not behave in that way they come up against
sanctions built into the agreements either by virtue of chapter
11 mechanisms whereby the democracies that do not want to behave
in an ideologically correct way are sued or they are challenged
in some other way by the agreements, then what is the point of
democracy? What is the point of democracy if the only thing we
can do is what the corporations want us to do anyway?
I suppose it is better on some level than not having a democracy
but it is a pretty limited democracy. That is our point and I
think the point of so many demonstrators who were in Quebec City
last weekend.
It is not enough just to have elected democracies. If those
elected democracies are generally bought and paid for by big
corporate donors in their respective countries, as is the case in
this country and so many other places, and if even then they have
to live by a certain set of rules set down by the corporations
that are on the inside of the negotiations and have a very
powerful say in what the trade agreements look like, then what
kind of democracy is that?
It is almost a ruse. It becomes a kind of sham democracy
because so many of the public policy options which were available
to governments in the past, and which Canadian governments used
in the past to build what most Canadians consider very important
to the country, will not be available to the new democracies.
The public policy options that have been established, which are
contrary to the ideological correctness built into the
agreements, subsequently will be whittled away. They will be
challenged through chapter 11. They will be eaten away at
through various other forms of harmonization.
That is our contention. I would challenge Liberals to get up
and say that they think that is okay. Do they think that the
threat to these public policy instruments that Liberal
governments used in the past to regulate foreign investment,
media and culture and now the emerging threat to our publicly
owned health care system and our publicly funded education
system, are acceptable?
Is this really what they call democracy, or does democracy
really mean having a much greater range of choice when it comes
to policies than what the free trade agreements will permit when
they are entrenched and what the ones that are already entrenched
permit at the moment?
We hear a lot of talk about choice. My Alliance colleagues are
always going on about choice, yet they are willing to support
free trade agreements which almost eliminate choice; choice for
everyone else except government and choice for everyone else
except democracies.
Democratically elected governments will have about this much
room to operate because everything else will be prohibited by the
free trade agreements. I do not call that a democracy.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not take issue with the hon. member's speech in some respects.
I appreciate that he has identified some of the frustrations
around chapter 11 and around recognition of the devolution of
sovereignty in terms of going to free trade panels or some other
dispute resolution mechanisms.
1210
What he has not addressed is the central issue of large
multinational corporations investing in nations and then having
the rules, laws and regulations changed after the fact. This
could be any corporation or business, large or small, that has
invested in a nation be it Canada or any other nation in the
hemisphere. They recognize there is some vulnerability in this
investment and some form of legal regime, rules, laws and
regulations.
Could the hon. member address the issue of how a capital
investment, large or small, could be brought into one of these
agreements whereby there would be some comfort to the investor,
yet still address some of the issues that he has legitimately
raised?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a
good point that goes to the heart of the matter in some ways.
What we are being asked to do in Canada is, in the name of
protecting Canadian investors who are investing in other
countries and that may run up against the very same public policy
instruments that Canada has used in the past and in some sense is
still using them to further the national interest or act in the
public interest or in the interest of the common good, give up
those public policy instruments so that Canadian companies will
not run into those same instruments in other countries.
This specifically applies when it comes to GATS and health care.
ln order to make it possible for multinational health care
corporations, some of which may be based in Canada, to have
access to what are essentially private health care systems in
other countries we are being asked to give up our ability to
protect our publicly owned health care system.
I say there has to be a way to have the rule of law in these
countries, so that people do not get swindled and have their
investments disappear overnight by virtue of some government fiat
or arbitrary change in the rules or whatever. There has to be a
way to do that so it does not destroy the ability of a democratic
country like Canada to employ the kind of public policy
instruments which we have employed in the past and which we still
employ. To me that is a challenge that can be met.
Instead, under cover of protecting investors' rights in other
countries we are being subjected to an ideological battle here at
home whereby a lot of the things that people have always been
against they are now getting to eliminate under cover of
protecting investors' rights in some other country.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with interest to my NDP colleague's
comments, particularly to his reservations regarding democracy. I
think he has raised very relevant questions in that respect.
I will ask a question that might seem off topic, but two years
ago, in August, I attended the New Democratic Party Convention.
There I witnessed the adoption of a resolution about democracy,
recognizing the Quebec people and their right to
self-determination.
In contrast, I have also seen many of his NDP colleagues, except
for two, support Bill C-20, a government bill which in fact did
not recognize the right of the Quebec people to
self-determination.
I would like my colleague to explain this contradiction.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will make this short and
sweet. We have a fundamental disagreement with the member with
respect to Bill C-20. We did not think that Bill C-20 violated
the rights of Quebec to self-determination. If we thought that
we would not have voted for it.
Instead what we thought it did was set out the process by which
the Quebec people could in fact separate from Canada in a way
that was fair both to the people of Quebec and to the rest of the
people of Canada with whom they had this relationship with for so
long.
For us it is a false accusation. We alone for many years, as a
political party and long before the Bloc Quebecois came along,
were defending the right of Quebec to self-determination.
That does not mean it happens in a vacuum. It does not mean it
happens without rules. It has to happen in a certain way, and
that was our understanding of what Bill C-20 set out.
1215
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, before I
begin debate, I would like you to know that I am planning to
share my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.
It is a pleasure to stand today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois
opposition motion that the government implement a continuous and
transparent process by which parliament would be informed of the
negotiations taking place with respect to the creation of a free
trade agreement of the Americas, the FTAA, so that
parliamentarians may debate and civil society may be consulted
previous to its adoption by parliament.
Certainly this is a motion the Progressive Conservative Party
supports. I would expect it is a motion that all
parliamentarians in the House would support. It calls for an
open and transparent process in all debate going on around and
about the FTAA, and it asks that we in this place, as elected
members of all the regions of Canada, be able to debate this
issue. We would have not just a parliamentary committee looking
at it, but we would actually be able to debate it and bring all
points to the table. Everyone would be represented.
There is no steel link fence several kilometres long around the
Parliament of Canada yet, so surely in this place, if nowhere
else in the country, we can have free and open debate. Surely in
this place we should be able to do that.
As I said, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada fully
supports the Bloc opposition motion. The Liberals' transparency
on trade issues has been completely non-existent in the last few
years. The secrecy of the government, along with its avoidance
of parliament on the issue, illustrates a demoralizing trend,
which aids and abets the negative view Canadians have of
government in general and, I would say, aids and abets the groups
opposed to the free trade of the Americas who were in Quebec
City, because they do not feel they have enough information
before them to speak to this issue. They do not see any format
or any vehicle through which to express their thoughts, and that
is the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada. It has
not provided an alternative vehicle for opposition to the FTAA.
This should not be any surprise, because the government has
completely avoided any controversial issue. It does not have
open debate. It does not have parliamentary committees that
speak to the important issues in this country and that are
actually able to come up with some concrete agreement among all
the parties, between the government and all the opposition
parties, which actually affects the direction the government
takes.
It is also very much part of another statement. Where are the
new ideas from the present Government of Canada? Where are the
new ventures? Where are the bold initiatives that have been
taken in this country since 1993? I would challenge the
government to stand up and name them.
There will be a period at the end of my 10 minutes for questions
and answers, and I would be very happy to hear about the new and
bold initiatives the government has taken to assure democracy in
this country, to show what it has done on the trade front and to
show us examples of where the government has not only shown an
understanding of the issue but has taken a leadership position on
the issue.
The Quebec summit ended Sunday with 34 hemispheric leaders
agreeing to pursue further free trade talks while agreeing to
co-operate on a host of other issues. Those are very small
steps, but I and most members of the Conservative Party think
those are important steps.
Yes, we need to be better briefed. Yes, we need to have this
debate in parliament. Yes, there are things wrong with the free
trade agreement which we can stand to take another look at.
However, those issues are the responsibility of the government.
1220
It is the responsibility of an opposition party to continue to
point them out, which we do on a daily, weekly and monthly basis,
but it is for the government to respond. If we cannot get the
government to move, it is very difficult to formulate new
positions and for the government to take on new initiatives.
We have to ask ourselves what was accomplished at the summit of
the Americas in Quebec City. There were some small things
accomplished, but without question the debate here should centre
around what was not accomplished. What were Canada's
expectations going into the summit and what did we get
accomplished coming out of the summit? That is a fair question.
I would like to hear the government tell us what was accomplished
at the summit.
What was accomplished for P.E.I. farmers? We know that P.E.I.
farmers have not been able to ship table potatoes since October.
This is fairly simple math. October shipments of potatoes from
P.E.I. were stopped. In November there were no shipments, in
December there were no shipments, in January there were no
shipments, in February there were no shipments and in March there
were no shipments. April will pass and there will be no
shipments. It is unbelievable that we can take six or seven
months out of an economy that is very dependent on the potato
crop.
I am talking about the economy of P.E.I. We have four Liberal
members of parliament. Where have they been and what have they
done to promote the interests of P.E.I. and P.E.I. farmers on the
potato issue? The minister of agriculture was not even able to
get into the summit. We have asked questions and they have
been real questions, unlike those of some of the members from the
government side. He was not even able to get into the summit.
The Minister for International Trade had a meeting with the
secretary of state responsible for agriculture in the United
States, but the minister of agriculture for Canada could not get
security clearance. That begs another question. A minister of
the crown, a minister of the state in this country, cannot get
into the summit of the Americas held in Quebec City. I am
astounded and disgusted. It is absolutely not acceptable. It is
not an acceptable practice on behalf of the government and it is
not an acceptable practice in regard to the responsibility of the
minister of agriculture who is in charge of agriculture and
hopefully in touch with the export problems facing agriculture in
this nation.
That was one issue. No headway was made on it. The Prime
Minister's blatant and ineffectual reference to patates au gratin
is an insult to P.E.I. potato farmers and to Canadians and
parliamentarians in general.
Where was the issue of water? What discussion occurred on
water? The Prime Minister made a reference to water and
hydroelectric power and said there would be more energy available
for the United States. Immediately following the Prime
Minister's statement, the premier of Newfoundland said it would
not be happening, that the negotiations had not reached that
point yet and that there is no agreement with Quebec to transport
power through Quebec. This was phenomenal.
With respect to softwood lumber, the maritime accord was not
recognized by the government. It allowed a five year agreement
to lapse and did not do any work to prevent the lapse of that
agreement. What work the government did do was too little too
late and ineffectual. Now we are facing countervail charges
nationwide, excluding the maritimes. We are facing anti-dumping
charges nationwide. We will see some Canadian mills facing
anti-dumping charges, with the extreme risk of complete
bankruptcy. This is not an issue that the government can afford
to look the other way on. This is not an issue that the
government can say free trade will deal with. This is an issue
that we should have been talking about with the Americans two
years ago.
1225
The present government feels it does not have a government in
the United States that it can deal with constructively on most
issues, but that is no excuse for not dealing with the issue. One
deals with whoever is in power in a democratically elected
country.
Where is our agreement on energy? Where is our agreement on
water? What pressure did we put on the United States to meet its
commitments at Kyoto? We have a huge and complicated issue on
free trade of the Americas.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's West. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
issued a challenge to our side that I would just love to take up.
He asked the government side to respond with one thing that the
government had done to show any leadership in trying to bring
more transparency to this process.
It was the Minister for International Trade of Canada who led
the way in convincing his counterpart ministers from the other
countries, at Buenos Aires, to agree to release the text. That
is leadership. That is the first answer to his challenge.
The Government of Canada provided $300,000 of taxpayers' money
to help fund a parallel summit to involve civil society groups to
create more transparency. There is more leadership.
There has never been a trade deal where there has been greater
transparency. I issue a challenge to the hon. member. I would
like him to stand in his place and tell us one international
trade negotiation that Canada has been involved in that has been
as transparent as the current one. We will be very interested in
his specific answer.
There have been very wide consultations. There have been
hearings with the standing committee on trade. There have been
subcommittee hearings. There was a meeting in this Chamber, at
which I did not see the hon. member, where the parliamentarians
of the Americas were here to speak about this trade deal. I was
here.
The hon. member talks about P.E.I. potatoes and softwood lumber.
All of those issues were raised by the minister of trade and the
Prime Minister.
Perhaps if the hon. member's leader had been there to support
the minister and the Prime Minister, he would be aware. He is
obviously very ill-informed.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am able
to say this, but I think the hon. member gives hypocrisy a whole
new meaning. We have gone beyond what debate in this place is
about.
If you want to look at our leader being there, our critic for
international trade could not get in. He asked long ago to be
allowed into the summit in order to be an observer and to
participate in the meetings that would be held around the issues.
He was not allowed in.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Why wasn't Joe there?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: How much more petty can you guys get?
You cannot get any more petty than that.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Answer my question.
The Deputy Speaker: Let me remind hon. members on both
sides of the House that, first, the question or questions
have been asked and I will hear the answers, but I want the
answers to be directed through the Chair, not directly across the
floor.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right.
Through you, I will answer the hon. member's questions.
The question was about the Minister for International Trade. The
only thing I have seen the Minister for International Trade do is
contradict the Prime Minister. Then the Prime Minister comes
back and contradicts the Minister for International Trade. We do
not know if we have an agreement on water. We do not know if we
are going to sign Kyoto. We do not know if we have a softwood
lumber agreement. We do not know if the maritime accord will be
left out. The government of this country does not know where it
is headed.
I will tell the hon. member about transparency. Transparency
was a Government of Canada that brought in the free trade
agreement and that fought an election on it. Those sitting
government members fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and
made a tremendous statement that they would not support free
trade. They ran an election on it. They completely forgot their
election promises.
Now that is about transparency. That is about going to the
polls in this country. That free trade agreement the
Conservative government brought in is the reason that we have the
economy we have today. If we want to look at the benefits of
that and at the benefits from a Conservative government that
brought in free trade, let us look at what happened provincially.
1230
We saw an increase of 65% in exports for Newfoundland. We saw
an increase of 445% for P.E.I. That was before the government
refused to work on P.E.I. potatoes and bring in an agreement so
farmers could do the job they do best, that is grow potatoes and
have a market for them. We saw an increase of 116% in exports
for Nova Scotia, 149% for New Brunswick and 209% for Quebec. I
could go on and on.
Those are the benefits of free trade. That is democracy in
place. That was, without question, a clear and open process that
we fought an election on in Canada. The guys who were lucky
enough to win in that election, who deluded the Canadian public,
have not kept their promises.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me on this
extremely important topic.
The last Liberal member who spoke indicated his government's
position on this issue. Undoubtedly those members are very much
in favour of the resolution. He talked about transparency and
continuous information which he feels the government has been
giving. There is no doubt about the fact that the party opposite
as well as a couple of other parties on this side of the House,
along with ourselves, will be supporting the resolution.
If all of us think that the government has been doing such a
wonderful job, why is it that the resolution was brought forth?
We do have some concerns. Perhaps in its disillusionment the
government has lost sight of the fact that what it thinks is
clear, continuous and transparent is not clear, continuous and
transparent to the public.
We just witnessed a very interesting weekend. People who
watched the happenings in Quebec looked at them from two
different points of view. Maybe I should say they looked at them
from three different points of view.
One group looked at the deliberations that were under way among
the leaders of the various democratic countries in the western
hemisphere, realizing that if there is agreement in the next four
to five years for free trade among all the countries all of us
will benefit.
Our party is not one to decry free trade. We were the party
that introduced free trade, as my colleague mentioned, much to
the chagrin of the present governing party that opposed it to the
point where it convinced the people of Canada to defeat the Tory
government and pass the reigns of power over to it because it was
against free trade.
However we all know and history will show what happened when the
Liberals took over. It was the same as when they defeated the
Clark government because they did not agree with the gas tax.
They failed to say that they did not agree with the amount of tax
placed on gas. When they got in power they tripled the amount
the Tories had suggested. Consequently they again fooled the
people but were in power.
It is irrelevant where they stood at the time. Right now they
are supporting free trade and pushing for an agreement with more
countries than we presently deal with. That is good for us and
good for my province of Newfoundland. As the statistics quoted
by my colleague show, we have benefited greatly from free trade.
We sometimes wonder if in pressing for free trade we overlook
some of its implications. If we asked government or many of us
in the House about free trade, we would say that it eliminates a
lot of barriers and creates a better economy in many of the
countries involved.
1235
That is the aim of governments such as ours. The aim of
politicians such as us is to try to create a better environment
in which our people should live, a better environment
economically but also a better environment socially,
environmentally and in every other way.
Perhaps we dwell on the economic side too much because many of
the people who are heavily involved in free trade are people who
benefit directly, the large conglomerates, et cetera. There is
nothing wrong with that because these are the people who invest
and generate dollars that improve the economy generally.
It is government's role to make sure that the economic
stimulations that occur from trade benefit the other sectors we
talk about in society. In Canada we have done very well, even
though there are pockets throughout the country that certainly
need more assistance from a social perspective, our health care,
education and social needs. This is not because our economy is
such that we cannot address these needs. This is because the
policies of the government opposite, the lack of foresight, and
the lack of ability and will to address the social concerns allow
these problems to exist in society.
In the countries that are less well off than we are, where we
see great social needs, free trade hopefully will generate the
fiscal capacity of many of these governments to address the
problems that must be met. As they speak in the House these
problems perhaps will be accentuated by members of the NDP who
are against free trade because they think it is a negative toward
helping people.
It is great to be idealistic socially. It is great to talk
about all we have to do for our people, but to be able to do
anything for our people we must have the fiscal ability to be
able to do so. In order to spend money on health care, education
and social problems, social needs, we must generate the dollars
first. We must make before we spend unless we do like NDP does
quite often, which is spend and then let someone else pick up the
pieces afterward.
That is not the way we operate and certainly I have to say not
the way the government is operating. If in their policies, if in
their moves toward a free trade state in North America they would
be open and transparent, all the players could be involved. We
could pass along our ideas and suggestions for improvement to the
government. They will be talking to the various sectors, not
only the huge conglomerates, the multinational corporations, but
to the average person in the country, many of whom have some
tremendous ideas.
If that had happened prior to Quebec we would not have seen what
we did. I said there were three different ways of looking at
what happened in Quebec. One is the from the business
perspective. Another is from the social perspective as the NDP
and many other concerned groups across the country would look at
it. I respect their right to have concerns. We also had people
who just saw what nobody wanted to see: people throwing Molotov
cocktails at police, throwing bricks, throwing chunks of
pavement, acting disorderly, breaking windows, tearing shutters
from windows and just making a nuisance of themselves.
These were far and few between but unfortunately these things
make the headlines. These are the things people saw flashed
around the world. Canada is known as a tremendous country where
we live together in peace and harmony and show leadership. If I
were outside the country looking at what we saw on television, I
would be asking if this was Canada, this running from police and
throwing rocks at police, et cetera. Let me say again for the
record that I thought the police did a magnificent job over the
weekend.
1240
If the government had shown leadership in the beginning, had
been transparent and awake enough to know that some local issues
like softwood lumber and potatoes could be addressed at the
conference if we had the right people there, it would not be
running at the last minute to try to get the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food through security. It should have been
taken care of. There was a lack of foresight and vision.
That is why we are asking that in the future everything it does
be transparent and clear so that all of us will know what is
going on. If all of us in the country knew what was going on,
surely if it is good for the country it is good for the people
and most of us would support it. We would not need to have a
fence around our leader.
“Elect me so that you can fence me off because I am afraid of
you”. There is something wrong with that picture. Leaders of
this country or any country should be able to walk among the
people they serve, and if the people knew what they stood for
they would be able to do so.
My time is up. There is much more I would like to say but
hopefully in the future we will have learned from the mistakes of
the past.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest
to the member but what I want to do right now is review the
facts.
In January of this year, 21,000 new jobs resulted from trade.
Let us look at the emphasis we placed on team Canada missions and
what that produced. We have gone from trading and exporting 30%
up to 43% as a result of the good work of the government, the
Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the
whole caucus in terms of where we are going.
Let us look at two years ago. In 1999 there was $36 billion of
direct investment into Canada as a result of trade. We are
proactive and we have signed trade agreements with Pacific rim
countries, with Central and Latin America, and with places in the
Middle East. We are proactive and have the best interests of
Canada at heart in this very important issue. This underscores
the ability of the government to put the economic fundamentals in
place.
I remind the hon. member opposite that while we balanced the
budget the Tories left us with a legacy of a debt of $42 billion.
When we had unemployment of 6.9%, they had 11.4%. The debt and
deficit they left us were outrageous. There were 37 tax
increases from 1985 to 1993. What have we done? We have reduced
taxes.
Those tiny Tories opposite are the last to lecture us about how
to put the economic fundamentals in place. They are the last to
lecture us about how to create a vibrant economy.
I found it objectionable the way the hon. member talked about
the leadership somehow not being there and as a result there was
hooliganism and anarchy. That is a terrible tie and I will
explain why. One cannot make those connections.
We had an obligation to provide peace and order. We had an
obligation to protect 34 members and heads of state from around
the Americas. We had an obligation to ensure that those kinds of
measures were taken.
Why would the member make that kind of tie? More to the point,
where was his leader when he should have been there in the
forefront doing what was best for Canada? Instead, he was out
gallivanting around the country.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not
surprised at the type of question from the hon. member because he
is very supportive of the party in which he sits. I respect
that, as he should be.
Some people go overboard and the hon. member certainly has. I
agree with him that free trade has been very good for the country
and the world. The government is continuously taking new
initiatives, which is good. However it is so caught up in
patting itself of the back that it is forgetting what to do with
the benefits derived from free trade.
This concern has been expressed by all the rest of us because
with leadership we could have the best of both worlds in Canada.
1245
Let me comment on the member's statement about the budget. I
remind the hon. member that when the Tories took over from the
previous Liberal government they were saddled with a huge debt.
They had two choices. One was to throw up their hands, ask what
they could do about it and make cuts to social programs to
balance the budget. That was not done. They made sure social
programs were not only continued but enhanced.
However a plan needed to be put in place to address the deficit.
What was the plan? The plan was the hated GST, which the hon.
member's party campaigned against, won an election on and then
moved in and took all the benefits.
The second thing was free trade, which we are talking about
here. The member and his party were against free trade. Free
trade and the GST, good Tory policies, generated the profits for
the Liberal government which helped it balance its budget.
What was the other way the Liberals balanced the budget and
added to the surplus? They cut the guts out of health, social
and post-secondary education costs.
Two good Tory policies and one terrible Liberal policy helped
the government balance its budget. It is in the black today,
thanks to the foresight of the Tories.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to take part today in the debate on the motion
moved by the Bloc and amended by my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The amended motion reads as follows:
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament
approves it.
While the Prime Minister would have us believe that he is a
champion of democracy and transparency in America because of his
democracy clause and his promise to make public the texts of the
FTAA, he forgets to walk the talk. He should not be surprised
then if we have serious doubts about his concern for transparency
and democracy. When he has proven to us that he is a real
democrat, we will consider taking seriously the transparency and
democracy that he claims to promote.
Let us look at a few facts which speak for themselves. The
Minister for International Trade brags about his government
obtaining from the countries of the three Americas in Buenos
Aires a formal commitment to share the texts of the FTAA. We have
been asking him to do so since January 29, but he always answered
that Canada could not make the texts public because the other
countries did not want to. Now, the other countries have agreed,
but we have yet to see the texts.
Of what is the minister proud? Of once again talking, but not
following up with action? These people are all talk and no
action. We are still waiting for the texts. Worse yet, we have
absolutely no guarantee that parliamentarians will receive them
or be informed of what is going on until it is too late. We have
no guarantee whatsoever.
The Prime Minister tends to forget that 60% of the population is
not behind him. He continues to govern Canada by polls. He
refuses to look at the facts.
This morning, I received an e-mail from a young CEGEP student in
my riding who was quite simply fed up with the Prime Minister's
refusal to listen.
1250
He was in Quebec City on the weekend. He took part in the
people's march. This was not a mock march. It was a real march.
Here is what he wrote me:
Mrs. Tremblay,
As you know, the people's march against the FTAA
this weekend was both a success and a failure. It was a success
because between 30,000 and 60,000 marchers turned out to say no
to the FTAA; it was a failure because—
Pardon me, but I am reading from the text.
The Deputy Speaker: I simply wish to remind members that they
may not do indirectly what they would not do directly. I am
certain that the member will be able to adapt what she is saying.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I will therefore amend the text, Mr.
Speaker. I am sorry to amend your text, René, but the House
requires it.
I will therefore continue:
Once again, I apologize for amending your text, René.
—is so fond of democracy, it should prove that it is; and if, as
it says, 54% of Quebecers “somewhat” agree with the FTAA, then
it should organise its own referendum.
This letter is from a young man who is not yet 20 years old and
who is aware of the importance of the ongoing debate about the
FTAA. For us from Quebec, for us sovereignists, apart from the
fact that the most important thing is to attain sovereignty, the
second most important thing is the debate presently going on,
the negotiations concerning the free trade area, of which we
would like to be an integral part.
The Prime Minister prevents Canadian members of parliament from
playing a relevant role in the FTAA adoption process. He does
not want to allow the members of this House to hold a debate,
with the proper documents, before the agreement is ratified by
Canada.
Once again, the Liberal government is preparing to put us in a
position where we will be wasting our time by allowing us to
hold a debate about the FTAA only after ratification. Its best
policy could be summed up this way “Say whatever you want, we
will do whatever we want”.
The Prime Minister does not even want to hear about a referendum
on the FTAA, while he is one of the least legitimate western
statesmen, since he was chosen by less than one out of four
eligible voters. The government has no mandate—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Usually, the truth is hard to take, Mr.
Minister.
The government has no mandate whatsoever from the people of
Canada to move forward with the FTAA project. In the last
election, as was the case in each previous election, its
platform was set out in its red book, which is getting thinner
and thinner as time goes by the way.
The red books have become thinner and thinner with time; there
are fewer and fewer programs, less and less work in the House
and more and more international meetings to negotiate a free
trade area while refusing to involve us.
Why did the government not have the courage of Brian Mulroney
who in 1988 called an election to ask Canadians if they wanted
him to sign the free trade agreement? This government, which
today is trying to negotiate a free trade area, was against
Brian Mulroney's proposal. The people were for it, and
thanks to the people and not to the Liberals, we were able to
progress. Now, week after week, they are literally reaping the
benefits of the free trade agreement. They crow over that as if
it were their doing.
If the government does not have a mandate to negotiate the FTAA,
it has to obtain one, either by calling an election or by
organizing a referendum. There are not many ways of going about
it, unless the new leader of the party could decide otherwise.
1255
Our current Prime Minister stubbornly continues to refuse Quebec
and the other provinces a formal place in the process of
negotiating and adopting the FTAA, at least within the areas
under their jurisdiction.
It is somewhat disturbing to learn that the Prime Minister
described the march as “blah, blah, blah”. The marchers and
those who held forums just involved in blah, blah, blah. It is
somewhat disturbing to see these peaceful demonstrators dismissed
in this way.
Another thing that is disturbing, in the government statement
over his signature, is that they want to make more investments in
order to have better educational policies.
This is the government that has, over thirty years, allocated
the least to education and cut the most from transfer payments to
the provinces, making the objective of improved educational
policies difficult to achieve. It will do this without involving
Quebec or the provinces, while education is a totally provincial
jurisdiction, in the main.
With this experience of the summit, we have unfortunately been
given a fine demonstration of the lack of democracy in our
country. Where democracy is concerned, if the Prime Minister is
incapable of demonstrating to us with concrete actions that he is
a democrat, there being several questions still up in the air in
this regard, how is he going to keep his promises?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the points made by my hon. colleague. She suggested
that the government has not yet released the text. That was the
subject of much discussion in the House of Commons before the
recent break.
The Minister for International Trade showed great leadership.
The Prime Minister was on record weeks ago in the House of
Commons saying he would happily release the text but was not
prepared to do so unilaterally. Through the leadership of the
Minister for International Trade in Buenos Aires we were able to
secure a full commitment of the 34 leaders to release the text
shortly after the summit's conclusion. The summit concluded on
Sunday. This is just Tuesday, so perhaps the member could show a
little more patience. The text will be released in due course.
I do not know what polls the member has been looking at. The
vast majority of polls in Canada suggest that two-thirds of
Canadians support our efforts in negotiating the FTAA.
The hon. member says MPs have not been able to participate.
There has in fact been very wide consultation. There have been
hearings at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade. There is a special subcommittee on trade.
Three hundred thousand dollars was given to the parallel summit.
There were the FIPA meetings of parliamentarians of the Americas,
including Canada, right here in the Chamber.
The member says there is no mandate for the government to
negotiate the FTAA. Is the member unaware that we had a federal
election in November? The FTAA has been in process for several
years and yet the government was overwhelmingly re-elected. It
even increased its seats and support in the province of Quebec,
an increase we know will continue over time.
Is the member unaware that the FTAA was not even an issue in the
election? The government was re-elected with a very strong
mandate even though Canadians were fully aware that the FTAA
talks had been under way for years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty discouraging
to hear the hon. member say he listened to my speech. He
understood nothing.
He should first work on his terminology skills. I said “We do
not have the texts. We want them before, not after, before” .
That is clear. We do not have the texts. He says they will be
out in a few days. We have absolutely no interest in the texts
that come after. We want those that come before.
We want to know what the government is negotiating on our
behalf. We want to express our opinion on the content of the
negotiations so parliament may give the ministers a mandate,
since they have no mandate to negotiate from the public. We are
the 301 representatives of the people. The only way to
legitimize the FTAA negotiating process is to have parliament
vote.
1300
There are no other solutions. We want the texts ahead of time
so we can tell the government that we agree with this, but we do
not agree with that, so it really knows it alone cannot decide in
secret on behalf of the people of Canada.
The Liberal government may well have got more seats. It did not
even get 40% of the vote across Canada. It better not try to
tell us it is representative. That makes no sense. The
government has no mandate to negotiate that. This was never an
issue during the election campaign. There is not a word about
this in the red book. The government party keeps saying “I got
elected on the red book. Everyone will know what it is”. We
know one thing about this government and that is it has never
kept its promises, never.
When negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas began
in 1994 in Miami, President Clinton decided he would Americanize
the governments of America. We are following his plan, and the
government has no mandate for that. It is shameful to stand up
and claim that we are the ones not understanding anything.
Get with it, Liberals, find out what the words mean.
Consultation means consult, not inform. They simply informed the
governments, they never consulted them. They have to find a way
to stop saying that.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it will be hard for me to do better than the member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, but I will certainly say what I can.
First, I wish to thank and congratulate the member for
Joliette for his work and particularly for the motion he moved
today, which all parties said they appreciated the opportunity
to discuss, particularly just a few days after the Quebec summit
was over.
I also wish to remind the House that it was the member for
Joliette who, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, asked the
government to hold a take note debate in the House, which we
were finally granted. Because of his leadership and initiative,
there was an opposition day, in the course of which we asked for
the documents related to the negotiations.
I also wish to congratulate the member on his involvement in the
peoples' summit, particularly that portion of it having to do
with the parliamentarians' summit.
Obviously, this all required teamwork. Many members of the Bloc
Quebecois got together. Each week we met in committee in the
morning to discuss all of this, to consider all the issues,
every aspect.
Personally, I am most concerned about the human rights aspect,
since I represent the Bloc Quebecois on the foreign affairs
sub-committee on human rights. Because of this special interest,
I took part in the people's summit and in last Saturday's
march, for which between 30,000 and 60,000 people turned out, which
admittedly was for those opposed to the FTAA.
There were also people in favour of the FTAA, but on certain
conditions. I fall into this category.
It is difficult to be against free trade, and I
find somewhat simplistic the definition given by NDP members,
who are completely opposed to it and who say that it means trade
without any constraints. This is not what anybody wants.
In fact, the purpose of NAFTA, the agreement now in force
between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is to place
restrictions on free trade. The best proof of this is that not
all sectors are subject to free trade. This is the case for
shipbuilding and shipping. Personally, I do not agree with this.
Why? Because the United States wants to maintain protectionist
measures for certain sectors of activity. We are also having
problems with softwood lumber.
1305
What the Bloc Quebecois is asking as a minimum is that existing
free trade provisions in NAFTA be applied to lumber. We are not
asking the government to negotiate new agreements that would
weaken the free trade agreement in that respect.
In the shipbuilding sector, Quebec and Canada are currently
faced with an almost impossible situation. Some countries work as
partners and they endorse and respect the OECD's view against
subsidizing the industry. However, the United States has a
somewhat different and very protectionist policy.
It must be understood that when people are opposed to a free
trade area, if the existing situation is not changed, that
situation will prevail. What is the current situation? When each
country's trade is not free, what is it subjected to? We must ask
ourselves that question, always keeping human rights in mind.
We must not exclude from the outset any possibility of
negotiating a free trade area, because this is indeed an
opportunity to deal with human rights, along with the 34
countries involved in this free trade area of the three Americas.
The more I read on this issue, the more I realize that a number
of countries do not respect the declaration of human rights and
the various conventions on human rights. However we must seize every
opportunity. These issues should be included in trade
negotiations with other countries.
Let us take, for instance, the democracy clause with regard to
Haiti. We saw, during the weekend, that the president of Haiti
had to answer some questions. He was questioned by other leaders.
So this is a way to influence him.
He apparently has asked for help in order to implement some
clauses because sometimes, if only in terms of the justice
system, there is a need for courts. There are costs involved and
some situations are not easily managed.
For instance, during the people's summit, representations were
made to me by the Dominican Republic and Haiti regarding 500,000
Haitians who presently work in the Dominican Republic but have no
legal status there. Because these people have no passport nor any
official document, they have no rights. The only right they have
is the right to live, but they live in utterly deplorable
conditions.
Of course, the two countries agree that they must address these
problems, but there are often economic issues involved. They need
the financial support of developed countries. We should
never forget this.
The Canadian government often champions democracy and the
implementation of international charters. In this regard, I wish
to mention a meeting between senators and members of parliament,
which was organized by a committee only five or six weeks ago.
They discussed the refugees now living in Canada, ten years
after having obtained their citizenship or having been accepted
in Canada. Those people have met all the formalities, except the
requirement for documentation.
Of course, when people leave their country because of violence,
massacres or other emergency situations, it is understandable
that they do not always have the time to bring along a passport.
This is presently the case for some Canadians.
This issue will possibly lead to amendments to the Immigration
Act. Some people live in Canada as refugees but have no Canadian
passport. Therefore, they do not dare leave the country.
1310
We must see to it that this country, namely Canada, does
correctly what it is asking of other countries. This motion is
about democracy.
Why did so many people take part in the march on Saturday?
Because they wanted to know more. They wanted their
parliamentarians to be informed of the issues.
However, as we are debating this motion today, we still do not
have the texts used in the negotiations.
We have absolutely no guarantee that any agreement
will be submitted to parliamentarians, before it
is ratified. However, in other countries, including our
neighbour, the United States, things are quite different. The
U.S. president may not have mentioned it in Quebec City, but he
said on other occasions that he was not be allowed to fast track
the process, meaning that he did not have the mandate to
negotiate as freely as he would have wanted.
However, if we compare that mandate to the one the Prime
Minister of Canada says he has, the Prime Minister seems to have
a lot more latitude than the president of the United States.
People do not realize that. Moreover, the Prime Minister is not
elected directly by the people, like the president in the United
States. Despite the shortcomings of the American electoral
system, which we had the opportunity to see in the last election,
the U.S. president has a mandate that was given to him directly
by the people. This is not the case in Canada.
Therefore, I enthusiastically support this motion and I urge the
Minister for International Trade, who I think is an intelligent
man to make the texts available to us and to give us the
assurance that any future agreement will be submitted to the
Parliament of Canada before it is ratified. He knows the value of
words and understands what this means.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
that the Bloc members have talked about the number of votes the
Liberal Party has earned in being re-elected federally. I did
not hear the same kind of logic from the Bloc Quebecois members
when Mr. Charest earned more votes in the province of Quebec than
the péquistes. However, that is a problem they can face with
their lack of consistency.
I want to ask the member the following questions. Does he not
recognize the unbelievable progress that has been made in the
Americas over the past few years? Does he not understand that
had such a meeting been convened of the leaders of the Americas
some 10 or 15 years ago, we would have had at least half or more
of the leaders wearing army uniforms with jackboots? Does he not
understand the great progress that has been made toward democracy
in the Americas? Does he not understand the support the Canadian
government and the Canadian people are giving toward encouraging
those fledgling democracies? Does he not see the great value in
the democracy clause that all the leaders signed onto in Quebec
City?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to
acknowledge that. However I am having a bit of trouble with the hon.
member's question, because I think he is confusing me with a
previous speaker, since I did not talk about the number of votes
any party got. It was the previous speaker who did.
That however makes me wonder about the capacity of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade to
really listen, since he is confusing what I have just said in my
speech with what a previous speaker had mentioned earlier on. It
is doubly troubling since the member for
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis was talking about the lack of
attention and the lack of understanding shown by the
Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade.
I do hope the minister will have a better understanding of what
we are saying. It is simple, we want it to be submitted to
parliament before it is ratified. It cannot be that hard since
the Americans have found a way to do it. U.S. parliamentarians
were able to get the texts and the positions of all the parties.
However in Canada it is not possible.
I find it incredible that Canada is refusing, for instance, to
sign or to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Why? Because it is
following the example of the U.S. government, which has refused
to do so. I find it strange that the Canadian government follows
in the steps of the United States when it is wrong, but not
when it is since U.S. parliamentarians have access to
these documents, but not us. This is an odd situation.
1315
Yes, I am all for progress. I wish that, as far as possible,
progress be everywhere in the world and that people enjoy equal
quality of life.
The charter of human rights says that it is important to strive
to have a better redistribution of wealth and access to
education. However, if words really mean something, once their
meaning is well understood they have to be acted upon.
I understand those who demonstrated in the streets and
said that everybody was talking about democracy. All the heads of
state talked about democracy, and I think they talked about it
more strongly because of the peaceful mobilization of a very
large number of people calling for more openness. These people
wish that the civil society and all citizens be as well informed
as possible. In the age of Internet, let us make all the
documents available, and not just some of them. Let there be real
consultation.
To consult does not mean only to inform, as the hon. member for
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis said, it also means to receive
advice, to listen and try to implement what is suggested when
it makes good sense.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member
for Joliette for having used one of opposition days to speak
about one aspect of international trade. I am very happy to see
that the Bloc is interested in foreign policy, particularly as
far as international trade is concerned.
I want also to thank the hon. member for Joliette for having
written his motion in such a way that, and I can see it
clearly, it shows he is supporting the policy of the
Canadian government.
In fact, we are very conscious of the importance of openness, of
the consultation of parliament and the provincial governments, of
industry and, obviously, of the interest and lobby groups, those
which are called, wrongly I think, the civil society. It is extremely
important to go in this direction.
I am all the happier that the Bloc has proposed this motion
because it allows us, once again, to show clearly that Canada is
the champion of openness. We were the first country to disclose
the preliminary negotiating position of our government.
One year ago, we put on the website our position in the
negotiations. This was a first in the history of international
trade negotiations.
This Canadian position has been the subject of close
consultation with this parliament, and particularly with members
of the
standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade,
which I have had the opportunity to meet several times and which
I greatly appreciate working with very closely.
I must tell the House that we have the opportunity today to
recognize the originality of the Canadian voice in the community
of nations. We have just lived a Quebec summit where the Canadian
voice has once again demonstrated its leadership by obtaining the
democracy clause. Thus, we are making a remarkable progress
towards openness, transparency and consultation, and this is
thanks mostly to Canada's leadership and diplomacy.
In the last year, thousands of Canadians have been visiting the
Web site to verify the Canadian government's position. Some
countries have followed the way of transparency that we have
opened.
For months, the opposition has been blaming me for not releasing
public texts that belonged to all the ministers of the
hemisphere. We went to Buenos Aires and Canadian diplomacy,
thanks to the credibility of our foreign policy and to Canada's
credibility in the hemispheres, has made a historical
breakthrough.
[English]
We have been able to convince our colleagues that the draft free
trade agreement should be made public. The opposition cannot
believe that we would succeed in making those texts public. I am
extremely proud that we have succeeded in what I consider to be
an historical breakthrough.
1320
[Translation]
This historical breakthrough should have an influence on all
other trade negotiations.
However another historical breakthrough took place in Buenos Aires.
We have institutionalized a dialogue with hemispheric interest
groups and pressure groups.
As we know several countries of our hemisphere were saying
“Each country will take care of its consultations with its own
civil society”.
Canada said “No, on the contrary, we will choose
an approach focused on the hemisphere, the civil society”. As I
was saying, I think this expression is false since we are the
civil society. There is no better representation of the civil
society than all of us here in the parliament of Canada.
They speak about interest groups and lobbies. We have chosen
this consultation and we also obtained the consent of our
colleagues to institutionalize this dialogue with interest groups
and lobby groups and we are proud of that. No other country was
taking the leadership Canada did within the hemisphere.
Someone said earlier that the provinces were not consulted. It
is totally unbelievable. Every week, every day almost, officials
of my department or my negotiators communicate with provincial
officials.
On February 5th, before the Buenos Aires meeting, I brought
together all the provincial ministers of trade. Quebec was
represented.
At the very beginning of the meeting, the Quebec minister told
me that Quebec considered the gathering to be an information
briefing and not a consultation. I replied that the minister
could be assured that the meeting was meant to be a consultation
and that any difference of opinion, any perspective on any
subject he would want to bring to our attention would be most
welcome.
We established our agenda and we talked about all the elements
of the Canadian trade policy and there were very few
disagreements.
The Quebec government agreed so completely with Canadian trade
policy that the meeting was concluded one hour early. Basically,
the Quebec government supported Canadian policy on every point,
on softwood lumber or our current process on the FTAA, so much so
that they want to take some of the credit for having the
agreement documents made public. They are trying to say that the
Canadian government succeeded in Buenos Aires because the Quebec
government wanted the documents made public.
How can one say that one is not being consulted and, at the same
time, take credit for some of the success of the Canadian
government at the ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires and of the
Prime Minister at the Quebec summit? We have held and are holding
real consultations at the negotiators level and the ministerial
level. I am always available to meet with ministers who want to
draw my attention to particular points.
I am very happy to stand here today and say that the FTAA has
been subjected to the most comprehensive and extensive
consultation process ever in free trade negotiations. We are very
happy with the progress being made.
Obviously, we realize that citizens are increasingly interested
in international trade.
I see it as an opportunity, not as a threat.
We have nothing to hide. On the contrary, we wish to have in
depth debates and discussions because, in the end, they will
contribute to improving the agreements we reach.
[English]
The Canadian leadership, both in Quebec City and in Buenos
Aires, was wonderful. I do not know how many ministers, heads of
governments and heads of state told me how pleased they were to
see Canada as part of the Americas. They said that it has been
far too long since Canada was involved in the Americas. Now they
were hearing the Canadian voice and they were respecting it. It
was because of the Canadian leadership toward transparency that
they were trusting our instincts and they would consent to what
Canada was proposing regarding transparency.
1325
That is what Canada is all about. That is why I am so pleased
with the motion that the hon. member for Joliette has tabled in
the House.
[Translation]
I am very glad that the hon. member for Joliette assured us
today that he too holds openness and transparency very dear.
These are already values of the Canadian government.
[English]
I am pleased to inform the House that we are pleased to
support the motion, although we cannot support the amendment.
The government will not abandon its responsibility to negotiate
and conclude treaties in the best interest of all Canadians.
[Translation]
We will support the main motion because we are profoundly
committed to consultation, we respect parliament and we are
interested in knowing what parliament and the parliamentary
committee want, which is close consultations on an extremely
important subject.
I honestly think that the motion by the hon. member for Joliette
is an opportunity to celebrate the great progress the American
hemisphere has made under Canadian leadership, progress that will
also impact on the other trade negotiations at the WTO.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to tell the Minister for International Trade that I am pleased we
are able to start debating this whole matter today. We are
always focussing just on the process and I am anxious to see us
touch on substantive issues.
That said, the opposition has not waited for government
permission to call for the texts to be made public, as hon.
members will recall. I believe the Minister for International
Trade was surprised by his colleagues' response, the proof being
that the French translation of the texts was not available. If
the federal government had really thought the response would be
positive, it would have started getting its texts translated
before receiving the response.
I have been interested in the debates on the free trade area of
the Americas for 15 years now. I have seen that the process has
in fact become increasingly transparent as the result of social
pressure, pressures from parliaments and parliamentarians. As far
as the free trade agreement with the United States was
concerned, and that was a relatively non-transparent
negotiation, there was no desire to address trade issues.
When NAFTA was negotiated, there was a little more openness, but
not a lot. It was the American government, at the urging of
President Clinton, that finally forced Canada and Mexico to have
two parallel agreements on the environment and on labour.
Now we are at another stage, the free trade area of the
Americas. I willingly admit that there has been some progress as
far as transparency is concerned, but not enough. It seems to me
that we have reached the stage where parliamentarians need to be
involved on an ongoing basis, and to have the opportunity to give
their approval of any potential free trade area of the Americas
agreement before government ratification of it.
It could very easily work this way: the government signs an
agreement, submits it to the House, which holds a debate on it,
the House approves it and then the executive ratifies it. That
is the way it is done in Great Britain and in Australia, and how
it will also be done in the Quebec national assembly. The
premier of Quebec has in fact announced that the national
assembly would vote on the agreement before the government signs
it.
I believe we have got to this stage and I would have liked to
have seen the government party support the amendment, which seems
to me to be the stage we have reached at this time, as far as
transparency and democracy in Canada and in Quebec are concerned.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon.
member for Joliette has taken an interest in this issue for a
long time. In fact, we can feel his influence on the Bloc
Quebecois, which has traditionally been supportive of free trade
agreements.
The Bloc Quebecois and the PQ in Quebec have generally been
supportive of trade liberalization. The hon. member's influence
is such that since his election to this House, there has been a
complete distrust of what we are trying to accomplish in
international trade.
Contrary to what the head office, the boss, the Quebec
government is trying to do, being supportive of free trade—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I hear the member for Quebec, who is also
extremely suspicious of trade. They always have a problem with
the improvements that we are trying to bring about to liberalize
trade.
1330
It is somewhat ironic is this distrust by a few
parliamentarians is changing an attitude that had so far been
relatively open.
The vast majority of our fellow citizens is very aware of
international trade issues. Our economy has made tremendous
progress since we signed the free trade agreement with the
United States and Mexico.
I remind the hon. member that it is not the U.S. presidency that
changed Canada's approach on NAFTA and produced two side
agreements on labour standards and the environment. These
changes occurred because there was, at the same time, a change
of Government in Canada.
It is when the Liberal Party took office in 1993, at the same
time that Mr. Clinton became president of the United States,
that we, as a government, chose to add side agreements to NAFTA.
We are the ones who took the initiative of proposing an
improvement to what had been negotiated by the previous
government. We are the ones who negotiated with Chile side
agreements similar to those that we developed for the free trade
agreement.
I should point out that yesterday morning, when I signed the
bilateral free trade agreement with Costa Rica, my colleagues,
the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Environment, also
signed side agreements.
It is from this side that leadership and innovation in
international trade made its way to Buenos Aires.
Any minister who took part in the meeting in Buenos Aires will
confirm that had it not been for Canada's leadership the texts
of the preliminary agreement would not be in the process of
being released.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister talking about
transparency and how open his government has been. I can tell
the House that when he talks about transparency it is
restricted to government officials and ministers.
I have just returned from Geneva where there are many issues
dealing with labour. Why is his government not tackling those
issues by getting the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the
Environment involved in order to open the process so that we do
not have the protests that we had in Quebec City and in Seattle?
