37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 014
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 15, 2001
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| House of Commons
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9 Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1005
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Alloted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Motion
|
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1025
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1030
| Amendment
|
1035
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1040
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1100
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1105
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1110
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1115
1120
1125
1130
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1135
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1140
1145
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1150
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1155
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1200
1205
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1210
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1215
1220
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1225
1230
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1235
1240
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1245
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1250
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1255
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1300
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1320
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1325
1330
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1335
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1340
1345
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1350
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1355
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| RURAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FAIR
|
1400
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| SCOTT MCKOWEN
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1405
| ROBERT DOUGLAS JOHNSTON
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| 15 FÉVRIER 1839
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| CANADA'S NATIONAL FLAG DAY
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| NATIONAL FLAG OF CANADA DAY
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1410
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| CHEVALIER DE LORIMIER
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1415
| HOCKEY
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| DISTRICT OF UCLUELET
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| TAXATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1435
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1445
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1450
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. John Manley |
1455
| CANADA POST
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SINGLE CURRENCY
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
1500
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Alloted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1505
1510
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1515
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1540
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1545
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1550
1555
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1600
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1605
1610
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1615
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1620
1625
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1630
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1635
1640
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1645
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1650
1655
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1700
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1705
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1710
| Mr. John Bryden |
1715
1720
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1725
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1730
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1735
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1740
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1745
1750
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1755
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1800
1805
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1810
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 014
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 15, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
PRIVILEGE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this will only take a minute or
so of the time of the House, and I apologize for taking up any
time of the House.
I understand a question of privilege is the only device by which
I can raise this issue. At page 388 of Hansard of
Thursday, February 8, 2001, stated in English, and I made the
speech in English:
As members of the government we are accountable to a Prime Minister
who is personally accountable to the House and to Canadians generally.
In other words, ministers are accountable to a Prime Minister.
Of course, that is the way it is constitutionally.
I would not have raised this issue other than the fact that
members of the media have utilized the French text, which stated
almost the opposite.
[Translation]
The French text reads:
En tant que députés, nous sommes responsables devant le premier
ministre, qui est lui-même personnellement responsable devant la
Chambre des communes et les Canadiens en général.
[English]
The French text stated that all members of the House are
personally accountable to the Prime Minister. Although
colleagues across the way would perhaps want to make a political
point about it, it is factually inaccurate. It is not what was
said. Unfortunately this has led the media to utilize the French
text as being that which I said when Hansard indicated that
I was speaking in the English language at the time.
The Speaker: I think it is clear that the minister
has raised a question of privilege which is in the nature of a
grievance. I think he has made his point and we will leave the
matter there.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I have the honour to lay
upon the table the special report to parliament by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission on wage parity.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, and
the financial report relating to it.
The report concerns the meeting of the assembly held in Caen,
France, from December 13 to 15, 2000.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved to introduce Bill C-9, an act to amend the
Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with the notice of two days ago, I move concurrence in
the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs dealing with membership of our standing committees.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that
required unanimous consent, but we are delighted to have
unanimity in the concurrence.
Also in relation to the membership of committees, and this will
require consent, if the House gives its consent I move:
That, the following members be added to the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:
Jim Abbott, James Lunney, Diane Ablonczy, Peter MacKay, Rob
Anders, Preston Manning, David Anderson, Inky Mark, Roy
Bailey, Keith Martin, Leon Benoit, Philip Mayfield, Michel
Bellehumeur, Réal Ménard, Andy Burton, Val Meredith, Chuck
Cadman, Rob Merrifield, Rick Casson, Bob Mills, Dave Chatters, James
Moore, John Cummins, Lorne Nystrom, Madeleine
Dalphond-Guiral, Deepak Obhrai, Stockwell Day, Brian Pallister,
John Duncan, Jim Pankiw, Reed Elley, Charlie Penson, Ken Epp, Joe
Peschisolido, Brian Fitzpatrick, James Rajotte, Paul Forseth, Scott
Reid, Cheryl Gallant, Gerry Ritz, Peter Goldring, Caroline
St-Hilaire, Jim Gouk, Werner Schmidt, Gurmant Grewal, Carol
Skelton, Deborah Grey, Monte Solberg, Art Hanger, Kevin Sorenson,
Dick Harris, Larry Spencer, Grant Hill, Darrel Stinson, Jay
Hill, Myron Thompson, Howard Hilstrom, Vic Toews, Betty
Hinton, Maurice Vellacott, Rahim Jaffer, Randy White, Dale
Johnston, Ted White, Jason Kenney, John Williams, Gary Lunn, Lynne
Yelich
I ask that this be adopted on consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) moved:
That this House demands that the government bring any draft
agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the
House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before
ratification by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate
that throughout the day, until the end
of this debate tonight, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will
be splitting their time and keeping their speeches to 10 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We will do that.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute
to André d'Allemagne who was not only a friend, but a colleague
of mine. We both taught at the Collège Maisonneuve for over
eight years.
He recently passed away at the age of 71. He was a pioneer of
the sovereignty movement and an educator, not only in his capacity
as a teacher but also at the political level. Quebec has lost a
first class citizen to whom I wanted to pay tribute today.
1010
This being my maiden speech in the House, I would also like to
thank the people of the riding of Joliette for the trust they
put in me last November 27. I can assure them today, as I did
during the election campaign, that I will defend the interests
of Quebec and of my fellow citizens of Joliette.
Introducing this motion today offers me the first opportunity to
ensure that their interests are defended. The motion reads as
follows:
That this House demand that the government bring any draft
agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the
House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before
ratification by the Government of Canada.
From April 20 to 22, the 34 heads of state and of government of
the Americas, with the exception of Cuba, will be holding the
third summit of the Americas in Quebec City. This will be an
extremely important event as far as the process of creating a
free trade area of the Americas is concerned. The related
agreement is slated for around 2005. Creation of a free trade
area of the Americas is both an extraordinary challenge for all
the states and peoples of the Americas and an extraordinary
opportunity. It can, however, involve considerable risk.
Creation of a free trade area is far from being a guarantee, a
cure-all, for all our woes, whether economic or social. This we
have seen, moreover, with the creation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA area encompassing Canada,
Quebec, the United States and Mexico. For example, its creation
did not prevent the crisis of the peso and the widening of the
social gap. In our societies—and this applies to Canada, the
United States and Mexico— more and more people are living not
only in poverty but in abject poverty. We must therefore be
extremely vigilant in negotiating or creating these free trade
areas, while still remaining open to the process.
This process must be the result of democratic debate. That is
why the Bloc Quebecois, through me, is today introducing this
motion, because we have concerns.
We are concerned for Quebec's rights first, because obviously it
is always troubling to see the federal government negotiate on
behalf of Quebecers on the economic, social and cultural front.
But we are also concerned for all Canadians and Quebecers as far
as respect of social and environmental rights is concerned.
In the past our governments, and this is true for the federal
government, but also for the U.S. and Mexican governments, were
not vigilant or, I would say, were not overly concerned about
the social, environmental, political and cultural consequences
of these trade agreements.
As an unionist, I was able to follow these debates from the
start, in the mid-eighties.
I recall very well that in 1989—and the federal Liberals were by
the way in agreement with us on that— we were not taking into
account the fact that the negotiation of free trade agreements
with the United States was going to have social and
environmental implications. We can now see that. For example,
Bill C-2 on employment insurance is a direct consequence, and this
is not the only reason, of the free trade agreement with the
United States and Mexico. We now know that our employment
insurance plan reflects more or less what exists in most of the
states in the U.S.
In 1989, during the negotiation of the free trade agreement with
the United States, we did not want to recognize that there were
social, environmental and cultural implications.
In 1994, because of public pressure in Canada, Quebec, the
United States and Mexico, governments were forced to adopt, at
the same time as the North American Free Trade Agreement, side
accords on environmental and labour standards. These accords
were signed because of public pressure and pressure from
parliamentarians, particularly in the United States.
Recently, in 2001, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he
alluded to the possibility of introducing social clauses in the
agreement. This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
However, we must not give up. The public and parliamentarians
must continue to exert pressure to ensure that the free trade
agreement of the Americas will include clauses that protect our
social and environmental rights and also Quebec's interests.
1015
Canada and Quebec have open economies. We have a vested interest
in trade liberalization. These agreements are also extraordinary
opportunities for co-operation with countries from the south and
even within our societies. However, this integration of the
economies and of the markets must be controlled by introducing
social clauses, particularly to protect labour rights.
Let us be clear. When we talk about protecting labour rights, we
are not talking about standards.
We are talking about fundamental rights that are recognized by
the International Labour Organization, rights such as the
banning of child labour, forced labour and discrimination, and
the recognition of the freedom of association and of the right
to collective bargaining.
How will each country in the Americas implement these rights? It
will be up to them, based on their respective histories and
cultures. I often give the example—and I will do it again here in
the House—that in Canada, the United States and Quebec we
recognize the freedom of association through very specific forms
of union certification. In Mexico and in Latin American
countries, this may be done in a different way. It is also done
differently in Europe.
The important thing is for governments to pledge to respect
those fundamental rights in the way that will better suit these
societies.
Likewise, the approach that we favour is not a punitive one. In
this respect, Latin-American countries need not fear the
emergence of a new form of social protectionism. It is rather by
co-operation that we want to help those countries, as well as our
own North-American countries, respect those rights. Let us not
forget that we are in no position to lecture anyone. We
sometimes have things to learn from others.
It is therefore a co-operative approach that we favour, not one
of sanctions. The same applies for the environment. We have to
ensure that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas will
clearly indicate the common desire of all the populations of the
Americas to promote a sound and sustainable environment.
To that end, civil societies and parliamentarians have to play
an active role in the negotiation process. The texts on which
negotiations are based should be made available so that
Quebecers and Canadians, as well as the members of the House,
will be able to evaluate the validity and accuracy of the
Canadian government's positions regarding what is being done in
the free trade area of the Americas negotiation process.
It seems to me that we should have learned from what happened
with the multilateral agreement on investment that was secretly
negotiated for two years at the OECD. Sooner or later the basic
texts will be made public. A citizen group is sure to release
them. This will give rise to a negative reaction against the
whole process, even though the process could have been well
defined.
Transparency is therefore very important.
So there is reason for concern, particularly with statements
like the one made by the Minister for International Trade in the
House on February 1.
As for the negotiating documents, obviously there are 34 parties
to it. It is not up to Canada to share it if other countries do
not want to share it. Canada would support sharing it at this
stage. However our partners do not wish that. We will respect
them.
We are extremely concerned that, even though we are only at the
negotiating stage, already the Canadian government is not
assuming a leadership role with respect to this minimum
requirement of transparency.
As for contradictory statements, we could add this one by
Mr. Lortie, the Prime Minister's personal representative
throughout the preparations for the summit of the Americas:
“Too much transparency would be chaotic at this stage in the
preparations”.
Is it possible to be too transparent? Is it possible to be too
democratic? I do not think so. Parliamentarians must be able
to debate these issues. That is why the Bloc Quebecois tabled
this motion. We must ensure that the free trade area of the
Americas agreement is discussed in the House. I urge the
members of all political parties to ensure that we have some way
of being able to evaluate the negotiations that will take place.
Recently, Mr. Chrétien stated—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I remind members that they are
not to refer to members, ministers or the Prime Minister by name
in the House.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: I apologize, this is due to my
inexperience.
Canada believes that it is through openness and transparency
that we will convince the public of the legitimacy of the
agreement. As host of the first summit of the Americas in this
millennium, Canada will do everything in its power to promote
openness and transparency. It is time to put our money where
our mouth is and pass the motion I have introduced.
1020
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to comment on a few of the issues. I know the
hon. member is new and may not be aware of this, but the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and a trade
subcommittee on trade and trade disputes looked at the free trade
area of the Americas in the last parliament.
We managed to consult Canadians all across the country to let
them know the process and to be part of the process of this
transparency that the Canadian government has been pushing in
these negotiations.
I question what he said about there not being transparency. The
websites contain the Canadian documentation and position papers.
All Canadians and groups who are interested can read the
information or take it off the websites. There are a few left to
do and they are still under negotiations and consultations.
I also point out to the hon. member that Canada's position was
not made somewhere in the back halls of the bureaucracy. All the
provinces, premiers and Canadians were consulted first before the
government came forward with its position. Canadians, interest
groups and the provinces were consulted and then Canada put
together a package of consultations.
I do want to ask a question on the motion which demands that
parliament first vote on this issue before ratification. As the
hon. member knows, generally we will agree on the issues and then
there will be a vote.
However that is the American system that the hon. member is
putting forward. Right now the Americans have a fast track way
in which to get around that because no government will come to an
agreement on an issue where it can all of a sudden be changed at
the last minute by one group. We cannot negotiate that way. Does
the hon. member not agree that this is not the right way to go
and that this would only stall negotiations?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning, the Bloc
Quebecois has been trying to initiate this debate on the free
trade area of the Americas, but government members pretend they
do not understand our questions or views.
We do not have a problem with the Canadian position, even though
the texts to which we have access seem particularly generous but
also vague on the specific contents of the negotiations.
What I said in my speech, and I repeat it, is that we are not
able to assess the validity and appropriateness of the Canadian
government's position if we do not have access to the basic
texts on the issues that are being negotiated by the 34
governments at the nine sectoral tables.
In that sense, there is a lack of transparency. Quebecers and
Canadians are suspicious of the process and, as long as the
government does not do something about it, that process will be
flawed. Every day, various public groups express their concerns.
Just today we were told that a people's summit would be held.
This does not go only for Canada. The whole process must be
reviewed and our country must be a leader in that exercise.
The Prime Minister said so, and I think that we must put words
into action by making sure that this House plays an active role
in the whole process.
We want to have access to the basic texts on which the
negotiations will be based, so as to be able to assess Canada's
position.
Second, and I am pleased that the hon. member mentioned
it, parliamentarians in the United States have the privilege of
debating the issue first and demanding a number of things before
allowing the president to fast track the process. Democrat
senators and representatives have made it clear to President
Bush that there will be no fast tracking if the agreement does
not include clauses on labour and the environment.
Unfortunately, we, in this House, do not have that possibility.
If they have these guarantees, they will allow the American
president to effectively use a fast track procedure, which will
allow members of Congress to vote without amending the treaty,
something which does not exist here in Canada.
I am asking for the equivalent of what exists in the U.S.
Congress. In fact, any democracy should have these same rules.
1025
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning I
am proud to speak to the motion put forward by the promising and
bright new member for Joliette. I knew him in another life when
we were both younger.
It is useless to hide from the fact that the population is
worried about the effects of globalization. Now, the free trade
area that is in preparation is one of the major components of
this globalization process that is developing and going on.
We must not forget that the World Trade Organization
negotiations failed and that in the end this free trade area of
the Americas will be somewhat a first.
For the first time in a free trade area there will be highly
developed countries like the United States, the richest country
in the world, as well as countries of Central America and the
southern hemisphere of the Americas which are, in some cases,
very poor.
It is normal that the populations of Quebec, Canada, the United
States and the countries of Central and South America are
worried. We are not the only ones asking for more transparency.
I would say that as a whole the population feels that there are
opportunities to be found in globalization, but they know that
these could be opportunities only for the rich and
multinationals.
To make sure that the riches that could result from
globalization benefit the majority, we must look at what is
being negotiated. It is obvious.
Keeping the process secret will not make the concerns disappear.
We will not make the concerns go away by telling people: “Go
see what is on the Internet.
Our positions are known”. We know the free trade area of the
Americas is a negotiating process.
However, such a negotiation has been prepared for a long time by
officials from all the countries. These officials most certainly
have their opinion on the place where they think it should be
held. We need more information to know where this place is, to
ensure that this process, I say again, does not lead to some
people getting richer and others getting poorer, and does not
put pressure on social and labour conditions in general. Because
globalization can be this process.
Incidentally, if the European Union is being built, it is
because Europeans do not want the market to be concerned only
with the economy. They also want to protect social rights and
legitimate long fought gains made by workers.
And this is done by paying attention, not by saying: “We will
reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, we will say
no to unionization by putting downward pressure on salaries and
on working conditions for everyone in the future.”
We know investments will be discussed and are being discussed.
Is what is on the table what had been prepared at the OECD?
France put a stop to the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment, which gave unacceptable powers to investors. What is
being prepared on this? We need to know.
1030
The issue of services will be on the table, but we do not know
which services are going to be included. The United States is
pushing hard. We have been talking for a while about the
environment, and social rights, or the lack thereof. We have
been discussing what rules on competition would be acceptable.
People need to know the content of the basic negotiating
documents. We need and have the right to know, so that we can
have a public debate over the issues, meet with groups from the
southern hemisphere countries who will explain their
restrictions. To do that, we need to know where we are heading.
With the present process, we cannot know.
Why should the Government of Quebec and other provincial
governments be involved? Because they will be very directly
affected.
Is it good enough to say, as the secretary of state just did,
that the government had consultations two years ago? No, because
the discussions that have taken place in the meantime affect us.
We want to know what is at stake, and we have the right to know.
It is not a matter of negotiating in public, but of knowing what
the issues are.
Parliament also needs to get ready to be able to make a decision
on the agreement before it is ratified. Let me remind the House
that when we signed the first free trade agreement, which was
our first leap of faith, the present Prime Minister, who was
then in the opposition, was incensed over this agreement. An
election was called on the issue. We had the text of the
agreement then.
We had the opportunity to examine it. Moreover, we all remember
that the Prime Minister said he would not sign it unless
important changes were made.
Will that party, which worked itself into a state over free
trade at the time and then became its biggest supporter, tell us
that consulting parliament is good for Americans, but not for
Canadians?
I appeal to members sitting on both sides of the House. They
must realize that, if FTA was a leap in the dark and NAFTA was
put through without as much discussion, this one is quite
another matter. With this, we are going global, we are entering
a larger free trade zone with poor countries dealing with other
constraints.
It is crucial for us to know what is at stake in order to have
the proper discussions and to be able to protect the people in
the southern hemisphere, in South America and Central America,
as well as here.
This is only the beginning of the debate I hope, but I am
thankful that my party was the one to initiate it.
In conclusion, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The amendment is in order.
1035
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the member
for Mercier, whom I respect a great deal as an active member in
the area of foreign affairs. I think, however, that she is
misleading the House and the motion misleads the House, or at
least the discussion so far is misleading.
There are two issues with which we have to concern ourselves.
The first one is the issue to which she and the previous speaker
referred, transparency in the negotiations. The House must bear
in mind that there is not one text available. There are 42 texts.
There are as many texts as there are governments sitting around
the table. many of the governments do not intend to share those
texts until the negotiations are complete. That is the way
international negotiations are completed.
Our government has been unlike any government before in history
in terms of its open consultation, open discussion, and the
availability of our negotiating positions on the Internet where
they have been fixed. There is recognition that areas such as
services and investment, to which the member referred, are not
available, but they will be available when they are ready. There
are open discussions. Our committees are consulted and there is
broad consultation.
The member's motion does not direct itself to the issue she has
been discussing today. Her motion is in fact a constitutional
amendment. The motion that the Bloc proposes today is that the
House be required to debate an international agreement before it
is ratified by the Government of Canada. This has never been the
practice. It is not the practice of the country and it should
not be introduced.
I suggest to the member that she respond to my question. Why
would we introduce a profound constitutional change and an
amendment in the way in which we proceed in international affairs
under the guise of the transparency of this negotiation? We all
agree on all the issues and that it is most important for all of
us. We all intend to be engaged and have been engaged in a
meaningful way.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the word
“misleading” used by my hon. colleague, a man I greatly respect,
is apparently unparliamentary. It is your call, but I would
like to respond.
Mr. Bill Graham: I withdraw my words. I used the word strictly
in a straightforward manner.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I expected no less of the
person who is again going to chair the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
I wish to respond to my colleague's two arguments. The first is
that there is no such thing as the negotiating text to which we
are referring.
I regret to have to inform him that, should this be the case,
people might as well be prepared for the free trade area of the
Americas never to be created.
I might also state that I have seen the document prepared for
the WTO negotiations. The state it was in just before they were
to be held explains why an agreement was never forthcoming.
I think it would be misinforming this House to pretend that a
process of seeking a consensus between the holders of the most
extreme positions is not already under way. There is most
certainly a basic text. That is one thing.
There are most certainly clearly identified issues.
That is the other thing.
1040
I would want us to have access to that information. As
well, in connection with my hon. colleague's constitutional
argument that the Constitution would have to be changed to allow
such a debate, I will investigate that in the Constitution. If
that is the case, we would have to move rapidly.
How is it that Brian Mulroney submitted to the public for
consultation and to parliament a free trade agreement that was
later ratified? Think of the dramatic change represented by the
free trade area of the Americas. Something would have to be
done. But we know that Canada is in a constitutional
straitjacket which makes any change impossible.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following consultations with all
parties in the House, I believe you would find consent to put and
adopt the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders
on Tuesday, February 20, 2001.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. parliamentary secretary 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)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this first
opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.
I thank the people of my riding of London—Fanshawe. I also
thank my wife, my children, and all my very dedicated campaign
workers who have made my election for the third time to this
place possible. I am deeply honoured and I thank them.
I am very pleased to address the House today on the very
important issue raised by the opposition, the free trade area of
the Americas. The past decade has been one in which the
hemisphere has made remarkable progress and in which Canada's
relations with its closest friends and neighbours have developed
in new and exciting ways.
We will celebrate this progress and the spirit of co-operation
that has transformed our community when the Prime Minister
welcomes the leaders of the democratically elected governments of
the region to the third summit of the Americas in Quebec City in
April.
The Americas is one of the world's most dynamic regions.
Although its 800 million people are not even one-sixth of the
world population, they account for more than one-third of the
world's economic activity. At about $11 trillion U.S. the
combined gross domestic product of the Americas is greater than
that of the European Union.
At the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994, leaders endorsed a
declaration and plan of action that expressed their common
commitment to strengthening democracy and creating greater
prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures
to improve health care, increase access to quality education and
protect biodiversity, to name but a few.
At the second summit in Santiago in 1998, leaders endorsed
action to support the development of democratic institutions,
protect human rights, and enhance transparency and respect for
the rule of law. They also gave specific instructions to begin
the process of negotiating the free trade area of the Americas.
Once it is complete, the FTAA will be the world's largest free
trade area.
Throughout today's debate, my colleagues and I on this side of
the House will discuss in some depth the issues of access,
services, investment and the need for coherence. I certainly
hope hon. members across the aisle will join us in this important
debate.
However, I must admit that I suspect some members of the
opposition will simply cast aspersions on the FTAA rather than
offer constructive and realistic ideas. I would love to be
proven wrong on that.
1045
Only the opposition can simply say that everything the
government does or proposes is fundamentally contrary to the
interests of Canadians. The reality of governing is that we must
assist Canadians in fulfilling their hopes and achieving their
aspirations while providing real, meaningful assistance to the
people of the Americas. The FTAA offers Canadians many more
benefits that would clearly compel us to support these
negotiations.
I am speaking too of the vast hemispheric dialogue on issues
such as labour rights and environmental protection that have been
fostered and promoted within the broader hemispheric movement. We
all expect a free trade area of the Americas to create the
conditions for greater prosperity. Without the chance to improve
their economic situations through trade and investment, just how
could poor countries of the hemisphere begin to address their
real problems of poverty, of crime, of environmental degradation,
and of threats to democracy and human rights?
We also know that there are vulnerable and excluded elements of
our societies. There are challenges to our culture and to our
values. There are indeed risks to some parts of our economies,
risks that trade alone does not create and that the FTAA alone
cannot resolve, but risks that concern our citizens nonetheless.
What do we do? We cannot stand still and accept matters as they
currently stand in Canada or anywhere else in the hemisphere if
there is a chance to make them better. The facts are clear.
Canada has done very well from its openness to trade and
investment and has acquired the strength and experience to do
even better in the future under even better rules. Therefore we
must go forward.
A key objective in the FTAA negotiations is to achieve open and
secure market access for goods produced within the free trade
area. The elimination of tariffs is key to this objective. Some
Canadian exporters face significant tariffs in key markets for
important Canadian exports. Canada therefore supports an
approach that will allow for early tariff elimination for some
products in order to provide exporters the opportunity to expand
trade quickly and reduce costs for consumers.
At the same time all countries have domestic industries that may
require time to adjust to increased import competition.
Consequently we expect that a transition period which allows for
the phased elimination of some tariffs will also be negotiated.
Consistent with the approach taken in other negotiations, Canada
will push for the elimination of tariffs on all non-agricultural
products over a period not to exceed 10 years. Canada is also
examining a transitional safeguard mechanism to protect producers
from unforeseen difficulties associated with hemispheric trade
liberalization. To ensure that only goods produced in the
hemisphere benefit from preferential tariff treatment, a Canadian
objective will be to negotiate appropriate rules of origin.
If there is one sector where new access could lead to
significant benefits for Canada and for Canadian businesses, it
is in the area of services. The service sector is a key engine
of the Canadian economy. It is responsible for more than
two-thirds of Canada's GDP, almost three-quarters of employment,
some 10.5 million jobs, and nearly 90% of new job creation in
Canada. It is leading the transformation of the Canadian economy
into a knowledge based economy.
Canada is the 12th largest exporter of services in the world,
exporting some $51.8 billion worth in 1999 alone. The argument
for supporting Canada's services exports is particularly eloquent
when it comes to the Americas. Canada's commercial services
exports to FTAA countries, excluding the United States and
Mexico, were worth $1.9 billion in 1998, up from $787 million in
1993.
1050
The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous
success, exporting services valued at over $2 billion per year
and employing some 104, 000 people. As a consequence, since 1993
the sector has been growing at a rate of just over 9% each and
every year.
Still, Canadian exporters of telecommunications services face
market access and regulatory restrictions in many countries of
the hemisphere, in part due to the presence of telecommunications
monopolies in several central and Latin American countries,
the lack of transparency, predictability and timeliness in the
process for awarding operating permits and licences or
prohibitive fees for licensing or interconnection.
In recent years Canada's financial institutions have been very
active in central and Latin America. One leading example is
Scotiabank which is active in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Costa
Rica, Belize, El Salvador, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and
Venezuela.
Another good example is the National Bank which recently teamed
up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean
partner to form the Corp Banca consortium in order to purchase
banking institutions in South American countries.
The same is true for the insurance sector.
Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the
world, of course, is engineering and other related services.
Canada is currently the world's third largest exporter of
engineering services, and the high calibre of Canadian engineers
is internationally recognized. That is why Canada is actively
participating in the services negotiations under the free trade
area of the Americas.
Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a
comprehensive set of rules on trade and services under the FTAA.
Canada's general objective in the services negotiations is to
seek improved market access for Canadian service providers under
a transparent and predictable rules based regime.
In the elaboration of FTAA rules on services, Canada will be
guided by its existing rights and obligations in the North
American Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade
Agreement and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services,
more commonly known at GATS.
While the link between trade, economic growth and jobs is well
understood, the same is not true for the flip side of trade
investment. Foreign investment has played a central role in
Canada's development as a nation and remains essential to
securing Canada's continued development and prosperity.
Canada's efforts toward a strong rules based system at the
regional and multilateral levels are aimed at creating a solid
basis for long term economic expansion and continued social
progress. Investment rules provide for transparent, predictable
and fair rules for Canadian investors, large and small.
Trade and investment rules give a medium sized economy like ours
a great deal of leverage against the political pressure sometimes
exerted by larger economies. Conversely, inward investment in
Canada coming from the non-NAFTA countries of the Americas
totalled only $3 billion in 1999.
Overall, Canada has a strong outward investment orientation in
the Americas beyond the United States and Mexico. In this
context, Canada has a strong interest in seeking a rules based,
secure and predictable environment for investors and their
investments in the hemisphere.
In the elaboration of FTAA investment rules, Canada will be
guided and take into account past experiences with trade
negotiations and the implementation of investment rules with
other countries, including those of Latin America and the
Caribbean.
Canada's main objective is to ensure a clear delineation of
investment obligations that will serve our national interests. As
is the case for other trade agreements, the FTAA investment
chapter will allow countries to file exceptions for those
measures they wish to maintain and what would otherwise not be
allowed under the FTAA.
1055
In addition, Canada will ensure that it preserves its ability to
adopt or maintain regulations, administrative practices and other
measures in sectors of key policy interest. I am specifically
referring to our most treasured public health care system and our
public education system. These are not open for debate or
discussion by the Government of Canada.
The summit process ensures that economic growth through
liberalized trade is linked to social development. Hemispheric
co-operation on democracy, human rights, labour, employment and
environmental issues, justice, health and other major issues
proceeds within the same framework as the FTAA. The FTAA is
complemented and reinforced by the efforts of many other
ministers of the hemisphere, not just trade ministers.
For example, ministers of energy will meet in Mexico at the
beginning of March. Ministers of the environment will meet in
Montreal at the end of March. Finance ministers will meet in
Toronto in early April. Ministers of labour will meet in Ottawa
next October.
These collective and co-operative hemispheric efforts on
specific issues such as labour, employment and the environment
reflect an integrated approach to meeting summit commitments.
We welcome the opportunity to talk about the FTAA and we will
never be shy to do so on any occasion. However the Bloc's motion
is irrelevant, unfortunately, simply because the government has
been at the forefront of the hemisphere in consulting openly with
Canadians and with parliament. The kind of leadership my
colleagues from the Bloc have called for today is something the
government has demonstrated very clearly and repeatedly, and it
will continue to do so.
The standing committee studied and published a report. Then the
minister tabled the government's response to the report, which
set the tone for our proposals for the FTAA at this stage. Had
the Bloc consulted with all parties on their motion perhaps we
might have been able to agree with it. Nonetheless, we on this
side welcome the opportunity to debate it. I am convinced the
FTAA process will benefit significantly from this parliamentary
exchange on such a very important issue to the people of Canada.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to what the parliamentary
secretary had to say, to what the former parliamentary secretary
had to say, and to what the former chairman of the foreign
affairs committee had to say. In all their summations they have
been talking about an open and transparent system.
Hon. members also talked about the standing committee looking at
the issue. I would tell them that the Canadian Alliance, the
official opposition, put out its minority report at that time.
One of the points we brought forward was exactly what the Bloc
motion is today. We want parliament to debate.
The parliamentary secretary has just said what the government
has been doing, which is fine, but the fact remains that exactly
what he is doing in parliament is what the Bloc and the Alliance
want: to discuss it in the House.
I congratulate the hon. member on his re-election. He thanked
his constituents and I would like to say that they sent him here
to talk on their behalf. He should be speaking on their behalf
on the FTAA.
It is an American style of system. We want to discuss it in
parliament where the elected officials are. I remind him that
this is precisely what Australians included in their
constitution, that all international agreements should be brought
into parliament to be discussed by the elected representatives.
What the problem is with that issue?
1100
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his congratulations. First I want to assure him that in my 20
year career in elected public office at the municipal level and
now at the federal level, if there is one thing that my
constituents have been very clear about it is that they know with
great certainty that I will be heard from in whatever forum in
which I represent them and that certainly includes the House of
Commons.
My colleague's question gives me the opportunity to do a little
commercial on a trade day that we will hold in London, Ontario,
on March 6, with my colleagues. Indeed, the Minister for
International Trade and trade officials will be there. I will
certainly be there with my other colleagues to take all the
questions that people have on how they can export and take
advantage of the opportunities that exist in the export markets.
I hear something of a contradiction in what my colleague from
the Alliance and, indeed, colleagues from the Bloc have said here
today. First and foremost they call for greater transparency and
consultation, but then they demand to see the Canadian position
in the House right now. That is simply a contradiction. We have
filed our position on five of the nine negotiating groups. It is
on the website. We are getting responses every day to them.
However, we have not finalized our position on the other four
groups because the consultation that the hon. member calls for is
ongoing right now. With whom? It is ongoing with NGOs, with
individual Canadians, with stakeholders. When the full position
is developed that will be the appropriate time to engage in a
national debate. The consultation being called for is simply not
complete.
I say again, and I am proud to say it, that the government is
the leader in these negotiations on openness and transparency and
it will continue to be that.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
comment briefly on something that was said about the
relationship between trade, economic development and jobs.
After World War II and until quite recently, it was true that
trade, economic development and jobs went hand in hand.
Usually, when people had jobs, poverty receded and social rights
improved.
Nowadays, this is no longer the case. Trade, economic
development and jobs can all be on the increase, and poverty can
still continue to grow.
While growth has been exceptional in the United States over the
past 10 years, the number of poor remains the same. Poverty
rates in the United States stand at 21%, compared to an OECD
average of 12%.
So we must do more than merely rely on economic growth and
globalization. There is a need for mechanisms to ensure that
each society, each country, each jurisdiction, has the means to
ensure that social rights are respected. In this regard,
Canadians and Quebecers should be worried, as should all the
Americas. We must ensure that social rights are part of these
agreements.
I would like the member's opinion on the following statement
made at the second general conference of parliamentarians of the
Americas held in Puerto Rico in July 2000:
We hope that the process of continental integration is
strengthened by the participation of parliamentarians from all
jurisdictions on the continent, by the transparency of debate on
the creation of a free trade area of the Americas, and by the
regular dissemination of the results of ongoing negotiations.
Clearly, all parliamentarians of the Americas want the process
to be more transparent.
What does the member think?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, first of all allow me to
congratulate my colleague from the Bloc on his very good maiden
speech in the House and also on his appointment as trade critic.
I look forward to constructively working with him and the other
critics over the next couple of years.
The member made a very good point and one that we certainly know
is valid, that is, in the midst of economic prosperity in any
country, including Canada, we still have those who unfortunately
are being left behind. There exists a dichotomy that none of us
are happy with and it needs to be addressed. I fully agree with
him on that matter.
1105
However, on the need for more liberalized trade, I will
quote from a UN report:
There is now widespread acceptance that, in the long run, the
expansion of international trade and integration into the world
economy are necessary instruments for promoting economic growth
and reducing and eradicating poverty.
Those words come from the United Nations. They are fully
endorsed by the secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi
Annan, who has said that the best thing we can do for the poor in
our own nation or the poor around the world is to liberalize
trade. That is the best way we can address the problem of world
poverty. Those words come from people far more expert than I,
and I endorse them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new position.
This is the first time you have been in the chair when I have had
an opportunity to speak.
[Translation]
First, I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member on his motion.
[English]
It is a very important and huge issue.
I would like to ask my friend from the government two
questions on two separate issues. The first deals with the
opponents to free trade who we have seen in Seattle and other
areas. I wonder if the hon. member would address the House and
tell us what the government is going to do to address this issue,
because a lot of those people actually are opposing issues and
solutions that are going to help the poorest of the poor.
