37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 052
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Take Note Debate
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Bill C-16
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1010
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-340. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| PETITIONS
|
| Trade
|
| Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1015
| Marine Atlantic
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Agreements
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1030
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1045
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-16
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Amendment
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Agreements
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1050
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1110
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1115
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1120
1125
1130
1135
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1140
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1210
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1215
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1220
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1235
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1240
1245
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1250
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1255
1300
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
1305
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
1310
1315
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1320
1325
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1330
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. James Moore |
1335
1340
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1345
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1350
1355
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| GOLD MINING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| FRESH WATER RESOURCES
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| CHILDREN'S PARK
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| JEUNES EN TÊTE
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1405
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| QUEBEC CARTIER MINING COMPANY
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| FORUM FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| HEPATITIS C MONTH
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
1410
| INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| NURSES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1415
| EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1435
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| SPACE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1440
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1445
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1450
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
1455
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
| VICTIMS OF PYRITE DAMAGE
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| RURAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| PETITIONS
|
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Agreements
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1510
1515
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1520
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Agreements
|
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1525
1530
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1535
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1540
1545
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1550
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1555
1600
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1605
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1625
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Trade Agreements
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1630
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1635
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. James Moore |
1700
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1705
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1710
1715
1745
(Division 79)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 80)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Third reading
|
1750
(Division 81)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Third reading
|
(Division 82)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Consideration resumed of motion
|
(Division 83)
| Motion agreed to
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
1755
(Division 84)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-290. Second reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. John Maloney |
1815
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1820
1825
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1830
1835
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1840
1845
1850
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1855
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Committee of the Whole
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1900
1905
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1910
1915
1920
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1925
| Mr. John Bryden |
1930
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1935
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1940
1945
1950
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1955
| Mr. John Bryden |
2000
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Peter Adams |
2030
2035
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
2040
2045
2050
2055
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2100
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
2105
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
2110
2115
2120
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
2125
2130
2135
| Mr. John McKay |
2140
2145
2150
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2155
2200
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2205
2210
| Mr. John McKay |
2215
2220
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2225
2230
2235
2240
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2245
2250
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
2255
2300
| Mr. John Bryden |
2305
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 052
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
.TUC Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of
the Minister of Human Resources Development, I have the pleasure
to submit two copies, in both official languages, of the report
entitled “National Child Benefit Progress Report 2000”.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister for International Trade, I am pleased to table in the
House today under Standing Order 32(2), in both official
languages, the second annual report of Canada's state of trade.
The report details Canada's outstanding success in international
trade and investment and it gives the evidence that international
trade is indeed the engine of the Canadian economy at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
TAKE NOTE DEBATE
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there are two motions that I
would like to seek consent of the House to have adopted.
There has been consultation among all political parties and they
have agreed to the following. I move:
That, on Tuesday, May 1, at the ordinary time of daily
adjournment, there shall be no proceedings pursuant to Standing
Order 38, but the House shall continue to sit and shall resolve
itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That
the committee take note of proposals to modernize the Standing
Orders”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (1) the
Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any
motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”; (2)
That the Speaker may act as Chair of the committee; (3) two
members may divide one twenty minute speaking time period; (4) when
no member rises to speak, or four hours after the committee
commences consideration, whichever is earlier, the committee
shall rise; and (5) when the committee rises the House shall
immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
BILL C-16
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there is agreement among the
leaders of all the parties in the House on the following motion.
I move:
That Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities
and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act, be
withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, two reports by the Canadian section of
the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the
accompanying financial report.
The first report is on the meeting of the Commission de la
coopération et du développement, held at Val d'Aoste, Italy from
March 15 to 17, 2001.
The second is on the meeting of the Commission des affaires
parlementaires, held from March 26 to 28 in Luxembourg.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HEALTH
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to order of reference of February 27, the committee has
considered Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 under health in the main
estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 and reports
the same.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am doubly pleased to introduce on
International Workers Day a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code
to enable a pregnant or nursing mother to avail herself of
provincial occupational health and safety legislation.
I hope this bill will receive particular attention, and that we
will pass it quickly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
TRADE
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a duly certified petition to
the House today. The petitioners are from three high schools in
the Cobourg area who showed their interest in the recent trade
agreement negotiations. The high schools are St. Mary's, CDCI
West and CDCI East.
The more than 600 petitioners are concerned about the manner in
which the agreement is being negotiated. They call upon
parliament to consult Canadians before entering into that
agreement so the environmental, social and cultural consequences
can be considered.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have another petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who
would like VIA Rail commuter service re-established between
Peterborough and Toronto.
The petitioners point out the environmental benefits of this,
for example, the reduction in greenhouse emissions. They also
point out the reduction in accidents and costs on the highways
and the way in which such a commuter service would improve
Peterborough as a business, educational and tourist centre.
The petitioners call upon parliament to re-establish VIA Rail
service between Toronto and Peterborough as soon as is humanly
possible. The petition has support in five federal ridings.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
second petition concerns the bioartificial kidney, a research
project which at present is being conducted in the United States.
It is supported by Canadians from coast to coast to coast as an
alternative to kidney dialysis and kidney transplant for
treatment of those with end stage kidney disease.
This petition is now into the tens of thousands of signatures.
It was developed by Ken Sharp in my riding and has already
resulted in a meeting to be held very soon between leading
researchers in the United States and researchers in Canada on the
topic of the bioartificial kidney.
My third petition also concerns kidney research and is from
citizens of the Peterborough area.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney
research as one of the institutes in its system and to be called
the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
presenting a petition from farmers in the southwest part of
Saskatchewan who are concerned about changes made by Health
Canada after 1992 regarding strychnine, which is used to control
the Richardson's ground squirrel. They allege that the amount of
strychnine allocated now by volume is at a level that is not
having much effect.
1015
The petitioners call upon parliament to amend the relevant
regulation so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid
strychnine to registered farmers until such time as an effective
alternative can be found.
MARINE ATLANTIC
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in
the House to present a petition on behalf of the good people of
Bras d'Or—Cape Breton who are very concerned about the decision
of Marine Atlantic possibly moving its entire operations to
Newfoundland.
The petitioners pray that parliament ensure Marine Atlantic at
least maintains equality between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.
THE SENATE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, my second petition is on behalf
of the great people of Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, in my
particular riding, who believe that the Senate is
unconstitutional.
The petitioners believe it is a waste of $50 million a year and
they pray that parliament will take measures to abolish the
Senate.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 20 and 23.
.[Text]
Question No. 20—Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold:
Could the government provide: (a) the amount in the
transitional jobs fund that was not utilized in the fiscal year
2000-01 and was redirected on June 22, 2000, toward the Economic
Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec; and (b)
a list of all amounts paid out in grants since June 22, 2000, by
the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of
Quebec through the Canada jobs fund, indicating the date each
such grant was made?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows: (a) The transitional jobs fund, TJF, ended March 31,
1999. Therefore no funds from TJF were redirected toward the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec
for fiscal year 2000-01.
TJF was replaced by the Canada jobs fund, CJF, which came into
effect on April 1, 1999. On June 22, 2000, the Government of
Canada announced that CJF would be closed down and that, in order
to more strategically and effectively meet the unique needs of
those regions where unemployment remained high, the CJF funds
would be transferred to the regional development agencies. This
would include the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western
Economic Diversification Canada, the federal economic development
initiative in northern Ontario, the Economic Development Agency
of Canada for the regions of Quebec and the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
The Government of Canada also advised that all project proposals
received in HRDC offices on or before June 22, 2000, would be
assessed and all existing financial commitments would be met.
No funds were transferred to the regional economic development
agencies in fiscal year 2000-01. At the time of the announcement
of the close down of CJF, there were close to 500 CJF proposals
under review at either the local, regional or national level.
From June 22, 2000, to the present, just over 130 CJF projects
have been approved, including 52 from Quebec.
(b) The moneys allocated to the CJF have not yet been
transferred from HRDC to the various regional economic
development agencies.
A portion of these funds will be transferred to Canada economic
development at the beginning of the 2001-02 fiscal year.
These additional funds will be channelled into Canada economic
development's regular programs. These will provide additional
means to enhance our ability to develop the potential of Quebec's
regions and its enterprises.
Question No. 23—Hon. Charles Caccia:
What were the total estimated tax expenditures incurred by the
government under mining provisions of the Income Tax Act for:
(a) the Suncor Energy Inc. $2.8 billion project millenium oil
sands development project; and (b) the Shell Canada $3.5
billion Athabasca oil sands project?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): It would be a breach of the confidentiality provisions of
the Income Tax Act to reveal information about an individual
taxpayer.
However, the Department of Finance has developed a model to
calculate the value of the tax incentives available to all new
oil sands projects in Canada. The model results are described in
a working paper that will be released soon. A draft version of the
report estimated that on average a new oil sands project in
Canada will receive federal income tax incentives worth 4.6% of
the total capital investment of the project.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE AGREEMENTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved:
That this House calls upon the
government to respect the spirit of the evidence given by
the Minister of International Trade before the Foreign
Affairs Committee, who stated “I can assure you that we are
not seeking an investor-state provision in the WTO or
anywhere else”, by refusing to sign any trade agreement,
such as the FTAA or the GATS, that includes a NAFTA Chapter
11-style investor-state clause.
She said: Madam Speaker, let me indicate at the outset that I
will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
[Translation]
Two images come to the mind of Canadians on the subject of
Quebec City: the wall, this reinforced concrete fence all around
the old capital to prevent people from getting in and another
wall, a wall of tear gas, or 5,000 tear gas grenades thrown
everywhere, blinding everyone, demonstrators and residents.
[English]
Who could imagine more potent symbols for the squalid secrecy
that surrounded international trade talks than that ugly wall and
that haze of gas?
While the Liberal government trumpets its success at advancing
the corporate driven globalization agenda, millions of Canadian
now get the picture: fortress walls and noxious gases for
ordinary citizens, privileged access and security passes for the
corporate elite, rights and rewards for the rich, rhetoric for
the rest of us. For the Liberals apparently that is what
democracy looks like.
Quebec was the high water mark for irony and for hypocrisy. The
official line was that the FTAA was about spreading democracy,
but the chain link fences, the tear gas, the water cannons, the
plastic bullets and mass arrests that prevented citizens from
getting anywhere near the summit made the case more effectively
than anything else could that democracy is threatened by the
corporate model of globalization.
Behind the wall around old Quebec the threat to democracy became
more ominous as information leaked out that the NAFTA drafters
had every intention of extending the most anti-democratic
provision of NAFTA, chapter 11's investor state clause, to the
rest of the Americas.
Last year Canadians dared to hope that their objections to
corporate globalization were getting through to the government.
The Minister for International Trade once called NAFTA
“primarily an exercise in the economic disarmament of federal
governments”.
At the international affairs committee in April, just a year
ago, the minister declared his opposition to any form of investor
state mechanism, such as the one enshrined in NAFTA being
included in any future trade agreements. He assured parliament
that his officials were working with Washington to have NAFTA
chapter 11 reconsidered.
“Take the good news and run with it”, he told the foreign
affairs and international trade committee.
1020
In December the trade minister reiterated his concerns. He
stated starkly that he would not sign any deal that contained the
offensive clauses, period.
Following the Quebec summit the Prime Minister was calling
chapter 11 of NAFTA a good clause. “It is one that works
reasonably well”, said the Prime Minister. His trade minister
has been faithfully parroting the line ever since.
[Translation]
To concerned people throughout America, however, chapter 11 is
not a good thing. It is the Trojan horse of so-called free trade
in the style of big business. Chapter 11 is the clause that
ends the debate over whether globalization threatens the
sovereignty of countries.
[English]
Under NAFTA, chapter 11 established a new system which enables
foreign investors to bring injury claims against democratically
elected governments. It allows multinational corporations to
usurp the sovereign powers of government and the democratic
rights of citizens and communities. Foreign capital investing in
Canada, Mexico and the U.S. may demand compensation if profit
making potential of their ventures is injured by government
decisions.
Foreign based companies are given rights greater than domestic
businesses operating in their home country. Canada's baptism of
fire began with the Ethyl Corporation's challenge to Canada's
right to control the use of MMT in this country.
MMT is a gasoline additive, a neurotoxin which interferes with
automobile exhaust systems banned in several U.S. states, but
under NAFTA's investor state provisions Ethyl took the Canadian
government to court and sued for lost profits. To avoid an
arbitration panel the Canadian government settled out of court,
withdrew its legislation and paid $19.6 million in damages to
Ethyl. To satisfy Ethyl's commercial interests, Canadian parents
today have less control over the quality of air their children
breathe.
To date at least 15 chapter 11 suits have been launched. No one
really knows for sure. Apparently it is not really the public's
business. There is no requirement to inform the public, even
though public laws are under attack and taxpayer money will pay
the fines.
Unlike other trade agreements, chapter 11 gives global
corporations freedom to litigate on their own without having to
ask national governments to act on their behalf. With status to
challenge other governments as legal equals, this clause allows
NAFTA to end run governments and even constitutions.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA has become the defining issue for FTAA
negotiations. In Mexico a U.S. waste disposal company,
Metalclad, was awarded $16.7 million in damages when a state
government took steps to protect its water supply. Metalclad's
victory established that NAFTA's dispute mechanism reaches to
subnational governments, including municipalities.
Then there is Sun Belt Water of California. Who knows what is
next? Who would have guessed that UPS would launch a lawsuit to
challenge the operation of Canada Post? Who would have believed
that the Canadian government would have left us so vulnerable or
that, even in the face of this challenge to Canada's right to
deliver its own mail and the right to keep public services in the
public domain, the Canadian government would decide chapter 11 is
a good clause that is working reasonably well?
As chapter 11 damage awards accumulate, more and more Canadians
are starting to press more serious questions about exactly what
is at stake under the new world order. Who voted to destroy
national sovereignty? Who gave corporations the right to decide
public values?
[Translation]
Why elect governments that hand their powers over to big
business?
[English]
In conclusion, I implore the government once again to find the
courage to oppose chapter 11 and refuse to sign any international
agreement that contains this pernicious provision. The very
foundations of our democracy are at stake.
1025
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very proud today that the leader of our party has chosen this
topic to use for our opposition day. At least this party is
standing up for the rights of Canadians as we seek to defend our
interests in the face of these global trade agreements.
She made reference to some of the brokers that are negotiating
these deals and their attitude about the preservation of public
services. Would she comment on the opinions of one such key
figure, the former head of the WTO, when he said that there was a
surplus of democracy in the world today that was interfering with
the free movement of investment and capital?
Would she comment on what kind of a mindset could lead someone
to say that kind of thing in an era where we value democracy
above all else? In an era where our parents went to war to fight
for democracy there are actually people out there negotiating
deals on our behalf who believe there is a surplus of democracy.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I think all Canadians
and in fact many people around the world know that democracy was
the galvanizing force behind some 50,000 to 60,000 Canadians and
others throughout the Americas gathering in Quebec City.
We heard a lot of talk from the government in the run up to the
FTAA negotiations at Quebec City about how this was to strengthen
democracy, but before the Quebec City summit took place people had begun to
familiarize themselves with what exactly the FTAA was, with how
it fit into the new world order as visualized by the World Trade
Organization, and with the fact that governments were willing to
weaken democracy.
My colleague has raised a question about an astounding ominous
quote from a former WTO official who said there was a surplus of
democracy in the world and that democracy was interfering with
the free flow of capital and investment.
When we ask Canadians what they care about, when we ask free
people around the world what they care about, what they care
about more than anything else is governments that can act in the
public interest, governments that will respond to their needs and
concerns about health care, basic public services, education and
a safe, clean environment. The health of their children is the
future of the planet.
Some 50,000 to 60,000 peaceful demonstrators in Quebec marched
with the slogan “This is what democracy looks like”. People
were speaking to and through their governments to insist that
they retain the right to act in the public interest and not
forfeit the right to do that to multinational corporations.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I heard the estimate of the number of people in attendance. It
seems to grow every time I hear the number quoted by the NDP. The
leader of the NDP said that there was nothing for peaceful
demonstrators. I should like to ask her a couple of questions.
Is she unaware of government funding to help the parallel summit
take place? Is she totally and completely unaware of the
extensive consultations that took place for several months by the
government or of the hearings that took place by the standing
committee before the election and after?
She talks about ordinary citizens having tear gas. Are they the
ordinary citizens who were throwing chunks of cement and cans,
which I stepped over, at the police? Are they the same ordinary
citizens that she is speaking about? Does she fail to
acknowledge that there was a minority of irresponsible violent
people there and the police showed tremendous restraint?
Quite frankly we have had a lot of rhetoric from the leader. I
should just ask her another question, very pointedly. I
challenge her to tell me one trade negotiation that Canada has
ever been involved in that has been more open and transparent
than this one.
1030
Her trade critic and repeated witnesses have failed to ever
answer that question. Maybe the leader could tell us just one
trade negotiation that has been as transparent, let alone more
transparent, than this one.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, the member opposite
asked a lot of questions. I doubt I will be given the opportunity
to answer them all. However let me say this right up front.
Yes, I am absolutely aware. I will quote directly what the
member when he said that there was a minority of violent
protesters in Quebec City. Indeed there was. We have been
absolutely unequivocal in saying that violence was not
acceptable.
Let me ask the member this. Does he think it is responsible to
keep painting a picture of some 50,000 to 60,000 peaceful
protesters as being somehow in favour of the violence of that
tiny minority?
It is grotesquely irresponsible for the government to keep
characterizing democracy seeking Canadians in such a vile way.
Second, I am absolutely aware of the people—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry but the
hon. member's time is up. I did allow some flexibility over the
time limit. The hon. members have ample time during questions
and comments to put the questions to the other hon. members. I
would like some order please in the House.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate and to
follow the leader of my party on this very fundamental question
about democracy itself, about corporate power and the power of
people in the country and in the Americas.
I will respond briefly, because unfortunately the time is
limited, to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister for International Trade when he trumpeted the great
transparency and democracy surrounding the FTAA process.
Surely the hon. member recognizes that this is completely
ludicrous. Instead what the government has clearly demonstrated
is total contempt for democracy in this process. I can give many
examples of that. The fact is that today on May 1 we still, as
parliamentarians and as peoples of the Americas, are not entitled
to view the text that is being negotiated.
The minister said we would see the text and that it was tough to
translate. Frankly there is something absurd about a debate
taking place on a document that still has not been made public.
The government has refused to make public its own negotiating
position on some very fundamental issues such as investment,
intellectual property, services and dispute settlement.
Even worse we see a continual erosion of the minister's original
position with respect to the most undemocratic provision of the
existing NAFTA agreement, and that is the investor state
provision in chapter 11. This is the thrust of our motion today
because it illustrates so clearly and transparently how
profoundly undemocratic the process is, as well as how
undemocratic the substance is of the FTAA.
It was a little over a year ago, in response to my colleague
from Winnipeg—Transcona in the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, that the Minister for
International Trade was clear and unequivocal. He said “I can
assure you that we are not seeking an investor state provision in
the WTO or anywhere else in other agreements”. My colleague
pursued. He asked “Not at the FTAA?” The minister responded
“No, no, no. Not on FTAA either”.
That was in April of last year. Seen since then we have seen
backtracking, reversal and betrayal of the government's
fundamental commitment that it would not allow this destructive
and undemocratic provision to be a part of any broader trade deal
throughout the hemisphere.
1035
Just a little over a month ago, in response to my question in
the same committee, the minister said:
Yet, in the wake of the summit of the Americas, the Prime
Minister said to forget all that and that chapter 11 was working
reasonably well. The minister himself said after the summit of
the Americas that things were fine, that there was no problem and
that everything was working just fine.
What is the position of the Government of Canada? According to
the minister's spokesperson, its position on chapter 11,
investment provisions, is set out in the government's website.
If we go to the government's website, here is what it says:
To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group
on Services. Any submission made by Canada will be made
available on the website.
When we asked the minister's spokesperson what was Canada's
position on this fundamental issue of investor state, the
minister's chief assistant said “We have not made our position
known yet because we do not have one”.
The government may shamefully not have a position on investor
state on chapter 11, but more and more the people of this
hemisphere do because they have witnessed already the destructive
impact of chapter 11 on the environment and on the fundamental
rights of workers.
It is no coincidence that today is May Day, a day when we pay
tribute to and honour the contribution of working men and women
throughout the hemisphere and throughout the world. It is just a
couple of days after the Day of Mourning for workers who were
killed and injured on the job. More and more we have witnessed
under NAFTA, under this regulation of growing corporate power,
deregulation and privatization, an erosion in the rights of
workers.
I attended, along with my colleagues, the people's summit. One
of the most powerful and moving forums was the forum of women. It
talked about the impact of the existing trade deals on women. I
will never forget hearing a speech by a Mexican woman who worked
in the maquiladoras. She spoke of the dramatically increased
level of violence directed against women and yes, also violence
at the workplace. That is what is being entrenched in this new
FTAA.
We still do not know if there was a leak on the proposed
investment provisions in the FTAA with respect to chapter 11.
However we already know all too clearly what this means for us
under NAFTA. On a number of occasions my leader has referred to
a study which was just published by Professor Howard Mann, a
respected director of the International Institute for Sustainable
Development, who documented clearly and eloquently the problems
with chapter 11 of NAFTA.
The study points out that the current interpretations of NAFTA's
chapter 11 can have a significant and determinative negative
impact on government decision making in relation to public
interest. In fact they already have. The list goes on too long.
A small community in Mexico, Guadalcázar, was told that it had no
right to protect its citizens from the impact of a toxic waste
dump. The company, which wanted to exercise its corporate rights
under NAFTA, was awarded some $20 million because the citizens of
that community said no.
More and more we see that local governments in Canada are
recognizing the potential impact of chapter 11. Cities like
Vancouver, Halifax and others adopted unanimously a motion
condemning the investor state provisions and called on the
Government of Canada not to sign any trade deal that would
prevent them from making these decisions. As New Democrats, we
stand in solidarity with those citizens and with citizens
throughout the hemisphere.
We saw the MMT case as well in which the Canadian government was
forced to abjectly apologize to Ethyl Corporation for having made
a decision to ban this destructive gasoline additive.
Even the Liberal member of parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis said in
the wake of that decision “I can't believe that a foreign
corporation can almost dictate its terms and we as a sovereign
nation are completely powerless to do anything about it”.
1040
It is astounding that the onus is on us as a country to prove
MMT is not harmful. We saw it with Metalclad and Ethyl
Corporation MMT decisions. We are certainly witnessing it now
with the challenge by UPS to the Canada Post Corporation. This is
a shocking challenge to the power of government to ensure that
the public sector can operate in an effective way on behalf of
the citizens in that country.
I am very pleased to note that the Council of Canadians and the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers have launched a constitutional
challenge to these sweeping and unprecedented powers given to
secret tribunals to take away the right of government to make
decisions in the best interests of its citizens.
I know that my time is limited and I hope I will have an
opportunity in the question and comment period to talk a little
bit about some of our positive alternatives to these proposals
because the Hemispheric Social Alliance and the people's summit
of the Americas came out with a strong, positive and eloquent
statement of alternatives.
The fundamental issue before the House is the issue of democracy
as opposed to corporate power. I appeal to all members of the
House to support the motion because it simply reaffirms the
principles the government indicated it was committed to, which
was that the investor state provision had no place in this
agreement.