Those protests symbolized that transparency is not there despite
what he is saying. Would the minister please comment on that?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the people who came
to demonstrate in Quebec City or who demonstrated in Seattle did
not do so because there was no transparency. They came because
they did not like what we were trying to do. They were opposed
to trade liberalization and the sort of improvements that we were
trying to make to the international trade system. I find that
very unfortunate.
I heard President Fox of Mexico, President Lagos of Chile and
other leaders of smaller economies tell us that what they needed
was trade and access to our markets. That is development that
will help them strengthen their democracies. I beg those who
object with what we are trying to do to pay attention. We will
pay a great deal of attention to what they have to say.
I have met with many round table pressure groups but they should
also listen to what 33 leaders of the Americas have come to tell
us. They have said to give them trade.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the minister who has shown tremendous leadership
in taking Canada down an inevitable path that we must seriously
explore.
Imagine our country having any kind of serious negotiations with
33 other countries and not having some form of protest. I cannot
imagine it. It is what makes Canada the most democratic and
freest country in the world.
There was much noise made by people who were opposed to free
trade about the security fence that was put up around the
perimeter. Imagine the scenario if that particular defensive
action was not undertaken by our government.
I recall when some students in Vancouver, who broke through at
the APEC conference, were pepper sprayed. That led to a
multimillion dollar inquiry into how the RCMP behaved and acted.
There were all kinds of legal fees, allegations,
counterallegations and charges.
It was because some students had broken through a fence, perhaps
not the same kind of fence as in Quebec City, in a violent way to
try to force their views on the security people. It was not
tolerated and the actions led to an inquiry.
1335
What would have happened in Quebec City? We know that some
people were arrested because they were carrying explosive devices
and potential means of destruction into the country. Those
weapons were confiscated. We saw it on television. What would
have happened if there was not the level of security and those
people had come through and somehow managed to detonate an
explosive device and perhaps seriously injure, maim or even kill
some of the participants?
Every member opposite in the House would be on their feet
screaming indignation, calling for the government to resign,
calling for the people involved in security, the solicitor
general and others to resign their seat because they were unable
to provide the necessary security for an international meeting to
take place.
Canadians would agree that the images we saw were not what we
expect to see in a Canadian city at any given time. The reality
is that we live in a world that is full of people who would
purport to put their views forward using means that are
unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
I wish to speak about that vast majority in terms of the
demonstrators. Most of the demonstrators were there to
peacefully put their viewpoints across. They held a very
successful people's summit. I take some exception with that, but
that is all right. I do not have a problem with that.
They put their counterviews on the table and they discussed
them. They passed resolutions and developed strategies. There
were people from the labour movement who were concerned about
labour standards. There were people from the civil society who
were concerned about sovereignty, culture and protection of our
natural resources. The government does not have a problem with
any of those issues being put forward.
I would argue that the protesters drove the agenda with some
success. I am not convinced that six months ago when the
planning began for this conference the first and most significant
clause to come out of Quebec City would have been the democracy
clause. The engagement of the public has led the leaders of all
those countries to decide that a common bond, a common principle
of any agreement on free trade must include an adherence to the
democratic principles that Canadians hold so dear.
What this means is elections. That is why Cuba was not invited
or allowed to participate. Anyone who has been to Cuba would
realize that the people, on the surface, seem to have everything
that they need. They seem to have their health care and their
education provided for. They seem to have certain basic things
like food and shelter. However, in Cuba they do not have the
most fundamental basic human right, that is the right to dissent,
the right to demonstrate, the right to hold a differing opinion,
and the right to express that opinion. It is clear that in terms
of this agreement, with the democracy clause, that they simply
cannot be part of that.
One of the issues that will be looked at is the situation in
Haiti. There will be a group travelling to Port-au-Prince to
meet with government officials to ensure that true democracy and
not some kind of military dominance is in place in Haiti.
The countries that are signatories to this agreement, and I do
not know of any other agreement where this kind of a clause has
been put in place, will have the right to expel a particular
country from membership and disallow it from taking part in the
particular benefits of free trade if in fact it violates the
democracy clause.
What we see could only occur in Canada. We need to deal with
the possibilities if we can.
1340
The member for Burnaby—Douglas claims he was shot by a rubber
bullet, although he is not sure, but he and the leader of the NDP
want to force an inquiry. These are mere tactics in an attempt
to derail and stop the progress of negotiating a free trade
agreement.
Who would benefit if we were to expand our markets? This
country has done remarkably well. Our next census will show our
population to be somewhere around 31 million people. If we
compare that to our neighbour to the south, which has 10 times
our population and the clout and economic ability to trade, it is
quite remarkable that our growth rate is higher than the United
States, 2.4% versus 1.7%. Our inflation rate is lower, our
unemployment rate is comparable and our economy is very strong on
its own.
Could we do that if we were to shrink wrap our borders and
shrink wrap this country? I do not think we could. However,
should we be looking at other markets? Do we want to tie
ourselves to the will of the United States when the economy does
take a downturn or do we want to have alternatives?
We want to ensure that our sovereignty is protected. I have no
doubt about that. Every member in this place would agree with
that. We want to ensure that our natural resources and renewable
resources are protected and, where feasible, are marketed where
opportunities arise.
The intent of the motion put on the floor by the Bloc is to
ensure that there is transparency in the negotiations. Many of
the meetings were on television. The media had complete access
and the people's summit had terrific input into the process that
went on. The transparency is there.
The fact that we are on our feet today is another example of how
parliament can play a role in shaping the future. We should work
with the minister and the government to ensure that we negotiate
a free trade agreement of the Americas that will not only benefit
Canada but benefit many of the poorer countries that could use
assistance in terms of science and technology, our exports, our
expertise and our capabilities, and that could perhaps use some
help in the area of democratization.
We are on the edge of a tremendous opportunity to expand the
horizons of this country. Instead of dwelling on the negative,
the demonstrators and the rock throwers, we should acknowledge
the fact that there is healthy dissent. It is truly Canadian and
the Canadian way to negotiate. This is an opportunity we should
seize. We should move forward and develop an agreement with the
Americas that makes sense for the prosperity of this entire
hemisphere.
I am confident that with the leadership of the minister and the
Prime Minister, and the work of all the people involved, we will
indeed have an agreement for which our children will say well
done.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the member from
Mississauga. There are times when I do not agree with him but
this time, concerning the benefits of the FTAA, I have no problem
agreeing with him. The benefits of the FTAA, if handled
properly, will bring prosperity. However, if it is not handled
properly, it will raise doubts and create the same thing that we
had with the MAI. The government's inability to communicate the
benefits of the MAI resulted in its failure.
If the government continues on that path and does not allow more
transparency in the FTAA we may face the same problem, which
would be detrimental to our country and to prosperity in the
hemisphere.
1345
There have been voices out there in Quebec City. The minister
rightly responded that a number of people there were totally
opposed to the FTAA and not to the transparency of the system. I
agree with him in that respect.
The other point is that a lot of protesters said that they
wanted to ensure that prosperity was spread globally and that
they had a voice in the process. The member said that parliament
has been discussing this, but if it were really discussing the
issue there would not be so much protest.
Does the hon. member not think it important that the final draft
of the FTAA be brought into parliament for an open debate and
ratification by parliamentarians? Would he not agree to that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member earlier
expressed an odd concern for a member of the Alliance Party, a
concern one would sooner expect to hear from the NDP. He asked
about labour standards and how they might be applied.
How could anyone in this place suggest that we impose our labour
standards unilaterally or even bilaterally on countries within
the free trade zone of the Americas? How can we ensure that
labour standards regarding health and safety, minimum wage,
procurement, fair wage and other issues are brought to bear in
the countries with which we are negotiating if we do not
negotiate with them?
We cannot have too many cooks in the kitchen or we will spoil
the broth. We all know that. There is a job to be done. The
negotiating team has work to do. The leaders of the countries
have started the ball rolling with the meetings in Quebec.
Yes, we should work toward standardized labour protection in
these countries. However, any member here who has travelled
through the Americas knows that the labour conditions in many of
the countries, notwithstanding the democracy clause that was
passed, are atrocious and unacceptable.
We must work on a continual basis with these countries to show
them the benefits of having a high quality, highly paid and
highly skilled labour force. We can achieve this through
negotiation and education. The FTAA is just one of many tools
that can ensure prosperity is spread throughout the Americas.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am looking
forward to taking part in this debate today.
It holds a particular interest for me, as the member for Quebec,
the riding which hosted the summit of the Americas, as well as
the people's summit. There has been much discussion about
violence and tear gas, but today let us come back to the
discussion by the entire spectrum of civil society, by these
groups speaking for civil society, on the impact of the FTAA on
people's daily life.
The discussion started a long time ago and resulted in the
resolutions and the strong commitments made by the groups
representing civil society.
Today I wish to congratulate the organizers of the people's
summit on the quality of the contributions made by ordinary
people on education, labour, agriculture, communications, human
rights, environment, health and the status of women. What would
the impact of the FTAA be on all these areas, if it were
concluded, as there is every indication it will be?
These working groups noted the ever increasing gap between the
rich and the poor.
1350
This is an issue very close to my heart since I have worked on
EI reform. We are aware of the gap between the rich and the
poor. When businesses and plants close down and workers can no
longer rely on insurance benefits to get the money they need
between jobs, they can quickly and easily be forced into various
levels of poverty and even utter poverty.
When I hear the Minister for International Trade say that he is
very happy, very glad and very pleased, I cannot help but
remember that he said the exact same thing when asked
about the concerns raised by the EI reform. The minister is now
sitting at the FTAA negotiating table and is saying that he
is very confident and also glad to be able to meet with the
public and various interest groups and to listen to them. However
is
there not a difference between listening to the people and
following up on their concerns?
The Bloc Quebecois is very active on this issue and we have
brought forward many motions in the House and also in the
various committees dealing with the free trade area of the
Americas. Today, what we are trying to do is to move the debate
forward a bit.
Before the summit of the Americas, our colleague from Joliette
proposed a motion to allow us to talk about what is at stake in
these negotiations and to ensure greater transparency. We know
what came out of that: nothing. It was too late, the texts could
not be made available and they could not be translated into all
the required languages. We cannot say it was a very
transparent exercise, especially after learning, because of an
open microphone, that certain clauses of particular interest to
the opposition parties, in this case the Bloc Quebecois, and to
civil society would be included in this FTAA agreement.
Personally, I am more concerned when I see the minister rejoice
and say, as he always does, that everything is fine.
In this motion, we are calling on the government to allow
parliamentarians to debate this process and to allow civil
society to be consulted not after an agreement has been signed,
but before ratification is approved by parliament.
This concern and this desire were also expressed at the people's
summit, during the plenary session of the last conference. It
was requested that people be informed of all the issues related
to the free trade area of the Americas and of the impact it
could have on our lives if, for example, we adopted chapter 11,
which gives businesses a special charter that would allow them
to sue governments for loss of profits because these governments
have put in place standards and safeguards in all areas, social,
environmental, cultural and so on.
So this is why the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about how things
are going and will act as watchdog so the people will know just
what exactly is happening in the negotiations on the free trade
area of the Americas. We know that this weekend nothing was
signed. However in the coming years there will be a whole process
where things will be thought out. We will therefore act as
intermediary between public concerns and what is being concocted
often behind closed doors.
When we talk about globalization with certain people, they say
“Yes, there are political aspects to globalization. It means
openness to the world, much better prices, the expansion of
businesses and the export of goods and services”. When we talk
to them about the real issues of the free trade area of the
Americas, we are a little more reserved about the first
interpretation of globalization.
not
1355
When we point out all the aspects of the free trade area of the
Americas, including chapter 11, and some of the changes it could
mean in the case of job security, for example, it makes them
think. They wondered if it would bother certain businesses to
have a government adopt labour or environmental standards or
social conditions, because businesses' profits would be reduced
in such cases. When people are faced with this sort of
provision, they say “That could penalize us too and even lead to
exclusion, impoverishment, a greater gap between the rich and
the poor, a loss of gains, manipulation and especially to a loss
of control and of choice”.
There is therefore a double standard. When all the stakes are
made clear, other questions come to mind. They are also worried
when we tell them, for instance, why groups representing civil
society were not invited to make their concerns known to the 34
heads of state. They are worried when we tell them, for
instance, that the forum of business people can, however, be
heard.
Another irritant, a second obstacle, is the manner in which all
the discussions can be interpreted. When it is said that the
same people are both judge and judged, when one owns a business
one will definitely look out for one's own interests.
Groups, civil society and elected representatives who are
accountable to the public are also worried when, for example,
there is a desire to create this link with civil society.
As I said earlier, the gap between the rich and the poor was one
of the first observations of the people's summit.
We are therefore concerned that there would be a charter for
businesses setting out their right to set up operations in
certain locations. For instance, we were told that because a
business had been unable to expand as much as it would have
liked in Mexico, it sued the government for lost profits.
Where will all this lead? We are right to be concerned.
Instead of saying that everything is fine and that we are very
enthusiastic, we must look carefully at where we are headed.
The people's summit was a reflection on our future, and there
are many possible solutions. One of the most
interesting things about the people's summit being held in
Quebec City is that all Quebecers felt concerned.
Social groups had an opportunity to speak with the public and
made known their concerns.
I therefore hope the motion moved today by the member for
Joliette will be adopted, as amended. I hope there will be
support for our request that there be official ratification by
the government, authorized by parliament, and that the public be
consulted before this official ratification by parliament, by
the government.
Elected representatives must take note, because we are
accountable to the public for decisions taken by the government,
particularly when it comes to something as precious as people's
quality of life, because the FTAA is very much tied up with that
quality of life.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SPACE EXPLORATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today two Canadian technological models operate in outer space.
The first is Canadarm2, the product of the Canadian Space Agency
and an integral part of the international space station. The
second is Chris Hadfield, a Canadian pilot, a colonel in our
armed forces, a fighter pilot, engineer, father, husband and son,
but above all a role model and ambassador for those serving in
our armed forces and those who would consider enlisting.
As Colonel Hadfield takes his second walk in space in three
days, residents of the city of Sarnia in my riding are paying
particularly close attention to our astronaut and to Canadarm2.
Students at King George IV School, which Sarnia born Chris
Hadfield attended, have studied space travel. The Sarnia airport
has been renamed Chris Hadfield Airport. In addition, Mac Evans,
the president of the Canadian Space Agency, is Sarnia born and
educated.
1400
On behalf of the residents of Sarnia, I congratulate, somewhere
here on earth, President Mac Evans of the Canadian Space Agency
and, somewhere in the vacuum of space, Colonel Chris Hadfield for
their out of this world achievements.
* * *
BILL C-331
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the Liberal government to
recognize the injustices that were done to the Canadians of
Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the
time of the first great war. Over 5,000 were interned in 24
detention camps throughout Canada.
My private member's bill, Bill C-331, cited as the Ukrainian
Canadian Restitution Act, calls for a final resolution to this
bleak moment in Canadian history.
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made vague promises of
support in the 1980s. The current Prime Minister also promised
to deal fairly with the requests for acknowledgement and redress
should he become Prime Minister in 1993. That promise has not
been carried out.
Today there are over one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent.
Many have made outstanding contributions to Canada in all areas
of society. Canadians want to learn from their history. It is
time for the government to do the right thing and bring this
issue to a close.
* * *
SPACE EXPLORATION
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend Chris Hadfield became the first Canadian astronaut to
walk in space. Hadfield's thrilling spacewalk entered the
history books as he installed Canadarm2, the centrepiece of
Canada's contribution to the international space station.
A little piece of Conestoga College also went along for
Hadfield's historic voyage. Cynthia DeWitt, a second year
graphic design student at Conestoga College, created the patch
worn on Hadfield's flight suit. Seventeen Conestoga College
students were finalists in a contest that drew over 120 entries
from across Canada.
I join all members of the House in congratulating astronaut
Chris Hadfield on his momentous walk and Cynthia, her classmates
and staff at the graphic design program of Conestoga College. I
wish to extend congratulations to all.
* * *
VETERANS
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind members of the House that 50 years ago today
the soldiers of the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian
Light Infantry held off Chinese forces in the Kapyong Valley in
Korea. For its actions, the whole of the 2-PPCLI was awarded the
United States presidential citation.
On Saturday, May 21, I, along with the minister of immigration,
the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and the member for Markham,
had the privilege to attend a dinner in Seoul hosted by the
Korean War Veterans Association.
This dinner marked the 50th anniversary of the Korean war
period, a time when over 20,000 Canadian Armed Forces personnel
saw action overseas. Sixty-one Canadian veterans of this
conflict were able to return to Korea for the event. It was a
profoundly moving and memorable occasion.
I am dually honoured by these events: to have had the
experience in Korea at the dinner and to have had such a
distinguished unit stationed in my constituency, their barracks
named after the historic Kapyong battle.
* * *
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 18, 2001, the Liberal member for Outremont and minister
responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for
the Regions of Quebec announced a total of $1.1 million in
Government of Canada funding to Quebec's mining industry,
specifically to Corem and to the Quebec Mining Association.
The initiative provides Corem with considerable hope for the
future and dovetails perfectly with the objectives of the
Government of Canada: the creation of quality jobs and of an
economy focussed on state of the art technology and export markets.
As for the mining association, it will use the funding in 2001
and 2002 for a travelling exhibit on the mining industry called
“From Ore to Metal”.
Through this contribution we wish to help the industry set up a
project to raise public awareness of the importance and
diversity of minerals in our lives and of the economic spinoffs
of mining activities that respect the ecology and environmental
standards.
* * *
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at this weekend's summit of
the Americas, antagonists of disorder were frequently heard
saying that all they want is democracy. This is an odd refrain
to hear uttered from the oddities that did so.
It is odd indeed for union bosses to say that all they want is
democracy and openness when most of them do not allow secret
balloting within their own organizations and they conduct their
negotiations behind closed doors.
It is also odd for members of the fourth party in the House to
claim that all it wants is more democracy. If that is so, then
why has it been so consistently advocating on behalf of the least
democratic nation in this hemisphere, which is floating off the
coast of Florida?
1405
It is also odd for people to claim to be advocating for
democracy when they march shoulder to shoulder with thugs
sporting scarves emblazoned with the hammer and sickle insignia
of one of the most murderous and totalitarian regimes in the
history of civilization.
Democracy is among the greatest of man's implemented inventions.
Its spokesmen should be only those who adhere to its tenets, not
poseurs and pretenders.
* * *
FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, firefighters risk their safety in service
to all Canadians. In 1998 the average age of firefighters who
died from injuries received in the line of duty was 43 years.
The establishment of a federally funded public safety officer
compensation fund would allow Canada to acknowledge the sacrifice
made by firefighters who are killed or permanently injured in the
line of duty, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they
worked.
I encourage all members of the House to consider this proposal
in the name of fairness for Canada's firefighters.
* * *
[Translation]
SYNCHRO CANADA
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois wishes to draw attention to the courage of Raymond
Côté, the president of Sports Quebec, whose resignation from the
appeal committee looking into the conflict between Synchro Canada
and Synchro Quebec has focussed attention on the lack of openness
at Synchro Canada.
Synchro Canada has long refused to hand over certain documents
relating to the dispute, despite repeated requests from the
committee investigating the situation.
With his resignation, Mr. Côté is pointing a finger at Synchro
Canada's lack of flexibility and its categorical refusal to take
into account the input of Quebec athletes in the process of
selecting the new training centre. We hope his action will
result in concrete steps being taken to put an end to
discrimination toward Quebec athletes.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes this decision will make other Canadian
sports organizations that continue to systematically ignore the
input of Quebec athletes rethink their position. This attitude
compromises the future of many Quebec athletes, who have not only
to master their discipline but also to cope with the
closed-mindedness of the federal agencies.
* * *
POETRY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1999 the League of Canadian Poets officially decreed
April to be National Poetry Month. I would therefore like to
take this opportunity to invite the House to celebrate poetry and
the role it plays in Canadian culture.
I have the honour to sponsor Bill S-10, which would
create the position of parliamentary poet laureate.
This tradition dates back to medieval times. England appointed
its first official poet in 1668. This rich tradition moved the
United States to follow suit and create the position of official
poet in 1936.
To enable Canada to share in this tradition, I encourage my
colleagues to support Bill S-10, so it may be examined in
committee and ultimately passed by this House.
* * *
[English]
HEROISM
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I pay tribute to three outstanding young men.
On a Friday night a few weeks ago, Mandeep Jaswal, 17, Gurpreet
Awla, 18, and Ryan Parmar, 16, were walking in downtown Vancouver
when a young man fell to the sidewalk in front of them.
Recognizing that 16 year old Jason Knights was in serious
trouble, and rather than just ignoring him, they sprang into
action. Jason had been stabbed in the chest.
While Mandeep called 911, Ryan and Gurpreet applied pressure to
the wound and administered mouth to mouth resuscitation. An
ambulance rushed Jason to hospital. He is expected to make a
full recovery.
The three heroes could have ignored Jason and left him to die in
the street. One of their teachers suggested it would be nice if
the trio got some press because, in her words “the few rotters
get tons of media”. I could not agree more.
I invite all members to join me in commending these three young
men, Mandeep Jaswal, Gurpreet Awla and Ryan Parmar, not only for
their quick action and presence of mind but above all for their
compassion toward a fellow human being in his time of need.
* * *
FIREFIGHTERS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each year members of the House are visited in Ottawa by
representatives of the International Association of Fire
Fighters. These men and women come to this place to make their
concerns known to us. The 10th annual legislative conference is
being held this month.
Across Canada our professional firefighters and emergency
medical personnel are prepared to put their lives on the line 365
days a year to ensure the safety of our families and our loved
ones, but they do so much more. They are also vibrant, caring
and active members of our communities, serving in a wide variety
of roles such as hockey, ringette, and ball coaches, Big Brothers
and Big Sisters and Rotarians, and in fundraisers for local and
national charities.
I am honoured and privileged to call so many of these very
special people my friends. I ask all members of the House to
join me in expressing very public thanks to each and every one of
them.
* * *
1410
CRTC
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is
more to freedom of the press than the freedom to own all the
presses and control all the news, and yet it is reported that
every morning there is a conference call between newsrooms at
Southam and at Global TV to set the day's agenda for Canadians.
Given these circumstances, I call upon the CRTC to set out
strict conditions of licensing on both CTV and Global: to
establish only one year renewals; to establish rules preventing
the exchange of stories, sources and information between
television and print media outlets owned by the same company; to
compel the television stations to increase their Canadian
programming in prime time; and, most important, to attach
significant financial penalties to companies that break the
conditions of licensing.
Voluntary commitments will not work. The CRTC has an important
decision to make. That decision will either help expand or
strangle the oxygen of our democracy, the free flow of ideas for
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on April 24, the international community commemorates the
Armenian genocide of 1915, which resulted in the death of over
one million persons.
On March 24, 1998, Robert Kotcharian, the prime minister of the
Republic of Armenia at the time, called for international
recognition of the genocide, which was not “the
tragedy of the Armenian people only”, but a tragedy for “all of
humanity and is a heavy burden for the Armenian people because it
has gone unpunished and, worse yet, has not been condemned as it
ought”.
In North America, the Ontario legislature, the Quebec national
assembly and the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts
and New York have recognized the Armenian genocide.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that Canada, in keeping with its values
of justice and compassion, will have the courage to adopt the
following motion, which I moved in March:
“That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and
condemn this act as a crime against humanity”.
* * *
[English]
TOURISM
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for many years now Canada has been experiencing a growth in its
economy and an increase in the number of working Canadians.
Much of this success is a direct result of the significant work
of the Canadian tourism industry and its many small businesses.
Currently 99.6% of tourism businesses meet the Statistics Canada
definition of small or medium size enterprises, based on numbers
of businesses. Of these, 97% are small companies.
Over the last decade Canada's tourism sector has outperformed
the general economy, both in revenue generated and employment
growth. This is a very impressive record.
Today I congratulate the tourism industry for its contribution
to the Canadian economy and commend the tourism representatives
present in Ottawa today for their strong commitment to the
viability and sustainability of this dynamic industry sector.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, potato
farmers in Prince Edward Island have been waiting since last
October for the government to stand up for them.
Neither the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade
nor the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have been able to
get the United States to lift its illegal ban on the export of
Island potatoes.
Last weekend the agriculture minister had a perfect opportunity
to press the case of P.E.I. potato farmers with U.S. agriculture
secretary Ann Veneman, yet he did not know until Friday evening
at 8 o'clock that the secretary was going to the summit.
Now the agriculture minister is stating that it is just a matter
of time before the border will open. That is not good enough.
Island farmers have to make decisions this week if they are to
plant a crop. They need to know if they will have a market for
their potatoes this fall.
When will the government stand up for the farmers in P.E.I. and
give this issue the priority it deserves?
* * *
LANDMINES
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 10 a commitment was made by Greece and Turkey that warrants
much celebration. On that day both countries committed to
ratifying the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel landmines.
These bold decisions are huge steps toward lessening the
suffering of thousands of civilians and soldiers confronted by
the reality of war. These commitments by Turkey and Greece
confirm that the anti-mine crusade is an effective way to improve
world security and stability.
Greece and Turkey will be tabling the ratification instruments
with the general secretariat of the United Nations at the same
time.
1415
All Canadians can applaud these commitments and feel confident
that the movement that was started here in Canada will one day
assure improved opportunities for human security and peace
throughout the world.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
is a home to the Pacific fleet. Let us talk about what is
happening to this particular group of military people who fight
to defend our best interests.
The government gave them modest raises, which was a good thing,
but what has also happened is that it has yanked that money back
in terms of raises for the private married quarters under the
guise of increasing the rates to say that those homes are the
same as what we would find in the public. That is not the case.
Those are 50 year old homes that are falling apart and without
insulation. I have been in them. I would ask the minister to go
in there and look for himself.
Our soldiers are coming back ill and are not receiving the
health care they require. Our military hospitals are falling
into disrepair. The schools for the children of our military are
falling into disrepair and are rotting despite the best efforts
of the families.
This is not a way to treat the men and women who give their
lives in defence of our country. I would ask that the minister
look at this. They are coming back ill, the suicide rates are up
and the families are broken down. The minister should deal with
this now.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not care how many times they ask me, I will not
lead the Liberal Party.
The Prime Minister has used the summit of the Americas and the
recent signing of the free trade deal with Costa Rica to sell
Canadians on the idea of future prosperity and jobs but that will
not happen until 2006 at the earliest.
Today we are hearing news of massive potential layoffs at JDS
Uniphase. They are talking about 2,500 jobs on the line.
Will the Prime Minister tell us if his government is doing
anything now, not five years from now, to secure more jobs and
opportunities for all Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we realize that there are a lot of layoffs in the
Alliance Party these days.
Canada's economy is in good shape. Some problems do exist not
only in Canada and the United States but around the world.
Everyone talks about a soft landing but here in Canada we have
seen growth in the months of January and February. The situation
is as good as any other nation.
However, we should not be too complacent about it. The budget
that was introduced in October was a good one. It cut taxes to
stimulate the Canadian economy.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the people who are being laid off really do not think it
is a joking matter. They are pretty concerned about it.
Canadians are also increasingly concerned about our low and
sinking dollar. The 2001 Economic Freedom of the World Report
found that Canada has fallen from seventh to thirteenth in terms
of competitiveness. It is pretty clear that we need some action
right away.
The Prime Minister talked a minute ago about tax cuts at some
point in the past. I argue that we need tax cuts again.
Why will the Prime Minister not talk today about bringing down a
new round of tax cuts and cutting job killing red tape to put
Canadians back to work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the tax cuts that were introduced by the Minister of
Finance in October, which came into play in January, are bigger
than the tax cuts that will be implemented over 10 years in the
United States.
I would like to quote from an April 23 IMF report. It states:
The recently enacted tax reductions, the cut in short-term
interest rates, and high levels of employment are expected to
help sustain momentum in economic activity in Canada....
The strong policy framework in place has positioned the real and
financial economy to cope with any new major economic shock. The
Canadian authorities are to be highly commended for their policy
accomplishments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was only a couple of weeks ago when the finance
minister was arguing that the slowdown was due to weakness in the
American economy. Now he is taking credit for any strength in
the Canadian economy because of their policies. This is
completely contradictory.
In recent days there has been a contradiction between what the
trade minister is saying and the Prime Minister is saying on
chapter 11 in NAFTA and the FTAA. The minister appears ready to
throw it overboard. The Prime Minister says that it is okay.
My question is simple: Who really speaks for the government on
the issue of chapter 11 in the FTAA?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we speak with one voice. Article 11 is part of the
NAFTA agreement and has been in operation for seven years.
Time will come for negotiation in the next four years with the
other nations that are interested in joining us in the FTAA. At
that time everything will be discussed. So far chapter 11 is
there. We have $1.3 billion U.S. of trade every day in with the
Americans. We have been faced with a few challenges on chapter
11. In fact, one has been won by the Canadian government.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, despite all the rhetoric about democracy in the
aftermath of the Quebec summit, the reality for Canadians is that
the process in place for ratifying trade agreements is far from
democratic.
The Prime Minister's commitment to democracy stops at allowing
parliamentarians a vote on the final version of the FTAA
agreement.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to true democracy by
allowing the FTAA final agreement to be ratified by a free vote
in parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I am not absolutely sure that I will be here in 2005,
I cannot commit the government to that.
I want the opposition to know that the democratic clause that
was introduced over the weekend and accepted by everybody was a
big victory for Canadian diplomacy. We should all be proud of
that.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister. I hope he is not there
and we will be on the other side. We will be on the other side
and they will go.
The question of transparency remains and a commitment by the
government to say that the free trade agreement should be debated
and signed by parliamentarians. Denying parliamentarians a vote
means denying Canadians their voice.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to preach democracy in the
hemisphere but deny it to the citizens of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member of parliament has more or less made a
compliment to me in his introduction. I want to repeat to him
that what we did over the weekend was extremely important. We
are all very confident that in the years to come it will be
virtually impossible that democracy will be replaced in the
Americas by any military takeover.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
following statement is found on the Internet site of the
Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
“Canada is not advocating the replication of NAFTA
investor-state rules in the FTAA”.
This weekend, at the summit of the Americas, Canada's position
changed drastically with the Prime Minister stating that this
chapter is working well.
How can the Prime Minister explain this about-face by his
government regarding chapter 11, in the context of a possible
agreement on a free trade area of the three Americas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
chapter 11 is currently in effect. It has been for seven years.
We are living with it now.
Of course, it is being reviewed on an ongoing basis to see if it
could be improved on. Clearly, there will be discussions on this
chapter in the years to come, since the other countries that
want to join Canada and Mexico will see the impact of this
chapter on their economy.
Considering the level of trade that we have had, chapter 11 has
been used only a few times and so far the outcome has
been quite positive for Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is confusing, to say the least. The Minister for International
Trade told us that he was in disagreement with chapter 11.
Then, the Prime Minister told us that this chapter was working
well, that he was in agreement with it. Now, the Minister for
International Trade has changed his tune and claims to be in
agreement with the Prime Minister, while adding that the
government has not yet taken a position. Meanwhile, his
department's Internet site states that chapter 11 must not be
replicated in the FTAA.
Could we know what is the government's position, assuming it has
one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just explained it clearly, I think. Chapter 11 is currently in
effect.
1425
It is obvious that this chapter will be discussed in the
negotiations that will take place in the years to come. At that
point, we may try, if we deem it necessary, to improve it.
To do so, we will need the consent of the other 33
countries.
It will take three or four years to settle this issue. If
opposition parties, and even members of my own party, want to
make suggestions, we will certainly take them into
consideration, review them and attempt to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the lawsuits
now under way and those that might yet be brought under chapter
11 of the NAFTA agreement could exceed $2 billion. Clearly, this
is no small affair.
How can the Prime Minister and his government be so
irresponsible as not to have a clear position on something as
basic, both for NAFTA and for the FTAA, as chapter 11, when what
is at stake is the very ability of governments to legislate for
the common good?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the opposition still wants to
keep trying to scare people about the great strides we are making
with respect to NAFTA and international trade.
I am surprised that the Bloc Quebecois is starting to turn
against free trade, when its head office in Quebec City is still
in favour of it.
Basically, our government is systematically doing what it is
supposed to do. NAFTA provides for mechanisms. These mechanisms
allow us to constantly review the work we are doing on this, and
we are doing absolutely—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we agree
with free trade but, as the Minister for International Trade
said, there is a problem with chapter 11. He admitted it
himself. The Prime Minister says the opposite.
What is the government's position? In the face of such an
important threat, should the Prime Minister not clarify his
position and tell us whether chapter 11 poses a problem for
Canadians and Quebecers in the context of NAFTA today?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government believes strongly that
chapter 11 is working reasonably well.
Again last week, we won the Pope & Talbot case, and we did so
without a hitch. NAFTA provides mechanisms which allow us to
have an ongoing dialogue with our partners and to continue to
improve the superb agreement which has created two million jobs
in the Canadian economy over the last seven years under the
leadership of the present government.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday and again this afternoon, the trade minister confirmed
the government's flip flop on its commitment not to sign on to
any more trade deals that put corporate rights ahead of citizens'
rights. The Prime Minister confirmed the same a few minutes ago.
The promise was to get rid of chapter 11 in NAFTA and not sign
on to any other trade deals that repeat the same mistake.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has the government
changed its position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not changed our position. We have signed an
agreement on chapter 11. We have explained that when there is
$1.3 billion of trade on a daily basis in American dollars with
the United States, the number of cases under chapter 11 is not
extravagant. In most cases the government has won.
We will always look at it and improve it if it is in the
interest of all partners to do so, but chapter 11 has been there
for the past seven years. At this moment there is no likelihood
that it will be changed within the next few months.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no
amount of self-congratulations or blah, blah, blah by the Prime
Minister will change the fact that the government has flip-flopped
on a very specific commitment it made to get rid of
chapter 11 in NAFTA and not repeat the mistake. Yesterday the
Prime Minister repeated exactly that mistake further entrenching
the chapter 11 NAFTA provision in the latest deal signed with
Costa Rica.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why his government
has flip flopped and reversed its—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not flip-flopped. We have signed the NAFTA and
it has been in operation for seven years. As the minister said
earlier, it has been very good for Canada. It has helped Canada
to create more than 2.1 million jobs since 1994. It is certainly
not a bad deal.
What did all the other leaders want to do over the weekend? They
just wanted to join us in what we are doing with the Americans
and the Mexicans, because they all understand that if there is
more trade between the nations there will be more wealth and
there will be a better chance to redistribute the wealth.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, Lancaster Aviation received the sole source contract to
sell eight DND surplus Challenger jets. These airplanes are well
maintained and advertised as being in superior shape by the
government but were sold for more than $25 million below market
value.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House why
Lancaster Aviation received the sole source contract, what it was
paid to sell these jets and why the Canadian public, the
taxpayer, should be expected to absorb this enormous loss?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, they were sold at fair market value for what they
were worth. We entered into a contract that came out of a
competition. It was not sole source; it came out of a
competition. In fact it was all reasonably handled.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is wrong on both counts. The aim of the
disposal project was to obtain a maximum return from the sale of
these surplus aerospace assets. This obviously did not happen.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that both the Department of
Public Works, audit section, and the RCMP are investigating
Lancaster Aviation?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these were sold for somewhere over $5 million each.
In fact it was fair market value. There was a competition.
There were five other companies that competed because they
wanted to be a part of selling these. This was all done within
the rules in a reasonable way and it gained fair market value for
the used aircraft.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have reviewed a document that the BDC claims is a
forgery regarding the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. However,
if the document footnote is not a forgery, it appears that
$23,000 of the BDC loan went directly to J∾, the Prime
Minister's own company.
Did the Prime Minister's company receive any part of the loan
from the BDC?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the rate at which false accusations are being made
and being refuted, there is soon to be nobody left on the front
bench to ask questions about at all.
This document is a forged document. It has been turned over to
the RCMP. The RCMP is doing its job. Members would be wise to
respect the process and allow the police to complete its
investigations.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member and the BDC claim that this footnote is a
forgery. No other specific part of the document has been
questioned. This state of affairs clearly calls for an
independent inquiry.
Rather than threatening to sue Canadians who are concerned about
this issue, will the Prime Minister finally agree to open his
company books to an independent judicial inquiry?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite, in the light of what is
happening today with respect to parliamentary presence in the
House of Commons, has any idea just how surreal that question
sounds to most common sense Canadians.
The fact of the matter is that the RCMP, which is independent,
is dealing with this matter. When the RCMP is finished its
investigation, it will report on this matter. Most Canadians
accept the professionalism and the independence of the RCMP, and
so should the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said in this House that there was
no connection between the Grand-Mère golf course and the Auberge
Grand-Mère, and that they were instead competitors.
He even wrote this to the leader of the Conservatives. However once
again new documents have come along to undermine the Prime
Minister's credibility.
1435
How can the Prime Minister make such statements when a ten year
lease dated 1988 indicates a financial connection between the
golf course and the Auberge Grand-Mère?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the information just conveyed to the House by the member
is false. The member knows it is false.
The real source of investigation here is into who forged this
material. That is being handled by the RCMP. I think we should
all have confidence in the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the Minister for Industry is referring to the
wrong thing. We are not talking of the National Post documents
but of a lease.
In the Shawinigan property registry there is nothing to
indicate that the ten year lease has been cancelled. This means,
therefore, that there was a financial connection between the
auberge and the golf course when the Prime Minister approached
the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Is the Prime Minister going to at last acknowledge that he was
in a flagrant conflict of interest situation when he intervened
with the bank?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has reviewed the matter and come
to the conclusion there is no conflict. The RCMP, on the request
of two party leaders, has reviewed this question and has closed
the file.
The blunt reality is that there is no issue of conflict of
interest here on the part of the Prime Minister. The blunt
reality is that Canadians would like parliament to go back to
work on issues of real concern to the people of the country.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice. The government said concerning the Divorce
Act and children:
“The Government of Canada accepts the committee's
recommendations that the terms “custody” and “access” should
be replaced. Moreover, the term “shared parenting” has the
advantage of placing an emphasis on parental responsibilities
rather than on various sets of rights.
Five hundred and twenty witnesses later, 55 hearings and
$500,000 later the minister is consulting again because she did
not like the evidence. Will the minister table a bill that
reflects all party recommendations in the “For the Sake of the
Children” report?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, our
family law system is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces
and the federal government.
In fact, what we are doing right now is working with the
provinces. We are holding joint federal and provincial
consultations with Canadians all over the country. We are
consulting on specific recommendations for reform.
I find it shocking that the party which talks about grassroots
participation would not want the federal and provincial
governments working together to consult with Canadians on these
important matters.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, things are always complex
for the minister when she cannot or she will not. The
parliamentary evidence has sat on her desk now for two and a half
years. Children are suffering greatly while the minister avoids.
Parents and relatives are bruised by a family law system that
should not further hurt when families turn for help.
When will the minister gather the courage, lead the provinces
and give children and families shared parenting, legal protection
in family law, the help they so clearly need?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, I
said I would report back to the House not only on the
recommendations in the report “For the Sake of the Children”,
but also on our child support guidelines no later than May 2002.
I come back to the fact that family law is a shared
jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that the Alliance Party
would suggest that we in the federal government should do
anything in an area of shared jurisdiction without consulting the
provinces.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister categorically
denied that Yvon Duhaime owed the Prime Minister's business
money.
Yvon Duhaime's version reported in the National Post is rather
ambiguous on the subject. The Prime Minister's answers in this
matter are contradicted with each new document that becomes
available.
Does the Prime Minister not consider that the burden of proof is
on him when he denies the existence of Yvon Duhaime's debt with
him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that there was
no debt and that the reference in the document was passed on to
the police because it was a fraud.
1440
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, nevertheless, 56% of people in Quebec believe the Prime
Minister is in conflict of interest in the Auberge Grand-Mère
affair and the documents that could reveal everything can be
released only in a public inquiry.
Is this not additional evidence that things have reached such a
point that only a public inquiry will shed light on this nebulous
business of the Auberge Grand-Mère?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister divested of his shares in the golf
course in November 1993. The matter has been looked at by every
independent authority that could look at this question.
The simple fact of the matter is this issue is not one that
concerns the people of Quebec or the people of Canada. They are
more concerned about the economy and the future of the country,
and I have great confidence in the leadership the Prime Minister
is giving us in that regard.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the justice minister has just become the champion of consultation
with the provinces. It is interesting she did not consult very
much on gun control with the provinces.
On the issue of joint parenting, this is the opportunity for the
minister to stand and say what is her personal position on joint
parenting.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the
government responded to the report “For the Sake of the
Children”.
We indicated that we accept the fact that custody and access are
difficult issues for many families who are in the process of
separation and divorce. There are not easy solutions to these
questions.
The hon. member should understand that the Divorce Act does not
even apply upon separation. That is provincial family law. That
is why we have to work with the provinces to make sure we
continue to have a seamless family law system.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, commentators will note that the minister did not tell us
what is her personal position. Interestingly, before coming to
parliament the justice minister wrote:
An increasing number of commentators now suggest that joint
custody may simply perpetuate the influence and domination of men
over women.
Is that the reason the minister will not state her personal
position on joint custody?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, these are
complex and difficult issues. What I find very strange is that
the Alliance Party does not want federal and provincial
governments to consult with Canadians on what they want to see in
any changes to our family law system. I will not act without
hearing from those Canadians.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the
concerns about international treaties and their possible affects
on the environment, could the Minister of the Environment tell
the House of Commons what is Canada's progress with regard to the
Cartagena protocol on biosafety?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that on last
Thursday in New York I signed the Cartagena protocol on biosafety
on Canada's behalf.
As members know, this protocol was concluded in Montreal last
year. Then Canada played a key role in bridging the differences
between the various groups. This protocol is a clear reflection
of the government's commitment to reconcile economic policies and
trade policies with strong protection of the environment and its
concerns.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
after making a commitment on the weekend to give the Americans
unconditional access to as much oil and gas as they want, the
Prime Minister is now saying that Canada will meet its needs
first before meeting U.S. energy demands.
Is the Prime Minister unaware that the trade agreements he has
already negotiated would prohibit us from ensuring that Canadian
energy needs are met first? Why do we get this doublespeak from
the Prime Minister?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously belongs to a party that
believes it is impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
The opportunities for Canadians in dealing with the energy
supply situation in North America are wonderful. While we pursue
those opportunities we will make sure that Canadian needs and
priorities are met, that our concerns about jurisdictional
prerogatives are satisfied, and that sustainable development will
be the principle upon which our resources are developed for the
advantage of Canadians.
* * *
1445
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians spoke loud and clear in Quebec City in opposition to
the FTAA and the corporate power it represents. However it is
not just the FTAA that people are worried about. It is also
GATS.
The B.C. government has done a critical analysis of GATS showing
the very real threat to our public services like health,
education, water treatment and electricity. Where is the federal
trade minister on this issue? There is no public disclosure and
no protection.
Why is the minister not upholding the public interest instead of
the interest of his corporate buddies?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this issue very
seriously time and again in the House. We also discussed it at
the parliamentary committee.
I have been as clear as I can possibly be that the government
will not negotiate our health system or our public education
system. We stand for our culture and will continue to promote
cultural diversity and the right of government to actually help
cultural development.
I hope the NDP can get the message—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
less than a week Prince Edward Island potato farmers have to
decide whether or not to put in a crop. Last weekend the
minister of agriculture had an opportunity to discuss this with
Secretary Veneman but it was a glorious opportunity lost.
He says he is working on the file. Will he stand today and
assure P.E.I. producers that this year's crop will be allowed to
be sold in the United States?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I discussed it
with Secretary Veneman. As I said yesterday, officials were in
Washington yesterday and are engaged in very serious discussions
today, which I hope will solve the problem and make a very clear
indication to producers in Prince Edward Island.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is not only selling out P.E.I. potato farmers. It is
also selling out Canadian dairy farmers. The government freely
allows the United States to circumvent Canada's tariff rate
quotas by issuing supplemental dairy import permits, losses that
equate to 70 Canadian dairy farms.
Why were supplemental permits issued to allow U.S. producers to
export cheese sticks into Canada at the expense of Canada's
producers? Will the Minister for International Trade take
immediate action and restore the integrity of the tariff rate
quota regime?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this important
question which is of much interest to many of our producers. When
we give supplementary quotas, it is very often because there are
consumers in Canada who ask for a specific product that they
need. I will review the situation and review the way we allocate
them.
The reclassification the United States has done is for cheese
sticks. We have been reviewing the situation. We have raised it
in the Canada-United States consultative group on agriculture.
We are pursuing the issue with them because we agree that we
should restore trade.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a leading environmental group has called the harbour
in St. John's, Newfoundland, the most polluted in Canada and a
national disgrace.
At the recent meeting of the big city mayors in Ottawa, the
environment minister told the mayor of St. John's that there was
no funding available for harbour clean up. Then in a surprise
reversal on April 11 he announced millions of dollars in
additional funding to clean up, not the harbour in St. John's but
the harbour in his riding.
How could the minister explain the availability of funding for
his own riding but not for the most polluted harbour in Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is
completely false. I did not tell the mayor of St. John's there
was no funding. I in fact told him what funding there was and
how to access it.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Not true, Mr. Speaker. Today the mayor of St. John's—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Portage—Lisgar has the floor for a supplementary question. We
all want to hear it.
1450
Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, today at a press
conference the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland, released a
letter to the industry minister declaring the mistruth of what
the member opposite just said and asking for the support of the
industry minister, something that has not been forthcoming.
The issue of dealing fairly with taxpayer money has to be
addressed by members opposite. The issue of patronage and the
excessive use of patronage in defiance of the fairness Canadians
want has to be addressed by members opposite.
The industry minister went to St. John's, Newfoundland, during
the election and claimed that they would get help if they voted
Liberal. They did not. They elected PC—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we see many things in the House but to see the hon.
member launch his leadership campaign before the seat is even
cold and to launch it on the basis of sewage are two
extraordinary—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
* * *
[Translation]
KYOTO PROTOCOL
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we recently learned that in early April the U.S. secretary of
state sent a memo to U.S. embassies indicating that the United
States would oppose the Kyoto protocol, regardless of the
circumstances.
Moreover, the Minister of the Environment stated last week that
it will be impossible for Canada to ignore American positions.
Is the minister's decision to align Canada's position with that
of the Americans not an illustration of the federal government's
refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my day for getting misinformed
members.
What I said was that if the United States is responsible for
one-quarter of the world's economy and one-quarter of the
emission of greenhouse gases, one cannot ignore the United States
when attempting to put together international agreements to
reduce greenhouse gases and the effect of global warming.
If he believes one can ignore the world's largest economy in
such an exercise, I differ with him.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on April 12, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously
passed a resolution asking the federal government to ratify the
Kyoto protocol.
Does the federal government realize that it is alienating all
the other countries by copying the Americans' position? Under
what conditions would the minister be prepared to sign the Kyoto
protocol?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one thing a federal government must do when
considering the ratification of treaties is to make sure that it
knows what it is signing and what the effects will be,
particularly when part of the responsibility for the environment
and natural resources is in large part in provincial hands.
Is that party and that member suggesting we go ahead and ratify
agreements when we do not know how the agreement will be put into
effect, even if it adversely affects the interests of provinces?
If he is, then perhaps he should leave the party he happens to be
sitting with.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has announced
another reform of the public service over the next 18 months.
However we had La Relève which was announced with great fanfare
but fizzled out and died. We had a program review that cost us
$2.5 billion and laid off 50,000 people. Now we are hiring them
all back again.