One of the great misnomers is that the people who oppose free
trade think their actions are going to help the poorest of the
poor, but in the erection of the barriers to trade that they want
to actually implement, they are doing the worst possible thing
for developing countries. The best thing we can do for a
developing country is lessen the barriers to trade so that
country can become more economically sustainable.
I would like the member to address that and also address how the
government can better engage these people. They do have some
important concerns in terms of freer trade and how we can deal
with issues such as labour laws, labour regulations and job and
working conditions.
My last point deals with addressing the issue of the movement of
short term capital that has been so destabilizing in
international markets. We have seen that the movement of large
amounts of capital in the short term destabilized international
markets. I ask the hon. member what his government is going to
do to address this issue.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to hear my
colleague from the Canadian Alliance address the concern that
many of us on this side of the House share as well. Very
well-meaning people, some of them personal friends of mine in
London, Ontario, just simply do not seem to understand the point
the member has made: that the best way to address poverty here
in Canada and around the world is to do what the UN is calling
for and continue to liberalize trade.
I will quote UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who he said that
tariffs must go. In his new report he says that rich countries
should remove all barriers to goods and services from poor
countries. That would put at least $100 billion a year into the
pockets of the world's poor, more than double what they now get
in foreign aid.
I fully endorse the member's comments on the need for
liberalizing trade. The Minister for International Trade
certainly does and so does everyone on this side of the House. I
am pleased to agree with the member on that.
Regarding the opportunities for consultation, there have been
many and there will continue to be many, both through our
position on the website and with groups that can come to the
standing committee. We welcome all consultation possible.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege. This morning, as you may recall, at approximately
10.15 a.m. you tabled a report in the House from the Canadian
Human Rights Commission. As you may also have noticed, the
contents of the report were reported in the Toronto Star
and in the Sun, and I heard it on the CBC radio news this
morning as well.
I was able to acquire only one copy of the report from the
distribution people of the House of Commons. I feel that our
privileges as members of parliament are being breached in the
fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is obviously
putting its spin on this document before it is tabled in the
House and before it is available to members.
How can members read the report if copies are not available?
I would ask that the Minister of Justice take up this issue with
the Canadian Human Rights Commission and let the commission know
that it is time it respected parliament.
1110
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. That is not really a question of privilege, but
if you wanted to pass on a message, it has been done.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join in the debate today,
but first of all let me offer my congratulations to you on
assuming your new position.
Just to remind the House and people who are watching today, the
motion that we are discussing is as follows: that the government
be required to subject any project or accord on a free trade
agreement with the Americas to a debate and a vote before it is
ratified by the government. It sounds eminently sensible.
I want to point out that our party, both as the Alliance and as
the Reform Party, has for a number of years supported the idea of
bringing major treaties and major free trade agreements to the
House of Commons for ratification. This is entirely consistent
with our current policy as well. In fact, one of my colleagues,
the current House leader of the Canadian Alliance, has brought
forward motions in the past recommending something very similar
to what we see in today's motion.
However, in saying that I also have to point out that the other
side of the House has been much less consistent in its respect
for democracy when it comes to ratifying these sorts of
agreements via debate and a vote in the House of Commons.
Let me take members back through a bit of the history, as I
recall it, of some of the things that have occurred here over the
last seven years while I have been a member of parliament and
that run completely contrary not only to the letter of the motion
that I just read, but also to the spirit of it.
The first one that comes to mind is the MAI, the multilateral
agreement on investment. Many of my colleagues will remember
just how interested the public was in that particular negotiation
that was going on with Canada, the United States and several
European countries. To refresh people's memories, that was a
negotiation to establish some kind of protocol for investment
among these 20 or so countries. The idea was that it would
really encourage free trade in investment and some rules to
protect companies that had invested in other countries.
I will not get into the merits of it at this point, but I do
want to point out that at the time there were a number of
meetings held around the country. People were very concerned
about this. We all received mail. They were not concerned about
it based on what was in the agreement, because they had no idea
of what was being negotiated. They were concerned because they
had no information. Some groups, very irresponsible groups to
my mind, were spreading disinformation about what this would mean
to Canada. They were scaring people. They were suggesting that
the world as we knew it would come to an end if we approved the
MAI.
However, the government unfortunately thought that the way to
handle this was to hide it from the public. The result was that
the government got exactly the opposite result it had hoped for.
The government wanted the public to support it, I suppose,
because at that time the trade minister spoke very much in favour
of it, but of course when people do not have access to
information, they tend to be afraid of an issue and concerned
about it. Those irresponsible groups spread all kinds of
disinformation that fed upon that fear. As a result, we received
hundreds of letters from people saying they could not support the
MAI because it would effectively give away Canada's sovereignty
in all kinds of areas, which to my mind was complete nonsense.
Having said that, it does not diminish at all the concerns of a
lot of people, because they simply did not have the information.
What it ultimately took to bring this issue to the House was the
Reform Party actually proposing a supply day motion on the
subject of the MAI so that for the first time it was debated in
the House of Commons. It took an opposition party to do it, and
afterward the international trade minister said the government
had debated it in the House of Commons so the government had been
up front with people. However, it took a motion from the Reform
Party to do it.
This government does not have a very good history when it comes
to ensuring that people know about these sort of things.
1115
Perhaps even more important, I think it betrays a philosophy of
the government. The philosophy of this government is to hide as
much as it can from the public and to go about its business. We
see this over and over again. The debate and vote the other
night on the issue of the ethics watchdog is a perfect example of
what I am talking about. The government does not like democracy
because it undermines its power. It would much rather proceed
about its business without the scrutiny of this place.
I urge all members here to remember that we are elected by the
people to be their watchdogs as to what is going on. What
happens when we do not have the chance to scrutinize these things
in parliament, we lose our ability to be those watchdogs. We
cannot do our job as representatives of the people if the big
issues that profoundly affect people's lives, such as free trade
agreements and other international treaties like the
international criminal court and others, are not discussed in
this place.
How do we get the information? How do we have the benefit of
hearing the debate if these things are not discussed in this
place? This place is supposed to be the home of democracy in
Canada, the home of free speech, but the government does just
about everything it can to avoid bringing these big issues here.
That is unfortunate. I think it is an affront to free speech and
democracy. It betrays an attitude that the government seems to
work by that I think most people would find to be irresponsible.
It would suggest that too many times that the government goes out
of its way to purposely ignore the public.
There are many other example, one of which is the Kyoto accord.
Just to remind people, Kyoto was an agreement, that many
countries were prepared to enter into, which would restrict
emissions that supposedly contribute to the greenhouse effect and
cause a raising of temperatures around the word, that sort of
thing.
Of course we never got a chance to discuss it in this place. In
fact the government, to its credit, went and discussed it with
the provinces. Then, when its members went to Kyoto, they turned
around and effectively stabbed the provinces in the back and
agreed to something completely different from what they told the
provinces they were willing to do. They completely changed the
agreement.
Here we are in a situation where the government ignored
parliament completely. It never even suggested for a moment that
this agreement would come back to this place for a vote. It also
stabbed the provinces in the back and, in its inimitable way,
managed to drive a wedge again between the federal and provincial
governments and create some of that nastiness between the two
that contributes to the unity problems that seem to be a
perpetual state in Canada. We now see it rearing its head in the
west again.
My point is that, contrary to the benefit of Canadians, the
government has ignored this place when it comes to discussing
these sort of treaties and agreements. The result is that people
do not get the information they need, members of parliament are
not allowed to do their jobs and, ultimately, I think the
government enters into agreements that very often do not reflect
the values and wishes of Canadians.
Let me give members a third example, the example of the
international criminal court. The international criminal court
is an agreement that Canada has signed on to that would really,
to some degree, and I know this is in dispute, give up our
sovereignty when it comes to our ability to set our own laws.
Many people are concerned about multinational corporations which
come and, they believe, erode our sovereignty.
1120
What about the situation where Canada was prepared to sign away
our ability to ensure that Canadian citizens were not protected
under Canadian law, but in fact are now subject to a new
international law?
This is especially important for a country like Canada which is
often engaged in peacekeeping operations. What it effectively
does is allow Canadian peacekeepers or, in cases of war, Canadian
soldiers, to be subject to decisions by international courts that
could completely strip away our ability to protect the people and
have them tried by laws with which we agree, understand and which
are a part of our tradition.
The concern, which has also been raised by other countries, is
what would happen if we entered into another conflict like Kosovo
where we had Canadian soldiers fighting in that conflict or
pilots flying CF-18s who may have bombed, even by accident, a
civilian site. We might lose our ability to protect them and
ensure that they did not all of a sudden become subject to an
accusation of a war crime. That is the sort of thing that I
think Canadians would be interested in having debated and
discussed in this place.
I will not get into the merits of the international criminal
court. I will simply make the point that the issues are serious
enough that they should be debated in the House of Commons.
What does it mean to be a democracy if issues that profoundly
affect people's lives are not discussed in the forum where their
elected representatives are supposed to discuss these things?
When did we decide as a country that huge issues, like the ones I
have just discussed, should be determined solely by a few people
in the priorities and planning committee of cabinet on the
government side?
That is not democracy. That is certainly not what the founders
of our country envisioned when they set up the system that we
have today. I think a lot of people who have no interest in
international treaties will agree that this place no longer is
the type of democratic forum that was envisioned 133 years ago.
It is no longer the type of place that people have confidence in
when it comes to ensuring that their views and values are
reflected through their members of parliament.
There are a number of reasons for that but certainly one of them
is that governments do not bring big decisions to this place.
That should end. All the debate on the other side that we have
heard so far has been a justification for the sorry position that
we are in today. What they have said so far is completely
without merit. No one can argue that the House of Commons should
not be engaged in these sorts of serious issues.
Having tried my best to make a case that we need to be engaged
in these things and that these things have to come here for a
vote, let me now make the case for the importance of free trade,
which is the other element in this whole discussion.
Coming up very quickly is the summit of the Americas meetings in
Quebec City, which Canada will host and chair.
The Canadian Alliance supports in principle the concept of free
trade. We believe very much that free trade does leave people
better off.
However, there is even a more fundamental argument for
supporting the idea of free trade. In this day and age, when we
hear much heady talk about the need for the respect of universal
human rights, we too often ignore a very basic human right: the
right to own, use and sell property. It is a basic right. I
would argue that it is almost impossible to practice the other
rights that we typically think of, such as the right to free
speech, for instance, without that other basic right, the right
to own, use and sell property. Without that right there is no
economic freedom.
I will give an example. If we have freedom of speech but the
government owns all the printing presses or all the telephones
and it is the one that decides who gets the printing presses and
the telephones, then our right to free speech is severely
limited.
It is the same with many other freedoms: the right to labour and
the right to move around the country as we see fit. Those are
all completely abridged if we do not have that right to acquire
and use property. Too often we forget about that.
1125
I make the argument that from a philosophical standpoint free
trade makes sense. It is a universal human right or the
consequence of a universal human right, and that right is the
right to own, use and enjoy property. Remember the call of the
glorious revolution of 1688 and John Locke: the right to life,
liberty and property. I believe in it fundamentally and I think
we should recognize it and respect it around the world. I
believe that is what is implied when we agree to free trade.
I will talk for a moment about the evidence that supports the
contention that free trade basically leaves people better off.
I will not bore the House by going into the details of how the
Liberals opposed NAFTA, how they said that they would make big
changes when they were elected, and, of course, never did, but I
will point out one of the concerns raised on the other side
during the NAFTA discussions. The concern was that countries
with cheaper labour costs would, on the one hand, undermine our
ability to compete because they had cheap labour and, on the
other hand, exploit us when it came to labour standards and the
environment.
I think what members will find is that the record does not bear
that out. As we look at Mexico today under NAFTA, it is becoming
more and more prosperous. It has a larger middle class than
Canada, believe it or not. One reason for that is the North
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the free exchange of
goods and services, the efficiencies that it creates and the
ability of people who have been desperately poor in the past to
finally climb out of the trap of poverty created by barriers to
trade. We have to start to remove those barriers. That is why
free trade makes so much sense. We see more and more evidence of
it all the time.
My friend from across the way pointed out that the UN said that
we must start to liberalize trade around the world. The poorest
countries in the world are the ones with the most trade barriers.
If we look at Africa, which is so desperately poor and those
people need our help, it has the highest barriers to trade. It
is a country that rejects free markets. It rejects the
fundamental freedom to use property and trade as one sees fit as
long as the equal rights of others to do the same are not
impeded.
The evidence is very clear that we have to start to lower the
barriers. When we do we will all be better off. Initially, we
see a situation where labour standards are very low and the
environment is in trouble. However, what we find is that when
countries get better off they put more and more money into those
things and the environment improves, labour standards rise,
people make more money and employers have an interest in ensuring
that their people are safe because they do not want to pay
workers' compensation. Those are all the things that we take for
granted in Canada.
I argue that we need to have free trade because it makes sense.
It helps people everywhere.
My final point is that Canada has to practise what it preaches.
In Canada today we still have trade barriers that make it
impossible for third world countries to trade into Canada. That
is a huge hypocrisy. Tariffs are very high for instance on
textiles, something that third world countries could produce. If
we allowed that to happen we would be helping them far more than
by just giving them aid like we so often do. We would give them
the basis for an economy that would leave their people much
better off. There are many examples of tariffs that are
currently in place in Canada that impede the ability of these
third world countries to trade into Canada but also for us to go
and establish markets there and leave our people better off.
In conclusion, I would argue that this House needs to be the
place where these things are discussed first and foremost. It
would probably to some degree end this end run around democracy
that we have now, where these unelected, unaccountable NGOs run
to the government to have their voices heard.
However, if they knew they could have their voices heard here
they would do it.
1130
Second, free trade is a good thing. It leaves people better off
and it is the compassionate thing to do. For that reason, I urge
the government to support this motion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the
critic for foreign affairs, for an eloquent speech on a number of
issues. He brought up many pressing points and I hope the
government was listening.
There are a couple of areas that I would like his advice on as
the previous finance critic for the party. The first one
concerns barriers to trade. I would like him to address the
issue of Canada's foreign policy with respect to how we should be
more aggressive at removing the barriers to trade with developing
countries and that we should remove double taxation issues with
respect to our country and developing countries. Double taxation
is actually something that restricts the ability of companies to
be more aggressive in terms of their dealings and bilateral trade
between two nations.
The second issue is barriers to trade within Canada. We have
more barriers to trade east-west than we have north-south. I am
sure the public would find it absolutely appalling that it is
more difficult for my province of British Columbia to trade with
Quebec or Ontario than it is for us to trade with the United
States.
Last, I ask the previous finance critic to comment on a question
I posed to the government on the issue of how we can deal with
short term capital flows which are so destabilizing to the
international community. It is something we have been unable to
deal with. There has been a proposal by the NDP to apply the
Tobin tax to this issue. While it is an utterly imperfect
solution to the problem, at least it is a move to bring this to
the forefront. We absolutely have to deal with the way we deal
with short term capital flows in this globalized market.
I wonder if my colleague would have any thoughts on how we can
help to limit that so we allow capital flows to occur without
making them a destabilizing factor in our growing globalized
economy?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, first, let me deal with
the last issue he raised. I may have to disagree with him a
little bit on this. He raised the issue of short term capital
flows and suggested that they were very destabilizing, especially
when they occurred I expect during the Asian economic crisis
couple of years ago. That bears some discussion.
The first point I would make about that is really what those
short term capital flows reflected was a fundamental problem in
that country. It may have been in some cases a situation where
banks were out on a limb when it came to holding the paper of,
for instance, a lot of banks that simply could not be supported.
At some point investors become very nervous and they see it as a
disaster in the making and pull their capital out of that
country.
One of the problems is that we know that some of these countries
are willing to put barriers in place to stop that from happening.
Very often investors will want to get their money out of there
before those barriers are put in place to stop them from getting
their money out. In some ways I would argue that the ability of
countries to put these barriers up act as a catalyst and actually
make the problem worse.
The second point I would make is that this is only a symptom of
the real problem. The real problem is what needs to be
addressed. The short term capital flows are the symptom. The
real problem is poor financial management in these countries.
Very often it is crony capitalism where government and private
institutions or private companies become completely integrated
and decisions are not made on the basis of market signals. They
are made on the basis of decisions that involve concerns of the
government. They have political concerns and they are not always
interested in the interests of their people. Sometimes they make
decisions that simply benefit their political interests.
I would argue that those are the first problems that need to be
resolved. If those sorts of problems are resolved, the issue of
short term capital flows will become I think less critical.
1135
The final point I would make is if people are investors and they
invest in that country, does it make sense that those people
should have to have their investments locked into that country,
knowing that the currency will probably devalue terribly and
their investment may be completely wiped out. That is the other
side of the coin. The situation the investors are in is that
they could see their investments completely wiped out. Remember
that we all now have the ability to invest in other countries
through merging market funds and that kind of thing.
I want to make a second point with respect to barriers to trade.
Canada is engaged in a gross hypocrisy right now. On the one
hand, we say that we care and that is why we want to give all
kinds of aid to other countries. It is necessary that we give
that aid. I understand that. We believe in humanitarian and
developmental aid.
However, we should not say that we care very much on the one
hand by offering aid and on the other hand say that we are going
to block the ability of these countries to develop their own
economies by putting in place barriers that prohibit the export
of textiles from whatever developing country it is into Canada.
This is a perfect example because textiles are something that are
easy for those developing countries to produce. However, we make
it impossible for them to get on their feet by putting these
barriers in place.
Why do we say on the one hand we care, but on the other hand
make it impossible for them to sell into our market? That is
hypocrisy and that kind of thing should end.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I know Mr. Speaker is new in the chair, but the tradition
in the House, when people are rising on questions and
comments from a party other than the person who has given the
main speech, is to recognize members from other
parties. If members from other parties do not stand, then it is
fair ball to recognize members from the same party as the
speaker. However, that is not the case in this instance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): What happened a while
ago was when I asked for questions or comments only two members
from the Canadian Alliance stood up.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just stood now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Yes, but that was before
your intervention. Now that you stood up I should have
recognized you instead of the other hon. member. However, now
that the mistake has been made I still have to honour my word and
give the floor to the member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure we will be hearing a speech from my NDP colleague
and his points of view, which I know very well.
I would ask my colleague over here this question. Today's
motion talks about transparency regarding the elected officials
looking at international agreements. At no time have we talked
about consultation with the provinces or the provinces having a
right to look at international agreements and making it part of
where they give their own approvals because it impacts them.
As an example, Australia has a joint session where it consults
the provinces and then it puts its stamp on international
agreements. I would appreciate his thoughts on that.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I will try and be brief
to accommodate my friend from the NDP. Simply, in Canada's
constitution the provinces are responsible for all kinds of
things, including natural resources, which can be profoundly
impacted by free trade agreements. It makes sense, it would be a
courtesy and it would help unity if the federal government would
come down off its high horse once in a while and honestly engage
in some kind of discussion with the provinces.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry I did not get to ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat
a question but that is the way it goes.
I would like to speak on behalf of the NDP caucus to this Bloc
Quebecois motion. We welcome the motion and support it. We are
somewhat surprised by the apparent reluctance of the government
to support the motion.
1140
What the motion calls for is really no less and no more than
what the Conservative government did in 1988 when it put before
the House the elements of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement
which had been negotiated. The negotiations were over. The
elements of the agreement were put to the House of Commons for a
vote.
Why the Liberal government at this point would refuse to
indicate a willingness to do the same with any FTAA agreement is
quite beyond me. It is not just a question of transparency
leading up to the negotiations or how many papers are on the
website. At the moment there are only four papers out of nine.
I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
In any event, it is not just a question of what happens leading
up to negotiations, it is also a question of what happens, God
forbid from our point of view, that these negotiations should
actually ever be completed and we should have a free trade area
of the Americas agreement.
Is the Liberal government really saying in its response to the
Bloc motion that it would not put such an agreement to the House
of Commons for debate and a vote? Is that really the position of
the Liberals on this? They have not made it clear. They have
done a lot of talking about what they are doing now and have
tried to give an air of adequacy to what really has so far been a
quite inadequate process. Perhaps we could have some clarity on
that. We know the Liberals are always interested in clarity.
Perhaps we could get some clarity from the Liberals on what
their position would be should there ever be an FTAA agreement
and whether or not it would come before the House. If they are
prepared to make that commitment, then why would they not vote
for the Bloc motion and we could establish once and for all that
this would be the process should there ever be an agreement?
Part of the problem is that in this country, and I think it has
been pointed out by a previous speaker, the treaty making power
lies with the crown rather than with parliament. We have far too
many examples of Canadian governments being able to enter into
treaties and to renegotiate and amend treaties without ever
having to come to parliament, not just with respect to free
trade, but also for instance with respect to NATO.
This is the only country of all the NATO countries that did not
have a motion put in its national parliament to debate and ratify
for instance the expansion of NATO. All other 14 countries of
the then 15 NATO countries had a debate and a vote. Even in the
U.K. where it has the same system as us and it does not actually
have to have a vote and a debate, had one. It is only in Canada
where the government and the Prime Minister presume make these
kinds of agreements on behalf of the whole country without
involving parliamentarians in any meaningful way.
I listened carefully to what the Bloc members had to say about
their own motion. I must say I think this does reflect an
evolution in the Bloc Quebecois' position with respect to free
trade. We know for a fact that free trade was very popular in
Quebec in 1988.
Even in 1992 and 1993 leading up to the NAFTA, I recall an
occasion in the House where the NDP moved a motion critical of
NAFTA, calling on the House not to sign a North American Free
Trade Agreement and the Bloc members at that time voted with the
government against the NDP. They even voted against a Liberal
amendment at that time which said such an agreement might be okay
if it included provisions for the protection of workers and the
environment. Still the Bloc voted with the Conservative
government against that amendment.
1145
We know the position of the various leaders within the Quebec
sovereignty movement. Jacques Parizeau is a very big fan of free
trade and the free trade agreements. As Mr. Parizeau is want to
do, sometimes he boasted about the effect free trade would have
on Canada and the fact that it would break down east-west ties
and erode the strength of Canada as a country and therefore make
it easier for sovereignty to occur.
This is the backdrop for the Bloc motion today. I think what is
happening within the Bloc, if I might be permitted this analysis,
is that it is finally dawning on sovereignists in Quebec what the
NDP and others outside of parliament have been saying about the
effect of free trade agreements on the sovereignty of all
legislatures, whether they be national parliaments or they be
subnational legislatures. The insight about the effect of free
trade agreements on the sovereignty of such bodies is finally
beginning to get through to sovereignists in Quebec.
They see that there is not much point in debating sovereignty in
a federal-provincial context if at the same time one is
complacent or even complicit in the development of these
supernational institutions, these free trade agreements and world
trade agreements that in the end render the sovereignty of Canada
or the potential sovereignty of Quebec almost meaningless.
In that respect I would call the attention of the House to a
letter written only a week or two ago by the California state
legislature to United States trade representative, Mr. Zoellick.
It stated:
As the legislative representatives of the world's sixth largest
economy, we write to express our concern about the impact of
certain trade policies on the institution in which we serve and
on important democratic norms. We recognize that the United
States constitution grants the federal government power to
conduct foreign relations. We also recognize the economic
importance of trade to California and the role that trade can
play in fostering positive relationships between nations.
We are concerned, however, that as presently administered the
North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade
Organization agreements diminish the sovereignty of states such
as California, and in so doing, shift decision making power from
elected officials to unelected international trade officials. In
the paragraphs that follow we detail the reasons for our concern.
It seems to me that this is the critical issue with respect to
these free trade agreements.
I listened to the Bloc speeches and there was appropriate
criticism of free trade agreements as having created polarization
between the rich and the poor, not ensuring that the so-called
benefits of free trade are evenly or justly distributed.
In the final analysis that is not the main complaint against
free trade. We could debate the so-called economic benefits.
There are winners and losers. I happen to think that there are
more losers than winners.
The real loser in all these free trade agreements is democracy.
That is why I would have felt better if members of the Bloc would
have made it clear that they were against these agreements in
principle. The real loser in these agreements is the ability of
all governments, whether they be federal or provincial, to act in
the public interest, whether that be acting in the public
interest with respect to the environment, food safety, labour
standards, protection of water exports, protection of cultural
diversity, or whatever the case may be.
The real loser when it comes to these agreements is democracy
and the sovereignty of democratic states and democratic
subnational states such as Quebec or other Canadian provinces, as
well as states in other countries. This is something that I
simply cannot get through the thick, right wing skulls of my
Alliance colleagues. They are concerned about the power of
parliament. They are always going on and on about the power of
parliament. Parliament is being gutted every day by these
agreements, and no one over there seems to care.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from
the NDP was calling for a little more clarity from the
government, so I would like to ask him a question and seek to
provide some clarity on the process as we understand it on this
side of the House.
The government negotiates trade agreements to promote Canadian
trade interests based on extensive consultations with Canadians,
NGOs, parliamentary committee and business organizations, et
cetera. Only when Canada is satisfied that the agreement is in the
interests of the country would that agreement be signed.
1150
The process in all these agreements to which the member has
referred is that parliament was asked to approve the agreement
after a careful review and debate of the implementing
legislation. That is the normal process that has been followed
in the House of Commons throughout Canadian history. It is a
process that will be followed in this very important negotiation.
I do not understand the member's confusion. I hope that the
reiteration of what has been our policy since Confederation
clarifies matters.
I would like to ask the member a question. Does he not see the
Bloc motion as written as rather vague, as wanting to create a
situation that was referred to earlier by the chair of the
standing committee? It would seek to change the Canadian
constitution in effect and create something that has never
existed in the House throughout our entire history. Does he not
see that as the case?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not think that
arguments about change were sort of prima facie inadmissible on
the floor of the House of Commons. If nothing can be changed,
why does anyone run for office? Why not just freeze the status
quo in some kind of political suspended animation? Of course
they are making an argument for change, but I also think that it
is not that radical a change. It is not that different from the
way I remember it in 1988, where we had an opportunity to debate
and vote on the elements of the agreement.
Granted, it had been signed by Simon Reisman, but whether or not
it was ratified until after parliament had its say probably bears
some checking by the hon. member.
In any event, if I am wrong on the facts with respect to 1988, I
do not think I am wrong, in my opinion or in the Bloc's opinion,
on the principle of the matter, that before anything is finally
ratified it should in fact come before the House of Commons. If
that is a difference between what the Canadian practice has been
and what the motion calls for, so be it. Perhaps we should change
the way we do things around here.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before asking
my question, I would like to point out a number of facts.
First of all, the Bloc stands up for the consensus in the Quebec
civil society, and among parliamentarians. I have had the
opportunity to address this issue. The institutions committee of
the National Assembly published a report with which we totally
agree and which I commend to the hon. member.
Our position is not to be against economic integration or market
openness, since developing countries in the south are as much
entitled to development as developed countries in the north.
However, this economic integration must follow some rules, and
we want those rules to be included in the agreement and access
to the benefits of the agreement to be given in the respect of
those rights.
Before asking my question, I will conclude by saying that
Mr. Parizeau has been one of the fiercest opponents to the
multilateral investment agreement. He even wrote a small book on
the subject, which I would gladly offer to the hon. member.
I would now like to return to the issue of social and labour
rights. I am wondering what the position of the New Democratic
Party is on the inclusion of those rights in the current
negotiation.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, our position with respect
to social rights is that they ought to be part and parcel of any
trade agreement the government enters into. We sometimes wonder
whether or not agreements which have as their basic assumption
the whole notion of free trade or any such clauses, even if they
are inserted into such agreements, could be effective.
I would remind the member that when the WTO implementing
legislation was before the House it was the NDP in 1994, not the
Bloc, that moved amendments to that legislation which called on
the government to work toward a social clause in the WTO and to
report progress back to the House, although I would say that the
Bloc supported our motion with respect to the social clause at
that time.
1155
I think the question is still open as to whether or not simply
inserting these social clauses into these agreements is enough.
From the point of view of the NDP the basic philosophy of these
agreements is simply wrong. They are designed by and for
multinational corporations to inhibit the power of government not
just with respect to social policy or labour standards.
Even if we were to adopt either the side agreements or social
clauses these agreements would still be objectionable to us
because the very principle of them is to enshrine the power of
the marketplace over against the power of governments to act in
the public interest. Creating a few exceptions and a few fancy
clauses here and there will just not do the trick as far as we
are concerned.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to follow the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and
speak today in support of this important motion. A very basic
principle is being established in the motion which reads:
That this House demand that the government bring any draft
agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the House
so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification
by the Government of Canada.
It is somewhat surprising that a motion that deals with such a
fundamental principle of debate within the House of Commons is
something that has to be brought forward by an opposition party.
It begs the question and highlights for us the gravity of the
situation we are facing as the Government of Canada enters into
these agreements.
The free trade area of the Americas, or the FTAA as it is known,
equals NAFTA, the WTO, GATT and the MAI all rolled into one very
powerful piece of trade legislation that has nothing to do with
freedom.
It has everything to do with a transfer of massive powers from
democratically elected governments to transnational corporations
and a globalized corporate agenda which is about the suppression
of democracy. That is the fundamental point that needs to be
made. That is why any document or agreement on the FTAA must be
brought to the House to be debated by members of the House and by
the people of Canada.
The fundamental purpose of these agreements is to constrain all
levels of government. We are not just talking about a national
government or provincial governments, but even at the municipal
level. Their purpose is to restrain all governments in their
delivery of services and to allow transnational corporations
access to public services, whether it be health care, hospitals,
home care, dental care, child care, elder care, education, social
assistance, environmental protection programs, transportation or
culture. Those are the programs very much at threat as a result
of the proposed FTAA.
I should like to quote the chair of the Council of Canadians who
recently produced a very excellent report consisting of 40 pages
entitled “The Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Threat to
Social Programs, Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice
in Canada and the Americas”. Ms. Barlow is well known for her
work in providing education and awareness of the threat posed by
these agreements. In the section outlining what impact there
will be from the FTAA on Canadians she said:
The expanded powers proposed for the FTAA in combination with
Chapter 11 of NAFTA and the introduction of “universal coverage
of all service sectors” pose a grave threat to Canada's social
programs. Universal health care, public education, child care,
pensions, social assistance and many other social services are
now delivered by governments on a not-for-profit basis.
1200
She went on to say:
Until the recent GATS negotiations, and now the FTAA
negotiations, Canada has always maintained that these social
programs were a fundamental right of citizenship for all
Canadians, and have exempted them from trade agreements. However,
with these two agreements, the Canadian government is opening up
itself, and every other level of government, to trade-sanctioned
threats by transnational service corporations keen to break down
the existing government monopolies in the hemisphere.
That lays out very clearly what we are facing in this round of
negotiations. Of particular concern to us in the NDP, outlined
by my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona, are the investor state
provisions that again are included in what is being proposed in
this FTAA round of negotiations. This is something similar to
what we have seen in NAFTA.
Indeed, in the NDP minority report produced in October 1999 we
laid out very clearly what the impact is of investor state
provisions and what has already happened in Canada as a result of
those provisions being included in chapter 11 of NAFTA.
I will quote from my colleague's minority report in which he
says:
Canadians have already seen how such a mechanism can be used by
foreign investors to intimidate and sue their elected
governments. Last year, U.S. based Ethyl Corporation
successfully used the NAFTA investor-state procedure to extract
$19 million from Canadian taxpayers, and to force the Canadian
government to rescind its ban on the potentially toxic gasoline
additive MMT.
That is what has already taken place under chapter 11. There
are now other challenges underway, including one from Sun Belt
Water Inc. in California that is looking to leave Canadians on
the hook for as much as $10.5 billion U.S. That again brings us
back to the issue of what is threatened under the FTAA.
One of the things I am very concerned about is the impact on
municipalities. Right now in Vancouver, where I am from, a case
taking place before the B.C. supreme court is a challenge by the
Mexican government as a result of an earlier decision made by a
NAFTA dispute panel in August 2000 in favour of the U.S. based
Metalclad Corporation, which was seeking to locate a toxic waste
plant in a town in Mexico. The local community and the national
government opposed it. This is now again being challenged under
NAFTA.
The impact of these trade agreements on local communities and
their ability to control their own environment and health and the
well-being of their own citizens is something that is very
seriously undermined and would be completely violated if these
particular agreements go ahead.
I want to spend my remaining minutes talking about the
democratic process. It seems to me that one of the real signs of
hope as we take on this struggle of trying to defeat these
agreements has been the rise in the level of activism,
particularly among young people. As we know, already there are
incredible plans and campaigns underway to demonstrate, to rally,
to educate and to build public awareness about just what is at
stake in April in Quebec City.
The question we have is that while on the one hand we have the
Prime Minister in China finally raising the issue of human rights
in that country, what are the Prime Minister and the government
prepared to do to defend people's human rights here in Canada?
All indications are that we are now in the process of setting up
a police state, a state of security around this international
conference, to prevent citizens from being heard, from being
seen, from being able to assemble and from having the right to
free speech.
This is something we have seen before in Canada with APEC and
the people's summit and the pepper spraying that took place. We
are again seeing the those kinds of preparations being made to
prevent people from exercising their democratic rights.
1205
This motion is important, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.
We have to stop these agreements, we have to defeat them and we
have to defend the rights of citizens to organize, to mobilize
and to speak out against these agreements. In supporting this
motion, I hope all members of the House will go further and
ensure that people who come from across Canada and want to take
up this issue in Quebec City will not be denied their democratic
rights to express their opinions about what these agreements are
about and what kinds of threats they pose to our democratic
system.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to the comments of our colleague from the New
Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, like her and like most of the members here, I
know very little about these negotiations. Everything is
secret. The discussions are kept incommunicado and we do not
know what the talks are all about.
Besides all the concerns expressed earlier by my colleagues on
this side of the House, one issue worries me especially.
Maybe it is no longer the case, but the member made a brief
reference to that situation earlier. I wonder what a country
like Canada will gain from such negotiations, when we know what
is going on in some countries which, out of courtesy, I will not
name.
For example, a few years ago, in the copper mines of a certain
South American country, children, young girls, worked in water
and mud up to their waist, carrying pails of the clay soil from
which copper is extracted. These six, seven or eight year old
children suffer from arthritis just like old people.
I wonder if my colleague worries about that. Why should we
negotiate a free trade agreement with countries where citizens
are treated that way?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the member's thoughtful
question gets to the point of another major concern around the
negotiation of these agreements, that is, they have been so often
characterized as a race to the bottom. Environmental standards,
labour standards, and standards that protect the health and
well-being of a community and ensure that children are not
exploited for their labour go out the window. All of these very
important fundamental principles of human dignity and human
respect are basically abandoned as a result of these agreements.
These are not empty words. There is mounting global evidence
about the impact on local communities of other agreements that
have been negotiated, particularly on communities in developing
countries that become beholden to these multinational
corporations that go in and destroy the environment and local
culture and communities.