In closing, I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words
“Committee” the words on “April 5, 2000”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The amendment is in
order.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke and
I are both from the class of '79. There are only three of us
left in the House, so we have to treat each other well.
Virtually all the nations of the Caribbean have asked for a free
trade agreement with Canada, and we are negotiating one with
them. All the nations of Central America have asked for a free
trade agreement with Canada, and we are negotiating one with
them. We signed one last week with Costa Rica.
One or two per cent of our trade is with countries outside of
the United States and Mexico. Why is the New Democratic Party so
excited about possibly having a free trade agreement of the
Americas with these other countries, which are all virtually
asking for this trade agreement?
Why does the New Democratic Party not talk about the plan of
action which deals with all of the issues which I thought were
important to it such as: transparency and good governance;
electoral processes; fight against corruption; strengthening
human rights; human rights of children and adolescents; freedom
of opinion and expression; rule of law; the drug problem;
preventing violence; communications; and education?
Why does it only want to talk about chapter 11? Could it be
that the NDP knows that the people of Canada and the 800 million
people who live in this hemisphere are also concerned about all
these other things? Could it be that it does not want to talk
about the fact that the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank are agreeing to finance this plan of action?
1045
Could it be that members of the NDP have picked out one thing,
chapter 11, that they think Canadians might support them on and
have ignored all the other good things about the summit, which
was probably the most important event ever to take place on
Canadian soil?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, it could be but it
clearly is not. The reality is that one of the reasons we are
focusing on the investor state provision, which gives sweeping
powers to corporations at the expense of elected governments and
citizens, is the fact that there is no protection whatsoever.
The hon. member talked about a declaration that referred to
human rights, sustainability and the environment. He referred in
glowing terms to the provisions of the summit and a final
agreement on workers' rights. If the government and the member
are serious about the importance of respect for fundamental human
rights, workers' rights, as set out in ILO conventions, and the
environment, why is it that there are no tough, enforceable
provisions on those particular sections in the trade deal that
the government is pushing? Why only corporate rights? Why is
that the Holy Grail?
If the government were serious about these things, it would
recognize those provisions, as the peoples' summit recognized
them in its closing statement.
We are not opposed to globalization that puts the environment
and human needs front and centre. However, the corporate driven
globalization which is exemplified and has as its heart the
investor state provision, is what we reject. That is why we are
focusing on it.
I will close by quoting from one of the largest industrial
groups in the world. Percy Barnevick, the president of the ABB
Industrial Group, said:
I would define globalization as the freedom for my group of
companies to invest where it wants when it wants, to produce what
it wants, to buy and sell where it wants, and support the fewest
restrictions possible coming from labour laws and social
conventions.
That is the corporate and Liberal model of globalization. That
is the heart of an investor state and that is why the New
Democrats say no to that model.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, the toxic Texan of the United
States is talking about opening up energy expropriation at the
expense of the environment. A great alternative was put forth by
many people at the summit. Could the member for Burnaby—Douglas
elaborate on the alternatives that were offered at the summit?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, there was a
declaration at the peoples' summit that talked about another
possibility. It set out a clear alternative that would focus on
an assurance that human rights, the rights of the environment and
the rights of indigenous peoples would be put front and centre,
ahead of corporate rights. I would be pleased to share it with
members of the House.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-16
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with
respect to an order passed earlier today. I believe you would
find unanimous consent for the following amendment. I move:
That the order with regard to Bill C-16, made earlier this day,
be amended to read as follows:
That the motion to refer Bill C-16 to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights be amended to refer the bill to the
Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard
the terms of the amendment. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE AGREEMENTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in the House today to debate the motion. I note that NDP
members have taken some latitude in their comments. I would like
to take the same latitude, address some of their comments and
then debate more directly the motion that is before us today.
I challenge the leader of the NDP to give me one example of a
more open and transparent trade negotiation than the one Canada
has been involved in. She ducked the question.
1050
The very same question was put to the trade critic for the NDP
by the Minister for International Trade not long ago in
committee. The member for Burnaby—Douglas also ducked the
question. Members of the NDP are very good at ducking questions
that they do not have answers for when they relate to trade or
anything else.
The trade critic for the NDP who spoke before me made the point
that we have not yet made our position known on investment
because we do not have a position. The reality is that the
Liberal Party and the government believe in consulting with
Canadians on important issues before we announce our position.
Unlike the NDP we are not tied to a rigid straitjacket of left
wing ideology, which is the reason we see so few of them in the
House of Commons following the last election.
I welcome during questions and comments somebody in the NDP
telling us when there has been a more open and transparent trade
negotiation. I rather doubt anyone could. The trade critic and
the leader could not do it. I would like their whole caucus to
reflect on it. Maybe those members could come up with something
other than utter silence.
I would now like to speak about a subject which is often
overlooked in the debate that refers directly to the motion. It
is the vital role investment plays in the Canadian economy. There
is no doubt that foreign direct investment in Canada and Canadian
direct investment abroad have joined international trade in goods
and services to become our principal engines of growth and job
creation.
Foreign direct investment helps ensure that Canadian firms have
the capital they need to succeed and grow in the highly
competitive global economy. We know that investment creates
jobs, spurs innovation and provides Canadians with access to the
capital and expertise that make our country stronger. Canadian
direct investment abroad is equally important. It helps Canadian
firms establish a presence in key foreign markets, to share
Canadian expertise and values, and to export goods and services
to key markets.
I should like to share some recent statistics that help to paint
a clear picture of the situation. In 2000 the stock of foreign
direct investment in Canada reached a record $291 billion. At the
same time Canadian direct investment abroad increased to an all
time high of $301 billion in 2000 and exceeded foreign direct
investment in Canada for the fifth year in a row.
Traditionally Canada has been viewed as a net recipient of
foreign direct investment. Many people do not realize that
Canada is a strong and vital net exporter of foreign direct
investment.
Foreign investment in Canada has over the years been an
important source for jobs, especially high skilled and high value
added jobs. Foreign investment in Canada has brought with it
advantages in research and development, technology and talented
people, which have all made real and lasting contributions to our
economic and social well-being.
An economic forecast prepared by Industry Canada and the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade estimates
that each $1 billion increase in new inward investment to Canada
could generated up to 45,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in GDP over a
five year period. The study also postulates that one job in ten
and approximately 50% of Canada's total exports are derived from
foreign direct investment.
It should be noted further that a large proportion of profits
from new investments is reinvested in Canada, contributing to a
higher growth rate and a rise in Canadian living standards.
Canada has an affluent domestic market, a highly skilled and
well educated labour force, efficient transportation systems and
a telecommunications infrastructure which is the envy of the
world. The Canadian private sector is competitive and knowledge
intensive, whether in telecommunications, biotechnology or
computer software. In encryption capabilities, medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and ocean technologies Canadian firms lead the
way.
Our excellent health care and education systems are cornerstones
to our high quality of life. Canada remains an attractive
location for foreign investment.
1055
These Canadian advantages have not been gained by compromising
our overriding economic and social values. Foreign investors in
Canada are subject to the same laws and regulations as our
Canadian investors, including those aimed at protecting the
environment and those ensuring the highest labour, health,
building and safety standards. We should not forget that
creating prosperity and wealth in Canada is a necessary first
step.
We have progressive social policies to utilize that wealth to
create a healthy and educated society. This is an element that
the NDP leaves out. It wants to redistribute wealth but does not
want to focus on wealth creation as a precondition. Hence the
ideological straitjacket that I mentioned at the start of my
remarks which is shared by few Canadians.
Investment is not a one way street. One of the most significant
features of Canada's recent economic history has been the rapid
growth of Canadian investment abroad. The value of this
investment has increased by fivefold between 1985 and 2000 from
$57.2 billion to $301 billion. In 2000 and for the fifth
consecutive year direct investment abroad by Canadians overtook
foreign investment in Canada. That is an outstanding
performance.
Direct investment abroad by Canadian industry is part of its
strategic effort to increase market share and stay competitive in
foreign markets. Firms are increasingly using outward investment
to strengthen their operations, penetrate new markets and acquire
new technologies, resources and skills. Evidence suggests that
this type of investment does not precipitate an export of jobs
but rather results in increased sales and production from home
facilities.
A recent study by the OECD found that on average every $1 of
investment is followed by $2 of exports. It all adds up to jobs
and opportunities for Canadians. The growth of Canadian foreign
direct investment abroad has led to an increase in exports. This
has directly affected Canada's economic health.
These investments create opportunities for Canadians by giving
Canadian firms new markets to extend their businesses through
exports and through local sales. Canadian direct investment
abroad often secures new customers and creates sales in new
markets. In addition, it provides much needed capital infusion
in growing economies.
When Canadians invest abroad we also bring our values together
with the products we export. Additional research has shown that
the growth of productivity and profits of Canadian firms involved
in global markets has been superior to the performance of
domestically oriented firms. We have also seen that income from
Canada's outward foreign direct investments increase during
recent years helping to improve our standard of living.
The motion is not founded on fact. The Minister for
International Trade has been repeatedly very clear in the House
of Commons, in committee and in the media that the Government of
Canada does not seek to scrap or reopen chapter 11 of NAFTA but
seeks to clarify it.
It seeks to have adjudicating bodies more accurately respect the
intentions of the NAFTA partners when they signed this clause.
Points of clarification are very important. The minister has made
that clear. However he has repeatedly said that there is no need
or interest in scrapping or reopening such a clause because there
has to be balance and sensible protection for investment in
Canada and for Canadian investment abroad.
The motion is devious in that it seeks to contrast the NDP's
interpretation of what the minister said with what the Prime
Minister said. That will not hold water or bear scrutiny.
The reality is that chapter 11 of NAFTA is working reasonably
well when put in the context of the enormous volume of trade that
we do with our NAFTA partners, especially the United States with
whom we have a two way trade daily of $1.3 billion.
1100
In that context the clause is working relatively well. However
we would like to see further clarification and tightening up of
the clause in how it has been interpreted by adjudicating panels.
It is interesting to listen to the rhetoric of NDP members. They
love to use the word rhetoric but do not like it applied to
themselves. I eagerly await an answer to the question they have
continually ducked about a more transparent trade negotiation.
It was fascinating to sit in the House a few short weeks ago and
watch NDP members grind their teeth as the labour prime minister
of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, said very bluntly that no
matter how well intentioned critics of freer trade may be they
cannot be allowed to stand in the way of logic. He said the best
thing we could do for our own nations and for poorer nations was
to globalize and liberalize trade.
NDP members dismiss Tony Blair as a labour leader who is out of
touch.
An hon. member: A neo-Liberal.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, a neo-Liberal labour leader who is
out of touch. I wonder which labour party is out of touch. It
might just be the NDP, and that might be reflected in the size of
its caucus and the incredible soul searching it is very rightly
going through.
The NDP dismissed Tony Blair very blithely. However we can
refer to statements like those of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
who said the best thing we could do for less developed and poorer
nations was to globalize and liberalize trade. He even
quantified that. He said liberalized trade would result in a
direct infusion of capital to poorer nations of somewhere between
$100 billion to $150 billion. That is much more than the
combined foreign aid or overseas development assistance given by
all the nations of the world.
When I raised the issue with a labour leader in my city of
London, Ontario, I got a pathetic response. I was told Kofi
Annan was a handpicked puppet of the Americans. What ideological
garbage coming from the NDP and its spokespeople across the
country. They are so ideologically tied down to their own little
interpretation of reality that they dismiss one of the best prime
ministers the U.K. has had in recent times and an outstanding
leader of the United Nations because they do not agree with NDP
ideology.
The leader of the NDP spoke about public opinion. I do not know
what public opinion poll she has been reading but I do know one
thing. The reality, and I mean reality and not the NDP version
of it, is that a cross section of public opinion polls shows that
Canadians overwhelmingly endorse the pursuit of globalized trade.
Between two-thirds and 70% of Canadians have repeatedly
expressed support for it. One labour council poll came up with
different numbers. We were not surprised at that. However a
cross section of the polls shows that Canadians overwhelmingly
support the globalization of trade. They understand its value
and know that it has created 2.1 million new jobs in Canada since
1993. Close to 90% of those jobs are directly related to our
exports of goods and services.
I do not know where these interpretations of public opinion come
from, but they certainly do not reflect the public opinion I read
and hear about all the time in my city of London, Ontario, and in
my riding of London—Fanshawe.
Canadian investors benefit from a rules based system at the
World Trade Organization, regional arrangements such as the
NAFTA, and bilateral agreements such as the Canada-Israel and
Canada-Chile free trade agreements to which my colleague, the
secretary of state, referred earlier.
Investment rules provide for transparent, predictable and fair
rules for Canadian investors, large and small. The NAFTA
investment rules play an important role in protecting and
facilitating foreign investment activities of Canadian firms in
the United States and Mexico.
Trade and investment rules give a relatively small economy like
ours more leverage against the political pressure sometimes
exerted by larger economies.
1105
If there is a trading nation in the world that needs these rules
it is Canada. Only the NDP fails to understand that. Its
members do not understand that Canadian jobs are dependent on
freer trade. They champion themselves as spokespeople for the
labour movement, but they are now questioning that and rightly
so. The labour movement does not reciprocate when it goes to the
polls, and with very good reason. It knows who is in touch with
reality and who is not.
Investment rules also attract foreign investment into Canada
because they strengthen Canada's reputation as a secure base for
establishing global enterprises.
We come to the matter of disputes. There have always been
disputes between governments and companies and there always will
be. NAFTA did not create such disputes. Chapter 11 did not
create such disputes. Companies have always been unhappy with
governments for various things and have taken a variety of
actions.
Disputes stand out for the simple reason that they are rare,
although some are admittedly dramatic. In the context of our
full trading relationship we have not had many trade disputes,
and Canada has done very well in some of them.
Disputes affect a small portion of the billions of dollars in
investment that Canada attracts, with over $93 billion last year
alone. Disputes affect a very small portion of the billions that
Canadian firms invest abroad, with some $62 billion in 2000.
Moreover we have means to address such disputes.
It boggles my mind that people suggest we do not need to protect
either investment in Canada or Canadian investment overseas. It
is incredible. I do not know if the motion is serious. It is
not accurately worded. It does not reflect the repeated
statements of the Minister for International Trade that we must
clarify, not scrap or reopen, chapter 11 of NAFTA. He has said
that repeatedly and it has been published in Hansard on
many occasions. In answering questions in the House in the
minister's absence I have made the same point because it is
consistent with what he has said.
In conclusion, foreign direct investment in Canada and Canadian
investment abroad are both vital to Canada's growth and
prosperity. Investment brings knowledge, technology and new
opportunities for Canadians. It enriches the range of
possibilities to which Canadians can aspire while helping build
the knowledge economy and prepare Canada to compete confidently
on the global stage.
For these reasons the government believes policies which protect
Canadian investment abroad and promote Canada as a location of
choice for investment are critical to our economic and social
well-being. We will therefore not support measures that limit
the government's ability to protect Canadian investments abroad.
We will not support measures that blatantly threaten jobs, jobs
which are badly needed and which have been created in significant
numbers since 1993 because of our success in trade.
Earlier today I had the honour to table the latest story on
overseas trade for Canada in the year 2000. It was a tremendous
success story and it was an honour to table it. Most Canadians
and all political parties in the House seem to understand that,
with the sole exception of the NDP. That is its problem.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of the parliamentary
secretary. Implicit in his remarks was the assumption that we
are a small political party representing a few people on the
outside of the fence looking in.
However one of the most unreported stories of Quebec City last
week was that the mikes were left on inside the room when the 34
heads of state thought they were in closed session.
1110
It is not nearly as much beer and skittles as the member for
London—Fanshawe would have us believe. Speakers such as the
presidents of Paraguay, Guatemala, and Venezuela all spoke about
concerns they have as small, poor countries in Latin America and
the Caribbean that are trying to compete with the giant to the
south of us and to the north of them.
A great deal has been said today, both by the member who just
spoke and the hon. member from Edmonton, on the matter of
democracy. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, in the closed door
meeting where the microphone was inadvertently left on, said that
if people were denied land and power was concentrated in the
hands of two per cent of the population, one could not speak of
democracy. Would the member for London—Fanshawe care to
comment?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, the reality is that the
leaders of the Americas overwhelmingly support the FTAA, as my
colleague the secretary of state noted earlier. Why? It is
because they understand the truth of the comments of Kofi Annan.
They understand that globalized and liberalized trade is the best
thing that could happen for their countries, their economies and
their people.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Not Hugo Chavez.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, the member asked me a
question and now he wants to holler. That is the NDP way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I did say earlier
that we have plenty of time for questions and comments and I
think we should show respect to each other in the Chamber.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, it is the NDP way to
holler down things it does not want to hear. However the reality
is, and I was coming to the member's question—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Respect will go both
ways.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I am coming to the
member's question. I think that is showing respect. However
hollering will not get an answer. The member wanted to holler
and I ask your indulgence to allow me to answer the question.
Mr. Annan's point is very clear. If we are to tackle the
problems the hon. member addressed in his question, real problems
of poverty and inequity in many countries of the Americas, the
government must have the economic wherewithal to do so. That is
achieved through globalized, liberalized trade.
The member can shake his head. However I will listen more
carefully to the views of Mr. Blair and Mr. Annan because
frankly, and with all due respect, they are more in touch with
reality than the hon. member.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
want to pursue two things. The member suggested that Tony Blair,
the prime minister of Great Britain, is an uncritical embracer of
free trade no matter what it looks like. That is simply dead
wrong. Tony Blair knows that the European model for freer trade
is different in substance and process from the FTAA and is based
on exactly the opposite set of principles.
It is absolutely true that Tony Blair is in favour of
liberalizing trade. It is also true that the New Democratic
Party is in favour of opening up trade opportunities for the
Americas. The countries of the Americas want and deserve freer
trade. However the hon. member conveniently ignores that the
European form of liberalized trade is based on a democratic and
parliamentary process.
There is no parliament of the Americas. There is, however, a
European parliament which sets out explicit standards for working
conditions, human rights, environmental protection and cultural
diversity. It enforces its standards and makes conformity to
them a condition of membership in the European Union.
1115
The FTAA model is based on exactly the opposite. There is no
democratic process at an international, hemispheric wide level.
Behind closed doors we have those kinds of discussions going on
and we have the preferential access of the big corporations, with
500 of the major CEOs of those mega corporations having access to
the text, which the people of Canada and the people of the other
Americas still do not have access to. In process it is
fundamentally different. As my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas
has pointed out again today, in substance it is absolutely the
case that there is nothing enforceable about the side agreements
on labour and the environment. The record absolutely shows that.
The second thing I would like to say is that if the hon. member
had been in attendance at some of the forums that made up the
people's summit, he would have understood that people from
countries such as Ecuador, Peru and Colombia are absolutely
terrified of any agreement that would give even more power to the
multinational corporations than they already have over those
people's lives.
If the hon. member could have heard about the working conditions
they are suffering, he would surely think twice before he would
support NAFTA chapter 11, which will give those developing
countries even fewer democratic instruments with which to raise
their standard of living and protect their environment, their
cultures and their working rights.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, here we go again. There
is other consultation possible than just that in Quebec City,
whether it was inside the summit or at the people's summit. The
leader does not need to lecture me on that. I very recently met
with a group of aboriginal people from Colombia in my office on
Parliament Hill. They expressed some of their concerns. We are
consulting very widely. Unlike the NDP, we do not just consult
with those who agree with us.
The leader said that I had mentioned that Mr. Blair was in
favour of free trade no matter what it looks like. That is
exactly what the leader attributed to me. That is absolutely and
completely inaccurate. I said no such thing. I challenge her to
find that in Hansard.
I simply said that Mr. Blair indicated that the critics of free
trade, including the leader of the NDP, however well intentioned,
cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the economic reality
that globalized, liberalized free trade is very important. Small
countries such as those of the Americas need investments. Their
leaders get that if the NDP leader does not. Firms need rules in
order to invest. Everybody understands that but the NDP.
The former Ontario premier, NDP premier Bob Rae, said it comes
to this: the critics of globalized trade want to abolish
capitalism. They have lost that argument. Those are arguments
on the scrap heap of history.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon.
member this point blank. Does it concern him at all that the
model of free trade that is being pursued is being pursued under
the banner of the notion that there is a surplus of democracy in
the world, of democracy interfering with capital investment? Does
that concern the hon. member?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, yes it does, because I do
not agree that there is a surplus of democracy. This whole
process has been about democratizing the situation.
Does the leader of the NDP not remember that prior to
liberalized, globalized free trade there was a dictator in Mexico
and that about 20 of those countries had dictators? Does she not
get it that this is a move toward democracy?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, before I start I would like to commend you for trying to
bring decorum into the House during the debate. Thank you very
much.
1120
It is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of
Calgary East to speak on the supply day motion put forward by the
NDP. At this time I have to make up my mind which way I should
go after what the government and the NDP have said.
Let me start by telling the House why the Alliance will not be
supporting the motion put forward by the NDP. The NDP's
criticism of chapter 11 or globalization, as it has embraced the
anti-globalization protest movement, is on only one theme. The
theme is that it is multinationals against the others. All the
NDP keeps saying is that it is multinationals against the others,
but I can tell them that the issue is not multinationals. The
issue is small and medium sized businesses.
Under the globalization regime that has taken place opportunity
has now been given for the first time to small businesses and
medium sized businesses to take advantage of and participate in
trade. This means for both sides, not only for Canadians. It
means that other countries can also take advantage of
globalization. Their business people can take advantage of it
and bring prosperity to their countries.
We all know that prosperity comes through a good economic plan.
If a country does not have a good economic plan and the
businesses are not there, no matter what we say at the end of the
day people cannot take advantage of it. People will not have
jobs. Where will prosperity come from? I can tell members that
the government cannot supply the needs of the people. The
government is only supposed to regulate. The government does not
have the resources to invest in and try to uplift the standard of
living.
It is very strange to listen to the NDP. Any time the NDP is in
a position of power, it quickly changes its views. The
parliamentary secretary spoke about the former premier of Ontario
changing his view and saying globalization and free trade are
good.
I would also remind the NDP that only three days ago its former
member of parliament, who has suddenly changed and is now in the
government, is saying that the NDP is on the wrong track in
regard to this issue of anti-globalization. I am talking about
the hon. Chris Axworthy, who is now a minister in the government
of Saskatchewan.
Members can see what happens. Every time an NDP member gets
into the government his or her views suddenly change because the
importance of free trade is realized. NDP members go around
saying they are anti-globalization, saying free trade is bad, and
they focus all the blame on multinationals. Multinationals are
not the issue. The issue is small business, medium sized
businesses, farmers and everyone whose livelihoods depend on
trade.
Our farmers' livelihoods depend on trade. We can all see what a
devastating impact not having a rules based system in agriculture
has had on the farming communities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Alberta and all over Canada. It is extremely important that we
have a rules based system so everyone can play a fair game and
bigger economies cannot muscle in on smaller economies.
It surprises me, in that the NDP has so many members coming from
Saskatchewan. Perhaps I should not say so many, but there is a
little sprinkle here and a little sprinkle there of members who
come from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and who stand up for their
farmers. They should know how not having a rules based system
can hurt ordinary farmers. These are not multinationals we are
talking about. We are talking about ordinary Canadians, with
medium sized farms, whose livelihoods are being threatened. This
is when the NDP should get up.