What makes the president think that she can fix the public
service problems now in 18 months, when in the last 10 years
billions of dollars were wasted, went down the drain and produced
nothing?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be very surprised to learn that the chair of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts did not agree with the conclusions
of the auditor general, who is asking us to undertake a reform of
the entire human resources management system.
That is precisely what we are going to do. We are going to have
an action plan, which we will implement over the next 18 months,
for the future of the public service, which is so essential in
ensuring good services to all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is not that we disagree with the auditor general. We
just question the capacity of the minister to do what she intends
to do. The computer systems group recently voted to go on strike
and conciliation failed. She is hardly on talking terms with the
other unions. She gives the executives 9% raises plus bonuses,
but only 2% to the rank and file workers.
I question her capacity to do this in 18 months. This divide
and conquer policy will not work. Will beating employees over
the heads with these types of policies get the job done?
1455
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a firm commitment, one which was included in the Speech
from the Throne, by our government, a firm commitment by our
Prime Minister to have a public service which is able to meet the
challenges of the 21st century in order to continue to ensure
top-notch services to Canadians.
So the government's intentions are there. We have a task force
in place and in the coming months people will already start
seeing changes to the system, which will help us to improve it.
* * *
[English]
SPORTS
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport.
In light of the upcoming national summit on sport being held in
Ottawa this weekend, what provisions are being made to ensure
that those most impacted, our young developing athletes, will be
the benefactors of the new national policy on sport?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is surely a non-partisan issue. I see
everybody is applauding our athletes and amateur sport.
I would like to pay tribute to the sports community, to the
Canadian people and to the government which considers sport as an
investment, not as an expense.
This weekend the Prime Minister will chair an important summit
where we will put together an action plan.
[Translation]
This action plan will enable us to ensure that there is
leadership, partnership and accountability in sports. Canada
will have a sports system.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I came to this place to try to make it better for my children and
my grandchildren.
It breaks my heart to think of two little girls, five and six
years old, in my constituency who are being forced to see their
father this Sunday in Bowden prison. This convicted sex offender
raped their 15 year old stepsister, who was just one of his
victims.
Does the Minister of Justice support these children being forced
by the justice system to see this man?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the
hon. member has written to me about this matter. It is obviously
a very difficult and troubling situation. Unfortunately the
federal government has no jurisdiction in this matter, at least I
do not as Minister of Justice.
I would suggest the hon. member would be better placed to
contact my provincial colleague, the minister of justice in the
province of Alberta, and bring this to his attention, if that is
where these events took place.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this is the sort of passing the buck that we hear. He
is in a federal prison. He was put there by a federal justice.
It is a federal matter.
At the Bowden institution on Sunday, John Schneeberger's former
wife, against her deepest feeling as a mother, must bring her
young daughters to see this sex offender father, in a prison
filled with pedophiles.
I asked the minister by letter. I called her office and I have
not received any response. If the minister has any compassion, I
ask her on behalf of these two little girls to stop this from
happening on Sunday.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this was
an order of the court. I am somewhat disturbed that the hon.
member would suggest that I, as Minister of Justice, would
interfere with an order of the court, thereby undermining the
independence of the judiciary. Of course, as we have seen, that
is a party which has a record of doing that.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec City
business owners incurred considerable losses in connection with
the summit of the Americas, both within and outside the security
perimeter, and it is our opinion that the federal government must
compensate both groups for those losses.
Does the Prime Minister intend to compensate for losses
sustained outside the perimeter, as well as for loss of earnings
by people unable to work during the summit?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
signed a protocol with the government of Quebec on the
compensation of potential victims of summit related damages.
There will be a follow-up on this agreement signed with the
government of Quebec and a follow-up with the government of Quebec
and with Quebec City.
* * *
1500
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
this is National Volunteer Week, could the government tell us
what it is doing in support of the voluntary sector?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada considers the voluntary and community sector
vital to the social and economic development of our society.
This is why the government intends to sign a formal agreement
with the voluntary sector this year, in order to share a common
vision and establish a new relationship.
I think this week provides an opportunity for MPs to recognize
the work done by the thousands of volunteers in this country who
help improve the quality of life of our citizens and to encourage
even more people to get involved in the voluntary sector.
* * *
[English]
FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it has been shown statistically that Canadian firemen, who put
their lives on the line to protect our property from fires, and
because of various chemicals and things, their lifetimes are
shortened.
These members of various fire departments in Canada would like
to pay an additional premium in order to get a full pension when
they retire because of their shortened expected lifespan. Would
the Minister of Finance consider this and actually bring in an
amendment so that this could happen?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have met and look forward after question period to
again meeting with firefighters.
I would also like to inform the hon. member that the possibility
does already exist. I am quite prepared, in letters to various
pension funds and otherwise, to make it very clear that the right
they are seeking exists already.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Order, please. I wish to inform the hon.
members of the presence in the public gallery of a group of very
special individuals.
[English]
Today in the public gallery we have several members of the
Olympian, Paralympian and Special Olympian teams. They are
athletes, coaches and guides who participated in the Sydney Games
and the world championships held last fall.
[Translation]
Today, I would like to honour and applaud their efforts. We are
very proud of you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the
attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a
delegation from the National Council of the Slovak Republic led
by the president of the council, His Excellency Jozef Migas.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on the motion moved by my colleague in
the House of Commons—
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order.
I would not want you to interpret my point of order as a desire
to challenge your authority, but it is aimed at allowing our
colleague of Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to make a speech in minimum
conditions.
Could you maintain order in the House or suspend the sitting for
a few minutes, because it is impossible for us, even in the
front row, to hear what my colleague of Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is
saying?
The Speaker: I was able to hear what the hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie was saying. That is why I did not interrupt
the conversations in the House. However, I hope that all the
hon. members who have something to say, and who are not taking
part in the debate, will continue their conversations outside
the House as of now.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
for his intervention, because even I was having trouble hearing
what I was saying. So many people on both sides of the House
were talking that I could hardly express the views and the
principles I wanted to bring forward.
It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the motion put
forward by my hon. colleague from Joliette, on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois, the government to “put in place an
open and ongoing process to keep parliament informed of
negotiations to establish a free trade area of the Americas so
as to allow parliamentarians to debate it and civil society to
be consulted before parliament approves it”.
Of course, I also support the amendment moved by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Why are we asking today for a more open negotiating process to
establish a free trade area of the Americas?
For many different reasons, because it is quite normal to hope
that our fellow citizens and non-governmental organizations will
be able to take part in the debate that will help us reach in
the future, somewhere around 2005 according to what was agreed
upon during the weekend, a free trade deal with a human touch,
which will reflect a number of the fundamental principles of our
modern societies as well as the consensus developed here, in
Canada.
1510
I will deal mainly with the importance of protecting the
environment in the context of globalization, free market and free
trade, and also of protecting the environment when it comes to
the creation of the free trade area of the Americas.
We should think back to the period when NAFTA was negotiated and
signed. At the time, it was described as one of the greener
international trade agreements.
Environmental clauses in NAFTA were the result of the
perseverance, involvement and determination of non-governmental
organizations to include a number of clauses to protect the
environment. We should recall that back in 1993 NAFTA did
include a number of environmental principles and clauses.
Clearly, at the face of the preamble of NAFTA, there is a bias
in favour of sustainable development, environmental protection
and compliance with environmental standards and regulations.
The NAFTA preamble was clearly pro-environment, and that in
itself is significant.
Had these principles been stated in an environmental agreement,
it would have been understandable, but they were stated in a
trade agreement. It was a step in the right direction.
NAFTA contained a number of provisions including one that said
environmental standards had to be higher than those recommended
by international environmental organizations. This makes it
possible for a signatory state that wants to raise its
environmental standards above and beyond what had been agreed to
internationally to do so. That was very clearly stated in the
agreement.
Another aspect was the fact that under NAFTA there would be no
lowering of environmental standards to attract investors and
investments.
Why is that? There was a provision preventing a signatory
country from creating, through this free trade agreement, what
was called a polluter's paradise, from lowering its
environmental standards to attract investors. That was clearly
stated in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Of course, all that added to the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation, which created the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation, was the culmination of environmental
cooperation between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
NAFTA has obvious flaws. We talked about chapter 11, and we must
keep talking about it. The Prime Minister and the Minister for
International Trade were telling us today that there were very
few challenges under chapter 11 of NAFTA, that it is all in the
opposition's head.
From an environmental standpoint, it is totally false. Let us
consider what happened with Sun Belt Water Inc. This California
based company sued the government of British Columbia because it
would not allow it to export bulk water from Canada. The Prime
Minister and the Minister for International Trade were telling
us that there were no problems, but that was one.
1515
Another case in point concerns Ethyl Corporation, a company that
got $30 billion in compensation because the federal government
wanted to pass here, in this House, a bill banning the use of a
gasoline additive called MMT.
It was not an act that the company was challenging, but rather a
bill that was brought before us, the parliamentarians, but had
yet to be passed in the House when it was challenged in court.
The company received $30 billion in compensation.
We are told that the chapter 11 investor-state dispute mechanism
is not a problem. Quite the opposite, since the situation with
the Ethyl Corporation has clearly shown that our law making
authority, as parliamentarians, could be limited.
The minister was not clear on the issue. Are we shoving chapter
11 aside? Do we really want to protect the environment? The
government will have to answer those questions.
At the summit in Quebec City, we would have liked to see the
government make a firm commitment on three or four environmental
issues. We would have been pleased with that. First,
regarding the environment, that the federal government would not
accept anything less that what was agreed upon in NAFTA.
Could the Minister for International Trade take all the necessary
steps to assure the House that the Quebec and Canadian
environmental legislation will not be challenged in court by
large corporations, as was done under the North American Free
Trade Agreement?
First and foremost, the Bloc Quebecois wants to ensure that
there are provisions preventing large companies from challenging
the environmental legislation in court. How ironic that we, in
the opposition, are the ones who want to protect the Canadian
environmental legislation. The environment minister is letting
the international trade minister negotiate an agreement that does
not only deal with trade, but also with the environment and
public health.
We also would like to have the international agreements on the
environment, the Basel convention and the Montreal protocol on
the ozone layer be honoured in the free trade area of the
Americas and in the agreement likely to be signed in 2005. We
will not ask the Government of Canada to have the Kyoto protocol
honoured. I think that would be a bit much to ask of it, since
it did not even deign to ratify it.
So, this is what we expected from this government.
Of course, the government decided to exclude the Minister of the
Environment from discussions. I could talk about this for a long
time yet.
However, what we might have wished from the Minister of
the Environment, a few weeks away from the summit of the
Americas, was a reiteration before the 34 environment ministers
in Montreal of his intention to honour the Kyoto protocol. In
meeting with the 34 environment ministers, he refused to sign the
Montreal declaration on climate change. That says a mouthful
about where we are going in terms of negotiations in 2005 for the
free trade area.
We will be watching and will make sure, in the coming weeks and
months, that the North American Free Trade Agreement, and
especially the free trade area of the Americas, contain
provisions on the environment.
1520
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to the comments of my colleague opposite. Unfortunately, I am
not sure he listened very carefully to the Prime Minister.
The hon. member has mistakenly quoted the Prime Minister as
saying that there are no problems with chapter 11. The Prime
Minister did not say that. The Prime Minister said that the
chapter has worked relatively well but that in a trade
relationship with the U.S., which totals $1.3 billion daily,
there are bound to be irritants and rough spots. The Prime
Minister did not say there were no problems. He said that the
chapter was working relatively well given the size of the
relationship.
What the Minister for International Trade has said repeatedly,
and he has been crystal clear on this, is that we need to protect
investment. He said that was very important but that some
rulings by dispute panels had gone beyond the scope of the
original signers of the NAFTA. He said that we needed a chapter
like chapter 11 but that it needed clarification and tightening
up.
Does the hon. member believe in the necessity of protecting
investment? Does he not see that without some protection for
investment such a treaty will likely bring very few benefits to
any of the participating countries?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this government says that
“Chapter 11 works relatively well. There are only minor
problems”. Need I remind the parliamentary secretary that
chapter 11 deals with relations between businesses and the
government?
If the parliamentary secretary accepts that, under this chapter,
the legislation of his government can be legally challenged, it
says a lot about who will protect this trade agreement. The
comments made by the parliamentary secretary are totally
unacceptable and only seek to protect investors, at the expense
of people's health and of their environment.
If the parliamentary secretary thinks there is no problem with
the fact that the Canadian legislation can be legally challenged,
fine. Personally, I do not think he is in the right place. He
should go back to the private sector, because we are here to pass
laws that will not be legally challenged by major companies.
If the parliamentary secretary believes what he just said, let
him go back to the private sector, because the House of Commons
is not where he should be.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going
to make personal comments and give me gratuitous advice about
where I should go, he ought to do some research and know that I
do not come from a business background. The hon. member again
shows quite clearly that he is weak in his research.
The fact is, as I, the Prime Minister and the minister have
said, the chapter has worked relatively well in a trade agreement
with $1.3 billion daily trade. Yes, there are bound to be
problems and there have been problems but not that many. The
government has won several of the disputes that have been
launched.
Does the hon. member somehow think that companies, whether or
not there is a NAFTA chapter 11, cannot sue if they feel their
interests have been unfairly prejudiced? What world is he coming
from? We cannot stop individuals or corporations from launching
lawsuits. They do not even need chapter 11. They have that
right under the rule of law in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I
misunderstand my role and that of the other members in the House.
We obviously want to increase Canadian investments and
facilitate exports. We want a FTAA but not at any cost. Above all
our role is to protect the health of the people and our
environment.
1525
When the government and the House pass laws to protect our
environment and the parliamentary secretary says that there is
nothing wrong with legislation that his own government has
brought forward being legally challenged, what kind of world are
we in?
We are here to facilitate Canada's economic development, but
also the protect to health of our people. If the parliamentary
secretary is not ready to defend these principles, some day, when
he goes on the campaign trail, his constituents will certainly
remind him of that.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion
put forward by the opposition on the free trade agreement of the
Americas. I will be sharing my time with the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
At the summit of the Americas this past weekend my constituents
and other Canadians witnessed an historic gathering. Thirty-four
heads of state met in Quebec to discuss many issues of mutual
interest and to create the largest free trade zone in the
hemisphere. Thousands of Canadians, through demonstrations or by
other means, have made their opinions known regarding the FTAA
negotiations.
Weeks prior to the Quebec summit, I had the opportunity to hear
from the people of my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore on the
issues. I also heard the views of various witnesses who appeared
before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, of which I am a member.
As a result of the federal government's commitment to ongoing
dialogue and public debate on the issue, Canadians have a sense
of the FTAA and what it will mean for them. The government is
determined to make the FTAA negotiations as open and transparent
as possible.
The government knows Canadians have a wide range of views on the
issues. Many Canadians come from the regions with which we are
looking to participate. Some of them fear their views might not
find their way to the negotiating table.
However it is important to the government that its policy course
advance the interests of all Canadians and that it hear from
Canadians on issues of national interest. That is why the
government wants and facilitates an informed public debate. What
is happening today is part of that.
Canadians value transparency in government and the federal
government would not have it any other way. In developing trade
policies and agreements, the government makes every effort to
facilitate the participation and input of all Canadians. Through
the FTAA process, the federal government has shown its commitment
to public discussion on this important issue.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
International Trade have consulted provincial and territorial
governments, parliamentarians, civil society, environmental and
labour groups, business leaders, academics and other citizens on
the FTAA.
The federal government has taken a series of steps to facilitate
such public involvement, and I will highlight a few of those
steps.
The government contributed funding to the people's summit, where
Canadian ministers were joined by high level representatives from
20 countries and five international institutions and met with
more than 60 representatives of civil society networks, groups
and associations. Most of us who watched the people's summit on
television know it was successful.
As well, the government has repeatedly answered to
parliamentarians through debates on the floor of the House,
appearances by ministers before the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, briefings by officials and
co-operation with committees of both Houses of parliament
regarding the FTAA and the WTO.
1530
In May 1999 the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade established a trade negotiations and agreements website in
order to use the Internet as the quickest and most efficient way
to give Canadians the information they needed and the information
they wanted on trade.
Since December of last year the website has been a valuable
resource whereby thousands of Canadians can view Canada's
proposal in the FTAA negotiations. Over and over the minister
responded in the House that the website was up and running.
Canadians should know that our country was the first in the
hemisphere to publicly release Canada's FTAA negotiating
position. That happened about a year ago in response to the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Report on the FTAA.
In doing so, Canada has led the way in citizen engagement and is
encouraging FTAA partners to follow suit and make their positions
public. Two of our trading partners took us up on this. Chile
and the United States have followed Canada's example and released
detailed summaries of their negotiating positions on their
respective websites.
I am encouraged that Canada is reaching beyond all borders to
ensure that the citizens of the hemisphere are also made aware of
the FTAA negotiations. This is of particular importance to
smaller nations of the hemisphere where there is no comparative
advantage in technology.
Technological assistance from Canada in helping them to get
their messages across to the people would be useful in ensuring
that this dialogue on transparency taking place in the House
today can also happen in all other parliaments. In addition to
ensuring that those countries can have the benefit of technology
in communicating to their citizens, Canada has offered
assistance.
Much has been said in the debates on the FTAA about the text of
the negotiations. Canadians wonder if they will ever get to see
the text. By their nature, negotiations are formal discussions
intending to secure an advantage or a benefit for those involved.
Whether it concerns a commercial contract or a peace settlement
among nations, negotiations often take place behind closed doors.
Releasing the text beforehand is counterproductive to the
interests of Canadians and would jeopardize the discussions by
undermining the negotiating stands of participants or making
available privileged information that could allow some to profit
at the expense of others.
We know the House was informed that Canadians will see the text
of the negotiations in the next few days once they are available
in the four languages of the FTAA: English, French, Portuguese
and Spanish.
Thanks to Canada's leadership the negotiations for the FTAA have
set new standards for openness and transparency in other ways.
The engagement of civil society in the FTAA process is a result
of Canada's effort from the very beginning.
I must express thanks to the Minister for International Trade.
During his chairmanship of the FTAA negotiations from May 1998
until November 1999, Canada was instrumental in establishing the
committee of government representatives on the participation of
civil society.
We have worked very hard in several areas to ensure that
participation. The committee of government representatives on
the participation of civil society meets regularly as a
consultative body in the negotiations and serves as a forum for
input from citizen based groups, the business community and
non-governmental organizations. This is an unprecedented step in
international negotiations.
On February 23 of this year Canada's latest proposals were
announced to expand and strengthen the mandate of the committee.
They were made available on the trade negotiations and agreements
website.
The summit itself was widely covered by broadcast media and
Canadians were able to see a full session of the debates between
the 34 heads of state during the morning of April 21.
These are concrete steps that demonstrate the government's
commitment to openness and transparency in the FTAA
deliberations.
1535
In closing, let me reiterate that Canada's views on public input
into the FTAA from the outset has been and remain in full support
of transparency in ways that safeguard Canada's interests and
reinforce the confidence in the government's ability to reflect
its interests and priorities.
Parliamentarians in civil society play a major role in the
process. Having this debate and using the mechanisms at our
disposal such as committees ensures that Canadians understand the
issues and are able to convey their views to government. The
debate today is part of that transparency.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding those
who are watching the debate of the actual wording of the motion
because I think it is important.
The Bloc Quebecois motion says:
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament
approves it.
This is another example of why the Bloc Quebecois continues to
demonstrate that it is probably the best opposition party in the
House. I say this in the context of the problems today that have
been experienced by the Canadian Alliance with the division
within the party. More than that, this is the first time in a
very long time that the House has had an opposition motion before
it, which I think is a motion of considerable weight and quality
and certainly merits the debate it is getting today.
If this were a motion put forward by a private member from the
opposition, where we on this side regard all private members'
motions and private members' bills as issues of free votes, I do
not think there is any question at all that this motion by the
Bloc would be supported. The negotiations that went on this last
weekend in Quebec and which will continue pertaining to creating
a sort of common market of the Americas is an issue of tremendous
importance to Canadians and I think is an issue of tremendous
importance to the House.
When the Bloc comes forward or anyone in the House comes forward
with a motion suggesting that parliament should take these
negotiations seriously and should stay abreast of these
negotiations as best it can is quite appropriate indeed.
I can tell everyone that I have some sympathy with the
protesters that appeared at the summit at Quebec on the past
weekend. Of course I am not interested in those people who
merely threw rocks and demonstrated for the television cameras. I
do not have any respect for any person who considers speech
something that requires him or her to wear a mask. When we speak
either in the House or in public or even on the streets then we
should speak as who we are and be seen. However, the majority of
the protesters were seen and they were peaceful protesters. They
had an important statement to make because whatever is happening
and whatever is the ultimate outcome of these negotiations, there
are legitimate concerns about sovereignty.
I am not one who puts a lot of credence in the kind of rhetoric
that we hear from the Council of Canadians and its leader, but I
really believe that when we establish transnational trade
agreements and create dependencies among countries there are
genuine issues of sovereignty. When we create dependencies, we
create situations where we cannot take it back or we have
situations where we have lost a certain amount of control as
parliamentarians, as governments over our country's destiny
because we have transnational agreements in place.
The Bloc during question period raised a number of questions
with respect to the so-called chapter 11 in the North American
Free Trade Agreement whereby corporations have an opportunity to
litigate across the border.
That is if a corporation in Mexico feels that a corporation in
Canada that is competing unfairly for the same market within the
United States, Canada or Mexico, if it feels that it has some
unfair advantage in the terminology of the trade agreement, then
it can take that corporation to court and possibly win.
1540
There is a genuine problem of sovereignty there. What that
really means is that a business enterprise operating in Canada is
subject to rules and challenges that exist outside this country.
It is very right to be concerned about that.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the chapter 11 is
necessary. However we should debate it, and it is healthy to
debate it, because it works. I believe it works in the context
that we have it now with the United States and Mexico.
Will it work as well if it is applied in the context of Brazil,
Argentina and other countries of Latin America? Will it work
when it is applied to 30 countries? I am not so certain. I need
to see that debate. When the Bloc Quebecois comes forth with a
proposal that says the House should debate that kind of issue, I
can only actually support in spirit what the motion is proposing.
I have other concerns with respect to this whole process of a
free trade zone of the Americas that again gives me some sympathy
for some of the peaceful protesters who were in Quebec. I ask
myself questions occasionally, Mr. Speaker, about what does it
really mean? What is the real motive behind creating this
enormous free trade zone of the western hemisphere when in fact
most of the economic activity is occurring in North America? I
suppose we could add Brazil and I think we would get probably
three-quarters of the economic activity of the western
hemisphere. So I ask myself then what is the incentive? Why are
we bringing in all those other countries of the western
hemisphere?
So far I have not had a really good explanation from watching
television because I do not of course have any special access to
the negotiations that are going on in Quebec, and nor should I
because as the previous government speaker mentioned of course
negotiations have to be undertaken behind closed doors. However
there does come a point in which we as parliamentarians have to
know the content of these negotiations and that is where I find a
lot of favour in the motion before the House.
The question is where is it really taking us? Why do we want to
make this common market of the Americas? More and more I am
coming to the conclusion or coming to the feeling that it is all
about creating a sort of firewall, creating an uneconomic entity
in the western hemisphere to insulate Canada, the United States,
Mexico and the other countries, but probably principally the
United States because I think a lot of this is coming from the
United States, to insulate the North American economies from what
could happen in the Far East or in Europe. The world marketplace
is changing dramatically and what has happened is we created huge
economic dependencies in the Far East.
Again I come back to the point that this is where there are
legitimate questions to be asked about globalization because it
creates these enormous dependencies. What will happen, if when
we create these expectations and we create these countries that
rely on one another for trade, when the resources run out? What
happens when an economic giant comes on the scene, like China?
I do not think there has been enough thought and debate in this
House about what it is going to mean when the Chinese actually
take their place in the world economy. It is an accident of
history that the Chinese should be for 50 years under a communist
regime, under a controlled economy regime because for thousands
of years the Chinese have been the ultimate entrepreneurs.
Chinese is the language of commerce in the Far East.
I think we are going to see dramatic economic changes in the Far
East which could have an enormous impact on the western
hemisphere. So I wonder sometimes whether this whole idea of a
free trade zone of the Americas is really about creating some
sort of insulation for Canada, the United States, Mexico and the
countries of the western hemisphere.
1545
And finally, I would say that with respect to keeping parliament
informed, as this motion proposes, the reality is that we in this
House cannot have an emergency debate or a debate like this every
day or every week, even on an important subject like this.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we make sure that the
Senate is paying attention to this motion, because I believe that
the senators do, and they have the opportunity in terms of time
and expertise to pay attention to this kind of issue and perhaps
be the part of parliament that is kept informed as these
negotiations are ongoing.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to
the motion brought forward by my colleague from Joliette. One
word could be used to summarize this motion, the word
transparency.
When the issues at stake touch the everyday life of people, what
they watch, what they listen to, what they read, what they eat,
what they drink, what they use, it is important that people be
informed of these issues by those they elected to represent them
in this House. That is why this motion is important. I encourage
all members of this honourable House to vote in favour of the
motion.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss another aspect
of transparency: the role of legislatures, of the parliaments of
federated states, such as that of Quebec.
In this House we are regularly told that Canada is one of the
most decentralized federations, that it is a model for the world.
We pat ourselves on the backs, yet often many, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade in particular, are sorely mistaken.
Let us take a look at what is being done in other parts of the
world, at examples of approaches that might differ a bit from
what is applied here, and might be far more productive.
Let us take, for example, the European Union, an association of
sovereign states. The ministers across the way often try to tell
us that the European Union is a model because it is headed toward
a federal system. It is not so. The European Union makes far
more room for its member states in the discussion and in the
negotiations leading to trade treaties.
The main article governing this is article 133 of the treaty on
the European Union, which states that when the matters under
negotiation fall wholly into areas under EU jurisdiction, it is
the European Commission that negotiates on behalf of the EU. That
said, all member states have given the commission that mandate.
Thus, right from the start, the member states play a far greater
role in determining the position of the union, unlike what is
done here. Here the provinces are not even consulted, and they
are barely kept informed. That is the first point.
Second, it is possible for countries, France being one example,
to allow their national assembly a say. For example, even if the
topics being discussed are the exclusive preserve of the European
Union, the national assembly has given itself the authority,
through a constitutional amendment passed by the French in 1992,
to use the European position to give its point of view. This is
an inquiry. It allows questions to be put to the European
Commission so that national elected representatives are not left
out of such important negotiations.
The third point I wish to make, still in connection with the
European Union, is that increasingly international treaties do
not concern trade exclusively.
1550
For example, the treaty between the European Union and Israel,
or the free trade agreement between the European Union and
Mexico, include issues which are not the exclusive jurisdiction
of Europe, with the result that member states must also ratify
these treaties.
The European Union therefore ensures that, before its position
is finalized, member states also have their say, including during
the ratification process itself.
Members opposite say “The European Union is different. It is
not a federation, even if that is the direction in which it is
headed, other models should be considered”. Very well, I say, let
us look at two other modern federations. Let us look at Germany,
a powerful nation, a member of the G-7, like Canada, a federal
state with a number of Länder.
When Germany, in the European context, must decide on a position
and it falls within an area which comes predominantly under the
jurisdiction of the Länder, the federated states of Germany, it
is the Länder which determine Germany's position and, what is
more, it is a representative of the Länder who sits down at the
international negotiating table, on which are written the words
“Allemagne-Germany-Deutschland”, and who negotiates on behalf of
the federal state.
Federated states, in areas under their jurisdiction, will
therefore negotiate in the place of the federal government,
something not insignificant. We know very well, obviously, that
the best way to be represented internationally is to be
independent. In the meantime, however, they better not try to
tell us that Canada is the most decentralized federation, because
it is not true. We have seen this in the case of Germany.
There is another interesting example worth mentioning, that of
Belgium, which applies what I would call a Belgian version of the
Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. The Flemish or French communities or
Brussels have external jurisdiction over their internal
jurisdictions. In their respective areas, the federated states
of Belgium, the federated communities of Belgium, speak for
Belgium internationally.
These are three examples that indicate Canada is truly a 19th
century federal model. It is not a modern federation. In a
world increasingly open, increasingly, permit me this
tautology, globalized, it is unacceptable that Canada's federated
states are not consulted properly, not informed properly and
involved in the process before, during and after negotiations.
We think it would have been far better, first, to put in place a
very formal process to consult with the provinces in order to
define Canada's position; second, to ensure that Quebec is part
of the binational negotiation team with the federal government;
and third, if a much more interesting model were to be used, to
ensure that in provincial areas of jurisdiction, Quebec and any
other province interested to do so, because there could be some,
although I do not think there are any, but there could be, may
have a say and speak out for their own interests.
It only makes sense since, at some point in time, the
legislation for the implementation of this treaty will have to be
passed. It will be possible for a province to say “We differ; we
do not want this treaty to be implemented”. Common sense would
dictate that federated states, the provinces, for instance, be
allowed to negotiate on their own behalf within their sphere of
jurisdiction, so that, later on, they would be able to say “We
negotiated this ourselves; we have no qualms about putting an
implementation bill to a vote”.
First, we have to realize how important it is to support this
motion, because it deals with transparency. Second, we need to
stress how much this notion of transparency is misunderstood or
ignored by the government. We have to ensure that federated
states, and Quebec in particular, with clear cut positions to
defend, have their say in the process before, during and after the
negotiations.
1555
Members may agree with me that this will have to be done while
Quebecers prepare to make the decision that will allow their
interests to be protected and promoted at the international level
like they deserve to be, that is while they prepare to decide to
build their own country.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon.
colleague opposite is really suggesting that the federal
government enter into major negotiations on a trade treaty with
10 provincial partners sitting at the same table. What about the
three territories of Canada? Should they be there? Would it be
undemocratic to leave them out?
Is the hon. member really suggesting that all of the countries
proceed like that? We would need an awfully huge negotiating
table. Is he serious? Does he believe such a process would be
practical? Does he not understand that Canadians have elected
the federal government from coast to coast to coast to speak for
them and their interests? That includes, of course, the province
of Quebec, where the government was re-elected with a higher
number of seats. Is the member serious about his suggestion that
we take such a large delegation? What is his real problem with
understanding that the federal government is the legitimate
authority to negotiate on behalf of all Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister for International Trade that his party has fewer seats
from Quebec in this House than the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore,
there is a huge problem in the premise of his question. That is
my first point.
Second, does he not understand that Quebecers never gave the
government the mandate to negotiate on the international stage in
areas outside its jurisdiction? Quebecers never gave it such a
mandate.
Third, we can talk about details if he wants, I do not mind. I
make the following suggestions. First, a Quebec-Canada or
Canada-Quebec binational team should be established to defend
Quebec's interests pending a yes on sovereignty, which will
happen sooner than the member opposite may think.
I see him smile. We need not go to Mars to see examples of how
federations work. I named two, Belgium and Germany. In both
cases, the federated states were much more involved in areas
under their jurisdiction on the international stage. So there is
no point in trying to have us believe that Canada is a model for
all federations.
We can also look at what is done in the European Union, where
the various member countries work together before, during and
after negotiations not only so they feel involved, but also so
their interests are defended, protected and promoted rather
aggressively.
There are different ways of doing this. We are willing to talk
about it. In fact, this will also be part of the partnership
discussions that will take place after Quebec achieves full
independence.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is
aware of the extensive consultations between the federal
government and all the provinces, including la belle province de
Quebec.
Surely the hon. member is aware that in one of the latter
meetings between the Quebec minister and the Minister for
International Trade the full time that had been set aside by the
international trade minister was not even needed, as the Quebec
minister had raised his points.
Surely the hon. member is aware that in the EU, which his party
likes to quote as an example, those nations in the EU are
willingly sacrificing considerable sovereignty to be part of the
EU.
I understand that the member is a separatist and that his goal
is a separate Quebec. I disagree with him, quite frankly, that
it will ever happen, but let us be candid here. He cannot have
it both ways. Either he wants sovereignty for Quebec or he
understands that in the EU he quotes those nations are giving up
sovereignty. Which is it?
1600
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Trade
understand how the European Union operates. It is composed of
sovereign states, independent states. This is a model
partnership between sovereignty nations, one that we
sovereignists on this side of the House are certainly prepared to
look at, but not to copy word for word, comma for comma. This is
a model of partnership between sovereign nations which, if
explored in a less partisan manner and I will go further than
that, if the other side of this House would just look at it,
would be seen as the model for the future. We would see that
independent and sovereign nations can work together far better
than when a nation like Quebec feels constrained by an outmoded
arrangement like the Canadian federation, which dates back to
1867.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to
the opposition motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois member for
Joliette and seconded by myself.
This is indeed in very direct continuity with the reflections
proposed to us throughout the past week by the peoples' summit,
the summit of the Americas and the public participation in the
protest, as well as the public's desire to have a free trade
agreement that respects social, economic and cultural aspects as
well as all other concerns, so that we will have not just free
trade within the Americas but also a society that will be able to
reap its benefits.
There was one main message for me. As a parliamentarian who
took part in the parliamentary forum at the people's summit and
as someone who took part in the peaceful march, I realized that
this was an extraordinary march which took place in Quebec City
to show that people from all walks of life, women's groups, youth,
unions and ordinary members of the public, simply wished to say
“Yes, we can agree with a free trade area, but not the one that
we know nothing about yet, the one about which we have seen only
the trade side. We want to have a society that allows people to
achieve things”.
For me, the motion that was moved today, practically the day
after the summit, in a way ensures that our role as
parliamentarians will continue. The motion reads as follows:
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before official
ratification by the government, authorized by Parliament.
Everywhere, this was the message I received from people. They
are telling us “The FTAA is something major. It seems fairly
complicated”. We had NAFTA, but some of the provisions in it do
not seem to be working as well as they could, such as chapter 11
and the defence of rights issue. We are also in a very
different situation, where the size of countries' economies and
their prosperity are completely different.
For instance, 66% of all economic activity is concentrated in
the United States and only 34% in the other countries. So,
adjustments need to be made.
That is the message that was sent to us by citizens who want
their parliamentarians to act as watchdogs, to ensure every step
of the way that whatever agreement is reached is something useful
that we all want. The worst thing would be to say: “Parliament
will look into this at the end of the negotiations in 2005. We
will see what came out of the negotiations”.
What we have come to realize from the current practice and also
the answers the Prime Minister gave us today about the
enforcement of chapter 11 of NAFTA is that we need to scrutinize
things very carefully because in negotiations a lot of things
are settled at the last minute. Concessions are made and our
society and our young people should not have to pay for them.
This is probably why I have given this matter considerable
thought and I do hope this motion will be adopted.
Many of the young people who took part in the protest of the
people's summit were there to say: “It is the world we will have
to live in that you are defining and we want to ensure that this
will be done according to criteria we find both interesting and
acceptable. In the past, social gains were made by some countries
and we have to ensure that we benefit from those and that
everyone else does”.
1605
Some environmental concerns were expressed by young people in a
particularly brilliant manner. There were also concerns about
working conditions and the whole issue of child labour. All these
situations contribute to making this an important issue.
We must be aware, as parliamentarians, of how important it is to
adopt this motion. It is important to adopt it in its initial
version, but even more so in its amended version. If we cannot
manage to adopt the amendment, at least let us adopt the main
motion. However the amendment includes a very important element. It
says “before official ratification by the government, authorized
by parliament”. In other words, let us give back the power to
those who were elected by the public, to those who received a
mandate from the public.
The Prime Minister said that “it is during an election that
these things are settled”. This is quite possible and we should
all be aware of that. This is something I have been thinking
about and I said it in the text. Parliamentarians and those who
wish to become parliamentarians some day cannot ignore this plea,
otherwise they will stop being parliamentarians or they never
will become parliamentarians.
For those who did not listen to what was said last weekend, the
next time there is an election in Quebec, in Canada or anywhere
in the world, people will want to make sure that what is being
negotiated by their government regarding the FTAA is negotiated
under certain conditions, include certain programs and yield the
desired result. I say that because the message is that people no
longer want agreements signed exclusively on the basis of trade.
They no longer want to be told that increased trade will create
wealth. Increased trade can help to create wealth, but there is
a responsibility that has not been adequately fulfilled by
governments over the last ten years, and I am talking about the
distribution of wealth. It is a responsibility of governments.
The private sector can create wealth, but it does not have the
full responsibility of ensuring its distribution. It is the
state's responsibility. Personally, I believe that the state is
always better served when it is under the control of those who
were elected by the people.
As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. The people sent
us a clear message in this regard. Now that dust is settling on
the summit of the Americas and that negotiations are beginning,
we must ensure, as parliamentarians, that we will have the
necessary tools to follow up on it.
The motion states “That the government put in place an open and
ongoing process”. My personal position on this is a suggestion
that could be heeded.
This open and ongoing process could easily, in my opinion, be a
special parliamentary committee, consisting of members
representing all aspects of negotiation, not just those having
to do with trade, but social and environmental aspects as well,
so that there is regular follow-up and so that, when there are
progress meetings to move negotiations forward, there will be
watchdogs in parliament as well.
The summit of the Americas left us with two images: one of
people engaged in violent demonstrations on the perimeter and
the other of people, on both sides of the wall, who were unable
to address the basic issues. So they focussed on the wall.
This was as true of heads of state on their side as it was of
people on the other side, some of whose actions were
reprehensible.
What the public is asking of these parliamentarians is that they
negotiate in a civilized fashion, in their choice of words, in
the ideas they put forward, and in their defence of opinions, so
that when we are judged in the next election, it will be on the
basis of having assumed our responsibilities and having said
“Yes, we will conduct a regular follow-up and yes, ultimately, we
will vote on the proposal. If it is acceptable, we will vote in
favour, and if it is not, we will vote against”. This brings
significant pressure to bear in negotiations.
Heads of state were not given a blank cheque. Furthermore, they
were only too aware of this. Their mandate is to come up with a
free trade agreement with a human face. If they do not fulfil
this part of the mandate, the mandate will simply be taken away.
However for this to happen, the House of Commons, like all
parliaments concerned, must be able to make its views and
position known, because we are the representatives of the public
We just had a summit where we were told that there were all
sorts of people, including extremists.
1610
Finally, the Comité de mobilisation du Cégep de Rivière-du-Loup,
a group of students interested in this issue, came up with about
ten recommendations to make the FTAA acceptable. Here is one of
these recommendations:
That the FTAA not be established solely on an economic basis and
that it not be a threshold to extend NAFTA but, rather, that it
create a social balance in relation to NAFTA.
There are many such recommendations and they provide a framework
that I find truly exciting. Today, this parliament has a
responsibility to make a conscious decision and to ensure that
negotiations will be adequately monitored.
This is what the public expects and I hope the government
majority will have the courage to follow up on the message sent
to it by the public.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you would find consent for the
following motion:
[English]
I move:
That when the House is in Committee of the Whole later this day,
two members may share one twenty minute speaking period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe you would find consent for this motion as well.
I move:
That the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to
Shelburne County and Halifax, N.S., St. Alban's and Baie d'Espoir,
Nfld., Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Qc, Charlottetown, P.E.I., and Moncton,
N.B., during the period of May 5, 2001 to May 11, 2001, to continue
their review of the Oceans Act, and their comprehensive studies on
aquaculture, Canadian Coast Guard fleet management and departmental
structure in the Gulf Region, and that the said Committee be
composed of two Alliance members, one Bloc Québécois member, one NDP
member, one Progressive-Conservative member and five Liberals, and
that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member have the
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciated my colleague's speech. At the end of his
presentation, he referred to the positions taken by the CEGEP de
Rivière-du-Loup mobilization committee.
I have had the opportunity in a debate to share with him the
ideas put forward by these students and I was very impressed to
see they did not object to market openness nor to free
trade, but they suggested a number of conditions. They have
learned from the past as we should also do.
I would like my colleague to give us more details on something
he has already talked about, which is the general approach used
by these young people to mobilize the students of Collège de
Rivière-du-Loup in Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, on his tour, the hon. member for
Joliette had the opportunity to meet with students of CEGEP de
Rivière-du-Loup and CEGEP de La Pocatière.
In Rivière-du-Loup, the students had some kind of a charter
setting out a number of positions. I will quote just a few, to
show those students' concern:
That the FTAA promote a form of interconnected democracy between
the people and its government as well as between the various
member states of the FTAA.
That a strong international committee be set up to impose
sanctions in the case of human rights violations, which would
not be subjected at all to the proposed international trade law
committee.
That the FTAA help protect local economies, small and
medium-sized businesses and all low capital competitors, as well
as cultural differences, by limiting the creation of monopolies
in order to stimulate strong, just and fair competition.
So these are some logical and rational positions, which at the
same time take into account objectives that are not purely
commercial. I think there is an extraordinary message in there
for the elected officials that we are.
On that occasion, I even put forward an idea which I think would
be interesting to implement within the next few years, and I
wish we had the opportunity to implement it.
It would be to set up a parliament of the students of the
Americas, which would meet at least once in the course of the
next three or four years, where we could hear students from all
these countries telling us what kind of America they would like
to live in in the future.
1615
I am sure we would end up with a plan based on solidarity, which
would not generate opposition among people but rather create
wealth and distribute it fairly.
I want to thank the students from my region and all those I saw
at the demonstration and who made some specific proposals such
as those. I think it augurs well when more and more young
people want to take their future into their own hands, get
involved and take action to make the world a better place in
which to live.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the hon. member for
Brampton West—Mississauga.
[Translation]
First, I would like to congratulate the member for Joliette
for his motion. It includes a very important principle, that is
the participation of parliamentarians and of the civil society
in the process of economic integration of our hemisphere.
Judging by today's debate and question period, it is clear that
the members are already involved in this process. Opinions vary
quite a bit, but members are well-informed about the best
conditions for the development of free trade in the Americas.
[English]
As I said to the member for Halifax this morning, we all agree
that we want trade. We recognize the need for economic
integration but we also recognize that it needs to exist in the
context that recognizes human rights, democracy, sustainable
development, cultural diversity and the protection of labour
standards. We therefore often differ on the means to achieve
that end.
My constituents fully understand that the prosperity of our
citizens depends on a free and open economy throughout the
Americas and throughout the world. It depends on a system of
international trade that is buttressed by international rules.
These rules would enable trade and economic integration to take
place so that we who have benefited so much from that trade and
from the wealth that has been created by a free and open society
and a free and open economy, can now begin to share those values,
that openness and those opportunities with other less fortunate
people in our own hemisphere.
I am very proud of what took place in Quebec City last weekend.
It was an open and transparent process resulting in a democracy
clause that will continue to guarantee that there will be
democratic governments throughout the Americas.
A commitment was made by the leaders on such diverse issues as
health, poverty reduction, education, human rights, the assurance
of effective courts, the elimination of the drug trade and other
issues. A plan of action was made with concrete steps,
amendments and commitments that would ensure that these take
place with proper financial resources and human resources to
ensure it.
Thanks to our government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and others,
we have had a meeting in Quebec City which has brought together
the leaders of the Americas. They have made concrete commitments
to ensure values throughout our hemisphere that would benefit all
of our citizens.
I wish to pay particular tribute to the Minister for
International Trade. I was present in the room when the United
States representative for trade pointed out that it was our
minister of trade who ensured that the negotiating text of the
free trade agreement be made available so that all members of
civil society and all members of parliament could have an
opportunity to discuss its terms. It was under pressure from our
government and our minister that achieved that result in Buenos
Aires and for which we would all benefit.
The debate calls for an open and continuous process to engage
parliamentarians and civil society in what we were engaged in
last weekend. The government is committed to that.
1620
Parliamentarians also have a role to play. I ask my colleagues
who participated in the foreign affairs and international trade
standing committee for the past two years what we have been
doing. We did a report on the MAI, the FTAA and the WTO. We are
presently doing a study into the summit process itself. All
these meetings and discussions, which are available to all
members and all parties, bring together not only members of
parliament but witnesses from civil society as well.
We travel across the country and we hear from every individual
who wants to come before our committee to give his or her
position on these important issues. We have extensive hearings
and we make recommendations. The government is then obliged to
respond to those recommendations in the House, which it has done.
Through our committee system we have had the opportunity to
actively participate as parliamentarians in the process of
hemispheric economic integration. We attend meetings regularly.
The member for Calgary East, who spoke critically of the process
himself, pointed out this morning that he attended the
ministerial meeting of the WTO in Seattle. I was also there.
Other members of the House have been to many ministerial
meetings. We accompany the ministers. We have an opportunity to
be part of the process and we do that on a regular basis.
I remind everyone that in the House just a few weeks ago we
established the interparliamentary forum of the Americas,
bringing together the representatives from the parliaments of 34
countries of the Americas. They will be able to debate and they
will be able to share their values, views and impressions with
one another on a permanent basis now because Canada led the way
in the formation of what is a very important interparliamentary
body for the Americas.
Parliamentarians are actively engaged and through our government
do actively engage themselves in this process, as is also true of
civil society. I recall what happened in Toronto some years ago
when our minister of trade held the first meeting as a lead up to
the summit. He brought in civil society at that time. It was
the first time that had been done.
A similar meeting took place at the summit in Quebec City. On
the weekend I had the opportunity to chair an extraordinary
meeting of 57 NGOs composed of representatives of indigenous
peoples, human rights groups, sustainable development groups,
youth, every form and segment of society.
On Saturday afternoon four Canadian ministers had the
opportunity to meet with twenty ministers from other countries in
the hemisphere. At that meeting we discussed issues and
responded to questions, all in the presence of the president of
the World Bank, the president of the Inter-American Development
Bank, the head of PAHO, and other leaders of multilateral
institutions, including the president of the OAS.
This was an unparalleled and unprecedented opportunity for the
engagement of civil society in the process, not as observers but
as active interveners who had an opportunity to participate, to
ask ministers questions, to have Mr. Zoellick from the United
States respond, to have ministers from across the Caribbean and
from the southern hemisphere respond to their questions and
concerns.
At the post mortem follow up that we held to those meetings, we
received an assurance from our government representatives that
this process would continue. This was the first time that this
has ever taken place, and I ask all colleagues to bear that in
mind when they criticize. We are so critical all the time about
everything.
The Canadian government led the way. We insisted on it. This
was our summit. It was our government, our Prime Minister, our
ministers who insisted among their colleagues that we should put
this in place. I am confident that we have established a
precedent now that will survive throughout the future. This is
something that cannot be stopped. It is a wonderful precedent
that we established this weekend and we should be celebrating. We
should not be criticizing all the time, but we should be
celebrating. We should also celebrate the fact that our
government financed the people's summit.
I hope everyone in the Chamber thinks he or she is a member of
civil society. As a member of parliament and as a member of
civil society, which I think I am, I do not feel I am being left
out of the process. I recognize that there are problems, that we
can be better engaged and that we can change things.
As the post mortem at which I participated on Sunday with our
NGOs took place, everybody said they had an extraordinary
experience. They said we could improve it.
1625
Why do we not engage ourselves in the House in the process of
approaching it from that constructive point of view? Why do we
not seek to improve the process rather than constantly criticize
it, as I hear from opposition members? They say that nothing
good was achieved and that nothing is happening. However the
average citizen looks out, sees improvements and wants us to work
together to make it an even better system, not to sit here and
carp and complain about the problems we have had to live with.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's comments. I am not
surprised to hear the member say that he does not feel left out
of the process as a parliamentarian.
However it should be recognized that the member is the chair of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade. He is a part of the government and he is on the inside
track.
When I talk with people in my riding and people who are out on
the streets, they feel left out of the process. They know that
this agreement is being negotiated behind the wall, behind the
fence that people were protesting against, behind closed doors,
and that it had been a very closed kind of environment.