The member's question certainly highlights this very destructive
aspect of these agreements and I share his concern. It is
another reason why the motion should be approved: so that we can
have a full debate in the House on the impact of the FTAA, not
just in Canada but in all of the Americas and indeed globally.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to the Bloc member who is saying all of this is secret, I would
be happy to give him the address of the website which he
obviously does not know exists.
My question to my colleague from the NDP is simply this: what
is her response to the following statement?
There is now widespread acceptance that, in the long run, the
expansion of international trade and integration into the world
economy are necessary instruments for promoting economic growth
and reducing and eradicating poverty.
The quote comes from a recently released UN report. How can the
member tell us that international trade is not important in
addressing the problem of poverty?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond
to that question because I do not believe that I or any of my
colleagues in the NDP have said that this debate is about
stopping international trade.
International trade is very important to our global community.
1210
The issue before the House and before the government on behalf
of the Canadian people is what rules will be established for that
international trade. As the hon. member knows, our concern,
which should be his concern as well, is that these agreements
basically transfer authority and power from democratically
elected governments to multinational corporations that are
completely undemocratic. Therefore, the realm of trade and
decisions around the programs we have are completely outside of
any elected body. That is our concern, and I think the hon.
member knows that.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly a pleasure to play a role in this debate. I must
tell the House that it takes me back to 1988, when I was elected
after a very controversial election that was totally based on
free trade. The Progressive Conservative Party totally supported
free trade. We in our party advocated it and proposed it and the
Liberal candidates were all opposed to it. There were all those
terrible stories about what was going to happen to our
sovereignty, our water, our resources and all the gloom and doom
that was going to fall on Canada because of free trade.
Here we are 12 years later and the Liberals are proposing to
enhance free trade. Members will have to excuse me if I find
this ironic. In December 1988 we came to the House day and night
to argue the pros and cons of free trade. Into the middle of the
night we argued, with the Liberals saying that free trade was
going to kill Canada, that it was going to take away our
sovereignty, our water, all our assets.
From that time I remember a then new member of parliament in the
Liberal Party, a member who is now their federal minister of
agriculture and who used to stay in the same apartment I did. We
walked home at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. As we
were walking home one night, I said I wondered what would happen
if our parties switched positions on free trade. In a very
prophetic manner, the now minister of agriculture said that they
would just stand up and argue the other way.
That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. We have not
changed our position but the Liberals have certainly changed
theirs. I do not think these flip-flops help our case as a
country but we should not be surprised, because in that campaign
the Liberals also promised to do away with the GST, the horrible
tax. Suddenly when they were in power they said that perhaps it
was not so bad and doubled it. In Atlantic Canada the GST went
from 7% to 15% and the Liberals now call it the HST. This is the
tax that they were going to tear up, that they were going to do
away with. However, that is a flip-flop and that is okay.
Then of course there was the flip-flop on the ethics counsellor.
The Liberals promised, in writing, to make the counsellor
independent, and just two days ago all but two Liberal members
voted against their own motion, against their promise to
Canadians to establish an independent ethics counsellor.
These amazing reversals hurt the image of parliamentarians and
are part of the reason why people do not hold parliamentarians or
politicians in general in high esteem. In fact, if people in the
private sector made promises and commitments like this and did
not honour them they would not survive. Somehow this party does.
Speaking of flip-flops, the Reform Party also made some pretty
strong promises in their former campaigns. One of those promises
was that Reform members were going to bring new decorum to the
House of Commons. Of course we know what they brought to the
House, and that was mariachi bands. They were going to do away
with Stornoway and maybe turn it into a bingo hall, but I suggest
that we check and see who the inhabitant is at Stornoway now.
The ultimate flip-flop is one which I felt personally in 1993. I
was defeated in 1993 because the Conservative vote was split. The
big argument then was the gold plated pension plan. Of course we
know they have now flip-flopped on that and have adopted the gold
plated pensions.
Yesterday their only appointed senator moved a motion that he
take over the Senate opposition party and be the official
opposition. This is from an Alliance Party that is totally
opposed to the Senate and especially to appointed senators. Now
their only appointed senator wants to take it over. It is
incredible.
A lot of people talk about Brian Mulroney, what he did and what
his track record was, but I want to point out that Brian Mulroney
and the Conservatives said that if Canadians voted for them they
would bring them free trade. Whether Canadians liked it or not
is not the issue.
He made a commitment and he followed through on the commitment.
He said that if Canadians voted Conservative he would bring in
free trade, and he did. He said that if people voted for the
Conservatives he would change the manufacturers' sales tax, and
he did that.
1215
This was in contrast to the Liberals who said that if Canadians
voted for them they would tear up free trade. They did not tear
it up; they enhanced it. They also told Canadians to vote for
them and they would do away with the GST. They did not do away
with it; they doubled it. Those flip-flops and reversals of
position are very harmful to all of us, and the government should
try to be more consistent.
Let us get back to the opposition motion, which we as a party
agree with. Perhaps we should not need the motion. Under normal
terms and former times we would not need the motion. However this
all falls into line with the many calls for parliamentary reform.
If we could go back to former days when parliamentarians
actually had a say on issues, when we had input in committees and
in the House of Commons and a say on policy, then we would not
need to have opposition days and probably would not have it.
We agree with the motion because we have no other input into
bills. We are not against free trade at all. The Conservative
Party brought free trade to the country and to the government. We
do not want to stop it. We do not want to tie the hands of
officials. However every member here has different challenges,
different cultures and different situations. Every member of
parliament should have a say in an agreement as important as the
free trade agreement.
Part of the problem is simple things like committees. In former
times committees were made of up members of parliament who
actually had a say and had input. We could influence policy and
direction. However, in all the committees with which I was
involved in the last parliament they were totally an arm of the
minister. The chair was decided by the minister. The subjects
for discussion were determined by the minister. The votes were
controlled by the ministers. The parliamentary secretary was
always there to tell the Liberals how to vote and they always did
exactly what they were told.
One of the Liberal members who was a former teacher said that
the committee system reminded him of kindergarten, where teachers
create busy work to keep the students busy. That was his vision
of a committee: busy work, something to keep members of
parliament busy. If members had the power to choose our chair,
choose our own subjects and have free votes in committees, we
could actually do a lot of good work and would not have to have
opposition days like today.
I have no confidence in the Liberal Party to negotiate the free
trade agreement of the Americas. First, the Liberal Party was
totally against free trade. How can a party that is totally
against free trade establish a concept that is viable and
workable? If the party is against it, how can it do that? It
creates all kinds of questions when members of a party, who were
totally against the trade policy in a former life, turn around
and say that everyone should stay out if it, that it should be
left up to them because they will do it and do it right. This
creates a lot of problems for me.
The Liberals have not been very successful at trade agreements
lately. I want to bring up a couple of examples. Certainly the
ban on Brazilian beef and the way that was handled will turn out
to be a major embarrassment to our country and our government.
For two years officials at Health Canada said that they thought
there might be a problem but that they could not get information.
They did not do anything about it, even though for two years
they thought there might be a problem with mad cow disease
potentially coming to Canada through Brazilian beef.
Strangely enough, the day after the Canadian government learned
that the Brazilian government was taking the issue of the
aviation industry to the WTO, it imposed a ban on Brazilian beef.
For two years the Liberal government did nothing about the beef
issue, but when something happened at the WTO that it did not
like it brought in the ban.
Again there was no consultation with the House or with the
committees. The government just brought in the very significant
ban on Brazilian beef which will impact on all Canadian trade to
Brazil.
There are now demonstrations all through Brazil. Ships are tied
up. Ships that are on the ocean cannot unload because of the
Brazilian beef ban, which was not handled properly. Proper
notice was not given. Parliament was not consulted. No
committees were advised. The government just did it and no
questions were asked.
There either was a health risk for two years that the government
did nothing about, or the ban on Brazilian beef is strictly a
trade issue. However, it is an example of how not to handle a
trade issue.
1220
Another example, which has not yet happened but which is in
incubation, is the softwood lumber issue. This is incredibly
important for Canada. There are 337 communities where 50% of the
economy, the lifeblood of the community, depends on the forestry
industry. It is a critical issue yet right now the government is
in limbo on it.
We do not know whether it will ask the government of the United
States to renew the softwood agreement, whether it will let it go
to free trade or whether the memorandum of understanding for the
Atlantic provinces will be renewed, continued or what. We are in
total limbo. There have been no consultations and no
information. We do not know which way the government is going.
Again, there has been no consultation or involvement of MPs on
such a critical issue.
There will be a tremendous effort by the American industry to
put countervail charges and tariffs on Canadian lumber on March
31 when the softwood lumber agreement ends, yet we have no idea
what will take its place.
I have a few questions on the softwood lumber issue for the
parliamentary secretary if he has the opportunity to answer them.
I would like to know what the government's position is on the
memorandum of understanding for Atlantic Canada. I would like to
know if we are as a government trying to renew the softwood
lumber agreement. I would like to know if the government will
include all the parties involved, like the Maritime Lumber
Bureau, in every step of the negotiations.
These are just some examples of what I call failed trade
negotiations. It does not give me a lot of confidence in that
group over there to negotiate a new free trade agreement of the
Americas.
The Conservatives are fundamentally in favour of free trade. It
was our concept in the first place. We brought it to Canada,
against strong opposition at the time. We are in favour of it.
However we also know that every province and every industrial
sector has to be involved with the negotiations all the way
through.
We are, after all, a major trading nation. Forty-six per cent
of our GDP comes from exports, as opposed to countries like the
United States that are at 11%. Our export trade amounts to $2.2
billion every single day. Exports affect our standard of living,
our culture and our position of influence in the world. It has
to be done right.
World trading blocks are changing as well. We have to keep up
to date with other parts of the world like the European community
which is now trading as a bloc and not country to country. It
does not trade as Germany, France or Italy but as a bloc, a
continent, a uniform group. We must adapt to that. That is why
we support the principle of the free trade agreement of the
Americas but we must be consultation with MPs, and the committee
has to have information available to it and be able to influence
the decision and direction.
It is not only about money and it is not only about business.
The free trade agreement of the Americas will be of great concern
to a lot of Canadians in a lot of areas. Many Canadians are
concerned about our water, about human rights in other countries,
about environmental standards and rules in other countries and
about health standards. All these issues can be discussed as
part of the free trade of the Americas if it is done right.
We want to make sure that is part of it. We want to make sure
the committee is open to these subjects and is able to bring in
witnesses that have strong opinions on all aspects of the free
trade agreement. We will be pushing for that in committee. We
want all subjects on the table. We want all the MPs involved
with the debate as well as members of the provincial legislatures
and each industrial sector.
Once the agreement is signed it cannot be changed. There are 34
countries involved. We can hardly get a decision by one
government here to change, much less by 34 governments. Therefore
it must be done in advance. That is why the opposition day is so
valuable.
We do support free trade and we support the motion to bring the
debate to the House prior to ratification.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me take the
opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.
I listened with some interest to my colleague's comments and,
indeed, he is right. I confess to be one of those who in 1988
was extremely dubious about free trade and whether it would be
good for Canada. Clearly it has been. That is very evident.
1225
That is why the government, most Canadians and most
parliamentarians support free trade, with the exception of
members of the NDP whose position everybody knows before they
even speak on it. They support it because they know it is good
for the Canadian economy. They know it will help eradicate
poverty, as the United Nations has recently pointed out.
The hon. member says that he and his party agree with the Bloc
motion. However, in citing the example of 1988, how can he now
support a process which is not what the Mulroney government of
the day followed? Our proposed process is the same as the one
used by that government of the day. It includes a full review of
the enabling legislation open to debate and open to opportunities
for amendment. That is how change would come.
How could the member support a process which is so radically
different from that which his own government followed in 1988?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his excellent questions and for the comment that he
did listen with some interest to my words. I also acknowledge
that I appreciate him saying now that he agrees with Brian
Mulroney's policy. It is good for Liberal members to say they
agree with Brian Mulroney's policy, that they were wrong and
Brian Mulroney was right.
Recently the very distinguished Minister of Industry, who is
very influential, said the same. He now agrees with Brian
Mulroney, that Brian Mulroney was right and they were wrong. It
was refreshing to hear that.
If the parliamentary secretary listened to my speech he will
know that I asked questions about the government and its support
for the memorandum of understanding on the softwood lumber
agreement for Atlantic Canada. I wonder if he supports that. If
he gets another chance to stand I would like him to answer that
and to state exactly what is the position of the government on
the softwood agreement.
To answer his question, we had the ultimate consultation. The
parliamentary secretary challenged me to suggest that we would
follow the same process. I challenge him to follow the same
process and hold an election entirely on free trade like we did
in 1988. If he follows the process I will be right there with
him and will run against him, and we will see how it works out.
That was our process, the ultimate consultation. We consulted
with every Canadian who could vote.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my
colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party on his
re-election to the House and on his appointment as trade critic
for his party.
If memory serves, on November 27 the government was resoundingly
re-elected by Canadians. The Canadian public knows full well
what our position is on free trade and what it has been since we
have been in office. I submit to my colleague that he had his
answer very clearly from the Canadian people, that they support
the initiatives of the government vis-à-vis free trade and many
other initiatives we have undertaken.
With respect to his question on softwood lumber, I have
addressed it a couple of times in the House but am happy to
reiterate it for him now. The government is very clear that
nobody in Canada wants to see the current deal extended or
another deal such as the current one struck again.
The ultimate goal of the Canadian government on softwood lumber
is very clear: free trade in lumber with the United States. Why?
It is the surest way to achieve fairness for all the provinces
and for all Canadians involved in the lumber business.
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's
question. As to why the Liberals were re-elected, I cannot
answer that question. I do not understand why.
He says that everyone in Canada knows our position on free
trade. I do not think that is right. I do not think they know.
I do not think they know the government's position on a lot of
things, like the softwood lumber issue or the national missile
defence system.
I do not know why they were re-elected. It is a puzzle to me
and certainly I do not think Canadians know where the government
stands on hardly anything.
1230
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to jump in at this point having
listened to the exchange between the Conservatives and the
Liberals, both of whom I think bear a great deal of culpability
for the dire consequences and side effects of the free trade
approach by the federal government.
Whether we are talking about the Conservatives, who really
pioneered NAFTA, or the Liberals, who were quick to break their
campaign promise and proceed holus-bolus with adherence to NAFTA,
the fact of the matter is that we have been left with a serious
threat to our sovereignty and to our ability to control our own
destiny insofar as we are dealing with the critical issues of
universal public health care, education and other social
services.
It is well known that in all cases, whether we are talking about
FTA, NAFTA or now the free trade areas of the Americas agreement,
and also whether we are concluding MAI and all the discussions at
the WTO level, the bottom line seems to be to open up an area
that is very lucrative in terms of trade, that being the health
care sector of our economy.
How can my hon. Conservative colleague continue to defend this
general direction in terms of trade knowing full well that our
ability to protect our public health care system is threatened
and knowing full well that as we sit and talk about the FTAA
there are discussions proceeding around GATS and a very
deliberate effort to include all social services in the area of
globalization, free trade and the trading of public health for
private wealth?
I see my colleague from the Liberal Party, the parliamentary
secretary, shaking his head. There is no shortage of
documentation to verify this threat and certainly no shortage of
legal opinion to recognize the precarious position for health
care as a result of these trade deals and all of these trade
discussions.
As we look at the FTAA we have to be very wary about the real
agenda behind it all and address it accordingly. This is not
just from people in the NDP, people on the left or people on the
Council of Canadians, we are also talking about reputable
journals like the The Lancet, a medical journal which came
out in December with an editorial entitled “Trading public
health for private wealth”. It gave a very significant analysis
of discussions at the WTO level around how our ability as a
country to preserve publicly administered universal accessible
health care is threatened.
That is my question to the member. If I could get an answer
from the parliamentary secretary I would love it, but I will wait
my turn.
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I have better answers
anyway. I appreciate the NDP member's position but I want to
make it really clear that the restoration and protection of
health care is the number one priority of this party. There is
not one member of parliament here who does not deal with people
in need every day. We understand and are concerned about the
social services that are necessary to help people who really need
help. Every one of us is involved in that every day and that is
a very important issue for us.
However, the bottom line is that if we did not have those 46% of
our gross domestic product as exports or trade agreements that
allowed us to have 46% of our gross domestic product shipped and
sold to other countries, we would have no health care system and
no money for social services. There has to be a balance between
the two. I believe that with free trade agreements around the
world we can protect our health care and social services more
than in any other way.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Madam
Speaker, today, the Bloc Quebecois put forward, for debate in
the House, a motion that reads as follows:
That this House demand that the government bring any draft
agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the
House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before
ratification by the Government of Canada.
1235
We have proposed this motion for several reasons, but I believe
the main one is the lack of real trust between the government
and the civil society, the government and opposition parties.
Unfortunately, as I have often said in my speeches, once bitten,
twice shy. We must judge this government on its behaviour.
I recall that during our second mandate, only a few days before
we had a situation created by the MAI, the famous multilateral
agreement on investment, we were gathered in a room on the first
floor, on the Senate side. There, we had the great honour of
receiving the secretary general of the OECD, Mr. Johnston, a
Liberal who has served the government here and who was rewarded
by being appointed to the highly prestigious position of
secretary general of the OECD.
He was with us to talk about this famous agreement. I recall a
sentence which struck me and which most of all shocked me. He
said “It is up to us, the officials, to negotiate. You do not
have to negotiate. Once the agreement is completely negotiated
and signed, we will come back to explain it to you. It will then
be up to you to sell it”.
These may not be the exact words used by the secretary general
but it is, in substance, what he told us. He said to us “Do not
bother with this. It is not up to you. Your role is to sell it
after”.
What became of the MAI? Without the courage of the French
government, and without Internet, which the members across the
aisle have been praising since this morning, the agreement would
probably have been signed. Most fortunately it was not. I recall
some statements, like this one from the former president of the
Foreign Affairs Commission of the French National Assembly, Mr.
Jack Lang, who said about the MAI negotiations “I do not know who
is negotiating what and on whose behalf”.
This is what he said about the MAI, which had already been under
negotiation for two years.
“I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”.
We are probably in the same situation at the moment. Who is
negotiating what and on behalf of whom to create the free trade
area of the Americas? We know nothing about it.
We were told to look on the Internet, where we would find
everything. I went on the Internet. I found all sorts of
things on NAFTA, but nothing about what is going on at the
moment.
And yet, when the Minister for International Trade, our
government's homing pigeon, attended the October 1, 1999 meeting
of the WTO, he said:
Canada proposes that ministers, in Seattle, commit themselves to
enhancing the transparency of the WTO, so that secretariat
working papers, formal contributions from members, draft meeting
agendas and minutes will be circulated, with very limited
exceptions, as unrestricted documents as soon as available in
all three WTO languages.
A government minister said greater transparency was required.
We have been calling for this since this morning. We want more
transparency from this government. We want to be able to debate
the agreement in this House, before it is ratified.
1240
We do not want to be informed about all sorts of details that
will be discussed at every meeting, subgroup, committee or
subcommittee. We are asking the government to do its job. It has
a mandate. We support the creation of the free trade area of the
Americas, but the government has to do its job properly. At one
point, it will have to report to us and to explain what it has
done, before it is too late.
The Mulroney government, as was pointed out several times this
morning, showed much courage when it had to face the stubbornness
of the opposition of the day, which is now the government. It
called a general election, even though, at that point, it only
had the support of 19% of the voters, according to the polls.
Everyone predicted that the Mulroney government would be soundly
defeated.
Then they began talking about free trade. They organized
forums. They held real debates. We had a taste of what democracy
was like in Canada, instead of having to face the hypocrisy and
the pretence of democracy that have existed since 1993. The government
does everything behind our backs and always presents us with a
fait accompli. We never get an answer to any question asked in
the House. The government always evades the issue. It always
says that the opposition does not understand, or know anything
or know how to read.
The government, all of a sudden, has all the brains. It refuses
to answer. Democracy is not doing well in this country. It is
very important that we all agree on this issue.
We all know what happened with MAI.
We must look at another point—raised by my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party—the events relating to mad cow
disease and Brazil.
If we pay close attention to what the minister is saying, one
would be tempted to stand up and say “Excuse us, Mr. Minister,
we should congratulate you on the fine job you are doing”. That
is not the reality, however. If the situation is looked at more
closely, we see that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has
just been given a “blast”, forgive my English, by the auditor
general, which is a clear illustration of the terrible mess that
agency is in.
The agency has received a knockout blow. The auditor general
has said it is incompetent, is understaffed, is not doing its work.
He also said it was in league with the industry. The industry
had reached the stage of checking its own food production.
Not the agency, which lacked both funds and staff.
The minister was not too pleased at this situation. He wondered
what he could do to improve the image of the agency. So he calls
them up to inquire “Could you maybe turn up a mad cow or two
somewhere?” He is told “Well yes, one in Brazil. Maybe”.
Brazil is a long way from here and is the only country in
America in which Portuguese is spoken.
The languages of the WTO are French, English and Spanish,
whereas the language of Brazil is Portuguese. They refused to
reply to our questionnaire. We have no information. Brazil,
poor Brazil, has a population of 160 million. It is the second
largest country in America in terms of population, and third
largest in terms of area.
As far as our economy is concerned, Brazil is an important
trading partner. So what do they do? We announced that
Brazilian beef was banned. Finally the agency has an improved
image, it is doing its job at last. I could continue for a very
long time, but you have just indicated to me that I have only
seconds left. I must state in closing that we have grounds for
concern about the lack of transparency of this government.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
“I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”,
said Mr. Lang when the MAI was discussed; that is a good quote.
Does it apply to the present situation?
I know, so to speak, the answer to the question. This is the
responsibility of the government, which was recently elected by
a vast majority of Canadians and which is negotiating on the
basis of the principles circulated on the Internet for everyone
to see. It is negotiating with the help of the civil society
here in Canada and elsewhere.
1245
It is negotiating on behalf of all the people of Canada, who
will benefit from an extension of markets and the creation of
prosperity throughout all the Americas.
Could the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis tell me
whether Quebecers agree with her and whether they are against
free trade? Or am I wrong when I say to her that, in my opinion,
the people of Quebec favour free trade, profit from it, and want
to participate and not be hemmed in by an attitude like the hon.
member's?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, first, I did not say that
I was opposed to free trade. In fact, if Mr. Mulroney won the
election in 1988 it is thanks, among others, to Quebecers,
because we supported free trade.
We were not like the Liberals who said “We are opposed to free
trade”. They said it again in 1993. I clearly remember the Prime
Minister saying “I will never sign this agreement unless major
changes are made”. The Prime Minister later took off, almost in
secret, and travelled to western Canada, thought things over and
said “Perhaps I should sign that agreement. It will cause a lot
less problems”.
So, all of a sudden, he called back the same negotiator and told
him “Explain the agreement to me again. I did not clearly
understand what you meant the first time”. Once the Prime
Minister clearly understood the agreement, he signed it with
very minor changes.
I am not even sure those changes made the headlines, because the
changes requested by the Prime Minister were so minor.
We support free trade. But who is negotiating right now? Members
should not
come and tell me it is the Minister for International Trade who
is at the table negotiating. There are people negotiating. Where
is the list of negotiators? What issues is the government
negotiating? Where is the agenda? Where are the documents used
as a basis for negotiating? What is Canada's position in these
negotiations?
We do not know the government's position and it is not true that
it can be found on the Internet. This morning, my assistant
surfed the net and we could not find anything on Canada's
position. If a negotiation session were to take place here right
now, what would the government say? The government is keeping
its position secret and wants to put before members of parliament
a fait accompli.
Why is civil society complaining about the fact that it was not
consulted? Once again, the government consulted its own groups,
namely those who contributed to its campaign coffers. They will
say what it wants to hear. We are fed up with the government's
lack of democracy and lack of transparency.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, considering
the importance of the issue, could we ask ourselves certain
questions without being labelled anti-free trade?
Personally, I am for free trade but, as a citizen and consumer,
I have the right to ask questions and to get answers. In what
kind of system are we living? Is it a democracy or not? Why is it
that every time we stand up to ask questions, the people across
the way say that we are against whatever the subject of the
debate is, when all we want is some clarification? We want to
know what is going on. These are questions that our fellow
citizens ask us in our riding.
Since my distinguished colleague has some experience in the
House of Commons, I would ask her what we can do to get the
answers to the questions and concerns our constituents raise? It
is healthy to have concerns. It is not that these people are
against free trade, but they want to know what we are getting
into. With her experience, could my colleague tell me how we
could get the answers we need?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, my answer will be short.
We could follow the example of the government and go get these
answers on the Internet. The problem is that three quarters of
the population do not have access to Internet at the moment.
1250
The Internet is not readily accessible in rural areas and there
are many rural areas in Canada. We even have a secretary of state
in charge of this famous issue.
I agree with my colleague from Champlain. We must be concerned
with the lack of democracy, the lack of access to information and
the absence of answers to our questions.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Joliette on his very timely motion
in the House today calling for debate and a vote before any
agreement on the free trade area of the Americas is ratified.
The riding of Québec will be hosting the summit of the Americas.
I would like to remind members that politicians in Quebec,
sovereignist and federalist alike, have always supported free
trade, unlike the Liberal Party of Canada, which earlier opposed
it.
The 148.6% increase in Quebec's exports to the United States
between 1991 and 1998 are testimony to the wisdom of opening up
trade.
But we must look beyond the apparent success of these figures,
and take the time to analyse the real impact these agreements
will have on workers, and particularly on their quality of life.
These gains must be kept in perspective. Some workers continue
to lose ground. More and more people are earning the minimum
wage, without benefits. There is also an increase in the number
of jobs without security and atypical jobs.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is calling for some form of
social protection, and is concerned about what is being
negotiated behind the scenes. It wants the gulf between rich
and poor to stop growing, and it wants to see the growth in
exports accompanied by a decrease in poverty and benefits for
all classes of society.
We are particularly concerned when we know that the minister who
will be at the negotiating table, the current Minister for
International Trade, once said that social rights have nothing
to do with trade. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is worried.
It cannot do the work of all the ministers. We have reason to
be worried.
Although the Bloc Quebecois is keenly interested in
globalization and is in fact favourable to a liberalization of
trade, it also shares the worries and the hopes of the public.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that this liberalization must not
come at the expense of cultural diversity or social rights,
whether through the WTO or the free trade area of the Americas.
My colleagues have talked and will talk abundantly about the
importance of addressing social rights and other concerns with
respect to the FTAA negotiations. Those are legitimate concerns
that are very important to me, but in the few minutes I have I
will stick to one aspect, which relates specifically to my
responsibilities as heritage critic, and that is how culture
ought to be treated.
No one can talk about international trade agreements without
thinking about cultural issues. The recent defeat of Canada on
the magazine issue is a harsh reminder in that regard. We have great
confidence in the ability of our cultural artisans to carve for
themselves a place in Quebec as well as in the whole world.
We hope that the conclusion of a trade agreement for the
Americas will result in even more extensive cultural exchanges
between Quebec and Latin American countries.
So, why worry, some would say. Because Quebec culture did not
develop all on its own. The Government of Quebec used its
response authority to support its development and growth. That
approach was taken by every Quebec government regardless of its
political stripe.
It must be recalled that Quebec interventions have been
conceived and implemented in order to offset deficiencies in the
market environment and to allow for the development of a domestic
culture.
That is why we are recommending that any trade agreement
preserve any present or future response capability of the Quebec
government. The right of governments to adopt policies of support
for creators, creation and also distribution must be recognized.
Even more important, cultural diversity is an international
asset that should be recognized and protected by an international
charter.
1255
Our culture is not totally isolated. The summary report on
multi-stakeholder consultations on the General Agreement on Trade
in Services, released last week by the Minister for International
Trade, provides, under the heading “Autonomy for Self-Governing
Bodies”:
Participants feared that policies favouring local hiring, or
encouraging cultural sensitivity in the delivery of services,
might be compromised.
This fear is all the more justified since, despite the fact that
the federal government is stating loud and clear that it supports
cultural protection, Cabinet cannot agree on the stand to take.
The Prime Minister of Canada is saying that the question of
cultural diversity is a matter for the WTO, and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage would prefer that the matter be debated at
UNESCO.
In an article in the National Post on November 20 entitled
“The Conversion of Sergio Marchi”, journalist Murray Dobbie
passes on the disturbing words of Canada's representative to the
WTO. According to this journalist, the former minister said that
education and teaching could be covered by the next agreements.
However, another summary report on multi-stakeholder
consultations with respect to the General Agreement on Trade in
Services provides that:
The Government of Canada will not make any commitment that
restricts our ability to achieve our cultural policy objectives
until a new international instrument can be established designed
specifically to safeguard the right of countries to promote and
preserve their cultural diversity.
And so, what is this government's true position on culture? Is
it that of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage? What is the real intent of the government? The words
reported by Mr. Marchi or the summary report released last week
by the Minister for International Trade? Could someone in
government set the record straight?
Culture means words. It involves the choices we make to express
who we are, what we experience, how we feel and what we want to
become. These words are conveyed by language, painting, song,
film, radio, television, clay modelling and marble polishing.
They are conveyed by pictures, etchings, theatre, in a word, by
the passion and genius of our artisans, who sketch in broad
strokes our daily lives, as witnesses to and tireless
participants in our history.
This is why it is so important for us to jealously protect and
parsimoniously share the culture of a people.
As Gilles Vigneault put it in his song:
With our words, our games, our work and our dance, our joys and
our sorrows too, four hundred years of faith, love and hope with
those who lived here, our mirrors and our differences, we have
become this people and this country.
It is because of all these emotions and this wealth of day to
day experience that we do not want culture reduced to a consumer
good like the others. We must not forget that it gives life to a
people as they are and that we are here to speak in our own way,
in the manner of each people.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Québec
on the quality of her speech and particularly on what she said
about the impact the free trade agreement presently being
negotiated by all countries in the three Americas will have on
the cultural sector.
For me and for the other members from the Quebec City area,
Lévis being situated just on the other side of the river from
Quebec City, the fact that the summit will be held in Quebec
City raises a number of concerns as far as security and the
potential for demonstrations are concerned. I imagine that those
concerns are raised in her riding more than anywhere else, since
this is where the summit will be held. I would like her to tell
us about it, if she wishes to do so.
Since she too is from the Quebec City area, I would like to take
the opportunity to emphasize that the shipbuilding sector has
been overlooked or excluded from the free trade agreement. This
sector was also overlooked in the amendments that were made when
Mexico joined in.
1300
Residents of Quebec City and the north shore who work at the
shipyard in Lévis are now wondering why this exception was made.
I understand that, during the last negotiations, for the auto
pact, it was taken into consideration in order to protect the
interests of southern Ontario, and of the United States.
Now we are taking things to the next level, the Americas. I know
that several countries, Brazil and South America in particular,
want to get ships and oil drilling rigs built by Canadian
shipyards among others. So, that does have an impact.
I would like to know where the hon. member stands on this issue.
As the member for Québec, is she prepared to support me so that
shipbuilding and maritime transport are included in the future
free trade agreement?
I also find unacceptable that Quebec City will be footing the
bill if demonstrations are held during the summit of the
Americas. As of today, we still do not know for sure if the
premier of Quebec will take part in the summit of the Americas.
As far as I know, and I could be wrong, he was only invited to a
cocktail party. That is rather odd.
I would like to know what the hon. member for Québec thinks
about all of this.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, indeed, the summit of
the Americas will be held in the riding of Québec.
We hope that the Government of Canada will respond to the
financial expectations relating to the holding of the summit in
order to allay the concerns of the Government of Quebec and the
municipality of Québec.
We know that requests have been made for the funds necessary to
ensure that all the infrastructure required to provide a proper
welcome for the leaders of others countries is in place. We
trust that there will be a follow up and that the requests for
assistance from the Government of Quebec and the municipality of
Québec will be met with a suitable response. At the present
time, we do not know if there has been any follow up to the
requests made by the two levels of government.
As for the other matter of the shipyard, this was an election
issue in the riding of Lévis and the reason the hon. member for
Lévis was re-elected.
We still await a proper shipbuilding development policy here in
Canada. This would have a positive impact on Quebec, particularly
Lévis. Any protection afforded the industry would have a
positive impact on the economic development of Quebec and a
regional ripple effect extending beyond Lévis, because a number
of workers reside in the various ridings in the Quebec City area.
We can only regret the slowness with which the federal
government is handling this matter. They claim to be very
concerned about the economy, yet it is important to provide
assistance and support to the economic levers and the various
infrastructures already in place in order to be able to compete
the global marketplace in the future.
The summit of the Americas is very important. It is important
to know how much protection there will be for the social rights
of our workers in a number of precarious sectors of economic
activity in Canada and in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the
debate. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
The Americas is one of the most dynamic regions in the world.
With its 800 million people, even though we are not but one-sixth
of the world's population, we account for more than one-third of
the world's total economic activity.
1305
At about $11 trillion U.S., the combined gross domestic product
of the Americas is greater than that of the European Union. No
wonder then that leaders of the western hemisphere believed in
the potential of the Americas. They knew that their countries
could work together more effectively on every front, social,
political and economic, to promote democracy, development and
growth.
At the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994, leaders endorsed a
declaration and a plan of action that expressed their common
commitment to strengthening democracy and creating even greater
prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures
to improve health care, increase access to quality education,
protect biodiversity, collective action against such scourges as
drugs and corruption, and expanding and deepening dialogue with
civil society on regional priorities.
At the second summit in Santiago in 1998, this co-operation was
carried forward in detail. Once again leaders endorsed action to
support the development of democratic institutions, protection of
human rights, and enhanced transparency and respect for the rule
of law. They gave specific instructions to begin the process of
negotiating the free trade areas of the Americas.
Once it is completed, the FTAA will be the world's largest free
trade area. In short, the summit of the Americas process offers
numerous opportunities to further enhance Canada's openness to
the world and to the western hemisphere in particular.
The FTAA is one of the tangible opportunities on the economic
front, with its potential for enhanced market access for Canadian
exports. If there is one sector where new access could lead to
significant benefits for Canada and Canadian businesses, it is in
the service sector.
The service sector is a key engine of Canada's economy. It is
responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's GDP, almost
three-quarters of our employment with 10.5 million people and
nearly 90% of new job creation in Canada. It is leading the
transformation of the Canadian economy into a knowledge based
economy.
Many employees in the service sector are highly educated and
enjoy well above average earnings. Services are at the heart of
Canada's innovation. For example, communications, financial
services and technical business services are among the most
innovative industries in Canada. We are a world leader.
As a trading nation Canada counts on its service exports to
strengthen our prosperity. Not counting Canada's direct
investment abroad in service companies, Canada is the 12th
largest exporter of services in the world, exporting $51.8
billion in 1999 alone. Canadian companies like SNC-Lavallin,
Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro Quebec are among world leaders in
their field and their expertise is sought across the hemisphere.
Service exports only account for 12% of total Canadian exports.