To go back to the motion, and to the government on chapter 11,
the NDP motion talks about what the Minister for International
Trade said before the foreign affairs committee. He said “I can
assure you that we are not seeking an investor state provision in
WTO or anywhere else”. That
is what the minister of trade stated.
1125
This is really surprising coming as it does from Canada's trade
minister, a trade minister who time after time preaches the
benefits of a rules based system of trade for Canada. As the
former critic for international trade, I have travelled with him
many times and I know that his commitment to free trade is there.
Therefore it came as a complete surprise to me when he made this
statement, because he knows about the importance of a rules based
system. Chapter 11 is a rules based system that has been put in
NAFTA to address the issue of protection of investments. If
there is no protection for investments they are not going to
flow. We have seen this happen time after time.
On the one hand the minister wants rules to encourage fairness
and predictability for investors. That is fair ball. On the
other hand the minister seeks to change these rules in a secret
backroom agreement. He has said that he would like to try to
reopen this chapter 11 issue again with both the U.S.A. and
Mexico. Both those governments have stated quite clearly that
they are happy with chapter 11. They do not see it as a threat.
What baffles everyone is the fact that when the NDP went up
against free trade and globalization, especially at the protest
in Quebec City, it forgot that there were 33 heads of state there
who were elected to represent the views of their people. There
was the fifth party, which is not even in government, saying that
these people were wrong. What else is a democracy if in a
democratic system a government elected by the people cannot
speak?
However, here we have people coming from a democratic system
like ours saying that these people are wrong. Here is an example
of the type of comments that were heard. The so-called
anti-globalization protester, Jaggi Singh, said that the violence
was inside when he started blaming the heads of state. This
makes us wonder what a democracy is. There were people there who
were elected to be democratic leaders and their views were being
challenged.
I agree with one point, that is, we need a transparent system
for these agreements so that Canadians know what it is they are
signing. The simplest system for that is to bring this agreement
into parliament. Let there be an open and honest debate in
parliament. Let it be ratified by parliament. After all,
parliamentarians are the voice of the people. We have committees
that go out and listen to the people. Let the provinces have
their say on this as well.
This is the appropriate way for a democratic institution to
work. If the government is committed to an open, honest,
transparent system, then it would do that by bringing this into
parliament and having it ratified. I do not mean the FTAA
evening debate the government gave us, saying it was an open,
democratic system and we could debate. We had until midnight to
debate it, and the government said it also had a parliamentary
committee going out to listen to the people.
Hold on a minute. If this is transparency, then we have a
serious democratic problem, because we stand up and make these
points but no one is listening to us. We huff and puff here in
parliament but no one is listening to us. We make speeches. The
NDP might have a point or two that we should listen to. That is
fine, but no one is listening.
We went to the committee. I have been on that parliamentary
committee. I have gone out there with the parliamentary
secretary. I have seen people come out to the committee and I
have seen what happens. What happens? Nothing happens. The way
the parliamentary committee is set up, the way the system is set
up, we can huff and puff but at the end of the day it is the way
the government wants it.
1130
Violent protests regarding anti-globalization mean nothing.
People are a little concerned about globalization. They are
concerned with the fact that under globalization they do not know
which way to turn. This uneasiness is translated into protests
because of the failure of the government to engage people in
debate and to promote the benefits of free trade.
We know why the MAI collapsed and went down the tubes. It was
because the government thought that it would sign the MAI and
then sit back silently, not talking to Canadians and not letting
them know what was happening.
The issue which concerns us the most is the transparency of the
system and the unopenness of the government to talk about the
international agreements that it has signed. It was only after
the pressure was put on the Minister for International Trade,
when he went to Buenos Aires, that he said he would make it open.
I commend him for doing that and for pressuring the other
governments to do it as well. That is one credit that I will
give him. However it came after the fact and only when there was
pressure put on him.
After daily questions in the House the minister decided that he
had better do something because things were not looking good in
Quebec City. The minister could have done it before. The
problem is that the government reacts after the pressure. It
does not have the vision to say what it will do or how it will do
it. Hopefully now it will get the message.
The Alliance agrees with the government that the principle of
free trade is very important for Canada. Free trade is also
important for the prosperity of poorer countries as it would
raise their standard of living.
In the motion there is one point dealing with chapter 11 that
worries us. I do not know what the government's position is on
chapter 11. Maybe it could tell us because we are hearing
contradictory statements. The Prime Minister says chapter 11 is
working well. That caught the Minister for International Trade
off guard. The minister is running around and trying to patch it
up by saying that he is just thinking of improving it. Then we
have the president of Mexico and the president of the U.S.A.
saying that everything is fine.
There are a number of cases that challenge chapter 11. There
may be one or two cases where the rules were not followed. There
are more facts to the NDP story about companies that have won
damages using chapter 11. The fact is that the government has
failed to follow the rules which it should have followed. That
is why it ended up paying. If it had followed the rules right
from the beginning this issue would not have arisen. The
parliamentary secretary knows what I am talking about.
Basically chapter 11 has been working well. If it has been
working well and giving guarantees to investors, I do not see why
it cannot be transferred into the FTAA and the WTO. It should be
transferred because it would create a rules based system. It
would give investors who invest money for the prosperity of
everyone the kind of rules they need to know where to put their
money and how their money would be protected. Business and trade
rely on investment.
I grew up in African countries and these countries are looking
for investment to increase their prosperity.
1135
The figures regarding direct aid have changed. From the 1970s
to today direct aid was given from government to government to
many countries to improve their living standards. After 20 years
we know that the living standards in continental Africa have
fallen back. The direct aid program has failed miserably.
Today the figures state that private investment that is flowing
into developing countries has tripled. Governments are viewing
that as a new form of investment. It would be in the form of
indirect aid and it would open up borders. It would raise the
living standards of these countries, and every democratic country
is thinking of that.
If we look at the figures today, the flow of private investment
is faster into these countries and their standards of living are
also going up. There is no longer direct aid.
If this happens as a developmental process then it is necessary
to have chapter 11 which protects investment so that those who
are investing know the rules of the game. We do not want a
system where governments can nationalize investments making
investors run away. At the end of the day money would not be
given as direct aid. If we wish to raise the living standards of
developing countries, it has to come from private investment,
contrary to what members opposite are saying.
Chapter 11 is the route to ensure that this would happen. If
there are one or two little bumps, it does not mean that there is
something seriously and fundamentally wrong with it. In the
overall scheme of things it would help everybody. It would help
developing countries, and that is what we are looking for.
I would like to say to the Minister for International Trade that
he should be very careful. What he was quoted as saying is now
the basis of the motion. He should be extremely careful not to
fall under the pressure of the NDP and make these kinds of
statements that in the longer term would hurt free trade. In the
long term it would create a crack.
If investment slows down, I am sorry to say that we would be
facing the same problem, which is a shame as more than
three-quarters of the people on earth live in abject poverty.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Calgary. We enjoyed the first half of his speech better than the
second half.
The author of “The Lexus and the Olive Tree”, Thomas Friedman,
wrote after the Quebec summit the following:
That is not surprising, because if you actually look around
Africa you see that the countries that are the most democratic,
where the people have the most freedom to choose—South Africa,
Nigeria, Ghana—are the most pro-trade, the most integrated in
the world economy and the most globalized. The countries that
are led by dictators, are the least open and where the people
have the least freedom to choose—Sudan, Zimbabwe, Liberia,
Libya, etc.—are those most hostile to globalization, openness
and trade in goods and services.
At the end of his article he refers to protesters by saying:
By inhibiting global trade expansion, they are choking the only
route out of poverty for the world's poor. Which is why these
“protesters” should be called by their real name: The Coalition
to Keep Poor People Poor.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would answer on behalf of members
of the New Democratic Party what they would say to these
comments.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I have good friends in
the NDP. I do respect the view from that side, but I do not
share that view.
I grew up and worked in Africa and I know the devastation and the
impact of unsound economic policies.
1140
In the 1970s when countries became independent people chose two
paths. They chose either a free market economy or a closed
economy. Tanzania chose the socialist economy. Many countries
of the world chose socialist economies while others chose free
market economies.
In about 20 years a marked difference took place. Countries
with freer markets were the ones that took part in trade. The
best example of globalization is Hong Kong. Its prosperity is
globalization. It does not produce much because it does not have
anything. Yet it has one of the best standards of living.
There were two systems in the world. When the socialist closed
system collapsed, countries realized that in order to raise
living standards for their populace they had to open up their
markets and look for private investment. Government aid was no
longer the point. If they wanted to raise the standard of living
of their people they had to have private investment and open
trade. This was staring them in the face. We are seeing that
today.
That is why dictatorships have collapsed. They have collapsed
because they could not sustain economic growth. Economic growth
can only come through trade, sound economic policies and good
investment policies. That is what the governments of various
countries are trying.
There are programs available in CIDA. I agree with CIDA when it
tries to create sound policies for economic management in foreign
countries, particularly business rules and investment rules which
foreign countries lack. It may be a long process, but if it is
done I am positive like everyone else that the economic standard
of these countries would increase.
It is important that Canada have free trade access because we
have a small market. Canada has only 30 million people. We need
foreign trade for our own prosperity. It is a win-win situation
for everyone.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, early
in the member's speech he said that he was surprised New
Democrats from the prairie provinces would be in opposition to
the motion because of how beneficial trade is for agriculture. As
has been pointed out by previous speakers in our party, we do
support fair trade.
I would ask the member to tell us how agricultural trade over
the last seven or eight years with the United States has
benefited farmers from western Canada. As Canada slashed
subsidies by 60% and the Americans jacked up its subsidies, could
he tell us how it has helped Canadian grain and oilseed producers
in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
Has it helped anybody other than the multinationals, the
Monsantos and the implement dealers? We do not produce any
manufacturing equipment except short line equipment. The large
stuff is produced outside our borders. Could the member tell us
about the blessings of fair trade with the United States as it
has affected agriculture over the last eight years?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I will never understand
it. At one time members of the NDP talked about fair trade and
how they did not oppose free trade. They said they liked fair
trade.
Fair trade can only be done if it is a rules based system. If it
is not a rules based system where will we get our free trade
from? Where will we get our fair trade from? I do not
understand.
1145
The member has just given the exact example of the prairie
farmers he is talking about in the U.S.A. Do we know why?
Because agriculture is not on the table. Agriculture fell off.
If agriculture were under WTO fair trade rules, what the member
is talking about would have never happened. The member should
just wake up to the fact that if we want to talk about fair trade
then it is going to be a fair, rules based system. That would
solve the problem.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his comments and the
hon. member opposite for the comment about the countries that
have adopted open and transparent free trade and how it has
created wealth in those countries.
I think it is really significant that we recognize the
differences in philosophy between the two approaches to the
creation of wealth. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he
could somehow explain more about why that works. It seems to me
that if businesses want to invest millions of dollars into
another country or anywhere, they want stability. They want to
be able to predict what the rules will be as they invest their
money and they want a return on that money.
That applies to governments too. They do not want to simply
spend money and then not get anything for it, although I
sometimes wonder whether the Liberal government really cares
about that part of it, as it just seems to throw money away.
However, the real question for my colleague is this: would he
expand the stabilization aspect of a rules based trading system?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
my colleague for asking this question.
He is absolutely right. In the long term when an investor is
pouring his money into a situation, he needs investment
stability. He needs to know that an investment is made and a
return is expected.
The problem is that in the past when there was an investment,
the nationalization, the taking away of properties, the seizing
of properties, resulted in situations where there was no
stability. Individual investors could not predict what was
happening to their investments. Nobody, even the NDP, I am sure,
will agree to throw money down the tubes when there is nothing
there. No one will agree to that.
Chapter 11 and these rules we are trying to create are there to
ensure that investors know what to expect and to bring stability
to that system. At the end of the day, some questions about
environmental and labour standards are issues that we have
international bodies to deal with.
Under the United Nations we have the ILO and UNEP. These are
international bodies that can bring pressure on the governments
of countries where an investment is made to ensure that they have
rules and laws that will protect their environment and their
labour standards according to their needs. It is wrong to take
other labour standards and dump them on other governments. Let
them decide what their labour standards are. I must say it
bothers me that the NGOs who sit here are in the best environment
in the world and are trying to put their views on different
countries while not understanding what other countries want.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, since May 1
is International Workers Day, I want to begin by saluting workers
from Quebec and the whole world.
I also want to congratulate the New Democratic Party for its
initiative, which is entirely in keeping with the work that the
Bloc Quebecois has been doing for the past number of weeks in
this House to ensure a true public debate on the ongoing
negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.
Chapter 11, and particularly the issue of dispute settlement, is
at the very core of the lessons that we should learn from the
North American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement
with the United States.
I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supports free trade.
This being said, we are, based on the experience gained with the
two agreements that we signed with the United States, and with
the United States and Mexico, in a position to draw some
conclusions as to what has worked well and what has not worked so
well.
1150
The motion proposed by the New Democratic Party allows us to
debate an aspect of the North American Free Trade Agreement that
is very problematic, even in the eyes of the government. Indeed,
both the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister
have alluded to a number of issues concerning, among others,
chapter 11.
The forum of parliamentarians we helped organize during the
people's summit in Quebec City was attended by representatives
from every country in the Americas, particularly Latin America.
These parliamentarians told us “In Canada, in Quebec, in the
United States and in Mexico you know what a free trade agreement
is all about.
We would like to share that experience with you”. But for us to
do that, we ourselves must take the time to digest the positive
and sometimes less positive results of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
From this angle, it appears that today's debate is extremely
useful, not just for the House, but also for all
parliamentarians in the Americas. I undertake to share the
results of today's debate with the parliamentarians present at
the people's summit forum of parliamentarians.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, no one
had assessed the full impact of chapter 11, particularly as
regards the dispute settlement mechanism. I have here a quotation
from the June 23, 1999 La Presse. Howard Mann, who was a member
of Canada's negotiating team and who drafted the environmental
portion of the trade agreement, said, and his comments were
reported in La Presse, as I mentioned:
This is a situation that nobody anticipated. It was only in
1996, with Ethyl Corp.'s lawsuit, that we realized how far
companies wanted to take certain provisions of the agreement.
So, it was not the intention of those who negotiated this
chapter for Canada, for the United States and for Mexico, that it
would be used as it has been for the past few years.
Between 1996 and 1999, seven lawsuits, for a total of $1.5
billion, were filed under chapter 11. All seven of these
lawsuits, which represented half of all those filed, had to do
with environmental legislation. All of them challenged
environmental standards which these companies felt were
discriminatory or amounted to the introduction of protectionist
measures.
Last week, in the House, the Prime Minister seemed to feel that
Canada's chapter 11 record was good. I wonder how he, of all
people, can think such a thing, with his recent boasting about
his political longevity; if his concern for a good record in the
case of chapter 11 matched his concern for his own personal
record, I do not think he would still be sitting in the House.
The record shows that we struck out twice. The case involving
Ethyl Corporation was settled out of court, but Canada admitted
its guilt by paying the company compensation.
In the S.D. Myers case, we lost. There was one victory, but it
was an obvious one in my opinion, that of Pope & Talbot's
challenge of the provisions of the Canada-US agreement on
softwood lumber, under chapter 11, on the grounds that they were
contrary to NAFTA. There is still one case pending, UPS against
the federal government in connection with unfair competition by
Canada Post for delivery services. Sun Belt Water is still
involved with the Government of British Columbia as well.
I think it is, therefore, very early to be saying that Canada
has had good results relating to chapter 11.
On the contrary, it seems to me that what the Minister for
International Trade said—version one, that is, since there seems
to have been a rather rapid change in his thinking since
then—constituted an appropriate beginning of a position when he
stated before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade as follows:
What I have been seeking, for some time, as we discussed at this
committee the last time I was here, is clarification about some
elements of chapter 11 that I believe have been given extension
beyond the real intention of the drafters. Some are about
expropriation, for instance. You use some clauses on
expropriation in a way that is, in my view, excessive and not
useful.
That was last March, when the Minister for International Trade
was before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
1155
He went on to state:
We want more transparency as well. I think chapter 11, in that
clarification, which would be binding on the three NAFTA
countries, would need to adopt more transparent ways of dealing
with the investment, and particularly the investor-state,
aspects.
So even the Minister for International Trade was, only a few
weeks ago, questioning the dispute settlement mechanism.
It was totally in keeping with his April 5, 2000 statement about
chapter 11, reported in the motion by the NDP, when he replied:
On chapter 11—and we had a discussion a few weeks ago, and I
understand where you're coming from—I can assure you that we are
not seeking an investor-state provision in the WTO or anywhere
else in other agreements.
A member of the NDP asked “On the FTAA?” The minister responded
“No, not on the FTAA, either”.
These are the words of the Minister for International Trade, who
said a month ago, and a year ago, that the government did not
intend to include a dispute resolution mechanism in the FTAA and
the WTO accord equivalent to that found in NAFTA.
If it were the intention of the minister and if it were the
intention of the government, there must be a problem with the
mechanism. So, let us look at the problem and resolve the causes
of the problem.
As I mentioned earlier, this was the position of the Minister
for International Trade in the first draft. Then, in the
conclusions of the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the
Prime Minister of Canada intervened. He felt reasonably
satisfied with chapter 11. Afterward, here in the House the
Minister for International Trade changed his position, and on
April 24, we heard him say here “Mr. Speaker, the government
believes strongly that chapter 11 is working reasonably well”.
It was a bit troubling to see such a quick change in the
Minister for International Trade's thinking, when, for a year, he
considered and stated that there were problems with the
application of chapter 11, specifically the dispute regulation
mechanism.
In the summary of Canada's position on the matter of investments
with respect to the FTAA—because we are still waiting to hear
Canada's position on investments—I quote what appears on the
government's website, which we have been advised to consult
regularly:
Canada is not advocating the replication of NAFTA investor-state
rules in the FTAA and has not supported the proposals made so
far by other FTAA countries to include such a type of dispute
settlement mechanism.
The issue is one of consistency, I think. The other parties in
this House may think that anything on international trade that
comes from the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Quebecois lacks
credibility, but the NDP motion presents the position of the
Canadian government itself, as stated on its website. I would
find it hard to see how the government party could vote against
its own position.
This being said, it is true that this is the summary of the
position on investments. We still do not know the government's
final position on investments and dispute settlement in the
context of the negotiations on the free trade area.
I am asking the government to state that position as soon as
possible, because it is one of two elements that generate a
great deal of distrust toward the whole process, the other one
being the fact that last week the party in office defeated an
amendment brought forward by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to the effect that any final agreement be
voted on by this House before being ratified by the government.
It is perfectly legitimate to debate and question the validity
of the dispute settlement mechanism, which is found in chapter
11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and which is, for
some countries, perhaps the United States and perhaps Canada, an
acceptable basis for negotiation.
It is neither the position of the Bloc Quebecois nor that of
the institutions committee of the Quebec National Assembly.
1200
The following is a passage from page 68 of the report entitled
“Le Québec et la Zone de libre-échange des Amériques: Effets
politiques et socioéconomiques”:
—a number of stakeholders are concerned that states no longer
seem to be allowed to set their national development policies
without having to constantly consult investors. In addition, the
dispute settlement mechanism is a worry because it seems to
circumvent governments and traditional justice and concentrate
this power in the hands of trade tribunals.
As can be seen, not only is our concern shared, but it is shared
by parliamentarians.
It must be realized that the mechanism provided for in chapter
11, which allows investors to sue states directly for
contravention of this chapter, is almost unique in the world. In
other words, Canada, Mexico and the United States have saddled
themselves with an obligation that does not exist in any of the
international trade agreements, whether they involve the World
Trade Organization or are between European countries which, when
there are international disputes, resolve them between states.
That is one of the reasons that has screwed up—the right word
for it, in my opinion—all the negotiations on the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, because of the belief, by the premier of
France in particular, that state sovereignty could be shared
between states but could not be handed over to private
enterprise. Such is the case, unfortunately, with chapter 11.
That is not, however, the only problem with the dispute
resolution mechanisms contained in chapter 11 of NAFTA. I will
touch on some of the criticisms that can be made.
First, the interpretation of certain provisions is unclear,
because every time a dispute panel is formed by virtue of chapter
11, it is not bound by previous decisions. There is therefore no
precedent, each case being judged, I would say, on its merits by
adjudicators who are different every time. This creates
uncertainty for government administration. Will what was valid
for one case also be valid for another? There has been no
jurisprudence created for administration of this chapter.
Second, there is a lack of transparency in the whole process.
The decisions rendered by the dispute panels are not made public.
This applies even to the number of court cases under way. I
have referred to 15, while others speak of 18. Obviously, these
are against the governments of Canada or the provinces, or those
of the United States or Mexico.
Third, there is the whole matter of the mandate and the impact
of decisions by international adjudicators relating to chapter 11
disputes.
These arbitrators are perhaps experts in trade, but they do not
see all of the ins and outs leading up to the decision by one or
other of the governments. In this regard, public interest may
have to take a back seat to a very sectorial private interest,
which can be very damaging for certain segments of the
population.
A fourth element I want to introduce is the fact that the
dispute settlement mechanism benefits foreign investors over
local ones. Obviously, we are talking about national treatment,
and I think everyone will agree that all investors must be
treated the same way. But here, with chapter 11 of NAFTA, as
concerns dispute settlement, foreign investors are being given an
advantage, which local investors are not. To me this seems to
contradict the very spirit of these trade agreements.
More basically, I would say that the question of the dispute
settlement mechanism is whether the arbitrators appointed under
chapter 11 can legitimately make decisions dictating certain
behaviour to governments, be it the federal government, a
provincial government or a municipal one, all of which are
democratically elected.
For all these reasons, it seems to us that the dispute
settlement mechanism in NAFTA causes a problem and cannot serve
as the basis for proper negotiations on the protection of
investments—which we agree with—in the free trade agreement of
the Americas.
As I mentioned, in the NDP initiative, what is interesting is
that it is possible to speak as I did on one aspect of chapter
11, the settlement of disputes but I think other problems must
be addressed as well. I will name two of them. There are
others, but I will run out of time, I guess.
1205
There is the definition of “investment”, which is found in
Article 1139. That definition has broadened in a significant
way, the definition of “investment” used in the free trade
agreement with the United States.
In the free trade agreement with the United States, “investment”
was defined as “an American majority interest in Canada” and
conversely for Canadian interests in the United States.
In NAFTA, that definition also includes minority interests,
including in portfolios. This also includes loans, real estate
and majority or controlling interests by investors from signatory
states.
This definition creates an extravagant situation whereby, in
theory, a bank that would have loaned money to an American
business in Canada could potentially feel prejudiced by a
decision of the Canadian government, even though the American
company located in Canada might not itself feel prejudiced. This
definition of the term “investment” is much too broad. It should
be restricted.
Another problem with chapter 11, and the Minister for
International Trade himself alluded to it, is the notion of
expropriation. As members know, in international law, the concept
of expropriation traditionally included two elements: there must
be an act by a state and that act must lead to a transfer of
property.
This is how Article 1110 defines “expropriation” and it is
extremely important to read it, because is it is the root cause
of a major problem in that chapter of NAFTA:
No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate
an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or
take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of
such an investment.