If the Government of Canada has given an inch, it is only
because of massive public pressure and opposition as well as
pressure that the NDP has provided in the House unequivocally in
its opposition to the FTAA. That is the nature of politics. It
is because of that pressure that the government has been moving.
How could he consider that the so-called democracy clause is a
huge advance when it is democracy on the basis of electing
governments to do the bidding and the work for these huge
corporations? That is what people object to. I do not
understand why Liberal members do not understand that very
fundamental point.
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of
premises in the hon. member's question that I do not accept. I
do not accept that the agreement was arrived at behind closed
doors. It was on television. It was as open and transparent as
it could possibly be when we had 34 heads of state together in
one place. We could not have 5,000 people in the room. We do
not have 50,000 people sitting in parliament.
Why will the member not stand here and say that this is an
illegitimate organization? Everybody is not in the Chamber. Not
everybody can walk in here. The hon. member cannot bring a
constituent into the Chamber and neither can I. Why? It is
because we need a way to exchange views with one another.
That does not make us illegitimate. We were elected to be there
and the leaders of the Americas were elected to be in Quebec
City. We need to give them the tools to do the job. The
member's suggestion that they are illegitimately there is
striking at the very fundamental roots of democracy that the
member purports to be in favour of.
I also do not accept the fact that what took place was as a
result of pressure from her party. The leadership came from the
Minister for International Trade and from the Prime Minister to
open up the process. The Prime Minister of Canada does not need
the NDP to tell him how to run the country. That is very clear,
as the last election pointed out.
The last point about the democracy clause is where I have a
fundamental difference with the member. I listened to the
speeches of the member's colleagues this morning. The New
Democratic Party's position is as simple as this: the NDP says
that other elected governments have entered into international
agreements which have made them undemocratic. The hon. member
does not believe there is a democracy clause, but what the hon.
member forgets is that the people who entered into these trade
agreements that have been criticized by everyone, including
ourselves, were democratically elected governments.
If we choose to give up to international interests some part of
our sovereignty to benefit more our citizens through a pooled
sovereignty, that is our decision as a democratically elected
people to make. That is what was taking place in Quebec City and
that is what the member does not like. The member does not like
the fact that other people have adopted a system of democracy and
values that the member disapproves of.
That does not make them less democratic. It just makes them
different. It is that difference in the world that we should be
celebrating, not the imposition of one's values on everybody else
in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a few
very specific questions for the hon. member. I would like him to
tell me why there were no Liberal members of parliament at the
people's summit and at the parliamentary conference of the
Americas.
1630
Second, does he not find inappropriate that the final
declaration of the 34 heads of state mentions only the
inter-parliamentary forum of the Americas, the FIPA, which has
been in existence for hardly a month, while there is no mention
whatsoever of COPA, which has been highly respected since 1997
and whose membership is much larger and pluralistic?
What does he think about the relations between FIPA and COPA
during these negotiations?
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief because
there are several questions here.
I will leave the debate to FIPA and COPA, because it is somewhat
an internal debate, but I suggest to the hon. member that the
reason why FIPA has been referred to in the final summit document
is precisely because it represents national parliaments
throughout the Americas. FIPA was entrusted by the governments to
do certain tasks. Therefore, it is quite justified on their part
to choose some instrument for doing that.
Can COPA do something else? I totally accept COPA's legitimacy
in its area of influence, but I believe we should accept FIPA's
legitimacy in its area of influence as well.
[English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion. It
is the first time in a long time that all responsible members of
parliament can work together to make sure that the consultative
process is an open approach, one which was initiated by the
government and will continue in the future.
As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I have had the
privilege of travelling across this country to hear
representations from Canadians who belong to every sector of
society. Some who take a cynical approach to the government went
through this exercise merely to pay lip service. However, I can
assure the members of the House that every view was represented
in the completed reports.
Also, I believe it would be a fairly accurate guesstimation that
at least 60% or more of the committee's time has been spent
listening to the many well informed Canadians whose careers are
directly linked to the study of the economic implications to
business as well as labour in regard to the trade agreements into
which Canada enters.
In November 1999 Canada hosted the FTAA ministerial in Toronto.
Canada supported a civil society forum which was arranged by a
coalition of hemispheric organizations to parallel the Americas
business forum. A record 22 FTAA ministers and country
representatives were there to hear civil society's views and
recommendations on trade and investment, labour standards and
poverty reduction.
The thing that really puzzles me about the Bloc members is that
Quebec elected members from the Bloc to represent them in all
international fora, so I do not really understand why the Bloc
feels there should be 10 provincial negotiators at the table
along with the federal negotiators. Do they also believe that
the United States should have 50 negotiators along with their
federal negotiators and that as well there should be additional
state negotiators for every country in Central and South America?
This is a federal jurisdiction. Canada strongly believes that a
more democratic, prosperous and equitable hemisphere can be
achieved only if all sectors of society are involved in its
construction.
Once again, Canada has proved to be in the vanguard in promoting
greater inclusion and engagement. At the summit of the Americas,
the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister for International Cooperation and the
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa were joined by
high level representatives from 20 countries and 5 international
institutions to meet with more than 60 representatives of civil
society networks, groups and associations. These
representatives, who have been closely involved in the
development of the summit's action plan, came from across Canada
and across the hemisphere.
1635
Also, in October 2000 Chile requested that Canada participate in
a two day workshop in Santiago to share our experience in
consultations with other countries looking to develop their own
expertise in consultations via new systems, organizations and/or
mechanisms.
Earlier I referred to the cynics. I must confess that at times
I sound somewhat more like a cynic than a team player. The
patience of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade has not gone unnoticed,
especially by me, but I also must confess that I am more of a
believer than I have been in a long time because I have seen the
result of the consultations and of the reports that come out of
foreign affairs.
Not only has the government been open and transparent in
preparation for all its trade debates, it has been inclusive.
Every citizen has had an opportunity to participate.
There was a comment made from the member across the way that the
chair was on the inside track. It would be nice if we could all
be on the inside track, but it would be totally and completely
unmanageable. I cannot think of anyone I know who can better
represent or who should be more on the inside track than the
chair of the foreign affairs committee.
I would like the member to know that neither she, her party nor
anyone else has the monopoly on caring about social issues,
labour conditions or environmental conditions. No one has more
of a monopoly on this than our chair does. He is diversified. We
cannot all be on the inside track, for a couple of reasons.
Sometimes we are not all capable of comprehending it. He was
elected to do that and elected to chair the committee.
Canada has set the standard for all FTAA participants. I
believe that we as Canadian parliamentarians can be very proud of
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague opposite who
is still wondering why Quebec wants to send its own negotiators
to these major international tables.
I would like to put a question to the member. First, does the
member truly believe that Quebec is a nation? If she answers yes
to this question, and I would ask her colleague, the
parliamentary secretary, not to slip her the answer, if she
believes that Quebec is a nation, does she not think that nations
should be present at international tables to defend their own
interests?
I would like her to answer the first question. If her answer is
yes, then, of course, she will have to say that Quebec should
take part with the other nations.
[English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform
the House that I believe Canada is an inclusive nation of which
Quebec is a very, very important part.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this is why the Bloc
Quebecois has 38 members in this House. Despite the consensus
reached by everyone in Quebec, from the Quebec Liberal Party to
Mario Dumont, members opposite refuse to acknowledge that Quebec
is a nation.
As long as the members opposite maintain this kind of behaviour
towards Quebec, there will be in this House members to defend
Quebec at the international level and members to defend Quebec at
the summit of the Americas.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member for
Brampton West—Mississauga wish to reply?
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, that was totally
irrelevant.
1640
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today, as
there is something rather interesting and symbolic in my doing
so.
Three years ago, coming back from the Easter recess, I had been
a parliamentarian for two years at the time, I was expressing
concern, as I am today, about
the widening gap between the rich and the poor. In an
attempt to spark a societal debate on the impact of the
globalization of the economy and on our political power, I picked
up my seat and took it out of the House of Commons to give it
back to my constituents. That was three years ago. In a sense,
today is the anniversary of my action.
The summit held in Quebec City last weekend was also an
important event. I went just about everywhere in the city, among
other places to the parliamentarians' forum. I was greatly
pleased to hear everyone talk about globalization or
continentalization. In short, I think the debate got off to a
good start. I do not mean to say that it was my doing, but anyway
there is an interesting symbol in this whole issue. I am happy
that we are debating it and that it was raised by the Bloc
Quebecois, through the member for Joliette. So there are positive
aspects.
Other aspects remain disturbing however, as we saw during the
weekend.
I had the opportunity to participate in the forum of
parliamentarians, but I also took part in Saturday's march. I
spent the whole week with friends from the Lac-Saint-Jean area
who have an apartment very close to the security perimeter, which
enabled me to play the role of observer.
I think everyone here will agree that our role, as
parliamentarians, is to observe what goes on in the field and to
come back here with a good understanding of the events that are
taking place in our society.
I must say that my weekend was very enlightening, although sad
at times. I already said that I was pleased with certain things I
saw in the media. Granted, there was way too much emphasis on
vandalism, but there were reports on television, on the radio and
in the newspapers on the impacts of globalization and of the huge
societal changes that we are going through.
In this regard, there is a certain awareness on the part of the
people. Close to 40,000 people marched peacefully in the streets,
and I must insist on the word peacefully. Unfortunately, there
was another segment of society that had chosen direct action and
violence. It is totally inappropriate and it diminishes
the quality of the message that those who marched peacefully
wanted to send because they were critical of the way
globalization and continentalization were being pursued.
We must realize that a lot of things happened.
I will continue to try to understand what motivated the
vandalism. Unfortunately, a number of violent protesters did not
know exactly why they were doing what they were but they
were doing it to confront the police. Others were there because
they thought it was the only way. Again, I strongly condemn such
actions.
Recently, someone said to me “Listen, Stéphan, do we not have
the population, the youth that we deserve?” After thinking it
over, I said to myself “Maybe. Maybe we should think about
things like that”. In short, this is part of the joy of
politics. The sociological aspect of such phenomena must be taken
into consideration.
There was nevertheless an interesting aspect. Whether they are
demonstrators in the street, rioters or people who got inside the
perimeter, they all talk about the distribution of wealth. They
all talk about the protection of environment, about enhanced
democracy. So there seems to be a societal consensus about the
goals that we must reach.
There are, however, divergences about the means to reach that
end. Some people say that free trade will lead us to our ruin,
while others believe it will bring prosperity.
1645
Whatever the results, I believe that the debate is expanding.
However, we, as parliamentarians, should examine
the issue more thoroughly. Again, I congratulate my colleague,
the member for Joliette, for having organized the forum of
parliamentarians.
There is a group that has made itself visible in a special way
this week. I am referring to parliamentarians, namely members of
COPA, who have really indicated what was important in the whole
negotiating process. I am not referring here to democracy clauses
in each country as they were discussed during the weekend, but to
the whole continental process, which is short on openness,
consultation, debate and dialogue. I am convinced of that.
Of course, the civil society should be included, but so should
the parliamentarians. If they are not, we have a serious
problem. We do have a serious problem now, because they are
not included at present.
Fortunately, because of this we have had new initiatives like
COPA, which has been trying for three years to get
parliamentarians of the various provinces and countries together
to have a whole range of opinions. We can have a debate
in this parliament among ourselves, but, if we are to have a
complete picture of the situation, it is essential to have
meetings with parliamentarians from other countries of the
Americas to sketch out the kind of society we want.
We may be talking about a trade agreement, but as far as I am
concerned, we should be talking more generally of the exchange
area of the Americas. Exchanges are not restricted to trade, but
include knowledge, culture, politics and social issues. We all
stand to benefit from increased exchanges.
However, we need rules. This is why I am very uneasy with the term
free trade. Does this mean we should have a free market without
any rules, environmental rules or social rules? I hope not. I
hope this is not what our leaders have been discussing during the
weekend.
I support trade, but trade should be fair, with sustainable
development, a development that is respectful of people and of
the environment. To have this, we need agreements for
the Americas. We have to negotiate and discuss this. It is a
great proposal.
In fact, it is such an ambitious project that it encompasses the
richest country in the world and one of the poorest. Some people
believe that it will be totally impossible to reach an agreement,
but at least there is some dialogue going on.
Call me naive or utopian, but I believe that some day we might
have a trade area of the Americas where there will be cohesion,
wealth redistribution, greater democracy, an environment agenda
and many more great things.
There appears to be agreement that parliamentarians should work
together. I am the international co-operation critic for the Bloc
Quebecois and I happen to believe that we need interparliamentary
co-operation not only in the Americas, but throughout the world, a
world of global markets.
Since we have more and more concerns that reach beyond the walls
of this parliament, we need discussions and exchanges of ideas
that also reach beyond this parliament, hence the emergence of
parliamentary associations.
There is however a barrier to interparliamentary co-operation.
The language, of course, can be a barrier and it can be quite a
challenge. If fact, I have promised some of my parliamentary
colleagues to try to learn Spanish during the summer, because it
is a beautiful language and it could help me to better understand
my Latino colleagues.
Another barrier to interparliamentary co-operation is the
distance, although we probably have the technology to overcome
that.
The time has come to use technology to promote democracy. The
time has come for parliaments in the Americas and throughout the
world to get the telecommunications tools they need to hold
virtual parliamentary sittings in which some thirty people,
including members of the civil society, could take part. We could
also have regular sessions to examine some issues in depth,
thanks to all the technology we now have. The time has come to
take this step, which is why I have become an advocate of virtual
parliamentarism.
1650
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving
me a chance before one of the hon. member's colleagues, but I am
sure we will all get a chance to participate in this very
interesting and worthwhile debate, which was the idea of my
colleague, the hon. member for Joliette.
Of course we do support the main motion, because we feel that
what the main motion calls for we have been doing for some
months, are doing now and will continue to do. The government
will support the main motion, but it will not support the
amendment, for some important reasons.
The member who just spoke said some argue that free trade will
bring prosperity while others argue that it will bring the
opposite, poverty. I would like to give him the thoughts of two
world leaders and ask him to react.
First, I agree with those who feel that it will bring
prosperity. I feel that is the proper conclusion. What the
president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, said to the protesters in
Quebec City who were there to speak on behalf of the less
developed countries of the Americas, was this: let us choose. He
said “we are the democratically elected leaders of those
countries so let us choose what is right for our people, and we
are accountable to those people”.
I wonder what my colleague thinks of the remarks of Mr. Fox and
also of the remarks of Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the
United Nations, who said recently in his report that the best
thing we can do to help the less developed countries of the world
is to globalize and liberalize trade. He even quantified that
and said that would ensure $100 billion in aid to those
countries.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could react to the comments of
Secretary General Annan and President Fox.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr.
Speaker, I have not said that I was opposed to free trade. I only
said earlier that some people had concerns regarding free trade.
It is obvious that the globalization or continentalization of
the economy has the effect of increasing competitiveness, for
example. This has consequences attached to it. When
competitiveness is pushed to the limit, companies, which are
profit driven, are sometimes compelled to reduce wages and to
operate from countries where the environment is not respected.
This will also create a tax competition between states. To
attract investors, companies do not want to pay any taxes or very
little. However it is with tax money that health care and education
are financed.
I think that this type of pressure exists. I am not saying that
this is exactly what will be happening, but the tendency is
there. This is why I say that governments and parliamentarians
must remain strong to ensure that the rules of the game are set
out.
I agree with the member, and probably with Kofi Annan, when he
says that trade brings prosperity. I recently travelled to Chile
with the Minister for International Cooperation. It is true that
Chile is one of the most economically integrated countries in the
world. There is a middle class in Chile. I admit it. I do not
believe that everything should be either black or white in
politics or in the economy.
Right now, there are signs of concern. Some say that investments
from the north will bring prosperity to the south, and that is
possible, but there are other elements that have to be taken
into consideration such as education, for example.
One of the objectives that northern countries must set
themselves is to ensure that the countries we deal with
provide access to
education. It is absolutely essential. To become a developed and
democratic society, education is absolutely necessary. We cannot
have globalization with countries that are not even able to
provide education to their young people, the new generation.
It might not be in the text of the agreement itself, but this
absolutely must be taken into consideration.
We must pay attention to what people say in the street. We
cannot say that they are anti-globalization, a word I dislike.
It is not true that people are against globalization. They are
against the way it is happening. We must be careful with the
words we use.
1655
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will comment on the speech made by my colleague, who
said that language, whether we want it or not, can be somewhat of
an obstacle to negotiations and trade.
Again, I see the parliamentary secretary saying no. He
pointed to the interpreter a few moments ago. If that is not an
obstacle, how can he explain the fact that his government
mentioned translation problems as a reason not to release the
documents to be used in the negotiation of a free trade area of
the Americas on the eve of the summit? Is this not real proof
that it can be an obstacle?
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's
question, the government insulted our excellent
translators and interpreters. They are able to translate the
debates simultaneously, but we were told that it was impossible
to translate a 900 page text in more than a week. Come on. The
people from Ottawa smiled when they said that.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are certainly having a great
debate here this afternoon.
The Bloc supply day motion is that we put in place an ongoing
and transparent process by which parliament is informed of the
negotiations concerning the establishment of a free trade zone of
the Americas, whereby parliament can debate and society can be
consulted.
I am not quite sure exactly what they mean by consultation of
society. I certainly agree with the reference to parliament.
Parliament has to be involved. We, the elected members of
parliament, are the representatives of the people. We get a lot
of feedback. As a result, parliament should definitely be
consulted in this process.
It is certainly my understanding that the text of the agreement
is to be released once the translation is complete and the
release of information or any changes certainly should be made
public. We stand for that four-square. There also has to be
input by parliamentarians, which I have referred to and which the
motion of course is asking for.
It is Canadian Alliance policy that treaties like the free trade
agreement of the Americas be brought before the House of Commons
for a vote. Deciding on proceeding with trade agreements should
be decisions made by parliament and not by the personal
prerogative of the Prime Minister.
We should have increased openness. It would help the
negotiation of free trade agreements by decreasing public
suspicion and increasing public awareness and knowledge.
We should also have increased public debate facilitated through
the House of Commons. That would offer practical improvements to
Canada's negotiating position, which might not have been thought
of if the negotiations are done in secret.
The whole issue of trade is that countries that do a lot of
trading with their neighbours and friends around the world are
those countries that increase the wealth for all of their
citizens. We have seen that here in Canada. One of the best
examples I can think of that relates exactly to central Canada,
Ontario and Quebec, was the 1960s auto pact agreement whereby
there was free trade between central Canada, Ontario and Quebec
especially, and the United States. For many years Ontario has
seen the highest incomes in the country. That is due to the
trading relationship Ontario was able to enjoy. All Canadians
should be able to enjoy that kind of free trade.
On the basic concept of free trade not only am I personally in
support of it, but free and increased trade is what the Canadian
Alliance stands for. We see that need for open and freer trade
also applying to agriculture.
1700
We have seen quite an improvement with the cattle agreement we
have with the U.S. Last year over 200,000 head of feeder cattle
came up from the northwest corner of the United States to be fed
in Canada. That created wealth for the Americans. We outbid
their ranchers on the price of the cattle. We brought them here,
fed them and added value. Some of the beef was shipped back to
the States and some was shipped overseas as finished beef. It is
a good example of how trade benefits all of us.
One of the biggest problems with trade is high foreign subsidies
for agriculture. High tariffs restrict imports into countries
and, in their case, restrict exports as well.
One of the great advantages of freer trade around the world, not
only the WTO but in this case the free trade of the Americas, is
that countries considered second and third world countries, whose
economies have not yet fully developed and which have not been in
a good trading relationship with the rest of the world, will find
their citizens on the whole are much better off and enjoy a
higher standard of living. Not everyone will drive a car or have
a yearly income of $50,000, but the situation in many of these
countries, where some people live in slums and garbage dumps,
will come to an end if their economies grow. Part of that can be
achieved through free trade.
We will accept some of these countries' agricultural products. I
bring up agriculture because I am the chief agriculture critic
for my party. Importing agricultural products is good. Some
countries do not have a lot of high technology exports to send us
but they do have agricultural and low end commodities. In
return, as their wealth increases, we can sell more to them and
thereby create wealth.
The NDP like to think of wealth as a static kind of thing. There
is a big ball of wealth and it is all about fighting for a piece
of that ball. The Canadian Alliance clearly believes and
understands that the ball of wealth can grow and grow until all
people around the world have a decent standard of living with
health services. That is why we so strongly advocate trade.
Canada has a few problems with its trade position. I use the
example again of P.E.I. potatoes. The rules based trading that
should be in place is not working to its full extent. We must
recognize that any trade agreement must include dispute
settlement mechanisms and that the parties must live up to their
trade agreements. The Americans are artificially using a disease
problem as an excuse to bar imports of P.E.I. potatoes into the
U.S. That is wrong.
The way to deal with that is to use the dispute settlement
mechanisms we have under the agreements. The government should
establish a good working relationship with our trading partners
but we instead see the government fighting with our trading
partners. Brazil is a good example. The United States is
another. These issues should not be escalating into trade
actions. They should be worked out on a bilateral basis between
neighbours and friends before they become bigger problems.
The issue of state trading enterprises will be coming up in the
free trade of the Americas. Canada's FTAA position regarding
this will probably be identical to its WTO position. The big
example in Canada is the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the
monopoly buyer of grain in Canada. However, when it markets our
farmers' grain around the world it is no longer a monopoly but
just one of many sellers.
1705
The questions then become: How much of a price can the wheat
board get? Can it get a better price or do a better job of
marketing than a grain company or other grain broker? A
situation may develop where the board and its directors, except
for two of them, may say that the monopoly must be maintained
because it is the only thing.
We see in the WTO talks that trading monopolies or state trading
enterprises are not conducive to freer trade around the world.
The wheat board is wrong on that basis but it is also wrong in
that many farmers do not want its monopoly to continue. The
Canadian Wheat Board artificially distorts trade because the
government is imposing its agenda on it.
I will touch on one last thing. The organic growers are
represented by Carol and John Husband, Arnold Schmidt and Ron
Tetoff. These people have developed overseas markets for their
organic grain. They are being forced to go through the wheat
board to get a buy back on it, and that is dead wrong. We have
many farmers, including Art Mainil in Weyburn and Barry Farr, who
want the voluntary wheat board brought into play. We will see
that negotiated in the upcoming free trade of the Americas
agreement.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the
member across the way who talked about the Canadian Wheat Board.
We must first understand that the Canadian Wheat Board is not
the same as it was in the past. It is not only a crown
corporation that has five members appointed by the government, it
now also has 10 members who are elected by the farmers.
Canada has a reputation for selling food products, and in this
case grain products, that are second to none. The Canadian Wheat
Board has done an admirable job in the past, is doing so in the
present and will continue to do so in the future.
The member across the way seems to think that all farmers out
west want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. I have had
the opportunity as vice-chair of the standing committee on
agriculture, along with the member opposite, to hear farmers out
west. That is where the debate is going on right now.
The member across the way should give the wheat board a chance
now that its officials are elected by grassroots farmers. He
should give it a chance to change itself from what it has been as
a crown entity.
The United States has consistently gone after the Canadian Wheat
Board. Why has it done so? Does the U.S. really think our wheat
board is a bad thing or does it want it abolished because it does
a good job for farmers out west?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
and I are not advocating doing away with the Canadian Wheat
Board. It is a co-operative agency through which farmers can
voluntarily market their grain.
The Canadian Wheat Board had 55 years to show its worth. We
have seen that the wheat board no longer sells many of the grains
and commodities it once did because there is a better way to
market those commodities. Oats are a good example. We will not
see anyone fighting to have those grains marketed again by the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The federal government, for whatever reason, thinks it must
retain control of wheat and barley so it can sell wheat to
foreign countries like North Korea for $1.50 a bushel and make
western Canadian farmers pay for it.
That is what is wrong.
1710
Of the 10 elected members of the Canadian Wheat Board, two have
been elected to represent the thousands of farmers who want
choice in marketing. It has nothing to do with ideology. It
should have nothing to do with the government forcing a marketing
agency onto farmers. It should be about an individual farmer who
has $1 million or thereabouts in assets being able to do the best
for his farm economically. The university educated farmers we
have today are far better at marketing their products than some
colossal monopoly that says one size fits all.
The Canadian Wheat Board must become voluntary. If it does not
happen today, I will keep working tomorrow and the day after that
until it does.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on
behalf of the people of Surrey Central on the timely motion by
the third party:
That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to
keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free
Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to
debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament
approves it.
The Bloc is using the summit of the Americas as a catalyst to
put the spotlight on parliamentary reform. The Canadian
Alliance, along with other parties, has been pushing the
government to change the way we govern ourselves in this place.
The motion today is very much in sync with our agenda. The
Canadian Alliance wants three things from the government as a
result of the successful summit of the Americas. First, we want
the text of the proposed free trade agreement of the Americas
released once its translation is complete. Second, we want
information regarding changes to the agreement to be made public.
Third, we want input by parliamentarians. We understand it has
not been easy to translate parts of the agreement, but this is a
requirement of the motion and the government must comply.
Finally, in the spirit of democratic parliamentary reform we
think it is time to force the government to include the House of
Commons in the negotiation of these types of treaties. A take
note debate is simply not enough. When the government makes the
decision and then asks the House to debate, that is not
democratic.
The summit of the Americas is particularly important to
Canadians because Canada has $42 million invested in the Americas
outside the U.S. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central
America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free. Canada
exports 45% of the GDP, so it is very important that we discuss
the issue in parliament.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes the enormous benefit of free
trade to our country. It will broaden our trading rights. It is
mutually beneficial to participating countries. It gives
consumers a better choice of goods and services at cheaper prices
compared to tariff protected economies. It helps us get value
added products. It helps bring about prosperity and development
in Canada. It enhances freedom of enterprise, democracy and good
governance. It enhances the voluntary exchange of goods,
services and money. It protects intellectual property rights.
The discussion of free trade in the House is therefore very
important.
Parliamentary debate is also important because a number of
questions remain unanswered. Questions about trade disputes,
softwood lumber, agriculture and fisheries have not been
addressed at all.
Also, what is Canada's role in the FTAA? We do not yet know.
What are the benefits versus the costs of dealing with those
countries?
1715
It is difficult to debate that because so little has been made
public by the government. We also need to know what criteria the
government is using to promote trade relations in the FTAA. How
about our trade policy?
We need to debate these things. We need to know how we will be
dealing with or holding those nations accountable for their human
rights record, as well as good government practices. How about
trade sanctions against any rogue nation?
These things are important, particularly with the increase in
organized crime and international crime. We need to know these
things, but this weak Liberal government has not given parliament
a chance to deal with them.
The Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cadman
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
|
Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wayne
| Williams
|
Yelich – 101
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Nault
|
Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
PAIRED
Members
Caccia
| Cardin
| Desrochers
| Drouin
|
Harb
| Lalonde
| Peterson
| Sauvageau
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Since there is unanimous
consent, I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 4.50 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1750
[English]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in
the House today to address the historic Bill S-10, an act to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act respecting the establishment
of a parliamentary poet laureate. As my esteemed colleagues on
both sides of the House may know, the bill originated in the
other place. In both the previous millennium and again in this
new millennium, I had what I consider to be both the honour and
the privilege to table the bill before the House of Commons.
Let me tell the House a bit about Bill S-10. Bill S-10 would
create an office that combines the traditional functions of both
the British and American poet laureate. I am certain that my
fellow parliamentarians are familiar with these traditions.
However I beg the indulgence of the House while I briefly
describe both offices and provide some historical notes on these
offices.
Poet laureate is a formal title conferred upon poets in several
countries as a sign of official recognition and historically to
designate these poets as official chroniclers of state events and
occasions. I did not have the privilege of learning Latin, but
those who have had the opportunity and, in the minds of some, the
horrible task of learning Latin will know that the term laureate
is derived from the Latin word laurea or the English word laurel.
Its use reflects the fact that in ancient times the laurel tree
was sacred to the Greek god Apollo, the patron deity of poetry
and music. It is believed that he decreed the laurel to be the
emblem for poets and victors. So it was that ancient poets who
achieved distinction were crowned with a wreath of laurel, as
were athletes victorious at the Olympic games.
In medieval England it became customary for rulers to have court
poets as part of the royal household. Their importance in
composing works for the court and national occasions is a
reflection of the fact that at the time narrative verse was the
central means for recording and communication of history.
In 1616 King James I created the office of court poet for Ben
Jonson, but it was not until 1668 when John Dryden was given the
title of official poet laureate that this title was indeed
created in England. Since that time the office of poet laureate
has been continuously occupied except for a four year period
following the death of Alfred Lord Tennyson in 1892.
Today Andrew Motion is the official poet laureate of that
parliament. His 10 year term, begun in 1999, is historic as
previously in the U.K. the appointments were life appointments.
1755
In the United States, while the formal title of poet laureate to
the Library of Congress was only created in 1985, the office
itself dates back to 1936. It was then that the late Archer Mr.
Huntingdon endowed a chair of poetry at the Library of Congress.
It is to be noted that in the U.K. it is the duty of the prime
minister to nominate successors from which the reigning sovereign
will choose. The lord chamberlain then officially or formally
appoints a poet laureate through the issuance of a warrant.
In the United States, however, said appointments are by the
congressional librarian and are for a one year term. An
incumbent in the United States can be reappointed indefinitely.
This then brings us back to Bill S-10 wherein the duties of the
parliamentary poet laureate would include writing poetry relating
to state occasions for use in parliament. This draws from the
British model and as well would include advisory and public
awareness duties. This function or responsibility draws from the
American model.
In the American model the official poet laureate of the Library
of Congress is also responsible for hosting poetry reading, for
encouraging poets to go into the schools and the learning
institutions in order to spread the word, and for encouraging the
use of language by young people and by Americans in general as a
means of communication.
Under Bill S-10 the term of office would be two years and would
not be renewable. The appointment of the parliamentary poet
laureate would be jointly by the speakers of the House of Commons
and of the other place. The process whereby the two speakers
would appoint a poet laureate under this legislation would be
that the speakers would choose from a list of three nominees that
had been submitted by a committee composed of the parliamentary
librarian, who would be chair of that committee; the national
librarian; the National Archivist of Canada; the Commissioner of
Official Languages for Canada; and the chair of the Canada
Council.
[Translation]
This bill leaves to both speakers, the Speaker of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Commons, or to the committee, the
responsibility of detailing the rules related to the
recommendations. For example, will the selection of the three
names to be submitted to the speakers of both Houses obey to the
rule of unanimity? Will it require a consensus, a majority, a
plurality, or will it be submitted to any other determinant rule?
[English]
Poetry is a unique and timeless art form which continues to this
very day to provide meaning and enjoyment to contemporary readers
and audiences across Canada.
One of Canada's most gifted poets is Irving Layton. He has made
a lasting and unparalleled contribution to Canadian literature
through his extraordinary verse. Or, as Aristotle wrote in the
Poetics, “it is not the business of the poet to tell what
has happened but what might happen and what is possible”. I
think Irving Layton as well as other great Canadian poets are a
true expression of that quote from Aristotle.
One of the greatest modern leaders of our time, the late John F.
Kennedy, once said “when power corrupts, poetry cleanses”.
[Translation]
Since the tabling of this bill proposing the creation of the
position of parliamentary poet laureate, I have received many
letters, phone calls and e-mails from Canadians all over the
country who expressed their support for this bill.
1800
Many of them have even sent me copies of their own poetry and
some of them asked about how to apply for that position. The
National Post has even launched a competition for the best poem.
[English]
They called it the national parliamentary limerick contest avec
un prix monétaire. This contest was greatly successful and
popular. Quite a few of my own constituents participated in it.
Unfortunately not one of them actually won the ultimate prize.
However I would like to read a poem by Mr. John Gossip who
resides in NDG, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, which is part of my riding:
Will Marlene believe what she's told,
That guys over seventy years old
Don't find it so hard
To rhyme like the Bard,
When the payoff is a title, with gold?
[Translation]
When I read it for the first time, I was in my office, the day
had been very long and I could not even see the end of it. I
must say I was very tired and slightly downhearted. However when I
read Mr. Gossip's poem, it put a smile on my face and lifted my
spirits. It gave me the energy to get to the end of the day and
accomplish all I had planned.
[English]
I would like to beg again the indulgence of my colleagues so as
to read another poem, “Appraisal”, which was composed by Cyril
Dabydeen. Mr. Dabydeen, who is a noted Canadian poet of
Caribbean origin, was in fact the poet laureate for the city of
Ottawa about 15 years ago. He received an annual stipend of $1.
It reads:
Conjuring up romance with hopes and fears,
Mannerisms we call advocacy
Or racial assertiveness,
The ethnics taking over
And we cry vengeance
Marvelling at the roots of trees.
The workers constantly hacking off the limbs of elm along Sussex
Drive,
The noise of the waterfall is all,
Boundaries, ocean, a mighty river swell
Whitely foaming, your black hair hanging down,
Legs wide open and welcoming love.
This rendez-vous with the ethnics,
Their potency and other desires
Like unaccustomed rain
Eager as they are to populate a country,
Colour is still all
Or trying to thwart,
Or try thwarting a rainbow at odd hours
This melting pot or mosaic.
Mackenzie King is still our guide
And trembling at the hands of fascists,
The gates of parliament opening,
Gun powder too has its limits,
I say walk along Rideau and Bank Street
Or watch the natives pointing to the bear in the sky
Or telling false tales to the spruce and jack pine close to Sioux
Lookout and Lonelat,
Reforesting a country after a fire
Partridges hopping in the wooded dark.
I think it is a great poem. It speaks to many things that we
have experienced in Canada. Whether it be our participation in
the war against the fascists during the second world war, whether
it be our welcoming of masses of immigrants throughout our
history coming from the four corners of the earth, of varying and
diverse ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious origin, we have
it all in Canada, including the role that parliament has played
in opening the gates and seeing that the gates remain open. I
think that this is a great poem.
I would like to come back to my bill to establish a poet
laureate. I hope I would have the complete support of all hon.
members of the House to see that the bill is adopted.
I have been asked if this is a paid position?. There is nothing
in the bill that requires the position would be paid.
Historically and traditionally it is an honorary position and at
most an honorary stipend would be attached to it. It would be
the committee and the speakers who would decide whether or not an
honorary stipend should be attached to this position and, if so,
what amount.
1805
The official poet laureate in the U.K. receives £5,000. If my
math is right that is the equivalent of about $12,000 to a
maximum of $15,000 Canadian at the present exchange.
He or she also receives a case of wine. We have some great
Canadian wines, particularly ice wines. The speakers of both
houses and the selection committee could always recommend that
the Canadian parliamentary poet laureate receive a case of ice
wine. The position would be a two year, non-renewable term.
I see that there may be a member on the other side of the House
who would wish to pose his candidacy should the bill be adopted.
I hope that means that I have his support at least for the bill,
if not that of his entire party.
I ask members of the House to consider seriously the position of
poet laureate. We talked about how parliament is disconnected
from reality. This is something that we read and hear in the
media continually. We also talk about how our youth have become
disconnected from the democratic process of participation. The
capacity to use language in all its richness is one way of being
engaged. Poetry has a long tradition in Canada. Jacques Cartier
was a poet and some of our prime ministers were known to have
composed verse.
I urge all members on both sides of the House to begin the
Canadian tradition of parliamentary poet. A parliamentary poet
would go a long way to encouraging literature in our society. It
would encourage our young people to see the spoken word as
something that is enriching, that is a means of communication and
a means of recording our experiences as an individual, as a group
and as a society. It lives on forever.
I ask members to support the bill to allow the creation, the
beginning, of a Canadian tradition of poet laureate, which goes
with the tradition of having the most poets per capita of any
country in the world. We have the tradition. Let us bring it
into parliament.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today on
behalf of the official opposition to speak to Bill S-10, an act
to amend the Parliament of Canada Act respecting the
establishment of a parliamentary poet laureate.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, the notion of a poet
laureate certainly appeals in a civilized sense to the beauty of
the spoken word. We on this side of the House are probably more
sensitive to the spoken word because in the political forum we
call question period our words are swords with which we do
justice on behalf of the Canadian people every day. It is with
considerable interest that we in the official opposition view
anything in parliament that has to do with the spoken word.
I wish to speak to the hurt the spoken or written word can
inflict on others, particularly when it is used for malicious
intent. I refer to a magazine article that was recently
published in an Ottawa city news magazine. The writer's story
was about a murder trial in my riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It has taken on a certain
sensationalist reporting, much in the style of the popular U.S.
tabloids.
I wish to read into the official record what the news magazine
had to say about the beautiful rural community in which the
murder took place.
The community is not one of those nice little towns that dot
southern and eastern Ontario. It is more like a rural freak
show—a railway town without a railway—where most people make
their money in the fall either by catering to deer hunters or by
bringing in the marijuana harvest from up in the hills behind the
village. Many of the older residents are the simple Ottawa
Valley folk who are the butt of so many recycled Newfie jokes—
1810
I wanted to read this fictionalized garbage into the record, and
there is more, to emphasize the emotional effect that words can
have on a listener. When I read this hate literature, and I use
the term sparingly because I know it is a powerful term and I do
not intend to minimalize anyone else's experience with hate
literature, I felt immediate contempt, if not downright disgust
for a publication which would slander an entire community for the
sake of a few dollars in the guise of being a news magazine.
Once that spoken or written word is distributed it becomes
easier for the next media to come along and build on the original
myth. This article was followed by a shot at the entire Ottawa
valley community under the veil of humour by the tax dollar
funded national broadcaster when in its program The Royal
Canadian Air Farce suggested that inbreeding was a cottage
industry in Ontario ridings held by Canadian Alliance members.
I have a problem with public servants disguised as journalists,
or in this case a poet. I would expect safeguards to be built
into the position of poet laureate. Poets have the ability to
stir up powerful emotions in the same way as a writer. As we
consider the office of poet laureate, we must be cognizant of
this fact. Is this position intended to unify us as a nation or
is it intended to stir us up?
I have read with great interest the debates in the other place
regarding the bill. There are many more questions in my mind
than time will allow today. I have great difficulty with the
proposed legislation which goes to the very heart of what we are
discussing.
Is the position of poet laureate appropriate in a country like
Canada that has evolved into a multicultural mosaic? I make this
point because in the examples of those countries such as Great
Britain which have created positions of poet laureate, they are
very dissimilar to our experience in that theirs is a
monocultural experience.
The observation has been made that it is appropriate for there
to be one poet laureate. Should there not be two to reflect the
bicultural nature of our institutions? While that may reflect
the English-French diversity, what about the first nations
people? This past century has been characterized by a migration
that is neither French nor English. We are a work in progress
when it comes to the society we are building in the northern half
of this continent.
Do we as parliamentarians want to associate ourselves with one
voice that will not be able, by virtue of the way that the craft
of poetry is reflected, to reflect the nation we have become in
the 21st century?
I believe it was stated in the other place that leadership
depends upon individual voices leading. What the position would
be able to achieve would depend upon what leadership and what
voices. I fear that a poet laureate would be constrained by the
official position and so defeat the purpose for which it was
intended.
I commend the sponsors of the bill for the spirit in which the
proposal has been brought forward. I look forward to continued
debate on the subject.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-10 tonight, an act to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act to add an officer of the
Library of Parliament called the parliamentary poet laureate.
I support the efforts of the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her tireless efforts to push
forward this important initiative.
1815
I support each and every effort to enrich the quality of
discourse, the quality of thought and the standard of debate of
this place, the largest stage in Canada, the House of Commons.
I see the creation of a poet laureate as one way in which we may
symbolize the importance of language, the importance of
literature and culture in Canada. I see it as one small step in
retrieving much of the beauty of debate which used to exist here
and I see it as a symbolic gesture that we value language and
culture in government.
As the critic for culture for the New Democratic Party, I have
spent the last four years in the House of Commons fighting for
increased support for Canadian culture. I have spoken out widely
and often about cuts to our public broadcaster and the impact
that has had on silencing the quirky, irreverent, provocative,
passionate voices that used to spring daily from dozens of
regional and local CBC programs.
I have spoken out in support of the Canada Council for
strengthening support for book publishers and sellers who
represent part of a delicate but vitally important environment
that allows diverse and unique voices which reflect the Canadian
reality to sprout out of our regions.
The poets, novelists, essayists and playwrights all depend on
small publishers and bookstores that will take a chance on new
work, nurture new writers, hold book launches and readings and
hold the hands of new writers as they work through the hard hours
of creation.
Maritime poets, such as Alden Nowlan, Dawn Fraser, Milton Acorn,
Rita Joe, Don Domanski, Maxine Tynes, Sherree Fitch, Carole
Glasser Langille, George Elliott Clarke and Lyn Davies, are all
part of a creative flowering that has occurred in Canada because
of our government's recognition of the importance of supporting
the arts.
Last year during national poetry month, the New Democratic Party
used its statements for one week to showcase poetry from across
the country. It was a profoundly moving event and I believe that
in that short time we reintroduced a sense of wonder in the
House.
We read poetry by Patrick O'Connell from Winnipeg, Susan Goyette
from Dartmouth, Herménégilde Chiasson from the Acadian peninsula,
Bud Osborne from Vancouver's east side and Ila Bussidor, who is
the chief of the Sayisi Dene.
Northrop Frye said that culture is regional and local in nature,
but of course it is also universal, and so is this place. Here
we have 301 parliamentarians who come from coast to coast to
coast to join and to bring together the needs, desires and
concerns of millions of people. It is both a universal place and
a place of many varying and often conflicting interests. The
challenge is always to fuse those interests, to make that
stretch, that leap into the lives of others, into the hearts of
others, to make them one. That is the challenge of the poet and
the challenge of the representatives of the House. It is one and
the same.
Charles Bruce, a poet and journalist born in Port Shoreham, Nova
Scotia, said:
Poetry is the art of striking sparks from the common and the
usual. It is the discovery of wonder and strangeness in the
normal, and the skill to pass the news along.
We are all here to pass along the news from the communities we
live in. We are here to strike sparks from the common and usual.
We are here to build a fire that will warm everyone in the
nation. Poetry teaches us and guides us toward that end. It
helps us to celebrate together and remember.
In 1915 Canadian surgeon John McCrae wrote:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
It is a poem that continues to unite each and every Canadian in
joint purpose around the memory of war and the valour of those
who fell.
1820
Where would we be without this poem In Flanders Fields?
It has so forged our collective understanding of war.
Poetry joins us together. It helps us to mourn together, to
remember and to celebrate what is important to us all.
George Elliott Clarke, a black Nova Scotian poet and playwright,
wrote a poem that speaks to thousands of black Canadians, past
and present, but also to every other Canadian. It is called
Revelation.
We turn to love before turning to dust so that the grave will
not compress our lives entirely to insects, humus, ash
Love is our single resistance against the dictatorship of
death
And for the moment of its incarnation we will worship God, we
will make ourselves beautiful in the twinkling of an eye.
It is words such as this that ignite our sense of shared
humanity.
I have just returned from Quebec City where I was taking part in
the people's summit, marching along with my New Democratic
colleagues and thousands of other Canadians to express our
concern with the undemocratic nature of the FTAA. There was
poetry everywhere in Quebec: on the placards, on walls, in songs
and chants, and in the courageous actions people took to express
their passion for democracy. It was so clear to me during that
unforgettable march and the events surrounding it that it is past
time for parliamentarians to begin listening to the poetry of the
street and the voices of the people in our country.
We need our poets and our writers to guide us in this place. By
creating this bill, by creating the position of poet laureate, we
are taking one step toward recognizing that need. We are
recognizing that it is artists who truly legislate the hearts of
our nations. It is through efforts such as this that a feast of
stories rises out of our earth to delight us, to lighten us and
move us through the darkness toward the stars.
With this motion, with this small act, we are collectively
thanking and saluting these creators and telling them that we
need them. We do not want them to ever stop. They are our
heritage and our hope.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure
To speak about S-10
I thought it only fitting
To put my thoughts to pen.
Terms such as poet laureate
Don't impress me as a rule,
But I understand the meaning
I took Latin while in school.
The duties of this office
Would be onerous indeed
The person who's selected
Steroids would likely need.
To write poems for state occasions
A “welcome” or “adieu”
As directed by the Senate
And the House of Commons too.
It will cost a lot of money
But perhaps things could be worse
Than to have the things we say and do
Immortalized in verse.
But if we knew our children
Would read the things we said
We just might be more cautious
So they wouldn't hang their head.
The topics of our questions
Could be recorded here
The fence at Quebec City
Or the golf course at Grand-Mère.
I see the members opposite
As they ponder on their fate
“Like clay-born lilies of the world”
They think of Shawinigate.
If ministers were eligible
To win would be the rage,
The leadership contenders
Would all want centre stage.
Poor paltry politicians
Write words with wondrous wit
But a parliament poet laureate!
The title doesn't fit.
We haven't time to write in rhyme
Our duties are too great
And the people of our districts
Would surely seal our fate.
After the next elections
If we had poetic notion
We'd be “idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean”.
Whether Liberal or Alliance
Tory, NDP or Bloc
If we wasted time, composing rhyme
They'd surely clean our clock.
But really, Mr. Speaker,
What is it that we need?
Perhaps we'll look to history
To bring us up to speed.
If the Americans can have one
And the British have one too
Our country just can't be left out
No, that will never do.
Throughout this historic homeland
From sea to shining sea
We have poets of great distinction
Who a “Laureate” could be.
Are we looking for a Chaucer?
A Bacon or a Frost?
A Tennyson or Whitman?
Or will Paradise be lost?
Will he have to write in lyrics?
Will simple poetry do?
Does it have to be a sonnet
With rhyming couplet too?
Does he have to have works published
For the better or the worse?
The Minister of Industry
Would be great to write blank verse.
I think of Edward Rowland Sill
“Opportunity” he wrote
And with apologies to him
Some lines I'd like to quote.
“The king's young son he grabbed the sword
When the coward ran away”
But unlike the Alliance Party
He saved THAT heroic day.
But really, Mr. Speaker,
Costs must be borne in mind
And support for such expenditure
Will be likely hard to find.
Does price outweigh the benefit?
So I ask if you agree
That we shouldn't have to pay for verse
When we can have it penned for free.
However, Mr. Speaker,
We won't stand in the way
To get in-depth analysis
Committee should have its say.
The Tory jury is still out
But we'll have our day in court
Until that time, I'll end my rhyme
And S-10 we will support.
1825
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for St. John's West. I hope Hansard will
appropriately record the remarks with rhyming couplets and iambic
pentameter. Hopefully Hansard is capable of doing that. I
am not too sure about translation, but I am sure it will do its
best.
I also want to commend the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for bringing forward the bill in
this place and the hon. senators for creating it in the first
place.
Now comes the boring stuff, with just a little discussion about
the bill itself. The role of the proposed poet laureate would
consist of writing poetry for use in parliament on occasions of
state as well as sponsoring poetry readings. The poet laureate
would also provide advice to the parliamentary librarian
regarding the enrichment of the library's cultural holdings to
include significant poets who have made major contributions to
Canadians' understanding of who we are as a people.
The proposal calls for a poet laureate to be selected for a two
year term by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker
of the Senate. The laureate would be chosen from a list of three
names submitted by a committee chaired by the parliamentary
librarian. The other members of the committee would be the
national librarian, the national archivist of Canada, the
commissioner of official languages of Canada, and the chair of
the Canada Council.
The role of the poet laureate is a time honoured and well
established tradition in several countries, as has been mentioned
earlier. England named its first poet laureate in 1616. The
position became an official royal office in 1668. Until
recently, the office of poet laureate was awarded for life, but
since 1999 the laureate has been named for a 10 year term. The
laureate is chosen by the reigning sovereign from a list
submitted by the prime minister. The laureate's duties are to
write poems suitable for court and state occasions.