Canada's trade in services is increasing at a much faster pace
than our trade in goods and shows tremendous potential. Given
the importance of trade in our economy, we could say without fear
of exaggeration that improving market access for our service
providers abroad is vital to sustaining our prosperity.
The argument for supporting Canada's service exports is
particularly eloquent when it comes to the Americas. Canada's
commercial service exports to the FTAA countries, including the
U.S. and Mexico, were worth about $1.9 billion in 1998, up from
under $800 million in 1993, growing at an average annual rate of
19% during that period.
Countries such as Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela,
Columbia and Brazil are all key existing or potential export
markets for Canadian service providers.
1310
I draw the attention of the House to three sectors in
particular: telecommunications, financial services and
engineering services, all of which are found in the greater
Toronto area, some in my riding of Thornhill, and right across
the country.
The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous
success exporting services valued at over $2 billion each year
and employing some 104,000 Canadians. As a consequence, since
1993 the sector has been growing at a rate of just over 9% per
year.
Canadian exporters of telecommunication services still face
market access and regulatory restrictions in many countries of
the hemisphere, in part due to the presence of telecommunication
monopolies in several Central and Latin American countries; the
lack of transparency, predictability and timeliness in the
process of awarding operating permits and licences; or
prohibitive fees for licences and interconnection. This hurts
our businesses. Reducing such barriers would significantly
increase export opportunities for Canada's growing
telecommunication companies.
In recent years Canada's financial institutions have been very
active in Central and Latin America. We have a number of
examples. Scotiabank is active in Argentina and Chile. In fact
in Chile it is the seventh largest bank. In El Salvador,
Scotiabank has 33 branches in that country alone, but it is also
active in Brazil, Costa Rica, Belize, Guyana, Panama, Peru,
Uruguay and Venezuela.
Another good example is the National Bank which recently teamed
up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean
partner to form the CorpBanca consortium to purchase banking
institutions in South American countries.
The same is true for our insurance sector. Our life and health
insurance companies have identified Latin America as a growth
market for the future.
Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned is in the
world of engineering and other related services. Canada is
currently the third largest exporter of engineering services. The
high calibre of Canadian engineers is internationally recognized.
Business opportunities are significant especially in Central and
Latin America where the expertise of Canadian engineers in
resource based and energy related as well as infrastructure
projects is in high demand.
In this regard Hydro-Quebec's recent acquisition of Chile's
Transelec, which owns 50% of the Chilean power transmission
lines, is a good example of the type of business opportunities in
the countries the western hemisphere have to offer.
That is why Canada is pursuing and actively participating in the
service negotiations under the free trade area of the Americas.
Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a comprehensive
set of rules in trade and services under FTAA. Canada's general
objective in the service negotiations is to seek improved market
access for Canadian service providers under a transparent and
predictable rules based regime.
In the elaboration of FTAA rules on services Canada will be
guided by its existing rights and obligations under NAFTA, the
Canada-Chile free trade agreement and the WTO general agreement
on trade and services.
Contrary to what some critics have said, these objectives could
be achieved without putting at risk those things which all
Canadians value and cherish. As is now the case in other trade
agreements, the FTAA services chapter will allow countries to
file exceptions for those measures they wish to maintain
irrespective of some of the FTAA obligations. In addition, and
this is extremely important, nothing in these negotiations will
jeopardize our public health and our public education systems.
They are simply not negotiable.
I have shown in my remarks how world competitive Canadian
telecommunications, financial services and engineering services
are, and that is only to name three sectors. I could go on and
on, but I do want to share my time.
In conclusion, the countries of the western hemisphere could
prosper as they learn to work together and be good economic
partners with Canada and with each other.
1315
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister made a very fine speech but she did not address the key
message in the opposition day motion of the Bloc Quebecois which
was demanding to see the actual text that is being negotiated on
our behalf.
The crux of the matter is that negotiations are taking place
behind closed doors. We have some assurances that certain things
are not being negotiated but, frankly, we do not have a very good
record to draw from in previous negotiations.
I will give one example. Most Canadians are reeling with shock
and horror over spiralling home heating costs right now. When
they go to their government and ask for some kind of relief, some
kind of preferential pricing, the government tells them that it
is sorry but it cannot do anything because it traded everything
away in the last round of bargaining in the NAFTA agreement.
We traded away our economic sovereignty, which is what Canadians
are afraid will happen again. What are we trading away this
time? What is going on behind closed doors? Why can we not see
the text of the document so that we could put people's minds at
ease?
If in fact what the minister said is absolutely true, that
Canada would never trade away certain things because we just
would not do that, why did we willingly trade away our economic
sovereignty in the area of energy pricing? There is a recent
tangible experience that is still very bitter in the mouths of
Canadians, especially now as they are opening their energy bills
for their home heating oil.
Would the hon. minister explain the reluctance on her
government's part to release the actual text of the negotiations
so that the minds of Canadians can be put at ease.
Hon. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I would say to the
member and to those to whom I have listened carefully that it is
important to tell Canadians that they can access all of the
information regarding Canada's position during these negotiations
on the website. It is open, clear and there for all to see.
I do not think there has ever been a process that has been as
open to encourage Canadians to participate and to be informed.
The fearmongering and the rhetoric I have heard does a disservice
to the important work that is being done to negotiate agreements
that will benefit Canadian businesses and industries.
Anyone who has an interest can plug into the website, get the
information and then let us know what they think about the
position that the Government of Canada is taking. That is good
government, that is openness, that is transparency and that is in
the interests of all Canadians, particularly Canadians who want
to prosper and have jobs for themselves, their children and
future generations.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for putting forward her
position on the trade issues. I know she is very well-versed on
those as well as on several other issues in the House. As
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, she has a fair amount of
authority and has used her authority to appoint several judges in
the country, which is how it should be.
I know she is also very capable of rooting out bigots, racists
and extremists. She made it very clear in the last election that
she has those capabilities. It is always a very touchy subject
when other people mention that topic but the minister does not
seem to hold back when it comes to those particular issues when
she is directing them across the floor.
The minister made a recent appointment of Mr. Sekora who was
quoted in the Vancouver Sun on December 13 as blaming his
loss specifically on members of B.C.—
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is with reluctance that I interject and interrupt my
colleague, but as the parliamentary secretary charged with
organizing the debate, or trying to make sure that we have a full
debate at least on this side, I am straining to understand any
relevance whatsoever of the member's comments to the motion that
is on the floor.
1320
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I think the Speaker
has often shown a lot of latitude in terms of the type questions
and comments that are made during questions and comments, but I
ask the hon. member to get to the question because we have run
out of time.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I will get to the question
right now. The issues are Mr. Sekora and the appointment process
and what is deemed acceptable and not acceptable when accusations
are hurled from the particular minister and in the way she makes
her decisions.
Mr. Sekora said that his defeat was assured by 8,000 angry leaky
condo owners in the riding and thousands more ethnic Asian voters
who do not like to declare what they own and were upset over
changes to foreign asset—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Would the hon. member
put the question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, is this the kind of
person, I ask the minister, that she wants in her cabinet or in
her arrangement of citizenship judges?
Hon. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I tell viewers who are
watching the debate on the hemispheric free trade agreement that
the question asked bears no relation to the debate whatever.
However, I should like to say that the former member to whom the
member opposite refers served as a member of his community for 28
years as a city councillor, school trustee and mayor, and
honourably in this House. With that kind of community service,
he is exactly the kind of individual to whom we are looking to
serve our community in other capacities as well.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am a little nervous to rise because I may find out I
have made some appointment in my riding that the member opposite
will choose to attack me on. I lack such power so I am sure I
will be safe from any slings and arrows from the opposite side. I
admit that I am culpable. I too have done things in life which I
ought not to have done. There is no helping me, just like in the
Anglican prayer book.
While we are passing to the subject matter of debate which I
think members are interested in, I should like to address four
issues we have been talking about in the House today.
The first is the consultation issue. The second is the merits
of the FTAA. The third is one raised by the NDP regularly, which
is the loss of sovereignty, and then I should like to talk about
the merits of the particular motion.
On the consultation issue, we have heard a great deal this
morning about the problems of consultation and the lack of it.
Other members have addressed it, but I should like to speak to it
from a different dimension. I should like to speak to it as
someone who has sat on the foreign affairs committee and has been
involved in international trade matters now for seven years of my
parliamentary career. I frankly could say to the House, and I
think most open-minded members would agree with me, that never
before has there been a history of open consultation as much as
there has been with the government on all these issues.
Let us cast our minds back to the time when the MAI was a hot
debate. What did we do? The government asked the international
trade committee of the House to examine it, to report back to the
House and to discuss it before the negotiations.
On this issue we hear: we do not know what we are seeing; this
is all opaque; it is a big secret; and nobody knows what is going
on. What did we have in the WTO report that the committee worked
on last year? We had discussions about FTAA. Witnesses came
from all over the country and discussed it with us. Members of
the House discussed it. The subcommittee prepared a report on
the FTAA, discussed it with members of the opposition and heard
the public. The public has been engaged in consultations with
the department for several years.
As has been pointed out, the negotiating positions are on the
website. People can exchange points of view. There will be a
parallel summit. I suggest to members in all honesty that there
has never been as open a process. Members opposite that they be
given the text of the agreement. They know that is not possible.
They are experienced people. They have all been in business.
They have all been in labour negotiations. They are all
intelligent people.
1325
They know and the public of Canada knows that when we go into a
negotiation with 30 other countries, the 30 other countries have
something to say as well. If they say that the agreement should
not be released, we cannot release it against the will of our
trading partners.
The Canadian government has shown a willingness to share the
text of the agreement, but other governments have said no. Until
the agreement is final we are not in a position to do so. I am
confident that once the agreement is final, it will be open in
Canada and open for discussion and review by members and others
in the normal way.
The consultation process domestically has been extraordinary. In
addition, internationally the Government of Canada has been at
the forefront of bringing together an interparliamentary forum of
the Americas. I am proud to say that it will be sitting in this
Chamber when we break in the month of March.
In this very room we will have representatives, not governmental
representatives but parliamentarians from all across the
Americas: South America, Central America and the Caribbean
countries. They will be sitting in this room discussing the
issues we are discussing today: Will free trade in the Americas
contribute to our prosperity; how do we preserve our environment,
how do we preserve the diversity of our culture?
I hope all members of the House and all parties will be
participating in this important debate launched by the Government
of Canada as a recognition that these issues touch deeply our
social programs. The issues of free trade and economic
integration touch us. They touch our daily lives and they touch
the daily lives of other citizens throughout the Americas.
Do we wish to run away from them, as would be suggested by the
NDP? Or, do we wish to embrace them in a positive way which will
bring prosperity for all of the Americas, not just for ourselves
but for everyone, and in a way which allows us to consult with
everyone? That is what is happening in the area of consultation.
I urge members opposite who are interested in this issue to
speak to their whips and get involved. They should find out
about the interparliamentary forum which will sit here and
participate in these discussions, not just with us but with
democratically elected representatives from all of the Americas,
all of whom share our preoccupations and our concerns about this
agreement.
The minister's point is excellent. The agreement is bringing
prosperity. If we did not have international trade, we would not
have the city of Toronto of today. It is entirely dependent upon
it. It is dependent upon it in the financial services sector, in
the mining industry and in practically every area of economic
life of the city I am very proud to represent in a riding I
treasure.
Members know that 40% of our GDP is dependent on exports. Some
25% or 30% is dependent on imports. I can say to every one of my
citizens, as I walk down the streets of my riding, that about 60
cents of every dollar in their pockets are somehow related to the
trade in which the country is engaged. They know that.
We are trying to craft the best agreement we can. We are doing
that and we are trying to bring in other foreign countries to
enable them to share in our prosperity. I suggest that is a
generous thing we ought to be doing.
We could focus on other issues. Our colleagues in the NDP, the
Bloc and the Alliance are no different from the colleagues on our
side of the House. We are all concerned about the environment,
human rights, labour standards, diversity of culture, the
distribution of wealth and equity.
That is what we do. We are politicians. We are in the business
of trying to make sure that society is an harmonious operating
system. That is what will be done at the level of the Americas.
That is what this engagement is all about. It is an exciting,
dynamic and wonderful opportunity. One of the great
opportunities is the free trade area of the Americas.
As members will recall we did a study of the WTO, a great
institution, in committee on it last year before going into the
famous negotiations in Seattle and found that it is grappling
with these problems on a global scale.
The FTAA allows us to grapple with these problems on the scale
of the Americas. We will be able to deal with human rights, for
example, with our colleagues in the Americas because the FTAA is
only one part of the negotiations that will take place at the
summit of the Americas.
1330
The Prime Minister will not only be speaking to trade agreements
with the other leaders of the Americas. He will be speaking to
strengthening democracy and to good governance in all our
countries. He will be speaking to issues of social justice and
equity in our countries. He will be speaking to issues of human
rights.
Let us not pretend that because the FTAA is there we do not have
a framework for human rights in the Americas. In this hemisphere
there are dozens of forums for discussing human rights. There is
the OAS general assembly, the Inter-American Human Rights
Commission, the inter-American court, and working groups on human
rights. Canada is engaged in all of these groups. We actively
participate in them. The FTAA will enable us to get a better
handle on these groups and to work with our trading partners in
the Americas to advance those causes. Why would we stand in its
way if we believe in that?
This morning I had the opportunity to meet with a very
interesting group called the sustainable cities initiative. This
group of Canadians is bringing cities together with private
industry to go to developing countries and work with them on
environmental concerns in their cities.
Where are the contracts they are doing at the moment? They are
in Salvador, Brazil; San José, Costa Rica; Cordoba, Argentina;
and Valparaiso, Chile. Why? It is because these are countries
of the Americas. They are logical places that small and medium
size businesses can work with and link with, as we create a
matrix throughout the Americas that deals with human rights,
culture and economics on a mutually advantageous system. That is
what this is all about. That is what the debate should be about,
instead of what I hear from the NDP over and over again about our
loss of sovereignty.
How have we lost our sovereignty? These agreements are entered
into by freely elected democratic governments. The sovereign
will of the Government of Canada, elected by the people of
Canada, chooses to go into the agreement.
For example, would members of the NDP rip up the Kyoto agreement
because we lost our sovereignty by entering into it? No. They
like the Kyoto agreement. We must do that if it is something
they are in favour of. Would they rip up the ILO? I have heard
from Bob White and the NDP over and over again that the ILO is a
wonderful and important institution. The ILO interferes with
sovereignty. It tells states what do. It says that there must
be certain labour standards and that they cannot do this or that.
Every country that enters into any international agreement loses
some degree of its sovereignty, but it pools its sovereignty in
an international way to benefit overall. That is what free trade
of the Americas is about. That is what the summit of the
Americas is about. That is why I think the resolution at this
time is misinformed and ill-advised.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with my hon.
colleague on the foreign affairs committee when it studied the
FTAA.
Most government speakers are stating the benefits of FTAA: what
it will do for Canada and how it will proceed. I agree there are
potential benefits out there. I do not agree with the position
the NDP takes. We agree with the government that there are
advantages to the FTAA, but the question is: Why cannot the
agreement be debated in the House?
The government talks about its website with all the information
regarding the negotiations. We are saying that when the
agreement is finalized it should be brought to the House. The
House should be allowed to debate it because we as elected
representatives want the ability to speak to that agreement in
the House. Statements should be made on that agreement and, as a
matter of fact, on all international agreements.
Why is my colleague opposed to bringing that international
agreement into the House for debate?
Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question because that is the part of my speech I did not
actually get to.
I raised earlier with one of our colleagues in the Bloc that I
respect the ongoing debate.
1335
The way the system works in our country at this time is that the
government negotiates and ratifies international agreements, and
when they require implementation in the House, they are brought
to the House for the legislation to be passed. At that time we
have an opportunity to discuss it, as we did with the WTO and
with all other international agreements.
What is being asked here is that before ratification the
government should involve the House or have a debate in the
House. This suggests, if I may, with all humility and respect
for the opposition member's position, that we are, as the U.S.
congress is, directing the government as to how to conduct
international affairs, which does represent a substantial change
in our practice today.
It is a change that is happening. As I said, in the case of the
MAI we had a committee that examined the MAI before it had even
been negotiated. There are opportunities for the members to be
engaged. I do not think that this resolution is necessary to do
that.
The debate will go on. It will be in our committees. We will
have an opportunity to discuss this on all sides of the House.
When the time comes and the agreement has been put in place, the
government will bring it forward to the House with the necessary
implementing legislation and we will then have an opportunity to
deal with it. That is my position and has always been the
position of the government. I think the way in which we have
done it in the House is the way in which it is in the best
interests of the Canadian public.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to
tell the hon. member that the MAI was referred to the foreign
affairs commission long after the texts were released on the
Internet by a group of American citizens, thus creating an
uproar, particularly among western countries, but also
worldwide.
It is because of actions taken by civil society that we were
able to have that debate here. What would the hon. member think
of a union that would not ask its members to ratify the
collective agreement negotiated for them? Would he not say that
this sort of thing would not fly?
In our motion, we are simply asking that a basic principle of
democracy be respected. I am taking this opportunity to ask the
hon. member to clarify a statement made by the Prime Minister of
Canada to the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States on February 5:
By the same token, we understand that it cannot be about trade
alone. It is not just a contract among corporations and
governments. First and foremost, it is an agreement among—and
about—people. It must be holistic in nature. It must include—
I want to stress the word “include”.
Based on that statement from the Prime Minister of Canada, am I
to understand that the Canadian government supports an agreement
on the free trade zone of the Americas that would include
provisions to protect workers and the environment in particular?
Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, if I understood them correctly,
these are two excellent questions.
I agree with the member that the text of the MAI was made
public, which is why the civil society got involved. But the
civil society is also involved in the debate on free trade in
the Americas without having seen the texts beforehand.
The problem with the MAI is that the text that was made public
was not the official text. It was a series of proposals put
forward by a number of governments. It is always the same
problem with this kind of negotiations. There is always someone
who says “Here is the text”, but it is not the real text. It is
only a proposal brought forward by a government. It is better to
see the text before we get involved. That is my answer to the
first question.
To answer the second question, I think we should address the
issues of the environment, human rights and the protection of
workers as part of our negotiations with all the Americas. These
issues are not addressed only in the free trade agreement, but
in all our negotiations with the Americas.
This is why the summit of the Americas is so important. It deals
not only with international trade, but also with integration and
the welfare of all the citizens of our hemisphere.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the debate launched today by my hon. colleague from
Joliette is crucial to the future of the people of Quebec and
the people of Canada as well as all the inhabitants of the
western hemisphere, the three Americas.
1340
When everything we look at, read, listen to, eat and perhaps
what will matter for us tomorrow is determined around
international tables, it is fairly easy to understand why Quebec
must become a sovereign state. Without sovereignty, Quebec will
never, under the present system, have a place at these
international tables, and that is regrettable.
Until we have sovereignty—which will come, I am positive—the Bloc
Quebecois has taken a fairly clear and innovative position,
which I will reveal now.
We think the provinces have to be directly involved in the
negotiations at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City,
because the issues to be discussed there—including cultural
diversity—are too important, too fundamental, to the very
existence of the people of Quebec to be simply left in the
hands of the federal government alone.
Unfortunately, and this is somewhat predictable given the closed
minds of our colleagues opposite, the government is obstinately
refusing to give what, to a growing number of Canadians and
Quebecers, is perfectly natural.
We have to find an original way to involve the provinces in the
negotiations, which, in many cases, will be on issues that are
fundamentally and exclusively provincial matters according to
the Constitution of Canada.
For many years now, the premiers have been unanimous in their
demand to be included in the negotiation of international
treaties concerning their spheres of jurisdiction.
We suggest the following. The team of Canadian negotiators, who
will be in attendance at the summit of the Americas, should
naturally report to the Minister for International Trade, but
also to the provincial ministers for international trade, in the
case of the provinces that have such a minister, so that they
can keep an eye on the negotiators.
So, a joint federal-provincial committee could be set up to
ensure that the negotiators respected the priorities set not
only by the federal government, but by the provincial
governments as well.
To me, it seems inconceivable that federal negotiators, who
answer to the federal Minister for International Trade only,
could make commitments on behalf of Canada as a whole, including
its territorial divisions, in areas over which this House has no
jurisdiction.
Our first suggestion is that we establish a federal-provincial
committee responsible for supervising the work of federal
negotiators. The second is that we should allow those provinces
that are interested to appoint a member of the negotiating team
so they can be directly involved in these negotiations which, I
repeat, are crucial.
Once an agreement is reached, it will be important to get the
approval of this House, to obtain our approval as elected
representatives of the people. Not only will this parliament,
this House, have to be involved in the ratification process, but
so will the various provincial legislative assemblies.
It would be absolutely essential to ensure that agreements are
tabled and debated in parliament and approved by resolution
before ratification of the treaty by Canada.
If I may, I would like to go back to the issue of approval by
the provinces and perhaps look at what is being done elsewhere.
In the few minutes we have left, I suggest we look at the model
so often mentioned by the Minister for International Trade,
namely the European model.
1345
His colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is
also trying to talk about Europe. So we will. If that is what
they want to talk about, fine.
In Europe, the economic commission for Europe, which negotiates
for the 15 member countries of the European union, must obtain a
clearly defined mandate from those countries before undertaking
any negotiations.
Before actual negotiations begin, there is a debate. There must
be agreement on the mandate that will be given to the economic
commission for Europe in negotiating trade agreements.
Once negotiators have arrived at an agreement, the commission
must go back to the principals, the member countries of the
European economic union. The member countries must decide
whether or not to approve that agreement.
I therefore make the following suggestion: could we not consider
the team of Canadian negotiators to be agents not just of the federal
government but of the governments of the 10 other provinces,
and have a system in which the provinces, which are the
principals, as well as the provincial legislatures and the
federal parliament ratify the results obtained by their agents,
in this case the team of Canadian trade negotiators?
This direct involvement of the provinces is vital because it
will facilitate the implementation of agreements which, I remind
the House, will impact on a number of areas of exclusively
provincial jurisdiction. The provinces, which will have been
full participants in the process from the outset, will more
easily be able to join forces and ensure that the ratification
process goes ahead even more quickly.
One of the most frequently heard criticisms of globalization
concerns the lack, too often expressed, of control by members of the
public over a phenomenon which is increasingly having an impact
on us.
When a youngster clicks on a mouse and surfs on the Internet,
when a retired man checks the return on his retirement funds,
when a farmer milks his cows and plans the sale of his products
on the international markets, we can say that they are all
affected by globalization. This is not just pure imagination.
There are very down to earth applications.
With the procedures I have mentioned, we would not only avoid
the discussion of trade agreements behind closed doors by heads
of state and heads of government or their ministers, but we would
also involve the main representatives of the civil society, and I
am referring to the members of the House of Commons and of the
various provincial legislatures in Canada.
I will conclude. Through the creation of a committee to
supervise the Canadian negotiators, the involvement of interested
provinces in the appointment of Canadian negotiators, the
approval of these agreements by the Canadian parliament and
legislatures, and a close involvement of the states through
parliament and the various legislatures, we will succeed not only
in restoring public confidence in the politicians, but also in
making sure the Canadian constitution and provincial
jurisdictions are respected.
This is the best procedure possible, short of Quebec becoming a
sovereign state. When that day comes, Quebec's interests will be
really well protected by our representatives in these
negotiations where decisions are made that affect us in our daily
life.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
agree with many of the remarks made by my hon. colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois. I know he comes from a legal background and has
been involved with many rounds of bargaining and negotiations.
1350
I think this is what he and I share. We both find it quite
galling that the players at the table of the FTAA do not want
freely elected governments involved at this stage. They clearly
will not allow it. They are barring it. In fact it goes further
than that. The former head of the WTO, Ruggiero, made this
startling comment. He said “There is a surplus of democracy in
the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital
and investment”.
There are people out there in the world who actually believe
there is a surplus of democracy, and that freely elected
governments and freely elected representatives like those of us
in this room have no business at a high level table where they
are bargaining trade deals. That is offensive to all Canadians.
Surely, all people in Quebec and everywhere in the country should
be offended by that.
I would like the hon. member to talk a bit about this. We are
facing a home heating fuel crisis in this country as we speak.
When Canadians came to their government to ask for some relief
and begging their elected representatives to do something to
provide some relief for them, they were told “Gee, sorry we
cannot help you”. We traded away any ability to influence
pricing in the last trade agreement with NAFTA. Some idiot on
our behalf gave it away, sold the farm and sold away our economic
sovereignty and our ability to dictate a domestic market pricing
for home heating fuel.
I ask the hon. member to expand on the impact that that may have
in the province of Quebec and elsewhere.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, first I wish to thank my
colleague, the member for Winnipeg, for his question.
I am one of those who believe that states, governments, elected
houses of representatives still have an important role to play in
terms of globalization, provided they are willing to do so.
I believe that the best system of checks and balances against
uncontrolled globalization is more democracy, more power, not
only for civil society in general but also for assemblies elected
by the population.
With regard to the more specific issue of heating oil, I believe
that the error was made by this government, which decided to
improvise, because an election was coming. In order to avoid any
discussion of the issue during the election campaign, it decided
to sign cheques for almost everyone, haphazardly, in order to
keep things calm and to be able to say, after the election, that
it had done what had to be done.
The problem does not stem from NAFTA or from the Free Trade
Agreement, but from this government's lack of determination to
deal with the problems of concentration and lack of competition
in the oil industry.
Instead of acting, the government decided to let the Conference
Board of Canada review the situation, knowing very well that large oil
companies are major contributors to the conference board. This
was the same as asking the industry to self-regulate. In any
industry that self-regulates, there is a risk of monopolistic or
anti-competitive practices.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the member of the Bloc Quebecois
with regard to the protection of our public health care system.
[English]
Many organizations, including The Council of Canadians, have
made preliminary investigations based on material available and
have concluded that the trade negotiations committee of the FTAA,
led by Canada, is proposing an expanded services agreement in
this hemispheric pact.
The concern has been raised that these powers being proposed
under this agreement, in conjunction with discussions at the WTO
pursuant to GATS, will give unequalled new rights to the
transnational corporations of the hemisphere to compete for and
even challenge every publicly funded service of its government,
including health care, education, social security, culture and
environmental protection.
I think that is a legitimate concern. I would like to hear the
position of the Bloc on that matter.
1355
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. First, I
would like to know the sources used by the Council of Canadians,
because I have not seen the texts. This is one of the reasons we
brought forward this motion today. We have asked the government
on several occasions if we could have access not only to Canada's
initial negotiating position, but also to the working texts of
the nine sectoral groups on which the free trade area of the
Americas will be built.
I agree with the member on the importance of having this
information right now. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will tell
that to your caucus and to your colleague, the Minister for
International Trade. We need your support.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in this debate initiated by my
eminent colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, whom I have
known for years.
I have had the opportunity to work with him in the past on the
progress of trade negotiations, including the GATT, which has now
become the World Trade Organization.
In the first part of my presentation, I want to briefly discuss
the issue of trust. I am stating the obvious when I say that
nowadays, whenever an international meeting takes place, whether
in Seattle, Geneva or elsewhere—and Quebec City will be no
exception—incredibly huge rallies are held. One has to wonder
about these large protests.
There have always been protests, but they used to be smaller and
less frequent than they have been in the past three or four
years. Why are so many people now marching in the streets? We
have to realize that these people are not all anarchists. Some
groups represent the poor in our society, while others take an
interest in issues such as education and health. Protesters come
from various backgrounds, but most are ordinary citizens who are
concerned about what is being negotiated behind closed doors, on
their behalf, but in their absence and without any warning to
them about what is coming.
One also has to wonder about the voter participation rate.
People, and these people are probably the same ones who wonder
about international negotiations, cannot see why they should
bother to vote for a representative who ought to be speaking on
their behalf, discussing fundamental issues affecting their
future and informing them of the outcome of these debates, but
who, because of the lack of transparency of the negotiation
process at the international, bilateral, trilateral or
multilateral level with 38 countries in the case of the Americas,
does not inform them of what is being discussed, even though it
concerns their future and issues as important as education,
health, the environment and so on.
These people do not have anyone speaking on their behalf, even
if they vote for a representative in a democratic fashion. Civil
society does not have a direct spokesperson on whom it can rely.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have at least seven minutes
left after oral question period, when we resume debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
RURAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FAIR
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that on
February 16 and 17, that is tomorrow and Saturday, in East Angus
in the beautiful riding of Compton—Stanstead, the federal
government will be holding its first rural programs and services
fair.
This project is a new initiative based on the concept of showing
the role federal government institutions play in people's day to
day lives and improving communications between the public and the
government.
The project dovetails perfectly with a number of government
initiatives such as the Canadian Rural Partnership, Service
Canada and the Canada Information Office.
As well, by providing the population with the skills for
electronic access to the various departments, the event will make
a truly concrete contribution to promoting the initiative of a
connected Canada.
1400
[English]
Once again we see the government not only talking but taking
real action in rural Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
despite the misinformation and defamation thrown at us by the
Liberals, the Canadian Alliance achieved huge gains in the last
election.
In Quebec we gained over 200,000 votes. The PCs lost 76% of
their support in Quebec. In Ontario we were the only party to
increase our popular vote, by 18.5%. The NDP and PCs each went
down about 26%. Across Canada our support went up by over 30%
while the NDP went down by 24% and the PCs by 36%.
Despite a lower voter turnout we gained 764,000 votes. We
elected 10% more members to the House of Commons while the
Conservatives and NDP elected 50% fewer than in 1997.
I say to Alliance members and Canadians across the country, let
us work hard to build on this success so that we will win the
next election.
* * *
EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to rise today in the House to congratulate the
musicians of Atlantic Canada on the occasion of the 13th annual
East Coast Music Awards in Charlottetown last weekend.
I take this opportunity to specifically congratulate award
winners Julian Austin of New Brunswick, who won the award for
Country Artist of the Year and the LaPointes, a musical group
from Fredericton whose inspired sound won them the award for
gospel group of the year. I also congratulate Joel, Andy, Jeff,
Janice LaPointe MacLaughlin, Jeep, and proud parents Bill and
Faith LaPointe.
Music has long been important in defining who we are in Atlantic
Canada, and it is always gratifying to see so many of our artists
achieve this kind of recognition. I congratulate all the
honoured artists.
* * *
EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
proud member from Prince Edward Island I too would like to
congratulate my fellow Islanders on the tremendous success of the
East Coast Music Awards held last Sunday. We are very proud of
the many Island nominees who showcased the exceptional musical
talent that Prince Edward Island has to offer.
I especially congratulate: Lennie Gallant from Rustico for
three awards: male artist, album of the year and roots
traditional; Theresa Doyle, who won the award for children's
artist group of the year; and the Jive Kings for the award for
jazz artist group of the year.
As many members know, Prince Edward Island hosted the awards
this year and by all accounts it was a major success. I
congratulate all the organizers and volunteers who showed the
rest of Canada that Prince Edward Island really knows how to pull
off a first class event.
* * *
SCOTT MCKOWEN
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today
to congratulate Mr. Scott Mckowen, an artist from Stratford,
Ontario. Mr. Mckowen was chosen by the Royal Canadian Mint to
design the commemorative silver coin series, which took a year to
complete.
This year's coin series will reflect the 50th anniversary of the
National Ballet of Canada. Mr. Mckowen's design is an image of
the first play ever performed by the company, Les
Sylphides, which was performed on November 12, 1951.
Mr. Mckowen has plenty of experience working in the theatre
industry. His business has been designing brochures and theatre
posters for various theatres. Mr. Mckowen's work has also
appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine in 1993 and was
displayed in an exhibition at the Canadian embassy in Washington,
D.C. in 1996.
I congratulate him on an excellent work of art for all Canadians
to enjoy.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
The SE2 project will seriously harm our precious environment in
the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland of British Columbia.
Virtually every individual organization and the public are
against it. In fact, other than the private American corporation
SE2 and a few strike it rich entrepreneurs, everyone is against
it.
Conspicuous by their absence, however, are the federal Minister
of the Environment and his department. One would think that they
would be the first to say no.
When we defeat the project, and we will, the minister will claim
he had a lot to do with it. A minister who promises that he will
help citizens of British Columbia fight against corporate America
during the federal election and then crawls under his
environmentally unfriendly rock afterward has no credibility
whatsoever.
1405
Would the environment minister rather stay under his rock while
the emissions gather on top of it, or stand up and fight for what
is right and never go under the rock in the first place? Or, is
he simply a political coward?
* * *
ROBERT DOUGLAS JOHNSTON
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 2 of this year Robert Douglas Johnston, a resident of
Brooklin in my riding of Whitby—Ajax, was presented with a Medal
of Bravery in a ceremony at Rideau Hall.
In February 1998 Robert Johnston saved an 11 year old from
drowning. Mr. Johnston was walking his dog when he witnessed two
boys fall through the ice of a pond. The first boy, closer to
shore, managed to pull himself out. The second boy, however, was
unable to save himself.
Without hesitation, Mr. Johnston ran the 18 metres that
separated him from the young victim. When the ice began to
crack, he crawled along the thin surface until he neared the
hole. As he attempted to grab hold of the boy, the ice collapsed
and he too fell into the freezing water.
Undeterred, he grabbed the victim and, despite being completely
submerged several times, managed to bring the boy to the edge.
Unable to push the young victim on to the breaking ice, Mr.
Johnston made several unsuccessful attempts to lift himself up.
He was successful eventually and was able to haul the boy out of
the water and carry him to safety.
Members of the House congratulate Robert Johnston, a very
worthwhile recipient of the Governor General's Medal of Bravery.
In the face of great personal danger, he conducted himself in a
completely selfless manner.
* * *
[Translation]
15 FÉVRIER 1839
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after a tug-of-war with Telefilm Canada that lasted
several years, the long-awaited film by Pierre Falardeau, 15
février 1839, has finally made it to the silver screen.
This film chronicles the last 24 hours in the lives of two
condemned men, Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier and Charles
Hindelang. More than that, the film pays homage to the 12 men of
Lower Canada who met their deaths on the scaffold at the hands of
the vengeful British conquerors, and to all the other men and
women who were victims of shame and ostracism, those who fought
and were wounded or killed on the battlefield, those who
languished in English jails or in cruel exile for daring to hold
high the torch of freedom, justice and democracy.
Three days before de Lorimier was hanged, he wrote to a friend
expressing the hope that the unfortunate who died on the scaffold
to win back his oppressed country would sometimes be recalled to
mind.
He did not, perhaps, fully realize that, at the very instant the
trap door of the scaffold dropped to plunge him to his death, his
name and the names of his unfortunate companions in death would
go down in indelible letters in the glorious pantheon of immortal
heroes.
* * *
CANADA'S NATIONAL FLAG DAY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
this, Canada's National Flag Day, perhaps you will permit me to
cite the benefits of the citizenship we share as Canadians.