As can be seen, this definition of indirect expropriation of a
measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation opens up
a whole series of possibilities, with the result that some
companies have extended the notion of expropriation to activities
that they might have engaged in and to profits that they might
have made. In the case of Pope & Talbot, for example, the
company's reason for suing the federal government was that it
felt that if it had located in the Atlantic provinces rather than
British Columbia, its sales would have been higher, its net worth
would have been greater and its profits would have been higher.
The damages sought by this company had to do with this notion of
indirect expropriation. In a case such as Pope & Talbot, I would
say that a Canadian company would not have had recourse against
the federal government. Fortunately, in this case, as with the
lottery, we won. Unfortunately, we do not know what the
arbitration tribunal will decide the next time around.
As I mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois is for genuine protection of
foreign investments. This requires regulation. The state must
assume its responsibility of protecting national and
international investors but, in so doing, it must balance public
and private interests. Investors must have both rights and
obligations.
In the case of NAFTA's chapter 11, which we do not want to see
form the basis of negotiations for a free trade zone of the
Americas, investors have rights, but governments have
obligations. This seems completely unbalanced to us. The Bloc
Quebecois will therefore be voting in favour of the New
Democratic Party motion and the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened very
carefully to my colleague's comments.
In the debate, and in the time I have
been parliamentary secretary and he has been critic, I found his
comments for the most part to be quite constructive. However he
cited an inconsistency in the government's position. I will
cite what I think the inconsistency was and ask him to comment.
First, the hon. member made the point that the Prime Minister
said the chapter 11 clause was good. Then a little later in his
comments he was more accurate when he quoted the Prime Minister
as saying he was reasonably satisfied with how the chapter 11
clause was working, given the totality of our trade relationship
in NAFTA and the $1.3 billion of trade done daily back and forth
across the border with the United States.
The second part was a more accurate reflection of what I recall
the Prime Minister saying.
1210
The hon. member talked about the comments of the Minister for
International Trade and that he was not interested in any kind of
an investor clause. That is what the motion says. Surely the
hon. member recalls the minister repeatedly saying inside and
outside the House that what was needed was not to scrap the
clause or reopen it but to clarify it, that yes, the scope of the
original signers of the deal needed to be clarified and that
should be a priority.
What is the hon. member's position and that of his party on the
protection of investment? Does he feel there needs to be some
rules to protect foreign investment in Canada and also Canadian
investment overseas? Does he not see that is required or
does he subscribe to the silly notion that we should somehow
scrap this altogether? I would appreciate his views on those
points.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Speaker, that gives me another
chance to speak. In the NDP motion, there is reference to a
chapter 11-style investor-state clause as in NAFTA.
I was very clear on this. We do not want to see any possibility
under the FTAA of companies being able to take direct proceedings
against governments.
That said, as with the WTO and the European Union, I have no
problem with the states having the responsibility to protect
foreign investments and being answerable to other states within a
multilateral treaty.
When the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade examined it, when the MAI was studied—and we in the House
were extremely critical of that—it must be realized that the MAI
was a more general application of dispute resolution mechanisms
already contained in NAFTA's chapter 11, along with certain
additional provisions of course.
In this context, I would say that not all of NAFTA and Chapter
11 needs to be rejected. I will not say “scrapped” because that
is not a proper French word.
For me, and for the Bloc Quebecois, one thing is certain. The
dispute resolution mechanism needs to be corrected so that states
can deal with it.
Second, the concept of expropriation must be tightened up so as
to ensure that what is protected is direct and not indirect
expropriation.
That said, these are things that are accessible for the three
governments, in my opinion. Moreover, the Minister for
International Trade has told us that he was working along these
lines with the U.S. and Mexican governments in order to tighten
up these definitions.
As far as negotiation of the FTAA is concerned, therefore, it
seems to me that this is not the basis on which negotiation ought
to begin.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for Joliette, his party's critic on
international trade, for supporting our motion today.
I would like to ask him about the role of parliamentarians,
elected officials, in this process of negotiating the FTAA and
about chapter 11 of NAFTA.
I was very pleased to work with the
hon. member for Joliette on the parliamentary forum of the
people's summit recently. I would like to congratulate the
member on his work in the forum and his work within COPA as
well.
I would like to ask the member to speak a little about the lack
of a significant role for parliamentarians within these
negotiations, within the summits and within the process of
dialogue on the free trade agreements.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the start of my remarks,
one of the problems we have with the whole process is growing
public distrust, not only due to the lack of transparency but to
the lack of a role for parliamentarians.
One of the things I deplore about the final statement of the
summit of the Americas, by the 34 heads of state, is that at no
point in the final statement is mention made of the role of
parliamentarians, when one of the objectives set was the
strengthening of parliamentary democracy.
1215
How is it possible to strengthen representative democracy while
denying parliament a decisive role in the negotiations? I think
one might expect—as is done in most parliaments based on the
British tradition, be it in Great Britain or Australia—that a
vote would be held in this House on the entire final agreement
on the free trade area of the Americas, before the government
ratified it.
As I say, our British tradition is no obstacle to this method,
since even the parliament of Great Britain uses this method.
Obviously, we must not find ourselves at the end of the process
faced with a fait accompli.
This is why the mechanisms must be tightened to allow
parliamentarians to be involved on an ongoing basis, and not
only through the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
The issues relating to continental trade agreements have an
impact on agriculture, work, health and many aspects of our
daily lives. In that sense, the proposal unanimously adopted in
this House last week to put in place a transparent and ongoing
process involving parliamentarians should make them contribute
in a much more continuous and articulated basis because, as I
mentioned, it is not just an issue of trade or relations with
other countries.
As Canadian and Quebec parliamentarians—and considering that the
North American Free Trade Agreement has now been in effect for
seven years—we have a responsibility to take stock and to share
our findings with all the parliaments and people of the
Americas, so that they can make a judgment on the positive
effects, but also on the dangers of a free trade agreement.
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, this was requested
by Latin American parliamentarians. They want us to inform them
of our conclusions on this agreement.
In that sense, I hope that we will continue this type of work
and debates on the provisions found in NAFTA, to avoid making
the same mistakes in the negotiations on the free trade of the
Americas.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must say
that we have learned more about this in the space of 15 minutes
than from all the explanations given us by the government. My
colleague, the member for Joliette, was very clear in his
remarks about chapter 11 on investment, which includes several
aspects. He was not able to cover them all, but he mentioned
several of the most important.
Given that the government's position is unknown—and a position
must be known when a debate as important as this is involved—I
hope that people really took in the remarks of the Bloc
Quebecois critic, which were very clear. I hope that the
government will also take note of these remarks, which are truly
well thought out.
I would like the member for Joliette to explain succinctly why
this chapter 11 must not exist or whether it is really possible
to improve on it. I personally see no possibility that it can
be improved, as the government claims. Should this chapter
exist or not?
Mr. Pierre Paquette: In one sentence, Mr. Speaker, I would say
that chapter 11 and all of NAFTA take a negative approach rather
than a positive approach, because everything that is not
excluded is included, while at the WTO, everything that is not
included is excluded. I far prefer the WTO approach.
1220
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this controversial issue. We will not
be supporting the motion simply because we believe in rules based
agreements.
We need rules on issues, such as investors, and the obligations
by investors and governments in cases like this. It is a very
big part of international agreements. We believe in rules based
agreements and in the original intent of chapter 11.
We realize there have been some contortions, distortions and
aberrations that were never intended, but it does not mean that
we throw out the baby with the bath water. We believe that
chapter 11 needs to be reworded and the problems addressed in
future agreements but we also support rules based trade
agreements.
We recently got into a great debate with the U.S. over softwood
lumber. Some people said that since we were in a good position
on energy that we should trade off our energy for a softwood
lumber agreement. I and my party do not agree with that. We
have to deal on the basis of rules. We cannot deal on the basis
of having a little strength now on water or on energy. We cannot
bargain those off against softwood lumber. We need a set of
rules to follow, a dispute mechanism to settle differences of
opinion and an investor clause in any future agreements.
I also take the opportunity to compliment the minister. We in
the PC Party think he did a good job with the summit of the
Americas. I know it was very trying circumstances but we think
the 34 participants made significant headway and made a precedent
setting direction by including the democracy clause. Some people
think it is not as much as it should be but to me it is a
tremendous step forward.
I look at it as a ratchet mechanism. I believe every country
involved will go into the agreement at a certain level of
democracy. There are many levels of democracy but I believe the
other participants will not let any country go backwards in
democracy. They will only be allowed to increase democracy
through their practices.
I personally applaud the minister and even the parliamentary
secretary for their participation in this because I think they
made significant progress. They should be proud of their
efforts. I know the wily parliamentary secretary will pass that
on to the minister.
The NDP members have been very consistent. One has to admire
them for that. They have been against free trade, whether it was
the free trade agreement with the United States, the NAFTA, or the
free trade area of the Americas agreement we are dealing with
now.
The Liberal Party, however, has not always been consistent. I
remember standing in the House, I think, in 1988, having a great
debate on free trade. As I recall, it was the Liberal Party that
was totally against free trade. It was the Conservative Party
that was totally in favour of free trade. Now we have this
little flip flop where the Liberals are in favour of it. They
have seen the light, the error of their ways and the benefit of
following the Conservative role model and have now adopted a
free trade position.
Although the Liberals do flip flop from time to time, when they
land on our side of the argument we totally support and agree
with them.
Our party supports free trade with the Americas, as we did with
NAFTA and free trade with the United States. In fact, we
propelled Canada into the free trade debate and we are proud of
that. We remember very clearly fighting the Liberals tooth and
nail during that debate. I look at the Deputy Speaker and I seem
to remember his face somewhere on that side of the House at the
time, but we will not get into that.
We believe totally in expanding the global economy and trading
partnerships with other nations.
1225
Many people oppose trade agreements because they feel they will
not help the people in the poorest countries who need help. From
my point of view, if a country wants to improve its social status
or social conditions it has to improve its economy. In the world
we live in today, if we want to improve our economy we need to be
part of the global economy. That means being part of trade
agreements, which is what we are talking about with the FTAA.
The importance of trade for all countries, but especially
Canada, cannot be lost. We trade $2.2 billion worth of business
every day. It is hard to believe. Our exports of goods and
services in 1999 reached $410 billion, or a whopping 43% of our
GDP, the highest in the world. Canada and the U.S. are each
other's largest trading partners. We are very much a part of
this whole issue, which is why it is very important for us to
have investor clauses to protect our investors and our
businesses.
Although we support the free trade agreement and free trade in
general, we always have to analyze these. We will make mistakes
as these unfold. I think we all know that certain aspects of
chapter 11 are wrong and have been used in a way that was never
intended, but that does not mean we should throw the whole thing
out and never sign an agreement.
The motion today outlines that we should never sign an agreement
with a “Chapter 11-style investor-state clause”. It is too
ambiguous. It would cover any kind of investor clause. We
cannot agree with that at all.
We do support the intent and spirit of chapter 11 in NAFTA. It
is important for everyone to know the details of how NAFTA
countries must treat investors and the dispute settlement
mechanism. Unfortunately those rules have been interpreted in
ways that we and the government never envisaged and should now be
addressed.
We support several features in chapter 11, one being national
treatment. Signatories are to treat NAFTA investors the same way
as they would treat their own domestic investors. We agree with
that in principle. If we want to invest in other countries and
we want protection there, it would only make sense that we would
need to provide the same protection here.
Another feature was the most favoured nation treatment. This
obligated governments to provide NAFTA investors with the best
type of treatment they could provide any investor, whether
domestic or foreign. We would want the same treatment in other
countries and we must offer that as well.
Another feature dealt with senior management. Signatories of
the agreement must not impede NAFTA investment. Signatories must
intervene as little as possible. We all know, especially in the
business we are in here, how bureaucracies and officials can
interfere with any project, event or circumstance with which we
deal. This says that they should intervene as little as
possible.
There is also a performance requirement. This restricts the
imposition of performance requirements on investment by
signatories. These provisions are to reduce the ability of
government to require that businesses conform to these measures
when investing in a party.
The intent of chapter 11 was to protect investors from excessive
nationalization and protectionism. We think that is appropriate.
We think investors should be able to invest in other countries
and not be subject to nationalization and protectionism. We have
seen examples of that lately in some of our trade agreements
where protectionism has raised its ugly head. They use a set of
rules in a way that was never intended, such as to stop our
potatoes, our airplanes and even our softwood lumber.
This is an ongoing situation. It is not only investor clauses.
It is many other clauses. We need to be ever vigilant, be on our
toes and be a part of this great debate to ensure that these
things do not interfere with our trade.
We support, in principle, the measures in chapter 11. In order
for trade to work effectively, investors must be allowed to
operate in a given country. These obligations are not new. They
have existed before.
To enforce these rights, NAFTA provided for an arbitration
process. This is something that was not available prior to the
original free trade agreement but it has helped resolve many
issues in Canada's favour, even though we are dealing with a much
larger partner. It has helped us much more than our other
partner, the United States, when it comes down to disputes over
free trade.
However, we acknowledge that chapter 11 has been tarnished. It
has been tarnished because it has been abused, distorted and used
in a way that was never intended.
1230
One example is the Metalclad v Mexico case. It did not affect
us so much but a U.S. waste management firm sued the Mexican
government and won. Metalclad argued that the government's
environmental laws hurt its ability to operate a plant. The
plant was allegedly a hazardous waste treatment plant.
Canada banned the export of PCB contaminated waste in 1995 but
was forced to revoke that ban after U.S. companies said they
would challenge the law under NAFTA.
Another example is Ethyl's $250 million lawsuit against the new
Canadian environmental law. A short while ago parliament banned
the import and interprovincial transport of toxic gasoline
additive MMT. The Ethyl Corporation sued the Canadian government
under NAFTA, chapter 11. Nobody envisioned that would ever
happen. That is the reason we have to address it in future
agreements. We have to make sure we are not vulnerable in these
things.
Another area of interest is UPS threatening to sue Canada Post
for unfair competition. We have had Canada Post for 150 years
and all of a sudden UPS says that it cannot compete in an open
market so it is suing under chapter 11. We think this is another
example where we need to fine tune this clause in the agreement
and make sure it does not happen again.
Of the 15 known lawsuits under chapter 11, 6 involve challenging
the health and environmental measures we in Canada hold dear. It
is clear that chapter 11 has not gone too far, but the
interpretations have been in such a fashion that we never
envisaged. We never foresaw that governments and companies in
other lands would take advantage of them in the way they have.
Having said all that, we still do not support the motion to say
we will never have a chapter 11 style clause again. That rules
out any rules or regulations with regard to investment. It is
far too broadly worded. It does not hone in on the problems. It
hones in on the chapter, but it does not hone in on the problems
within the chapter. Therefore we cannot support it.
We support the intent of the chapter 11. Chapter 11 needs to be
clarified. We are determined to help restore chapter 11 to the
original intent. That will be our focus as this unfolds and as
it goes through committee.
Another issue was raised by an hon. member. I agree with him
wholeheartedly that the government should bring proposed wording
for the investor clause to parliament to ensure that everyone has
a chance to pass an opinion on it and vote on the wording so that
we all make sure we do not make the same mistake we made the last
time.
We need to work on chapter 11. We need to be careful when
drafting and signing all new agreements. We have to avoid
mistakes and in this case the potential for other parties to
interpret these clauses in ways we never intended.
I want to wind up by saying we will not be supporting the
motion. We do think that chapter 11 needs to be fine tuned and
adjusted to address the problems that have risen since the last
trade agreement, but we do not think it should be thrown out and
we believe in rules based trade agreements.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his kind remarks to me and to the minister. As he knows I
certainly will share those comments with the minister. I think a
lot of good and important work was done in achieving a democracy
clause at Quebec City. I am pleased to see he is very supportive
of that.
The member talks about, and rightly so, the Liberal Party
changing its view after the 1988 election won by his party. We
certainly did change our view as a party. The facts speak for
themselves in terms of the enormous benefits of free trade. There
is no denying it, other than it seems the NDP is determined to
deny those facts. The reality is the facts speak for themselves
on just how positive it has been for Canada.
As a student and teacher of history I want to help the member
out a little on the respective positions of our two parties. He
will recall that Sir John A. Macdonald was the champion of
protectionism. At that time the continentalist party was
traditionally the Liberal Party. It was only in the latter part
of the 20th century with the Mulroney government that the
Conservatives started to move more toward a free trade party.
1235
With all due respect to my colleague, a reading of Canadian
history will show the traditional economic position of our two
parties. The Liberal Party has been far more the continentalist
party traditionally while his party, starting with our first
prime minister, was a party of national policy built on
protectionism. High tariffs was one of the fundamental tenets of
that protectionist national policy. That sets the record
straight for the many viewers out there.
I will ask my colleague a question on investment. We very much
intend to table our position on investment, but it simply is not
ready for that now. Does the member not agree that it is
important we consult widely with Canadians?
I spoke about this point recently with the chamber of commerce
in my riding of London—Fanshawe. Those business people and other
Canadians very much want to be consulted on what our policy would
be. Those consultations are under way now. Does the member not
think it is important to finish that consultation extensively
rather than rush into the House and into a premature release of
our position on investment?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested in
his opening remarks that I might recall Sir John A. Macdonald was
a protectionist. Maybe he was there, but I was not at the time
so I do not recall his position on that and I do not recall the
debate.
The question was whether I think the government should consult.
I do think it should consult, but the key word is I think it
should listen as well as consult. It should ensure that the
views of all Canadians are brought together and included in the
chapter 11 clause. Then I think the government has to be very
firm and vigilant to ensure that the clause is changed.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for my friend in the Progressive Conservative
Party. Several times he made reference in his address to the
House that chapter 11 of NAFTA is wanting in a number of respects
and needs tinkering or altering in some form.
Could he share with us what ways he sees that chapter 11, while
maintaining it, could be improved to avoid the abuses that have
occurred under it?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the whole point is that
chapter 11 is wanting. When something new is done or a new
position or new policy is developed, often there will be
unforeseen interpretations. That is what happened in this case.
Chapter 11 has to be more than just tinkered with. It needs
substantial changes to protect the Canadian government against
actions from business with respect to health concerns and
environmental issues. Although I still believe we need an
investor clause included in our rules based trade agreements,
there should be a rules based clause for investors in the same
way there are other clauses.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to be participating today and I will be sharing my time with my
colleague from Windsor—St. Clair.
[Translation]
I will begin by reading the opposition motion:
That this House calls upon the government to respect the spirit
of the evidence given by the Minister of International Trade
before the Foreign Affairs Committee, who stated “I can assure
you that we are not seeking an investor-state provision in the
WTO or anywhere else”, by refusing to sign any trade agreement,
such as the FTAA or the GATS, that includes a NAFTA Chapter
11-style investor-state clause.
[English]
I was very proud of the federal New Democratic Party for being
in Quebec City at the peoples summit, particularly our opposition
to chapter 11 of NAFTA and our concern that chapter 11 would
essentially find its way into the free trade area of the
Americas.
Our underlying concern is the loss of democratic leverage in
favour of a purely commercial agenda.
1240
We allege the free trade agreement, NAFTA, and now the FTAA have
been written by and for multinational corporations and not for
people. The FTAA has been referred to by doubters as NAFTA on
steroids. A Saskatchewan farmer some 80 years old refers to the
FTAA as standing for fleeced and trampled all over again.
We heard most recently from the Conservative member who preceded
me about our concerns with Metalclad v Mexico. It had tried to
ban a toxic waste dump site but under chapter 11 Metalclad won.
The parliamentary secretary challenges us to talk about democracy
and point to any other trade agreement that is more democratic.
With the investor state provision decisions are made behind
closed doors by a tribunal. No arguments come outside those
doors. I cannot think of anything less democratic than chapter
11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
There are other examples. The member for Cumberland—Colchester
talked about UPS suing Canada Post because Canada Post owns 96%
of Purolator. United Parcel Service is arguing that is an unfair
trade advantage and is seeking many hundreds of millions of
dollars in retribution from Canada Post. We have many concerns
with chapter 11 of NAFTA being extended into the free trade area
of the Americas.
Chapter 11 allows investors rights to challenge environmental
laws and regulations, as in the Metalclad case, before
international tribunals and to sue governments for compensation
for profits lost due to government action to protect the
environment.
Another example which springs to mind is Ethyl Corporation and
the MMT decision that affected Canada. We paid out more than $10
million in damages to Ethyl. Never mind pristine water or a
green environment, in our view this is mostly about greenbacks,
especially American greenbacks.
It was examples like Metalclad, UPS and Ethyl that have caused
us concern with chapter 11. As was stated earlier, we got a
commitment from the Minister for International Trade that there
would be no chapter 11 in the free trade area of the Americas.
That was before Quebec City. The Prime Minister had lunch with
Vicente Fox and George W. Bush and now says that chapter 11 is
not so bad, and away we go. We appear to be not only stuck with
it in terms of NAFTA, but I believe we will find at the end of
the day that it is embedded in the free trade area of the
Americas.
As Dalton Camp noted in a recent column in The Hill Times,
chapter 11 was never designed for people. It was designed for
corporate folk who own the media, some politicians and a few
economists. Tens of thousands of protesters who were in Quebec
City certainly know that chapter 11 was not designed for them.
Our critics and the Minister for International Trade say that
anybody who is opposed to it is living in the last century. As I
indicated earlier, one of the most underreported stories from the
behind closed doors heads of state meeting in Quebec City was
when an audio feed was inadvertently left on for part of what was
supposed to have been a closed session. There were several
leaders from smaller, poorer countries who spoke in that closed
session and challenged the idea that unbridled capitalism was the
best way to nurture democracy.
1245
Just listen to the words of Alfonso Portillo, the president of
Guatemala, who said in that closed meeting:
The small economies are not the same as the big economies. Just
to become the equals of big brothers, we will need to be treated
accordingly.
The democracy clause was a big deal, probably the big deal, of
the summit leaders. It was certainly flaunted by the Prime
Minister. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, said behind those
closed doors that if democracy did not provide land, if it was
concentrated in the hands of 2% of the population, they
could not speak of democracy.
How can it be democratic when ordinary people in the streets are
out there protesting, the vast majority of them very peacefully,
but the corporations are buying their way inside the summit gates
to curry favour with heads of state by paying a mere $500,000 or
so?
Some of those elected leaders were saying what people outside
were saying, that is, more than half of the population of the
Americas, of which there are 800 million, live in poverty, and it
is our contention that the free trade agreements have tended to
widen, not narrow, the inequalities.
In fact, I just saw some documentation this morning. The
essence of it was that over five years after NAFTA in Mexico the
average wage has fallen some 20 cents or 30 cents an hour.
Believe me, having lived in Mexico, I know what the hourly wages
are in that country.
We do have a great deal of concern with regard to chapter 11.
The New Democratic Party wants fair trade. We in the NDP say
that there is a world of difference between fair trade and free
trade. We want rules that reflect the common concerns for the
welfare of all and the sustainability of our environment. It is
our belief that when more people become more hungry or more
impoverished, we are indeed all impoverished.
I also want to absolve the people who were arrested in Quebec
City. There is the idea that those arrested were all the bad
actors. We acknowledge, as I said earlier, that there were a
few, but certainly not all who were arrested. Many innocent
people were picked up, arrested and detained. I encourage people
to look at the comments of Daniel Turp, a former esteemed member
of the House in the last parliament, who was there watching over
human and civil rights. He was quoted by the public press.