The United States has had a poet laureate, known by various
titles, for about 61 years. In the U.S.A., the poet laureate
serves a one year term and is appointed by the librarian of
congress. The poet laureate there receives an annual stipend of
$35,000, which is funded by private donations. The laureate's
role is to increase the citizenry's appreciation of reading and
writing poetry.
Within Canada, the province of Saskatchewan invested a
provincial poet laureate in the fall of the year 2000. This made
it the first Canadian province to demonstrate in this manner its
commitment to the recognition of artists and the arts as a vital
force in the community that reaches even into official life.
The poet laureate of Saskatchewan is an honorary position whose
role it is to celebrate the spirit of the people and places of
Saskatchewan and to serve as a focal point for the expression of
Saskatchewan's culture.
1830
The poet laureate of Saskatchewan attends public events,
participates in provincial celebrations, including those
presented by the Government of Saskatchewan, and writes poems
addressing the history, the beauty, the character and heritage of
the province and its people.
Poetry holds an important place in the lives of many Canadians.
Poetry readings take place in many settings. Poems are published
in books, magazines and even on buses and subways. Many
thousands of Canadians put much time and effort into writing
poems of all sorts for all occasions.
With the creation of the position of poet laureate state
occasions would be added on the list of times and places in which
Canadians could experience the power of poetry. By writing poems
for significant state occasions a poet laureate might provide a
creative and lasting record of those events for generations to
come. Featuring poetry at such events would also be a means of
paying tribute to the creativity and genius of our artists and of
honouring the important place of poetry in our heritage and
identity. Indeed Canadian poetry reflects the diversity of
Canadian people. What better place to express this diversity
than at state occasions which are significant for all Canadians?
What better means to express it than through poetry which is the
voice of and for the people?
I believe that the proposal before us here today is an
initiative that has many positive elements and one that is worthy
of further consideration by the House. I would therefore support
having the bill sent to committee for more detailed study. The
committee could focus on the most appropriate means whereby such
a position could be created. In addition, the appropriate
committee could examine the feasibility of what is apparently the
bill's mandatory requirement for the position. It may be that
this mandatory requirement could be made optional or permissive
to give parliament the flexibility with respect to the
appointment, its timing and to provide flexibility with our
cultural communities as well.
Of course Canadian poets have a long tradition of raising their
voices about the beauty and diversity of our land. Since the
days when this country was first proclaimed our poets have sung
its praises. Numerous poets in both official languages and in
all of the languages of our multicultural citizens, including our
aboriginal languages, have written, published and recited poems
about this land, its people and the events that make us who we
are.
Who among our French speaking citizens has not heard of Émile
Nelligan, Saint-Denys Garneau, two of our most famous poets of
the early 20th century? Before that poets like Crémazie and
Fréchette were instrumental in helping to define French Canada in
the 19th century. Who among our English speaking population is
not aware of the poetry of Gwendolyn MacEwen, Leonard Cohen,
Michael Ondaatje or Margaret Atwood?
It is because poetry plays a significant role in the lives of
our people that the Government of Canada spearheaded the
celebrations of world poetry on March 21 of this year. World
Poetry Day was declared by UNESCO in 1999 to lend recognition and
new impetus to poetic movements around the world. As UNESCO's
director general, Koichiro Matsuura said:
Poetry is not very demanding: a voice or a sheet of paper are
enough to give it life. We meet with poetry at all times and in
all places, thus providing its universality and transcendent
nature.
As part of the celebrations of World Poetry Day, the Department
of Canadians Heritage mailed poetry day packets to more than
3,000 high schools and middle schools across Canada. These
packets encouraged teachers to involve their students in the
celebration of World Poetry Day by engaging in activities as
diverse as poetry itself, writing poems, holding poetry readings,
submitting poems to community newspapers, inviting poets to speak
in the schools, studying Canadian poetry and promoting poetry in
public transit vehicles and more.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also created a World Poetry
Day website which besides providing information about Canadian
poetry and poetry day events, provided a forum for Canadian
students to show their poetry to the world.
1835
Since World Poetry Day, as declared by UNESCO, happened to have
coincided with the International Day for the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, the Department of Canadian Heritage
married the two themes for 2001 and sponsored the publication of
a special issue of two Canadian poetry magazines, Prairie
Fire based in Winnipeg and Arts le Sabord based in
Trois-Rivieres.
These special issues featured original poetry on the theme of
diversity and tolerance and their ethnic and cultural dimensions.
They were launched on March 21 at celebrations across the
country.
Also in the spirit of celebrating diversity and understanding
among peoples through the medium of poetry, the Department of
Canadian Heritage partnered with the embassy of El Salvador in
sponsoring an evening of “Poetry of the Americas” in Ottawa
again on March 21, featuring poems from more than 20 countries in
the Americas. Canadian poetry can stand with the best. Canadian
poets are recognized around the world.
Indeed, Canada's own P.K. Page was chosen as the poet whose work
“Planet Earth” was read on World Poetry Day on international
ground at the United Nations, at the top of Mount Everest, in
Antarctica and in international waters of the West Philippine
Sea.
These readings took place as part of the United Nations dialogue
among civilizations through poetry, a way of using this universal
form of expression to enhance understanding among nations, a much
needed exercise owing to the increasing interaction and contact
among peoples of all races and nations.
This is what we in Canada also celebrate in our history and
heritage, the interaction of great diversity of peoples who,
through their experiences both different and shared, have joined
together to create this great country we call Canada.
In conclusion, I support the principles underlying the bill and
perhaps the bill itself. I urge members to support the passage
of Bill S-10 at second reading to allow further examination in
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on second
reading of Bill S-10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to an order
made on Monday, April 23, the House shall now resolve itself into
committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 5. I
do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the
whole.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1840
[English]
RESOURCE INDUSTRIES
The Chairman: Order, please. The House in committee of
the whole on Government Business No. 5.
Before I call the debate and because we are endeavouring into
uncharted waters, I will make a few opening remarks as to how
this debate will be conducted.
While there have been take note debates in the House on many
previous occasions, tonight we are dealing with a slightly
different situation.
The motion under which we are meeting provides that the debate
will be conducted under our standing orders for committees of the
whole, namely, that no member shall speak for more than 20
minutes with no period of questions and comments. Second, that
members may speak more than once. Third, that members need not
to be in their own seat to be recognized. That is why we see our
hon. friend from Brandon—Souris so close to the Chair this
evening.
That being said, I understand this format has been chosen to
create a more informal atmosphere that will promote genuine
dialogue among members on this issue. In that sense I believe we
are embarking on something of an experiment.
As your Chair, I must be guided by the rules of the committee of
the whole. However, if members, and only if members agree, I
would be prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the
application of these rules. That way I hope all participants can
make good use of their time and take full advantage of the
availability and accessibility of ministers.
With the co-operation of all members, I hope we may all learn
some valuable lessons tonight about how this type of debate can
best be conducted, so as to be a productive forum for exploring
issues of public policy.
I look forward to your co-operation. Myself and other occupants
during the debate will demonstrate the flexibility that hopefully
will allow us to create a forum of discussion on public policy
that will be attractive to members on both sides of the House and
if not more important to all Canadians.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in this
debate and to recognize all parties for agreeing to this special
format. It will lend itself well to a good discussion about a
subject that is very close to my heart and I am sure to members
who are gathered in the House. That is the sustainability of our
natural resource economies which in essence is the sustainability
of rural Canada.
When we take a look at rural Canada, it is not hard to realize
that for the most part we are dependent on our natural resource
industries for our economic well-being, for the wealth of our
citizens and for the quality of life of those who live in rural
areas. Whether it is depending on the agricultural industry or
on the fisheries or on mining or forestry, in rural Canada we are
very much dependent on our natural resource industries.
If we think about it, our natural resource industries account
for more than 15% of our gross domestic product and close to 14%
of the jobs in Canada are based on our primary industries. A
large part of our trade surplus that we enjoy as a nation is as a
result of our ability to harvest our natural resources.
1845
This government, since it came to office in 1993, has a long and
I think a very positive history of understanding and dealing with
the natural resource sector.
I recall in the previous parliament the Speech from the Throne
in 1996 speaking directly for the first time in many years to the
needs of rural Canada, to the need to sustain our natural
resource industries and to the need to sustain the rural
communities that depend on those natural resource industries.
Leading out of those commitments that were made in the Speech
from the Throne in 1996, I had the honour and the privilege of
chairing the natural resource committee in 1997 when we travelled
around the country and talked with rural Canadians and produced
something called “The Think Rural Report”. I see the hon.
member for Athabasca who was a member of that committee and who
worked with me and I see others who were on that committee at the
time to produce that report. I should also mention that the
report was a unanimous report. All parties in the House that day
agreed to the recommendations that we made in there about
sustaining rural Canada, sustaining our natural resource
industries and ensuring that they remained an integral part of
our economy.
I was pleased that leading out of that report the government of
1998 brought forward the Canadian rural partnership, an
initiative by which we were able to deal with the issues of rural
Canada and the issues of our natural resource industries.
I was further pleased when in 1999 the Prime Minister created a
separate position for rural Canada, a position which I occupy
right now, secretary of state for rural Canada, to ensure that
the issues that surround rural Canadians and surround our natural
resource industries would be front and centre of the discussions
and the debates that took place here in parliament.
I was also pleased to see in the budget last February some very
specific commitments to rural Canada and some very specific
commitments to sustaining our natural resource industries.
One of the most important things, and I hope we have a chance to
talk about this in debate today, is the need for us as
parliamentarians, for the government and for Canadians in general
to understand that the challenges that rural Canadians face and
that our natural resource communities face are unique. They are
different from those that are often faced by an urban community
from the urban parts of the country. We need to approach, from a
public policy perspective, what we do in a way that recognizes
and understands those unique challenges that we face in rural
Canada and in our natural resource communities.
If we think about it for a second, we can clearly see those
challenges. First, there is the challenge of geography. When
someone comes from rural Canada there is a whole lot of
geography. One of the issues concerns how we deliver services.
How do we provide either public or private services over vast
geographic areas? It is very different from how we may approach
it in a very tightly populated urban centre.
We also have the issue of population density. When we are
trying to attract investment to rural Canada and to communities
that are dependent on the natural resource industries, we often
do not have the density of population nor the market size where
we can readily attract the private sector to make the same type
of investments they may be willing to do all on their own in an
urban area. We need to approach things differently where we
often need to have public-private partnerships in order for that
type of investment to occur in rural communities. Infrastructure
is a good example of that.
Telecommunications infrastructure may happen all by itself in a
large urban centre because the population density and the market
size are there. That same infrastructure, just as essential in
rural areas, will not happen through the private sector because
the market size is not there. We need those types of
partnerships, public and private.
Another issue is the distance from market. If people are
dealing in rural Canada or in the natural resource industries,
they have the unique challenge of distance from market. If one
is a small entrepreneur or small business person trying to set
up, that is a challenge that he or she may have to face in rural
Canada but not one in urban Canada.
1850
One of the most important differences and one that I am sure the
members in the House know and the viewers from rural Canada
understand is that our economies that are natural resource based
tend to be cyclical in nature. They are very much based on
commodity prices and commodity prices fluctuate. That means that
we very often have a different type of economy than what we may
find in a diversified manufacturing based or technologically
based urban economy.
What that means is that we need to take a different public
policy approach when we are dealing with rural natural resource
based economies than we may take when we are dealing with the
manufacturing diversified technologically based urban economy.
One of the successes of the government, and we could have a
debate about the degree of that success I suspect, is that we
have an understanding that there are in fact unique challenges
that face rural communities and that we need to approach our
economies in rural areas differently to reflect those challenges.
The approach itself has to be important. From my perspective,
there are four major approaches that are appropriate. One of
those approaches we call the rural lens.
The rural lens, which is one of my responsibilities as the
Secretary of State for Rural Development, ensures that when
we consider policy, when we consider legislation and when we
consider responding to the issues of the day, we make sure that
we do it in a way that makes sense for rural Canadians as much as
it makes sense for urban Canadians, so that the solution does not
just make sense in the big cities of Canada but that it makes
sense in the small communities and the rural areas. The rural
lens puts the responses that we are making, whether they be
legislative or regulatory, through a lens to ensure that they
make as much sense on Main Street, rural Canada as they do on
Main Street, urban Canada.
Second, I believe that as we deal with the issues of rural
Canada and the issues of natural resource based economies, that
we must take a bottom up and not a top down approach. We must
allow communities themselves to determine the best way to achieve
their economic sustainability. It would reflect that the needs of
the fishing community in Newfoundland are very different from a
mining community in northern Ontario, an agricultural community
on the prairies or a forestry community in British Columbia.
Although they all face those unique challenges I talked about
before, their solutions to those challenges will be and need to
be reflective of their particular needs. That is why it is
important that we have a bottom up approach where we empower
communities to set their strategies and to move forward.
The role of the senior levels of government, whether that be
provincial or federal, is to provide those communities with a set
of tools that allows them to pursue their objectives in a way
that makes sense for them. That is why we have such tools as the
regional development agencies, in my particular case, in northern
Ontario, FEDNOR. The reason we have the community futures
program, where we saw a $90 million investment, and an
infrastructure program that has a specific amount targeted for
rural areas, is so we can help provide the tools to these
communities as they pursue those plans.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington. Given the formality of
the debate tonight, I look perhaps to engaging a little later
with my colleagues.
The Chairman: I thank the minister. I will be seeking
his guidance from time to time. I will be receptive to hearing
questions, not only during his interventions but possibly if
someone felt that it would be more appropriate to have a short
exchange right now in terms of questions with the minister I am
prepared to entertain that. If not, I will go around once to
every representative of each party.
I want members to keep in mind that when any member has the
floor they are free to make interventions, to also ask questions
and to receive replies. I am in your hands. I see the member for
Vancouver Island North rising. I would ask all members on either
side for their questions and to be succinct and the replies also,
so that as much as possible we can maximize our time.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a succinct
question of the secretary of state. It relates to the rural
economies, certainly in my part of British Columbia or in coastal
British Columbia, that are in very deep trouble in many respects.
1855
We have heard some federal hints that there will be program
announcements. I think the minister made some reference to that.
However, there is certainly a lack of clarity. I wonder if the
minister could offer any more clarity than what is a general
issue right now in terms of what people at home know about what
the government is planning.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position
to get specific about what future announcements may be made.
I will come back to what I was saying when I was wrapping up my
speech. The concept is to first empower communities, coastal
communities being a good example because they have a set of needs
and concerns that are very different than a prairie agricultural
community, to establish what it is they need to do to sustain
their communities. That process is taking place in many of our
coastal communities.
The role of the federal government at that point would be to
then listen to what those community needs are and then to develop
a set of tools to assist them. Some of those tools have already
been announced. We have talked about an infrastructure program
that lays the basic groundwork. We talked about having the
availability of the community futures program that provides
access to capital. If we are going to diversify and grow our
economy we need access to capital. That is another tool that is
there.
As we move forward we will have additional tools that will allow
these communities to sustain themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
my question is for the minister.
We know that there is an economic development agency in northern
Ontario called FedNor. We also know that Abitibi—Témiscamingue is
a resource area similar to northern Ontario which is being
supported by FedNor.
Would it be possible for FedNor to get involved in northern
Quebec? We have been going through a decline in the past three
years. Could FedNor get involved? If not, could a new agency be
set up to provide assistance to northern resource areas?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, it is quite true that
in the case of northern Quebec and northern Ontario we do share
many of the same issues when it comes to sustaining our mining
industry. I know the member has worked hard in his riding and
with his communities on their sustainability.
We have undertaken a joint initiative where we are trying to
assist our mining communities in terms of recovering from low
commodity prices and some of the ramifications. A regional
development agency, CED, also covers Quebec.
Rather than creating a separate structure, we need to have
co-ordination between the two agencies to ensure that we deliver
the program in a unified and comprehensive way when we are
dealing with a problem that really crosses provincial boundaries.
Regional development agencies are positive things. Although
they are separate entities unto themselves, they are co-ordinated
collectively through the Industry Canada portfolio.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the format this evening which allows more interaction
between the government and opposition parties.
I have a quick question on private woodlot taxation. There are
around 440,000 private woodlot owners in Canada. There are
certainly more on the east coast than on the west coast but they
are certainly prevalent across the country. Part of the
challenge woodlot owners face is an onerous tax burden because
they tend to harvest their woodlots every 50 to 80 years in a
cyclical manner. There is no way to amortize that profit over a
10 or 15 year tax period. They pay their tax up front, all at
once.
What we have been suggesting and pushing the government to do is
to find a way to accommodate private woodlot owners so they do
not have to pay all the tax up front and can amortize the tax
payable over a 10 year period. This would provide them with the
opportunity to do some replanting, some thinning and some
silviculture practices in the meantime so they have some expenses
to claim against it.
I would like to hear the minister's comments on that and the
possibility of looking at that.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, obviously specific tax
policies fall within the purview of the Minister of Finance.
1900
This gives me an opportunity to refer to a very important point
that the member made. We need to ensure, as we deal with the
comprehensive national issue of tax reform, that we do it in a
way which makes sense for rural Canada and rural Canadians.
The woodlot situation is an example of that. That is part of
what I talked about in terms of rural lens. Yes, we have to deal
with taxation as a comprehensive issue for all Canadians, but we
must make sure that even though woodlot owners are a small
percentage of the overall economy they are an important part of
the economy. They are an important part of the rural economy and
their needs through the rural lens need to be taken into account
when we undertake tax reform.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Chairman, my
colleague from South Shore has raised the same issue. If woodlot
owners were given the capacity to deduct expenses for
silviculture in the same way as the farming community would
actually do, it would enable them to offset the cost of managing
woodlots in environmentally sustainable ways.
Quite often, when woodlots are passed on from an inheritance
perspective, it may be more cost effective because they cannot
pay the inheritance tax and the capital gains tax to clear-cut
the woodlots. They have no other choice. It is a very perverse
way from an environmental perspective.
I know the Minister of Finance has been amenable to looking at
that, so I would say to the hon. minister that this is an issue
of public policy of which I know the Minister of Finance is
aware. He seems to be amenable to doing something, and we would
seek his help to try to move that particular yardstick.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of
Finance is familiar with the issues that the two members have
raised. I am certain he will give them his consideration as he
looks on an ongoing basis at reforms to the tax system.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this is
certainly an interesting format. About a year or so ago, along
with colleagues from both sides of the House, I was fortunate to
attend a rural economic development conference in Magog, Quebec.
It was a great success. It was open to all of us. About 500
Canadians from sea to sea to sea, from rural and remote
communities, attended that conference.
This the first time in the history of the House that we have had
a minister for rural Canada. I want to recognize that. Will
there be more of these conferences? It was a great learning
experience. I learned a lot as I am sure a lot of other people
did.
I encourage all colleagues to come to the next one. Has the
final report of that conference been published yet?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite
right in terms of having a national conference in Magog a year
ago this week.
This gives me an opportunity to make a distinction. It is not a
consultation process. It is a dialogue process. It is an
ongoing process where we reach out to rural Canadians from across
Canada on an ongoing basis. We want to hear their perspectives
and their suggestions and then in return to feed back to them our
reactions.
Specifically the process during the off year, which is this year
as we had the conference last year, is that there is a series of
regional conferences. There will be another national conference
next year. The action plan leading out of that, where we
specifically committed to do the things that were brought forward
to us in Magog, I expect and hope to have public within the next
month or so.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
listened carefully to what the secretary of state had to say and
he did not mention anything about creating a partnership with
the provinces.
For the last 50 years, the federal government has dealt with
regional development. During the last 50 years, numerous
programs were implemented with none of them taking into
consideration the specificity of the various communities and
their development which the provincial government has been
promoting.
1905
I would like to know if he would go that far. I have many more
questions for him, but this one is a good place to start.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the member
makes an excellent point. For rural development to work well, it
needs to have as many partners at the table as possible. The
provincial government is certainly one of those partners. I have
had an opportunity to have meetings, not with the new minister in
Quebec but with the previous minister in the region, Mr. Jolivet.
Essentially we agree that the orchestra leader, the leader of
rural development, has to be the communities themselves. It is
the federal and provincial governments which supply the tools.
The hon. member is right. We have to make sure that we do not
duplicate what the provincial government provides the community
in the form of a tool. Obviously the federal government does not
need to provide that tool or vice versa.
A good example, though, of where we work in co-operation with
rural communities is the infrastructure program, which is a
tripartite program with financial assistance coming from the
municipality, from the provincial government and from the federal
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to join in the
debate tonight. I would like to thank the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for his initiative.
Natural resources is
a tremendously important sector for my riding of
Timiskaming—Cochrane and for Northern Ontario as a whole.
Natural resources represent a very important sector for Canada
and account for 11% of our gross domestic product, or $90
billion, $100 billion a year in exports, a positive trade
balance of $60 billion. It is the livelihood of close to 3.5
million Canadians in more than 600 communities and represents
750,000 direct jobs, good jobs to boot, and as many indirect
ones.
Resource industries are some of those who invest the most in
capital equipment in Canada, a majority of their investments
going to scientific and technologic innovations. A good number
of our resource industries are among the most innovative in our
economy and their productivity is growing faster than the
average.
This should prove that the Canadian resource sector has nothing
quaint about it.
These are world class and knowledge-based industries. They have a
rich intellectual capital and are part and parcel of the new
global economy of the 21st century, which is based on knowledge.
They need it to reduce their operating costs, increase their
productivity and competitiveness and overcome the difficult
conditions and uncertain success due to the Canadian scene.
[English]
Because a strong natural resource industry is so important to
Canada, because we have learned to excel, to innovate and to be a
leader in almost every facet of this global business, it is
crucial for government to lay a solid foundation for natural
resources to thrive in the 21st century, guided by the principles
of sustainable development.
The Government of Canada is working hard to lay the right
foundation for this sector, balancing environmental, social and
economic concerns in three ways: by providing sound economic
fundamentals, and we have done that in the last seven or eight
years; by encouraging innovation and knowledge so we remain at
the cutting edge; and by promoting environmental stewardship and
sustainable communities. These are the three areas I would like
to address this evening.
[Translation]
The first area is sound economic foundations. The most recent federal
mini-budget of last October delivered some of the tangible results
of the success Canada has achieved in its fight to eliminate the
deficit and to restore fiscal responsibility. Canada is stronger
today since it is in the best financial position it has ever been
in the recent past, as evidenced by the comments made by the
International Monetary Fund.
1910
Indeed, according to the IMF, Canada should continue to enjoy
sustained economic growth and be able to react well to the
economic downturn in the United States.
The new budget brought good news for Canada's mineral industry
with its 15% tax credit for flow-through shares investment in
exploration projects in Canada.
This measure was put it place as a result of a grassroots
campaign led by an effective coalition headed by the Prospectors
and Developers Association of Canada, the Canadian Drilling
Association and several members on this side of the House. My
colleagues from northern Ontario and northern Quebec, including
the member for Kenora—Rainy River, the Secretary of State for
Rural Development, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik,
the member for Timmins—James Bay and myself have understood the
benefits of exploration in our communities. I must say that it
was not easy to convince the Minister of Finance. We had to work
hard to convince him.
We hope this tax credit will attract new investments in
exploration in Canada, especially since other levels of
government have added their own programs to it. Such is the case
in Ontario.
Moreover, PDAC announced that flow-through financing coupled
with tax credits and totalling about $30 million was confirmed
just before the end of the year 2000. I am told that investments
are growing for the year 2001, which looks very promising.
I hope that more investors, advisors and stakeholders in the
financial sector will take note of this major new incentive in
the months to come.
This tax measure makes it more appealing to invest in mineral
exploration. Since there is a more favourable treatment of
capital gains, which we reviewed in the last budget, and a
commitment to fiscal prudence on the part of the government, it
can be said that a sounder economic base is in place. The
minerals and metals sector, like the Canadian economy as a
whole, can conduct its activities in a sounder context, and it
is in a better position in the race for capital money on
international markets.
[English]
This brings me to my second point, the need to focus on
knowledge and promoting innovation to be competitive in global
markets. Innovation is about making opportunities happen, and
without it we cannot succeed in the marketplace. By turning
ideas into action, by finding new and creative ways to do things,
companies can gain a competitive advantage and become leaders
internationally in their respective fields. They can generate
greater profits and a larger market share and they can create
quality jobs. This is what we have done in Canada with the
mining sector.
Innovation is a fundamental characteristic of our natural
resources sector. Let us think of our success in exploration and
mining, geomatics, remote sensing, mapping, surveying and
environmental engineering. Our high tech natural resources
industry generates economic, environmental and social benefits
right across the country.
As a matter of fact there are more mining jobs in Toronto than
there are in rural Canada. People do not realize that there are
over 25,000 direct jobs in Toronto related to mining.
This sector builds strong links to other sectors. One obvious
example is the sheer volume of commodity traffic that natural
resources generate for our Canadian railway system. Where would
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific be without natural
resources? Canada's natural resources industries also purchase
more computer equipment than all other Canadian manufacturing
industries combined.
There is this idea in big cities that mining and forestry are
backwoods industries and do not belong in a new age economy. That
is wrong.
The value of our natural resources, the very nature of the
industry, is often misunderstood. Some would have us believe
that natural resources have a diminished role to play in a dot
com universe because they have not kept up with the times. The
reality as we all know is very different. The brain power and
the technology used by this sector today are as sophisticated and
innovative as any other. We need to get this message out across
Canada and around the world. We must promote the innovative
nature of our natural resources sector.
1915
I was in Toronto not too long ago at the PDAC annual meeting. I
met with members of a delegation from the Japanese mineral and
metal association. They were worried that Canada would not
continue to produce the minerals that they needed. They had
heard the Prime Minister talking about making Canada the most
connected country, the most innovative, and being in the
forefront of the high tech economy. I reassured them that the
mineral industry was still the mainstay of our economy.
[Translation]
Canadian resource companies recognize the importance of
innovation. This is why, in the recent throne speech in which
the Government of Canada stated its priorities for the years to
come, natural resources were put under the theme “innovation”.
The government pledged “to promote innovation, growth and
development in all parts of our economy”, including our resource
sector. We will achieve that goal by doubling our investments in
research and development.
These investments, and I am quoting the throne speech, “will
directly benefit Canadians in areas such as ...natural resources
management”.
Currently, natural resource industries invest heavily in
Canadian research and development, including research on the use
of state of the art technologies, such as robotics, computer
vision, environmental technology and specialized software.
We must go even further. We must invest in the new technologies
to maintain a competitive edge and remain a truly sustainable
industry for the future. Natural resources must be part of a
renewed will to promote research and development in our country.
[English]
A good example of how innovative the mining industry has become
allows an operator to be sitting in a Toronto office and running
a scoop tram in a Sudbury mine using a computer. This prevents
injuries to workers, et cetera.
The Chairman: I will have to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary. He was sharing his 20 minute block with
the secretary of state. The beauty of being in committee of the
whole is that members can come back and speak subsequently. I am
sure he will have the opportunity to conclude his remarks.
In order not to monopolize the time on one side or the other, we
have had approximately 30 minutes on the government side with the
original 10 minute intervention of the secretary of state and
approximately 10 minutes of questions and comments. I will now
turn to the opposition parties.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, we are all in a learning process tonight of how this
format will work. It is a refreshing idea and I am pleased to be
a part of it. So far the debate has been somewhat broader than I
had expected, ranging from issues of rural communities and on
from there.
We came as a party prepared to discuss natural resources
specifically and the state of Canada's natural resource
industries from a number of different directions. My direction
will be the issue of energy as that is where my interest lies. My
riding currently supplies 15% of Canada's fossil fuel energy and
it is a huge issue.
We currently have some $30 billion to $35 billion worth of
committed investment going into the riding and the development of
heavy oil and tar sands. All this is in view of the discussions
that have been ongoing between Canada, the United States and
Mexico on a continental energy program. It is of great interest
to us.
At this time not only we in opposition but the industry as well
seems to be wondering what the government is talking about and
what its position is particularly in view of the Prime Minister's
recent announcement of the creation of an energy cabinet
committee with a number of the most senior cabinet members in
Canada's government sitting on it.
There is a curious emphasis put on an issue, particularly
because Canada some time ago when it entered into the Canada-U.S.
trade agreement and the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement
committed to a certain position on energy that binds Canada's
energy industries essentially to supply.
1920
The free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. made
commitments on behalf of Canada to guarantee delivery of Canada's
energy to the United States. The Americans are allowed to buy it
at the same price that we Canadians are allowed to buy it. We
are not allowed to ration those energy resources to the Americans
any more than we ration them to ourselves. It really has the
industry and many western Canadians curious that the issue of the
continental energy policy might be more than what is already
committed.
There are issues dealing with the Mexican petroleum industry and
issues around the North American electrical industry that need
some discussion, investment and development. However, regarding
the fossil fuel energy industry, it seems we are addressing
ghosts that do not exist.
Going back to the whole issue of the free trade agreement and
how we got into that position in the first place is curious and
of some concern to me. It is part of Canada's history that we
went through a national energy program under a former Liberal
government which raided the natural resource of the fossil fuel
industries of Alberta and the west to the tune of some $60
billion.
The reaction to that program and that raid on the wealth of one
of Canada's provinces resulted in a move by the premier and the
energy minister of that province to fight very hard on behalf of
my province and the natural resource industry in my riding to
protect the industry and the province from that ever happening
again.
That was a serious mistake, not only on behalf of a previous
Liberal government but on behalf of a province in Canada that
moved to protect its interests the way it did. If Canada had
been behaving as a country should have in a time of crisis with a
short energy supply and threats of energy interruption from other
parts of the world, it should have moved to provide the assurance
of energy supply and price to all of Canada.
It should have provided an assurance from the west as the
national energy program had proposed to do and at the same time
returned or exchanged that assurance of supply and price from the
western producing regions to central and eastern Canada. The
return should have been some kind of benefit to those provinces
to counterbalance the loss of income from those provinces.
Had that happened we would have been behaving like a country
should have in the interests of the entire country. We would
have been in a better position today to deal with the energy
crunch we faced last winter and that we will face again. We are
looking at perhaps record gasoline prices for Canadian consumers
this summer. All of that is related in some way to the history
of the whole national energy program and the reaction to it in
Canada.
Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago in committee, some
government members were using some of the language I heard so
often back in 1980 about the national interest and how the
government had a responsibility to act in the national interest
when dealing with energy prices and protecting the interests of
consumers across Canada. That scares the heck out of people in
my part of the country because of the history.
1925
While the government today gives assurances that we will not
revisit the national energy program, there are still concerns
that the interests of a more populous region of Canada will take
precedence over the producing regions in the national interest.
It would be a shame to do that.
As we move into this negotiated continental energy program, the
power that has been presented by the government in the creation
of this energy cabinet committee again raises concerns. We do
not understand what is going on. Everyone is hoping the
government will provide some clarity and assurance that when we
start negotiating with Mexico and the United States to engage in
this continental energy program that the interests of all
Canadians will be paramount. The benefits of the development of
the energy supply to the United States from primarily Alberta
will certainly provide great opportunities for Albertans, for
Canadians from coast to coast and for people from all over the
world who would come to my part of Canada, my riding, to find
employment in highly paid, skilled jobs.
We do appreciate and want those great things but at the same
time we want the interests of all Canadians to be kept in mind.
Albertans are fair-minded and are willing to consider those
benefits but we should do it in a national perspective. If a
compromise is asked for in one area to achieve an objective, then
there should be give on the other end as well.
In the negotiations on this national energy policy we could all
come out winners if we do it properly. Some of us, or perhaps
even all of us, could come out serious losers if we fall to the
interests of the Americans who, quite frankly, do not give a
sweet tweet about the Canadian environment or Canadian rural
communities. They want our energy and they will have our energy
one way or the other.
I would like assurances that the Government of Canada will fight
hard and negotiate hard in the interests of Canadians and of
rural Canadians in particular.
The Chairman: I understand the member for Athabasca is
splitting his time with the member for Vancouver Island North.
Before I give the floor to the member for Vancouver Island North,
are there any questions for the member for Athabasca? The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, the member asked a few
questions and he probably would like a response from the
government side. I am pleased to do so. The member had me
worried for a while. I thought he was asking for a return to the
national energy program which I do not think would do well in his
province.
Let me reassure all members, if they have been listening to the
Minister of Natural Resources, and specifically to the Prime
Minister when he was in Calgary, that the government has no
intention of going back to an NEP type of program. We are
talking about a continental energy program or policy. We prefer
to call it an expansion of the continental energy market.
The issue is quite simple. The Americans need more energy and
we have a surplus of energy. Whether it is the tar sands,
Churchill Falls, a region of the country that can develop
electricity or whether it is natural gas in the northwest, we
have a huge potential to create jobs and wealth in the country.
We as a government are willing to expand our market and to sell,
for the benefit of all Canadians and specifically the provinces
that produce energy, to the Americans and to the rest of the
world, but only by respecting provincial jurisdictions and the
environment.
If the Americans do invest we will not allow them to call
the shots. This government intends to maintain sovereignty over
natural resources which is critical for the security and the
well-being of any nation. That is what we intend to do.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Athabasca
talked about a former national energy policy, and there is a
relevant point there.
1930
In the past governments have tended to raid natural resource
profits from individual provinces or territories. We have set
that precedent and somehow or another we have to move away from
that precedent. The specific instance I am referring to is the
east coast.
The oil field on the east coast is now bringing in an
unprecedented profit that was never there before. That is in
direct loggerheads with equalization payments. When Alberta
found its resources under the ground, the federal government
accommodated Alberta by allowing it to keep the profit from those
resources and its equalization payments from 1957 to 1964.
We have been asking the federal government to recognize the
advantage it gave to Alberta so it could get out from under and
become a have province instead of a have not province. Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec or any province is never going to
get out from under the yolk unless they are allowed to keep some
of their profits. It is not just the oil field. It could be the
mining industry or the diamond industry in the Northwest
Territories or in Nunavut.
I would like the member's comments on that.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Chairman, this has always been a
favourite issue of mine so I thank the member for his question.
It has always been my position that the provinces should be
treated equally. Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland or British
Columbia, where this is just becoming an issue, should be treated
no differently than Alberta. If the provinces where the industry
develops are expected to provide the infrastructure to support
the industry, they should reap the benefits of the development of
that industry. That can never happen if the federal government
continues with its greed to demand ownership of a resource and
benefit from a resource and then dribble money back to the
province in whatever formula it thinks is appropriate for that
province.
It has always been my and my party's position that the
responsibility for the management, development and regulation of
offshore resource development should be with the provinces.
While constitutionally the supreme court chose that the federal
government would own that industry, there is absolutely nothing
to prevent it from delegating responsibility for the resource
development, and therefore accruing the benefits of the resource
just like Alberta does. The sooner that happens the better.
If we start meddling with equalization and start allowing the
producing provinces to keep their equalization at the current
level and at the same time enjoy whatever benefits the federal
government thinks the province should have of the royalties, then
again we are skewing the way the provinces are treated. That is
a mistake.
If we simply delegate responsibility to Nova Scotia for offshore
development or the same for Newfoundland, then those provinces
take on the same responsibility as Alberta did to conduct the
regulatory and environmental protection process. They develop
the infrastructure then they enjoy the benefit. As that benefit
increases with the development, the provinces lose in the gradual
process that equalization and they become a have province the
same as all other provinces that have achieved that status
through resource development. That seems to be the fair way to
do it.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I am the chair of an ad
hoc group called the coastal parliamentarians in British
Columbia. It is comprised of all federal members of parliament
and provincial members of the legislature that touch on salt
water. Interesting issues come up in this group.
One of the things that is very awkward is the fact that there is
not a single government member of parliament from rural British
Columbia, whether coastal or non-coastal.
Therefore, there are an awful lot of frustrations on that file.
What I am finding, and what is apparent to everyone, is that a
lot of those frustrations deal with two departments, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of
Transport.
1935
Of course, what we are talking about tonight deals with the
Secretary of State for Rural Development. If members want to
take some question out of what I am talking about tonight, one
question would be how can we end the frustrations that we face in
dealing with rural and remote coastal issues in British Columbia
when we are dealing with a bureaucracy and a government side that
does not really understand those issues? Many of them are
fixable. One of the things that is becoming very apparent to us
is that when those same kinds of issues are brought up in
Atlantic Canada where there are government members, they get
fixed an awful lot easier than what happens in our circumstances.
We have some real life examples right now. Many of them are
two-bit items that really hurt and public safety is often at
risk. I just fail to understand why the government would choose
to put public safety at risk. The marine travelling community is
the busiest recreational waterway in Canada. The federal
government is basically abandoning its strong mandate for public
safety in those areas by getting rid of rescue stations. It was
to do it this year. Now it is saying it will not do it until
next year. It is just summertime events, not big cost items.
Getting rid of the coast guard divers off the Hovercraft near
Vancouver airport is putting people at risk. We have every
signal from the coast guard now that the destaffing of light
stations will be back on the burner again. The promise was not
in this millennium, which I think was what the minister of the
day said in terms of destaffing. However we are into a new
millennium now. Those are great frustrations.
I heard the secretary of state refer to community futures and
some initiatives with that group in rural communities. We have
rural coastal communities that have been denied community futures
coverage. They have written to the appropriate minister of the
day on numerous occasions and have never received satisfaction.
Maybe if I had had a chance to rise on a second question, that
would have been my question. How can this be? It is a political
decision.
The Chairman: During the time of the member's
intervention, he is free to use any of that time for a question
to a member opposite or otherwise. Within that 10 minutes
timeframe that he has he can either speak or ask questions,
whichever he might choose later on. If he has a question that
he wants to put, he should feel free to do it during this period.
It is entirely his period to do with as he chooses, either to
simply make a speech or mix it with questions. The floor is his
to do as he chooses.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I think that is what I am
doing but I appreciate the guidance.
The other thing that occurs to me is that this is a new format,
a different format. We have some existing formats in the House
of Commons that are used inappropriately.
1940
For example, if I get up in the House of Commons during question
period to ask a minister a question and do not get the full
answer because of either time constraints or the minister is not
really familiar with what I might be asking, I have the
opportunity to file a piece of paper with the clerk and go on
what is called the adjournment proceedings or the late show. I
have done that on numerous occasions. Guess what? The minister
who responded to my question was never been there for the late
show. It was always a stock prepared answer. It was as if it
did not matter what I asked because the answer was just simply
read. Some things could be done a whole bunch better around here.
That is all my unprepared speech for tonight.
There are three things I wanted to touch on. I will do it very
quickly. One is we spent two years in this place. I was on the
natural resources committee in 1999 and 2000. I know the
secretary of state was on that in 1996. We prepared a report
called “Forest Management Practices in Canada as an
International Trade Issue”. We tabled it in June of 2000. It
was also a unanimous report and I think we said some very good
things. Of course, the government's response did not occur
because of the election call. Now we have resubmitted to the
committee a request for the government to respond, which under
the rules is within 150 days. We are already looking at next
September. That is a year and a half after submission.
There are some emergencies out there. A lot of this report
dealt with the mid-coast of British Columbia because that was
like a litmus test for what was going on regarding the
environmental pressures on international market access for forest
products on the Canadian basis.
We had recommendations in there for pro-active delivery of
Canadian forest practice messages in our major markets. We had a
very practical program presented to our committee. The committee
was enthusiastic about endorsing that. The commitment from the
federal government was a minor one because industry and the
provincial government in British Columbia had already bought in.
The financial commitment being asked for was simply to
demonstrate real commitment. It was not to extract a bunch of
money. Guess what? It fizzled. There was nothing.
In the meantime, we have companies operating in the mid-coast,
the provincial government to some extent, environmental
organizations, Greenpeace and so on have signed some protocols.
This was been a huge struggle. Last week International Forest
Products, a major operator on the B.C. coast, announced layoffs
of 500 direct employees, 400 contract employees and the closure
of a sawmill, which will have tremendous other implications as a
consequence of what is happening on the mid-coast. There are
going to be other announcements from other companies.
All of this is happening and it is as if the federal government
is blind to it. The federal government has a mandate for
international trade and international access to market issues. It
is doing nothing to fulfill that mandate compared to what it
could be doing. Yes, I know we have an international partnership
program run through the embassies, diplomats and so on. This was
a practical program that would have had real buy in. It could
have gone somewhere. It could have done something.
There is no excitement. There is no response. Everything is
flat when it comes to the government response.
1945
That is a very strong suggestion from the Canadian Alliance in
terms of something the government could do to help in the natural
resources sector, that is, to implement the program and do it
immediately. There is no reason why it could not.
The program is a practical market access initiative put forward
by forest workers, in this case IWA Canada, the international
woodworkers and their largest local, which covers their coastal
loggers, some forest workers in northern Ontario and also a fair
chunk of the sawmill industry.
Secondly I want to touch on the softwood lumber dispute for a
just a few minutes. We cannot ignore it if we are going to talk
about natural resources. All I want to say is that it is a great
disappointment to me that although the official opposition, the
Canadian Alliance, was proactive on that issue and had its
position out as of June 7, 2000, until February of this year the
Alliance still did not know what the government's position would
be upon the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement. We went
through a federal election campaign never being able to extract
from our British Columbia candidates or from our rural candidates
where they were on the softwood lumber agreement. That is not
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, an ex-Liberal member of parliament who is
now the CEO of the Council of Forest Industries in British
Columbia is saying exactly the same thing. Where was the
leadership when we needed it? That was another letdown.
The last thing I want to touch on in my remaining 30 seconds is
west coast oil and gas. I want to serve notice today to anyone
who is unaware of it that this is the next huge issue in British
Columbia. There is a coastal rural consensus that it is required
and needed, and we have to get there. We need to get there with
provincial leadership and either federal leadership or federal
non-interference. That is the message I want to deliver.
Obviously we would like proactive federal leadership, but at the
very least the government should not put obstacles in the way.
The senior members of the Liberal caucus from British Columbia
need to receive that message very strongly.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a
moment to respond to a couple of the points my colleague made in
his presentation.
He talked about the frustration in coastal communities in
British Columbia. One of the things I talked about in my speech
was the need for us to have an opportunity as a federal
government to understand and listen to the specific solutions the
coastal communities themselves want to pursue.
That is why I am pleased to be able to announce
that this week in British Columbia
one of those rural dialogue sessions I talked about is in fact
occurring. Members of the coastal communities of British
Columbia will be attending.
As I am sure the hon. member knows, there is an organization in
British Columbia, the Coastal Community Network, which represents
many of the coastal communities. I will take the opportunity
when I am in British Columbia on Friday to meet with the CCN and
discuss directly with its members many of the issues and concerns
the hon. member has brought forward in the Chamber.
1950
There is one last point on the issue of community futures, which
the member has brought forward. I would be pleased if he would
have an opportunity to talk to me at some time later this week
specifically. I will endeavour with my colleague to undertake to
find out the difficulties or to try to deal with the difficulties
the member is alluding to.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chairman, this could be an
interesting format. I am thinking about a certain hour that is
called QP when quite often we wish we had the chance to ask
questions, even of our own ministers and even of the opposition.
Perhaps down the road it will be the opposition that is not sure
about this format.
I have a question for the member, who represents one of the most
beautiful parts of our country, and all parts are great. I want
to clarify this. He may not have time before he addresses
another subject. I admire ad hoc groups of all MPs for the
coastal parts of B.C. Our daughter is working and going to
school there, and I do want to include the comment that there are
some CAP sites in some very remote areas. I know there is a need
for more.
My colleague mentioned that this ad hoc group from the B.C.
coast includes all the federal and provincial members. I want to
clarify this. Does the ad hoc group include the Minister of the
Environment, who I know is very passionate about not just the
environment but coastal B.C.?
I have no props, but I am sure that in the future when we talk
about our great resources in Canada we will perhaps focus even
more on H2O.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his
question. I think the member's daughter may be my constituent.
Am I correct?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Does the member think she voted for
him?
Mr. John Duncan: Yes, most likely she did vote for me.
The member asked me if the member for Victoria, the Minister of
the Environment, was a coastal parliamentarian. It is ad hoc.
Everyone gets the communications and can choose whether to attend
or not attend, whether to participate in the e-mail network or
not. I will say that our annual meeting is actually held at the
same time as the Coastal Community Network meeting. The two
groups are linked in that regard, although they are at arm's
length. This year's meeting was just a month ago, but 13 months
ago the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans, as I recall, both attended and both spoke. It was
greatly appreciated.
There was a high level of support from the federal government at
that time, but from my perspective, my vision, in the optics I
saw this year, there was a low level of support. Maybe that was
because November is a terrible time to have an election and run
all the machinery of government. Everything gets out of sync and
gets disjointed. I am letting the member off the hook by saying
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I will be
splitting my time with the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
I am extremely pleased to take part in this debate on the state
of the natural resources of Canada and Quebec. I am going to
use a topical example to address this question: softwood lumber.
We are going through some extremely difficult times in
connection with this. We know the American commission has
decided to look into Canadian trade practices, in what I would
term a highly impertinent manner.
1955
We will have a pretty tough row to hoe, and I feel it is
important to have a clear picture of the situation, as it
pertains to Quebec in particular, as far as the importance of
wood as a resource and of the lumber industry.
We have had occasion to discuss this matter in the House several
times, so hon. members will know that it accounts for 130,000
jobs in Canada, which are directly connected with the industry.
The figure for Quebec is 40,000 jobs. Quebec is the
second highest producer, ranking after British Columbia, which
is responsible for close to 25% of lumber production.
It means that 7 billion board feet are produced annually, which
represents a total value of $4 billion Canadian. About half a
billion dollars are directly invested in the sawmill industry
each year and some $65 million in the forest industry.
As far as Quebec and the regions of Quebec are concerned and I am
looking at my colleagues and all of us are being affected by
this crisis some 250 municipalities have sprung up around wood
processing. In 135 towns and villages, all of the jobs are
related to this industry. Except for our major urban sectors, all
our rural, semi-rural and semi-urban regions are affected.
My riding is located in the Lanaudière area, which produces
lumber. The ridings of my colleagues from Témiscamingue and
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are also affected. In the Mauricie area
that I had the opportunity to visit during a tour concerning
the summit of the Americas, producers asked me a lot of questions
about what we had done in the House. The same is true for the
Lower St. Lawrence, the North Shore, the Eastern Townships, the
Laurentians and many more areas.
This all goes to show how crucial the sawmill industry is for
the regions of Quebec. This crisis in our trade relations with
Canada is extremely serious, and we are following the situation
very closely.
All in all, 51.4% of Quebec exports go to the United States,
while the rest, or 47.6%, goes to Canada. As we can see, the
U.S. market is a major outlet.
Quebec exports to the United States represent about $2 billion a
year while Canadian exports as a whole represent about $10
billion or $11 billion a year.
It is a very important industry, an industry for which the free
trade provided for under NAFTA must be maintained. It is widely
known that for the last twenty years now, the American
industry, and I should even say part of the American lumber
industry, has been harassing the Canadian and Quebec industry as
soon as our market reaches 30% of the American market.
The real reason of all that fuss is that the Canadian and Quebec
industries have been successful over the years, thanks to the
investments they made in their equipment and to their revamping
of their production methods.
The lumber industry is closely related to the pulp and paper
industry in Quebec. Accordingly, a great deal was done over the
years with regard to the environment, work organization and
investment in new technologies.
The problem is not that Canada and Quebec are subsidizing their
industries by requiring very low stumpage fees. We all know that
the investigations made in 1991-92 have shown that as far as the
Canadian industry was concerned, especially in Quebec, there was
no subsidy. Actually they really had to look hard to find a 0.01%
subsidy. Therefore, the problem is not there.