This year's festivities focus on our country's diversity. This
is a particularly happy choice, in view of the way our country
has developed since we adopted our current flag 36 years ago.
[English]
We are fortunate that Canada can claim a level of multicultural
diversity without parallel in the world. As we continue to work
to strengthen the federation, National Flag Day gives us a prime
opportunity to reflect on this vital and continuing part of our
heritage.
I know all members will join the constituents of Hamilton
Mountain and me in reaffirming our commitment to Canada and the
values that our country and flag represent.
* * *
NATIONAL FLAG OF CANADA DAY
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
in the House to recognize National Flag of Canada Day and to draw
attention to the song Our Great Canadian Flag. This song
was written to honour the Canadian flag on this day.
The Canadian flag song was inspired by three very patriotic
constituents of mine: Marjorie Ranger who wrote the lyrics and
Ron and James Resmer who composed and recorded the music.
National Flag of Canada Day gives all Canadians the opportunity
to celebrate the most visible and recognizable symbol of Canada.
The Canadian flag song complements that recognition at a time
when the burden of national unity and the need for symbols were
never more pressing. The song eloquently states what we as
Canadians believe:
Up in the Great Canadian Skies
Our Flag soars High and Free
As far to the East as to the West
It flies with Dignity
Portrayed by the Maple Leaf
Red and White combined
It reminds me of our Heritage
In this Noble Country of mine
* * *
1410
[Translation]
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of
events are currently taking place in the field of the arts and
culture.
First, there is the race for the Bourse Rideau, which will be
held between February 11 and 16 in Ottawa. This event gives
francophone artists in Canada an opportunity to link up with the
public and the cultural industry.
I invite Canadians to pay particular attention to the various
activities, including the February 13 performance to be broadcast
on Radio-Canada radio on February 17. We look forward to the
performances of Annette Champagne, Jean-Guy “Chuck” Labelle,
Michel Thériault and Barachois.
I would like to mention the federal government's involvement. It
collaborated with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française,
the Bourse Rideau and Musicaction. This is a winning
partnership, which testifies to the virtues of healthy
co-operation.
In closing, I would like to congratulate Quebec on its
initiative in holding the Semaine québécoise des arts et de la
culture. We continue to encourage these activities, which
promote artistic expression in Canada.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
situation facing Canadian students is worsening. Rising tuition,
increasing debt and now privatization are all threatening the
accessibility and affordability of post-secondary education.
Students in P.E.I. recently marched on their provincial
minister's office because high tuition means many Islanders
cannot afford to go to university. We need a national tuition
freeze, following the lead of B.C. and Quebec. We need a
national grants program, not savings schemes that favour those
already with resources.
However, instead of accessibility we get privatization. Why has
the federal government remained silent in the face of Alberta's
decision to allow the first for profit, private, degree granting
university? It is an outrage. First the feds allow private
health care via bill 11. Now they are going to let privatized
education slide by.
The threat to our publicly funded and administered system is
grave indeed. It leaves Canada wide open to challenges under
trade agreements, allowing U.S. transnational—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
CHEVALIER DE LORIMIER
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will read from the political last will and
testament of Chevalier de Lorimier.
I die unrepentant. In taking part in the fight for
independence, I sought only the good of my country; my views and
my actions were sincere and were untarnished by any of the crimes
which dishonour humanity and which are only too common when
turbulent passions are unleashed.
I leave behind my children. Their legacy is the memory of my
misfortunes. Your father's crime was to fail. Had his actions
met with success, he would have been honoured.
As for you, my fellow citizens, you will be served by my death
and by the deaths of the others condemned with me to the gallows.
I have but a few hours to live and it was my wish to divide this
precious time between my duty to my religion and my duty to my
fellow citizens; for them I die the infamous death of a murderer,
for them I leave my young children and my wife without support,
and for them I die with these words on my lips: “Vive la
liberté, vive l'indépendance”.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is Mike Harris trying to do to the taxpayers in the nation's
capital? First he launched an amalgamation process, telling
everyone it would save money. Then his representative low-balled
the estimated amalgamation costs and told people the province
would pick up 75% of the costs.
Now, after the amalgamation costs have mushroomed to $189
million, courtesy of an out of control, micromanaging transition
board, the province is saying that it will only pick up 50%,
leaving local taxpayers holding the bag for $94.5 million.
For taxpayers in previously debt free municipalities in my
riding, like Nepean, Rideau and Osgoode, this is a real kick in
the teeth. These municipalities have carefully managed their
resources over many years. Now, because of the added debt, they
will likely be forced to delay capital projects required to keep
up with explosive growth.
Tory MPP John Baird says that we should turn the temperature
down. I can assure him the situation will get a lot hotter in
the days and weeks to come.
* * *
STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, just
a short while ago the minister responsible for HRDC announced the
summer career placement program. Unlike other years, this year
municipalities are expected to contribute half the cost of hiring
students and are treated the same way as the private sector.
What this will do is eliminate the opportunity for many students
to be employed, since many municipalities, especially those in
the smaller areas that are now taking out street lights in order
to meet their budgets, cannot afford to pay to hire summer
students.
Consequently, the opportunity is lost for a great contribution to
be made to the municipality and a great opportunity for students
to receive good, solid, supervised employment.
1415
We ask the minister to make sure that this regulation is changed
before the programs are implemented.
* * *
HOCKEY
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend the first ever junior hockey tournament in Nunavut
history will take place in Rankin Inlet. Six teams from across
the north will compete before excited fans and also hockey scouts
from the south.
As a special treat, the Stanley Cup will be on display during
the Polar Bear Plate Junior C Tournament which will inspire many
talented hockey players. We know there are many great hockey
players in the north and are proud to showcase them to the rest
of the country.
Nunavut was truly honoured to be represented in the 2001 CHL/NHL
top prospects game in Calgary by Rankin Inlet native Jordin
Tootoo of the Brandon Wheat Kings of the WHL. Jordin has been
nominated for many honours, including Manitoba's sportsman of the
year, and is a true model for Nunavut hockey players. Jordin's
story proves that even if one is from an isolated Nunavut hamlet,
one can still compete with the best of the country.
I wish good luck to all participants.
* * *
DISTRICT OF UCLUELET
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the dire economic
situation of the Ucluelet district of the riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni.
While many regions of the country are enjoying current positive
economic dividends, the collapse of the hake fishery has wreaked
havoc on this small and fragile community. Three fish plants
remain closed due to lack of fish. Hundreds of workers have had
no work and therefore do not qualify under present EI
regulations. The suffering in this coastal community is as great
as anything that has been seen on the east coast of Canada.
Last December a meeting of regional and provincial
representatives took place to examine what could be done to help.
Concerned community leaders have assembled an advisory committee
asking the federal government to come to the table and help
resolve this crisis. To date this has not happened.
On behalf of the good citizens of the district of Ucluelet, I
ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of
Human Resources Development to focus attention to this side of
the continent and address this important issue for a community in
crisis.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is one of the
responsibilities of the official opposition to give credit where
credit is due when the government appears to be doing something
responsible.
It seems that there is at least one person over there who is
concerned about the mismanagement of hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars. We hear that the President of the Treasury
Board is now saying that she will be hiring and assigning 150 new
auditors. We give credit for that. That is good news.
Since we have been asking questions for two years about the
shenanigans in Shawinigan, how many of those new auditors will be
assigned to the Shawinigan file?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition really wants to give
credit to the government, why does he not also give credit for
our work on health care, for our work on tax cuts, for our work
on the economy, for our work on the environment and for our work
for children and justice? We deserve equal credit for these
measures.
Because the Leader of the Opposition has not mentioned any of
these things for days, and his lead critics have not mentioned
anything on these for days, it means that he agrees with us and
with Canadians that we are doing a good job. Thank you Mr.
Leader for this strong endorsement of our programs.
The Speaker: I know the Deputy Prime Minister is an
experienced member and he will want to address all his remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, getting to the issue of
accountability, which is what health care funding, education
funding and all the other areas are about, if there will be more
referees on the ice, it is important that there is a system of
monitoring. That system has to require at least three things.
It has to very clearly set out the goals of the program. It has
to have a system in place to monitor the progress of the goals
and then something to show whether the goals were achieved.
I would like to know if the President of the Treasury Board has
consulted with any of the provinces that have these award winning
systems in place to monitor a similar program because the auditor
general says that they do not have this program. Or, is she just
concerned with accountability as far as it goes and ends where
the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The hon. the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the President of the Treasury Board is seeking
good advice wherever it is.
In that regard, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is
seeking the advice of the people who took part in the recent poll
in Alberta which passed quite a judgment on him. It is causing
him to hang his head today I am sure.
1420
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if he believes the Liberal pollsters
he would acknowledge that the Prime Minister has the lowest
ratings. It is quite interesting that he has mentioned that.
We keep asking these questions. For the last couple of years
every week there has been another question and every week there
have been more excuses. We are seeing that today as this goes
on.
While the Prime Minister was arm-twisting some $600,000 out of
the president of the Business Development Bank, a federally
funded regional development program was ponying up another
$200,000 for the Auberge Grand-Mère. That brings the total of
the bailout to $3.4 million.
Why were millions of taxpayer dollars spent to bail out a
business that even the ethics counsellor is now saying the Prime
Minister had a financial interest in?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): The hon.
member is again misquoting and misstating the position of the
ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor had made some
speculative hypothetical comments. When it came to his ruling on
the basis of his careful investigation, not once but twice he
said that the Prime Minister had not breached any rules and did
not own the shares in question after 1993. He has not, I submit,
been in control of any investor funds. They came under the
Quebec provincial government program which is administered by
that Quebec provincial government.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the ethics counsellor says
something positive about the Prime Minister, then it is accurate.
If he says something that is not positive, then it is
speculative. That is very interesting.
It was yesterday that we saw the first signs of the government
starting to cry uncle as we continued on this particular file. It
does not want us to ask questions. I need to ask questions on
this because it was the auditor general who said that the
contract that Mr. Gauthier had should not have been given to him.
The auditor general that the company should not have been
selected.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister so quick to defend a contract
that the auditor general was quick to condemn?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this contract was awarded
by competitive bid to a firm which I understand had extensive
experience in this area. I would be happy to have the minister
for international development supplement my answer with
additional facts, but I think I have put the facts on the table
of the House today.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fact is the auditor general
said that the company should not have been selected.
[Translation]
I am certain that after two years of our questions about
Shawinigan, the Prime Minister knows that there are a great many
suspicions about the Prime Minister himself. There is only one
way to eliminate all doubt. Why does the solicitor general not
set up an independent inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these suspicions are ill-founded.
[English]
Tim Naumetz wrote today in The Ottawa Citizen:
Despite Mr. Day's accusation that Mr. Chrétien met with the
immigrants who invested in Mr. Gauthier's companies, his deputy
leader later said she did not know the identity of the investors.
“I'm not aware at this time who the actual investors are,” said
Ms. Gray. “I'm not alleging a whole lot here. I'm trying to
join the dots. There are a lot of names floating around, but I'm
not aware of any of those.”
I rest my case.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Some hon. members are pointing out something
I failed to notice and that is that of course in reading
quotations members must be careful not to refer to one another by
name.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in his mini budget last fall, the Minister of Finance estimated
that the surplus would reach $11.9 billion in 2000-01. He
added that the government was undertaking to pay down a minimum
of $10 billion in debt in 2000-01.
But, this week we learned that the real surplus could reach $18
billion, $6 billion more than forecast.
Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance's intention is
to use the additional $6 billion to pay down the debt?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon.
member that the forecasts for the remainder of the year are not
final. They will be confirmed in July or August. I can assure
the House that we are going to continue to pursue a responsible
tax policy, as we have done in the past.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
talking about the election campaign, the Prime Minister proposed
to use 50% of the surpluses to reduce the debt and lower taxes,
and the other 50% to fund social programs.
In his mini budget, the Minister of Finance proposed to allocate
only 20% of the surpluses to social programs. Now, he is about to
invest only 10% in transfers to the provinces and in social
programs.
We would like to know the government's position. Is it the one
stated in the Prime Minister's speeches, or the one presented in
the Minister of Finance's figures? Which one determines
government policy?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to pursue a
balanced fiscal policy, that is we will continue to pay off the
debt, to reduce taxes and, at the same time, to invest in social
programs and in the economy of the future. This is the Liberal
program and it is a very responsible program, in our opinion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the surplus is far higher than predicted and the Minister of
Finance could apply up to $16 billion to the debt instead of the
$10 billion forecast last October. We have nothing against
paying down the debt.
However, at a time when there are such crying needs in health
and in education, does the Minister of Finance not admit that it
is high time for him to adopt a balanced approach and to not only
pay part of the debt but also transfer funds to Quebec and the
provinces for health and education?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member needs
to acknowledge the historic agreement between the Prime Minister
and the provinces concerning transfer payments and the Canada
social transfer for health and social programs. This is what
federal co-operation is all about and we will continue to act in
this way with all of the provinces.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleagues and I are so anxious to be sovereign and to
administer on our own the $33 billion in taxes we hand over to
these people, instead of having to listen to ridiculous answers
like that one.
I am merely asking this: will the minister admit that there are
crying needs in health and education and that it is time this
government, which refused any and all debate during the election
campaign, transferred money to finance health and education?
Those systems are in bad shape, yet the government has surplus
funds coming out of its ears.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to
acknowledge what we have already done under the historic
agreement signed by the Prime Minister and all the provincial
premiers. When he talks of sovereignty, what also has to be
acknowledged is what the sovereignists have done to the Quebec
economy.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, some
executive salaries in this country are obscene. There are bank
CEOs taking home 7 and even 8 figure compensation packages that
are 500 times the wage of their own employees. The gap between
the highest and the lowest earners is wider than ever, making
these inflated salaries even more unacceptable.
Why does the government not stop subsidizing this obscenity by
denying corporations tax deductions on salaries in excess of
$300,000?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud
of the role that our financial services sector plays in Canada's
economy.
It directly employs over 500,000 Canadians. It is one of the
biggest exporters that we have, with more than 50% of its revenue
coming from offshore and about 85% of the global taxes it pays
are paid here in this country.
I am very pleased at the efforts that our institutions in the
financial services sector have made on behalf of all Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking here about a question of simple fairness. The minister
should step outside of his bubble and recognize that hard working
Canadians do not regard a $17.4 million salary as simply the
price of doing business. There is another word for it. It is
greed.
The federal government should get out of the business of
subsidizing through the tax system corporations that pay these
salaries. Has the government not done enough lately for
millionaires?
Why will the government not put a reasonable cap on deductions
for bloated corporate salaries?
1430
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we live in an
extremely competitive world. I am pleased that many of our
Canadians are reaching out and establishing new markets around
the globe.
We see what the Prime Minister is doing by leading team Canada
to China which has a market potential of 1.2 billion people. To
try to put Canadians at an economic disadvantage vis-à-vis all
our other competitors in the world would be to hamstring them,
and we will not do it.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Did officials in
the office of the Prime Minister prepare a memorandum proposing
the answers that might be given by the Business Development Bank
in response to inquiries about the Prime Minister's intervention
on the Auberge Grand-Mère loan?
If so, how could that be described as an arm's length
arrangement between a crown corporation and the Government of
Canada?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the member that the only preparation for
question period of which I am aware is the one that comes out of
my department.
I can say to the member that he continues to draw a link with
Mr. Jean Carle. A former chief of staff to the leader of the
Conservative Party now works for government in a senior position.
A former chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister, under the
government in which he served, now works in a senior position in
this government.
That former chief of staff of yours is my deputy minister and is
a qualified individual, as qualified to work for government as
Jean Carle.
The Speaker: I know the Minister of Industry will wish to
address his remarks to the Chair.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I would prefer to have him address his remarks to the question.
The ethics counsellor told the industry committee that the Prime
Minister chose not to go to court to finalize the sale of the
Grand-Mère shares. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that a
promise to purchase is enforceable in law. An option to purchase
is not.
Was the reason that the Prime Minister did not go to court the
fact that there was only an option to purchase? Otherwise, why
did he waste three years seeking some other purchaser instead of
going directly to court to enforce what he considered to be a
binding agreement?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, through you to the leader of the Conservative Party and
further to his earlier question, the individual ultimately
responsible for preparing response lines in question period for
the minister on this file is my deputy minister and his former
chief of staff.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in his 2000 report the auditor general slapped CIDA for
what he termed a lack of due diligence for awarding a $6.3
million contract to Transelec.
Transelec failed to meet CIDA's own guidelines for relevant
experience and Canadian ownership. According to the auditor
general, Transelec should not have been selected for
prequalification. Why did the minister responsible for CIDA
ignore her own guidelines and award a $6.3 million contract to
Transelec?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered many
times before. The officials referred to the then minister seven
companies as potential competitors. Three companies went to
competition. Transelec was one of them.
In an open competition Transelec came in 30% below the
competition, or $2 million less than any other bidder. The
program that Transelec put in is now completed and taxpayers in
fact saved money.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Transelec, which is owned by Claude Gauthier, the friend
of the Prime Minister, did not qualify for CIDA qualifications.
It was not Canadian owned and failed CIDA's criteria for bidding
on the contract.
Yet the minister did not disqualify this company. The minister
broke her own rules. Was it because she was dealing with the
friend of the Prime Minister?
1435
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to the ownership a
reputable auditing firm confirmed that Transelec was in fact in
conformity with the rules.
Second, as I said, the list of companies came through the
officials. It went to the minister and seven companies were
selected. One of them was Transelec. They went to bid and
Transelec bid 30% below any other bidder, or $2 million less. The
project is finished and taxpayers have saved money.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
government floats in billions of dollars, 60% of the unemployed,
primarily young people and women, do not get employment insurance
benefits. The surpluses in the employment insurance fund are
applied to the debt, while these people are being denied
benefits.
How can the government persist in its cuts to employment
insurance, when nearly $6 billion of its surpluses comes directly
from the surpluses in the employment insurance fund?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that we have
taken a very balanced approach when it comes to employment
insurance.
On the one hand, since taking office in 1993 we have been able
to reduce the premiums paid by employers and employees every
year, saving $6.4 billion to those Canadians. On the other hand,
we have been able to increase the benefits, not the least of
which we have seen a doubling of parental benefits for all
Canadians.
We have before the House a bill of amendments that I hope the
hon. member will support because they do go to directly
supporting Canadians in this regard.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, billions of
dollars are landing on the finance minister's desk, making a lie
of his predictions, once again. At the same time, many people
are being rejected when they apply for employment insurance
benefits.
So, while it is swimming in surpluses, would this government
explain to women and young people, to whom prosperity is denied
and who pay contributions, why they will not be entitled to
benefits if they are unemployed?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is forgetting
that over two million more Canadians are working today than there
were in 1993. She is forgetting that the unemployment rate for
women in Canada is at its lowest rate in 25 years. She is
forgetting that the unemployment rate for young people in Canada
has continuously come down.
That speaks well to the new and dynamic economy and the
connection that young people have for it, but we will ensure that
the benefits of the employment insurance program are there for
Canadians when they need them and when they find themselves
between jobs.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today the supreme court has rendered a political
decision that will create a safe haven for any violent criminal,
Canadian or otherwise, who comes to Canada to escape the law in
the country where the crime was committed.
With this decision, the Texas seven who murdered a police
officer in the United States would be safe in Canada. What will
the minister do to ensure that Canadians are protected from these
kinds of criminals?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that a former
attorney general of a province of this country would so
misrepresent the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada today.
In fact the Supreme Court of Canada upheld my ability to
extradite those who have committed offences in other countries
back to those countries so they can stand trial for their crimes.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the supreme court by its decision today demonstrated
that the rule of law was secondary to a political agenda.
The Americans are concerned that Canada is a safe haven for
terrorists. Now the supreme court has effectively put out the
welcome mat for other murderers. What will the minister do to
stop these potential murderers and terrorists from coming to
Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, today in the
case of Burns and Rafay the Supreme Court of Canada upheld my
ability and my discretion to extradite those who are accused of
committing crimes in other countries.
Again I come back to the point that I find it appalling that a
member of the official opposition would so misrepresent a
decision of the supreme court and scare the Canadian public into
believing that this country will be a safe haven for criminals
and felons from other countries. It will not.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in early
January the Minister for International Trade announced a period
of public consultations with business people and the public in
preparation for discussions on the free trade agreements with
Central American countries.
Now, a month and a half later, the Minister for International
Trade informs us that a free trade agreement is about to be
signed with Costa Rica, and may even be signed for the summit of
the Americas.
Can the government confirm this information, and is this the
type of transparency, opaque to say the least, we will have
during negotiations on a free trade area for the Americas?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the negotiations the
member refers to are ongoing. The government is actively seeking
input from all interested Canadians vis-à-vis the FTAA.
We continue to receive written submissions. We continue to
receive daily comments on our website. There was a meeting of
federal and provincial ministers of trade 10 days ago. The
government is firmly committed to an open, transparent and
inclusive process on FTAA.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has already said, with respect to the negotiations on
the free trade area, “Canada believes that openness and
transparency are vital to building public acceptance and
legitimacy for our undertakings”.
How can he make such a speech and refuse to table the basic
documents to be used in the negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to offer to
the member the website where he can access the information. If
somehow he is not aware of that I wish he would see me later.
The Minister for International Trade has gone further than what
I said in response to the first question. He is trying to engage
civil society in every way possible. For example, he has met
with NGOs, Rights and Democracy, and Oxfam-Quebec. The
government is a world leader in openness and transparency in
trade negotiations.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. From her
own statements will she extradite those two murderers back to
Washington?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have instructed my officials
to seek assurances from the state of Washington. Upon receiving
those assurances, Burns and Rafay will be extradited to the
United States.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, assurances of what? Again I ask for a clear
statement from the Minister of Justice. Will she extradite those
two back to the state of Washington?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the state of Washington I
will extradite them immediately.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL AID
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, two days ago yet another earthquake, this one
measuring 6.6, hit El Salvador. This was one month to the day of
the initial quake that killed nearly 1,000 Salvadorans and
injured 3,000. There are reports of extensive damage throughout
the region and many more deaths as a result of Tuesday's quake.
Could the Minister for International Co-Operation please tell
the House what Canada is doing to assist the people of El
Salvador who have already suffered so much?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my sympathies go to the people of El
Salvador. I know the horrible situation they are in. I was
there myself.
Yesterday I announced an additional $1 million to assist with
the latest quake that hit. We are trying desperately to assist
them with their water systems, one of the major problems, and
many other structural problems which have occurred as a result of
the quake.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, on leaving the Liberal caucus meeting, the government
House leader said, in reference to Bill C-2 on employment
insurance, that the opposition could not have their cake and eat
it too.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Would she agree that, in fact, the whole cake belongs to workers
and employers and not to the Liberal government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certain members opposite—not the
member who just spoke—have chosen to delay passage of Bill C-2
before and after the election. Today, they are saying they are
sorry and asking Canadians to forgive them.
It does not work like that. Members must pass this bill, which
is good for all Canadians. That is what I said, and that is what
we are going to do.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the ones
who take the cake in all this are the Liberals.
If Canadian workers and employers cannot have a share of the
surplus in the EI fund, would the Minister of Human Resources
Development tell us just what it is going to be used for?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view we have presented to the House
a balanced set of amendments to the Employment Insurance Act.
The bill is making its way through the usual process. From our
point of view our commitment to Canadians to reintroduce that
bill immediately upon being re-elected is a strong commitment and
we have made good on it. The hon. member is suggesting that we
should do otherwise and we will not.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a charter of rights question for the attorney general.
There are pages and pages of job openings advertised on the web
page jobs.gc.ca. These jobs are available in Ottawa, jobs such
as paralegals and architects. They are all federal government
jobs. Down the page it says who can apply. Then it says “only
those in eastern Ontario and western Quebec need apply”.
How could the Government of Canada say that people from her
riding in Alberta and my riding in Nova Scotia cannot apply for a
federal government job in Ottawa, in our nation's capital? Is it
not a contravention of the mobility clause in the charter of
rights?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation does indeed allow the various departments, and the
managers within those departments, to set geographic restrictions
when posting public service jobs.
I imagine that the current case is perfectly consistent with the
legislation, which allows this practice.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Industry. The Minister of
Industry has placed an ad with the federal public service and the
ad reads that the minister is on the job hunt for a secretary for
his own department. He goes on to say that only people from
Ontario or Quebec need apply.
Is Newfoundland's regional minister telling me that only people
from Ontario or Quebec may apply for that job within his own
department, that Newfoundlanders are not welcome?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, the legislation does indeed allow managers to limit the
geographical areas in which candidates must reside.
It is not hard to understand. If a position for a secretary in
the National Capital Region, for example, is open to all regions
of Canada, this would mean that there could be 1 million
applications for the job. The member can see where this might
lead.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: The legislation allows managers to
set geographical restrictions on applications for public service
positions.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the people of the Sagkeeng reserve in Manitoba are
living in poverty and the band's finances are in a mess. Yet the
government allowed 75 staff members to go on a taxpayer funded
Caribbean cruise and there is a trail of unpaid bills all over
the place.
It is hard to believe that the minister of Indian affairs really
cares about the families and the children of this reserve. If he
does, why does he not order a forensic audit of the Sagkeeng band
and clean up this mess?
1450
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made very clear to the
member that he has to differentiate between two particular
departments.
I will tell him what our department has done. We have had a
number of audits done of the Sagkeeng first nation. Those audits
are in. Those audits do comply with our regulations.
The fact is that the particular band is in third party
management. KPMG, a very outstanding accounting firm, is looking
after the management on our behalf. I think those issues will be
resolved over time.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, third party management is not the answer to my
previous question. It is not working in the Sagkeeng. This is
the second third party managers it has been under. It is still
not getting to the bottom of the corruption.
I have talked with the people of the Sagkeeng. They are fed up
with this system which makes band elites rich and keeps ordinary
aboriginals poor. They are also demanding a forensic audit. What
prevents the minister from doing his job? Could it be the
connection between the Fontaine family and the Liberal Party?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is
even worth trying to answer a question as ridiculous as that one.
Let me try to put it to the member very clearly, as I know he
has still not had his briefing and he could use one desperately.
If he is going to ask such stupid questions he should at least
get briefed.
The Speaker: We will not proceed with that kind of
discussion.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday at the University of Toronto, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs made the statement that “those Quebec
sovereignists were blackmailing Canada”.
How is it that the minister can say such a thing when it is a
well-known fact that the sovereignists have never used blackmail,
and that the federalists invented, and used for the first time on
Quebec, the concept of holding a knife to our throats?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. I did not say what he
attributes to me. There is, moreover, nowhere he could have
found such a quote.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister going to acknowledge that, when it comes
to blackmailing people, he has no right to preach at anyone when
he was quoted a few years ago as saying “The more it hurts, the
less support there will be for sovereignty”?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is quoting me totally out of context,
and he knows that very well.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed national missile defence system would
play an integral role in protecting Canada's security interests.
Our strongest ally needs our support and wants our support, but
the Prime Minister continues to dodge this issue. Canada could
have considerable influence if the government would get off the
fence and commit its support to the defence of our country and
our ally.
Will the government take a proactive role and support the
national missile defence system? Yes or no.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member asks for more than the United States has
asked for. It has not asked us for our endorsement.
In fact it has made clear to us that it is still in the process
of determining what missile defence will look like. It intends
to discuss it not only with us but with its other NATO allies and
with Russia and China as well.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that Canada has been
dragging its heels on this whole issue for some time now. In
fact the Americans are looking for some sort of response from
Canada and they are not getting it from the government.
The U.S. has embarked upon a proactive defence shield. Instead
of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent, the national
missile defence proposes to destroy a nuclear warhead, thus
saving lives and certainly preventing untold destruction.
Will the government stand up now in support of the national
missile defence program and our national security?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): You
know, Mr. Speaker, there may well have been a fly on the wall at
that dinner with the president but it sure did not look like the
hon. member.
The United States has not asked us to do that. In fact the
claims he makes about this system have not been proven yet
technologically.
1455
The previous U.S. administration chose specifically not to make
a decision on it. The current one is saying it needs time in
order to decide what it is that it intends to do, and then it
will consult with us. I think that is a reasonable approach for
our closest ally to take with us. We intend to use that time to
consider what it proposes.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister of public works
about the status of a complaint filed by two Canada Post
employees and the former president of Alliance Quebec, alleging
that Canada Post in Montreal violates the language of work
provisions of the Official Languages Act.
It is clear that Canada Post must respect the law, and this
includes the Official Languages Act adopted by parliament over 30
years ago.
What progress is Canada Post making to address the rights of its
French speaking employees outside Quebec and its English speaking
employees inside Quebec?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that
Canada Post has reduced its number of complaints by 70%. Canada
Post is working with the Commissioner of Official Languages
concerning the specific complaints and other complaints from
across the country.
There is a plan in place that the Commissioner of Official
Languages has accepted, is pleased with and continues to work
with. The objective is to make sure that there are no complaints
and that all citizens have its services in their official
language.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
just last week a young mother in Barrie, Ontario, found a free
youth conference on the Internet that was supported by Health
Canada.
Let us imagine her surprise when she sent her 14 year old
daughter there and found that one of the workshops was on safer
sado-masochism. Do the Liberals think that is a good use of
Canadian taxpayer funds?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be happy to take the question as notice. First I
want to check the facts of this matter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this is not too tough for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Here is a conference supported by Health Canada. This conference
is free for youth. A 14 year old goes to that conference and is
presented with a workshop on safer sado-masochism.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister support that use of taxpayer
funds? Yes or no.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in spite of the artificial indignation of the hon.
member I think the prudent thing to do is to check the facts of
the situation. Obviously we do not support anything involving
abusive material for young people.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGLE CURRENCY
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the
American President, George W. Bush, is to meet the Mexican
President, Vicente Fox, in Mexico.
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, said in an
interview today “The question of a common currency should
certainly come up”.
Will the minister finally admit that his government's refusal to
address the question of a single currency excludes Canada in a
way from the major hemispheric debates and explains in part the
lack of vision criticized by the former minister?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the matter of a single currency raised last
summer by Mr. Fox is an issue he has considered for the past 25
years.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. John Manley: It is a long term vision. He mentioned
other very long term aspects of North American relations.
For us, there are a number of more important things in the short
term with respect to trilateral relations among the U.S., Mexico
and Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of the Environment tabled the sustainable
development strategies for 28 government departments and
agencies.
Is the Minister of the Environment able to tell the House what
these strategies will accomplish?
1500
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the 28 sustainable development strategies tabled
yesterday are designed to ensure that federal departments and
agencies consider the environment, the economy and society in all
policy and program decisions, and do so in an integrated manner.
The strategies will greatly assist in achieving the commitments
Canada made during the 1992 earth summit.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as usual on Thursday the country is aflutter in
anticipation of what the government House leader might have in
mind for us for business for the rest of today and for the next
week. Could he tell us what that would be?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
Thursday question of the hon. opposition House leader.
This afternoon we will continue with the Bloc opposition day.
On Friday, tomorrow that is, we will debate second reading of
Bill C-3 respecting Petro-Canada. Should that item conclude, I
do not foresee calling any other business for tomorrow.
Next Monday we will debate Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable
development foundation. This will be followed by Bill C-5, the
species at risk bill.
Next Tuesday will be an allotted day.
Next Wednesday we will return to the species at risk bill that
is to be started on Monday, or commence it if it was not begun at
the earlier session I have just described.
On Thursday of next week at 10 a.m. there will be a special
joint sitting of the Senate and House of Commons in the Commons
Chamber to hear an address by the prime minister of Britain, the
Right Hon. Tony Blair.
My present intention for Friday of next week is to call the
marine liabilities bill.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Thursday question and the
government House leader's intention of calling the bill on
endangered species, could he inform the House if he will be
sending it to committee before second reading?
With respect to the Brazilian mad cow fiasco, the government
should be willing to tell Canadians whether it will follow
science or politics. The committee could only engage in the
question before second reading. Is the government willing to do
that?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there were a variety of
topics in the same question. My understanding is that the issue
of mad cow disease is a decision of the agriculture department,
and the species at risk legislation would hardly deal with that.
As far as I know, cows are not yet an endangered species in this
country.
Regarding Bill C-5 and the status of it, I understand on one
occasion in the past it was dealt with at committee before second
reading. I am still verifying whether it should be reintroduced
in that manner. The present intention, unless I get additional
information, is to proceed in the usual manner with committee
meetings following second reading because the other process has
been utilized in reference to essentially the same bill once
already.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: When we interrupted debate to go on to question
period, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had seven
minutes left.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is reasonable albeit a bit short for such an important debate on
the transparency of the negotiation and ratification process of
trade deals, and in particular the upcoming agreement on the free
trade area of the Americas.
Before question period I was talking about the lack of public
confidence. Every time an international summit is held, there are
huge demonstrations.
1505
A lot of people take to the streets, not only professional
demonstrators, but also representatives of ordinary citizens who
are fed up with negotiations being carried out behind closed
doors and taking the country down the wrong road without the
public's knowledge.
Let me give an example. We happened to find out recently that,
for the last two years, the OECD countries have been negotiating
behind closed doors an agreement promoting freer investments
throughout the world. We talk about the multilateral agreement
on investment, but no one in this House, not to mention the
public, knew that, for the last two years, the OECD countries had
been negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment
liberalization.
It took a leak on the Internet to find out about the content of
these negotiations, to find out what was being negotiated on our
behalf. What was included in the agreement was very ugly.
For the first time, an international agreement would have given
transnational corporations the power to do whatever they wanted
all over the world, and it would also have given them all the
benefits, while all the costs would have been supported by
populations all over the world. That did not make any sense.
Under such an agreement, most of Quebec's strategic crown
corporations, for example, would have been deemed illegal.
Governments would have had their hands tied and would not have
been able to implement, in compliance with major international
agreements, economic policies like they do now. Luckily, there
was that leak. But is it normal to have to rely on such leaks to
know what is going on in the negotiations?
I find it hard to understand the Liberals' reaction in speaking
against the motion before us, considering that precedents exist
regarding what we are asking.
During the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement with the
United States and then the North American Free Trade Agreement
between the United States, Canada and Mexico, debates took place,
then the agreement or the “Act to implement” was introduced here.
Debates took place in this House and amendments were proposed.
Some of these amendments were even adopted by the House. I am
thinking, among others, of the amendment made to NAFTA in 1993 to
exclude water exports from the agreement. That amendment was
proposed in the House. It was adopted and included in the act to
implement the free trade agreement between Canada, the United
States and Mexico.
Why this reluctance? Do they want to do what was done with the
MAI? Do they want to negotiate behind closed doors, prevent us
from knowing the outcome of these negotiations and then present
the agreement to us as a fait accompli, without any debate,
without ratification by this House? This does not make any sense.
One wonders what is going through the Liberals' minds.