Let me just attempt to close by identifying with a statement by
Paul Wellstone, the senator from Minnesota, that is, we are not
against global trade but we are against greedy corporations that
dominate that global trade. That is the essence of our concern
with chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to address the member's comments about
the police. I had the privilege of being in Quebec City and of
meeting some of the delegations from the other countries as well
as talking to some of the peaceful protesters, which I agree made
up the vast majority of people. However, my view of it is that
the police showed tremendous restraint in the face of incredible
provocation and violence by a small but determined minority. That
seems to be the view of most objective observers of that
particular weekend.
I would like to ask the member two specific questions about
investment. We know that teachers' pension funds, labour pension
funds and nurses' funds are some of the very largest funds in
Canada. In fact, in my former life I was a teacher in Ontario,
and the Ontario teachers' pension fund is one of the very largest
in North America. As well, 50% of Canadians own mutual funds as
a portion of their retirement savings.
1250
Would the member share with us his view and the view of his
party? Should we or should we not have rules to protect Canadian
investments abroad? Would the NDP as a party be willing to
rescind the rules that protect the savings of those Canadians
such as those I just mentioned whose lifetime savings are tied up
in these funds?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we should have rules,
but I would echo the comments made by the member for
Cumberland—Colchester who indicated that some of the decisions
or challenges made to the way we have chosen to do business in
Canada were not foreseen at the time chapter 11 was put into
place and they need to be changed dramatically.
The point of the member's question goes to the heart of the
debate. Is maximizing profits what it is all about? Is it all
about maximizing the return on the pension funds for the teachers
or the profits of Metalclad Corporation or UPS? Is that the kind
of world we want to build? The New Democratic Party thinks not.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I guess we are making a
little progress. We found out that the NDP does believe in rules
for investment. Of course the member, in answering the question,
went on to Metalclad and so on. That was not the point of my
question at all.
I was speaking not about maximizing profits but about protecting
the life savings of people through a proper series of investment
rules that are very important here in Canada and abroad.
The hon. member asked earlier how we can call the summit
democratic. Very simply, we had 34 democratically elected
leaders who were there of their own volition to participate in
it. We had a parallel summit of citizens funded in large part by
the federal government. There were extensive consultations and
hearings at the standing committee and by the minister. There
were a number of opportunities for Canadians to be involved.
My question for the hon. member is simply this. How can he and
his party ignore comments like those of UN secretary general Kofi
Annan who has said that the best thing we can do, including the
NDP, for the very people we all seek to help, the less fortunate
peoples, is to globalize and liberalize trade. How can NDP
members ignore the comments of such an outstanding world leader?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, on the democratic front,
one of the most untransparent things that has happened in
parliament was the breathtaking news that the Minister for
International Trade said he had great results and would make all
of the position papers available. Then there was a pause and he
said that of course he would not be able to do that before the
Quebec summit because the translation was not complete, but he
would be doing it eventually. Such hypocrisy.
In terms of trade, we continue to say that we believe in fair
trade. To listen to the member for London—Fanshawe, one would
think that there had been no trade prior to the North American
Free Trade Agreement or the free trade agreement. Somehow we
have been developing trade throughout the world for many hundreds
of years. Some rules have been better than other rules, but the
notion that suddenly we live in a global economy and we have
trade is a very thin reed on which to base an argument.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to start my comments today by welcoming this opportunity.
It is a continuation of the speech I was giving yesterday on the
water bill and the exposure that these types of trade agreements
have meant to Canada.
1255
The first comment I want to make is with regard to the report
published in the last year and a half on the negotiations that
went on around the MAI. The report I want to make specific
reference to, because it seems to be very appropriate given the
motion before the House today, was prepared by Madam Catherine
Lalumière, who is a European member of parliament.
In her report she goes through some analysis of what happened
leading up to the dismantling of the negotiations on the MAI. She
credits a number of the non-governmental organizations that
raised opposition to it. Of course as we all know that
ultimately culminated in France withdrawing from those
negotiations and the negotiations collapsing.
She has prepared a report out of that and has made a number of
recommendations that I believe are very appropriate and timely
for the discussion today. One of those is a blanket
recommendation that says there should be no investor state
claims. She analyzed what happened with NAFTA, looked at the
cases that have been repeatedly mentioned today and said no to
investor state claims.
The report goes on to say there should be no general treatment
clause given to foreign companies so that they have an integral
and constant protection. There is to be none of that. It says
to impose limits on expropriation claims—so those are some of
the rules the parliamentary secretary seems to be referring
to—in order to prevent their use against all regulation or
public legislation that reduces the economic value of economic
foreign investment. The report says that effectively that is
what NAFTA did. The report recommends just the opposite.
There are many more than the four recommendations I will
mention, but one final one is a recommendation for continued
governmental rights to establish performance requirements. By
that they mean public benefits from foreign investment.
Because of my own ethnic heritage I want to talk about the
European Union model and its impact on the state of Ireland.
Again, that model is fundamentally and philosophically different
from the free trade agreement, from NAFTA and from the FTAA,
should we ever, God forbid, get to that.
I was in Ireland in the mid-nineties just as the effect of the
capital transferred from the European Union was beginning to
allow the economy in that country to develop. I watched as it
progressed over the last half dozen years to where it has become
a much more vibrant economy. However, that is an entirely
different model. It allowed that country to move forward. It
allowed it to in effect move from somewhere back in the twenties
or thirties as far as the development of their economy was
concerned into this millennium in a very short period of time. If
we had applied the NAFTA rules there, none of that would have
happened in Ireland, nor would it have happened in Portugal,
which has had a very similar experience.
As my colleague has already mentioned, there was perhaps from
the perspective of the government the unfortunate experience of
someone leaving a button turned on. The international trade
minister was quoted, as we have heard in some of the comments
from our colleagues in the Alliance, as to how the trade
agreements are the miracle solution to poverty. The trade
minister was quoted as saying “It is not the market or trade per
se that can eliminate inequality”.
Even the international trade minister recognizes that these
treaties and agreements are not the be-all and the end-all. Again
as my friend has already indicated, all we have to do is look at
the Mexican experience. He was struggling at one point for the
dollar figure. Let me quote it because I do have it available.
Remember that NAFTA came into effect in 1993. Between 1994 and
1999 wages dropped in Mexico. The average hourly wage dropped
from $2.10 an hour to $1.90 an hour. That was the experience
Mexico had.
1300
There are a number of other indicators, the maquiladoras
probably being the best example, of the type of consequences of
those agreements where there are no protections for labour
standards, human rights or the environment, all of which are
protected and guaranteed in the European Union model.
I will spend a moment on the Auto Pact. I have long time
personal experience with that particular trade agreement which
was done away with as a result of one of those rulings by those
faceless bureaucrats who make these decisions.
If we look at that as a model, we are constantly being accused
as a party and as a movement of opposing trade. Nothing is
further from the truth. That agreement had the support of our
party since its inception. What did it do? It allowed cities
such as Windsor, London, Oshawa and a number of others to develop
very vibrant economies and well-paying jobs for the labourers who
worked in those plants. We did not have that as a result of the
FTA or NAFTA. That was all there before.
We also constantly hear the government talk about the $1.2
billion a day of trade that goes on. A great deal of that
preceded the FTA and NAFTA and was related to managed trade in
the form of the Auto Pact.
I will move to some comments that have come out in the last
couple of days and which cause us great concern around the issue
of the use of chapter 11.
Specifically, in the Edmonton Journal this morning Mr.
Bill Turner, a businessman and interestingly the natural resource
advisor to the governor of New Mexico, said:
Canadians will some day consider water a prized commodity rather
than a natural, protected resource. And all it will take, all it
will take is court action to loosen Canada's grip on its envied
supply.
If we read between the lines, he is talking about a chapter 11
application.
We will see that come unless we do something as a government and
as a society to stop that. However that is what we will be faced
with unless we do away with the chapter 11 type of protection for
multinational corporations in the private sector.
It is very clear that the motion before the House is not a
motion that opposes the liberalization of trade. It is about a
policy that will require this government and future governments
to protect Canadians' rights to have an economy that is not based
just on profit for multinational corporations, but a society that
will allow people to develop their environmental concerns, their
labour standards and their human rights in a safe and protected
manner.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would be interested in knowing the hon. member's views on
articles 14 and 15 of the North American agreement on
environmental co-operation which provides the ability for
organizations of civil society and NGOs to challenge the states
in the North American Free Trade Agreement for failing to
effectively enforce their environmental standards.
Is the hon. member aware of that opportunity and does he
agree that in that situation it is appropriate for non-state
actors to challenge states and foreign countries?
1305
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
provisions in the side agreements for both the environment and
labour standards. Let me make comments on both.
With regard to the environmental standards, it is obvious, given
the full eight years that NAFTA has been in place now, that they
are grossly ineffective, particularly because there are no
resources of a meaningful nature for an NGO or a private citizen
to take that on. It is just not possible. It is not a practical
way of dealing with it.
It is obvious, from the results on the labour standards side,
especially the Mexican experience, that even when large unions
have attempted to use those side deals nothing has happened. In
that case their government would not enforce the number of
rulings that came down. They have been few and far between
because they do not have the resources to effectively push the
rights forward.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I listened
carefully to my colleague's comments. He noted that much of the
trade that exists between Canada and the United States, and our
number is $1.3 billion two-way trade a day across the border,
existed before the FTA.
I remind my colleague that over the past 10 years export sales
in goods and services, as a percentage of our GDP, has gone from
25% to 45%. That is a tremendous growth. There is no other way
to put it than much of that is attributable to the FTA and to
NAFTA. Some 90% of the 2.1 million jobs created in this country
since we came to power in 1993 were directly related to our
exports in goods and services.
The hon. member raised the subject of Ireland, which is pretty
close to my heart, its subsidies and the good work they have
done. I saw them firsthand and there is no question that is
true. Canada has been a player in that, contributing significant
money through the international fund of Ireland.
However does the member not understand that we cannot fairly
compare and draw an analogy between the FTAA, which is in its
infancy and really has not even been struck yet as we are only
talking about it, and the EU which has been 40 years in its
evolutionary stage.
Canada has a fund for development in the Americas that has been
recently created by the Minister for International Cooperation.
Is the member not aware of that fund? Is the member not aware of
the concerns raised by President Fox and other leaders, and the
steps that were taken in Quebec to create a fund for development
in the Americas, exactly the same kind of ideas that he spoke
about vis-à-vis Ireland? They have to have time to mature.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of absolutely
everything that the member for London—Fanshawe raised.
Let us talk about that fund for a minute. Ireland was provided
with approximately $8 billion from the European Union for a
population that I believe at that point was about 2.5 million
people.
There is a proposal I believe to top up the fund, which my
colleague from the government side talked about, to $25 billion
for what would be 500 million people?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: It is just starting.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, that is the point. It is
just starting. Why is that? Why did we follow this model? Why
did we not follow the European model? That is what this
government needs to answer.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time.
I will address the issue of the value of foreign investment for
Canada.
First, we know that there is almost $300 billion of foreign
investment directly into Canada each year. This is immensely
important.
When companies from other countries invest in our country, they
bring ideas as well as support jobs. One in ten jobs in Canada
is supported by that nearly $300 billion investment per year.
They also bring ideas and technology to our country. Also, in an
increasingly cyclical way, they support 50% of our exports by
investing in this country.
Investment into Canada is immensely important for jobs, the GNP
and bringing in ideas and technology.
1310
Investment outside of Canada by Canadians is even larger. It is
more than $300 billion a year. This provides great opportunities
for us to deal with other countries but it must be protected.
Canadian companies and individuals investing abroad deserve
protection. However investors in Canada also need the protection
of rules.
Trade and investment inside and outside of Canada is immensely
important to our country. We also have important domestic
responsibilities. Those are to protect very strategic parts of
our public services and our governance models. Our health care,
education, social services and water absolutely need to be
protected.
Canada has not put out its negotiating position yet in terms of
the investment provisions in the FTAA because they are being
developed. There is a great deal of consultation going on and
more will continue. Those will be made public when they have
been properly consulted on and prepared. The government has
consistently said that it will protect and will not sign any
agreement that does not protect those important strategic policy
issues in Canada.
However our interests are not just domestic. Our interests and
our social responsibilities are global. The democracy clause in
the FTAA framework is a major first step toward this. We must
ensure that other global issues of social importance, whether
they be environmental, human rights, the rule of law or the
promotion of democracy, are protected and linked in some
effective way to our trade agreements. The advance that we have
made in the FTAA discussions in Quebec City demonstrates that
well.
The hon. member mentioned that he was aware of the North
American agreement both on environmental co-operation and labour
co-operation. He felt that they had not been perhaps as
effective in allowing NGOs to challenge governments. However he
did not answer the question whether those could be improved, just
as chapter 11 rules, interpretation and processes need to be and
will be in future agreements.
If those could be improved should NGOs be able to effectively
challenge governments? I challenge hon. members to consider
carefully the reality of new governance in a modern society where
the market and civil society have a powerful and important role
to play with governments. If NGOs should be able to challenge
governments and other non-state actors, why not corporations as
long as those rules are fair, transparent and they meet other
social responsibilities?
I will talk about this concept of new governance a little
further. NGOs will come up to the governance table as they are
invited to do more and more effectively. We saw that opportunity
in the FTAA lead-up consultations across the country and the
people's summit and the civil society committee taking part in
the negotiations of the free trade of the Americas. However, if
civil society is going to step up to the governance table, it has
to demonstrate its democratic nature and its representative
nature, just as corporations must prove their social
responsibility.
One of the most powerful forces to exact social responsibility
from corporations trading abroad is the democracy of the market.
If a company such as Levi thinks it is going to get 10 year old
kids in India or Bangladesh to stitch its jeans, then the North
American, European and increasingly other markets are simply not
going to buy its product. We had a striking example of market
democracy in my province of British Columbia where not only were
civil society and the market involved in looking at land use
planning and forestry practices on the mid coast, but they were
making decisions without government.
We have powerful forces that need to be brought to bear. We not
only need linkages between free and fair trade but also social
responsibilities, environmental, democratic, rule of law and
labour practices.
1315
Finally, chapter 11 of NAFTA needs to be clarified. There are
problems which have been properly pointed out. However that does
not mean corporations should not have the opportunity, under a
proper set of rules and processes, to challenge governments in
courts as they do domestically.
Foreign investment helps developing countries. Globally,
however, there is not sufficient public money or public interest
to provide the investment necessary for countries to pull
themselves out of poverty. Direct or indirect foreign investment
through private companies is an effective way of supplementing
the public money available for that purpose.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first allow me to talk a
bit about NAFTA.
Whereas the success of NAFTA is usually linked to the opening up
of markets to goods and services, its capacity to attract
foreign investment in the regions could end up being the most
powerful and durable impact of the agreement. As the Prime
Minister said, NAFTA works quite well.
I will quote some figures. The total direct foreign investment
in NAFTA countries was $1.97 billion in 1999, more than double
the figure of 1995.
American investments in Canada has doubled since 1993 and
reached $186 billion in 2000, whereas Mexican investments in
Canada reached $132 billion in 2000.
Canadian investments in NAFTA countries have also been quite
sizeable. In 1999, direct foreign investments of Canada in the
United States and Mexico were $134.3 billion and $2.8 billion
respectively.
I will now say a few words about the World Trade Organization.
The WTO is not the multilateral agreement on investment,
commonly called the MAI. These are two different things. The
WTO has more than 130 member states, most of which are
developing countries. The multilateral agreement on investment
was meant for an elite group of developed countries, the OECD
countries.
Each member of the WTO has its own approach to investment, and,
for the time being, there is no consensus to proceed with an
agreement on investment.
Proposals on investment brought forward during the period
leading to the ministerial meeting in Seattle were
quite different from those in the MAI. Nobody has suggested we
should include dispute settlement mechanisms for investor-state
conflicts. We can expect that any new WTO agreement on
investment will include developing countries.
During the ministerial meeting in Seattle, many countries, the
United States included, wanted our international trade minister,
who is doing an excellent job, to chair the implementation task
force of the Seattle meeting. He has accepted, and he has shown
that Canada is perceived as a country that helps build bridges
between developed and developing countries.
The task force was supposed to highlight the enormous
challenge of including these countries in the round and
determining the means to implement the agreement. The idea of a
new round at the WTO is not dead. A ministerial meeting will
take place in Doha, Qatar, in November this year.
Whatever its position on investment, the government is
determined to protect the rights of Canada to make regulations
in strategic sectors such as health, education, culture, and the
environment. That is what Canadians have always wanted, and that
is what their government will stand for.
I would like to add a few words on the free trade area of the
Americas and the FTAA mechanisms.
1320
In the free trade area of the Americas, every country will have
to submit a proposal to the nine negotiating groups, one of
which will deal with investment.
To date, Canada has not yet submitted its proposal to the group
dealing with investment. We prefer to pursue our negotiations
and wait for the other countries to submit their proposals. We
expect to submit our position after we have held all our
consultations with the provinces and with the stakeholders.
However, the Canadian proposal will look at the rules applicable
to investment in the light of its experience with trade
negotiations and with the implementation of its rules concerning
investment with other countries such as, obviously, NAFTA member
countries, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. We
will rely on our past experiences.
The main objective of Canada is to ensure a clear delineation of
the obligations with respect to investment that will serve
Canadian interests.
Countries of the Americas need and want capital as well as the
opportunities associated with investment, of course. It is in
their interest to guarantee that investment flows in a
predictable manner in the whole area.
Mexican President Vicente Fox recently stated in Montreal that
Mexico benefited from increased investment, which creates jobs,
improves health care and raises standards of living.
He also recognized that the middle class has made major progress
since NAFTA. More than 10 million people are now said to be part
of the middle class.
As for the FTAA, Canada is not advocating a reproduction of the
rules applying to investors and states under NAFTA, and we did
not support any proposal made up until now by other member states
of the FTAA to include a dispute settlement mechanism.
In the FTAA, Canada is taking into account the work already
started with its NAFTA partners on the issue of investment in
this agreement, including the clarification of the provisions
concerning investors and states, as the case may be.
I would now like to say a few words on the General Agreement on
Trade in Services.
Coming back briefly to what I was saying on NAFTA, I would
like to say that this agreement is extremely profitable for
Canada.
My riding of Brome—Missisquoi, which is located along the
Vermont border, is an extraordinary one in the sense that it has
a large, qualified workforce. It is a riding, of course, that
wants to attract American investors on our side, so that we can
re-export goods to the United States and elsewhere.
In this respect, NAFTA gives us that flexibility. In
Brome—Missisquoi, I am in the process of building a Team
Brome—Missisquoi, so that we can export more goods to the United
States and that investments can be made on both sides of the
border.
I now want to come back to the General Agreement on Trade in
Services.
The 1994 Marrakesh agreements provided for new discussions on
agriculture and services at the World Trade Organization. The
agreement on services is better known as the General Agreement on
Trade in Services, the GATS.
Services are not only important to the Canadian economy, they
are the cornerstone of employment in many areas and regions,
whether for a plant with 500 employees or a business starting up
with only three employees.
We have made our position known to the WTO: Canada's objective
in the GATS negotiations is to reach the best agreement possible,
to improve Canadian service suppliers' access to foreign markets
and to provide Canadian consumers with a larger choice of
services at a lower cost.
This agreement deals mainly with the issues of market access and
non discriminatory treatment of service suppliers. However, the
agreement also deals with major issues concerning service
suppliers' right to a commercial presence, that is, where to
invest to establish a presence in other countries.
However, the GATS lets us choose. All members are free to make
commitments on this commercial presence or to choose not to do
so. Let us be very clear. This agreement is not an agreement on
investment under chapter 11 of NAFTA.
1325
The GATS does not include any safeguards for investors, such as
the right to compensation in case of expropriation, or any
provision concerning a dispute settlement between an investor
and a state.
If the hon. member would withdraw her motion, I would move to
replace the motion we are debating now by the following motion:
That this House calls upon the government to respect the words
of the Minister for International Trade, who stated in the House
on April 30, 2001 “Our view is that we want to clarify certain
aspects of chapter 11 within the present mechanism of NAFTA”.
Words intended to ensure a more open and transparent dispute
settlement process, and to safeguard the interests of all
Canadians in this and all future trade agreements signed by
Canada.
Thus, I am proposing that the previous motion be withdrawn and
replaced with the one I just read.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I
was the one who yelled “no” to oppose withdrawal of the NDP
motion. I was pleased to do so.
There is a simple reason for that: we cannot trust the
government on free trade negotiations, especially since this
government, which prides itself on being democratic, even refused
to provide us with the texts. We, who have been elected by the
people, cannot even have a look at the content of the agreement
which will be negotiated.
I was in Quebec City during the people's summit. I attended
several meetings. I met workers from several countries who told
us bluntly that the free trade agreement and all the resulting
changes have definitely not improved their living conditions. We
were told this by people who came to give evidence, people who
have to live with these changes.
Can the parliamentary secretary assert that the opposite is
happening in Canada? Free trade was supposed to improve the
standard of living in Mexico and other countries. The reverse is
happening. Canada's standard of living is dropping.
For instance, there is a shortage of beds in hospitals. There
are not enough physicians. Health care is being privatized.
Experts and everyone else are saying that this is because of free
trade. And then we are told that this is the best thing that ever
happened.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell us about what the free
trade agreement provides in terms of worker protection? In terms
of unionization for their protection we need laws to protect
workers in all these countries. Where is the balance between the
two, apart from the fact that big corporations, which as far as
I am concerned represent the liberals, will be the winners with
free trade, not Canadians, not workers of the Americas?
Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst
most certainly wants to speak about job creation. So, let us
talk about job creation, but in a positive way.
With the free trade area of the Americas, we have a powerful
neighbour, namely the United States, with whom we are used to
trade. It is the country just south of ours. Since the FTAA also
includes every South American country, we would have a market of
800 million people. If we take away the 300 million people living
in the U.S., we have 500 million more people with whom everyone
in Canada can do business in a free trade context.
The benefits are clearly there. In Canada's justice system,
common law exists alongside the civil code. Latin American
countries usually have civil law. Common law applies in Canada
and the U.S. We also have a culture similar to that of Latin
American nations.
We should stop looking at the negative side and view in a
positive light all the jobs that can be created and the
improvement to the quality of life that can be made throughout
the Americas. That is what the free trade area of the Americas
is all about.
1330
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member talked about civil rights. Coincidentally I was just
reading a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister expressing
concern about why the disturbances occurred.
We saw what happened in British Columbia some time ago with the
pepper spray incident. We saw what happened in Quebec City.
Forgetting about trade and what the police did, because they did
what they needed to do, the question is: Why did it happen? Why
must our leaders fence themselves away from the people? What is
wrong? Where is the leadership that the Prime Minister has not
shown?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate
the Prime Minister for the tremendous work he has done and for a
wonderful summit that brought everyone closer together.
The member mentioned the protests. Yes, there was a huge protest
with 25,000 to 30,000 people walking peacefully from one end of
Quebec City to the other in order to peacefully get their point
across. We are open to such peaceful suggestions.
But we draw the line at violence. Everyone agrees with that.
Canadians do not tolerate violence.