I believe people need to be reminded that since 1992 stumpage
fees have been raised substantially in Quebec and in all of
Canada's provinces. For example, in 1992, when the most recent
inquiry on the alleged subsidies took place, stumpage fees were
$5.42 a thousand board feet. In December, they were $9.26. So
they have just about doubled, and reached $11.61 in December
1997.
Since 1992, our stumpage fees have increased
in objective terms. This is true for
Quebec and for the other provinces—making our case even better.
This is why we are disappointed to see that the American
secretariat has nevertheless initiated inquiries under
anti-dumping procedures and countervailing duties, despite the
facts.
2000
The paradox, and I think it is important to point it out, is
that the American interests established in Quebec and Canada are
complaining, in terms of their production in Canada and Quebec,
that stumpage fees are too high. Often these same American
interests criticize Canada and Quebec for having stumpage fees
that are too low, when it comes to their American production.
This is a sort of schizophrenia, which demonstrates the extent
of ill will in the whole matter in part of the American industry.
As I mentioned, we find it completely unacceptable that the U.S.
department of
commerce has begun investigations when there is absolutely
nothing to justify them. I read
the Minister for International Trade's press release and we share
his point of view completely—
One interesting thing is that, contrary to 1995-96, it seems
that the Canadian and Quebec industry, and I can guarantee this for
the Quebec industry, is united. After five years of the
Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement with quotas and countervail
duties, we came to the conclusion that it was not a question
of negotiating any agreement at all and that we had to return, in
fact, there was a short period of free trade, to the rules of
free trade, as set out in NAFTA, for all goods, including energy.
This is in a context where there are new rules of the game
compared to 1995-96.
One thing Canada did was file a complaint with the World Trade
Organization, which agreed to set up a panel of experts to look
into the legality of American practices with respect to
countervailing duties, which we are now subject to. Let us hope
that we have their response soon.
Our regions in Canada and Quebec deserve to see
members of the House stand together against harassment from the
American industry and, I would say, a certain lax attitude on the
part of the U.S. government.
I am pleased to recall that on March 20 of this year the House
almost unanimously passed a motion which I moved on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois to support the Canadian government's wish to go
back to free trade, that is free and equitable circulation of all
softwood lumber.
Following this motion, our subcommittee on disputes and
investments took the initiative of sending a letter signed by a
large number of parliamentarians from all parties to the American
secretary of state for commerce, Mr. Zoellick, to inform him that
we were in disagreement with the situation and that we wanted to
go back to free trade.
I said, and I think we all agree, that this is not a subsidy
issue. As I mentioned earlier, our stumpage fees are not low. I
will read a short excerpt of a letter sent to the minister for
International Trade by
Gilles Baril, the Quebec minister of state responsible for
regional development and minister of industry and commerce, and
Jacques Brassard, the Quebec minister of natural resources. They
remind the federal minister that:
Under the Quebec forestry development plan, timber royalties are
based on the market value of timber from private forests. That
timber and the timber from the United States account for 31% of
all the lumber provided to the Quebec industry.
However, the situation is still critical. There is the
structural problem to which I referred, in that the American
industry did not invest enough money. It cannot compete with the
Canadian and Quebec industries and its production costs are
indeed higher than those of our industries. There is also a
problem with economic conditions in that lumber prices in Canada
and in Quebec are currently going down.
There are three reasons, which I will review briefly. American
consumption has slowed down because of the economic downturn in
the United States, which means that there is less demand for
softwood lumber. Supply has increased substantially, not because
the provinces, those provinces affected by the agreement between
Canada and the United States, have increased their exports, but
because other countries have taken advantage of the agreement.
During the time that the agreement was in place, Canada
increased its exports to the United States by 7.9%, while other
countries increased theirs by 187.7%. This means that certain
countries took advantage of the fact that the Canadian industry
could not do more.
Another important aspect that is specific to Canada is the issue
of quotas, which forced several provinces, including Quebec and
British Columbia, to sell to Canadian markets.
2005
This led to such a drop in prices that, and I will conclude with
this, at this very moment, stumpage fees in Quebec are $9.26 and
the price is $10, which means that our industry could not survive
countervailing duties.
I remind members that the Bloc Quebecois wants this situation
settled rapidly, without compromising the principle of free
trade. We want all of Canada's regions to work together through
these difficult times, from which I am sure we will emerge as
winners.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon.
member for Joliette. I appreciated his speech, because it is an
excellent one. He knows his business. We know this dates back
more than 18 years to 1982. After a thorough investigation by
the U.S. department of commerce, Canada concluded that stumpage
fees did not represent a subsidy on which any action could be
taken.
It is also important to say, as I read in the Quebec Lumber
Manufacturers Association's press release, that the association
remains confident in its capacity to demonstrate the
inconsistency of the allegations advanced by the American
coalition in connection with the lumber issue.
The hon. member raised all the elements of the issue and perhaps
he could once again remind us of them in just a few words. There
is talk of a quota system for certain provinces, but much harm
has been done by the quota system in certain provinces,
particularly Quebec, in the resource regions, the remote regions,
particularly to the small sawmills. Does the hon. member agree?
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Chairman, if the truth be known, the
provinces affected by the Canada-Unites States deal have been
hard hit.
Producers in British Columbia, as in Quebec, have lost some of
their share of the U.S. market to other countries but also sadly
to other Canadian provinces who had free access to the American
market.
Members will remember that when we had free trade with the
Unites States, which lasted only a few months in 1995 and
1996, prices in Canada and in the States were the same, but with
the quota system, prices in the U.S. ended up being $140 higher
than in Canada.
We can all imagine how provinces like Quebec, British Columbia,
Alberta and Ontario were unable to fully benefit from the
feverish activity in the U.S. market but had to sell a huge part
of their products at a price $140 lower than in the United
States.
The quota system really hurt us. It is true for Quebec, but I
must say that it is also true for British Columbia, which along
with the crisis in southeast Asia, had to deal with a decline in
its lumber exports without the benefit of any new outlets.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased this evening to intervene in this debate, which gives us
an opportunity to put the natural resource industry in Quebec and
in Canada into perspective and to set the record straight,
because in recent years it was fashionable to speak of the
new economy and of the high tech sectors.
We have forgotten that natural resources are one of our economic
forces and they are great consumers of technology. They require
very specific industrial applications. The mining sector, for
example, is a great consumer of technology. At home, for
example, we are working to develop underground communications.
These are very specific applications of research in the
communications sector that find uses in the traditional sectors,
which buy these technologies.
In recent years, because it is less fashionable, the
technologies sector, rightly so, because the development there is
fascinating, has attracted a lot of attention. However, a lot of
private investment has gone into this sector as well.
We need only to look briefly at the changes in the stock markets
to see how the businesses in these sectors attracted substantial
capital, while it was very difficult for natural resources
sectors, such as mining, to attract capital to do the research
vital to ensuring sufficient reserves in the coming years.
Before going any further in connection with the mining sector,
which is one of the subjects I want to speak more about today, I
have a few comments about the remarks by my colleague, the hon.
member for Joliette, on softwood lumber.
I found it a bit strange and surrealistic on the weekend to see
the American president come to Quebec City and boast of the
virtues of free trade, when his government is denying us free
access to the American market in a sector such as that of
softwood lumber.
2010
I know that Canada was the host country. One does not want to
start arguments when one is receiving guests, but I would have
expected a little more firmness toward the U.S. president. When
he was on the platform beside the Prime Minister of Canada, he
was singing the praises of free trade, and everyone knew
perfectly well that a few days later he was going to give us a
good swift kick with respect to the American investigations into
our industry.
Americans must be made to face their own contradictions. Free trade
is not a one-way street. It is not because we are better than
them in this sector that we should do nothing.
That said, in the coming years there will be something extremely
important in the softwood lumber sector. It is a rare and
limited resource, which we have probably overexploited in recent
decades. To succeed, therefore, our companies will have
to provide even more added value and processing of our products.
This will require more investment to improve research
and development in natural resource market niches, particularly
in forest products.
I remember one frustration I experienced as an MP in recent
years. A program such as technology partnerships Canada was not
accessible to businesses in traditional sectors, or was
accessible with great difficulty.
We need a bit more flexibility in the tools available to us,
while complying with the constraints of international agreements
we have signed, so that the capital we put into developing
technology partnerships, or doing more research, is a little
better targeted and more suited to the reality of the natural
resources sector.
I have been through this a few times in the lumber sector. It
was very difficult to get approval for proposals to invest or
improve infrastructures, one reason at the time being that they
had to meet very high environmental standards. The pulp and
paper industry, for instance, had to invest heavily and it was
very difficult to get support from the federal government because
the tools were not very well suited to this reality.
All this must be taken into consideration. These companies will
have to make massive investments in the coming years to maintain
their sales and their growth, because they will have to further
process the wood products they already have. If they do not do
that, they will have problems. Everyone agrees on that. They will
not experience shortages, but natural resources in the forestry
sector will become rarer.
I now go back to the mining industry. The crisis is very
serious. Back home, in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, it is
one of the most serious crises ever. There are a number of
reasons for that. For example, gold was used as a hedge against
inflation for a long time. A lot of gold was bought up by central
banks and accumulated in reserves. This is a thing of the past
and we should not be nostalgic but face the fact that gold is no
longer the hedge against inflation that it once was.
This means that gold may not fetch the prices it did in the
past. We have a situation where small mining companies produce
gold at a cost of $200 to $300 per ounce and sell it for $260.
And I am not including financial costs, which means that they
lose money in the process. This situation cannot go on for very
long. This is not social economy and I have nothing against the
social economy, but the mining industry must be profitable. So
our production costs will have to come down.
We will also have to invest to develop new ways of doing things,
new technologies, and in a big way. We will also have to invest
in exploration, otherwise we will have a problem.
Exploring abroad used to be the thing to do. I will spare hon.
members the figures, but I have here a document that was given to
me by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
Everyone knows that generally speaking we are not close allies
but political rivals, but I believe we both agreed that the
crisis has made it urgent to develop common ways to help people
of our region.
I am grateful to the hon. member because I think he showed a
sense of fair play when he gave me this very well written
document, which shows among other things the increase in
production in developing countries, in South America and
elsewhere. It can been seen that there has been no growth in our
production and that we have not invested much in exploration.
It becomes rapidly apparent that we are beginning to face a
problem. I fear that we have not yet reached the worst of it
in the mining industry, and in particular in gold mining. About
three years ago, the price of gold dropped under $300 and it has
stayed under that level since.
2015
I recall having read the financial reports of mining companies,
which always said “We anticipate that, next year, the price of
gold will be around $330”. This did not happen. It did not
happen then and it is not happening now. We must admit that it
will not occur next year either.
We must look at our industry in a different way. The government
will have a major role to play in the short and long terms. We
will have to be creative. I do not have the monopoly on
solutions, but I am convinced that if we try we will find
solutions.
We will have to increase support for exploration.
We need to be realistic as well and to realize that the
traditional vehicle of flow-through shares is perhaps no longer
the way of the future.
Investors have been stung. I will give members a picture of what it
is like in our area. Investors who put money into this have been
burned more than once. Very few projects have seen any
cost effectiveness, because exploration is very high risk.
Second, in past audits Revenue Canada has set new assessments,
saying that certain work had not been done or was not up to
standard.
So if somebody put $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 into projects and
then got hit with another assessment four years down the line, on
the grounds that the standards were not met, he or she would have to
get up really early in the morning to convince him to reinvest in
the same company.
This has been an area where a lot of people have been burned.
Investors put money into the technology sector of the stock
market. Two or three years ago, a person could invest in just
about anything and prices went up. This led to a considerable
drain on capital. The situation has corrected itself a bit, but
investment in this sector was far less attractive, with little
spinoff, but with the risk and uncertainty of potential
reassessment and with less attractive tax credits than earlier.
As a result, today the mining industry perhaps needs a different
kind of support. The pre-election budget improved things a
little. It will not be enough, however.
My colleague from the other side of the lake, from the
other Témiscamingue, the Ontario one, said yes there was
an improvement over last year, but still far from enough.
The level of exploration still remains far from sufficient, if
we are to have the reserves required for the future.
All the better. Many of the reserves identified in the
development countries are used up, and that is a good thing.
Perhaps that will bring investors back here. New metals are
being discovered, including palladium and diamonds, and these
attract investors. This is interesting, yet not everywhere has
been explored.
I know that I am nearing the end of my speech. I would like to
add only one thing. When we talk about northern Quebec or
northern Ontario, and I mention those regions because they are
the ones I know best, people often feel these regions have
been thoroughly explored.
When exploring, one makes a very small and very deep hole in
various locations. Very often something could have been found
only a few feet away. It is far from obvious that the exploration
process can reveal all that. We have not yet explored
everything that there is to be explored in Canada; far from it.
The Noranda mine in our region operated for years. A mining
potential was later discovered close nearby. This shows how
difficult it can be to find the deposits and to identify them.
Technologies are now getting better and research can yield
maximum results, but we still have to go further.
I therefore really hope that this debate will not end with the
speeches. I look forward to real action. We certainly will
contribute to that. We will stimulate the debate and will be full of
determination, but money will have to be spent. There is a lot of
money around these days. There are large surpluses.
The natural resources sector, and I have talked about mines but
the same holds true for all the other natural resources, will have
to be considered carefully if we want to put a major sector of
the development of our economy back on track, particularly in the
resource regions, one of them being the one I represent, the
Abitibi—Temiscamingue.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments
made by the member for Témiscamingue. It is true that we have not
always seen eye to eye. It took an emergency debate for me to
call him yesterday afternoon to arrange a meeting. Together, we
found some solutions in the best interest of the people of
Témiscamingue and Abitibi. That is the only thing that matters.
He made a point about deep wells. In Quebec there is a program
to provide assistance to mining companies developing deep wells
and Quebec is the only one financing this program. Not to mention
that the 13 mines scheduled to close within five years are
located in Abitibi and northern Quebec. That is where the problem
lies.
I would like to ask the member a question about exploration and
another one about the R and D activities carried out at UQUAT, in
Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or, Duparquet and Amos. Could he tell us
about this provincial program? Should the federal government get
involved with the province in such programs to provide assistance
to the mining industry?
2020
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, it would be an historic event
if we could reach an agreement in our region. After all, if
Israelis and Palestinians in areas of conflict are talking to
each other, we should be able to do the same. Anything is
possible.
An hon. member: We will never get that far.
Mr. Pierre Brien: We are far from that indeed, and the
comparison ends there.
It would be a good opportunity to add to
the program Quebec has implemented for underground exploration.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Improving on what already
exists is something that could be done in the short term, until
other measures are identified. That could be done rapidly and it
is not complicated.
The two departments who work the best together in
federal-provincial relations are the departments of revenue.
Revenu Québec has already defined the mechanism. It will not be
long before both departments start discussing to find a quick way
to implement this. It could be done very rapidly.
Underground exploration is important, but it is true that there
is more surface exploration being done. The challenge is to do
more underground mining, or to operate mines with smaller
potential or to have more thin capitalization companies engaged
in this kind of activity.
We do not want it always to be the big players doing all the
development in the mining industry. A special effort has to be
made to ensure that thin capitalization firms have the capacity
to do more than they are doing at the moment. This is one
approach.
We also have in our region a university that is very aggressive
in its research and development, one of the most productive, a
part of the Université du Québec network of campuses, the
Université du Québec en Abitibi—Témiscamingue, with a number of
research projects on the table in the natural resource sector. It
is a fine way to development.
We have a project in the mining industry I mentioned earlier,
research into underground communications. We also have a fine
communications company, Télébec, a Bell subsidiary but with
regional players in administration, who are very aggressively
working to develop tools for the region.
There are forestry projects in Amos and Duparquet and in the
mining industry. So we have a fine research in the natural
resources sector, but the tools are lacking. It is important to
point that out. A lot of money has been invested in the Canada
foundation for innovation, in university chairs, and so on, but
we must recognize that the big universities are not the only
universities. There is a network of small universities. I know
this is a big concern for people in the region. It is true in
Atlantic Canada. It is true in Quebec. It is true throughout
Canada.
At some point, the government must not just say that it is
putting money into foundations managed independently, but
guidelines are also necessary, because the small universities
have a role to play in the economic development of the regions.
We must make sure that a fair share of the budget goes to them.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member spoke a fair amount about innovation and the importance of
exploration companies to the mining sector and the fact that we
obviously need to find ore before we can exploit a mine or ore
body or potential ore body.
This is an open debate between all opposition parties and the
government and it is not for me to stick up for the government
side. However I certainly applauded its efforts in October of
last year to bring back some form of flow through share policy to
absorb the debts that exploration companies run up.
What did the hon. member and his party feel about the so-called
new super flow through share which would allow exploration
companies to deduct some of their debt burden by letting people
invest in their companies and deduct 100% of their investment?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, yes, I certainly would not
want to suggest that the move in the last budget or the measures
taken before the election were insignificant. It was a step in
the right direction.
The problem is that this was done very quickly. The whole budget
was prepared hastily. I am not sure this fitted in a
comprehensive development plan for the industry. That is where
the problem starts.
The problem we have now is to convince people to invest in the
mining industry. That is not an easy task. We need to have the
prospect of a fair return, and exploration has to be more
effective.
Governments are not the only ones involved. The industry should
also take a look at itself. Take for example junior exploration
companies. We should be honest enough to tell them that they
cannot work in isolation anymore. Some of them could join forces
to explore for resources together, share the properties, and
reduce the level of risk for the investor. We can do all we want
to improve the deductions for company losses of companies, for
example, this is more for companies that already have mines in
production, but we should improve the prospects for the
investors.
2025
We must give more support to those who are already in operation
and who have an exploration potential nearby. This was a step in
the right direction, but we should have a comprehensive plan that
would say “Look, the federal government is telling everyone that
it is a key industry. We are prepared to put money in it on a
rational and sound basis”. This would send a powerful signal to
investors. It would not be merely a minor, isolated measure
designed to please people in the regions on the eve of an
election. The intention was good in part, but the overall
impression of investors was not as positive as it could have been
if it had been part of a broader plan.
One thing that I appreciate is the change of rhetoric. The new
Minister of Industry is not perfect, but at least when he talks
about the economy he no longer makes a distinction between the
old and the new economy. I am very pleased about that, because a
little too much was made of that concept.
We have an economy with many activity sectors and we must now
target all sectors and the natural resources sector is one of our
better performing ones. We talked about the productivity gap
between the United States and Canada. We are more productive than
the Americans in the natural resources. At some point, we should
invest in our strengths.
The measure taken last fall was a step in the right direction,
but we need more and we have the means to do more. This is my
hope. I hope that today's debate will lead to action. We are
creating expectations, so we will have to deliver.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, just want to make a comment
on flow-through shares or the mineral exploration tax credit.
At the convention of the prospectors and developers association
of Canada in Toronto, they were the ones that called them the
super flow-through share program. They agreed that what they got
was even better than what they had asked for. The program came
after very lengthy consultations, about two years and a
half, with the industry. Thus, this did not happen during the
last months before the election was called.
It is important to specify that both the association and
the government did not do a good job of selling this program to
investors. I met some people from the association before their
convention and they distributed an excellent promotional
brochure. The Canadian government had a very good presence at the
convention. I think investors are aware of the program, of its
value and of the fact that, on the stock exchange, dotcom
companies' shares have fallen. People are realizing that these
kinds of shares are not a panacea and they are going back to
natural resources. I believe this augurs well for all Canadians.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few seconds
to say that we are willing to agree on this.
I talked to some brokers and they were not very familiar with
the program. Things were somewhat improvised, because I do not
think a budget was expected in autumn since it was usually tabled
in February. The sales pitch that should have come with such
measures was totally lacking and did not manage to send a clear
message like “Look, the federal government is saying loud and
clear that this key industry has a bright future and we believe
it”.
I hope things will be corrected in the months to come and that
the next time the government wants to announce some measures, it
will wait a bit longer, even if time is of the essence, to ensure
that the measures are built on a solid foundation. This is what I
hope for next time.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chairman,
I intend to share my time with my colleague from
Acadie—Bathurst, hopefully with minimal interruptions from my
friend to the right.
An hon. member: From the right.
Mr. Joe Comartin: And from the right as well. I intend
to address most of my comments to the issue of fossil fuels. I
would like to discuss a number of issues related to natural
resources but there is not enough time.
I posit to the members here and to yourself, Mr. Chairman, that
the whole issue of fossil fuels requires very close attention. I
think I speak on behalf of all our caucus in expressing grave
concern with regard to comments the Prime Minister has made to
the media in the last few days and again today in the House.
We are concerned about what appears to be a willingness on the
part of the government, with very little forethought or planning,
to deliver our fossil fuels wholesale to the U.S. market.
That gives us great concern because it does not seem to take into
account the environmental issues that are related to that type of
development. It does not take into account the issue of the air
pollution problems which will come from that. Quite frankly we
think it does not address the issue of the cost of developing
some of those resources in the long term.
2030
As the parliamentary secretary has already said this evening, we
have the tar sands. We can bring gas in from the territories.
Those are very expensive processes. If we did not have some of
the tax breaks that have been accorded to the tar sands, those
tar sands would not be economically viable at this point. I know
I will get some disagreement on this but they are certainly much
more expensive than the alternative of renewable resources, like
windmills in particular. Even solar energy is getting very close
to being as expensive as the development of those tar sands.
The other problem with the development of the tar sands is the
type of air pollutant that will result from that. I know I have
thrown this figure out once before in the House, but I will do it
again. The Suzuki Foundation made very clear in the research
that it has done that just one tar sand plant would be equal to
putting 1.3 million automobiles on our roads, and all the
pollutants and toxins of course that result from that type of
expansion in the use of vehicles.
The reality is we cannot keep going this way. We are faced as a
society with international agreements. In spite of the fact that
the Bush administration has now taken the position that it will
reject Kyoto, it will probably only be there for four years. Then
what will we do if we have developed the tar sands at that point?
We will be faced with a new administration, probably a wiser
administration as far as the environment is concerned, saying to
us that it is sorry but it will be going the route of
conservation of technological changes which will reduce the need
for that much fossil fuels. Then we will have just blown all
that money.
We will be faced with that same administration, which will be
more environmentally concerned, saying to us that yes, we have to
meet Kyoto and that its state governments will not take our
pollutants any more. I speak very personally about this given the
jurisdiction from which I come.
My riding, where we get a lot of the pollutants from the
Americans who are in the process of starting to clean that up,
has the attorneys general of both New York State and Connecticut
saying to Ontario that it has to clean up. We have all those
coal fired plants. They are not going to want to take Ontario's
pollutants any more. We will be faced with an administration
which will be saying those things to the government and country
in four years. The Bush administration may not but the next one
will. If it is not in four years, then it will be in eight
years. We have to plan for that.
In coming back to the cost issue, just yesterday Algoma Steel in
Sault Ste. Marie went down. One of the reasons was the high cost
of fuel to run that plant. It was a highly efficient plant
according to the statistics. It was the 12th most efficient
steel plant in all of North America. One of the reasons it went
down was because of the fuel cost.
We just cannot keep going down that road. We have seen the
Prime Minister taking positions in the last four days which are
dramatic shifts, as I see and our party see it, away from where
we thought we were going, which was moving more toward
conservation. We just cannot keep following them.
Let me make a couple of other points, some of which came out of
the information at the summit of the people in Quebec City over
the weekend.
2035
David Suzuki was there and pointed out that from his
foundation's research because of the trade deals we have a huge
demand that is going to increase for bunker fuel. Over the next
10 to 12 years that is going to increase by 300%. That is just
about the worst fuel we could be burning. That will be dumped
into the atmosphere and the rest of the world will not accept it
any more. We are hearing it very clearly at this point from the
European Union.
The end result of this is going to be that some time in the next
four to eight years, whether it be this political party running
the government or another one, we will be faced with all sorts of
communities that, having some development work done in natural
resources around fossil fuels, will be looking at losing their
markets.
If we look at rural development, what is going to happen? Will
we be faced with a situation such as Elliot Lake where after the
nuclear industry began to cut back we lost that mine? That was a
success story. How many more of those can we do? Very few. We
will to be faced with having to deal with those communities. If
we do not do this planning and prepare for some of the
alternative fuels, wholesale communities will be faced with
extinction. There will become ghost towns.
From the New Democratic Party's position we are suggesting that
we have to prepare for that. We have to look very closely at
what we are doing. Our question is what will be done in terms of
the development of those types of tar sands or bringing fuel in
from the territories, if in fact the market is not there?
Bush stood up and made great statements. He said that if we had
the fuel he would take it. I do not think he has the support of
his congress in that and he is not going to have it in four
years. I would like to know from the government side what it
will do at that point if those errors have been made in
developing them.
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, first, before I
answer the hon. member's direct question with regard to tar
sands,
I think it has become very cost effective. My colleague from
Alberta will agree. At the beginning it was about $36 per
barrel. It is now down to $14. It is very cost effective.
With regard to the potential new administration in the United
States in four years, anyone who thinks that if the republicans
are thrown out and the democrats get in that they will not need
energy is living like Alice in Wonderland. The American
economy and population is growing and their need for energy is
growing.
We have the resources and the potential to service that market,
as well as other markets in the world. We have potential
resources, the tar sands being just one example. What about
developing Churchill's clean renewable energy? Natural gas is
one of the cleanest fossil energy resources that we can take from
the west.
One cannot say that because we are turning slowly but surely
toward more environmentally friendly energy sources that we have
to get rid of all other kinds of energy resources tomorrow. It
can be done in a couple of years. I will remind everyone that
the government has invested over $1 billion in these climate
changing initiatives and we are working toward cleaner energy.
Another point I want to make is with regard to the comment he
made about the environment. I will remind the member that any
investor from the United States who is willing to invest in the
tar sands or any energy projects across the country will have to
follow the provincial jurisdiction on environment and follow the
rules, as we all have to do.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chairman, that is just too
simplistic, it really is. I was actually going to save this line
for the Minister of Natural Resources.
I am really tired of hearing about the $1 billion that we are
spending on it. The reality is we have hardly done a thing. If
we look at the work that Germany and Denmark have done on wind
power, we have done nothing by comparison. Germany has created
35,000 jobs in wind power alone. Denmark is doing almost 10% of
its energy in wind power alone. They are comparable countries to
us in terms of their technological development. We should be
doing that.
I guess it is almost an insult. To suggest that we will be able
to do this rapidly, I am not stupid. I understand that we cannot
do it rapidly, but we are not doing it fast enough. I can look
at other countries around the world and say that these countries
are doing it. Why are we not?
2040
Why do we not say that we will develop the wind power that can
be used in the northern climes and at some point we would be able
to export that technology to Russia and northern Europe? Why can
we not do that? Why can we not be spending money on that? It is
just too short-sighted.
We say that the market is always going to be there for that
energy source. It is not always going to be there. If we keep
track of the consumption of fuel in cars, in less than a decade
we can cut consumption of fuel in cars by 50%. What is going to
happen to the market at that point?
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to
start on this one. Some of the comments are ridiculous. If wind
power is the answer, and Canadians support wind power and it has
the potential to supply the energy needs of Canada or the United
States, then industry would invest in windmills and create wind
power. The fact is it has a very limited potential to supply our
energy needs. Therefore the investment is limited.
The tar sands have the potential to supply all of Canada's
energy needs and much of the U.S. energy needs for the next 100
years. Industry is investing $35 billion. This old myth about
the huge subsidization of the tar sands is exactly that. It is a
myth.
I would challenge the solar industry, the wind industry and any
other energy industry to compete with the same subsidization
level as the fossil fuel industry. It is there. The market is
there. If it has potential it will be built.
My opinion on the development of energy is that we as a country
should look at all forms of energy and put a total cost on the
development of each particular source of energy. We should
choose to develop the lowest cost form of energy first and move
up the scale. As the natural or finite energy sources are
reduced we move into the next level, then into the next most
expensive and on up the line.
That would be the reasonable approach and I would certainly do
that. Many of the tar sands players, energy companies, I would
add, are involved in the wind power industry, the nuclear
industry and in a number of other sources of energy. They are
multifaceted companies which have just as much concern for the
environment and supplying Canada and the world's energy needs as
anybody else. I think some of these myths are just that.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief.
There is a point that I want to try to get across to the member
for Windsor—St. Clair. I am not in disagreement with him that
we need to seek alternatives to fossil fuels and the finite
resources of energy. We know fossil fuels are a finite resource.
There is a certain amount of it and some day it will be gone. We
continue to find more.
I take exception to his comments about Europe. Quite often we
look at Europe as somehow being a warmer, fuzzier, cleaner, more
environmentally friendly region of the world. I fundamentally
disagree with that.
Germany may be able to say that it invests more money into wind
energy or alternative energy resources but it buys natural gas
from Russia and does not care how Russia gets that gas. It does
not care about the political or social costs which come with that
gas. It does not care about the technologies that the Russians
use. Fracting a single zone in Russia, which they have developed
in that zone, has never been done. They develop something
deeper or something higher up the well bore. They just do not
have the technology to do good work. As well, they make the
rules and bend the rules to suit themselves.
2045
We can have Europe or the European Union talking about being
green and clean, but they will use uranium powered energy from
France. They do not mind importing that energy. They do not
mind importing Russian natural gas. They do not mind setting
special levels for Norway. There is some danger in looking at
Europe as the pristine example.
I am not saying that we should not head in that direction, but I
am concerned that we should not put it on too high a pedestal.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, my comments are along the same point. Calgary
residents are getting their electricity from wind energy if they
so choose. I have been studying what Germany has been doing and
it has a lot of windmills. I have seen some of them firsthand.
The member also mentioned Russian gas. We must also remember
that 70% of Germany's energy comes from nuclear power. Green
Germany run by a green government is using nuclear energy for 70%
of its energy needs. We should not believe the myth about Europe
being a wonderful example to follow because it is just not there.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am
happy we are having this debate tonight. These are the most
provocative responses that we have had this evening so I will
take some credit for that.
I am not prepared to agree with the comments we heard from the
Alliance with regard to corporate decision making. If they were
real, would we ever have developed nuclear industry at all? Do
we always go to the bottom line and explore the cheapest option?
Once we have made the kind of commitments the oil industry has
made, we are locked in to a certain degree. I recognize that the
oil industry is beginning to do research and some development in
wind power and solar power. I recognize that but it has not gone
far enough.
I wish to go back to the initial point I made earlier this
evening and that is what we see in terms of what the Prime
Minister has been saying over the last four days. Have we just
given up on everything else? All our eggs have been thrown in
the basket of developing the U.S. market and we appear to be
ignoring these other areas.
Another point I would make with regard to the comments of my
friend in the Alliance is that development of the tar sands
completely ignores the environmental consequences of developing
that source of fuel.
I have one last comment regarding Germany. It has recognized
the mess that it has made of things by depending so heavily on
nuclear energy and is beginning to try to move away from it. I
do not wear blinkers. I fully understand that the bottom line
still is that Germany is doing much more in wind power than
Canada is.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, it is a
pleasure to take part in this short debate and speak to some
issues of concern for our regions and our country.
I will try to limit my comments to the situation of the mining
industry in my area. We are lucky to have several mines, like the
Brunswick mine, Heath Steele, Cariboo Mine or Durham Mine in the
Fredericton area.
The mining industry is not at all like the fishing industry.
Although the fish stocks have all but disappeared, if we are
cautious, they will come back. The same thing should happen in
the forest industry. We can cut trees down; it is a beautiful
resource that meets everyone's needs.
If we are careful, we can replant trees and the forest will
grow back.
However, as soon as we start operating a mine, we can start
estimating the date it will close. It will never come back. That
is the problem with mines.
As I was saying, we had several mines in my region. The Durham
mine in the Fredericton area is closed. The Heath Steele mine
is closed, since the gold deposit is depleted. The Cariboo mine
closed because of low mineral prices. Operating that mine was too
expensive. Prices would have to be much higher for that mine to
reopen. As for the Brunswick mine, it is estimated that it will
stay in operation for about ten more years.
I sat on the natural resources committee for a period of three
and a half to four years. I started talking about the problem
with mines and what we should do about it as a country.
2050
I can use my region as an example. I am not the only one. I am
sure that for my friends from Abitibi, we talked about it
earlier, it is also a problem.
One of the problems is exploration, how to find new mineral
deposits. That is what is lacking. I think we do not have a good
program. That is the problem.
I say these are good jobs. Some people would not want to work in
a mine all their life; they would not want to work 4,000 feet
underground and never see the sun. Some people would not like
that.
I liked working in a mine. I liked it and miners like it. A
miner is a miner. These are jobs that pay fairly well and
offer good salaries and bonuses. People make $50,000, $60,00 or
$70,000 a year.
This is good for the regional economy. In my riding, in
Bathurst, New Brunswick, when people say that the Brunswick mine
will be finished in the next ten years, this is a disaster. When
I took this to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I
remember the Liberals saying “Yvon, you are complaining again;
you never seem to have any good news for us”. I thought it was
the opposite.
We had to start thinking in advance. We had to start thinking
ten years in advance in order to know what we were going to do to
replace these jobs. I was really taking preventive
action. Already, I was starting to talk about it and to say “In
ten years, we are going to lose our mine. What are we going to
do today? What are we going to do to replace those jobs?”
They should not start by saying “Listen, we are sick of
listening to you because you are always negative. You are
negative because there are no more fish in the ocean”. It is not
my fault if there are no more fish in the ocean. That is enough
to be negative about. There are no more jobs. It is not my
fault if the mine will disappear in ten years. I am here to talk
about it. It is my responsibility to
talk and to try to find solutions with the government.
I find that the government does not push exploration enough. It
does not push it enough. What happens is that companies leave
and invest in other countries. This does not cost a lot. This
week I went to the people's summit. I attended a meeting and an
evening event on the mining industry, where there were Canadian
workers from Cominco. There were also workers from Chile. They
had a collective agreement. The Canadian workers' collective
agreement was about 200 pages long. The Chilean workers'
agreement consisted of two pages.
One can imagine how these people were being exploited. Can one
believe it, two pages? I am sure that one was for management and
the other for the workers.
An hon. member: Sometimes, there is more in two pages than in
ten.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Can you imagine? After that, those companies
will invest somewhere else because they cannot get any help here,
in our own country, to find ways to explore and develop our
mines. Those companies move out of the country, then take the
minerals and dump them on the Canadian market. Later they end up
in places like Algoma Steel, a steel company.
We know that, at that time, the government of Ontario, under Bob
Rae, made a great deal of effort to help the company, which had
put itself into debt, but the workers and the community in Sault
Ste. Marie saved that company. Now, with all the dumping from
foreign countries, we are on the verge of loosing Algoma Steel.
I am afraid. Let's hope we will not lose it, because there are
good jobs in Sault Ste. Marie. These are well paid jobs in the
steel industry. How many similar situations are happening across
the country? I think this is important. It is important to look
ahead.
I was talking about New Brunswick. We used to have four mines,
but we have only one left. Soon we will have none. What are we
doing to open new mines? Surely we have not extracted all the
minerals in the ground. There must be some left somewhere. These
are good jobs, but dirty work. Do not worry, it is not the
Parliament of Canada. When they come out from the mine, they are
dirty and their skin is black.
People in my region like those jobs, which have been good for
our community. Having touched on mines, I will now say a few
words about forests. A few words on this and a few on that, as we
say.
I come from a region where natural resources are plentiful. In
modern forests, we have to invest in tree planting.
2055
How long have companies been clearcutting? They were getting rid
of the wood, selling it to mills and they did a lot of that. No
government rule ever said that when a tree was cut, another one
must be planted to replace it.
The planet does not belong to us. It does not belong to me
nor does it belong to the Chairman. It belongs to
everybody. Everybody should be able to use it. I find that we do
not treat our planet and the people working on this planet
properly.
A nursery was sold in my area; in fact, the provincial
government got rid of it. Then the local forestry union got
involved in the process and said “We now want to plant our own
trees. We can do it, but we would need federal funding to do it”.
The province gave them part of the money, or $250,000. They
needed $650,000, but no, this did not come under federal
jurisdiction. Come on, what are we doing here?
Things can be done for the well-being of the population. Things
that will be beneficial. The same applies to Northern Ontario,
whether in Kapuskasing and elsewhere. I have visited the whole
area and lived there. People live longer in northern Ontario
because of the forests.
Whether in White River, Manitouwadge, Wawa, Chapleau,
Kapuskasing, Hearst or Arpin, it was the livelihood of how many
people? Now new investment is necessary; it is long term
investment that benefits everybody and which will create jobs.
I had thought that ten minutes would be more than I needed, but
now I see that I will be short of time. Anyway, I think things
like this are what is important. The government will, I
believe, have to invest in this area. It is all very well to
talk about all that went on in Quebec City, free trade and all
that, but our people need jobs.
We ought to take a serious look at mine
exploration, forestry and tree replanting so that there is new
growth. The same goes for the fisheries, aquaculture and all
that.
Secondary and tertiary processing have to be done, whether in
forestry or fisheries. Even in the mines, second and third
level processing can be done.
Take natural gas, for example. This is an energy source we are
having to fight for in north-eastern New Brunswick, and we are
wondering whether we are going to get natural gas. It is good
for the environment, good all round, and supposed to cost a
whole lot less than what we are running our smelters on at
present, and all those other things, to produce.
Those are the comments I wanted to bring before the House. I
appreciate the opportunity to do so and to look at our future,
because our children are our future, provided they can find
jobs. Not all the work for them is in Toronto, Montreal or
Vancouver. We need to look out for the rural areas, where there
are also people working.
As I have said on many occasions,“You don't get 2x4s on
Toronto's Yonge Street or rue Sainte-Catherine in Montreal”.
Regions like mine are needed to produce them. That is where the
investments have to be made, if we want to create
jobs.
[English]
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I have three brief questions to ask
the government. One of Canada's natural non-renewable resources
sector petroleum products appears to be in short deliverable
supply. Does the Ministry of Natural Resources feel that reactor
generated energy is necessary as part of Canada's energy mix?
The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt but obviously
this is a very new format. Before I allow the intervention, I
will seek others who might have had comments or otherwise on the
intervention of the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario),
Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the last comments of
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst might have been provided by
my speech writer about the need to remember rural Canadians in
the overall context of the nation, and not simply to deal with
the urban centres.
One of his opening comments was interesting because I spent some
time in Elliot Lake when it was a mining community. One of the
comments made was that the first day of the end of a mine is the
first day of operation, when the first shovelful is taken out,
because the material mined is a non-renewable resource.
However I do not know why the member would characterize himself
as a doomsayer by wanting to talk about how we would deal with
the issue 10 years down the road because that is exactly the
appropriate way we would have to look at it.
A multifaceted and dynamic approach needs to be taken. There is
not just simply one aspect to it.
2100
First of all, we in rural Canada, when we are natural resource
based communities, need to maximize the resource we have. Let us
take the mining industry as an example. The member talked about
that in a number of areas and it is important to emphasize in
terms of remembering that there is a very fine line between what
is ore and what is rock and it is basically the cost of the
ingredient and the cost to produce it. Therefore, one of the
things we need to work on in the natural resource industries in
rural Canada is using technology. We need to use research and
development and to support that in order to bring down the costs
of production so we can lengthen the amount of time a particular
mine can be in operation.
The member also mentioned the need to value add to the
commodities we are harvesting or are mining. That again is
another strategy to maximize the benefit of a resource.
I think the third component of that is indeed to look ahead to
the time when that particular mine may not be there. We need to
look ahead by continuing to do further exploration so that other
mines may come on stream or, as in the example of Elliot Lake, to
find an alternative way to sustain your community.
These are the types of things I talked about in my intervention
when I mentioned that there is a need for a public policy
perspective that is unique to rural Canada, that is specific to
natural resource based economies and that deals with those very
specific issues that I think the member put forward very well.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intervention. For
example, if we are talking about the mining industry and if we
are looking at the Brunswick Mine, it is not that long ago that
they started to use the Pastefill, where they put concrete into
it, du ciment. They started to do it. Doing that makes it just
as hard as the pillars on the side. Then they pick up the
pillars. It is too bad they did not pick them up 25 years ago.
They would have saved a lot of pillars and mined the whole mine.
Those are the types of things that can be done. Sudbury was
doing it a long time ago. Falconbridge was too. The miners were
going underground and doing the backfill on a concrete floor all
the time while we were on the rocks and breaking our feet most of
the time, if members know what I mean. That is the type of
technology we can use.
The federal government could put those mining industries
together to look at it instead of having them say they have a way
to do mining that is cheaper so they do not need their friends to
do it. They almost call each other adversaries. I think this is
wrong because we are losing part of a natural resource that could
offer jobs for a longer period of time.
Regarding Elliot Lake, I know that something else has been
found. With all respect to the people of Elliot Lake, they say
they have turned it into a good place to retire to, but we do not
want that in New Brunswick. We would like to keep our youth in
New Brunswick. We have enough leaving right now. We want to
keep them at home.
However, I agree with the member. There are different things we
can do to prolong secondary or third processing. It is one of
those. In forestry, for example, why do we send all our product
somewhere else so that it comes back from other countries that
sell it back to us? It is the same thing in the fisheries. Who
is talking more, probably down home, about secondary or third
processing in the fishery? I am telling everyone that it works.
The Chairman: I know this is a totally new experience for
all of us. In my following remarks, I want to address myself
particularly to the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke,
but also to all members.
We have been at this debate for a little more than two hours and
because it is not structured as we are accustomed to, time seems
to go a little more quickly. To the extent that we have had two
hours of debate and I have not yet had the opportunity to give
the floor to speakers from the Progressive Conservative Party,
the format, as I would understand it, would be that in the
initial round we would have a speaker, or speakers if you split,
from each of the parties, and in the second round we would
alternate from one side of the House to the other, depending on a
representative being here from the party or parties.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect to our colleague from
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who I know has been here since the
beginning and has been very patient and very attentive, I regret
this, but I will be giving the floor to the members of the
Progressive Conservative Party.
2105
In advance, I will tell all my colleagues that in the speaking
order the next opportunity will fall to members of the government
side, followed by the Canadian Alliance.
I hope I did not mislead anyone. These are uncharted waters for
all of us. Certainly the participation has been very
interesting. I take note that most of you spoke without notes.
Obviously you care very much and have a great deal of knowledge
about the subject matter. I think that lends itself well to
making public policy for all Canadians and tonight in this case
in the area of natural resources.
That is the end of my speech. We turn now to the Progressive
Conservative Party.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, I would be sharing my
time with the member for Brandon—Souris and if I have a couple
of minutes or 30 or 40 seconds left at the end of my 20 minutes
he will get them. I think that is only fair and reasonable as a
colleague.
The debate here tonight is on natural resources. I very much
appreciate the Secretary of State for Rural Development being
here and staying throughout the debate, and his colleagues with
him.
Certainly I think that when we look at the economy and the
global situation on the planet today we tend to trivialize the
primary industries. Many of us tend to forget where we come
from. A number of the ridings represented in this place are
rural ridings. I would even dare to say that perhaps we rural
ridings are equal to the urban ridings. If we counted them all,
I think we would surprised by the number of parliamentarians who
are here representing rural constituencies. There are a great
number of us.
I am also going to take the opportunity in this debate to
discuss rural issues, very much like the rest of the speakers
have discussed rural issues, but I think we are discussing rural
issues in a number of sectors.
I do not look at the Secretary of State for Rural Development as
being responsible simply for rural Canada or the agricultural
community. There is a very large forestry sector out there.
There are large fishing communities on the three oceans around
the country and on Canada's inland waterways. We have a huge
mining sector in the country that has been quite often overlooked
and underrepresented, I believe, by the present government, by
other governments in the past and by provincial governments.
We have to find a way to accommodate our primary industries in
the country, to have them represented so that the people have
viable jobs and opportunities, not only for themselves but for
their children and for their grandchildren.
Most of us from rural Canada are survivors. We live in
communities that have survived for hundreds of years, quite
often. We represent 15 or 16 generations of ancestors and more
in some parts of Canada. We have managed to eke out a living,
whether that has been a subsistence agricultural living or one
dependent upon forestry or fisheries, for literally hundreds of
years.
Now we have to find a way in the modern economy, with the
globalization of the planet, with transportation that is
immediate, this minute. It is no longer that day or that week,
it is this minute. The discussion taking place here can be
listened to in Australia or China. Decisions we make in the
Parliament of Canada can be reacted to immediately by businesses
halfway around the world. With all respect, I do not think this
government or any government is quite ready for that type of
accommodation of the new economy. I do not think we have adapted
to that. The appointment of a minister of state for rural Canada
is a step in the right direction. I applaud the government for
it.
2110
I would like to talk about a couple of specific areas and
hopefully get some replies from the minister on these specific
areas. I will try to be brief.
My first love is forestry, so I have to go there for at least a
second. We tend not to recognize the importance of forestry in
Canada. It is the primary industry. It is the second most
important industry in the country. If we combine the primary
industries such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries and mining,
we can shut out the rest of the economy in this country. We
produce the jobs. We put more money into the economy than the
rest of the sectors put together.
A tremendous amount of money comes from the primary industries
of this country and the majority of them are sustainable. The
mining sector, we have found, is more sustainable than we
thought. When people look for minerals today in Canada they do
not try to look for a new mine. They go where we have been
mining for generations and find more resources, more ore bodies,
wherever that may be. Timmins, Ontario, is a prime example of
that.
I started to talk about forestry. We should not take away or
ever forget the fact that as much as we may love to look at a
view scape of timber, the real economy of that timber is the
noise of it hitting the ground. It is not only the fact that
companies cut that timber. There are jobs involved in getting it
to the mill. The wood is processed. Houses are built from it.
There are value added products that come in, whether that be
paper, pulpwood or finger jointed mouldings for door frames.
We tend to trivialize the contribution the forestry sector has
made to this country and that it will make forever. It is 100%
completely sustainable. In most of Canada it is not dependent on
planting a whole lot of trees or putting a lot back into it. We
can continue to harvest the forest through natural regeneration
on the west coast of Canada and certainly on the east coast of
Canada in those maritime climates. Very little of the land in
eastern Canada needs to be replanted. Foresters have to go in
there 10 years after harvest and thin it. There are so many
stems coming up on the acreages that they have to be spaced. It
is not a matter of planting trees unless someone is trying to
grow a different type of forest, unless the land is better suited
for Norway pine instead of black spruce, or perhaps better suited
for an exotic species like Norway spruce instead of balsam fir.
There are alternatives.
We need very much to look at the mining sector, on the east
coast in particular now that we have the advantage of the
development of the Sable gas fields and the Panuke oil fields.
That oil and gas liquids and gas are coming ashore now in Nova
Scotia. We have been talking for six months about a second
pipeline. The first pipeline is already developed. Now there is
discussion about a second pipeline double tracking the pipeline
that is already there.
We need to look at a way to do a better job of sharing the
money. I spoke about this earlier, about the fact that when
Alberta was developing its oil and gas reserves the federal
government recognized the position Alberta was in. From 1957 to
1964 Alberta received equalization payments from the rest of
Canada and kept the revenues from their oil and gas reserves.
That allowed them a head start in putting their infrastructure in
place to actually develop and exploit the natural gas and the oil
fields of Alberta.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and any other province should get
no less a deal than Alberta got. That takes a little bit of
backtracking by this government. That takes a different
approach, but it can be done.
We are not asking for the cancellation of equalization payments
or the refusal of the federal government to gather royalties from
the east coast.
2115
What we are asking for is a period of time similar to what
Alberta got, five, seven or eight years, in order to build the
infrastructure up so what has been happening does not continue to
happen. For every dollar that is made in the offshore, 81 cents
goes to the federal government and 19 cents goes to Nova Scotia.