Do they want to ignore the precedents of the Free Trade Agreement
with the United States, the precedents of debate and ratification
by this House, and the precedents of approval, even of the
amendments introduced here, which was allowed when NAFTA was
signed? Do they want to change the rules? Do they want to do as
the former Minister for International Trade did when he kept the
negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment under
wraps for two years? He kept the House in the dark.
Is that what the Liberals have in mind for the free trade area
of the Americas agreement? Is that what the Liberals have in
mind for the next World Trade Organization agreement? We will
not stand for it. We cannot. And that is the purpose of our
motion.
We want to ensure that the government respects the precedents of
the FTA and NAFTA, that it allows debate on the final agreement
and on the implementing legislation, and that it allows
amendments to be made if there is anything amiss in these
agreements. We are here to represent the public; we are not here
to kowtow to the powers that be in this government, the people
negotiating on our behalf behind closed doors. Those days are
gone. We want transparency here.
We also want the basic texts to be made public, and we do not
mean posted on the government's darn web site. Government
propaganda is not what we want. We want the basic text on which
the discussions are based.
If this sort of problem had not arisen in the past, the Prime
Minister would not have said himself on October 11, 1999, with
reference to the negotiations in Seattle:
1510
If transparency was not a problem, the Prime Minister would not
have raised the issue on October 11, 1999. Again I quote:
With very limited exception, working papers, formal contribution
from members, draft meeting agendas and minutes will be
circulated as unrestricted documents—
That means the documents will be made available to the public.
If transparency had not been a problem, the Prime Minister would
not have said that. Canadian officials would not have said that
either. Why then, when we ask for more transparency, are we told
that everything is hunky-dory and that we just have to go on the
web site? Whom are they kidding? I hope the Liberals will support
our motion.
If they do not, it will mean that, unlike the Conservatives with
the FTA and NAFTA, they are going to bypass parliament with
regard to the implementation act. They will say no to any
sensible amendments we might introduce. It would be an extremely
serious attack on democracy. This would send the message that the
MAI process would apply to the FTAA. This means there is a total
lack of transparency; it is hypocrisy behind closed doors.
When we look at the nine discussion tables, we see that they are
dealing with issues such as culture, education, and intellectual
property. In Quebec, we will not let the government pull the wool
over our eyes.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing
to hear the degree of contradiction one is hearing today in
debate from the Bloc members.
One member, on the one hand, says he cannot find the website or
that there is nothing on it. However the member who just spoke
makes direct reference to the website. Which is it? Is the Bloc
aware there exists a website that is visited constantly by
Canadians on a day to day basis? Is the Bloc aware of that? Is
the member not aware that he seems to contradict himself?
One the one hand he calls for more consultation with Canadians
and for transparency. On the other hand he seeks to circumvent
that and wants to see the government's final positions right now.
He cannot have it both ways. Which is it?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, we are not stupid. Between what
can be found on a web site, which is government propaganda on
general public policies, and what is discussed at the negotiation
tables based on official position statements, there is a world of
difference.
We want a look at these official statements, not the government
propaganda. We have always had access to government propaganda.
We do not believe in it.
I know what I am talking about because I was at the eighth round
of negotiations at the GATT now known as the WTO. Between what we
were told by government officials and what was written in the
public documents—there were no web site at the time, it happened
too long ago—and what was actually negotiated and the statements
that were made, there was a lot of difference and even some
contradiction.
Let me point out one of them. With regard to agriculture, we
were supposed to stand for supply management and the control of
the volume of milk product imports at the Canadian border. At the
same time, Canada was part of the group trying to eliminate the
supply management system in the milk industry.
Talk about trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. What we want
to know is what is really being negotiated. We do not want to see
the propaganda. What we also want, and I hope the government has
not changed its mind and will not act differently than the
Conservatives did, is for the implementation bill to be
introduced in the House before the agreement is ratified and for
us to be able to amend the legislation. Mistakes are bound to
happen.
They cannot claim to have a monopoly on truth. We should also
have our say on this issue. We represent the civil society.
We have just been elected to represent people. We are not
greenery. That accounts for the erosion of trust in the
population. People show up to vote, but for whom? For people who
will fight for them and will inform them.
Supranational organizations account for roughly 50% of public
affairs. Our future is determined by those organizations, and we
do not have a say. It is determined by people like Mr. Johnston,
from OECD, who is abysmally arrogant. He told us that he would
force the MAI down our throats and that we would have no choice
but to accept it. It was negotiated, it was a done deal.
1515
But we have news for them. With the MAI, we have shown that the
civil society and the population are able to make unacceptable
agreements fail. We will do the same with the other agreements,
but we must be given the opportunity to do so.
We cannot always count on leaks on the Internet. The members on
the other side of the House have to be transparent and honest.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot
resist this. Having lived through two referendums on the future
of this country in the province of Quebec, to hear the member
repeatedly use the word propaganda, I am sorry, but it is pretty
tough for most Canadians to sit here and listen to that kind of
nonsense without reacting to it.
I know exactly what the member wants. His colleagues have made
it clear all day. They seek to change the constitution of Canada
on the fly. They want something done which has never been done
in the history of this country. That is all they want.
They want us to table the legislation in its draft form. That
has never been done in the history of this country. The
government will continue to follow the established process. It
will continue to consult widely with Canadians in every province,
including the province of Quebec, but it will not accede to this
request because this request is totally out of line.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, what he is saying makes no
sense. It is totally stupid to claim that the constitution has
to be changed if a bill is to be introduced on the implementation
of a free trade agreement within the Americas. That was
negotiated under the Progressive Conservatives with the Free
Trade Agreement with the United States, and with the free trade
agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The
agreements were debated in the House and amendments were
accepted.
To quote one of these, if I may, from May 25, 1993. Mr.
Barrett, seconded by Mr. Angus, proposed the following amendment:
“Notwithstanding subsection (1), nothing in this Act or the
Agreement applies to any water transported by a pipeline or
diverted by reason of the diversion of a river”. This was moved
and adopted in the House. We amended the free trade agreement
Implementation Act with the United States and Mexico. We did not
amend the Constitution.
They are completely off the rails. I have never seen such a
thing.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion. Let
me at the outset tell you that I am very strongly opposed to the
motion for one fundamental, basic reason, that is, there is a
hidden agenda behind it that frankly is not so hidden.
I think we all know, in fact, that the Bloc believes Quebec
should in an official capacity be sitting at the table whenever
Canada is negotiating international contracts of any nature. We
all understand that the men and women in that party are devoted
to a sovereign Quebec, devoted to separating, even though the
people of the province of Quebec have clearly indicated that they
do not support that view, on a number of occasions.
Also, all of the polling data that could be made available to
the members opposite, which they choose to ignore, shows that the
people of Quebec are much more interested in the same issues that
affect the people of Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland,
Alberta and wherever you want to go in this country. Those
issues are jobs, the future of the country for their young
people, education, and the number one issue of vast majority of
Canadians, health care and what is happening in health care.
When we talk about these international trade negotiations it is
important to understand that the motion before us today in fact
refers to a draft agreement. It does not refer to a final
agreement that has been hammered out and that perhaps before it
is signed should come here, but to a draft agreement, which would
mean that every amendment, every piece of negotiating material,
every change, every bargaining chip, in fact the entire
negotiation process, should be subjected to a debate and a vote
in this place.
1520
On the surface Canadians might say that I have been elected as a
national politician to represent the interests of all Canadians
from sea to sea to sea. If there is a negotiating committee that
is meeting with Chile, for example, to negotiate some kind of a
free trade agreement, or with any other country, Canadians might
ask why, as a national politician elected to protect the views of
all Canadians, I would not want the opportunity to vote on
whether or not we should sign that document. On the surface some
people might say that is a reasonable position, but in practical
terms let us visit what might happen in that particular scenario.
There are 301 members in this place, 172 of which were elected
to form the government. In fact the actual government is the
Governor in Council. It is the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
Everyone understands that. A member of the Liberal backbench is
in fact a member usually in support of the government. A member
from one of the other four parties in this place would be defined
as a member opposed to the government.
It is the duty and obligation of Her Majesty's loyal opposition
to hold the government accountable, all the opposition, even the
Bloc, which might not recognize the authority that comes
originally from Westminster and now from the constitution of the
country. However, is it their obligation, their duty, to simply
create gridlock either in the House of Commons or in the ability
of our trade negotiators to negotiate when working around the
world?
In fact, I think the opposite is true. It is the duty and the
obligation of all elected members in this place, regardless of
where they are from in the country, regardless of what political
philosophy they have, to ensure that we do indeed wind up with
the best possible negotiated trade agreement.
That does not mean that we can somehow, in some arrogant,
flamboyant way, say to the people in the Americas that they are
going to do it our way or the highway. As we can imagine, since
there are 301 members in this place there could be 301 different
opinions on any given day on any given subject.
The frustrating part is that much of it is driven by
misinformation. Much of it is driven because the opposition
indeed sees its role to be more than just opposing the
government. The opposition parties see their role as that of
taking any opportunity they can to embarrass the government,
hence all of the personal attacks against the Prime Minister.
Instead of dealing with the nation's business, what do we hear in
question period? We do not hear the Leader of the Opposition
standing in his place asking the government about help for
farmers or about a housing policy, things that we in this caucus
ask our leadership about all the time. We do not hear that.
The nation's business is taking a back seat in the House of
Commons in this particular session. It is being replaced by
mudslinging and the lowest form of politics that exists in this
great democracy, which is personality attacks and personal
attempts to assassinate a member of the House who happens to be
the Prime Minister.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is true. Members can disagree, but
that is the strategy. I do not necessarily include the Bloc in
that strategy because it seems to be an unholy alliance between
the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It is
interesting to hear their comments when they say that not only
must justice be done, it must be seen to be done, and not only
must a government be above the law, it must be seen to be above
the law.
1525
What does that mean? That means they have no proof there is
anything going on here that is against the law, so what they want
to do is create some kind of an atmosphere, some kind of an
insinuation, some kind of an attack. It is a fishing expedition.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I hate to tell my colleague on the other side, but he is
totally off track on what the subject is of today's debate over
here. He is not discussing the motion. I wish to bring that to
your attention.
The Speaker: My recollection is that the hon. member is
talking about something to do with bringing bills before the
House which deal with international trade matters. It seems to
me that has some relevance to the issue before the House, perhaps
not as direct as some might like, but it has something to do with
the issue before the House. I know the hon. member for
Mississauga West always like to tie his remarks together and I am
sure he will do that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your
ruling. What is interesting is that the relevance to using the
example of what the opposition is doing—at least the official
opposition—is that they are distracting from the issues we
should be dealing with. In fact, I will say that at least the
Bloc has put on the table today an issue that deals with some
free trade negotiations and agreements and that is not
necessarily the mudslinging we have seen from the Leader of the
Opposition and members of the Canadian Alliance and the
Progressive Conservative Party.
The relevance is about one simple fact, the point that I made
earlier, that is, it is the duty and the obligation of the
opposition to hold the government accountable, not to climb into
the gutter, not to wallow in the political malaise that we see in
this place, but rather to put forward ideas that can be debated,
even though I believe the Bloc has a hidden agenda, which is
always tied around the sovereignty of Quebec. It always comes
back to its ability to somehow control the agenda on behalf of
one province. Instead of dealing with nationhood, instead of
dealing with nation building, instead of dealing with
international responsibilities, it is always and only their focus
to bring it right back to la belle province. Frankly, I think
that in regard to the people of the province of Quebec the Bloc
misreads what those people want.
The motion that is before us is more constructive, at least,
than the nonsense we have been hearing from the official
opposition and others in this place, but it is terribly
misguided.
Let us just think about trade. In my riding of Mississauga West
I cannot imagine what would happen in our economy if we did not
have a free trade agreement and an ability to do business with
the United States, with Mexico and with all parts of the world.
My riding is the head office capital for Japanese head offices in
Canada. I think we have over 85 of them in the city of
Mississauga, not just in my riding, but in the entire city.
Should we have some kind of a trade relationship and, if so, are
we then going to bring it into this place instead of allowing the
professional negotiators to do the job? There are 34 countries
negotiating an international trade agreement involving Canada and
the Americas. There are 34 countries. Imagine the meeting.
There would already be two or three negotiators from each
country, I am sure, perhaps more. There would be a bevy of staff
and advisers sitting behind them trying to help them on various
points.
They have obligations. This is not just about Canada. Certainly
our role is to defend the interests of this country, but is it
not in the interests of Canadians and everyone in this country to
ensure that prosperity, good quality education, good quality
health care and a good standard of living are made available to
these other countries? I think it is a benefit to us.
1530
If they will not accept that it may be a global social
responsibility to share our tremendous wealth, ideas and
capabilities, then they should look at it from a purely selfish
point of view, a business point of view.
Our Prime Minister, as we all know, is in China. The headlines
indicate he is talking pretty tough about human rights
violations. However there are people who would say, particularly
on the left of the political spectrum, that he is not tough
enough and that he should stand up and tell the 1.2 billion
Chinese they had better do it our way.
Instead there have been constructive attempts to share some of
the benefits that have come out of what is frankly the greatest
democracy in the world: Canada. Let us think about how tolerant
we are. Let us think about the Council of Canadians and Maude
Barlow, who once unsuccessfully ran for a Liberal nomination and
who might have wound up in this place. I am sure she is a
talented individual.
Somehow that group has deemed to take it upon itself to tear
down every trade agreement and to march in the streets arm in arm
with the New Democrats to say that it is awful. That group says
we are giving away our water, giving away our culture and giving
away our sovereignty. It says we are giving and giving and
giving.
We are not doing any of that. In fact we are sharing our
technology. We are sharing our abilities. Yes, we will share
from time to time some of our resources in return for sharing
some of theirs. It is quid pro quo. It is not rocket science.
If we negotiate trade agreements with countries in the Americas
that can improve their standard of living, then we should just
follow that bouncing ball.
If we improve the standard of living in Guatemala, for example,
what are we doing? We wind up putting more money in the pockets
of people in that nation. We wind up creating jobs in that
nation. Then what happens? They buy Canadian products. They
buy Canadian technology. They buy Canadian expertise.
Do we think that in the year 2001 we could somehow build a wall?
In Alberta they call it a firewall. Alberta would like to put up
a firewall, whatever that means, so it can somehow stop the
chuckwagons from coming from eastern Canada and ramming things.
It is ridiculous.
We saw members of the official opposition attending the founding
meeting of some western separation party. I forget their
ridings, but to see Bert and Ernie, or Homer and Bart Simpson, or
whoever they were, going to that meeting was absolutely shameful.
They should have gone to the meeting and said that it was
silly, that they were Canadians first, because that is what
Albertans believe.
We have all seen the latest polling data. Some of the
separatists involved continue to flex their muscles in spite of
the fact that Albertans have ranked the Leader of the Opposition
lower than just about anyone else in the country last, in fact,
in approval ratings. They cannot take western Canada cannot of
the country.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member for Mississauga West
is doing his best, but the motion does deal with NAFTA and trade.
I think perhaps he is straying just a little far off topic. I
invite him to return to the subject of his remarks that he was
giving earlier.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I liked your former
ruling better than that one. I appreciate your direction. I get
a little excited from time to time when I go down the path of
some of the irresponsible behaviour I have seen in this place. I
am pleased to come back.
With due respect, Sir, I do not think I strayed too far. The
issue is how we negotiate agreements with other countries and put
the best interests of Canadians forward. We have heard from
members of the Bloc today that it is some secretive process that
never sees the light of day.
I guess they do not have computers. I am sure that as members of
parliament they have a budget, as we do, which would allow them
to have computers. They could probably afford, in their members'
operating budget, to tap into that new scary thing called the
web.
1535
If they want to know what is going on, all the data is on the
web for all to see. It is there for all Canadians and not just
for members of parliament. If the members want to create
gridlock they can ignore that. If they want to know what is
happening with questions they have in the House, they have an
opportunity in question period to stand and ask the Minister for
International Trade what is going on with the negotiations.
Opposition members of parliament have opportunities to seek out
meetings with members of the government. I am quite sure
government members would be more than prepared to meet with the
critic or a group from the opposition side.
We have a parliamentary secretary who is second to none in this
place. He is the member for London—Fanshawe, and he would be
more than delighted to sit and explain what is going on in
relation to the negotiations. All they have to do is ask.
The hon. members do not have to put forward a motion stating
that somehow, sitting at the centre table in here, we will do all
the negotiating in this place. We all know what would happen.
Everything would be blown out of proportion. There would be
grandstanding beyond belief. People would play to the cameras
instead of trying to resolve a deal that would be best for all
Canadians.
It is almost trite, inconsequential and unbelievable to have to
say that we live in a global economy, but obviously we do. We
must be prepared to trade in the world, to trade aggressively and
to put our best foot forward. We must give our negotiating team
the ability to do that. We must not create gridlock by
suggesting that somehow we will magically become experts in the
areas of free trade and in negotiating international trade
agreements.
Some people perhaps have a swollen opinion of themselves when it
comes to their understanding and their capabilities. I trust the
negotiators to come forward with a plan that will be in the best
interests of the country. Our government has a very solid track
record in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we are not here to try to polish our image. That is very clear.
We are here to have intelligent debates in which we must respect
other people's intelligence. It is very important to do that,
because we are here to represent people who are also intelligent.
We should not be seen as stupid nor, indirectly, should those we
represent be seen as stupid.
Our motion does not require any change to the constitution nor
any major upheaval. We want a debate like the ones we had under
the Conservative government on the free trade agreement with the
United States and under the Liberals on the ratification of
NAFTA. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the agreement, but
it was the Liberals who, after spending years tearing their hair
out and opposing free trade, ratified that agreement. They
swallowed their pride and they passed the act implementing the
agreement.
Under that process, implementation bills were introduced in both
cases and were debated. Could someone tell us whether a
parliament is still a place to hold debates and not a place to
have spineless members who say “We are backbenchers, we cannot
say anything”? It is unbelievable to hear such things.
Perhaps the member has no talent in international trade, as he
has said himself, but he has a responsibility of properly
representing those who elected him.
Could we just ask him whether he would agree, as happened with
the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the free trade agreement with
the United States and Mexico, to a debate here, so amendments
could be tabled and we could debate them in order to improve the
agreement, if need be, before ratification?
They did it in the case of NAFTA. Why do things differently
with the free trade area of the Americas? Why do things
differently with the upcoming WTO agreement?
We have no pretensions. We just want to honour our
responsibilities, to not have any tricks played on us, like the
people of the industrialized world could have been with the
multilateral agreement on investment, with their great friend Mr.
Johnston, a man of incredible arrogance. He, with his nose in
the air, almost right to the ceiling, said that it was already a
fait accompli, that the people had simply to note the great
negotiations held in order to look after the interests of the
world's multinational companies.
Things do not work like that in real world. We are here to
represent and defend the interests of people and to ensure that
everything that is negotiated is good for them.
1540
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member did
not hear the part of my speech where I said that at least the
Bloc is putting forward an issue for debate that is important to
all Canadians. I did not insult the intelligence of the members
opposite. I think it is a legitimate issue to be put on the
table.
I also said, however, that I fear the old hidden agenda of
Quebec's place at the table for international trade agreements.
Sovereignty for the province of Quebec is always the motive
behind everything that group of parliamentarians does. I find it
regrettable.
Every agreement that has been signed, whether NAFTA, WTO,
Canada-Chile or Canada-Israel, went through the exact process
where negotiations were done by professional negotiators. That
is not to say that I or others do not have expertise or interest.
It is the old saying about a horse built by a committee becomes a
camel. Let us imagine an agreement negotiated by 301 people in a
public place like this. What in God's name would we wind up
with?
The process is that it will be negotiated. It will be brought
into this place where our responsibility will be to debate it, to
ratify it on behalf of the Canadian people and to ensure it is in
the best interest of all Canadians.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the other side and as
usual he got too excited and brought forward issues that had no
relevance to the debate.
I want the member to confirm something he just said. If I am
not mistaken I just heard him say that the treaty will come back
to the House and be debated here before it is ratified. Is that
what I heard the member say?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am not excited at all.
It may just be my normal glowing personality the member is
referring to. I was saying that the standard process is that
there is a negotiating team. In this case 34 countries are
involved in the negotiation.
My point in relationship to the motion is that hon. members
opposite would have us bring draft agreements and amendments into
the House to debate them before there is any agreement between
the chief negotiators of the 34 countries.
It is a recipe for gridlock. It is an impossible situation in
which to put together a quality agreement. It would simply allow
those who would to grandstand on issues. It would not work to
the betterment of all Canadians in the international trade
agreements.
We will follow the normal process that has been followed in the
past and negotiate agreements in the best interests of the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unless I am
mistaken, the member is saying that in future all our problems
will be solved by experts. What are we doing here then?
He said that we should not be asking questions, but that we
should accept what the experts come up with. He says “What would
301 members of parliament at the negotiating table accomplish?”
We are not asking for every one of us to take part in the
negotiations.
I represent a riding, and Quebecers who want to know what is
going on. The member says that we want to talk about health,
education, labour. But what does he think is on the table when
free trade agreements are negotiated? This will affect the future
of all Quebecers and all Canadians. We have the right to ask
questions. We have the right to know what we are getting
ourselves into.
The member said that almost no one but those who voted for the
Liberals deserve to run this beautiful country, Canada—or
something like that, at the beginning of his speech—and that the
opposition does not carry much weight.
What does the member think we are doing here in this House, if
not representing a segment of the population that has questions
to ask? It is not the people on your side who will have to field
questions, but the members on our side.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Champlain to
address all remarks through the Chair. The hon. member for
Mississauga West.
1545
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon.
gentlemen to maybe put himself to sleep tonight and get the
instant Hansard and read it. He will find out that I said
none of the things that he has accused me of saying.
In fact, the opposite is true. I said that I believe there is a
clear cut role for the opposition in this place, The fact is
that the Canadian people returned the Liberal Party, Jean
Chrétien and this—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West meant
the Prime Minister, I sense that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I did, and my apologies. I
know better. They returned us to government. We have a
responsibility to govern.
I totally understand and appreciate the role of opposition. I
said I had no difficulty with the fact that the Bloc put forward
this kind of a motion. It is much more constructive than many of
the others that we have seen. However, let us be clear what the
motion says. It says that the House demand that the government
bring any draft agreement on the free trade zone area of the
Americas before the House. They want us to bring to the House a
draft agreement, an amendment, a change or a negotiation point.
It is a recipe for gridlock that will not be in the interests of
Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of my
colleague. I distinctly heard the member say that this agreement
would come to the House of Commons, would be debated in the House
of Commons and would be ratified here. Would he go back over
that statement and say whether or not that was accurate because I
do not believe it is accurate. I believe it is completely wrong.
It would make this motion redundant if in fact it were accurate.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member understands
the process. There is a negotiating team, in this case, with 34
countries. They will enter into an agreement. There is no
question about that. Canada will be part of it. Before any
implementation of that agreement, it will come back to this
place, as every other agreement has.
Do not try to twist my words or anything that is going on in the
process. It is standard with the FTA, or the WTO, or Chile or
with Israel. This agreement will be done in exactly the same
way.
I would also invite that member to read Hansard. There
will be a lot of people falling asleep early tonight as they
research Hansard to find out what was really said.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations between the leaders of all the parties in
the House and I believe you would find consent for the following
motion dealing with a change in name to one of our standing
committees. I move:
That Standing Order 104(2)(k) be amended by adding immediately
after the word “Industry” the words “Science and Technology”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. the parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating a topic which is of paramount
importance to me since the summit of the Americas on the free
trade area of the Americas will be held in Quebec City next April
20 and 21.
By an absolutely incredible coincidence, as far as I am
concerned, this will also be a very important anniversary: on
April 20 three years ago I attempted to initiate a crucially
important debate on the social impacts of globalization. As you
will recall, I attempted to raise the issue by walking out of the
House with my seat, which I brought to my constituents.
The question I wanted to raise was this: in the context of
globalization, what is happening to political power? The
statistics show clearly that, in spite of the economic growth of
the past few years, there is an increase in poverty.
This debate meant a lot to me then and still does. Whether we
talk about globalization or “continentalization”, most of the
issues are very similar. I have worked very hard for our role to
be taken seriously, as well as for an in-depth debate on the
revolution we are experiencing today. Who is in charge? Who is in
charge of the political agenda? Is it the elected
representatives, international bodies or the marketplace? These
are very important questions.
1550
I am convinced I am not the only parliamentarian who is
wondering who is in charge of the world economic agenda. The mere
fact that we are asking the question indicates that somewhere
there is a lack of transparency or a lack of democracy.
I have a number of concerns regarding the future. As the
youngest parliamentarian in this House, I did something very
daring and I asked myself a number of questions. I believe there
is now somebody younger than I am in this House.
But I can still wonder about the kind of society I will be living
in, 20 or 30 years from now, as the gap between rich and poor is
getting wider and wider.
I do not like the term free trade area too much. Economic trade
area of the Americas would be more to my liking. I am in no way
against international trade. It is a very good thing. For one
thing, I want to be able to have bananas, and I hope people in
other countries will be able to continue to buy maple syrup. My
example is somewhat trivial, but it shows how important
international trade is.
What I do not like is the word free. Does it mean there are no
rules? Certainly not. We need a trade framework and what I would
call rules of the game.
Why should we have rules of the game? Because the economy cannot
be set apart from the social issues. We cannot say that trade
agreements do no concern people, that they are purely a
commercial matter, while the social impact is something else.
That is not true. Everything is connected, and that is why we
need more extensive debates. Hence, the importance of this
opposition day and, at the same time, the tragedy that we are
having a single day of debate on this issue.
We should have more extensive discussions. We should have a
debate on social values. We do not need to ask why people took to
the streets in Seattle, in Prague, in Nice, or in Washington, and
why they will do the same in Quebec City in April. It is because
they are concerned. They are wondering, and they do not like the
kind of society that seems to be emerging. I share their
concerns.
I wonder what will happen if the economy is left to its own
devices, if we have free trade everywhere.
I think a free market system will only lead to increased
competition. The question I ask myself is what the consequences
of this increased competition will be.
I will point out some of the possible consequences. To be
competitive, a business will probably try to hire the brightest
people, which is very commendable. In this knowledge based
economy, we all have that goal.
To lower its production costs, will this same business have a
tendency to overexploit natural resources, to pay no attention to
the environment, to lower salaries or to simply lay off workers?
Another thing would be to try not to pay taxes. These are all
things to be expected when a business wants to remain
competitive.
I have nothing against competition, but I think there has to be
a framework. In a free trade area of the Americas, we have to set
rules, including social rules. In an economy which has a growing
tendency to overheat and to skid, we must build safety rails to
make sure we have a social safety net. We have to talk about
health care, access to education, income security and
environmental protection. These are all absolutely necessary.
I think this must be done through an open debate where both the
public and parliamentarians have the opportunity to express their
views.
1555
My colleagues talked earlier about the multilateral agreement on
investment. I hope we all got our lesson from what happened with
this agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors and which
parliamentarians were certainly not aware of. Fortunately, there
was a leak. Things like that should remind us that it should not
happen again.
Today, three years after this agreement failed, what are we
doing? We are asking to see the documents, we are asking for
parliamentarians to play their role and vote on the ratification
of such an agreement. I find it almost absurd that we need to
have this kind of debate, because it seems quite obvious to me.
It is abundantly clear.
I feel there is still a long way to go. I think that we, as
parliamentarians, have many questions to ask ourselves about the
role we want to play in the globalization and continentalization
of economies. As a member of parliament who was elected in a
national forum, if I might say—every member of parliament in the
world is elected to sit in a country's parliament—I think
reflection is in order.
Finally, the issue of parliamentary reform has been raised
regularly. I believe a reform of parliament is absolutely
necessary.
However, a true reform would mean pondering the issues and
developing measures in order to redefine the role of members of
parliament in a context of globalization and continentalization.
I would like to talk to parliamentarians from Chile, Argentina
and Guatemala. I would like to know about their own reality and
their own difficulties. I am convinced that most of them have
the same troubles and the same concerns as all of us here.
As we enter this new millennium, this is how we should review
the role of parliamentarians. It is not sufficient to meet with
members of other parliaments over a drink once in a while. We
should meet regularly. How will we deal with issues that go
beyond our borders? When I say this, naturally I am thinking
about international democracy, the democracy of the International
Monetary Fund, of the World Bank and of the World Trade
Organization.
I am also thinking about the regularization of capital markets
and issues such as the Tobin tax for example, issues that have to
be submitted to scrutiny by many countries and parliamentarians.
There is the Internet, the environment, the incessant expansion
of international crime, the anticompetitive rules and those
transnational giants emerging more and more to become worrisome
monopolies; there are ethics issues like genetically engineered
organisms and biosafety. There are numerous questions that go
beyond the boundaries of this parliament and that will have to be
examined in a much broader context since we cannot escape
globalization or continentalization.
This is all the time I had, but I will gladly answer questions.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me take this
opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.
I listened to the comments of the member from the Bloc with some
interest. I support his call for meetings of parliamentarians
other than in this House of Commons. Is the hon. member aware
that when the House is recessed in the month of March, there will
be in this very Chamber a meeting of elected members of
parliament from throughout the Americas? As a member of
parliament in this House he is certainly more than welcome to
participate and I hope he will have the chance to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of it. I
also know that there are some tensions between parliamentary
groups, between COPA, FIPA and others, and it is unfortunate.
Yes, I will certainly attend the meeting. We should also think
about how tough it is to hold these kinds of meetings.
I had the opportunity to attend two meetings of international
parliamentarians, the first one when the agreement on the
prohibition of anti-personnel landmines was ratified in
Mozambique and the second one at the Forum of Federations at
Mont-Tremblant.
1600
I can say though that in such meetings it is hard to have
in-depth ongoing discussions like the ones we have in committee
where we meet once a week, on a regular basis.
There are still obstacles to be overcome but I will definitely
take part in such events. In fact, I promote them. I said earlier
that it was not just about having a few cocktails, but that it
was important to be able to address major issues.
Will we one day have an assembly sitting not just a few days but
several weeks? Are we moving toward some kind of continental
parliament? I am not talking about a continental government, but
rather a continental parliament or even a world parliament where
we could debate these issues.
I do not pretend to have the answers to all these questions, but
I think we should look to the future and find forward looking
solutions to some of today's problems.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I did not take the member's
question as rhetorical so I will respond by saying that given the
number of bilateral groups that exist in various countries around
the world, I cannot think of a nation that is more connected to
the world scene than Canada. As a member of parliament, I feel
that I have a tremendous myriad number of opportunities, as does
my colleague, to have tremendous regular input with people from
virtually every country in the world that we interact with.
The member spoke about a lack of consultation and things being
done in secret. It boggles my mind to hear those kind of
comments coming from the Bloc today. Indeed there were questions
posed in question period that followed that misperception.
Is the member aware that there is a government website and that
the government receives comments daily from Canadians, including
from the province of Quebec? Is the member aware that the
government continues to receive written submissions from NGOs and
stakeholders?
Is the member aware that 10 days ago there was a meeting with
the Minister for International Trade and the trade ministers of
all the provinces, including the important province of Quebec,
where all these issues were discussed at great length? Is the
member aware that the Minister for International Trade met in
Quebec with NGOs such as Oxfam-Quebec. Is he aware of this
extensive consultation?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I know that this kind of
consultation is, unfortunately, not necessary. I will give an
example.
Last fall, there was a meeting of the ministers of finance and
the governors of the central banks of the G20. At that time,
the Minister of Finance, who defined the G20 as a kind of board
of governors of the world economy, met with a number of NGOs, or
non-governmental organizations.
I wanted to take part, but what was I told? “No, it is for
NGOs only”. So there was no open debate. The media was
excluded. There is still a long way to go before there is any
real transparency.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Quebecois motion calling
upon the government to bring any draft agreement on the free
trade area of the Americas before the House so that it may be
debated and put to a vote before ratification by the Government
of Canada.
I wish to begin by reacting to the comments by the parliamentary
secretary informing us today in the House that there is an
Internet site which provides a method of consultation with the
public and the NGOs.
Naturally, I thank the Canadian government for making this
available to Canadians and Quebecers. If it wants to be really
transparent in its consultation mechanisms, however, let it make
the Canadian position public before the negotiations.
1605
There is, of course, a consultation mechanism. What we have
been trying to find out for weeks in this House, however, is the
real position of the Canadian government only a few months or
weeks away from the summit of the Americas, to be held in Quebec
City in April.
I am not opposed to free trade, let me point out, far from it. I
am one of the supporters of more open trade with the world.
Today, I want to share some concerns about social and labour
rights. Later on, the hon. member for Laurentides will elaborate
on these issues. I would like to focus my comments on my
concerns about the protection of environmental rights.
With the summit of the Americas just months away, in light of
how the texts of the multilateral agreement on investment were
negotiated, in light of the fact that we found out about the content of
the negotiations on the Internet, and in light of the secrecy surrounding
the talks on NAFTA's environmental clauses, I have every reason
to be concerned about the upcoming negotiations.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to negotiate
environmental clauses within the trade agreements. This is
critical. Since it is important to know where we are headed, let
us look at what was done in the past.
In the case of the free trade agreement with the United States,
we will recall that the environmental issue was raised as early
as in 1991. Thanks to the effectiveness and involvement of all
these organizations, these NGOs, especially those from Canada
and the United States, which were allowed to speak to some
extent, a final text including several environmental clauses was
ready by 1992, so much so in fact that, at the time, the free trade agreement
was dubbed the green agreement. Some were concerned that there
would be a grey agreement.
Quite the contrary. The so-called green agreement allowed a
certain number of environmental provisions to be included.
I simply recall the preamble of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, which states that the implementation of this
agreement must be undertaken in a manner consistent with
environmental protection.
I also recall article 104 of the Free Trade Agreement, which
provides for the principle of primacy in the implementation and
application of international agreements dealing with the
environment.
I will mention two agreements, the Basel convention on the
control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and the
international agreement on the environment. That is the Montreal
protocol on the ozone layer.
Article 104.1 of the agreement provides for the upholding of
these international agreements in the implementation of the Free
Trade Agreement.
It can therefore be said that the North American Free Trade
Agreement is open, that it contains environmental standards, and
that it goes further as far as the environment protection
standards are concerned. Further than the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, and further than the GATT.
Today, people would like to see an open debate take place. There
is certainly room for improvement. I will come back to the Free
Trade Agreement.
People would like to see a stronger article 114 in NAFTA. This
article deals precisely with sanctions, the possibility of
recourses in the whole issue of pollution havens, by
discouraging polluters when they come to pollute an environment.
1610
Moreover, we think that, in future negotiations, there should be
a strengthening of what has been created in the Free Trade
Agreement with the United States, the commission for
environmental co-operation.