[English]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we routinely hear calls from
the left in Canada denouncing NAFTA's chapter 11, the World Trade
Organization and free trade in general. Unfortunately their
pedestrian understanding of trade matters undermines the rights
of union workers whose interests they claim to represent.
Had the NDP view prevailed during the FTA debate in 1988, auto
workers would have been in deep trouble when the WTO struck down
the longstanding Canada-U.S. auto pact. That decision alone
could have wiped out union jobs in towns like Windsor, Oakville,
Oshawa and Sainte-Therese.
However the FTA agreement, an agreement the left so strongly
denounces, protected those jobs and established free market rules
that allowed auto exports to the U.S. to grow by 15%. That has
increased the opportunities, wealth and living standards of
thousands of Canadian auto workers.
If members of the radical left in Canada want to be taken
seriously and not labelled hypocrites, they should adopt the same
standards of openness, democracy and transparency they demand
from others. If they want open door free-for-alls when Canada
negotiates bilateral or multilateral trade deals they should be
willing to live by the same standards.
In fact they should lead by example. They should demonstrate to
Canadians how their nirvana of openness would work in practice.
They should open up all future union-management contract
negotiations to public scrutiny. They should answer questions
from citizens who are concerned about the impact of proposed
labour deals on the environment, culture, the economy and society
at large. They should discuss the impact of such deals on the
cost of labour, on post-secondary education and on the way we all
feel about one another. The media would of course be invited to
these free-for-alls.
Fortunately no serious economist, social scientist, commentator
or politician believes such a system could work. More important,
no serious unionists or business leaders would impose such a
regime of unreasonable checks on their own behaviour. They
understand that there is a place for consultation and closed door
negotiations and then a place for the rank and file to vote on a
final agreement. That is the approach that the Canadian Alliance
and I support, and that is exactly what needs to happen.
When I hear that the fourth party is opposed to the investor
state provisions in NAFTA's chapter 11, I cannot help but wonder
what they stand for and, more important, where they have been for
the past few years. Consider the following paragraph:
The investor affected shall have a right, under the law of the
Contracting Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by
a judicial or other independent authority of that Party, of its
case and of the valuation of its investment or returns in
accordance with the principles set out in this Article.
The text I just read is not from NAFTA's chapter 11. It is
article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada-Egypt foreign investment
protection agreement. It is also article 8, paragraph 2 of the
Canada-Philippines foreign investment protection agreement and
article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada-Venezuela foreign investment
protection Agreement.
1335
It could also have been taken from similar foreign investment
protection agreements, or FIPAs, that Canada is negotiating with
a growing list of countries from Armenia to Uruguay. It could
just as easily have been taken from article 8, paragraph 2 of the
Canada-Croatia foreign investment protection agreement. That
agreement went into effect on January 30 of this year and the NDP
does not even appear to have noticed. It is still fighting
battles from 1988.
The NDP seems unconcerned that all these agreements have clauses
allowing investors to submit disputes with signatory states to
arbitration by the International Centre for the Settlement of
Investment Disputes, an international ad hoc arbitration tribunal
established under the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law.
Let me say that again. A foreign investment protection
agreement with Croatia, which features investor state provisions
virtually identical to NAFTA's chapter 11, went into effect on
January 30 of this year and the far left has said nothing. It
seems the radical left follows trade issues about as carefully as
New Zealanders follow hockey.
I used to play hockey. If I am in a bar and people with a New
Zealand accent tell me it is great that the Canadian team scored
three touchdowns against Italy at the world hockey championships,
I will thank them for their support but will likely not take
their advice on next year's hockey pool. So it is with the
fourth party in the House when it comes to trade policy. Its
members seem to know as much about world trade as I do about
yodelling.
The NDP's principal argument against chapter 11 is that it
limits the government's ability to protect our environment and
sovereignty in the same way that the charter of rights initially
compelled Canadian police forces to adapt to the country's newly
enshrined citizens rights.
Canada's international trade agreements will require governments
to think smarter and more consistently in making public policy
decisions. Chapter 11 of NAFTA is based on five basic
principles. The first is transparency. Investors have a right
to know what the law is and governments cannot capriciously
change rules midstream.
The second is national treatment. We must treat investors from
other countries the same way we treat Canadian investors,
provided they do the same for us. In other words, we cannot stop
Wal-Mart from building a big box store unless we are prepared to
apply the same rules to Zellers, Canadian Tire or Rona.
The third is protection of investors. We cannot take property
without offering compensation, and a property owner has the right
to ask an independent body to determine if the compensation is
fair.
The fourth is quick and fair settlement of disputes. Parties
should get a quick and impartial decision.
The fifth is reciprocity. Canadian companies doing business
abroad should be treated the same way we treat foreign companies
here.
People may why ask they did not hear about investor state rights
until recently. It is likely because the five principles I just
listed are so basic to Canada and to our major trading partners
that there was never any need to write them down.
It should come as no surprise that we are not negotiating
foreign investment protection agreements with the United Kingdom,
Switzerland, Taiwan or Australia. Those countries have long
respected the five principles and thus there is no need for a
formal agreement.
Every case in which we have included NAFTA chapter 11 type
language has extended Canada's notion of an independent judiciary
to less progressive states in regions like eastern Europe and
Latin America.
Most lawyers will say that for foreign companies doing business
in Canada NAFTA chapter 11 changes almost nothing. The left
jumps up and down hysterically about the Ethyl Corporation case
yet fails to point out that Canada's supreme court would probably
have reached the same decision regardless of chapter 11.
Let us consider point 13 from the Ethyl Corporation's statement
of claim. The MMT act does not prohibit the manufacture or use
of MMT in Canada. It merely requires that all MMT sold in
Canadian unleaded gasoline is 100% Canadian. A domestic
manufacturer of MMT can manufacture and distribute MMT for use in
unleaded gasoline entirely within a province and not violate the
MMT act.
If the Ethyl Corporation wanted to maintain its presence in the
Canadian octane enhancement market it would be required to build
an MMT manufacturing, blending and storage facility in each
province.
The left would have us believe that the Ethyl case proves that
chapter 11 prevents us from protecting the environment. That is
not so. If the federal government had banned outright the use of
MMT in Canada, regardless of where it was made, the Ethyl
Corporation would not have been able to use the discrimination
clause which was so central to its case.
1340
Let us think about this. Let us suppose the city of Ottawa
decided that pizza contained a cancer causing ingredient and then
used those health concerns to support a law prohibiting anyone
from bringing pizza to Ottawa from Hull. If the city of Ottawa
did not force its own pizza restaurants and vendors to close, the
supreme court would probably find discrimination and force it to
back down, repeal the law, award compensation and find another
mechanism for banning the dangerous food. However it would not
deny it the capacity to ban what is dangerous. It is the same
with MMT.
NAFTA chapter 11 is nothing more or less than what has been the
status quo in Canada since we adopted the British legal system
before Confederation. By putting such language into NAFTA and
into foreign investment protection agreements, we are simply
asking other countries to give our companies and investors the
same respect we have long given companies and investors, both
Canadian and foreign, here in Canada.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend my
colleague opposite from the Alliance Party for his very cogent
comments. It is pleasing to hear some rational discussion,
having had quite a bit of hyperbole and rhetoric from the far
left earlier in the day.
Mr. Yvon Godin: What is your business? What is your
corporation?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I have two questions for my colleague.
As he and I recall, and as the NDP member who is hollering will
recall, the FTAA was not an election issue at all. It had been
negotiated for many months. When the election campaign was
underway it was well known that Canada was involved in the
discussions.
Why did the hon. member's leader and party fail to realize it at
the time? Why are they only now jumping up and down and getting
excited? Were they asleep at the switch? Did they not realize
at that time that it was an important matter?
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to judge
people's motives but they do seem suspect. If one feels
passionately about an issue then one has a responsibility to
bring it to the fore.
Perhaps the members of the fourth party we have heard here today
have talked about the issue at the constituency level. The
leader of the NDP did not bring it up in the leaders' debate. It
was not raised in my constituency because the NDP in British
Columbia are free traders. If federal NDP candidates in British
Columbia stood and said that they were opposed to free trade,
they would be contradicting 85% of their base supporters who put
up lawn signs, raise money and so on. Perhaps that answers part
of the member's question.
However, it is suspect that they feel passionately about the
issue but did not raise it. They say the issue is central to the
essence of what it is to be Canadian and will have a profound
impact on our sovereignty. They knew the issue was coming down
the pike and yet they said nothing. The member opposite has a
point. Why did they not raise the issue? That is a good
question. Perhaps we will hear an answer from members of the
fourth party.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member from the Alliance and I will put to him
the comment made by Clayton Yeutter who was the U.S. trade
representative when the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was
signed. A few days after it was signed he was quoted as saying
that the U.S. had signed an amazing agreement with Canada and
that Canada did not understand what it had signed. He also said
that in 20 years Canada would be sucked entirely into the U.S.
economy. That was 13 years ago. We have seven to go. Would
the hon. member care to comment on Mr. Yeutter's statement?
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we have heard those
predictions for centuries. Mr. Yeutter is probably not laughing
today, 13 years later. Canada has an enormous trade surplus with
the United States. I do not think he would be laughing about
that now.
I suggest, frankly, that when members of the fourth party want
credibility on the subject they regurgitate quotes that are a
little younger than 13 years old.
An hon. member: Soon you will not even be a party.
Mr. James Moore: The member for Burnaby—Douglas is
heckling and that is fine. I will never forget the hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas at the battle in Seattle. Some of the
protestors there had about as much credibility as a 13 year old
quote.
1345
My favourite scene from the riots is a protester, vehemently
opposed to globalization and integration of nations, who picked
up a rock, smashed the front window of a Radio Shack store and
stole a satellite dish. Typical.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will resist the temptation to respond to that learned diatribe
from the hon. member. However I would ask for clarification and
for the edification of the House, if the hon. member could
indicate who the official spokesperson is on international trade
for the Alliance today? On Friday it was the member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands. Who is it today?
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, this speaks precisely to
the comment I made earlier. If this is an issue of national
sovereignty, if the member wants to debate the issue, and if the
member wants to talk about the impact of NAFTA's chapter 11, why
is he asking us who our trade critic is?
We have had a whole list of speakers. The member for Lethbridge
has spoken. The member for Kootenay—Columbia, with whom I am
sharing my time, will be speaking in a minute as well. We have
consistently spoken up on this issue and consistently spoken for
free trade.
I suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that he ought to
have his platform thoroughly ironed out with his provincial party
and spend a little more time analyzing free trade agreements such
as the Canada foreign investment protection agreement with
Croatia. Members of his party have said nothing about it in the
House. They are totally negligent of their responsibilities to
bash capitalism. If he spent more time studying free trade
rather than—
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk
about a related issue. I will be speaking specifically to the
NDP motion in just a second.
I wish to clarify something, because I have had this question
asked of myself having been the chief critic for the Reform Party
and now the Canadian Alliance. It is the issue of the
truthfulness of the Prime Minister's Office with respect to his
involvement at APEC and the APEC pepper spray events.
I wish to clarify and to be very precise. The protection
provided by the police forces for international persons who were
in Quebec City, as they did at APEC and as they did at every
other event in Canada, was excellent. There have been some
events where they have gone over the top, but when one is in a
riot situation there will be situations where people will go over
the top.
My position and the position of our party with respect to APEC
is that the riot and the pepper spraying that went on there had
nothing to do with the actions of the police. That will be
something that the public complaints commission will decide under
the leadership of the public complaints commissioner. It had
everything to do with whether the Prime Minister's Office was
forthcoming about whether the Prime Minister was actually
involved in the event. That is an important distinction to make.
I would like to use two examples to speak specifically to the
NDP motion. I would like to use two examples of how chapter 11
is supposed to work and why it is there. They are pure
fabrications.
In British Columbia we have a very large multinational
corporation from New Zealand that has a stake in our forest
industry. We also have, as a result of the low exchange rate the
government constantly gives us, a major B.C. corporation which
has been taken over by a U.S. concern.
These companies enter Canada with funding operations and
capital. Do they have the right as foreign owners to anticipate,
given the rules with respect to logging and forestry practices
and all of the other things that surround the rules and
regulations, they would be treated in exactly the same way as a
Canadian based corporation would be treated?
We have Canadian workers working for Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.
and Fletcher Challenge. Should those workers and corporations be
treated any differently than the workers working for West Fraser,
Interfor or Canfor?
1350
The names I am bandying around are to show that within the
forest industry in British Columbia there is a potpourri of
ownership. I submit that any domestic or foreign corporation
investing in the forest industry in British Columbia should
anticipate that the rules and regulations of the B.C. forest
practices code will be applied equally.
It makes no difference which corporation by virtue of its
ownership is doing it. It makes a big difference to the workers
within the forest industry, which is so important to British
Columbia. It is equally important to the workers in every other
industry in Canada.
I will go to the other extreme. We should expect in return what
we give. I assume that under the FTAA there is an article 11
type of mechanism included. What difference would that make for
the people who are in the mining industry in my constituency?
My constituency happens to produce the majority of the
metallurgical coal for export from Canada. There are about
12,000 people directly impacted by coal production in my
constituency. There is also at the tag end of its life what was
the largest lead-zinc deposit in the entire Commonwealth in
Kimberley and under Cominco.
Why would we want to see a chapter 11 on behalf of people
working in the mining industry in my constituency? If Teck,
Cominco, Canadian Pacific or any of the Canadian based
corporations were to go with their mining expertise to Chile,
Ecuador, Peru or Argentina, I would assume that having explored
and having found an ore deposit the corporation would go into
production. It would then end up putting a quarter of a billion,
a half a billion or perhaps a billion dollars into the
infrastructure required to actually work the ore deposit.
Let us assume that we do not have an article 11 in the FTAA and
one of these nations very flippantly decides to bring in some
special regulations against the Canadian based company. Suddenly
this quarter billion, half billion or billion dollar investment
by the Canadian corporation is standing in a very cold draft
because one of these countries decided to pay special attention
to the Canadian company.
Corporations must have the ability to protect themselves against
capricious acts on the part of foreign governments. This is not
to impute any ill will. It is simply to give some feeling of
security when corporations invest funds.
I will extend that further. What does it mean to the workers at
the mines in my constituency? In this fabricated case I will
assume that the full billion dollars invested in Chile, Ecuador,
Peru or Argentina was suddenly at risk. By putting the billion
dollars invested in that ore deposit at risk, suddenly the cash
flow of the multinational Canadian company is in jeopardy. It is
in peril.
What would the company do? The company may very well have to
pull back on its operations in Sparwood, Fernie, Elkford or any
other place in Canada.
1355
This is true of any corporation where we are talking about the
free flow of capital around the world, of Canadian corporations
having the opportunity to be able to invest as they see fit and
of growing their businesses as they see fit. Corporations want
to know that their money will not be in jeopardy.
Members of the NDP are always talking about the worker. I agree
that the working people in Canada are exceptionally important.
These people would be protected by virtue of the fact that their
employers, by virtue of chapter 11, would have more surety
knowing what would be happening within their domain of commerce.
It is only logical and reasonable that when money is to be
invested, whether it is people coming into Canada with money or
Canadian money going out of Canada to invest for the betterment
of the Canadian company, those corporations would know what are
the rules and that the foreign governments would not be able to
act in a capricious way against them. That is all chapter 11 is
about.
I am surprised that my friends in the New Democratic Party are
not more prepared to work for some surety for the working people
of Canada.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise
today to speak to the NDP motion concerning chapter 11. I do so
as the former chair of the subcommittee on international trade,
trade disputes and investment in the last session of parliament.
The general purpose of chapter 11 of NAFTA is to protect foreign
investors and foreign investment from trade distorting
discriminatory treatment. This general purpose would protect
Canadian investors and Canadian investment in the United States
and Mexico and would help to create jobs, prosperity and wealth
for Canadians.
Protection for the ability of Canadians to trade is very
important to Canada's prosperity. Exports of Canadian goods and
services account for more than 45% of Canada's gross domestic
product. Canada's economic success depends on open markets, a
stable trading environment and a rules based system.
Investment is also very important to Canada. Since 1993 direct
investment in Canada has more than doubled. This inward
investment helps build a knowledge economy to prepare Canada to
compete confidently on a global stage.
Last year we attracted a record $93.2 billion in new foreign
direct investment. In 2000 our inward investment reached $291
billion. At the same time Canadian investment abroad grew from
$98 billion in 1990 to $301 billion in 2000.
When Canadian companies look abroad for new opportunities they
often invest to gain a foothold in foreign markets. In the year
2000 Canadians invested nearly $62 billion to expand our global
presence abroad—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but
it being two o'clock it is now time to proceed with statements by
members. The hon. member will have eight and a half minutes or
so remaining in the time for her remarks when we resume the
debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[Translation]
GOLD MINING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Natural
Resources, should introduce emergency legislation on providing
assistance in the operation of gold mines in Canada in order to
help the operators of these mines deal with significant
increases in the costs of production, while assuring them of a
set price for the gold they produce.
I repeat. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of
Natural Resources, should introduce emergency legislation on
providing assistance in the operation of gold mines in Canada in
order to help the operators of these mines deal with significant
increases in the costs of production, while assuring them of a
set price for the gold they produce.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I remind the government that former
students of Indian residential schools are still looking to it
for leadership.
There have been 3,700 lawsuits launched by former students
against the government. We are still waiting to see how it plans
to respond and help these people. There is a strong possibility
that more lawsuits will be launched, so there is a need to know
how the government will deal with this problem.
As well, churches named in the lawsuits are still waiting for a
signal from the government on how it plans to deal with these
legal charges. Some churches have gone broke paying lawyers
while waiting for answers and are preparing for bankruptcy
because of the government's inaction. This is unfair not only to
the churches but to those former students who need to move
forward to rebuild their damaged lives.
Most important, we must ensure that whatever is decided, healing
and reconciliation of the victims is the first priority.
Billions of dollars are at stake in this issue. I call on the
government to provide that leadership and tell all Canadians how
it plans to bring closure to this tragic chapter of our history.
* * *
[Translation]
FRESH WATER RESOURCES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
enjoys one of the largest supply of fresh water in the world.
Lakes account for 7.6% of our country's area. That is over
755,000 square kilometres.
Our scientists have an extraordinary record in the knowledge and
protection of our fresh water resources. New problems, such as
climate changes and toxic pollutants, threaten our lakes and
waterways. This is why the Liberal government has taken steps
to protect them.
The Government of Canada is ensuring that all stakeholders in
this matter have the means and the knowledge to enable us to
protect our precious natural resources for future generations.
This is one way the Liberal government is achieving its
objective of improving quality of life in Canada.
* * *
[English]
CHILDREN'S PARK
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to
talk about childhood dreams and a special playground in my
riding.
EVERYkidspark in Orangeville, Ontario, is Canada's first
boundless playground. What I mean by boundless is that it is
accessible to children of various ability levels. A child who is
bound to a wheelchair can at this park feel the thrill of going
down a slide in total comfort. She or he can explore new
challenges and play alongside his or her able-bodied siblings and
friends.
This is a wonderful childhood pleasure and a dream come true for
children with special needs, but it was not arrived at easily.
EVERYkidspark committee has worked hard to garner tremendous
support from the community to make this park a reality.
I extend to those devoted parents and professionals, especially
Wendy Cook, the project's originator, best wishes for every
success in expanding upon the limitless possibilities of this
playground, which is every child's dream come true.
* * *
[Translation]
JEUNES EN TÊTE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, I was a most enthusiastic participant in the
opening of the second Congrès pour AJIRR, Avenir des jeunes
innovateurs regroupés en région, which took place in
Mont-Laurier.
This activity was sponsored by a non-profit organization called
Jeunes en tête, which was established in 1999 and is a financial
partner with other federal and provincial organizations.
The mission of Jeunes en tête is to defend the interests of
young people in the regional municipality of Antoine-Labelle and
to promote their participation in the political, economic and
social life of their community.
This year's congress addressed a topic of concern to me: the
exodus of our young people to urban centres.
This problem puts the very future of our rural communities at
risk. These young people, who possess the necessary skills and
qualities to meet the demands of a difficult labour market, have
worked together to develop action plans aimed at helping get
other young people back to our regions.
In closing, I wish to extend my congratulations to all those
involved in this laudable initiative.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, veterans' organizations across Canada
are about to receive another slap in the face from the Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
1405
The heritage department controls all national museums but has
for years ignored the Canadian War Museum.
After the battle with the department over the Holocaust display,
a war museum advisory committee made up of veterans' groups was
set up to make sure that veterans' wishes would never again be
ignored.
However, once again the veterans were not consulted and the
minister in charge has decided that the new war museum will not
be built on the preferred location at Rockcliffe. Instead, she
has unilaterally chosen a much smaller site at LeBreton Flats.
Why has the government shown such disdain in moving the site
without consultation and with an increase in expenditures of tens
of millions of dollars?
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. The MS Society of Canada
continues to lead the way as our country's foremost voluntary
agency, providing services to people with MS and their families
and supporting an extensive research network.
This past year, with the help of generous Canadians, the MS
Society raised more than $21 million for research and services.
It funded an additional $3.2 million to 14 potentially ground
breaking MS research projects and 36 research scholarships.
The MS Society is bringing research from the test tube to people
living with MS and there are now treatments for some forms of MS.
I wish to tell colleagues that tomorrow carnations will be
handed out and I ask hon. members to wear them as a symbol of
their support for all these amazing volunteers right across the
country and to support MS research and services.
I wish to congratulate all MS Society volunteers. They make an
incredible difference in the real lives of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC CARTIER MINING COMPANY
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
19, the Quebec Cartier Mining Company took its workers by
surprise by announcing a lockout.
Yesterday morning, I was pleased to learn that production was
gradually resuming, after more than 70% of the 1,700 employees
voted in favour of the company's offer.
The new collective agreement introduces new ways of organizing
the work, as well as financial improvements to earnings, pensions
and employee benefits.
I know from experience that attaining such an agreement requires
both parties to sit down at the same table and negotiate in good
faith.
As the member for Manicouagan, I wish to congratulate all the
employees, and the representatives of their union and of
management. There are a number of other companies in
Port-Cartier and Fermont who can take this agreement as their
model.
* * *
[English]
FORUM FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the
outstanding program known as Forum for Young Canadians and the
youth who participate.
The Forum for Young Canadians is a valuable educational program
that brings young people from all parts of this great nation
together to learn about our political process.
The forum provides a learning experience through participation,
workshops, presentations and a mock parliament. It gives
students real hands-on experience.
During the week's activities, friendships are developed among
participants from all provinces of Canada, friendships that last
a lifetime.
The forum is continuing its legacy of encouraging young people
to get involved in their communities, to become leaders and, in
turn, to become great citizens.
The benefits are enormous. These youths are the leaders of
tomorrow and their individual and collective experience will lead
to the development of an even greater nation.
* * *
HEPATITIS C MONTH
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, May is Hepatitis C Month in Canada. It is a time
when we pause to reflect on the great human tragedy caused by
tainted blood. We think of the families who have lost loved ones
and we are reminded of those who struggle each day of their lives
fighting this deadly disease.
Tragically, the government has victimized many for a second time
by refusing compensation. I remind the health minister of his
own words, “...I don't think that those claimants should have to
spend their lifetime in litigation”. Yet that is exactly what
is happening.