This is not rocket science. This is a very simple equation.
Somehow we have to change that imbalance, and that takes time and
that takes an initiative on behalf of the government to
compromise on a position that it has already taken. I see no
reason why we cannot do that.
We have tremendous resources in rural Canada and in our primary
industry. In the South Shore riding that I represent we have
1,760 boats fishing. That is phenomenal. That is in three
counties. The fishery is in decline and it is facing great
hardship. We have a lot of people fishing.
We have a great primary resource that is sustainable and we need
to maintain that. We have an oil field that is being developed
that we need to encourage. We have a forestry resource sector
that needs to be encouraged as well. I have left the agriculture
sector for the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. We need to
encourage agriculture in Canada and we need to find a way to
enhance it. Those are issues that face rural Canadians every day.
If we want to encourage people to continue to live in rural
Canada, if we want to have ghost towns in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba and if our small towns in Atlantic Canada are to
survive, we need infrastructure for transportation. We need all
kinds of innovative ways to continue to live in rural Canada and
have an economy of means that can support us to do that.
Hon. Andy Mitchell(Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario),
Lib.): Madam Chairman, the hon. member
talked about the need to have an appreciation for the natural
resource sector and what it means for Canada. I am sure all
members in the House keep close to their desks a document called
“Think Rural”, which is a report of the standing committee on
natural resources, chaired by myself, issued in March 1997.
I would like to read the opening paragraph of the report because
it speaks directly to the member's point. It states:
Canada's natural resource industries have been the mainstay of
our prosperity for most of our history and continue to be so
today. They represent the backbone of the domestic economy and
are by far our major source of trade surplus. Currently, they are
one of our strongest strategic advantages in global competition.
In fact, Canada is the third largest mining nation in the world,
the world's largest exporter of forest and mineral products, a
net energy exporter and a large-scale producer and exporter of
agricultural products. Our future prosperity depends as much
upon our continuing ability to discover and harvest our natural
resources in rural Canada as it is coming to rely on our
knowledge-based manufacturing and service sectors.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Chairman, I listened with great interest to my hon.
colleague from South Shore, a fellow bluenoser. He touched
briefly on the issue of natural gas development in the province
of Nova Scotia, which has application in Newfoundland, to
Hibernia and to other wells that are under exploration there.
He spoke of the case that is being made currently by our
premier, John Hamm in the province of Nova Scotia, and his
campaign for fairness where he talks about the equivalent
opportunity his province is seeking to bring gas revenues into
the province for reasons of stabilization, opportunity and
infrastructure that my colleague referred to.
When the example is made and the case is laid out before the
Canadian people, it is undeniable that this is very much a case
of fairness.
2120
There were different scales of economy between Nova Scotia and
Alberta in the 1950s. There were different issues in terms of
government regulation of that industry. However the case remains
very compelling when one considers the potential revenues that
would be lost by the province as it attempts to enter a very
large and competitive global economy.
Nova Scotians are not feeling that they are optimizing or
capitalizing on those benefits themselves. People in communities
like Goldboro, White Head, Canso and Dover are feeling left out
of the process of capitalization on their own natural resources.
I take the hon. secretary of state at his word that he has an
understanding and a sympathy for that case. This is an
opportunity to demonstrate action and to demonstrate that the
Government of Canada is listening to the provinces and is ready
to work with them to help them optimize the benefits to them.
Nova Scotians should not have to be dependent or feel a sense of
loss. They should have a sense of entitlement and a sense of
participation in the Canadian economy, the same way Albertans did
40 years ago. That is all Nova Scotians are looking for.
Nova Scotians are looking for demonstrable evidence of that.
They are looking for an opportunity to receive more of their
royalties, more actual accrued benefit from their own natural
resources. That is all we are asking. In the bigger picture
they can be greater contributors to the economy and greater
beneficiaries of their own natural resources, which benefits all
Canadians.
All rhetoric aside, it is the people of those small rural
communities in Guysborough county who are looking for some
tangible proof that the government is listening. The people of
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other provinces are looking for
evidence that they can be full participants in Confederation and
full participants in the economy.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Chairman,
I thank my colleague for allowing me a very minor portion of the
time allocated to us. I too would like to echo his opening
comments and congratulate the Secretary of State for Rural
Development with whom I have had the opportunity of dealing on a
number of occasions in his portfolio.
I will talk about rural development and where I see his
department heading in the not too distant future with respect to
helping rural communities not only maintain their populations but
hopefully increase them and grow. He read a comment from a
wonderfully prepared report, which unfortunately I have not had
the opportunity of reading. It will be on my reading list in the
not too distant future.
If we go back into history we will recognize that the whole
country was developed on natural resources. Explorers came here
because of the fish and the furs they could harvest and export
back to Europe. My grandfather, as I am sure is the case with
many ancestors of other people here, came to Canada because of
agricultural land. People could come here and get land at
reasonable prices, start raising a family and grow the crops we
are so famous for.
Our natural resources, inclusive of the mining we talked about,
the natural gas and the oil sands projects, are the backbone of
the country. They started the country. They are the backbone of
our economy. We have grown beyond that and have embraced the
technical revolution we have enjoyed over the last number of
years and the technology we have developed along with it.
However the problem we are suffering right now is the fact that
Canadians have forgotten their roots. They have forgotten how
the country was developed. They have forgotten what is still the
backbone of our economy.
I have had the advantage of living in Toronto, and maybe that is
a disadvantage. I know the difference between rural Canada and
what we appreciate as being there from the earth. People from
Toronto take it for granted.
When people in Toronto flick a light switch they think that is
where electricity comes from. I am not trying to be derogatory
to the people of Toronto. What I am saying is that urban
dwellers, of which I was one, take for granted all that is being
provided.
2125
When a thermostat is turned on, be it heat that comes from a
coal-fired, a gas-fired or perhaps even an electric furnace, that
energy comes from the rest of the country. Canadians are now
allowed to take advantage of that. I am speaking about natural
resources but obviously I know agriculture best coming from the
area that I do.
When urban dwellers buy at a grocery store most of them believe
that the foodstuffs come from that store. The foodstuffs come
from my area. They come from people like my grandfather who
planted the seeds and grew the crops. They come from people who
raised the cattle, the pork or the chickens. They come from
those people who we cannot forget and, unfortunately, in our
society we have forgotten.
My colleague said that he would leave agriculture as it is my
forte. I have talked in the House too many times about the
crisis that agriculture is now facing. It is for any number of
reasons. It is because of an unlevel playing field and subsidies
that are being paid by Americans and Europeans. It is because of
the horrendous increase in the cost of production through natural
gas prices for fertilizer and fuel prices for the tractors. We
cannot trade our commodities with other countries because of
unfair subsidization.
What we need to do is to remember where we came from. We need
to support that industry as well as other industries. We also
need to get a mindset. I will not throw stones or cast
aspersions, but I think the government has basically lost touch
with that natural resource, that primary industry, agriculture.
We have to develop a mindset that says we as Canadians will
support that industry.
How do we do that? We do that with long term support systems
that we put into place. We need to develop those so that there
is some hope for our younger generation to come into and continue
in the industry. We need food, shelter, heat and water to exist.
If the minister of agriculture were here I would ask to him to
please have the European mindset where they have said that they
will support their farmers, their rural communities and their
agriculture.
I will switch gears a little because we do have the Secretary of
State for Rural Development here. I will talk about what he
knows best, which is rural development, those rural communities
that this great country is made up of. Unfortunately, more and
more people are moving into those urban centres but there are
still a lot of us who would prefer to live in rural communities
because of the lifestyle, the clean air, the clean water and the
ability to live in a rural setting that is more conducive to
raising families.
I had a chance to talk to the minister and he has been very good
at looking at the big picture. However, I would like to give him
some suggestions about how we could preserve rural living. One
suggestion would be to introduce a tax incentive that would
attract people to live in rural communities. We have talked
about tax incentives for northern allowances.
We should also be looking at different ways of attracting health
care professionals and workers into rural Canada. One of the
major problems we have in rural Canada right now is attracting
health care professionals. That is not to say that the problem is
not there for urban centres either, but we have a worse problem
in trying to bring those people into our communities. Health
care, as we all know, is probably the issue when it comes to
supporting a rural community with an elderly population. We
should be looking at ways to attract health care professionals
into rural Canada.
We should also be looking at capital availability for
infrastructure. My colleague talked about the solid
infrastructure, the bricks and mortar, the roads, the railways
and the highways. Rural Canada also needs to have the technical
infrastructure in place. If we do not have those advantages we
will lose that to the urban centres. It is not good for the
country if it is made up of just four or five megalopolises.
2130
We must maintain our rural communities. Perhaps we should look
at capital projects for infrastructure in rural areas. Perhaps
we should look at different ways of attracting people to live in
rural Canada. Maybe housing is the answer. We have seen
examples. Elliot Lake has attracted groups of retirees from
urban centres to adopt what I consider a much nicer lifestyle in
a rural area. Perhaps it is a marketing thing that the Secretary
of State for Rural Development should be doing.
Perhaps we should look at our own departments, because a lot of
problems come from the federal government. Let us take a simple
issue like customs and customs areas. A prime example is my
constituency where there are a number of border crossings. When
a decision is made by Canada customs to reduce, remove or change
the service at a border crossing it affects the whole community,
but the department making the decision does not have the mindset
or vision to see how it will affect the community. We must
change that thought process. When a decision is made, no matter
how small, it will affect other people. That must be dovetailed.
The secretary of state talked about the rural lens. The rural
lens would make sure we bring all departments together so that
when they make a decision or change a service they communicate
with each other to make sure the change will not negatively
affect the lifestyle of people in a community.
If we lose three people in a customs department in Boissevain,
Manitoba, it means a great deal. If we lose three people in
downtown Toronto it does not mean as much. We must therefore
acquire the right mindset.
In closing, the biggest issue vis-à-vis natural resources and
rural development is education. There must be government
support. Rural development must be funded by society in general,
which probably means urban dwellers, but they must understand why
they are doing it. We must all decide among ourselves, and I
think we have. I think the people in the Chamber tonight
recognize that rural Canada is a vital part of what the country
is all about. Having come to that realization we must now decide
how to provide services that will allow rural Canada to prosper
and grow. That is where we must head from here.
I thank the minister for being here. I would add that the
debate tonight has been excellent. We had a debate like this not
long ago on foot and mouth disease. Like tonight, we debated the
issues logically and in a non-partisan way. I congratulate the
government for putting the process forward. I hope we can
continue this process in other areas of debate because it is very
worth while. This is the way it should be in parliament, not
acrimonious as we have seen in the past. I congratulate the
government for bringing the debate forward.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario),
Lib.): Madam Chairman, to answer all the
hon. member's points I could be up here as long as he was.
However I will take a moment to answer just a few and to mention
to him that, if I have his schedule correctly, the two of us will
be in Brandon together at the end of the week at the rural forum
in his home community. I look forward to that, and it will give
us a chance to discuss some of these issues.
To put it in a nutshell, I would describe it this way. All
Canadians, rural or urban, should have the opportunity to access
the wealth of Canada and of the nation. The key point is that we
recognize, as public policy makers, that there are certain unique
impediments that work against rural Canada and rural Canadians,
and that one of our jobs as policy makers and parliamentarians is
to address the impediments that inhibit the ability of rural
Canadians to access the wealth of the nation.
2135
The hon. member mentioned a number of possible solutions in
terms of taxation and other things. He also mentioned something
I think is very important: the idea of the rural lens. I fully
agree with him that all of us in the House and in government need
to ensure that as we respond to the issues of the day, put
legislation forward and develop regulation, we do so in a way
that deals with the reality that is rural Canada.
When it comes to delivering services, whether in health care or
information, there is a big difference between delivering them in
a place like Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal and
delivering them in rural Canada. We must develop policies that
take those differences into account.
I look forward to being with the hon. member in his home
community this Friday.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Chairman, this is one of the most awesome events I have
participated in during my brief seven and a half or eight years
as a member of parliament and my time as a legislative assistant
for other members prior to that.
I was very interested in the comments made by the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris. As someone who has experience with the
natural resources industry, I will point out to him an
observation I have made. As the hon. member knows, there is a
nuclear reactor in my riding, at one point one of the largest in
the country. I have some interest in the dynamics of the
marketplace, particularly as they relate to oil and gas and of
course to food.
I have noticed the disparity between rural and urban Canada, of
course, where fishing, farming, mining and forestry tend to be of
a rural nature whereas the production, processing and delivery of
products occur in more urban centres.
I wonder if the hon. member has given any time, thought or
consideration, along with his party colleagues, to reviewing and
updating our thinking on the new changes in the marketplace and
how it has become more concentrated. Has he given any thought to
the impact this might be having on the bottom line, not just for
urban Canada but more specifically for rural Canada? Either
member can answer. It is open to anyone.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Chairman, I know the member for
Brandon—Souris wants a kick at this can too but the issue of
processing comes from globalization and is not part of the
traditional primary resource industry.
A prime example of that, and this is the point I want to get
across, is what has happened in Britain. With globalization and
the amalgamation of meat processing plants in Britain, as well as
the health standards that have been introduced in Canada, the
United States and other parts of the world, many smaller
abattoirs and meat processors in the U.K. have been forced out of
business.
Foot and mouth disease was a direct result. Huge meat
processing conglomerates started taking hogs, sheep and beef
animals from one part of Britain and, instead of processing them
in the local village, trucked them in some cases 400 or 500
miles. Because of the incubation period, foot and mouth disease
spread throughout Britain and to France and Germany in no time.
It was a direct result of the globalization of the meat
processing industry. I would like to hear some comments on that
or—
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: I will ask the member to
respond. Time is up but I think we are being flexible.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Chairman, I will not take a lot
of time. My hon. colleague is obviously talking about primary
processing and the minister will have an opportunity to see the
state of the art largest hog processing plant in North America
when he visits my riding on Friday.
I would love to take the member on a tour. I know we can arrange
it.
2140
The urban market is obviously where most rural food products
that are processed end up. With regard to the member's question
about urbanization, I can only say to him that there has been an
evolution. When my grandfather came to Canada he farmed a
quarter and 80 acres, which at that time was a huge amount of
land. Today in my area a small farmer farms 2,000 to 2,500
acres. That is a huge difference.
I am not opposed to growth or evolution. The point I am trying
to make is that we must adapt. Even in our natural resources and
primary industries we must adapt. There is no question about
that. However, as I said earlier, there must be an education
process and an understanding in the urban market of what we are
trying to achieve in rural areas.
We will feed people. We will give them lumber. We will give
them mining, natural resources, and oil and gas. However people
must appreciate that some of the wealth developed in urban
centres must go back into rural communities, whether at the
grocery store or when we turn on a switch or in some sort of
societal support. That is what we must talk about when we talk
about support for rural Canada, and I think this is a good start.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, tonight I would also like
to thank the minister responsible for northern Ontario, who
stayed here all night. It is really appreciated and it is the
first time that we have here a committee of the whole in which
all parties are taking part, the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian
Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic
Party and the Liberal Party.
Tonight's debate is a civilized debate. We should be doing this
more often, that is finding solutions. We are making friends. The
war is still on and I appreciate the comments from the member
for Témiscamingue who is still here tonight and who says that we
have to co-operate for the well-being of our people. The war is
still going on between political parties.
I will share my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I
also appreciate his dedication. What is important is that he is
one of the originators within the Liberal caucus in this debate.
I want to thank him because we all are people from resource
regions.
What matters here tonight is the case of the ridings of
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and Témiscamingue. We know that the
economic situation there is now very different from what it was
just a short while ago. The economic slowdown is serious in our
resource regions. The situation is really bad in
Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I have never seen anything like this in my
whole life. In the last three years, we are managing a decline.
Even the parish priest is depressed on Sundays. Think about it.
People are trying to find ways to work. It is not easy.
The governments and our ministers are doing a fine job, but that
is not quite enough. The Liberal member for Outremont, who is the
minister in charge of the economic development agency, is making
announcements in CFDCs and in all areas.
There is one thing the government will have to do, and that is
to go back to the effective agreements it had with the provinces.
We had Quebec-Canada agreements in the mining industry. We could
tell that Quebec was in charge. I agree with this, and we should
not care which party forms the government. What matters is the
taxpayer's money being spent here. We used to have good
agreements. It seems that the discussion in Whitehorse brought
about changes in provincial jurisdictions. If we have a big mess,
everybody should do his part to find solutions.
We know we have problems in the forest and mining industries.
The 15 mines that will close in the coming years are all in
Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The government knows that. Political
affiliation does not matter. In the next 20 months, 1,000 jobs will
disappear. We now have a serious crisis on our hands, with the
Sigma-Lamaque mine being closed and the Beaufor mine having
closed six months ago.
2145
I must point out that solutions need to be found. The
government has implemented some things, such as the 15% tax
credit on flow-through shares. As the hon. member for
Témiscamingue just said, improvement is needed. It is true,
improvements must be made. This was a first test for the
Minister of Finance. We were pleased that he intervened in
October. It is not easy to understand what flow-through shares
are. We do know that a tax credit represents an additional 40%
deduction the first year.
Coming back to the debate on the mining industry, a way must be
found, along with the province of Quebec, to intervene.
Authorization from Canada must be sought, because federal
transfers are being made.
Abitibi—Témiscamingue represents some 860,000 square kilometres,
so things are not easy when it comes to the cost of fuel, raw
materials and so on. Everything comes from outside the area,
anyway.
There is something else, however. The mining industry has not
benefited from the corporate income tax cut that was set out in
the last budget. That is what we are hearing from people.
Officials of the Quebec Mining Association met with us in our
officers and told us that the government had to find a way to
give them some tax relief.
As we know, in 1948 Canada passed an emergency act on support
for the development of gold mines to help owners of
gold mines in Canada deal with the strong increase in
production costs and guarantee a stable price for the gold they
produced. The government repealed this act on June 30, 1976,
because prices had increased. During that period, the federal
government had given the mining industry $303 million for 61
million ounces of gold.
If we want to find a new way for the Government of Canada to
support the gold mining industry, and we know that with the price
of metals this is not easy, maybe we should come back to an
emergency act. People say “We will sell gold.” I know that in the
month of March of this year, Canada did not sell gold. Last year,
we probably sold 900,000 ounces. People say to me “Guy, we will
have to stop selling gold. The government should buy it up, keep
it”. Such an act could help us to find a way to help our
companies.
We must also support the efforts of industries regarding the
exploitation of small auriferous deposits or base metal for small
and medium size businesses.
Our companies go to South America or other countries and EDC
guarantees the loans. This is awkward because it does not
guarantee loans in Canada for companies who want to develop a
deposit. If we do it for other countries, why not do it here?
When people in resource based regions see that Bombardier gets
an interest free loan from the government, they are proud. This
is not in our regions, but we are proud for people in Montreal,
for all other communities in the south that get contracts from
Bombardier; we are happy with that.
However what are we doing for the small businesses? People would like
to get repayable interest free loans to be able to go on.
I could talk a long time about what we hear from the grassroots.
Some members talked earlier about the forest resources. The
member for Joliette and the member for Témiscamingue mentioned
it, but the quotas also have to be taken into consideration. The
quota system really hurt some of the small businesses back home,
even well established companies, like Précibois.
What is strange is that we do not even know who has quotas. We
are told that this information is confidential. Some people in
Toronto have quotas even though they do not have a company, but
just a lumber yard. Things are not easy back home. Those who have
quotas also have a business, employees, wage ledgers and so on.
We want free trade and I know that Quebec will work hard on this
issue because it is an important industry, but the James Bay and
Nunavut area that I represent are facing other issues that we
will need to address later on. This is a huge region. We have
fishery resources.
There are quotas on shrimp. People find it strange that the
member of Val-d'Or should talk about quotas on shrimp. I
represent the largest riding of all ten Canadian provinces. It
covers 802,000 square kilometres, running 2,000 kilometres from
north to south. I have 68 mayors to deal with. It is not easy.
2150
It is a constant fight for the economy. Our members are fighting
for the economy. Think about families who are fighting to have a
salary at the end of the week and who do not have jobs right
now. The employees of McWatters and of Beaufor are in this
predicament. There are cases like this throughout the mining
industry and we are trying to find solutions.
I also talked about the fishing industry, about Atlantic shrimp
quotas and about the Inuit in my region.
I have nothing against urban areas, but we should establish a
special agency in the resource regions of Abitibi, Témiscamingue,
Baie-James—Nunavik, Lac-Saint-Jean and Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
When we talk about a special agency, we would like decisions to
be made locally and quickly. I will give the example of the
Department of Human Resources Development, where decisions with
regard to students are based on 1996 statistics. Today the
unemployment rate for young people is 21%, but we are being told
that it is 14.8%. Let us get real.
I am telling my government that it must find ways to do
something about that. People would like nothing better than to
work.
I really liked tonight's debate, and I think the government will
listen to us. We must act quickly to find new ways of
collaborating with the government of Quebec. That is what
politics is all about. People do want to work. Resource regions
need help right now. I say it and I will repeat it, they are
going through very tough times. Negative growth is worse than a
recession.
However, I trust this government and the ministers who work very
hard. They are here, they are listening to us. We have surpluses,
but we must act without further delay.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a
question and I will continue in the spirit of good co-operation
tonight and try to build on our common points instead of our
differences.
At the end of his speech, the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik talked about the creation of an
agency or a willingness to see more decisions made in the
regions. At the present time, the regional development agency is
Canada Economic Development. Quite often we are frustrated
because files only go through the riding office in Val-d'Or, but
the decision making centre is not there. For example, Community
Futures Development Corporations have boards comprised of people
from the region.
Would the hon. member agree with the creation of a regional
decision making structure and with people from the region running
Canada Economic Development and having more leeway in making
decisions?
At the present time, the discretionary fund of local leaders is
$100,000. It is the same as it was about fifteen years ago in
former regional development agencies; $100,000 today and $100,000
fifteen years ago do not have the same value.
Would he agree with a board comprised of people from the region
having more leeway to approve projects in the regions instead
of constantly having, as in our case, to send them to Montreal or
Ottawa to have them approved?
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chairman, the hon. member is right,
because sometimes it takes three or three and a half months to
get an answer. We currently have projects in the regions with
universities, but we must wait three months, a month and a half
or two months in Montreal, before going to Ottawa and having to
wait for another month and a half. It is important to realize
that people in the regions want decisions to be made
immediately.
I know one thing. If I need $10,000, I go to a bank and if the
manager has not given me an answer a week later, I go elsewhere.
If we do not get an immediate answer from the bank manager, we
find another solution.
The hon. member is right. Perhaps the government should set up
CFDCs or an agency to promote economic development for resource
regions. Ministers come to the regions, they see things
firsthand.
However senior public officials do not always do so. They do not
always come and they do not know the reality. They should come
and spend a month in my region, in Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or or in
the area, to see what it is like.
Some do come. I know Jocelyn
Jacques, who is from Montreal's CED. He visits the regions and
he sees how things are going.
2155
It should not take 30 days to make decisions. Business people
want action. It takes three months. This is why, if we have a
development agency, we can have it. Our neighbour, Fednor, is a mere 400
feet from the Rouyn-Noranda city limits.
As Richard Desjardins says in his song, they are 400 feet away,
but we should get the same thing to develop the forestry sector
and all the other sectors, together with the James Bay Cree and
the Inuit. They are our partners, but there must be some action
in the short term, not in the long term, not during the next
election campaign, not in three or four years, but in the short
term.
The hon. member is right. A decision will have to be made as
quickly as possible regarding economic projects, to help our
economy back home.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Madam Chairman, perhaps I could make
a comment on the last two interventions. Both members spoke
about a philosophy that I deeply believe in. I believe the
government demonstrates it an ongoing basis. Rural development,
community development particularly in resource communities, has
to be a bottom up and not a top down driven process.
Members are quite right that for there to be effective decisions
in terms of the direction that needs to be taken, the types of
priorities that need to be set, they have to be taken within the
regions, taken at the local level. Quite frankly what will work
in northern Ontario may not necessarily work in Atlantic Canada,
on the prairies or in the interior of British Columbia.
We have some models within the federal government which work
that way. The community futures program, I believe SADC in
Quebec, is a program that works that way. Although it is funded
by the federal government and receives its money from the federal
government, it is controlled and operated by a local board of
directors chosen from local citizens in the community. They know
best their community and make the decisions.
Although the federal government funds them, the decisions are
made at the local level, including investments in small
businesses. The community futures model, one which we have in
Quebec, in Ontario and indeed right across the country, is a very
apropos one.
Another example is the federal-provincial infrastructure program
where the decisions about what projects to bring forward are
being made by the municipality, by the people closest to the
citizens who understand the needs of their citizens the most, and
then the federal and provincial governments collaborate with it.
The model is a good one. The need to have a bottom up driven
process is a good one. We had some examples of where we
undertake that in the federal government. We can build upon
those examples and enhance that type of process to even a greater
extent.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Madam Chairman,
obviously I wish to congratulate all my colleagues. It is
relatively unusual to have a debate where partisan politics do
not overshadow the interests of our fellow citizens.
First, I wish to congratulate my caucus colleagues. If I
had been elected for the sole purpose of getting the Liberal
caucus to approve an initiative such as this, I would have been
thrilled. It is probably the best way of promoting the
interests of our fellow citizens.
Obviously, we are very partisan regularly and that
when the public's interests take precedence over what divides
us, we probably all come out ahead. That is part of
what getting elected is all about.
We cannot debate the whole issue of natural resources without
constantly bearing in mind the regions involved that depend on
them. We cannot analyze all the individual resources, be they
fish, the forest, aluminum or the entire mining industry,
without taking into account the regions that have lived off
these resources for decades.
In fact, as everyone has pointed out, all the country's resource
regions are experiencing a very serious problem. I come from
the kingdom of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. This is not one of the
country's high employment areas.
Right now our economic performance is due, very temporarily, to
the construction of an Alcan plant. In a few months we
will fall back into the harsh reality, which is country wide,
where our resources will no longer support us.
2200
This does not mean that resources are exploited less than they
were, it means that we are coming to terms with a technological
increase in production rates. In industrial sectors where we
had 13,000, 14,000 or 15,000 people working, there remains
perhaps 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000.
The federal government must assume its responsibilities
and not think that everything will fall into place on its own
when it holds federal-provincial conferences or transfers money
to transfer payments, to tax points, to health care and to
education or when we have specific programs for economic
development.
The federal government, obviously with the provincial
governments, has a vital mission to carry out, that of ensuring
the survival of resource regions. It is clear that in
politics we are always somewhat partisan.
I have a quote from a speech by the rector of our university to
the Quebec institute of public administration. This is not from
25 years ago, but from last April. He said:
It has been clearly shown, and no one has contradicted these
studies, that regions such as ours did not receive a fair return
on their contributions to government coffers, according to their
demographic weight and their needs, either in health services,
or in investments in roads or, and even less so, in profits
generated through the exploitation of national resources.
It is obvious to the rector that our regions were there
to be exploited. As long as a few jobs were being created
for resource development, most people did not complain too much.
However now we realize that the jobs are no longer related to
resource development. This is why the rector says that if we
want to come into our own, regions like ours and like all the
others will have to be involved in the decisions required to
ensure our development. Decisions cannot come from higher up
anymore, neither from Quebec City nor from Ottawa.
As Mr. Moussaly, of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, said,
resource regions like ours with a population of some 300,000
generate surpluses of over $330 millions for the Quebec
government.
Nobody, as far as I know, except Mr. Landry, the former Deputy
Premier, has challenged this and he had no evidence to back his
position.
This means that because resource development creates fewer jobs,
it continues to fill the government coffers. Therefore, both the
federal and the provincial government will have to ask
themselves what is the best way to ensure that the resource
regions benefit from the country's wealth. Canada is getting
richer and the resource regions are getting poorer because young
people are leaving.
In our area, between 2001 and 2015, our population in the 15 to
30 year age bracket will drop from 62,000 to about 42,000, with
unacceptable unemployment rates, yet we still produce the same
amounts of aluminum ingots. All resource development activities
go on without any further jobs being created and we keep on
filling the government's coffers.
A debate like the one we are having tonight should encourage the
various levels of government to try to find some ways to empower
the resource areas. It is not normal for an industry that
generates almost $6 billion of positive economic activity in
Canada, like the aluminum industry, to create from two and a
half to three times fewer jobs than before, when it continues to
export aluminium ingots throughout the world and buys back
500,000 tons of finished product annually at the domestic level.
I should commend my government colleagues, because for the
first time we will have a research centre on aluminum
processing technologies to help us.
2205
After a 150 year wait, it does not matter if it takes a couple
of years to build a centre that will empower us and help us to
turn to aluminum processing, an activity that should do well in
the future in many areas, like high technology, road
transportation, and so on.
The role of the government is to empower us and help us to make
strategic choices to ensure our economic development in all the
various industries.
Currently, members of all parties are too often forced to make
representations alongside regional promoters to Quebec City and
Ottawa.
I dream of the day when the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and
probably other regions as well will have their own development
corporations, where we will have the ability to make choices, to
have people with expertise to guide us in advanced sectors where
we can excel and create jobs for our children. I dream of that
day.
I also dream of the day when we will have the opportunity,
through our own development corporation, to be financially
involved in businesses instead of simply throwing grants and
repayable loans at them, when we will able to bring the federal
government, through all its departments and agencies, to tell a
young person starting a small business “There are 8, 10, 12 of
us here to support you and to be financially involved in your
business.
We want to advise you on market opportunities and on promising
market niches that you could develop”.
The federal government must renew its ties with resource
regions. Within five or six years, it will transfer some $80
billion dollars to the government of Quebec in equalization
payments for health and education. I want to be sure that the
federal government can take initiatives to assure resource
regions that they will have what they need to fulfil their
responsibilities.
I will use health as an example. For the past 10, 15 or 20
years, our region, which has a population of 300,000, has had a
shortfall of about $75 million dollars each year. It is a fact
that has been proven by provincial officials and that is
recognized by all.
The federal government is transferring $13 billion this year,
but where is the guarantee that in my area we will have the
moneys needed to assume our responsibilities, to give health
care to the sick, at least to be able to give seniors a bath?
That is the reality.
We want governments to co-operate in order to respect the regions
and to give them the means to choose the opportunities they want
to exploit and financially help the businesses in full
development.
I thank members and greatly appreciate the debate tonight, as was
pointed out by my friend Guy ,who is working very hard for his
riding and for whom I have a lot of respect. He puts his full
energy into projects for the people he represents.
I am convinced that this is only a beginning and that we will
have many other opportunities to exchange views will all our
colleagues and with each other in order to promote a better
understanding of the reality we are living in our regions and
find constructive solutions.
I started with aluminum. We are dealing with health and we will
try to deal with many other sectors, particularly the
development of tourism. Members will understand I am thinking of
the new vocation of the Saint-Félicien zoo, which will become a
centre for the conservation of boreal biodiversity, in
co-operation with the Government of Canada and all the other
partners.
I thank you for allowing me to say these few words in this
debate.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, the speech by the Liberal
member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was an excellent one. I am
familiar with his work in the House of Commons and I thank
him again for having set in motion this emergency debate within
the caucus.
He has referred to a development corporation, but a short term
one. Tourist resources are also development corporations.
I would like a little more information. When reference is made
to tourism, we have both natural and tourism resources in our
area.
I have two points I wish to raise. In the short term, how much
does a development corporation need to get from the federal
government? Second, would the hon. member speak to us of the
tourism resources in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean?
2210
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Chairman, obviously this debate is not
the place to define a specific amount within which a regional
development corporation must operate.
Tourism has always been an area of concern to me. Back in my
first mandate here, when we were involved in creating the
national marine park in the Saguenay fjord, I kept saying to
myself that it was incredible that the fjord of Saguenay was not
on the list of Canadian parks after more than a century. I
wondered whether we in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean were part of
Canada. Think about it. I had the opportunity in 1997 to vote
on the third reading of the bill establishing a national park.
We will continue to work in that direction. I am certain that
the people in our regions, like all the members here, will be in
a position to make their own development choices, to choose the
areas on which they wish to focus. They need the assistance of
the central government.
I am certain too that the federal government, while continuing
to transfer funds to the provincial governments, is in a position
to undertake initiatives that will help the regions take charge
and direct themselves into areas with a future that will bring
them into the world economy.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Chairman,
I would like to put a
little question to my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
This evening we have had a fine debate. We have had
very constructive discussions, apart from the member for
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who did some politicking. I listened to all
the debates and I think people in my region were very pleased.
I think everyone wants to move ahead, but I felt the member for
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord wants to go backward.
I was elected by the people of Jonquière to solve a problem
faced by all of Canada's regions. It is not only the riding or
the region at home that faces it. I was here to debate for all
regions, to come up with constructive solutions for all of
Canada's regions.
I think the member for Chicoutimi-Le Fjord tried to rein in all
the energy of the members of this House. What the federal
government is doing is not a partnership, as he seemed to say.
The member spoke of equalization payments. Do you know that
these payments were established in Canada in 1940? That was
before the war, in order to help the war effort of all the
provincial governments. It was renegotiated in 1977 by the
governments in place, the governments of all the provinces.
Equalization is a federal-provincial agreement. When he was the
Conservative member, he said we had $33 billion cut since the
arrival of this government. I hope he recalls what he
said. At the time, his leader, Mr. Charest, now the head of the
Liberal Party of Quebec, said the same thing, that the Prime
Minister and not Lucien Bouchard was the one to blame.
We have to go beyond that and ensure we move ahead. I
am here to make progress. Our regions are there for the same
reasons. The government has to move forward, not go backward
always with an eye to the past. The past tells us what
the future will be, as the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik
put it. This is the way to go. It is time to stop shooting
oneself in the foot like the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
What is needed is a partnership as the member wants with my
colleague. It is time to stop and this member must tell the
truth. We are all here to help each other and move forward.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.
member for her comments. She can count on me to work in a
constructive way to promote research in the aluminum, health and
tourism industries in my region. We will do our very best.
I realize that the Bloc Quebecois member for Jonquière still
thinks my election was a glitch. It was not. Her leader, the
member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, anticipated it two days before
the election, when he delivered a speech in Chicoutimi during
which he looked somewhat like De Gaulle. The hon. member for
Jonquière remembers that in Chicoutimi the Bloc Quebecois leader
proclaimed me the winner twice.
2215
This means that his spontaneity prevailed over partisanship.
Trust me, we will continue to promote the interests of our
region and we will do so very effectively, as we have shown for
the past six months. I want to point out that, over the next six
years, Quebec will get $80 billion in equalization and transfer
payments. We will work hard to ensure that our region gets the
maximum from the federal government to take charge of its own
destiny, because there are people who feel that we do not get
our fair share from the Quebec government.
The hon. member for Jonquière is well aware of that. The federal
government transfers funds to Quebec, where the money is put
into structures in the regions. The PQ government sets up all
sorts of committees.
All these committees get small subsidies so that they are at the
mercy of the PQ government. I am here to promote the initiatives
that will ensure the future of my region, including research in
all areas, tourism and the development of small and medium size
businesses. We will continue to strengthen our presence and we
will do our utmost to be increasingly more present in the
country's resource regions, particularly in our beautiful region
of the kingdom of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ: Madam Chairman, I
cannot resist correcting the
member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on a point or two. I have
respect for his political involvement but, at the end of his
speech, when he questions the good faith of the government of
Quebec in managing or spending money, I would point out to him
that the government of Quebec is accountable to the voters.
Normally, in Quebec City, there is one opposition party, which
is there to do its job. These members are accountable to the
public.
I do not think that people expect their federal MPs to become
opposition members in Quebec City when they are here. There are
places where that can be done. I am sure that the people in his
riding hope that the member will go after the maximum in Ottawa.
The member also sort of insinuated that there were many
transfers that were going to be made to Quebec and that he was
not too sure whether that was going to be properly spent in the
regions.
This needs to be put in perspective, however. There were many
cuts and, at the time, we were not concerned about how the
government was making them. People did not want Ottawa having a
say in how they were made, but when it came to reinvesting
money and good news, Ottawa had to call the shots.
There cannot be a double standard. The record needs to
be set straight. Equalization payments and health transfers do
not advance regional development. I hope that the government is
talking about new money for regional development.
I remember when I was young, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord
was a Progressive Conservative at the time, there were
Canada-Quebec agreements, subsidiary agreements on regional
development. My region received $75 million over five years.
Since then, I wonder if Canada Economic Development has spent $5
million in the last 10 years. At some point, we are no longer
talking about amounts comparable to what they were previously.
At the time, the Conservatives did some good development work. I
give them credit for this. There are two members who are now
sitting on the other side, but who were Conservatives then. They
believed in the regions and I hope the Liberal Party will take a
more favourable approach towards the regions, while respecting
everyone's abilities.
I will conclude with a question. Would the hon. member agree
with regional management of this? He spoke of a development
corporation for the kingdom or a local corporation that would be
a shareholder in projects, which is a very good idea, and not
only a granting agency, so that we could have long term benefits?
At the present time, CFDCs, as the secretary of state was
pointing out rightly, are managed locally but not Canada Economic
Development. Decision making centres for these structures are
outside. I am sure he has experienced this elsewhere. Would it
not be appropriate, at least in the short term, to correct the
way Canada Economic Development is working, so that people from
the region can have a say on what is going on there? There ought
to be more leeway to work with this tool while waiting to develop
another, if need be.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for his
comments. Indeed, a corporation that would be responsible for
the development of a region, both in terms of capital and it
terms of strategic development choices, would obviously have to
be controlled locally.
I have not taken the time to fully define the operation and the
legal structure of such a corporation, but we would like that to
happen quickly. We are looking for a formula that would enable
us to be more effective in resource regions. Things are going
well in Montreal in terms of development. The problem is that
people think that resource regions can survive without
government support. It is simply not possible.
Let us analyze the number of people who leave our region, and
that goes for all resource regions. We must have ways of keeping
our young people.
There are niches we can exploit in all sectors. For example, in
the lumber industry, we are slowly starting to move into
processing,
but things are progressing too slowly.
2220
The development corporation would fulfil this responsibility
locally, or I hope it would. That is the position I will defend.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, it is certainly an
opportunity to speak at a take note debate. This is the largest
audience that I have ever seen at this type of a debate. I
recall my first take note debate when we were talking on Bosnia.
It was probably the second week I was here. There were two
members in the House for that debate. This is a huge turnout.
Obviously this method is working better.
I have a lot of industry and natural resources in my
constituency. A $7 billion expansion was just completed to our
petrochemical industry. We have a pork plant capable of
processing something like 20,000 hogs per day, most of it shipped
to Japan.
About 70% of my constituency is urban high tech. The future of
our community is very dependent on industry and on natural
resources. There are 11 quarter sections of land under housing
development. There is massive growth and we can just barely keep
up. There is zero unemployment. This is a good news story from
our area. We of course have the Alberta advantage with low taxes
and that which goes with that.
I want to put a little emphasis tonight on an issue that I am
most concerned with and that is the environmental implications of
so much that we do, whether we talk about urban or rural
development or whether we talk about industry and natural
resources.
A speaker a long time ago talked about Syncrude. I worked on
the Syncrude project before there was a Syncrude and was part of
an environmental study which was done when it was just a pristine
environment. One of the earlier speakers implied that there was
no environmental concern, but I for one know because I worked
there for about three years doing an environmental impact. It
was done and that was a long time ago.
I want to talk about three things. I would like to talk about
Kyoto, air and air pollution and water. Those are three
resources that we should be particularly concerned about and that
we should have a lot to say about.
I will speak briefly on Kyoto because it is a huge issue and
obviously we would need a number of nights to really get into the
Kyoto deal. I think it was doomed from the beginning. I do not
think anybody really disagrees that climate change is occurring.
The impact that humans are having on that is scientifically
debatable. That again is another issue.
The process was doomed because of lack of consultation and a
lack of planning. The government did not do its job properly. I
am talking about this government and a number of others. Kyoto
one was doomed from the beginning. It could not possibly work.
All of us should learn a lesson when we talk about natural
resource development or concerns about consultation and
communication with the people, industry and the provinces. That
is what we have to do but I feel we have not done that.
What is the good news about Kyoto? The good news is that at
least now we are aware that there is a problem. Canada now has
the opportunity to show some leadership to the world to move on
and involve China, India and Brazil, those industrialized
countries that were not part of Kyoto one. Let us let them
leapfrog in terms of technology. Let us sell them technology
that would not allow them to have air pollution if they went
through all the steps we did.
There is a lot we can do and encourage. We can encourage
alternate energy. We can do all those things. We must make
decisions about tradeoffs that we will have to make. The worst
way to handle this would be for a government on high to come down
with a carbon tax or with some kind of oppressive decision
against energy in order to try and force conservation on people.
People will buy into it. People will co-operate. The people of
Calgary are buying into wind energy. It costs more but they are
buying it and are proud of it. There is any number of new office
towers in Calgary, most of them are heated with solar energy.
They have solar collectors on the roof. That is the kind of
thing government can encourage by tax breaks, by research and
development. There is so much we can do, so let us not lament
about Kyoto.
2225
I really believe the Canadian government is doing a reasonable
job of saying that we have to have sinks and that we have to have
all of these or we cannot agree. When I was with the minister at
the G-8 environment minister's conference it was obvious to me
that the government understood the next step that we had to take.
Now we need to communicate that to the people and to the people
in the House, and we need to discuss it openly. Maybe we need to
have another take note debate on Kyoto and what we do about that.
Second, all Canadians are concerned about air quality. The
people of southern Ontario and of the Fraser Valley are
concerned. Let me tell the House something that is happening
with resource development and it is that we should think about
because it has happened in Ontario and now it is happening in
B.C.
There is a power shortage in California but California does not
want to have energy plants there because they pollute. God knows,
it has to protect the air in California because there are
problems. It now has legislation because it had referenda which
said it had to take care of its air.
Washington state wants to get the profit by selling energy to
California but it does not allow high tension power lines over
places where people live.
What is the good idea? It is to build Sumas 2, 3, 4 and 5 or
actually 12 power plants within 500 yards of the British
Columbia-Washington border. Why is that such a good idea? They
would take Alberta gas. They would have wind blows north. They
could run the power lines down the centre of Abbotsford and the
high tension power lines could be taken out to the coast and run
down to California. It would be the perfect situation.
California would get the energy without having to have the power
plants. Washington would get the profit without having to have
the pollution. Of course we would get the high tension power
lines, the pollution and we would make the Fraser Valley the
number one most polluted place in Canada instead of southern
Ontario. Southern Ontario would become second and Fraser Valley
would become number one.
Those are the kinds of things that we cannot let happen. We
cannot let energy development go that way. I phoned our consul
in Seattle, a former Liberal member from Newfoundland who is a
good friend and a good guy. He said that they could not
interfere with what foreign governments did. However, we can
damn right interfere with what foreign governments do if it is
going to blow that air into our area.
We need to work together. If we are talking global energy, then
let us talk global energy. I say the government is not standing
up for those people in the Fraser Valley. I am really concerned
about that, so are the people of Abbotsford and the people of
that area. The people of Ontario should be concerned as well
because the same thing could happen there. We could literally
put power plants right along the whole border as long as the
winds were blowing the right way. Let us be concerned about
that. Let us talk about that. No matter what we are doing,
whether it is agriculture, energy or natural resources, we have
to think about the environment.
I started out as an environmentalist. I trained as a biologist
and now I am back full circle talking about the environment
again. We need to talk about the environment in this place.
Third, water will be our most important nature resource of the
future and again the government needs to take leadership. What
do we need to do? We need to know what we have as a resource.
We have never mapped our aquifers. We do not know how much water
we really have. We do not know if we are on a positive or
negative input for that water. We do not know whether we are
draining our aquifers, whether they are being replaced or whether
they are positive or negative.
That is easy. The science is there. We know how to do that.
Many parts of the world have done that.
2230
We need to do an inventory of our lakes and streams. We need to
consider the ecological impacts when we change or divert water
from one place to another. We need to talk about that openly.
The government needs to communicate that openly. Then we need to
make decisions. That is how we handle water. I encourage the
government to consider that and to communicate that to people as
an important resource.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, we are very interested
in the comments made by the hon. member for Red Deer,
particularly with respect to the issue in California and the lack
of energy there. He explained something that was occurring in
the Fraser Valley. I am not sure if he meant coal generation or
hydroelectric generation and what the implications were.
I am from southern Ontario. A lot of us would like to believe
that our air is fairly clean. A lot of us would prefer not to
have the kind of blow over from some of the coal-fired plants
that have been used as an alternative to the shutting down of
some the reactors.
In order for us to really understand where he was coming from,
could the member perhaps give us, in the environment that we have
here, a specific illustration of the problem because it was a
very good thought. I am not sure if it is a provincial
jurisdiction or if we should be co-operating with those levels of
government, obviously we should, but I would like a better
illustration of what he was saying.
Mr. Bob Mills: Madam Chairman, first, we should be
co-operating with the provincial governments in all cases because
it is a common problem.
This will be gas fired generation. Initially, they were going
to use diesel fuel and gas, and at one point they were going to
use coal. There is one plant being proposed as coal but the
other eleven, as I understand it, will now be totally gas.
The problem is the location and the prevailing winds. One of
those plants, the Sumas 2, which is the closest to being approved
by the government, will put out 3,000 tonnes of pollutants. I
could give a breakdown of the chemicals involved, but the point
is that air is already polluted from Vancouver. Because of where
those plants will be located, the pollutants will blow directly
into the Fraser Valley which is backed up by mountains and so it
will capture that air.
An air analysis was done. Medically, Health Canada says that
150 deaths per year right now can be directly attributed to the
air in that area. That is with what they have now. If we
magnify that by what is being proposed, it becomes even more
dramatic.
We need to work with the province and the federal government
needs to provide the leadership to help the province and the
cities, urban and rural. The farmers have been told by
Agriculture Canada that their production could go down as much as
30% because of the pollution that is coming in there. It has big
implications.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Chairman, I am somewhat heartened by the discussion that has gone
on tonight.
I am a person who has lived in a resource based riding for the
last 42 years. I have earned my living from resource production.
Basically mining but certainly forestry is a big producer in my
area. I am talking about northwestern British Columbia, which is
probably a bit of a microcosm of the natural resource history of
Canada. We have had mines come and go. We have had the forestry
industry wax and wane. It is a real indication of how critical
and how important resource industries are to the local economy
but how tenuous they are when it comes to world commodity prices
and situations that affect them.
2235
I would like to give a little history on some of the mines that
have come and gone since I lived in that riding over the past 42
years. I started out at the north end in Cassiar, which was a
world famous asbestos mine. Asbestos has its connotations for
some, but it has produced a lot of products for the Canadian
export economy and has created a great deal of wealth for the
north over its lifespan. It is no longer there for various
reasons.
The mine at Stewart, a world famous gold, silver, lead and zinc
mine, is long gone but was a real producer in its time. Mines
come and go. We have Eskay Creek producing today. It is a world
class silver producer with some very substantial gold values as
well. It is an incredible mine. It will be mined out, but it is
there today and is producing wealth for the north and for Canada.
Windy Craggy, which we heard a lot about a few years ago, was a
potential world class copper, cobalt and gold property. They
spent something like $50 million proving up the ore body and
going into pre-feasibility studies and had the rug pulled out
from under them for mainly environmental reasons. That is a real
tragedy in terms of a resource that could have produced thousands
and thousands of man years of jobs and billions of dollars of
revenue and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars into
government coffers over 30 or 40 years with the potential for
other mine development in that area.