We want that commission to be strengthened and given a clearer
mandate, so that it can offset the power of large industries and
big corporations on the international stage. The commission must
be strengthened and given the ability to set up inquiries and
table reports more regularly. Important meetings must be held
between trade and environment officials on the implementation of
free trade agreements in order to integrate environmental
concerns.
We also want, in the summit of the Americas negotiations, the
relation between investors and governments to be taken into
account. We are concerned. When we consider the legal situation,
when we consider the current challenges under the North American
Free Trade Agreement, particularly in relation to chapter 11 on
the relations between investors and governments, we see that a
number of environmental regulations, in all three countries, have
been challenged by investors.
Some investors and some corporations feel the environmental
legislation in all three NAFTA member countries is too
restrictive and have decided to challenge it. We must be
vigilant. An expert on free trade agreements said he was deeply
concerned about this situation.
Currently, there are two trends in the negotiations of the
agreements for the free trade area of the Americas. One is to
isolate environmental questions by redirecting them to other
forums, such as the WTO or the OAS. But a new approach is being
developed in which the aim is to consolidate the whole
environmental aspect of free trade agreements. We support this
model.
What we want as well, is to renegotiate the clauses of NAFTA in
order to exclude the whole issue of water as a natural resource.
I understand that water is not currently a commodity, it is not
considered to be such, but basically we want water, as a natural
resource, not to be considered a commodity and not to become an
item for export.
In closing, I will quote a former Premier of Quebec, now an
expert on free trade, Pierre-Marc Johnson, who said recently:
The way to the next summit of the Americas in 2001 in Quebec
City is therefore unclear, and many obstacles to the inclusion of
environmental issues in NAFTA must be removed.
In 1994, NAFTA was
greeted as the greenest agreement in history. It remains to be
seen whether history will repeat itself.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Bloc on bringing
this important issue to the forefront.
I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of very important
questions on the issue of globalization. We heard earlier today,
and the government would agree, that much of the opposition to
globalization and to the World Trade Organization, like we saw in
Seattle, has to do with actual misnomers.
Many of these organizations and groups are in fact opposing that
which they claim they want to support, such as the poor,
environmental rules and regulations, job protection, minimum
wages and many other issues.
1615
I wonder whether the hon. member is prepared to work with
members from across the party line in developing a movement
within the House so that we can get the truth out about free
trade, and ensure that the WTO and other forums that are engaging
in freer trade ensure that they have an open discussion on the
issues of environmental protection, labour laws, rules and
regulations, worker protection and many of these other issues?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is taking
words out of my mouth. This is the essence of the motion. I hope
that if the parliamentary secretary wants to intervene during the
time I am allotted, he will not repeat that there is already an
Internet site. We all know as parliamentarians that the site
exists. However, I would like this government after it has
consulted NGOs and the public to make public the documents Canada
will use in its negotiations at the summit in April.
We hope that, in the principles to be set forth and as part of
Canada's position in the negotiations, which, unfortunately,
seems to have been given over to professional negotiators, as the
parliamentary secretary told us, we will find protection of
social rights, of the rights of workers and of the environment.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague made
reference to NGOs and to the process of consultation.
Does he feel that it is necessary for the government to hear
from NGOs and from civil society in the FTAA consultative
process? Does he feel that that is a wise thing to do? If he
does would he speak to his colleague in the Bloc who preceded him
who, if I heard him correctly and I am sure I did, felt that it
was not necessary to consult with NGOs? Is there a common voice
from the Bloc today or am I hearing a contradiction?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
parliamentary secretary is distorting what my colleagues and the
hon. member have said. He is probably referring to my colleague
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
His government took part in preliminary meetings, among others,
for the 1994 Miami summit. His government probably took part in
four ministerial meetings, between 1995 and 1998, where some
Latin American countries asked that NGOs be excluded from the
negotiations, saying that environmental NGOs had no business
being involved in international agreement negotiations.
I wonder how the Canadian government responded to this demand,
that NGOs not be involved in those negotiations, a demand made
repeatedly by some countries that are now negotiating. What was
the outcome? In Santiago, 800 NGOs from 34 countries expressed
their concern that environmental and labour provisions would be
excluded from negotiations.
It is not the members on this side of the House who opposed the
participation of NGOs, it is the government, which did nothing to
counter some countries' demand that NGOs not be involved in the
negotiations. The hon. member will have an opportunity to answer
my question, since this debate is not over yet. What was the
Canadian position when some Latin American countries asked that
the NGOs not be involved in the negotiation?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to congratulate you as the Deputy
Speaker of the House. I am very proud to see you sitting there.
I would also like to thank the people of
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington who have chosen me to
represent them for my third term.
Thanks also to my campaign manager, Kathryn MacDonald, who did a
terrific job. Thanks also to my HFL and A Liberal Association and
each one of the several hundred volunteers who took part in the
campaign, which makes this a very democratic process. A very
special thanks to my number one supporter, my wife, Reta and our
daughter, Kayla.
1620
I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the
member for the great riding of Waterloo—Wellington.
The Minister for International Trade has made excellent points
in regard to our involvement in the free trade area of the
Americas. Let me just reiterate that in the case of agriculture
and agrifood, the FTAA offers opportunity to promote economic
growth and prosperity in Canada.
From beginning to end our agriculture and agrifood system
produces about 8.4% of the national gross domestic product, and
accounts for about one in seven of all Canadian jobs. Canada's
agriculture and agrifood sector provides more than $120 billion
in food products, both domestically and internationally. The
agriculture and agrifood sector is a major player in contributing
to Canada's economy.
An important part of that equation is trade. Trade has been and
continues to be vitally important to the Canadian agriculture and
agrifood industry. In fact, it accounts for a good half of all
farm sales. Each year we export about $20 billion in agriculture
and agrifood products. With those sales, Canada's share of
overall world agriculture and agrifood trade is edging closer to
the ambitious goal set by the industry of capturing 4% of the
world's agrifood trade by the year 2005.
With our relatively small population and our incredible capacity
for agriculture production, it is only natural that Canada is a
food exporter. This commitment to trade with nations around the
world has put Canada at the forefront of the movement to
strengthen the international trading system in agriculture and
agrifood products. The new export opportunities trade agreements
have provided for agriculture and agrifood products have created
jobs and boosted economic stability, both in rural communities
and urban centres.
The government is working on several fronts to increase trade in
the agriculture and agrifood sector. The FTAA is one of those.
The FTAA is an historic opportunity to unite 34 countries of the
Americas in a vast new free trade area. It is a market with a
combined population of more than $800 million and GDP of $17
trillion, and it is right in our neighbourhood.
It is only logical that we would negotiate an agreement that
would enhance our trade and investment opportunities with our
neighbours in the Americas.
Canada has truly become a nation of the Americas. As the Prime
Minister once said “Geography has made Canada a country of the
Americas. History, and especially recent history, has seen a
steady growing sense among Canadians that our future is closely
linked to that of our neighbours in the hemisphere”.
By its very nature, the FTAA will achieve for exports of our
agrifood products greater improvements in market access to the
countries of the hemisphere where currently they face relatively
high tariffs. At the same time, in the WTO negotiations we will
actively seek to achieve a more level playing field through the
elimination of export subsidies and the substantial reduction or
elimination of trade distorting domestic support. We will
continue to ensure that the ability of Canadians to operate the
orderly marketing systems necessary for stability and
profitability is preserved.
By participating in the FTAA, our overall objective is to deepen
and broaden our relationship with the Americas. We just have to
look at the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which became NAFTA
in 1994 when Mexico joined, to see how Canada has benefited from
previous trade agreement.
In 1989, the year the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement came into
effect, Canadian agrifood exports to the U.S. were about $3.6
billion. Ten years later they had more than tripled to $13.2
billion. I should also point out that in 1989 we imported more
agrifood products from the United States than we exported to
them. Today we have a net agrifood trade surplus with the U.S.
of more than $3 billion.
1625
While the FTAA may not produce the same magnitude of agrifood
trade expansion as that which we experienced with the U.S., there
is good reason to believe that the FTAA offers significant growth
opportunities for our agrifood exports to the hemisphere.
These closer ties with other countries of the Americas are
already paying off. Our two-way trade with Latin America and the
Caribbean has more than doubled what it was five years ago. In
total, Canadian investment in this region has reached $15
billion.
Trade is crucial to Canada. It has created millions of jobs for
Canadians and it will create millions more in the next century.
With the negotiation of free trade spanning the Americas this
prosperity will be shared throughout the hemisphere.
As host of the summit of the Americas in Quebec City this April,
Canada is taking a leadership role in ensuring that the FTAA
negotiations will succeed to the benefit of all countries in the
Americas.
I believe our efforts over the next few years will pay off in
spades down the road, as people of every country in this
hemisphere reap the benefits of increased prosperity through
trade and investments. I look forward, as I know the Canadian
agriculture and agrifood sector does, to continue to work and
trade closely with our neighbours across the Americas. The fact
is that establishing freer and fairer global agricultural trade
is critical to the long term viability of our farms and the
prosperity of our rural communities and indeed the country.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I agreed with many of the comments
the hon. member made.
Our agriculture and agrifood sector will benefit from lowering
trade barriers. That is why the official opposition is generally
supportive of liberalizing trade barriers which will allow for
the freer flow of goods, services and capital. However, food
producers and food manufacturers are interested in accountability
and transparency in government.
This motion, which seems reasonable to me, is about not
renegotiating the agreement but bringing it before the House.
This would allow parliamentarians, the representatives of the
people of Canada, to debate it, deliberate on it and either
ratify it or not. Is that not our proper role? Could my hon.
colleague address that question?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, we certainly must work
to lower the trade barriers because our producers and farmers
deserve the very best opportunities that are available. They
produce the finest products, the safest and the best food in the
world. I can testify to that. The opportunities are there and
they deserve them.
Our farmers have faced a real challenge in the last couple of
years. Mother nature produced a lot of bad conditions for crops
and the unfair subsidies from the EU and the United States have
not helped either.
I would ask that we all work together on the FTAA situation so
that we can benefit the producers and the people in the rural
areas. Agriculture is very important to all people in Canada.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite mentioned in his response to the member from the
Alliance the unfair subsidies from the United States. I am
interested in that comment linked with his earlier comment during
his speech wherein he said that trade with the United States had
tripled over the last 10 years. I believe his figures were $3.6
billion to something like $13.2 billion.
One cannot help but wonder whether or not there is a
relationship between the explosion in trade between the two
countries and the fact that the Canadian government, because of
that $13.2 billion, does not want to get into any serious
argument or challenge to the United States about unfair trade
subsidies, which the member and the parliamentary secretary
referred to.
I would like him to comment on that development and see if he
agrees that it is unfair. If it is unfair, why is Canada not
doing something directly about it?
1630
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague, who was a very valuable member of our agricultural
standing committee in the last session, as I hope he will be this
session.
I am not sure whether any one of us could do more about the
unfair subsidies and the situation today than our Prime Minister
has done. Our Prime Minister spoke first to President Bush about
the situation facing our farmers in regard to the subsidies. Of
course President Bush went on to talk about other things, such as
what he wanted and what he wanted from us. Our Prime Minister
told the president we could work on those things but that he
first needed a commitment that we would work to make a more level
playing field for our producers.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member talk about the movement of goods and
services between countries. How does he rationalize his
government's stand on the movement of hydro power from Labrador
to the markets when the government has always opposed a power
corridor through Quebec?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question and I also would support any agreements of any kind with
our provinces that would benefit the great province that the
member represents, Newfoundland. I know we have barriers between
provinces that are sometimes more excessive than those we have
across the international borders, and I think it is something I
would certainly support and work with.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say what a great
honour it is to follow the eloquence of the hon. member from
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, and I will tell the
House why. It is that not only does he know what is in the best
interests of his constituents in Ontario, but he also knows a
great deal as parliamentary secretary about matters relating to
agriculture, so I listen to him with great interest.
In fact, I was hoping to ask him a question, but of course other
members preceded me. He certainly knows a great deal when it
comes to agriculture so I was very interested in his comments.
This is a very important issue in terms of the free trade
agreement area of the Americas and the kinds of things that
Canada needs to do with its neighbours in the western hemisphere.
It is a dynamic region. It is something we need to ensure we in
Canada do in the best interests of all Canadians.
As has been pointed out, the area itself has eight hundred
million people. That is not even one-sixth of the world's
population, yet they account for one-third of the world's
economic activity. That is a great deal, and that is something
we in Canada and we as Canadians need to tap into. It
represents, as the hon. member preceding me indicated, $11
trillion. The combined gross domestic product of the Americas,
then, is greater than that of the European Union.
It is no wonder, then, that given all these facts the leaders of
the western hemisphere believe in the potential here. What we
want to do as Canadians and what we want to do as a country is
ensure that we tap into this very important area and that we do
so effectively on the social, the political and the economic
fronts to ensure that we promote democracy, development and
growth for all of us, in a manner consistent with what I believe
are the values of Canada and ultimately the values that all of us
can share.
At the Miami summit in 1994, the leaders ensured and endorsed a
declaration and a plan of action that expressed a common
commitment to strengthening democracy and creating greater
prosperity for everyone. They also committed themselves at that
time to practical measures to improve health care, to increase
access to quality education and to protect biodiversity. They
committed themselves to taking collective action against the
scourge of drugs and corruption and to expanding and deepening
dialogue with civil society on regional priorities.
At the second summit in Santiago in 1998, this was furthered.
The co-operation that had existed in 1994 in Miami was developed
even further, more in an incremental fashion but also in a manner
consistent with the movement forward that we anticipated would in
fact be in place. At that conference in Santiago, leaders once
again endorsed action to support development of democratic
institutions. Human rights, again a very topical issue, was at
the top of the agenda. Also included was enhanced transparency.
Of course with that, there was the respect for the rule of law.
They gave specific instructions to begin the process of
negotiating the free trade area of the Americas.
Once it is complete the FTAA will be the world's largest free
trade area.
That is something I believe that we in Canada need to keep in
focus and keep in mind, because that is huge in terms of social,
political and economic realities. We need to remember that.
1635
In short, then, the summit of the Americas process offers
numerous opportunities, not only for Canada but for the countries
in the western hemisphere. I believe that in the process we will
enhance the reputation of Canada and its ability to conduct
business and do the kinds of things that are required. It is a
huge tangible opportunity for all of us in this area. I think it
underscores the commitment of the government, our Prime Minister,
the cabinet and indeed all caucus members, to ensure that we
export and do the kinds of things that are in the best interests
of business and the people who work with business in Canada.
If there is one sector that I want to identify today during my
time in the House, it is the service sector, and not only what it
means for Canada but what it can do in terms of Canada exporting
into that area.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and all members in the House
that the service sector is a key engine of Canada's economy. It
is responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's GDP. We have
to think about that for a minute. That is huge in terms of what
it represents. Almost three-quarters of employment, 10,500,000
jobs and nearly 90% of all new job creation in Canada, is now
directly related to the service sector. Why? It is clear. That
is the kind of economy we are in. That is the kind of economy we
stand to benefit by and indeed export to that part of the world.
It is leading the transformation of the Canadian economy into a
knowledge based economy.
More employees in the service sector are highly educated and
enjoy high weekly salaries, for example, much beyond the average.
Again that is something that underpins our economic security and
stability. Services are at the heart of Canada's innovation
system. For example, communications, financial services and
technical business services are among the most innovative
industries in Canada.
As a trading nation, Canada counts on service exports to other
countries. In so doing, it strengthens the prosperity for all of
us here in Canada. Not counting Canada's direct investment
abroad in service companies, Canada is the twelfth largest
exporter of services in the world. That is phenomenal if we
really think about it. Canada exported $51.8 billion worth of
services in 1999 alone. Canadian companies such as SNC-Lavalin,
Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro-Québec are among the world's
leaders in their fields. Their expertise is sought around the
world, and rightfully so, because they have so much to offer.
Though service exports only account for 12% of total Canadian
exports, Canada's trade in services is increasing at a much
greater pace than is its trade in other areas. Given the
importance of trade for our country, we can say without fear of
exaggeration, I believe, that improving market access for our
service providers abroad is vital for our economy here at home
and for the prosperity we enjoy.
The argument for supporting Canada's service exports is
particularly eloquent when it comes to the Americas. Canada's
commercial services exports to FTAA countries, excluding the U.S.
and Mexico, were worth $1.9 billion in 1998, up from $787 million
in 1993, which shows an increase of 19% in terms of what
potential exists.
To wrap up, all I am saying by way of a quick conclusion is
this. Countries like Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela,
Columbia and Brazil are all key existing or potential export
markets for Canada. This is something that all of us should be
supporting. I hope that all of us in the House do, because it
stands to underpin the very foundation of Canada's economy.
1640
I know that at the end of the day people from wherever they are
in Canada expect us as a government to ensure the prosperity and
sustainability of the economy here in Canada. One of the best
ways to do it is to open up the borders for trade and to export
these kinds of things, and especially, as I pointed out,
services, into the FTAA. As a result, all of us will prosper and
benefit.
Let us join, then, with the hemisphere's leaders in having
confidence in ourselves and our region. We now have the
stability, the transparency and the economic growth record that
will allow trade to increase and thrive. The countries of the
region are good economic partners for Canada and for each other.
At the end of the day not only they but we too in Canada will
benefit. What does that mean? It is good news for Canada as a
country and good news for all Canadians.
Let us get behind Canada. Let us support Canada in this all
important effort and let us do the right thing. The right thing
is to support the FTAA and to trade accordingly.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary
secretary two separate questions. The first one is easy. Will
he pursue with his colleagues an aggressive removal of the double
taxation that compromises the ability of our exporters to export
our products internationally and impedes the ability of other
countries to invest in Canada?
Second, we want free trade as well as fair trade. With the
explosion of globalization we have had an explosion of
international organized crime. Half the crime in our country
today is attributed to organized crime. Will the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada ask his minister to
work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take an aggressive
approach, with other countries, and to start to take a leadership
and international approach to deal with measures on organized
crime?
Half the crime in our country is rooted in organized crime. This
is not only a domestic problem but an international problem,
which deals not only with money laundering but with narcotics,
endangered species and weapons. We need to take a leadership
role with our partners. Will the hon. member take this to his
minister so we can take a leadership role with other countries?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those
two questions. First, on taxation, we as a trading nation have
consistently put in place the mechanisms that allow us to trade
in an effective and efficient manner and we will continue to do
so. After all, that is who we are as a country and what we are
all about: to trade and do it well. We stand to benefit so much
by it. As a result of making sure that we have the kinds of
vehicles in place to ensure that happens, we can do it and we can
do it well. We have shown that time and again by way of trade
and we will continue to work effectively in that area.
With respect to organized crime, we have taken and will continue
to take the kinds of measures necessary to ensure that we do the
right thing in this area. The member is right on in terms of it
being a pervasive problem that goes to the very corruption that
is often seen in a variety of areas.
We have worked with our American counterparts and we are working
with others in this hemisphere and elsewhere around the world,
for that matter, with Interpol and others, when it comes to
putting in place the kinds of mechanisms and policing enhancement
and requirements that underscore Canada's commitment to ensure
that we do everything possibly we can with respect to ensuring
that it comes to an end, at least as much as we can given the
resources at hand and the partners we have. That is a commitment
the government has given and it is one that we continue to stand
by. I think it is important that we do so.
I want to say while I have the chance that I am a little
disappointed in the Alliance Party for having zero position on
this FTAA position. It is all very well for their members to get
up and question members while they are speaking and such, but I
looked through the party platform, for example. Does the party
have anything on FTAA? Not a thing. Zero. It is a little hard
to take in the sense that one would think that of all people in
the House their members would have a consistent position when it
comes to trading, business, capitalism, prosperity, economy and
profit making.
No, they just do not have it. I was scrounging around trying to
find it but it just does not exist.
1645
The reform alliance people should get their act together. They
should try to secure a position. Unlike what the former leader
did in Hong Kong when he raked Canada over the coals, he and his
new leader and the reform alliance people to a person should
stand once and for all and be counted as defending Canada. They
should stand and defend Canada's ability to trade and Canada's
ability to do great things. They should be positive instead of
always negative. That is their downfall.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to
speak to the Bloc motion introduced by the member for Joliette,
whom I thank.
When I heard about the draft motion asking “that this House
demand that, in order to ensure openness, the government bring
any draft agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before
the House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before
ratification by the Government of Canada”, a few images came to
my mind which in my view should set the stage for our
reflection.
This free trade agreement will have a significant impact for
decades. As the father of three children aged 17, 15 and 10, I
wonder about the environment in which our children will be
living. Finally, this agreement will define the framework for the
new economic reality, free trade across the three Americas.
When the time comes to decide on the framework within which this
agreement will operate for several years to come, I want to
ensure that the decision will be made by the elected
representatives of the people, those who have the mandate not
only to carry on trade, but also to see to the distribution of
wealth in a continent-wide society, which is indeed quite
important.
The second image that came to my mind when I read the draft
motion was the member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay when, three
years ago, he walked out of the House carrying his seat on his
head to bring it to his constituents. His action created quite an
uproar; it did not go unnoticed.
In the final analysis, it was a strong, profound and important
symbolic gesture aimed at condemning the way globalization is
currently working, and the fact that elected representatives do
not have enough of a say.
We can say that, a few months after the MAI negotiations, we had
a narrow escape thanks to the action of the French prime
minister, Mr. Jospin, that followed a more public action. The
draft agreement had been posted on the Internet and people realized
then that the agreement would have a significant impact on the
sovereignty of states.
I would not like us to realize 10, 15 or 20 years later that we
had rubber stamped something that would put the people of the
Americas at a disadvantage, or that we had agreed to it after the
fact.
I am a bit surprised at the Liberal government's attitude today,
because it is already Canada's practice to examine this sort of
issue in advance. The sort of examination that the Bloc
Quebecois is seeking today was conducted before the FTA and NAFTA
were signed. It was done in the House. Now, the Liberals seem
to be opposed.
It is true, however, that the two other agreements were not
negotiated by the Liberals. They inherited these agreements,
and, once in power, were obliged to sing a different tune in
order to implement them, since they were already signed.
Still, I am a bit surprised at the Liberal government's
attitude. It is important that we be able to express our views
before the agreement is ratified, and that we be able to hold a
full debate. A number of questions were raised here, and I would
like to pick up on a few that strike me as important.
For instance, there was the whole issue of the working
conditions of people within this free trade area. Will that be
covered in this agreement?
1650
In the speech he gave in Vancouver on February 9, 2001, the
Minister for International Trade said:
In a globalized, increasingly interdependent world, each
country's well-being will depend upon the health and vitality of
markets abroad. Those conditions are best achieved in an
environment of good governance and in stable, prosperous and open
societies—
We are talking about governance and stable societies.
Nowhere in the speech by the Minister for International Trade
concerning Canada as a backer of the FTAA are there any concerns
of a social or environmental nature. These are the areas in
which my constituents want to know the content of the agreement.
Are there things that will affect us personally?
It is worthwhile heeding past examples. For instance, we have
NAFTA with the United States, but were required to sign a
separate agreement on lumber which forced four provinces to raise
their royalty fees and their compensation payments.
Now we are in a situation where everyone in Canada wishes we
could return to free trade per se. If we had negotiated a free
trade agreement that did not give in so much to the Americans in
this area, perhaps we would not have had to submit to this
agreement on lumber. That is one concrete example. This means
that the FTAA agreement will have an impact down the line on
Rivière-du-Loup, La Pocatière, and everywhere else in Quebec and
Canada. These are not sterile debates, but concrete things we
are discussing, important matters that will make it possible, or
impossible, for our families to have the proper social or
economic conditions to develop their full potential.
What applies to our families applies also to those in other
countries. This type of agreement is not entered into merely to
increase Canada's market capacity. In my opinion, looking at it
in this way does not augur well for sustainable development, a
worthwhile and satisfactory future.
I have given the lumber example, but there are others. We have
just been through the business about Brazilian beef. How will
quality control of food products work within the big market of
all the Americas? We need to know how the clauses have been
negotiated in order to avoid sacrificing for market advantage the
health of peoples in the various countries. Care must be taken
to ensure that there is control, that a certain level of quality
is respected, as we have tried to do within our sovereign states.
There must be sufficient protection for the aspects we will have
in common. Parliaments have a watchdog role to play in this, a
role of representing the public. That is what the Bloc Quebecois
motion is drawing attention to today.
We talked earlier about organized crime. Indeed when trade is
liberalized, it is clear that illegal things are permitted more
easily because there are fewer bureaucratic constraints or basic
ones like customs. That does not mean there must not be a free
trade area of the Americas, but it must happen under reasonable
conditions regarding justice and the environment as well as
working conditions and there must be sufficient protection.
I find the position of the Minister for International Trade
rather paradoxical. He says:
We know that increased trade is synonymous with more jobs for
Canadians. We will create a unique occasion to unify the
hemisphere as never before.
We would like to know what the Government of Canada thinks of
the proposal of a common currency. Would this be negotiated, not
necessarily for inclusion in the agreement itself, but in order
to see how it might be managed in the future? It would transform
economic relations between countries.
We are all entitled to ask these questions. People want to know
that these issues are being defended.
In view of this, I think the Bloc motion is very justified,
because it will ensure that the position of Quebec and Canada in
the negotiations will be that of the public as a whole and that
we do not end up with something that was negotiated on the sly.
We might avoid a few blunders and the positions involving trade
taken by a department such as international trade. It would be
tempered by social and environmental considerations, which will
mean that, in the end FTAA will permit the sustainable
development of the three Americas, will not be a tool just to
promote trade solely for the benefit of certain businesses but
will benefit all of the people of the Americas.
1655
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member
asked a question about common currency. I would simply recall
for him the words said earlier today during question period, if I
heard them correctly, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which
were that this was not something that was of any interest to
Canada now or in the foreseeable future. I think the Prime
Minister made similar statements not too long ago.
I understand that the member has his own riding and indeed the
province of Quebec where I suppose he is aiming message. However
I have to take him up on the issue and ask him a question.
It is simply incorrect to say this deal is being negotiated in a
back room. There has never been a wider consultation with
Canadians on a proposed trade deal. The member knows full well
that members of the Bloc had ample opportunity at SCFAIT, the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to share
their views, and they did so very aggressively and eloquently.
How can the member deny that input was provided? There have
been wide and extensive consultations with people in Quebec, with
NGOs and with ministers, including the minister of Quebec.
Does the member not understand that the process proposed in the
Bloc motion is in direct contravention to the way all other trade
deals between Canada and any other country have been negotiated?
The process that the government would seek to follow, in
bringing a signed deal to the House of Commons for full review
and possible amendment and then voting on enabling legislation,
is the exact process that has been followed for NAFTA, the WTO,
the Canada-Chile agreement and the Canada-Israel agreement.
Would the member comment on that? Does he not see that it is
the Bloc's motion, specifically the words “draft legislation” in
the motion, that seeks to make a major change in the way Canada
has done trade deals in the past?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not impressed by
the hon. member's answer on a common currency. A few years ago,
his whole party was against free trade, and then it completely
reversed its position.
It is just like the antimissile shield. A couple of weeks ago,
when he met with the prime minister of Russia, the Prime
Minister said that he was against that policy. When he met the
American president, he was in favour. Now that he is in China,
we do not know where he stands.
The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party can change their minds
quite fast.
He will soon realize, concerning the common currency, the
proposal put forward by the Bloc Quebecois a few months ago,
that the American and Mexican presidents are now discussing it.
Before long, the Prime Minister of Canada and the hon. member
will have to apologize for what they are saying today.
Concerning the free trade agreement, the hon. member
misunderstood my remarks. I never said it was negotiated behind
closed doors. I said that the agreement that was negotiated did
not include the right provisions.
If we want to take advantage of our past experience, we had better
make sure the next agreement does not rely on the same type of
relations with the Americans. Even if the United States is a
major player, Canada and other sovereign countries must have a
chance to be adequately involved.
In fact, if Quebec had been a sovereign country, we would not
have acted like we did. We would have seen to it that we played
a role that reflected our reality, in particular on the softwood
lumber issue. We would not have had to deal with what Canada
eventually imposed on us.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois is not seeking to blame the government
for everything it has done in the past. We are only saying that
our constituents, our fellow citizens, want to know what these
agreements are all about.
1700
They have come to realize that, in the past, things were slipped
by them from time to time. They do not want this to happen
again. They expect members of parliament to do more than
rubber-stamp the government's decisions. We should be able to
exert some kind of influence to ensure that these agreements
have human impact. We should act as responsible elected
representatives of the people in our society.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise today in the House and speak to the motion
introduced by the member for Joliette. This is a motion
demanding that the government bring any draft agreement on the
free trade area of the Americas before the House before
ratification by the Government of Canada.
For a number of years now, there has been much talk about
integrating the American continent. The free trade area of the
Americas project is a very ambitious one.
The idea is to bring the various countries of the Americas
together within one economic group and to implement a regional
system based on the principles of rules of law, free trade and
democracy, in order to raise the standard of living and improve
working conditions so as to ensure sustainable development and
respect for the various cultural entities. The free trade area
of the Americas comprises the 34 democratically elected
governments on the continent, representing a market of 800
million consumers, with a combined GDP of some $10 trillion U.S.
This new economic entity could, without a doubt, cause major
social and economic upheaval in the societies involved in this
bold plan. But, despite the extreme importance of the
undertaking, there is a breathtaking democratic oversight.
Again yesterday in the House, the member for Joliette asked the
government to make public the basic texts of the free trade area
of the Americas negotiations. Even the institutions committee of
the Quebec National Assembly, a non-partisan committee it should
be pointed out, tabled a report in June 2000 entitled “Quebec
and the Free Trade Area of the Americas: Political and
Socioeconomic Effects”. Unanimously, the committee asked “That
the final accord of the free trade area of the Americas be
submitted to the elected bodies of Canada before being ratified
by the federal government”. The government, as it so often
does, gave us a nonsensical answer. But the question called for
a very serious reply, because this is a very serious matter.
As a responsible political party, the Bloc Quebecois demands
total openness from the federal government in the negotiation of
international agreements such as the free trade area of the
Americas.
We democratically elected Canadian parliamentarians and
representatives of the public, and civil society, have the
fundamental right to know what is being negotiated on our behalf
and on behalf of those who elected us and whom we represent here
in the House of Commons. The participation of civil society in
the planning and decision making processes is no longer merely
something to be considered. It must be an integral component of
world governance.
Since this government took office in 1993, the ratification
process of international treaties and the democratic debates on
the content of these treaties have been significantly shortened.
In order to put an end to these undemocratic practices, the Bloc
Quebecois tried to make the ratification process of international
treaties by parliament more open and democratic by introducing,
last spring, a bill to that effect, Bill C-214. Members can well
imagine that the Liberals defeated this bill. Yet it
provided—and this is only normal—that Canada could not
negotiate or sign a treaty without first having consulted
provincial governments, if that treaty dealt with a provincial
jurisdiction.
Moreover, before being ratified, treaties would have had to be
the object of a resolution in the House of Commons and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs would have had an obligation to
submit all the documents necessary for an informed debate by
parliamentarians.
All that the Bloc Quebecois was asking, and is still asking, was
for the Liberals to respect provincial jurisdictions, as
stipulated under the constitution. This is a brief outline of the
issue of openness, as perceived by my party.
However, there is another issue in which I take a great interest
concerning the negotiations on the free trade area that will take
place at the summit of the Americas that will be held in Quebec
City, from April 20 to 22. I am referring to anything that has to
do with workers' rights.
1705
Let us make one thing very clear right from the beginning. The
Bloc Quebecois demands that globalization and free trade be put
in human terms. We want international treaties to include
provisions to protect social rights and workers' rights, and
direct reference to the obligation for nations to comply with the
regulations contained in the ILO's seven basic labour
conventions. These conventions have to be included in every
commercial agreement that Canada signs.
Here is what these conventions say. Conventions 29 and 105 deal
with the abolition of forced labour. Conventions 86 and 98 deal
with the union rights pertaining to collective bargaining and
employee organization, including the right to elect union
representatives without any interference from the employer or the
government, and the right to strike. Conventions 100 and 111
provide for equal pay for equal work and for the elimination of
discrimination in the workplace. Convention 138 deals with the
minimum age for admission to employment, or the abolition of
child labour.
This is why we would propose to include the ILO's seven
conventions on the fundamental rights of workers listed above in
a continental agreement, thereby forcing employers and
governments to comply with these conventions before they are
allowed access to any benefits from the agreement.
Even today, on the issue of basic labour standards, there is
still no link between international trade and the protection of
the rights of workers.
Even though these seven ILO conventions have to be honoured
regardless of a country's level of development, few countries are
actually willing to allow the use of trade sanctions to enforce
these standards. Moreover, the ILO has no power to force
countries to endorse or to apply these standards.
Even more troubling is the fact that we still do not know if the
Canadian government is willing to make the necessary efforts to
ensure that social rights are respected.
As a matter of fact, last June, when he appeared before the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
the Minister for International Trade stated that social rights
had nothing to do with trade, adding that he could not do
everyone else's job. Not only are these words troubling, but they
are totally unacceptable and irresponsible.
In conclusion, I simply want to remind the House that, for the
Bloc Quebecois, there is a precondition attached to the
ratification of any trade agreement Canada might sign, such as
the one regarding the free trade area of the Americas.
Such agreements must include provisions of a social nature
referring directly to the obligation of the states to abide by
the rules contained in the seven fundamental conventions of the
ILO. It is simply a matter of basic human rights and we just
cannot let it get away from us.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of
my colleague, who is the Bloc Quebecois labour critic.
Indeed, in this sector of activity, it is obvious that, in their
original version, the free trade agreements that we have had in
the past did not include a provision, a specification or a
chapter that defined these conditions in an acceptable manner.
I spoke on an issue relating to fair trade, among other things,
to ensure that, in our trade with other countries, the people
with whom we do business will hire the employees, provide them
with reasonable labour conditions and have them work in an
acceptable environment.
I would like my colleague to tell the House if, indeed, it would
be important to have all the relevant information to be able, not
only to judge the value of the free trade agreement, but also to
know the labour conditions of the people and the kind of
protection they will have, since there are in the three Americas
some economies that are at very different stages.
Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I believe that, on the issue of labour and of children
working in some countries where development is in full progress
and where some children are being abused, a North American
agreement should not allow this.
1710
I believe we can move towards a level playing field and bring
fairness for all workers. Children should go to school. They
should not have to provide for their family. I understand that
we are not all at the same level. I understand full well that
adjustments will have to be made. We are not kidding ourselves.
However, we all have to go in the same direction. I believe it
is the most important thing. It is the basis for creating a
North American economy.
Second, I have other concerns. We already talked about water
exports. I used to be critic for the environment and, as such,
this issue is of great concern to me.