Not only are those who were infected before 1986 being
mistreated by the minister, many who were promised compensation
have yet to be paid. They have been waiting for over three
years. The minister's record on hep C is shameful.
1410
I would like to commend the Mid-Island Hepatitis C Society, led
by Sue White of Ladysmith, and my colleague, the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan, for organizing last year's first ever
hepatitis C candlelight vigil in Nanaimo.
Again today vigils will take place across Canada remembering
the victims and raising awareness of hepatitis C.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is International Workers Day. On behalf of all Canadians I
would like to acknowledge and salute the efforts of the 15
million workers across the country. Today is a day to reflect
upon the tremendous contribution of labour to the economic
strength of Canada.
The Liberal government has always committed itself to policies
such as employment insurance, job creation and training programs,
which ensure prosperity for workers and all Canadians. Since
this government has come to power, over 2 million new jobs have
been created in Canada.
We believe that a strong workforce leads to a strong Canada.
Today we would like to reinforce our support for all Canadians
who work so hard every day to build this great society.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, May 1
is the international day to recognize workers' rights to organize
and bargain collectively.
On May 1, 1886, workers were gunned down in the Haymarket riots
in Chicago while striking for the eight hour day. By 1889, the
International Socialist Congress of Paris had designated May 1 as
an eight hour holiday out of respect for its fallen comrades in
Chicago. The tradition continues today.
Yet in many countries, including many of Canada's trading
partners, basic workers' rights are just a dream. In Colombia,
3,000 trade union leaders have been murdered since 1987. Many
other developing nations deny the most basic workers' rights,
using violence, abuse and harassment.
On this May Day the International Confederation of Free Trade
Unions calls upon the world for global support for basic,
fundamental labour standards.
For those workers around the world who are still struggling for
basic rights, I wish to remind them of the slogan of the 1919
Winnipeg General Strike: “The great only appear great when we
are on our knees. Let us rise”.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
International Workers Day, I wish to stress the generous
contribution of workers to the promotion of their rights and
working conditions in our society.
Like them, I feel that labour laws must help in the fight
against social injustice. However, that view is not shared by
the Liberal government which, during the review of Part II of
the Canada Labour Code, refused to include measures allowing for
the preventative withdrawal of pregnant or nursing female
workers.
This is why, this morning, I tabled in the House a bill to allow
pregnant or nursing female workers to avail themselves of the
Quebec legislation.
This will eliminate the disparities between the Quebec and
Canadian legislation in that regard and ensure adequate
protection for pregnant or nursing women by using the Quebec
preventative withdrawal model.
This is a concrete and convincing way by which the Bloc
Quebecois contributes to workers' social progress and
acknowledges a positive measure in Quebec.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is an important day since we are celebrating the contribution of
workers all over the world.
There are over 15 million workers in Canada, and each one of
them makes a very important contribution to our country. We
should never underestimate the role played by workers in the
building of our society.
Workers are well treated in Canada, but we must be vigilant and
continue to improve their working conditions.
Over two million jobs have been created in Canada since our
government took office.
This means that today we are celebrating the contribution of an
even larger number of workers.
Workers have a special place in our society. Today, we celebrate
their contribution to our economic and social growth.
* * *
[English]
NURSES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the vital importance and
significant contribution of Canada's nurses, who number in the
tens of thousands.
These professionals are on the frontlines of our health care
system and are called upon to provide medical assistance, care
and comfort to our most vulnerable: children, the elderly and
the terminally ill.
The sad reality for nurses in Canada is low wages, a lack of
financial assistance and an aging workforce, as well as demanding
physical requirements, resulting in an exodus from the profession
and out of Canada as they pursue their careers in other
countries.
The National Federation of Nurses' Unions and its president,
Kathleen Connors, are calling upon the government to address
these dire circumstances, specifically the need for whistleblower
protection and financial assistance, perhaps through the EI
program, to assist nurses nationally. Nova Scotia president
Heather Henderson is working on behalf of nurses to address the
growing crisis at hospitals and clinics throughout the province,
including at St. Martha's, the Aberdeen and Sutherland Harris in
my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
1415
While both St. FX and Dalhousie universities offer impressive
programs for those wishing to study, the financial burden is
onerous and job prospects and returns are grim. Nurses are the
backbone of our health care profession. We have to encourage and
assist those entering this rewarding profession.
* * *
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in our day to day lives disasters may seem a distinct
possibility. Yet natural disasters like floods, tornados,
technological or environmental accidents such as chemical spills
or disruptions to power and telecommunication services can strike
anywhere and at any time.
That is why the Government of Canada through the office of
critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness
works in co-operation with other government departments,
provincial and territorial governments, the private sector and
non-governmental partners to promote the first full week of May
as Emergency Preparedness Week in Canada.
The theme for this year's Emergency Preparedness Week is
“Reducing the Risk: Toward Safer Communities in the 21st
Century”. In marking this special week from May 7 to May 13
emergency preparedness partners throughout Canada have organized
a wide range of activities.
Being prepared starts with each and every one of us. I
therefore urge my colleagues in the House of Commons and all
Canadians to explore ways to help their families and their
communities to become better prepared.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be able to rely on
the federal government to do a few things well in order to
protect them, but apparently that is not even the case in terms
of neglecting Canadians.
We have just found out today that Canada's physicians will now
be relying on prescription drug warnings from the United States
to protect Canadians from certain uses of certain prescription
drugs. This is wrong. The government has only itself to blame
for this state of affairs.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why Canadians
cannot count on the government to protect them and have to rely
on the United States?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are justly proud of the quality of Health Canada's work
in protecting their health and safety.
It is also clear that there is always room to improve. Last
week a jury came back in an inquest in Toronto involving the
tragic death of a 15 year old girl named Vanessa Young. That
jury made recommendations on a variety of ways Health Canada can
improve its surveillance of pharmaceutical drugs in the
marketplace.
We have accepted all those recommendations. We will work in
Health Canada and with our partners across the country to make it
an even better system.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Journal
does not share the same confidence that indeed Canadians will be
protected.
We want to know what specific steps the minister has shared with
physicians, and to which they have agreed, that will protect
Canadians. We want the specific steps and the agreement from the
Canadian Medical Association.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have asked my officials to explore the possibility of Health
Canada putting on its website for all Canadians including
physicians any developments in relation to adverse drug reactions
reported by the FDA or elsewhere in the world that is relevant to
their use in Canada.
If it is found that is legally feasible, we will do it because
we believe it is important to get up to the minute information
available to Canadians, physicians and patients in relation to
reactions to all medical drugs.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, no action is forthcoming. At least one life was
lost because of Health Canada's mismanagement.
Before giving us assurances and telling us about any future
action of his, will the minister explain how he could let things
get to this point before taking action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians' health and safety is the number one priority of our
government.
Over the past three or four years, we have significantly
increased available resources at Health Canada to manage this
area, and we will continue to strengthen the system. Ensuring
the safety of available drugs on the Canadian market is a key
priority for us.
1420
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association
Journal has declared that from now on it will post the much
more reliable American drug warnings “because we cannot rely on
Health Canada to do it”.
In fact, it goes so far as to say that with respect to the drug
that caused Vanessa Young's death “Canadians would have been
much safer if Health Canada didn't exist” and we just relied on
U.S. federal drug administration.
Why do trusted Canadian experts have to take over the job the
health minister is supposed to be doing?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the jury in the Vanessa Young case heard the long chronology of
events. It heard that as long ago as 1995 and 1996 Health Canada
was taking out pages in the Canadian Medical Association
Journal to report on reactions in relation to the drug
Prepulsid.
Let us put aside the arguments and get to the bottom line. The
bottom line is the health and safety of Canadians. We welcome
the CMA approach. We will look at it for our own website.
Let me point something out as a matter of interest. This
morning the CMA announced that one of the drugs it will put on
its website is a drug in relation to which—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has a troubling record
of having to say “Sorry, we were asleep at the switch but we
will get on with it now”.
Sadly innocent Canadians like 15 year old Vanessa Young too
often pay a terrible price for the fact that the government is
behind the competence curve. I ask the health minister again to
explain how his department could have failed so terribly to
protect the safety of Canadians.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was in the process of saying that the Canadian Medical
Association Journal said that the first drug in relation to
which it would put information on its website is a drug that last
week the FDA issued a note on in terms of adverse drug reactions.
It so happens that last week so did Health Canada. We acted the
same week as the FDA in relation to that drug.
The point is that by whatever means it is important to get this
information out to physicians and patients. Health Canada has
accepted all the recommendations of the jury. We are committed
to doing the job well.
* * *
[Translation]
ENERGY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
American energy strategy unveiled yesterday by vice-president
Dick Cheney is based exclusively on the use of fossil fuels and
nuclear technology, but makes no provision for the development
of clean energy sources.
This is of concern, particularly as the Prime Minister said that
he was prepared to sell more oil and gas to the United States.
When it comes to energy, does the Prime Minister intend to play
the dangerous game being played by the Americans to the bitter
end, and neglect the development of alternative energies, which
are less damaging to the environment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said several times, the government's policy is to try to
achieve, here in Canada, the objectives that we agreed upon in
Kyoto.
We want to achieve these objectives by including in our policy
some slightly controversial features such as selling natural
gas, which does not pollute, to the United States, and selling
more electricity, which also does not pollute, to them. We want
Canada to receive the credit for these anti-pollution policies of
the Canadian government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know that petroleum and carbon are the principal factors in the
development of CO2. We know that the way the Americans operate
also has an impact on Canada.
In order to protect the environment and ensure Canada's long-term
economic development, will the Prime Minister undertake not to
sign any energy agreement with the United States as long as the
United States does not commit to signing the Kyoto accord?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question of signing an agreement with the United
States.
What we have in the United States right now is an opportunity
for Canadian products to find markets, both for the electricity
generated by rivers and for the energy from natural gas and oil.
We are going to find out what these opportunities are and
develop them.
But here in Canada, we intend, as I said earlier, to meet the
objectives set in Kyoto.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
we had the meeting between President Bush and the Prime Minister
of Canada where energy was discussed. Then we had the Prime
Minister announcing that he was in favour of increased energy
sales to the United States.
Now we have the announcement yesterday by U.S. Vice-President
Dick Cheney of his government's intention to give top priority
to the use of fossil and nuclear energy and to the production of
these energies.
Is this not a worrisome scenario for Canada to be involved in a
partnership with the United States to put in place an energy
policy that defies all the principles of environmental
protection?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
few minutes ago, the hon. member suggested that we stop energy
sales to the United States.
I trust that he did not mean that Hydro-Québec should stop
selling its completely non-polluting energy on the U.S. market.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
April 22, after a Canada-Mexico-U.S. meeting, the Prime Minister
raised the possibility of building new natural gas pipelines and
of Alberta oil sands exploration in order to meet the American
demand.
Are these recent developments not proof that Canada has decided
to subordinate its environmental policy to the U.S. energy
policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us take for example the matter of natural gas in the
Northwest Territories.
The ones making the strongest demands on the Canadian government
to speed up the sales of natural gas from the Delta are the
Inuit and Indians who live along the Mackenzie Valley.
I can see therefore that the Bloc Quebecois has no interest in
the economic development of the aboriginal populations.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows that the biggest and cheapest energy source
is conservation, and yet the U.S. vice-president clearly
signalled yesterday that the Bush administration's choice is open
ended fossil fuel consumption. The heck with conservation.
Why is the government going along with the American's decision
to thumb their noses at the international Kyoto consensus? Why
will Canada not act responsibly, denounce the American's
environmental recklessness and restore Canada's international
reputation for conservation and environmental stewardship?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said a minute ago that the goal of the government
is to achieve the objectives that were agreed upon in Kyoto.
The government has already done one-third of what has to be done
to meet the level that was established in Kyoto. We intend over
the period that has been allocated to meet the objectives of
Kyoto. It is the environmental policy of the Canadian
government.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows that there are made in Canada solutions,
that we could be doing a lot more about environmentally
responsible alternatives ourselves, things that Canada could be
exporting with a vengeance.
Instead of promoting these alternatives which would be in
Canada's interest economically and environmentally, why is the
government acting like the drug dealer helping to keep the
American's habit going?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is well known for its major investments
in new technology. Let us look at the money and the success of
Ballard in Vancouver.
Is the member for Halifax proposing that the Canadian government
stop selling natural gas from Nova Scotia to the American market?
* * *
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as part of its fight against poverty the government is insuring
the construction of million dollar condominiums at One Post Road
in Toronto. CMHC is also insuring the construction of Thornwood
in Toronto. Those units start at $400,000 each.
What is the total amount of taxpayer money being used in
projects like these to insure condominiums for the rich? What is
the total liability of the Government of Canada if these
construction projects fail?
1430
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation has established a mortgage insurance
program with financial institutions. It does provide mortgage
insurance. The program has helped many people who needed
affordable housing. For example, 95% of a mortgage can now be
insured so that people can have access to housing. We cannot
have it both ways.
Let me assure the member that CMHC's insurance program is
profitable and costs the taxpayers nothing.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, during
the election campaign, the government promised to provide
housing for the poor and the homeless. But in fact the Liberals
are subsidizing condominiums for the rich. In Calgary, in Quebec
and elsewhere, some Canadians spend over 50% of their salary on
housing, but the Liberals would rather help the rich.
When exactly will the government announce a national housing
strategy for low income and homeless Canadians?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very soon.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, regarding documents moving in and out of Canada, the
immigration minister stated that her officials look at the
documents but they do not read them.
How does the minister know and, more important, how can
Canadians be sure that her officials only look at the documents
and do not read them?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. My department does not
read the member's grandmother's mail.
We receive and inspect documents that customs believes and
suspects are fraudulent. How does the member think that the
Ressams of this world operate? They use phony passports, false
birth certificates and forged documents.
We do not read the mail. We use sophisticated, high tech
equipment to identify fraudulent documents using the most up to
date techniques.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, now the minister says that it is okay to read the mail.
In a recent immigration standing committee, the minister stated
“Canadians love the fact that we are free. Nobody monitors our
movements. Nobody checks our whereabouts in a way which makes us
feel like big brother is watching us”.
That is what she said but it flies in the face of what she
actually does. She acts like big brother when she opens our
mail. When will the minister end this practice?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. My department does
not open mail. Customs has the authority under the law to check
documents and packages coming into Canada. It looks for
fraudulent documents.
It was that party in 1994 that identified a loophole when a
fraudulent document was identified by customs. In 1994 there was
nothing the Government of Canada could do about it. That party
said that we should fix that law and in 1995 we did.
Today that party has flip flopped. It wants Canada to be the
fraudulent document capital of the world.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the minister refused to answer our questions
on the Starlink corn grown in Canada and currently sold on the
Quebec and Ontario markets.
As seeding is about to begin, can the minister guarantee that,
since last Friday, his department has tracked down the
contaminated seeds?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion in the question
yesterday in which corn was referred to as food. It was seed
corn.
The company found some genetically modified seed corn and
withheld the sale of it. The rest of the lot of corn that tested
negative did go out to some farmers. It is my understanding that
it has not been planted. The company will recall it and make
sure that it is negative as the original test showed.
1435
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, over the past three months, the Starlink gene has been
found in feed corn, in corn sold in groceries and, more
recently, on the Quebec and Ontario seed markets.
Will the minister admit that not only is his inspection system
no longer adequate to control Starlink shipments to Canada, but
that it also cannot control the production of genetically
modified corn in the country?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the system is working.
When we find a product we are concerned about, it is recalled and
taken off the market.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after it failed in its unlawful fishing expedition to
seize and destroy documents related to the Auberge Grand-Mère,
the Business Development Bank is again trying to cover for the
Prime Minister by demanding documents that may or may not exist.
Why is the BDC, a crown corporation of the government, helping
to conceal the Prime Minister's involvement in the Auberge
Grand-Mère?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that statement is absolutely false.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was a question and I have another one for the
minister.
The BDC, the Prime Minister and all his ministers insist that
the firing of the BDC president had nothing to do with the
Auberge Grand-Mère but then the BDC mounted an unlawful raid on
his private home and is now trying again to seize documents.
I wonder what is in those documents that they are so afraid of
over there.
Instead of using the BDC to protect him, why will the Prime
Minister not call for an independent inquiry which might happen
to clear him?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to be consistent, those additional statements were
also false.
* * *
[Translation]
SPACE SHIELD
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a telephone
conversation yesterday with the Prime Minister, President Bush
indicated that the States wanted to involve their allies,
including Canada, in a proposed space shield. In addition, at
the Quebec City summit, the Prime Minister discussed this matter
with President Bush.
Can the Prime Minister inform this House on the content of his
discussions with the American president yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the President is speaking on the subject at the moment.
He told me simply that he would be giving a speech and intended
to fulfill a promise he had made to us and to other political
leaders, in Europe, Russia and China, that there would be
dialogue with these countries before the Americans decided on
the matter.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the
Prime Minister make a commitment that at no time will his
government take a stand on this proposal without holding a
debate and a vote on it in the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there could be a vote very quickly if the members of his party take
an opposition day to debate the issue.
I think it is entirely premature, because the American proposal
has not yet been made public. They intend to make a proposal
and to try to convince others to accept it.
So, we will wait and see what they have to propose. We will
have a dialogue with them. I imagine it could take not only
weeks, but probably months, if not years, before a conclusion is
reached.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in February the Minister of Transport said that a
dedicated fuel tax with regard to the highway system was a good
idea. However, over the weekend he said that it was a bad idea.
The minister has admitted that his own highway program is a mere
drop in the bucket. Why then has the Minister of Transport
rejected out of hand one of the possible solutions to our
impending highway crisis?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has answered the question on a
number of occasions and certainly the government speaks with one
voice on the issue.
The fact is that we do not believe in the concept of dedicated
taxes. We believe that all moneys raised from all manner of
sources go into the consolidated revenue fund and can be used for
all kinds of government programs, such as health care, highways
and the like.
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Transport admitted that $17 billion was needed to
repair our highway system, but all the government promised was
$600 million over six years. At this rate, it is going to take
170 years. This is not very credible.
Why does the minister not use part of the $4.5 billion in
gasoline taxes to repair our highway system?
1440
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a budget issue. We received $600 million in
the last budget. I hope that there will be more money in the
next budget.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
April 24 marked the 86th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of
1915. What is the minister doing to promote understanding of
this tragic event and its important message to mankind that
crimes against humanity are society's worst scourge and must not
be allowed and tolerated in a civilized world?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1999 the Government of Canada articulated its concern
over the terrible calamity that befell the Armenian people in
1915, and today we restate that concern.
Canada is actively pursuing the development of positive and
extensive bilateral relations with all the countries of that
region. In particular, we are working very closely to encourage
the Armenian and Turkish governments to reconcile and establish a
more open dialogue between them.
CIDA is providing practical support to Armenia and annual
assistance to a variety of Turkish non-governmental
organizations. The events of the past must not be an obstacle to
peace and prosperity in the future.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would say to the hon. minister, it was not just a calamity, it
was genocide, and the minister should have the courage to call it
what it was.
Yesterday the Inter-Church Coalition on Africa revealed that the
Sudanese government is using the Talisman Energy Inc. airfields
as part of their bloody scorched earth campaign in southern
Sudan. In fact, helicopters owned by the Sudanese government are
being used on Talisman airfields.
Last year Lloyd Axworthy condemned the Sudanese government and
condemned Talisman. What is this minister prepared to do to stop
the use of Talisman airfields by the—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be glad to forward a copy of my predecessor's
press release over to the hon. member. I can tell him that I
entirely and heartily agree with what was said by my predecessor.
I share the member's concern if these airfields are being used
for offensive purposes by the government of Sudan. We do not
have information to that effect. I will certainly examine any
evidence that NGOs bring to us to that effect. We will continue
to take a strong position in order to encourage a peaceful
resolution in the Sudan. We need to encourage Talisman, among
others, to work to improve the quality of life for the people
living in—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the evidence is overwhelming that in fact these helicopters are
being used from Talisman's airfields.
I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. The
minister knows that Canadian corporations in places like Burma,
Colombia and, of course, Sudan are contributing to massive human
rights violations and collaborating directly in violence and
repression.
Will the minister bring in strong amendments to the Special
Economic Measures Act to ensure that the government can take
tough action against corporations like Talisman and others that
flout international human rights standards?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has never failed to call a spade a
shovel. I do not have evidence that all these abuses are
occurring. However, I will say that we are strongly and actively
engaged with Canada's private sector to adopt standards of
corporate behaviour that meet international standards.
Canada and Canadian firms ought to be world leaders in living
according to the standards that we believe as Canadians ought to
be pursued in international relations and international
behaviour. Those codes of conduct must be adopted and followed,
and we will continue to encourage that to occur.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
The ludicrous, unenforceable long gun registry has taken a new
twist. Omnibus Bill C-15 will designate paint ball players and
operators as criminals. Because of the definition of firearms
and the velocity at which these projectiles are fired, thousands
would automatically be charged and I suspect many businesses will
go under.
Will the minister agree that the focus should be on combating
real firearms violence, not games or sports that are a legitimate
form of entertainment? Will she commit to amending this anomaly
in Bill C-15?
1445
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue of concern has been
brought to our attention. We are working very closely with those
who operate businesses that will be affected. We are doing
everything we can to ensure that the firearms legislation
protects the public safety of Canadians.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question pertains to an unanswered letter dated April 26 from the
leader of my party to the industry minister.
Will the minister make immediate arrangements to ensure that BDC
officials appear before the industry committee to answer
questions on recent unusual practices and, more specific, on why
they sought a court order to seize and destroy the documents
allegedly in the possession of François Beaudoin? Why are
officials in the BDC taking these extreme and unusual measures?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, and
his leader certainly should know even more, that Standing Order
108(2) permits a parliamentary committee to examine any issue
that it wants to. That is already in the rules of the House of
Commons. It does not need to be restated. It is already the
case and everyone else around here knows it.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it appears the government will raise the maximum for
non-competitive bids to purchase goods and services from $25,000
to $81,000.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will
this new policy be a means to legitimize all the irregular
contracts that have already been awarded by the government?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have no intention of decreasing the number of competitive
contracts.
I would perhaps ask the opposition member to be much more
prudent and note what the official said to journalists.
[English]
The director said that the regulatory change still has not gone
to cabinet.
[Translation]
The official was talking about working hypotheses with the
journalist. I find it regrettable that the opposition member
implies that the government has made a decision in this regard,
which is simply not the case.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that long answer sounds like a simple yes to me. For
years the auditor general has been lamenting the lack of control
on the awarding of contracts.
For example, Transelec and Mr. Gauthier, a good friend of the
Prime Minister, failed every rule of qualification, yet received
a $6.3 million contract.
Is this new rule being implemented to open the door for more
friends of the Prime Minister to quietly help themselves to
taxpayer dollars without going to public tender?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no plan to decrease the number of competitive
contracts.
Once again, I will read from the article, which quotes the
treasury board secretariat director. He said:
[English]
That's a regulatory change and we still have not gone to
ministers or anything like that, so they may say that's not an
acceptable thing to do.