It is a very pristine area but if done properly these things can
be done. Balance is the key to the whole development of our
natural resources. There is a price to pay for everything but
the price has to be acceptable. If we can come up with an
acceptable way for development, whether oil and gas, minerals,
forestry, hydro electric or whatever, some projects are doable
and some are not. There has to be that balance. We have lost
that balance to a large degree and that is something we have to
try to get back, because of the potential for the wealth of
Canada that can be generated. We cannot forget that.
There are some other mines that have come up such as the Grand
Isle copper mine. In my little town of Stewart there was the
Grand Duke copper mine which was the world's largest underground
copper mine at one time. It was huge, having a thousand men
working there. There are still millions of pounds of copper
underground there, but the mine is gone. It is closed down. It
is not viable to operate for a number of reasons which I will get
into at the end of my 10 minutes.
If we took a thousand jobs out of a town the size of Stewart, it
would be down to 500 people. When jobs are gone, the community
and the people suffer. We are lucky we have the Huckleberry
mine. It is not in my riding but the ore is hauled into the port
of Stewart. It is a copper mine that is producing today,
marginally viable, but it is luckily enough still producing. We
have the Kemess mine, which is a fairly new one. It is a copper
mine in northwestern B.C.
We have to encourage these types of developments. Unfortunately
it is getting more and more difficult for mining companies not
only to find new ore bodies but to develop them because of red
tape, restrictions and problems that are put in their way.
We have the potential for oil and gas. In northeastern B.C. it
is booming. Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and all along the Alberta
border and into Alberta is booming area with oil and gas
development. I envy them. It is creating jobs and putting food
on the tables of families and creating revenue for governments.
That is what we need to do.
On the east coast we have Hibernia and Sable Island producing
oil and gas. Hibernia is a huge benefit to the eastern part of
Canada. On the west coast we have the potential for oil and gas
that is 10 times that of Hibernia. It is huge, but nothing is
happening.
We have a moratorium on exploration, not on production but on
exploration. We are not even allowed to go out there and have a
look at it. The message I want to send to government is that it
is time we took a real hard look at this. Technology has evolved.
The environmental restrictions are there and there are ways and
means of doing things that were not there 30 years ago when the
moratorium was put on.
2240
The potential is there, 10 times Hibernia, for pulling B.C. out
of the economic doldrums which it is in right now through no
fault of the government. I guess we all contribute. It needs to
change. We need to do something about it.
The pulp and paper industry in my area is absolutely critical to
feeding families and putting food on the table. The FCI pulp
mill is in Prince Rupert. The communities of Terrace, Kitimat,
Stewart, Smithers and Hazelton depend on that forest resource. It
is getting tougher to be able to develop resources. For a number
of reasons we are able to develop resources but the cost is
rising and it is getting tougher.
The point I wish to make is that if there is a mountain of gold
but the gold cannot be produced at a profit it is a waste. If it
is not ore it is a waste. It is that simple. That is the
problem we have today.
Ninety miles north of my home in the Stewart area is what is
called the Ground Hog coal field. It has been known for almost
100 years. It is a world class anthracite coal deposit. It is
the cleanest burning coal. It is a wonderful product.
We actually shipped coal to Newcastle from there on a test
basis. A hundred thousand tonnes of Groundhog coal was shipped
through the port of Stewart some 10 or 12 years ago. It has not
been developed. There are reasons for that. It is not
economically viable. The companies that own it look at these
projects and because of all the hoops that have to be jumped
through and world markets and commodity prices that all
contribute to the bottom line. If there is no bottom line they
do not develop.
We are having difficulties with the fishery which is another
natural resource. In my maiden speech I touched on the Pacific
salmon treaty and some of the fisheries management difficulties
that we are having on the west coast. There are some real
difficulties in the herring roe and kelp fishery in terms of
licences going one way or another and the balance not being there
any more. The fish industry is very concerned about this.
We have potential in water, another natural resource. We have
the Kemano project, a hydro electric project that produces power
for Kitimat. It is a huge project that has been there for many
years and yet Kemano completion was shut down. There was a
second stage to the original project which was shut down.
We have to ask ourselves why these things are happening. There
is something wrong. The potential is just absolutely phenomenal
and this is one small corner of Canada, northwestern British
Columbia. I am sure it is happening all over the country. We
need to ask ourselves what we can do. The backbone of Canada is
its natural resources and its people. We have to look at
providing long term benefits to communities when we produce these
resources.
I know that is a concern of my colleague across the floor. It
is a message I am getting loud and clear. Over the past 40 years
resource communities have gone through the ebbs and flows of
peaks and valleys. The valleys are getting deeper unfortunately
and the peaks are getting a lot less frequent.
There has to be long term benefits accruing to these
communities. That is something that we really did not deal with
in the past very well. We have to look at that to see how we can
stabilize this community, especially when we develop finite
resources such as metals, minerals, oil and gas. Forestry is a
little different because it is a renewable resource. If we deal
with that properly we can have trees forever. I will get
arguments on that, but I know we can if we do it right.
People is the resource that gets forgotten very often. How many
times have I seen a mine shut down, all kinds of government funds
come in to help people move away and relocate and then the town
dies? We have then lost a lot of the good people and the
potential for developing something else becomes more difficult
because the workforce is gone. It just compounds itself.
We have to recognize and understand some of these things. What
can we do to encourage our resource industries? The taxation
aspects are critical. The industry has to be allowed to make a
profit to reinvest. Flow through taxing for mining was
mentioned. That is a good start. We need to pursue that a lot
further.
As an example. in B.C. last year roughly $25 million was spent
on mining exploration. We need to spend $150 million per year to
maintain a level that would see some new mines coming out in the
future. There is a huge problem that has to be dealt with.
2245
Security of tenure is critical to the mining and forest
industries. That is a big problem, especially in British
Columbia given land claims. There are a lot of messages here.
A program put in many years ago by the Conservative government
in 1957-58 was called roads to resources. That opened up the
whole northwest corner of British Columbia as well as, I think, a
number of other areas in Canada. That is something the
government should take a look at again in regard to some sort of
program that would allow some of the more remote areas with huge
potential to develop. I am not saying to subsidize anything. I
think industry has to stand on its own two feet, but government's
role is to provide the basic infrastructure of power, roads,
ports and so on.
I see that my colleagues across are nodding, so I assume they
are hearing me. I do appreciate that. I have enjoyed this
opportunity, Madam Chairman. I think it is a good format and we
should continue it.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, I want to thank the
hon. member for Skeena. I thought some of his comments were very
interesting. I have just spent a little time in British Columbia
in the community of Kimberley, which is closer to Cranbrook. I
was also surprised at the reliance of the community on local
resources.
Clearly from his own experience the hon. member has quite a bit
of knowledge on what is needed. How does a resource based
industry or how do resource based communities such as the ones he
alluded to in his area compete, given globalization and given the
need for shareholders' rights to be first and foremost in terms
of profit making? Even if we are the most productive country in
the world, at some point or other it would appear that Canada
does not always have the edge, short of giving away any type of
tax concession, which seems to be the only alternative.
Are there other areas where the member believes that Canada may
have a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other nations that may
produce the same product but per unit much more cheaply? Because
of course there are other factors such as warmer climates and
cheaper labour which might also enter into this. What does the
member think would help his community, certainly in light of
depressed prices like we see in the cycle he referred to earlier?
Mr. Andy Burton: Madam Chairman, obviously there is no
panacea that will solve all these problems overnight. I fully
understand and recognize that, but I think we have to start
working toward some of these solutions.
The member mentioned Kimberley. Of course the Sullivan Mine has
been going for almost 100 years. It is due to close very
shortly. I think it probably is finally mined out. Mines do not
last forever. They are finite resources. However, by the same
token, the incentives can be there for industry when it is
developing and getting the mines into a production stage. As
somebody mentioned earlier, a mine starts to close the day it
opens, because eventually the ore body is depleted. The key is
to maximize the ore body, as I think somebody mentioned. That is
a very good term.
The resources will not last forever, but we must maximize them.
We can do that by being the best in the world at what we do, as
Canada certainly is when it comes to mining and forestry and, I
am sure, a number of other industries, like agriculture. We are
pretty damned good at fishing too, maybe too good but I do not
know about that, because there are some problems. We have to be
the best in the world at what we are doing. I think we can do
that as Canadians.
There is a role for government, as I said earlier, in providing
basic infrastructure. I think that is key. We must have power,
roads and ports. Those three things have to be in place. We
might include railroads to a degree, although that has more of a
private sector aspect. It did not 150 years ago, but today I
think that is more for the private sector.
Then there is the tax climate and flow through shares and things
like that. I am not suggesting subsidies. I do not believe in
them myself. I do not think that is the way to go. I think the
answer is a tax regime that is amenable to investment and allows
profits to be made, to be reinvested and to create more jobs. I
think that is the answer and we just have to work toward that.
2250
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Madam
Chairman, the member raised the concept of roads to resources, a
policy from the late 1950s. How you look at that depends on
which end of the road you were at in regard to whether the
program was a good thing, because the policy then was more a
colonization policy. The colonization I talk about is the
unexploited north.
In our region in Saskatchewan, it brought the roads from the
south straight up north, whereas the traditional transportation
route was east-west. The northern communities were east-west
oriented, but the road to resources program criss-crossed it
north-south. It still disrupts the whole flow of our community
and our region.
Going to the next step of development in the hinterlands, the
frontier, the mid-north or the boreal forest, I think it is time
that the true social, economic and ecological balance, or what we
call sustainable development, should be challenged. It is time
for us to be responsible. People in the north have to be part of
their development. They cannot just watch the resource trucks
come up and go down with the ecological impact and the transition
that takes place.
I think that resources, especially non-renewable resources, have
to leave legacies. In my region there are no research and
development institutes in the boreal forest. There are none. All
the research is done in southern universities and in corporate
centres to the south. The region is still like a colony.
I would like us to take a responsible look at the northern
regions. Let us develop those areas. If people want to develop
the area, they should move there, pay the taxes, circulate in the
economy and create an economic cycle, where one dollar can go to
the Mac's store, another dollar can go to the laundromat and
another dollar can go to the local car dealer. Right now it is
still like the roads to resources program. Forestry, mining, oil
and gas are taken from the north and we turn around and get our
goods at the Wal-Mart in the shopping mall to the south. That
has to change. I think an economic cycle should be created in
these northern regions.
I would like to hear what the hon. member's experiences are in
northern B.C. compared to what mine have been in my area.
Mr. Andy Burton: Madam Chairman, I fully concur with the
hon. member's concerns. I think I said earlier that long term
and lasting benefits must accrue to the resource based
communities. I think that is where we really have failed in the
past, like in the community I used to live in. I moved away when
I became a member of parliament, to a more urban area. Believe
me when I say that I really miss my quiet rural life, but I am
enjoying this too.
Benefits have to accrue. There is no question about it. Times
have changed. In the past people went in to get resources, got
them out of there and that was the end of it. What was left
behind was left behind. I do not think that is acceptable any
more. It is a shame that it has gone as far as it has.
As I was going to say, the community I used to live in has gone
from a peak population of 2,500 when the Grand Duke mine was
operating to 500 people today. We have had a few humps and bumps
in the meantime, but it is very difficult for these small
communities that are resource based.
Yes, there has to be something left behind, whatever it might
be. As the member suggests, it could be forestry research
centres or northern campuses for universities and those types of
things. That is something that needs to be addressed. A lot of
these issues are much more provincial than federal, but I think
this is a good place to suggest some of these things and possibly
funnel some funds toward it in the future.
My main experience with the roads to resources was, of course,
the Stewart-Cassiar highway. It was done under that roads to
resources program in 1957-1958, in that era. It basically built
a road from Cassiar to Tidewater and Stewart so that the product
could flow not through the Yukon, unfortunately for Whitehorse,
but more directly to Tidewater.
The Kemess mine right now hauls its concentrate further eastward
to hit railhead at Mackenzie to go to Vancouver. It is hauling
it further that way than it would have to straight out to
Tidewater and Stewart. It is going in the wrong direction and it
is going 1,000 miles to Vancouver. It does not make sense. The
mining company itself cannot afford to build that road. A road
is proposed, but if there were some co-operation among the
federal and provincial levels of government and the industry,
there are other potential ore bodies in there that could be
developed if a road were there.
Also, the forest industry would be extremely happy to see such a
road.
2255
These are the types of things we need to look at. What is the
potential for natural resource development if government gets
involved in some form of basic infrastructure, maybe not building
the road per se but assisting with it? That is what I am saying.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, I will be sharing my
time with the member for Churchill River. I have attended for
two hours now. I am not as patient, of course, as the hon.
minister for rural development, but I have sat many times very
pensively watching his work and his deliberations. I applaud his
efforts, not only for being here for all these very good and
valued questions but also for being the first, I think, to deal
with one of the more substantive issues that confront the House
of Commons, usually in a very partisan and very confrontational
way.
[Translation]
Tonight, my comments will deal with a subject that is perhaps a
sort of hub of the major issues of the day concerning the energy
sector and the market structure. We see now that oil prices have
increased, although they have not reached $28 a barrel yet, and
we also see prices at the pump of 80 cents a litre in Toronto
and 90 cents in other areas such as in Quebec, and even a little
higher, depending on tax variations.
[English]
I am concerned. I cannot for the life of me think of something
that is more debilitating to bringing us together, under the
question of not just our nation but of natural resources, and to
overcoming the divide between rural and urban sectors in our
economy than knowing that the people who produce the product—and
knowing that there could be an abundance of jobs in those
areas—are at the same time perhaps suspect on the part of those
who are consuming the products at the other end.
Consumers across Canada, whether they be in rural or urban
areas, quite often are subjected to very high prices for
products. At the other end, of course, those who produce the
products, whether they be miners or farmers or those who are
working on the derricks in this country, will find that the price
may be satisfactory. However, no one is making a whack of cash
at the platform level and certainly jobs are being created there.
I say all of this in the context of the government's interest in
the area of continental energy policy. I am perhaps borrowing
from previous members of parliament and from one who is no doubt
familiar, Madam Chairman, to you and to the Governor General, Ray
Hnatyshyn. As a member from Saskatchewan, he said on the
question of a continental energy policy that for Canada it is
like swapping partners but with a bachelor.
Of course this creates some difficulty, because a lot of people
would naturally assume that providing new opportunities for a
hungry, thirsty energy deficient U.S. may on the surface appear
to be an important way of ensuring that we are able to get other
concessions from that country, particularly in areas that deal
with natural resources, such as potatoes, agriculture and of
course softwood lumber. We are at the same time perhaps risking
the rise in energy costs to the extent that those energy costs
may be prohibitive not to the Americans or to others within that
continental arrangement, but more specifically to Canadians.
Today I would like to point out for members of parliament what I
believe to be a rather interesting phenomenon that is occurring
right across the country. People may be paying as much as 80
cents to 90 cents a litre for gasoline, yet crude is $10 less
than it was six months ago. As I mentioned earlier, it was
hovering at the $28 range. Six months ago it was near $36 or $38
and the price was averaging roughly 75 cents or 76 cents. What
has changed is the market structure and the ability of those who
process. Again, it is that big middle ground between the
producer of the product and the consumer. Those who refine or
transport or create this new product are able to take a lot more
as a result of a lack of or a deficiency in competition.
2300
There have been a number of excuses or reasons given. One which
was been cited was short supply. Canada does not have a shortage
of supply. Maybe there is the odd refinery that shuts down from
the United States. However let me be very clear on the question
of natural resources for all my colleagues here.
The excuse that is trotted out before winter is that it will be
a cold winter therefore we will have low inventory. During the
summer there are more people driving and therefore we have a low
inventory. These are realities of our geography and climate in
Canada. We have cold winters and warm summers.
However Canadians have experienced not only high prices for
gasoline but for other energy products, more so than we have seen
in many years. Of course that may be owing to the fact that we
are already part of a continental arrangement where NAFTA has
prevented us from keeping a supply. Perhaps that is not such a
good thing. It certainly is not what I am advocating.
What I am concerned about is the ability to tack on an extra few
cents. Today, when Canadians are reading about record profits
being made by oil companies to the tune of almost $1 billion in
the downstream alone in 12 short weeks, there is something
seriously wrong with the transfer of wealth from the Canadian
economy to the bottom lines of major oil companies.
I do not disagree for a moment that a continental policy which
allows Canadian products to be refined and created here in Canada
but produced and sold back to Canadians in U.S. prices is in
itself a bad thing. Canadians and many members of parliament I
am sure are not aware of the fact that it constitutes virtually
12 cents of a litre of gasoline.
I have some concerns about the object of a purposeful discussion
on dealing with resources and making productive uses of them for
all Canadians and for the international market. I do not think
Canadians should volunteer themselves as international boy scouts
and assume we should be looking in the other direction, saying
that that is fine and that we can supply energy to other nations
but that we are not looking after the interests of Canadians.
Today on April 24, 2001, it would appear to me that that is a
very serious problem for Canadians. However I believe there also
is a problem with the structure of the market. Those who control
the product are in a position to also control and determine what
the price is going to be.
If we control the infrastructure, if we control the pipelines,
if we control the ability for the product to be refined, it is
very conceivable that those who are producing, whether in the
industries of agriculture or fishing or mining, will wind up with
lower and lower prices.
This brings me to the issue of agriculture. It seems rather
unfortunate that we simply are looking at the issue of
agriculture from the perspective of depressed international
crises. Most analysts are now looking at agriculture from a
different perspective and that is to see that there are changes
of concentration, dynamic, quick, evolving changes of
concentration in the areas of processing and manufacturing to
respond to the new realities of concentration at the retail
sector in our economy, certainly as it relates to food.
For instance, although Wal-Mart does not have a large presence
in terms of groceries in Canada, certainly the weight and the
substantial size and power influenced by Loblaws, or Sobeys or by
other smaller but nevertheless important regional players, such
as Dominion and A&P;, have an impact on artificially raising
manufacturing costs and in turn take this out on farmers.
This is not just something that has been invented by this member
of parliament at this time. Policy-makers and a lot of us do not
want to enter into the more substantive and critical area of
determining what the structural problems are with the industry.
If we are not prepared to accept that Canada has, perhaps more
than other nations and certainly more than our trading partners,
a much more concentrated market environment, we are inevitably
going to find ourselves in a position where all the solutions we
are looking for are really band-aids and very short term.
So I would plead with members of parliament that when we are
dealing with the issue of natural resources, we look further than
simply saying that these are industries that have to compete on
the international market or that these are industries that have a
similar product but the processes might be somewhat different.
We must examine whether or not the markets in which those
products are to be sold are already predetermined and
precontrolled in which there is already a fixed or set price,
which is harmful and detrimental to the competitive process but
is also detrimental to the very people who are working day in and
day out across Canada.
We are dealing with a dichotomy of people in rural areas, as I
have heard from the minister, who are not making enough and who
do not have jobs. We have heard about the mining sector and the
agricultural sector. We heard about consumers who felt they were
paying too much.
2305
Let us start looking at what is in between and we can come to a
much better understanding of the realities in the country. In
the process hopefully debates like this will be more meaningful.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Madam Chairman,
I hope you do not
mind, but I will start my presentation by sharing a map. This
map transcends political boundaries. There is no language on it.
Because of the satellite imagery technology that exists today,
it is available to us. It is in printed form for us as
parliamentarians. However not one of our committee rooms or
other rooms has a map of Canada in it.
In order for us to make our place on the planet, and we always
want to say we are not Americans, why do we not put a map of
Canada somewhere in a northern location. We are a northern
country. We are from the northern hemisphere. If we stand at
home and look at the world, our home is to our back. I propose a
map be hung in one of the committee rooms. We could dedicate a
committee room with a map of the natural resources and natural
waters of Canada as a gift to Canadians.
In some of these committee rooms it might spark an initiative.
Maybe somebody in downtown Toronto would start to see that the
islands in the north are a part of our decision making. We have
Quebec, the St. Lawrence region, the Hudson Bay watershed, the
Mackenzie River watershed and the whole west coast watershed in
the Yukon.
It is an astounding lesson. As a young person I have always
been interested in land and water. I was a surveyor and was
working in the mines. I can always find something new on a map.
It could be an oil company, a mining company or a forestry
company but there are always new discoveries.
As decision makers we are lacking vision. We have not created
an image of our own country, region and territories. This is a
huge mistake. My riding is Churchill River but when I enter the
House I assume a responsibility for all of Canada. This is what
needs to be done here.
Terminology is also very important. I spoke with the minister
responsible for rural development. I have always challenge words
about the regions of Canada. The three regions which were
mentioned in the throne speech were urban, rural and northern.
The north is a unique region of its own. It is not rural. We
are trying to be urbanized but we are really not urban either.
The north is a unique opportunity, a unique lifestyle and a
unique climate. It is everything in its own. The north has
enough weight of its own.
We have a northern minister who is in charge of the territories
north of sixty. We have huge regions in the northern half of the
provinces where there is no federal ministry in charge. That is
why I challenged the rural minister because he had his remote
community added on to his portfolio.
It is time we co-ordinated ourselves with our provinces as well,
from Labrador to Quebec to Ontario to Manitoba to Saskatchewan to
Alberta to B.C. and to the Yukon, Northwest Territories and
Nunavut. All these regions should not only have a resource
development and community development vision, but also social and
human development vision.
It all comes hand in hand. We cannot do it separately. We
cannot leave legacies like Uranium City in my riding which had a
huge mining operation. It looks like Beirut today. The mining
company pulled out.
2310
The federal government was also responsible there because it
started out as Eldorado, a federal crown corporation. However if
anyone went there today they would see that it looked like
Beirut. It is time to clean it up. We have to go back.
Speaking of going back, a comment was made by one of the
members. There is a need for co-ordination in this country which
does not really exist yet. There are little sparks of it.
However in 1909 it existed. Let us go back in history. In 1909
there was a body called Canadian conservation council which
existed for about 12 years. Then it fell apart because the
bureaucracy of our nation's capital took exception to it. It was
getting too structured and competing against other people's
hierarchies. It is time for us to go back to it.
It exists in Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation.
There exists in that bill the Canadian endangered species
conservation council. It is made up of three ministries,
fisheries, environment and national parks-heritage, and the
provincial ministries that are in charge of wildlife.
We should expand that council to include members of the Senate
and members of the aboriginal nations. Then we would embody
everything in this country and encircle all of this: on reserve,
off reserve, provincial, territorial, Senate and both houses. We
could create a conservation council that would look at
sustainable development, economic sustainability, the
conservation of our economy, the social and human needs, the
conservation of our population in our young children and their
future, plus the ecology which is the most important part because
it is the land. It is the land that gives us the source of life
and the source of our riches.
When we enter the parliamentary restaurant there is a picture of
a pyramid. At the top is the capital and credit of this country,
all the money stacked on top. At the bottom, which holds it up,
is the territorial lands of this country. Unless we rationalize
and balance all of this it will be off balance.
I look at my region. We have forestry, mining and the hottest
uranium mines in the world, in fact the most uranium in the
world, but all our paycheques are flying over our heads. They
are going to Prince Albert and Saskatoon. Our roads in our
communities are the worst and the most dangerous.
Our community was a social experiment where they did not want to
create Uranium City, a mining town. The policy was to fly in
their workers from small villages in the north, train them and it
worked. However it started to abandon those pick-up points and
started going to the major centres. That is where it went wrong.
Those fleets of planes that sit empty today could fly our
workers into the tar sands. The tar sands need human resources
and labour. We are just next door. We get the ecological
footprint of the tar sands. All our weather comes from the west
and so does the pollution which comes from the tar sands. It
affects us ecologically but not economically.
To try to grab those jobs in Fort McMurray, the town of La Loche
with 4,000 Dene people used its human resources training money to
build a road to the border. The Dene people's own training
dollars built that road. Now it did not go through to the tar
sands because Alberta did not fulfil its agreement to build that
road.
As a nation it is time that we start to plan our resources and
look at our real resources from the right perspective so that we
can show our uniqueness if an American comes to our committee
room and asks what it is.
Americans are used to centring the world from Texas. That is the
centre of their world.
2315
I would like to leave a legacy. When we talk about resources,
from here on in let us measure what we are talking about and use
the right image. It is missing on the Hill.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Chairman,
I am very pleased to be
here tonight. Since the beginning of the debate, I have found
the exchanges we have had very productive, because hon. members
have told Canadians and Quebecers who are listening to us
tonight that throughout Canada we all have the same problems
and no one was telling them about this fact.
We have an opportunity to say so and this is a great
opportunity to speak of our specificities, which may be very
widespread throughout Canada, but which have some similarities.
I learned tonight that there were mining problems in British
Columbia.
I have learned that Newfoundland is facing other problems and
that there are mines in Abitibi. We also have mines in my area.
I have learned all that and I think it will help to open up the
debate.
I hope a lot of people watched this first discussion and
realized that they are not alone in this, that by sharing and
talking about their problems, some solutions can be found. That
is what I found out tonight and I want to thank the hon. member
for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for making this exchange of views
possible.
The region I represent is a huge resource area rich in aluminum.
We are known as the cradle of aluminum. The first aluminum plant
in Quebec was built in the riding of Jonquière. My father worked
there and, at that time, 8,000 people worked at the Arvida
plant.
Nowadays, there are only 500 employees.
Members can see what a difference 50 years can make. Because of
all the new technology, jobs were cut but the company remained
competitive at the world level thanks to these new technologies.
Technological change costs us a lot of jobs in the areas that
rely on resources. My region relies on hydro, pulp and paper,
mining, forestry and lumber. Whatever resources Canada has, they
can be found in my riding.
We have had regional seminars and all sorts of other things in
the last few years, things that were developed by the Canadian
government, the Quebec government and by the local
population. We were allowed to say what we thought had to be
done to help us take charge and to ensure that our resource
region which had given a lot could receive something.
As I was saying before, there were seminars. From there we
proposed structures to help identify ways to pull ourselves
through. The provincial government has held out a hand to the
resource regions and in our area we have pressed them.
We can do that in our area. We pressed them and we said
“Now that this has been identified, you will have to help us”.
In its last two budgets, the provincial government gave us money
and an opportunity to pull ourselves through and to develop
regional structures with this money.
A little earlier, the minister said that he was ready to make
partnerships with the provinces. Even the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik told us that we should renew some
specific agreements made while the Conservatives were in office.
In the days when he was a Conservative member, I was with the
Bloc Quebecois. Things were working properly then.
However what is the government doing now? I am very sad to say this,
but this government is developing programs that will definitely
not meet the needs.
2320
These are wall to wall programs, in parallel instead of
converging with the structures put in place by the province. I
do not know whether other provinces in Canada have provincial
structures that identify regions of a specific nature; I would
like to have heard someone say so.
In our region, we were told that the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean
region was going to be aluminum valley. That entitled us to very
specific tax credits. Tax credits were also given for the next
ten years for the processing plants that would be built in our
region. The companies locating in our region would not have to
pay income tax.
The region was also declared a secondary and tertiary lumber
processing region, because of our forestry resources. One of my
brothers worked as a logger in the days when the resource was
accessible. Now the forests are being pushed further and further
back. They are far not only from our cities, but also from our
rural centres.
Based on that, we were told “You have taken control of your
future, so here is some money”. I am therefore asking this
evening, having heard all this, why this government would not
dovetail its programs with those identified by the people in the
regions?
I must state that the people of the regions are the ones who
have identified their present and future development. They have
looked back at where they started, and they are saying “This is
where we are now”.
The provincial government has given us the means to do it. We
know that for mine development, it gave us $264 million in
support of forest resources development and mining operations in
the last provincial budget. I do not know whether members knew, but
this was what it put on the table.
Why would the Liberal government not do the same thing and give
the same amount to make it possible to move ahead, as it was put
earlier? Someone said “Soon there will be 13 mines closed at
home, and there is nothing”. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavut
said that. He has
taken steps. I am not saying they are perfect, but I am saying
they are taking steps.
We have reached the stage of taking steps.
We have not yet reached the stage of always talking. We are at
the stage of taking steps, because we have all reached the same
place, knowing that action is essential. A number of Liberals
and a number of Alliance members said “Action is vital”.
This evening we MPs have taken part in a debate and have
concluded we must act. I am waiting to hear from the
government. When will it act? When will it put on the table
the means to enable resource regions to move ahead using the
means they have identified.
These means include resources, money, and it involves honouring
the niche they have defined for themselves. This is what I ask
of the minister responsible for rural matters.
He says he was prepared to form partnerships. I would like him
to tell me something. If tomorrow morning the government of
Quebec said “Yes, we agree with an alliance in this area”, would
it be prepared to sign the agreement and say “Me too. I put my
money on the table”?
So, I note that this is what has enabled us to develop the
debate we have had tonight. I hope tomorrow we have
another positive aspect and act.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario),
Lib.): Madam Chairman, I appreciate the
intervention of the hon. member. I realize and respect her
commitment to her riding and what she is trying to accomplish.
Let me try to describe the challenge or the problem. When it
comes to rural citizens, whether those rural citizens live in
Quebec or whether they live in Ontario or British Columbia, the
issue is not one of who should take the predominant role, the
provincial government or the federal government. That is not the
issue.
Quite frankly I think she emphasized that too much. The issue
is not between the provincial and federal governments. The issue
is rural Canadians and rural communities. They will establish
the priorities. They will find the way. They will recommend the
structures.
The role for us as a federal government and for the provincial
governments is not the issue between ourselves, but the issue is
between how we relate to the communities.
2325
When I say that I want to work with my counterpart in Quebec as
I do with my counterparts in every province, it is not to work
between each other. It is to work together with the communities.
That is what the priority has to be. That is the priority of the
government and that is my commitment as the Secretary of State
for Rural Development.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Chairman, what the
secretary of state said about rural development is exactly
what I said. We did that exercise back home. We did it regarding
rural communities and regional development. We did that
exercise. We said “This is what we want to develop”.
Why not sit with these people and tell them “You have
defined this? We are prepared to help you”. This is what I am
saying. I agree. However we will not do the exercise all over again.
It was done in my region. It was done in done in
all the regions of Quebec.
A number of very specific areas were defined.
Very important resource regions were defined, including the
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the Magdalen Islands, the Gaspé Peninsula,
the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore. This was all
included in the exercise conducted by the grassroots over the
past four or five years.
Is the hon. member prepared to sit with these people, the
grassroots, and hear them tell him “This is what we want and we
want to have money, we want the same thing that the Quebec
government is putting on the table”? This is what I am asking.
We have done it, and was along the lines that the
parliamentary secretary mentioned since the beginning.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a comment
to the secretary of state, and then to ask my colleague from
Jonquière a question.
I agree with what he said. This is what the government does in
its dealings with communities. In the case of the federal
government in Quebec, there are two structures which affect
regional development.
Of course, there are also ministers with a sectoral involvement,
but the main tools are the Community Futures Development
Corporations and Canada Economic Development.
Canada Economic Development Canada does not have the approach he
mentioned, an approach based on co-operation, where the community
takes the decisions. Canada Economic Development Canada produces a
program thought of and made in Ottawa, Montreal or elsewhere for
regional development. That is a problem.
There is a difference between the structure in place in Ontario
and the one in Quebec. FedNor does not operate the same way as
Canada Economic Development. The later is much more centralized.
Therefore, I hope that the member will pressure his colleague
responsible for regional development in Quebec and tell him that
this does not respond exactly to our needs at this time and that
we need more flexibility and a model which goes in the direction
you mentioned, a model which comes from the grassroots.
This is not exactly the way Canada Economic Development
operates. In programming, any project of more than $100,000 has
to be approved at a senior level. There are practical
problems with that.
I think that the secretary of state is acting in good faith, I
am even sure of it, but I hope that we will see some changes in
this regard.
I have a short comment for the member for Jonquière, whom I
congratulate on her speech. There is something I forgot to
mention earlier, and I would like to know what she thinks about
it.
Often, there are difficulties in the regions. For instance, the
Department of Natural Resources or other departments, such as
Agriculture Canada, are fairly large. Often we would like
to have a few more researchers or those people described as
public servants. We would like them to be a little more present
in the regions, or for there to be more partnership, often with
our teaching institutions. We would like these people to work
in our communities. This would enhance co-operation between the
community and the departments.
I do not know whether this feeling exists in her region. In my
region, we would like more employees of these large departments
to be based in the region, to live and breathe a little more of
regional reality, rather than always having to wander all over
the place to convince people of their efficiency.
We would like to have more public servants based in the region,
while reporting to the administrative structures, but a little
more in touch with what is going on in the community.
There are a few agreements, but we would like to see them
extended. We find it a bit frustrating to be one of the major
producers in the mining sector and not to have more people from
the Department of Natural Resources assigned to our region, for
example, or based in our region.
I am sure that the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik will agree
with me.
2330
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Chairman, in my region, we have
the exact same problem. We are under the responsibility of
people in Quebec City or in Montreal. We do not have our own
officials in our region.
I want to go back to Canada Economic Development. When I submit
applications from my region to Canada Economic Development, I
cannot have a say with regard to these applications. If I want
to have a say with regard to an application given to me by one
of my constituents, I am told that it will hurt the applicant.
Decisions are made in Quebec City, Montreal or Ottawa. I find
that extremely hard to take for people in my region and for
those whom they elected.
CFDCs give repayable loans.
They give grants to non-profit organizations, but not to
businesses that want to develop new niches. They only give
repayable loans. I think it is a very serious problem. These
people often need substantial capital to develop an expertise
and to start up a business that will enable us to progress. I
find that deplorable.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Chairman, since
it is getting late, I have decided to speak about some
interesting things.
I have, for instance, decided to speak of my riding. I will not
give a geographical description, as my colleague has done,
but I do issue a warm invitation to visit a region that is in
the forefront of the mining sector. After Baie-Comeau, you would
see Franquelin, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles. The scenery is
outstanding.
As the mining critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I have taken a lot
of notes. I do not want to forget anything about my riding this
evening. It is not very often that there is an opportunity to
talk about the mines in my region. I would like the people in
my riding to know that I have praised it, that I have spoken of
them and that I have placed this sector in the limelight, a sector
that is very beautiful, but is also in need of government
intervention.
I am the spokesperson for a mining region. Its mining production
ranks the North Shore as foremost in all mining regions in
Quebec and in Canada. I am delighted to be able to say that.
Everyday we make use of a lot of products that are essential to
our every day lives, construction materials, household
appliances, cars, coins, televisions, computers. All these
products are directly or indirectly connected to the mining
sector in which we are involved and the top producer.
A significant amount of the metals used to produce these
products come from the mineral deposits of the beautiful North
Shore region of Quebec.
The mining output of the North Shore region is essentially
focused around iron ore. I do not know if members have heard of
ilmenite, but it is very important.
This is a very rare ore that is found in Havre-Saint-Pierre and
even in Natashquan, the land of Gilles Vigneault. This ore has
been found through prospecting programs. Presently, those
programs are funded only by the Quebec government. This is
shameful.
Whereas some boast that Quebec has a national government, we
have to look at the regional level for development. All the
mineral deposits in Quebec have been prospected and found thanks
to money from the Quebec government.
2335
This is very important because in our region, on the North
Shore, we do not have any arable land. The weather there is not
suited to agriculture or ranching. Our land is fertile for
industrialization. We are rich thanks to the sea, forests and
mines. We do not complain, we are happy. We are very happy that
way.
However the prospectors and the mining companies first determine
what they are looking for. They do research and ask themselves
what exactly they are looking for: precious metals, gold,
silver.
I could tell hon. members that, very recently, a diamond,
nickel, zinc and copper mine was found north of Schefferville.
The ore concentration, in terms of percentage, is very
promising.
We also have asbestos and graphite. We support the discovery of
these substances. The community is very aggressive in its help
to prospectors, because the development of our region is
involved.
There are many matters involved and the stakes are high. The
development of Quebec and its regions is a long way from
revealing a huge success. A lot remains to be done. In my
riding alone, the Mazeret company, I am pleased to report, will
operate a mine that will create some one hundred jobs.
The Fonds régional d'exploration minière de la Côte-Nord hopes to
interest one of the mining companies in getting involved in a
site we call La Blache. It is the Bloc Julie, commonly known
as Block 30. It is located 145 kilometres north of Baie
Comeau. People found a very large ore indicator there.
They also reopened the pellet plant with this money, without
government intervention, by the way. In the past five years, in
Sept-Îles, $1.5 billion dollars has been invested, and they are
investing nearly $70 million in a power plant to be called SM-2.
For those who have heard of SM-3,it is about 150 kilometres
north, and the SM-2 is on highway 20. A dam already exists there
and it will be used to produce about 20 kilowatt/hours of
electricity, which we want to increase to 60. To do so will
involve an investment of $70 million.
At 7.30 p.m., the environmental public hearings office was
holding hearings on this. I am delighted and I hope everything
went well, since this development is vital to the region.
The mining industry is a major contributor to the Quebec
economy. Not only are many areas directly dependent on this
industry, but the large urban centres are also taking advantage
of its important economic spinoffs.
I do not know if people know it, but ore shipments are worth
about 3.5 billion dollars a year in economic spinoffs for Quebec
alone, while the number of jobs created is estimated at 17,137
person years. This is really is something.
A good number of head offices are located in Montreal and in
Quebec City, including the IOC Mining Company, Québec-Cartier
Mining—the only mining company from Quebec—and QIT-Fer et Titane
Inc., in Havre Saint-Pierre. These companies all employ many
people.
2340
The mining industry has also been badly affected in the last
years. It has gone through very hard times. The years 2001 and
2002 will be very difficult for the mining industry. I think
that my friend Guy Saint-Julien knows it very well.
In this respect, we need government support, particularly from
the central government. The federal government thinks it can do
everything and help everybody and it claims that we are so lucky
to be part of that government, that we are very lucky because
otherwise we would be in peril and lost.
People therefore really rely on the federal government to help
those companies. We sometimes hear that bankers are happy to
lend us money on sunny days. They are happy to lend an
umbrella when the sun is out.
It is because when they lend money, they give an umbrella, but
as soon as it rains, they take it away. With respect to the
mining industry on the North Shore, in my friend's area, we are
having some rough weather. We are living through hard times. We
need action and assistance from the government.
I was told that my colleague, the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, made some promises during the election
campaign. Some have talked about $300 million or $400 million, but I
would be satisfied with $300 million, as long as I get $100
million for my region.
What the government needs to do is to provide a budget to help
mining exploration and mining companies.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to give the Bloc position and
what it is proposing, because my time is up. However I will
have the opportunity to bring forward a motion in the next few
days to present the Bloc position, that is, what the Bloc
Quebecois wants specifically.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the
member for Manicouagan, which is also a large riding. We are
neighbours, since our ridings are adjoining. Together, we cover
about, and Quebec is 1,600,000 square kilometres, 1,100,000 square
kilometres. I have 800,000 square kilometres and he has some
300,000.
We did talk about the agency. What is important to us, as we
said during the election campaign, is what we should have in the
resource regions. We know that the mining sector is currently
suffering and forestry is also beginning to suffer. A little over
a week ago, I travelled to Shefferville with the Secretary of
State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec, the hon. member for Outremont, and we
discussed economic development. As members know, things are not
easy in resource regions, given the price of metals and so on.
This is why we are trying to find ways to get specific, short
term programs, not virtual programs on the Internet and so on,
but programs for rural communities. I appreciate the fact that
the minister spent the evening with us, because we truly value
his excellent remarks.
The federal government must find new ways to co-operate with the
Quebec government and with the governments of all the other
provinces. We can take action. A few years ago, we had agreements
that produced results. Now we do not have anything. We are proud
of Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa and Toronto, because they have
major multimedia projects on the Internet.
We are proud. Jobs are being created and we are glad about that.
Finally, we should never forget that, whether it is in Lac
Saint-Jean, on the North Shore, in Manicouagan or the Gaspé area,
jobs are being created. Whether it is in Abitibi or in Montreal,
close to 7,000 jobs are created thanks to the mining and forestry
industries. The same thing goes for Quebec City.
2345
Money from the Initiative régionale de stratégie de
l'Abitibi—Témiscamingue is currently used to help out COREM in
Quebec City. We are proud of that, because it will create quality
jobs and, in turn, help to support the mining industry.
The hon. member might want to comment on that. We need short
term concrete measures to preserve these jobs.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Madam Chairman, to answer my
colleague's question, tomorrow at 2.00 p.m., I will be in
Schefferville to open a multipurpose sports centre. I am told
that there is a swimming pool and an arena. The folks in
Schefferville have hope. The mine has been closed and others
have been discovered.
Diamonds have been discovered. Once diamonds have been
discovered, a monopoly whose name I will not mention, but he
knows who it is, bought it so as not to have any competition.
The government of Quebec invested $4.5 million. That is why I am
asking the federal government to match that amount.
I am an optimist by nature and I am confident, because there is
great potential in northern Quebec, north of Schefferville. What
the Bloc Quebecois is going to propose is a long term cut in the
effective tax rate for mining companies, and I think that he will
agree with that.
We will see what form it will take. In order to increase
investment in the mining industry, it is essential that the tax
rate be cut. According to my poll of both opposition and
government members, people would be in favour of a tax cut right
now for at least the next five years for investing in the mining
industry.
People know that running a mine, especially
with the cost of gas, the cost of energy and equipment,
particularly in remote areas, is very expensive.
There must be a reduction in the effective tax rate for mining
companies. The Bloc Quebecois is going to work very hard on
this. With my colleague, we will be introducing a bill to this
effect. I hope we will have the support of the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Chairman, I had to look at the
map to see where my hon. colleague was from. However his
colleague beside him is from Yukon.
In the 1970s there was a project known as the mid-Canada
development corridor. It connected Newfoundland and Labrador,
through Saint Augustin, one of the areas in Quebec, and all
through that area of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. The plan was
shelved. It was a major undertaking in the 1970s.
Perhaps the provinces and the federal government could come to
an agreement on a plan similar to that one. All the provinces
would be engaged. They could look at the undeveloped area of the
north. They could also look at the new sustainable practices we
have today that were non-existent in the 1970s. If it was not
feasible in the 1970s, perhaps it is feasible now.
The federal government should be engaged to work with all the
provincial governments. They should be working together to
develop the undeveloped area of the northern regions where the
resources are vast. We have to do it in a timely fashion and it
has to be done appropriately.
That is what I am hearing from the Bloc. It is an opportunity
for us to engage in a common goal so that Canada could be proud
that it had achieved something. Each province could be proud
because it would take ownership of its regions.
The first step in this development is research and development
units in the north. Their development will take timely and
appropriate measures. Would the member care to comment on that?
2350
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Madam Chairman, let me reassure my
colleague. At my age, and being born in Quebec, I do not need a
map to go anywhere in Canada. I know all regions. I am just back
from Vancouver, and I was in the west recently. I spent our 15
day recess in Victoria. I do not need a map to visit the hon.
member's riding. I hope he does not need one to come and visit
mine, because we should all know our country.
My country is Quebec, of course. I have always said that we
have really two countries here, Canada and Quebec. Canada is our
neighbour.
When I was in Victoria, I said I was in Canada and people found
that funny. I like Canada Vancouver and my neighbours. I also
like my colleague's speeches.
He seems to worry. He is showing us a map as if we did not
know Canada. We know it very well. We know where we are going,
and we know from where we are come. Let me reassure him. We
are working very hard on mining development in the west, in
Canada and in Quebec. We should look for deposits where they
are. Hon. members can understand that, since I have been
elected by my constituents, I work first for my riding, but also
for the people of Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this take note
debate in committee of the whole on the state of Canada's
resource industries.
Canada is the second largest country in the world in area and it
is very rich in natural resources, which are an important source
to a brighter future for our country. However, the government
lacks vision and strategic planning in developing, exploring and
utilizing these resources.
I notice that the government also lacks a balanced approach
between resource development and environmental concerns. I will
give a few examples to make my point, particularly in the mining
industry.
I had an opportunity to visit a few mining industries. I have
about 40 mining related industries that produce something for the
mining industries in my constituency of Surrey Central. After
talking with various individuals and businessmen in the mining
industry, I learned that they consider it to be a tragedy the way
the mining industry has been treated by the various governments,
both federal and provincial. They are also upset with the
regulations. They feel that the regulations are bureaucratic red
tape in order to discourage them. Similarly, they say that the
federal-provincial jurisdictions in some areas overlap and that
in other areas they are not clear.
The mining industries spend a lot of time exploring and setting
their infrastructure. They also use a lot of energy in terms of
their management input and taxation becomes another factor that
is driving them south. As an example, we have a $12 billion
dollar investment in Chile which is three times more than our
investment in Japan. We have invested $42 billion alone in the
Americas outside of the U.S.
We are all aware of the softwood lumber crisis in the forestry
industry. The people involved in that industry are very
discouraged with the recent skirmish that has been going on. Free
trade seems to be only one way but, when it comes to our natural
resources, free trade has let Canadians down because of the poor
planning, poor negotiating skills or mismanagement by the
government.
I believe that anti-dumping and countervailing have not been
handled right for many years. This new investigation by the
U.S.A. in this area will probably worsen the relationship between
the two countries on the trade front in forestry and especially
in softwood lumber and in remanufacturing demanufactured
products.
2355
I visited a factory in my riding which utilizes waste products
in the forest industry. That industry is also suffering because
of poor negotiating that took place in the past. The federal
government's policy on water exports is not clear. It does not
seem to have a vision on how to handle the resource. It also has
no clear policy regarding the production, export and pricing of
electricity. We do not know where the government stands on such
issues as air, flora and fauna, and endangered species.
I heard the speech of the secretary of state. I understand the
challenges the government faces in terms of geography, density,
remote areas and communities that depend on the mining industry
and infrastructure development. We lack infrastructure
development in Canada as far as natural resource rich rural
communities are concerned. In addition, we know the market size
is small. Regulatory and communication policies are stretched.
Natural resources contribute about 15% of our GDP. In 1996 the
government mentioned in its throne speech the need for
sustainable development of our natural resources.
As my time is up, can I have unanimous consent to increase my
time by 15 minutes?
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: No, you cannot.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I will wind up, then. I wanted to
talk about how parliament was not consulted when we signed the
treaties at the Kyoto, Beijing and Rio conferences. I will
therefore say that the government needs to focus more on the
state of natural resources in Canada and to come up with a clear
vision on how to handle these things effectively in the future.
I did not touch on energy, electricity and nuclear power.
Perhaps another time I can talk about that.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Chairman, I had a 20
minute speech on the history of resource development in Yukon. I
will get it in during another debate because you are very good at
letting things in.
I thank the minister for being here until midnight. All rural
members of parliament, as well as all rural Canadians, should
support his initiatives and programs.
Before coming to the Chamber I was in the parliamentary
restaurant to lobby members to support these initiatives. Rural
members have a very good reason to support them. We are
outnumbered. We are outnumbered in parliament and yet we inhabit
the vast majority of the land. We must therefore stand and fight
to show that we are different, that we have special needs in the
north, that we are an important part of Canada and that we need
those resources. That is why I commend the minister for the
wonderful programs and hope all rural members will support him in
his efforts and will fight for rural Canada.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Madam Chairman, in closing the debate
I take the opportunity to thank all members for participating. We
had a reasonable number of members here this evening who
discussed topics of importance to rural Canada and rural
Canadians. I thank all of them for their efforts and their
energy. I look forward to working with them over the weeks,
months and years ahead to achieve positive results for rural
Canada.
I thank you, Madam Chairman, the table officers, the pages and
everyone who has been here until midnight to make sure we could
have this debate. The process of going into the committee of the
whole has proven a very good exercise and I think it is something
we should try at other times as well.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: It being midnight,
pursuant to the order made Monday, April 23, 2001, the committee
will rise and I will leave the chair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24
(1).
(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)