If the federal government were to sign some kind of agreement
with the rest of North America, suddenly agreeing to exporting
bulk water, how would the provinces respond? Water belongs to
the provinces, it belongs to provincial governments. How will
such an agreement be ratified? Will the provinces have their say
in the matter?
All these factors must be taken into account. Also, we have to
listen to our NGOs, our non-governmental organizations. They have
to have their say in these negotiations. These negotiations are
not only about economic issues. Sure it is important to trade
internationally, and we cannot deny this is the way we are
going.
I also sincerely believe that we are going toward a common
currency. There are examples of this across the world. All we
have to do is take note and look at how it is being done
elsewhere and improve on it at home.
I do not believe it should happen at any cost. I believe it must
be done while hanging on to our main social policies, by
improving further our quality of life so that everyone in this
world, our children, ourselves, and the elderly, can have a
better life.
We should not let trade destroy the quality of life it took us
years to achieve.
Let us reach agreements in harmony with the provinces. They
should not be forgotten. They are there, they have laws and they
have things to protect. Things must be done in harmony, by
consensus.
I am convinced that within a few years, if the federal
government is open-minded enough to bring in all those who have
something to say and who have a stake in all this, we might be
an example for the world by reaching a North American agreement.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate
of course. I will begin by saying that I applaud the Bloc
Quebecois for bringing forth a motion like this in the sense that
it is certainly a motion very worthy of debate. Too often
opposition motions are merely designed to try to discredit the
government or to gain cheap political points, but in this case
this genuinely is a motion that deserves the kind of debate it
has been getting today.
I have to say it is hard to mix one's own work and to try to
follow a debate like this because each member who has spoken has
had much to contribute and unfortunately I have not been able to
follow every speech. I will say, however, that when it comes to
deciding how I will vote on this issue I will, before I finally
cast my ballot, look at the full Hansard and consider every
argument that was put forward.
On the surface, however, from where I sit now, from what I have
heard and from what I have read of this particular issue, I find
myself half supporting the motion rather than supporting it
fully. I certainly do believe that there is a great deal to be
said in having a debate on this kind of subject before a treaty
is finally ratified. Where I have difficulty is the part of the
motion that says, and I should read the motion:
That this House demand that the government bring any draft
agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the House
so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification—
The reality is that the government has a majority in this House
and if this were put to this House after debate for ratification,
what would happen is that the government would simply use its
majority and it would go through.
1715
In that sense it is a waste of the House's time, although I use
that term very advisedly because in fact no debate in this House
is a waste of the House's time.
A better way, it seems to me, to approach this is to do what
happened just a few nights ago and have an emergency debate. We
had, I guess, six hours of debate on the farm crisis the other
night, and this was initiated in fact by the opposition I do
believe. Well, both sides, actually. From the backbenches in
one sense. That was an excellent debate. It touched on many,
many aspects of the farm crisis and I think people watching
probably gained much from it.
This whole question of a free trade zone for the Americas, which
is coming up as a topic of conversation or a topic of
negotiation, I should say, at the summit of the Americas in
Quebec City in April, is an issue that has broad ramifications
for the country. I would suggest that it goes even further than
that. It has international ramifications and I think a debate
would be very much in order.
Just to give you a little bit of history, Mr. Speaker, the
summit that is coming up in April is part of a progress of
summits that actually goes back to 1956. There was the first
summit involving the Organization of American States. That was
followed by a larger summit in 1967 which was initiated, I
believe, if memory serves me right, by President Kennedy. That
led to an attempt to bring Latin America under a free trade zone
to the exclusion of the United States and the exclusion of
Canada.
That did not work out in the long run, but the idea remained.
The idea just sort of went into limbo for a long time. It was
restarted by President Clinton in 1994 primarily because the
world had changed dramatically. What had happened, the Soviet
Union had collapsed; the east-west confrontation had ended; and
the world suddenly became a patchwork of states, each trying to
gain political advantage and, even more important, economic
advantage.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you saw this progress starting in the very
early nineties toward a World Trade Organization, toward global
free trade in the broadest sense. We have gone very far in that
direction, far in that direction in the sense that global free
trade now involves countries that can trade with Canada, and the
United States for that matter, and trade to their advantage and
to our advantage.
Just in passing, I believe I am splitting my time with someone.
I believe it is the secretary of state for international
development. I certainly am sure that she will be listening to
what I have to say and building on it when her turn comes.
Anyway, to carry on with the story, and I had better carry on
fairly rapidly, the summit arises out of global free trade, the
collapse of the Soviet Union and initiative by President Clinton.
Initial talks were held in Miami in 1994 and one of the things
that came out of those talks was the concept of a free trade zone
of the Americas.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, these talks are not just about economics.
I think as a result of the change in geo-politics, if you will,
and geo-economics, it was recognized that it was in the
Americans' interest, in the interest of the United States, to
form closer alliances politically, economically and even
militarily, and all of these issues are on the table when we come
to a summit.
But the other aspect to the Bloc's motion that interested me was
this concept of a North American free trade zone because I think
something more is going on there than what has been the subject
of the debates even in the newspapers.
I get the sense that what is happening here is that the
Americans are perceiving a need to build a kind of firewall
around the rest of the world: put this wall around North and
South America in a sense to look after the possibility that
someday they may have to shut out some of the rest of the world.
1720
Individual colleagues made observations about human rights. I
remember the member for Medicine Hat was commenting on the
contradiction that we have when a country like Canada or the
United States supports a third world country, only to deny access
to their goods and put tariffs on their goods because of human
rights problems.
We can take the example of some countries in the far east that
have now just about entirely taken over the manufacture of
textiles, or rugs for that matter, where these goods are
manufactured in labour conditions that would be unacceptable in
North America.
We face a dilemma there because if we shut off those goods, and
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the shirt that I am wearing
right now was probably manufactured at very, very low cost in a
third world country.
It is my impression that the United States and Canada perceive
that we cannot carry on global free trade indefinitely under such
circumstances when we are indeed encouraging even child labour in
these third world countries, which want to do it because they
want to sell the product here, but we get into this terrible
contradiction.
So the answer would appear to be something like a global free
trade zone where standards can be set for human rights for the
way labour is utilized to produce product, and at the same time
preserve a market that will be sufficiently large for the United
States to benefit primarily and the rest of us to benefit
secondarily.
In the long term I have a great deal of sympathy for those
protesters that appeared at Seattle and some of these other
summits because I think we have to be very careful when we look
at global free trade, or even the free trade of the Americas,
that what we may be doing is creating dependencies that may put
off a crisis among human beings, a crisis in terms of being able
to produce product and feed ourselves that we may have to face in
the years to come.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. friend from the
other side a simple question that relates to a comment made by
the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. He said
that the government had done everything in its power to pursue
free trade.
I suggest that is fantasy and not fact. The government has
pursued free trade on the one hand but has tied the hands of our
exporters and companies by keeping very high taxes. That creates
an uneven playing field for exporters. It has also imposed, and
continues to fail to act to remove, the interprovincial barriers
to trade that compromise our exporters and companies from
competing on a level playing field.
My question is simply this. Will the member ask his ministers
to pursue, with the same zeal that they do internationally, the
removal of interprovincial barriers to trade and the reduction of
taxes in the country that choke off the ability of our private
sector to compete?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, well oddly enough sometimes
it is harder for the federal government to negotiate with the
provinces than it is with other states.
Of course we want to get as free an exchange of skills and
products as we can in this country. However, it is a two way
street on that. Sometimes it is very difficult to get the
agreements that we would like from the provinces. I suggest that
the province of Quebec is a perfect example, when there were
barriers to the free exchange of skilled labour and jobs and
employment across the border that is merely the Ottawa River.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
remind my colleague of the approach suggested by the hon. member
for Laurentides. We are not asking for sanctions or standards. We
want these agreements to uphold fundamental rights while
respecting the culture and the heritage of each of the nations
concerned. We favour a collaborative approach.
1725
For instance, although child labour is unacceptable, it cannot
be eliminated overnight. As one of the wealthier countries in the
world, we have a duty to help the poorer countries to solve their
problems within a deadline. What we need to do so is a strong
political will that the government seems unable to express except
in its empty rhetoric.
It looks like the government is ignoring what everyone in
Canada, in Quebec and in most parts of the western world is
decrying. There are some democratic shortcomings to this free
trade area of the Americas proposal but also to globalization.
There is more and more talk of executive democracy. It will no
longer be parliaments that make decisions but executives. What
is being proposed to us with rejection of the Bloc Quebecois
motion is to sanction or institutionalize the fact that
democracy is now being exercised through the executives around
the PMO, with parliament no longer having a role to play. I do
not accept that view.
I think that by rejecting the motion, the government is going to
send the signal that our concerns, needs and demands are no
longer to be channelled through parliamentarians, and that we
now have to find the means of being heard out in the street.
This is irresponsible, in my opinion. Thus, passing our motion
is a gesture of responsibility, one that adds value to the role
of parliamentarians and one that I would call the democratic way
of resolving problems.
Does the hon. member admit that democracy is getting short
shrift in the creation of the free trade area of the Americas?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I must say that if that was
a question or comment I look forward with eager anticipation for
the speech that is to come.
I do not think the member opposite listened to me very carefully
because I did assure him that the whole question of child labour
is something that should be debated, and that there should be a
debate in the House on the question of a free trade zone. There
is no doubt in my mind.
But the member has simply ignored the fact that if we put it to
a vote, the government would simply pass it because it would use
its majority. We can have the debate and we should have the
debate, but it does not have to be through legislation. It can
be done through a simple resolution of the House.
Mr. Speaker, if the member's questions are that long, we could
have a 12 hour or a 15 hour debate in which he could speak for 40
minutes and he could get all these things onto the record.
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these trade talks open a political space.
They deal with a host of issues we need to pay attention to. One
is the economic issue, but we also are discussing social issues
plus governance and human rights. These are very important things
that must be discussed at the same time.
Canada is therefore working to place development at the centre
of the Quebec City summit declaration. Canada's goal is an
agenda that balances economic and social issues. Social and
economic issues are one and the same. They go together. That
helps poor countries in Latin America harness and manage
globalization to reduce their poverty.
Healthy people make globalization work for them. Educated
people make globalization work for them. Effective governments
that respect human rights make globalization work for their
citizens as well.
Efficient markets create prosperity, but we must remember that
prosperity must be shared and equitable. It must be shared by
all sectors of society, otherwise it is not efficient or good for
prosperity and the markets will not work efficiently for
everyone.
It is important to remember when we talk about trade that at the
summit the Government of Canada will also be talking about
democracy, good governance, human rights, social issues and an
equitable sharing of prosperity. Those are very important issues.
They are issues Canada has put on the table, and they will be the
themes discussed at the summit of the Americas, which we are
proud to host.
The Government of Canada, through my department, is committed to
working with Central and South America. Our goal is a
prosperous, stable hemisphere characterized by healthy and
educated citizens: in sum, Mr. Speaker, a better world for all of
the Americas, north and south.
1730
We want to ensure that our whole hemisphere, which is one of the
hemispheres with the biggest disparity between rich and poor, is
in fact assisted.
There is no question that trade is important and that is one of
the themes. However, Canada has been extremely strong at the
summits to make sure that we include social issues, human rights,
governance and democracy as part of the themes.
That is what I did when I travelled in the Americas. That was
my discussion with my counterparts and ministers of other
governments to ensure that these themes are strong and that they
are an integral part of the discussion at the summit of the
Americas. The outcome is people based and focuses on the benefit
of human development.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister and her plan
for development of the Latin American part of the summit of the
free trade zone.
I do not think we have any problems with what she said. We
understand the goals she is talking about. We understand Canada
extending a helping hand for good governance, for democracy and
for all those issues that will have a major impact on Latin
America and which will help it come into free trade with America.
We must see that they are also prosperous. We cannot live alone
on an island of prosperity. We agree with that.
The question is why can parliamentarians not debate and ratify
international agreements that the government signs. The FTAA is
one of the examples which can be done over here. Our main point
is that we want the ability, as elected representatives, to have
those agreements come here so we can discuss them. We may be
sharing the same goals which she outlined. However, at least
parliamentarians and everybody would have an open forum, not just
this website that they keep talking about. Her comments on that
one would be appreciated.
Hon. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for
International Trade has said many times, Canada's position is
public. I know my colleague has asked the other participants to
agree to make their positions public as well in order that not
only all Canadians but the members of all of those countries can
participate in the discussion.
The issue is broad and must be discussed by society at large.
Our position has been made public and the minister has made that
clear. Certainly our colleagues in parliament can discuss
Canada's position. We are discussing it with NGOs, civil society
and with any Canadian citizen who wants to participate. It is
not a secret. It is not being kept in abeyance.
The minister has made Canada's position public and in fact has
asked other countries to also agree to make their positions
public. Nothing is being hidden.
We should be proud of the fact that not only is Canada hosting
the summit of the Americas, which is a north-south dialogue, but
at the same time we are leading the way and insisting on putting
on the agenda issues which are fundamental to the equilibrium and
balance of our hemisphere with respect to social infrastructure,
democracy and human rights and to make sure that we have a stable
hemisphere, in terms of economic, social and democratic issues.
There is no hidden agenda.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we hear some
rather surprising things here. This is a democratic parliament,
and the minister has just told us that everything is public and
we can discuss it here, no problem. We are also told to go and
look on the Internet for our answers. Why are we elected and who
do we represent, we might ask.
1735
The previous speaker said “There is no point having a debate
here, because we form a majority, in any case, and it will
pass”. I would like you or someone to enlighten me. They say
democracy wears out if it is not used. If we lose it one day, we
will be sorry.
We still live in a democratic country, I hope. We call for a
debate on a fundamental project that will affect the future, one
my grandchildren will live with. We ask to debate it. We are
not being arrogant. We are saying “It should be debated”. We
get “We do not have the time” on one side. And we get “We
form a majority, so it will pass anyway” on another. The
minister says “Everything is open, we can debate it”.
How should we proceed in order to get satisfaction, I ask her?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a
debate today but there are also the standing committees. It does
not minimize the members. There is a set membership of the
committees but members of the House are ex-officio and can
participate at committee. They can also make a representation as
a witnesses, if they wish. The committee process is open.
There will be debates and discussions at the committee level.
That is where intensive discussion does take place. That is part
of the parliamentary system. There is nothing hidden here at all
and that is why they are elected. The fact is members may wish
to appear as witnesses and I am sure all members will want to do
that.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the
minister. First, 400,000 Canadians every year travel to Cuba,
yet Cuba has not been invited to the summit of the Americas. In
the post-Castro era which will come in the not too distant
future, the exclusion of Cuba from a free trade agreement with
the Americas will only contribute to the continued poverty that
exists in that country. Why has Cuba been excluded from the
summit in Canada?
Second, will the minister present to her counterparts in cabinet
that all free trade agreements and international treaties be put
in front of the relevant standing committee before they are
ratified by the government?
Hon. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada's
position in the free trade discussions has been made public. The
committee will have hearings. The committee will be discussing
Canada's position. All members of the House are free to
participate, both as witnesses or as participants around the
table to intervene and ask questions of the witnesses. This is
the parliamentary system. We have a committee process especially
for that reason, so we can get into issues in a more in-depth
sort of way.
I said that the Minister for International Trade has made
Canada's position public, which is why it is being discussed
widely, not only in the standing committee and in the House, but
also across the country. At the same time he has asked his
counterparts to agree to make all of their positions public as
well. That has not happened yet and may not happen. However,
with respect that is not something we have control over.
It is important that we as Canadians ensure that we protect the
kinds of issues that we care about. This is why it is happening
at committee, in the House and in the public forum as well.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I ask the minister a question.
Madame Minister, I do not understand what you just said. I
listened to the interpretation, I listened to what you said in
English, but I think that what you are telling us now is that
there will be committees.
On the one hand, the government says “No, we cannot say what our
positions are because that is a secret and must remain so,
because our partners do not want us to put that on the table”.
On the other hand, you tell us to look on the site—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I simply wish to remind the
House that members must always address their remarks to the
Chair.
1740
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Through you,
I would like to put a question to the minister.
She continually contradicted herself in everything she said in
response to both speakers. I believe she is not aware of what is
happening currently with respect to the negotiations.
Government members keep on referring to the Internet site, but
we know what is on an Internet site. All of a sudden, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade
tells us we cannot talk about this because our partners do not
want us to talk about it. Then the other one tells us
parliamentary committees will review it.
We were elected. We represent the people and we want to be part
of something that will have an impact on the life and the future
of our children and grandchildren.
I ask the minister how we, who are parliamentarians just as she
is, should go about it? She was democratically elected, just as
we were, so that our voices and those of the people we represent
could be heard.
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, even before the last
election the committee met and discussed publicly Canada's
position. It is being discussed publicly across the line. Anyone
who wishes to participate can. The information is there.
More important, parliamentarians from the hemisphere will be in
this very room the week in March when the House is not sitting to
debate exactly that. What better opportunity to discuss not only
among ourselves, but with other parliamentarians in the
hemisphere, the issue that we are debating today. It seems to me
there is a great deal of opportunity to get into the details and
to share the issues.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague for
Calgary East.
Before I start on the topic today, I would like to thank the
people who put on the flag ceremony in Lethbridge today at the
legion. I was supposed to be there but I was unable to attend.
I want to acknowledge the fact that they did that. They do it
every year and I really appreciate them that.
Also, the other day some of the members in the House had the
opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade. I want to thank the parliamentary
secretary, the member for London—Fanshawe and the staff for the
tremendous job they did. We have already used some of the things
we learned and we will certainly take up their offer to come back
anytime.
We are talking about the Bloc motion today to have the House,
this elected body, ratify agreements, particularly dealing with
the FTAA conference which is coming up in March. That is
something we support.
We feel that these agreements should come here to be ratified.
It is done elsewhere in the world. I cannot quite understand
the government's hesitancy to not do that. Certainly there is a
lot of information available. We know that. However, when going
into negotiations on an agreement, not only should our position
be known, but what we agree to in those negotiations should be
available for Canadians to peruse before it is put into effect.
Therefore, we will be supporting the motion that the Bloc has put
forward.
Since 1994, the government has signed 470 different treaties and
ratified 295 of them. This is something that goes on at a pretty
aggressive rate. All kinds of treaties are signed to deal with
all aspects of our lives and our society. It is important that
we be aware of what the government is working on, what it is
dealing in and the positions that it is taking when it goes
through these negotiations.
Right now it only needs the approval and the construction by
bureaucrats and the approval of cabinet. We feel Canadians
should have a last look at what has been agreed to and what the
final position is because what we go in with is not always what
we come back out with.
There have been instances in the past where I would have liked
to have known what went on at the WTO meetings and the GATT
meetings on agriculture. I would liked to have known who was
traded off against whom and what the position of the government
was going into the meeting as to who was dispensable and who was
not.
The sugar beet growers in my area are the only group of
producers in Canada left that grow sugar in Canada and their
future looks a little dim. There has been a concern for years
about some of the things that happened at some of those
negotiations and how they might have been traded off against
other sectors of the industry.
This leaves a little bit too much power, we feel, in the hands
of a few and takes it away from the people of Canada through the
representation that they have given us in this House.
1745
The NGOs, witnesses and people who the government brings
together to put these positions and to do the negotiating are
certainly experts in their field. We do not disagree with that.
It brings together the people who have the knowledge in their
respective areas.
That being said, who selects them? Is there a public process to
make sure that the people who are selected are the people we want
representing us as a country? It is important to bring back to
the House what has been negotiated.
Any trade has to be rules based and fair. We feel that in the
agricultural community this has not always been the case. The
situation in which we find the grain and oilseed primary
producers in agriculture is deplorable. It has to do with unfair
subsidies in both the United States and the European Union.
We used to have some support for our farmers, such as the Crow
rate and others. When the deal was struck that we would get rid
of this subsidy and these supports, as the other countries did,
Canada went ahead and cut the support to our primary producers
putting them in the situation they are in now. We did that but
the other countries did not follow suit. In some cases,
particularly in Europe, there have been instances where they have
increased the support while we have decreased it.
We put our primary producers in a spot that is almost
unbearable. Farms are going under on a daily basis. It is due
to the agreement that was struck and what the government did to a
particular sector. Those types of agreements could have been
brought back here. I am sure the agreement that the government
took into those negotiations was not the one it came out with.
What it agreed to should have come to the House for all of us to
look at, and certainly for the people who it was going to affect,
which were the primary producers.
The government indicated that it was something it could not do.
It could not bring an agreement back to the House. However, it
is done in the United States. Treaties have to be ratified by a
two-thirds majority of the elected upper house. That is fair.
It gives everybody another chance to look at what is going on.
It gives the Americans who are affected a chance for more input.
That is what we would like as a country and for the citizens in
Canada.
I was given some information concerning France. It states:
“Peace treaties, trade treaties, treaties of agreements
concerning an international organization, those involving state
finances, those amending rules of a legislative nature, those
concerning individual states and those calling for the transfer,
exchange or annexation of territory, may be ratified or approved
only by an act of parliament”.
It is being done elsewhere so to say that it cannot be done here
does not quite cut it. We have some suggestions that we would
like to offer the government on ways it could improve the
process. Consultation in this elected Chamber would be one way
to do that.
One of the first things I mentioned was parliamentary
ratification. It is a simple process. It should be brought to
the House after it has been negotiated. We could then look at it
and either agree with it or offer some changes or amendments to
make it better.
We also suggest a requirement for an assessment. This is what
we have agreed to do on these trade issues but let us look at the
impact that that will have on Canadians in general. Let us look
at the impact it will have on industry. Let us look at what it
will do to families. Let us look at what it will do to services.
Let us look at how it will affect other parts. Have we asked the
provinces how it will affect their situations? Including the
provinces would strengthen the whole idea of federalism. We have
talked about the alienation of parts of Canada. This would give
the provinces and different regions a feeling that they are a
bigger part of some of the decision making.
We should ensure that the people who put us in this elected
Chamber are aware of what is going and that they have an
opportunity to look at what these treaties will do and how they
will affect their lives.
1750
The last aspect is that it would increase the accountability of
government. Knowing that anything that is agreed to would have
to come back to the House to be ratified, it would put a new
focus on what is being agreed to and what is being done. It
would give a bit more accountability to the whole process. It
would add some credibility to what has been negotiated. It would
add some confidence to what is being done. It would allow
Canadians one last chance to look at something that could affect
their lives.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his appointment as
trade critic. In reference to the briefing the other day, I
appreciate those remarks and I look forward to working with him
and the other critics in the spirit of co-operation to advance
the agenda of trade.
My colleague cited the United States and France and how things
were done differently in those two countries. I remind him that
both of those countries are republics and that Canada is not. We
have a parliamentary system. The government negotiates trade
agreements to promote Canadian trade interests. It signs those
agreements only when it is convinced that those agreements are in
the best interest of the country. Parliament is then asked to
review the agreement and debate the implementing legislation.
Amendments are possible at that time.
I have a question for the member. Does he not see the Bloc
motion for what it is? It is a radical departure from a process
that has been followed by governments of different political
stripes in every trade agreement we have had, a process that has
served the country very well. It is more of a radical departure
than perhaps how my colleague sees it. What would be his
reaction to that?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. He says that the government only agrees to
agreements that are good for the country. I remind the
parliamentary secretary about the Kyoto agreement.
We went through that scenario in the House a couple of years
ago. We asked the government day after day through question
period what its stance would be when it got to Japan, what it
would have on the table and how it would affect Canadians. We
asked that question almost everyday for months and we never did
get an answer.
When the government went to the meeting to establish guidelines
that would affect absolutely all Canadians and how they lived
their lives and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the amount
agreed to, it did not know the position of Canadians. It agreed
while it was there and came back with the agreement. It told
Canadians what it had agreed to. It did not have any idea how it
would get there, but it was to start a process of consultation
with the round tables to decide how it would be done.
I disagree with the parliamentary secretary when he says that
the government only agrees to things that will benefit Canada,
when it goes to a negotiation and does not know what its position
is and does not have the degree of effort it will take from
Canadians to reach those goals. I use that as one instance.
Another example is something that we have been working on in
western Canada for a year and a half. Our cattle producers were
challenged by a group in the United States called R-Calf. Our
live cattle going south across the border were being unfairly
subsidized. There was a long process. A tariff was placed
against our cattle. Bonds had to be placed at the border and a
tariff had to be paid on every head of cattle that went across
the line.
The whole process ended up costing the industry $5 million. In
the end it was found that we were not subsidizing our cattle. The
tariff was taken off and the money was refunded.
1755
These agitations go on. North Dakotans are constantly
challenging and looking at the wheat board. There are agitations
and irritants within the agreements that we presently have. There
is a process in place that we can go through, as countries, for
grievances and challenges to get them worked out.
Some of the agreements that have been struck have really hurt
different sectors of our country, such as the grain and oilseed
sector which had its support reduced here when it was not backed
up by the same kind of reduced support elsewhere. I do not know
if what we have done is reparable. It will take a lot of effort.
We keep asking the government when that help and those funds will
come through but we have heard nothing yet.
When we talk about the process, I believe I just gave a couple
of instances where the process did not worked. If the government
had agreed to an agreement and had brought it back to the House
to be fully debated, perhaps some amendments and changes could
have been put forward that would have helped.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
member not find something slightly paradoxical in the fact that
one of the three themes for the upcoming summit of the Americas
is the strengthening of democracy, when the government refuses
to bet on democracy with regard to the free trade area of the
Americas negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that
detail but parliamentary reform is something that we have talked
an awful lot about since the last election. We are also trying
to get more democracy in the House and in our committees.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the United States and
France are republics but democratically elected people should be
responsible to the people who elect them. I believe a process of
consultation and open review is the way we should be doing it.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of
Calgary East to speak on today's motion, which would require the
government to subject any project or accord on a free trade
agreement with the Americas to a debate and vote before it is
ratified by the government. It is a very simple question and a
very simple motion.
I have been listening to the government's position all day and
what I have heard is an attempt by the government to bring in the
ministers and other players to tell us what is happening with
free trade in the Americas and how good free trade will be in the
Americas. It has been attempting to point out the issues that it
is trying to bring to the table of free trade with the Americas.
It is quite interesting that the government is telling us all
these things now that the Bloc has brought forward this motion.
If the Bloc had not brought forward the motion, in all
probability we would not have known all these details that are
now coming out point by point.
The government has said, and the minister and the parliamentary
secretary have kept repeating it, that it has a website, that it
is an open consultation process and that everyone is invited to
come to the committees and talk. That is not the question. It
is a matter of principle.
I agree that in the last parliament the foreign affairs
committee did a study on FTAA. I was part of that committee and
we listened. However, I have to say that the study was done
prior to going into consultation. I thought it was a good idea.
We, the official opposition, put in a minority report on that
study.
The minority report that we submitted asked exactly for the same
thing that is being asked for by the Bloc. We recommended that
treaties be brought into parliament to be ratified by elected
officials. If the government looks up the Canadian Alliance's
minority report it will see that is exactly what we were
recommending.
The government could go ahead and do the consultation. When
negotiations are done and a final draft is available, the draft
should be brought to the elected officials who could discuss the
issues in committee.
In all probability, most of us, who believe in free trade, in
human rights and in democracy, would probably agree with the
government's position.
1800
However, there could be some areas in which it needs attention.
We could hear from our own constituents, but where and how will
our constituents talk? They can only talk through elected
representatives. That is what we have been telling them. We
have been telling them for years and years that we are their
elected representatives, that we are their voice in Ottawa, their
voice in government affairs.
Now what is happening? The minister and everyone said that we
go through the committees. We have sat in committees. This is
my second term. I have sat in committees and committees are not
the voice of debate. Committees will hear witnesses, but they
are not a point of debate. Debate should be done by members of
parliament in the House.
Let me give an example: NAFTA. The NAFTA agreement was done by
the bureaucrats, by the mandarins behind the scenes, was brought
in and of course it was signed. One area that turned out to be
of concern after NAFTA was signed was the issue of bulk water
exports. That became an issue when Canadians got concerned about
the bulk water export issue.
The Liberal Party said in one of its red book promises that it
would open up the negotiations on NAFTA so it could exclude
water. Of course NAFTA had already been signed and of course
could not be opened up. The Liberals have not opened it up so
far, and so far we still have this problem of water. That is why
the government has been running to the provincial governments
asking them not to give licences for the sale of water. The
government knows what will happen under NAFTA.
As a matter of principle it is necessary to bring treaties that
affect the lives of Canadians into the Chamber that is supposed
to be their voice. We cannot exclude that. This business of
saying that there are committees and websites and all these
things is all a minor attempt to open up things. At the end of
the day, it is important for elected officials, not only for
NGOs. NGOs are accountable to nobody. They have their own
agendas, and sure, they will write their own agendas. It is the
elected officials who are responsible to their constituents, and
constituents should be having their voices heard over there, not
just a couple of those other things.
I have a good example. When my colleague was talking about
France and the U.S.A., the parliamentary secretary said that
model should not apply to Canada because the U.S.A. and France
are republics. I want to tell him that in Australia, which is a
federation like Canada, the Australian parliament changed its
system to ensure that treaties over there would be debated.
Treaties would come into parliament and would have the approval
of provincial legislatures before they would come into effect.
What I have found out is that the federal government signs all
these international treaties that fall under the jurisdiction of
the provinces and then forces the provinces to do something in
which they are not interested. The Kyoto protocol is an example.
At the end of the day the Australians said that was not the way
a pure democracy should be working, so they changed it and now
their parliament and their provinces have input into
international treaties before they are ratified.
What is the problem in Canada? We have heard from the
parliamentary secretary, who said that this is how we have been
doing business in the past year, that this is how we have been
signing treaties and so on. Fine. That is how they have been
doing it in the past. Now Canadians are demanding
accountability. Canadians are asking for change. They are
asking that their voices be heard.
The parliamentary reform that everybody is talking about is
another example of where Canadians want change, so I do not
understand why the government is afraid to bring it forward for
debate. Why do they not want to change so that Canadians'
elected representatives can talk about it?
If the treaty is good, which I think it will be at the end of
the day, nobody will oppose it. We may have somebody opposing
it, but if it is good for the country, why should we oppose it?
We believe in free trade.
1805
At the end of the day my appeal to the government is this. Yes,
we do have certain systems like committees and all these things,
but they are not sufficient to bring transparency to
international agreements. The FTAA agreement in the motion is
just one example. As a principle, treaties and agreements should
be coming in front of parliament to be ratified by elected
officials.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
remain here and not comment on three items that came up this
afternoon.
First, the Canadian Alliance Party talked once again about
reforms of agricultural subsidies. This is so inconsistent with
its general platform. The Alliance went through the election
talking about the elimination of subsidies, especially regional
development subsidies that would help my constituency. I wish
Alliance members would be consistent. If they are going to push
for one type of subsidy, I ask them to not eliminate the ones
that will help my riding.
Second, I would like to commend the Alliance member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for talking about the benefits to the
poor of free trade, in response to a Bloc intervention. That
allows us to remind people that free trade agreements often allow
for the reduction of tariffs and, therefore, lower priced
products for poor people in many nations. That will help the
poor. It has a second effect on the poor, of course, in that the
less developed nations can then export their products with more
ease and have more jobs for their people, who may not have an
income otherwise.
However, the third and last point I want to make is in regard to
another intervention by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
He said that the government was putting the exporters at a
terrible disadvantage and suggested a whole major revamping of
the tax system, which was really not appropriate here. I will
tell you, however, that is not what would put our exporters at a
disadvantage. What would put our exporters at a disadvantage is
following the advice of the Leader of the Opposition who, in his
response to the throne speech, talked of eliminating the export
programs that have made Canada second to none in this world at
export efficiency.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
bringing forward his three points. The first point was on
subsidies. We know what a distortion of the market has taken
place in the agricultural sector because of subsidies by the
European Union as well as the U.S.A. They have created an
unlevel playing field, which is why we need to discuss this with
them. At the end of the day, the Canadian Alliance feels it is
not the responsible use of tax dollars. We would like to see
that going away, but we would like to see it taking place in
negotiations to get rid of the subsidies so that there is a level
playing field.
We believe in the rules based system of trade, which is the
government's position. I agree with that. We have said we agree
with the rules based system. A rules based system will help
Canada.
The hon. member mentioned the tax issues my colleague talked
about. That is about competitiveness. If the member would read
what the business leaders in Canada are saying, he would see they
are saying that high taxes are a disadvantage to competitiveness
for Canada, a disadvantage to taking advantage of globalization
or of all the free trade of the Americas. That is absolutely not
a contradiction. That is coming out loud and clear. All the
member has to do is listen to the business people. The Canadian
Alliance policy on that is quite distinct.
The hon. member said the Leader of the Opposition was talking
about export subsidies.
Export subsidies distort the market. That is why we have the
ongoing war with Brazil.
1810
We talk about a rules based system, and all of a sudden that is
thrown away by Captain Canada when he comes along and gives a
subsidy to Bombardier, a company that is doing extremely well. It
is consistent with what I have heard. The government has been
talking about a rules based system. It is quite surprising what
the industry minister said, which is not what I have been hearing
for many years from the government.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the speech my colleague just gave. I have a
fairly straightforward question. Sometimes in negotiations it is
good to be able to go in without having laid all the cards on the
table. Therefore for us to debate and come to a conclusion on
our opening position in some of these negotiations could put
Canada at a disadvantage.
Does the member see the necessity of parliament debating in
broad generalities the position going in or actually getting
specific? Does he advocate that parliament should ratify the
final agreement after it has been negotiated by the various
officials who do the negotiations?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
asking that question. That is the essence of the whole thing.
The committee heard representations and had consultations on
what would be our position going into this agreement, which is
fine. That is the way it should be. We should open it up to
Canadians before talking about it at committee level. We should
take the views of Canadians and use them as a position, not leave
it to the bureaucrats or mandarins of the department. After
having done that, what would be the final outcome? We do not
know.
The draft agreement is not the final outcome. That has not been
signed. That is what we are talking about today and that is what
my colleague is worried about. It is the final version that
requires approval by parliament before the Government of Canada
signs it.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, does my colleague
not understand that what he is calling for is unprecedented in
Canada? That practice that has never been followed with any
major trade agreement in the past.
Does he not understand that there will be full opportunity to
debate and review the agreement in the House of Commons? We are
open to constructive criticisms on the deal, and amendments would
be possible. Does he not understand that?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, if my friend on the other
side had heard my speech, that is exactly what I said. We can
change.
What happened in the past? We know from the MAI agreement and
other agreements on globalization that if we do not discuss and
have a transparent system then we have trouble. Let us change
the system. We do not want to sit with the old system. It is
time to move into the 21st century.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the
Business of Supply are deemed put, a recorded division is deemed
requested and deferred to the end of the period provided for
Government Orders on Tuesday, February 20, 2001.
[English]
It being 6.15 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.)