Let us be cautious with the conclusions here. This is not the
plan of the government.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
Baie-Comeau, during the lightning tour on employment insurance
carried out by the Bloc Quebecois, the seasonal workers, who are
still awaiting the outcome of the parliamentary committee
promised by the Liberal Party, called for the minister to assign
a special status to seasonal work regardless of the region.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development comply with
this request, or is she going to ask them to adapt to the
changes in employment insurance, as she did last year?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the Bloc asking for changes to
the Employment Insurance Act when it voted against the amendments
that were presented in Bill C-2.
If it were up to the opposition, the intensity rule would still
be part of the act, medium income Canadians would still be
subject to the clawback, and the re-entrance rule would not have
been changed. I suggest that party is not standing up at all for
workers in the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
election campaign, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that
the changes to employment insurance had had negative impacts on
seasonal workers in the regions.
1450
Instead of proposing measures that cannot be carried out, like
extending the working season, is the minister going to reach the
same conclusions and recommend special status for seasonal
workers?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware,
certain measures are before the House at this time, ones that
will be of great assistance to all seasonal workers in Quebec
and in all of Canada.
I find what the hon. member has just said deplorable. To say
that our actions to help diversify the economy, to extend the
tourist season so that there will be a decent economy, are
unrealistic is irresponsible. This government is going to work
to help the people in the regions.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult for the
Chair to hear the member who has the floor. The hon. member for
Edmonton Centre-East.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Americans are moving ahead with
the development of their missile defence program. Yesterday
President Bush was reported to have called the Prime Minister to
discuss this important security issue.
Understandably final details are required for a final decision,
but did the Prime Minister give qualified support? Did he give
support in principle? Did he give encouragement for this plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I replied earlier, the president informed me that he
would be making a speech, which he is doing at this time. He is
proposing a new plan in this field. He said he would consult
before putting the plan in place, not only with Canada but with
the European countries, the Russians and the Chinese.
As I said, we are not confronted with the decision now because
we do not know exactly what the plan will be.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the question was: Did we give
support to the plan? The government has dithered on this issue
for years while the Americans have been looking for a positive
Canadian response.
The director general of policy and planning in the Department of
National Defence stated:
When will the government get off the fence and speak out in
Canada's national interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first things first. We have to wait for the plan.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week a delegation of Japanese parliamentarians came to Ottawa for
bilateral consultations with the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary
Group. Recently the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific visited
Japan.
Given the importance of Canada-Japan relations, what initiatives
is the minister undertaking to enhance our relationship?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has undertaken
numerous initiatives to revitalize our economic relations with
Japan, Canada's second largest trading partner.
Early last month in Tokyo, I represented the Prime Minister at
the Pacific Basin Economic Council forum which looked at how we
could revitalize the economy.
Also I launched the Think Canada Festival 2001, a three month
long event to reinforce Canada's image as a highly industrialized
country with world class technology. I also met with the
Canadian chambers of commerce.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe is
a vicious dictator who is a threat to the stability of southern
Africa. Under his regime, its inflation rate is up 60%. He is
throwing opposition people in jail and is even giving amnesty to
those who have killed opposition supporters.
My question for the minister is very simple. Will the Minister
of Foreign Affairs stop all Canadian government to government aid
to Zimbabwe?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member yesterday, this
relationship is one that must be seen in the context of the
Commonwealth.
I expect based on the discussions which occurred, although not
part of the agenda at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group a
few weeks ago, that it will be a subject of discussion at the
Commonwealth heads of government meeting in a few months. I
think we will take appropriate action in co-operation with other
Commonwealth countries.
1455
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as a nation we took the lead with
South Africa. It is not good enough to wait months while people
in Zimbabwe are being killed and the whole structure in southern
African is poised to crumble. We have an opportunity to lead.
While President Mugabe is throwing members of the judiciary in
prison and is actually threatening them, will the Minister of
Foreign Affairs say to our representatives at the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank that they will push for a
withholding of all grants and loans to Zimbabwe until the rule of
law is once again restored?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a bit out of my area of responsibility, but let
me say that we are watching very closely the events occurring in
Zimbabwe.
The expression of concern that arose at the Commonwealth meeting
a few weeks ago was an example of that. We have been calling
upon Zimbabwe to respect the norms of democratic principles, to
respect the right of dissent, and to maintain the independence of
the judiciary, the media and the press. All these issues have
been raised in some concern by a variety of NGOs. If action is
warranted, we will indeed take it.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF PYRITE DAMAGE
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 7, I asked the Minister of Public Works if he planned
to meet the commitment made by his party during the election
campaign to financially participate in the program to help the
victims of pyrite damage. The minister replied “yes, and soon”.
The months have come and gone but, unfortunately, owners are
still waiting.
Can the minister tell us what he meant by “soon”?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Very soon, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a year ago in April 2000 the Secretary of State for Rural
Development hosted the National Rural Conference in Magog,
Quebec, to give rural Canadians an opportunity to share their
experiences in rural Canada and to discuss means by which the
federal government could work with rural communities on the
improvement of their social, economic and environmental quality
of life.
Could the secretary of state inform the House what steps the
federal government has taken to continue this vital and ongoing
dialogue with rural and remote Canada?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my first priority is to ensure
that those issues which were identified at the conference are
carried forward. I had an opportunity to work with the
participants to prepare an action plan which identified 54
specific actions for the federal government to take on behalf of
rural Canadians.
Second, we will hold regional conferences. We had one in Vernon
in western Canada last week. We will have a conference this
summer in northern Canada and in the fall one in eastern Canada
and central Canada. Finally, next year we will have another
national conference.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board is standing in the way of value added
processing of organic wheat. He is also standing in the way of
malt barley farmers increasing their incomes.
Why will the Canadian Wheat Board minister not understand that
it is in the best interest of farmers that the Canadian Wheat
Board lose its monopoly on barley and wheat?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a couple of years ago we amended the Canadian Wheat
Board Act in a very fundamental way. Those amendments were based
upon lengthy consultations with farmers and others. The clear
message from those consultations was that farmers wanted a
Canadian Wheat Board that was more democratic, more flexible and
more accountable to producers.
That has been provided by the fact that for the first time ever
there is a board of directors with 15 members, 10 of whom are
directly elected by farmers. It is farmers who should make the
decisions, not politicians in the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs just made a declaration of intent regarding the
fate of the Armenian people.
What the Armenian people want is for Canada to acknowledge that
a genocide took place, as did the Quebec government, among
others.
Given what he just said, will the minister finally make sure
that his government recognize that the Armenian genocide did
indeed take place, so that we can rebuild the future by
acknowledging the past?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in English, the government
recognizes that the situation in Armenia in 1915 was serious,
but we also think that we must build the future.
I urge Bloc Quebecois members to also consider the fact that
Canada is working with the governments in Armenia, in Turkey and
in the region to build the future.
* * *
1500
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when the member for Peace River characterized the contents of the
papers the Business Development Bank is trying to seize, the
Minister of Industry said very emphatically that the
characterization was false. That suggests the Minister of
Industry knows what is in the papers being seized.
Does the minister know what is in these documents and, if so,
who in the Business Development Bank told him? Is the government
orchestrating the seizures?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no, I do not know what is in the documents. No, no, I
have not been briefed.
No, I am not aware of anybody orchestrating anything, but I do
know that the preamble to the question that he referred to and
indeed many of his own preambles are absolutely false.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of a delegation, hosted by the
Canada-Japan Parliamentary Association, of members of the Diet of
Japan led by Mr. Hosei Norata.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader keeps saying he will not
allow documents to be tabled unless prior notice has been given.
This is the third time I have tried to table, at the express
request of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the lease between
the Auberge Grand-Mère and the Grand-Mère golf club.
I once again seek the unanimous consent of the House to table
this document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent
to present a petition on behalf of the Canadian Grandparents
Rights Association of Nova Scotia.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to revert to presentation of petitions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure today to present a petition that consists of
4,000 signatures from the Canadian Grandparents Rights
Association of Nova Scotia.
These people support the rights of grandparents having access to
their grandchildren unless there is concrete evidence to do
otherwise. These individuals request that the federal government
revise the 30 year old Divorce Act now to give grandparents
access to their grandchildren. I want this group and the
grandparents here today to know that I support them.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE AGREEMENTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I forgot when I was
speaking before question period to say that I would be splitting
my time. As I said earlier, I am here to speak to the NDP motion and
its concerns regarding chapter 11. I started to talk about how
important investments were for Canada and for individual
Canadians and corporations that do business abroad.
One of the most significant features of Canada's recent economic
history has been the rapid growth of Canadian investment abroad.
Since 1996 Canada has become a net exporter of capital. With the
free trade of the Americas agreement so prominently in the minds
of Canadians, it is important to remember that Canada continues
to be a major investor in South America, particularly in the
telecommunications and natural resource sectors.
Investments abroad create opportunities for Canadians by giving
our firms new markets to expand their businesses through exports
and through local sales. Often securing new customers and making
sales in new markets requires investments in local services,
customer support, assembly and distribution channels.
The most important thing we must remember is that when Canadians
invest abroad they bring our values together with increased
exports of goods and services. It adds up to jobs and
opportunities for all Canadians.
As I said earlier, chapter 11 of NAFTA deals with foreign
investment. Section A of chapter 11 deals with the definition
and the treatment to be accorded within the North American free
trade zone, and section B of chapter 11 deals with the settlement
of disputes concerning investments.
The main forms of treatment of foreign investment dealt with in
chapter 11 are national treatment and most favoured nations
treatment. This is what is applicable to foreign investment.
Under national treatment NAFTA countries are generally obligated
to accord to investors and investments from another NAFTA country
treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded to
domestic investors and investment.
With respect to most favoured nations treatment, NAFTA countries
are generally obligated to accord to investors and investments
from another NAFTA country treatment no less favourable than the
treatment accorded to investors and investments from any other
country, be it NAFTA or non-NAFTA countries.
Chapter 11 restricts the ability of NAFTA countries to impose
certain performance requirements on the investors and investments
from other NAFTA countries such as a requirement to export a
certain level or percentage of goods or services.
Generally these so-called performance requirements do not
restrict the ability of a NAFTA country to condition what is
called an advantage to be conferred upon a foreign investor or
investment upon compliance with a requirement to locate
production, provide a service, train or employ workers, construct
or expand facilities, or carry out research and development in
its territory.
At a minimum, NAFTA countries are required to treat foreign
investors and investments from other NAFTA countries in a manner
consistent with international law. This point is very important
and I hope that my NDP colleagues are listening. There are a
number of exceptions and reservations to the general
non-discrimination obligations I have outlined. Aside from the
general exceptions which are contained in NAFTA, reservations are
set out in the country schedules to annexes I, II, and III of
NAFTA.
These reservations are generally either bound or unbound
reservations.
A bound reservation means that a NAFTA country may maintain a
non-conforming measure identified in the appropriate schedule and
may amend that non-conforming measure, provided that the
amendment does not make the measure more trade distorting. An
unbound reservation allows a NAFTA country to maintain an
existing non-conforming use to make the measure even more trade
distorting or to create new non-conforming measures in relation
to certain broad areas or sectors.
1510
For example, in the case of Canada certain unbound reservations
exist in relation to aboriginal affairs, communications,
transportation and social services. The latter reservation
includes income security, social security, social welfare, public
education, public training, health and child care.
Historically under bilateral conventions to promote and protect
investment possible disputes about the application of these
conventions were settled between the governments concerned.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA improves bilateral conventions to promote and
protect foreign investment mainly by making it possible for a
private party to challenge a disputed measure directly with a
foreign government.
Expropriation is the main subject of disputes concerning foreign
investment. An expropriated private party claiming that a
government may not expropriate or has not respected the
applicable rules in expropriating may challenge the measure under
the dispute settlement mechanisms contained in part B of chapter
11 of NAFTA.
It is also important to note that the dispute settlement
mechanism also proceeds at stages. An investor claiming that a
foreign government has breached its obligations may submit its
claim to arbitration if it incurs a loss or damage as a result of
the breach of obligation.
The parties to the dispute must consult with each other in an
effort to settle the dispute. If the dispute cannot be settled
an investor wishing to pursue a claim must send a written notice
of claim and of intent to submit the claim for arbitration.
However the investor may not submit the claim to arbitration
until 90 days after the notice of submission of the claim to
arbitration has been sent. Nor may a claim be submitted to
arbitration until at least six months have elapsed since the
events giving rise to the claim.
A limitation period may apply to the submission of a claim if
more than three years have elapsed between the date the investor
knew or should have known of the breach by the foreign government
and the date the claim is being submitted to arbitration.
Arbitration concerning investment is done before a tribunal
composed under one of the three conventions listed in article
1120 of NAFTA, the existing international rules. There are also
prerequisites for arbitration.
Before a dispute concerning investment may be submitted to
arbitration, the investor must consent to arbitration and waive
the right to any other proceeding of any party under the law. The
parties to the arbitration must agree to the rules and procedures
governing the arbitration.
Perhaps the greatest area of the investment chapter that is of
concern to the government is the investment expropriation
provisions. In that regard the chapter includes specific
commitments of fair treatment in the event of expropriation of an
investment by a NAFTA country.
Expropriation of an investment can only occur for a public
purpose, on a non-discriminatory basis, in accord with due
process of law and on the payment of compensation to the foreign
investor. Perhaps the concern with the expropriation provision
of most people is that the definition of expropriation act
includes the words tantamount to expropriation. This broad
language could possibly extend beyond what governments would
normally consider to be expropriation to possibly include
regulations or measures that significant impair or nullify
benefits to NAFTA investors.
In conclusion, it is always possible to improve the dispute
settlement process under all our trade agreements. Yes, there
have been disputes and yes, there will continue to be disputes.
The disputes that actually reach the arbitration process are
rare. It should not be forgotten that Canada has greatly
benefited from the system to date. Any future negotiations
should be conducted with this record firmly in mind.
1515
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I saw my friend across the way point to our NDP
colleagues and ask them to listen, but I can assure her that I
was listening to the good points she made. My colleagues on the
other side are good friends of mine but they do have selective
hearing. They only want to hear what they want to hear on
chapter 11.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on what the minister
and the Prime Minister said about chapter 11. I know the
minister very well and I know his own gut feeling is that the
provision is needed and is appropriate to protect investments
going out. I am sure the member agrees with that.
Does the member think that perhaps the statement was a slight
misunderstanding or misstep by the minister?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking
my colleague from the Alliance across the way for listening to
what I had to say.
The motion talks about completely throwing out chapter 11.
Neither the minister nor the Prime Minister ever said that.
Therefore, first and foremost, there is no inconsistency between
the two.
What I have tried to do in my presentation is talk about chapter
11. Chapter 11 is composed of many things. It is composed of
schedule A, which talks about national treatment and most
favoured nations treatment. Schedule B talks about the dispute
settlement system. There is a long process.
In addition, what I think is very important for all Canadians to
remember, and what we have not been hearing, are the annexes and
schedules that talk about restrictions, exceptions, the unbound
exemptions and the bound exemptions. Under no circumstances does
chapter 11 throw out the ability to ensure public education in
our country. Under no circumstances does chapter 11 stop us in
any way from legislating on health care.
With respect to the general exceptions under NAFTA, we can look
at the exceptions in culture, but we do need to do more, which is
what I said about our trade agreements.
The history of trade agreements goes back to 1947 and the GATT
when the first dispute settlement process was actually put into
place. We have built on that process, starting with the free
trade agreement and then with NAFTA. We have Chile and Canada,
Israel and Canada and, most recently, and we should be very
proud, we also have a Canada and Costa Rica agreement that puts
us in the centre of Central America.
We are always looking to build on agreements. If we look at the
history, from the GATT to where we are today, there are some
concerns. If we need to work with a few words that does not mean
we throw out entire sections or chapters. The fact is that NAFTA
has been good for Canadians. It brings wealth. We as a
government have a role on all sides to ensure that wealth is
properly distributed to all of our citizens.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member paints a glowing picture of the triumph of
chapter 11 but she may not be aware of the fact that the
International Institute for Sustainable Development just released
a very damning report on the impact of chapter 11.
Professor Howard Mann said that the current interpretations of
NAFTA's chapter 11 could have a significant and determinative
negative impact on government decision making in relation to the
public interest.
They already have. The study points out that chapter 11 has
been used to challenge the only two major federal environmental
laws that have been passed since NAFTA came into force in 1994.
One of those laws subsequently was repealed and compensation was
paid. That was in the case of the Ethyl Corporation and MMT. In
the second case, the S.D. Myers case, the damages award was
pending.
I have a question for the hon. member. If chapter 11 investor
state provisions are working so well, why is it that the
International Institute for Sustainable Development and others
are telling us not to duplicate them in the FTAA?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying
that I value the opinions of Professor Howard Mann. He is an
extremely brilliant individual who has worked with our committee.
1520
Having said that, I wish, once and for all, we would tell
Canadians the truth about the Ethyl Corporation case and how it
arose. It arose as a result of a challenge by the Alberta
government that dealt with the interprovincial restriction on
trade. It was only when that interprovincial matter was ruled
upon in favour of Alberta that we chose to settle before the
matter ever reached arbitration. This is not a case where the
arbitration panel found against it. It was settled before it
ever reached arbitration.
When we look at the number of arbitration cases we see only
three cases. Last week we won another case, the Pope & Talbot
case, which was the only pending case after the NAFTA five year
review was disclosed.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to revert to
routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a report from
the finance committee.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
presentation of reports by committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Monday, April 2, in relation to Bill C-18, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-18 and reports the bill
without amendments.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to inform
the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to
which the concurrence of this House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE AGREEMENTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today in this House to take
part in this third opposition motion on matters of international
trade in as many weeks. Obviously, matters of international
trade interest our parliamentarians and all Canadians, and that
makes me happy.
Free trade and NAFTA have been beneficial for Canadians, that is
clear. Since NAFTA came into effect, trade, investment and jobs
have grown spectacularly in Canada and in all countries in North
America.
Recently, at the Quebec City summit, the 34 countries of the
Americas, the representatives of small and large countries, the
heads of the most developed and of developing countries and those
representing countries whose economies are especially vulnerable
expressed their interest in and desire to establish a free trade
area of the Americas.
A number of these 34 countries are headed by socialist leaders.
Others are headed by centrist leaders and others by conservative
leaders. Yet there was unanimity. They all wanted free trade in
the Americas.
There must indeed be something good about this project if all
countries, large and small, developed and less developed, and
all leaders, socialists, conservatives and centrists alike, want
free trade.
[English]
All 34 countries want in, whether they come from smaller or
bigger countries, whether they come from the most vulnerable
economies to the largest and stronger economies of our
hemisphere. That says a great deal about the importance of
international trade. It says that international free trade leads
to development and to democracy. The vast majority of Canadians
and the vast majority of citizens across the Americas understand
that very well.
It is too bad that the opposition today on this particular
motion does not want to understand what even most socialist
leaders believe. Even labour leader Tony Blair said not too long
ago in this House that free trade was for the poor. Only one
party here does not seem to understand that.
[Translation]
A clear set of rules applicable to the conduct of international
affairs constitutes one of the key reasons for NAFTA's success.
1525
The rules applicable to trade and investment form a road map or
navigation system, which guides and protects the flow of trade
and investment capital.
Being a country more oriented towards investment and
international trade than any of its competitors, Canada has an
interest in maintaining the vigour of this bilateral flow of
trade and foreign investment. Foreign investment helps to
guarantee that Canadian businesses will have the capital they
need to succeed and grow in the highly competitive world
economy.
Investment creates jobs and encourages innovation through the
contribution of new ideas and new technologies to our
businesses. It gives Canadians access to the capital and skills
which will strengthen our country.
[English]
Canadian investment abroad is equally important as this helps
Canadian firms establish a presence in foreign markets and share
Canadian expertise through exporting goods and services to those
markets.
It should be further noted that a large proportion of profits
from new investments is reinvested in Canada contributing to a
higher growth rate and a rise in Canadian living standards. There
is no doubt today that foreign direct investment in Canada and
Canadian investment abroad have joined the international trade in
goods and services to become our principal engines of growth and
job creation.
Direct investment abroad by Canadian business is part of its
strategic effort to increase market share and stay competitive in
foreign markets. Companies are increasingly using outward
investment to strengthen their operations, penetrate new markets
and acquire new technologies, resources and skills. The value of
Canadian direct investment abroad has increased fivefold between
1985 and 2000, that is from $57 billion to $301 billion.
Since 1995 the stock of direct investment abroad by Canadians
has exceeded the stock of foreign investment in Canada. This
reflects the maturity and wealth of the Canadian economy. This
type of investment results in increased sales and production from
home facilities.
A recent study by the OECD found that on average every one
dollar of investment is followed by two dollars of export. It
adds up altogether to jobs and opportunities for Canadians.
We have also seen that income from Canada's outward foreign
direct investments increased during recent years helping to
improve our standard of living.
[Translation]
More than ever, it is important for Canada to try to seek a
fair, open and secure environment for international investment,
both in Canada and abroad.
The part of the North American Free Trade Agreement dealing with
investment, better known as chapter 11, guarantees investors
fair treatment in accordance with international law. This
chapter and especially the investor-state provision are a
fundamental component of the agreement.
It is important to point out that the benefits Canada has gained
from investment have not jeopardized our main economic and
social values. Foreign investment in Canada is subject to the
same legislation and regulations as Canadian investment,
including those protecting the environment and ensuring higher
labour, health, construction and safety standards.
When one compares the number of challenges under chapter 11 of
NAFTA and the amount of the claims to the two-way trade daily of
$1.9 billion between the United States and Mexico, one quickly
realizes that the number of challenges these last few years has
been minimal compared to the overall trade and investment
activities.
Last year, the overall investments of our NAFTA partners in
Canada reached $186 billion. All in all, we were able to attract,
last year, a record high of $93.2 billion in new foreign direct
investments.
1530
Yet, from this important growing source of investment, and
despite thousands of new laws and regulations passed by each
level of government in Canada since 1993, the Government of
Canada is facing only five challenges under chapter 11 of NAFTA
that are currently under arbitration.
[English]
The Government of Canada believes that NAFTA, including chapter
11, works well, and we are not seeking to re-open the agreement.
As the Prime Minister has noted in the House, there are many
thousands of investments among NAFTA partners and thousands of
measures are taken by governments that can affect investments:
laws, regulations and programs of all sorts and at all levels of
government. However, of all these investments and government
measures, only five have resulted in complaints against Canada
under chapter 11 of NAFTA.
As we have noted in the House, the Government of Canada does
want to clarify the provisions in chapter 11, which would give
future tribunals clearer and more specific understanding of the
obligations of chapter 11 as originally intended by the drafters.
There are mechanisms built into NAFTA to allow for this type of
clarification.
[Translation]
Even more important is the fact that we want the investor-state
dispute settlement mechanism to be more open and more
transparent so it is more effective. In fact, Canada has already
taken measures to make this process more transparent.
The foreign affairs department's website contains all publicly
available documents relating to chapter 11 arbitration cases
involving the Government of Canada.
We would like to make all the documents public, within certain
limitations, obviously, to protect confidential trade
information. We would also like to open hearings to the public.
I will stop here to allow for a brief exchange with opposition
members. But that is our government's position, its true
position, not based on a short sentence taken here or there, but
based on its true intention with regard to NAFTA's great
success.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. minister for the depth
of his understanding of the problem. The only scary part of it
is that I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said.
There is one point I do want to raise. I would like to ask the
hon. minister if he would clarify for us whether indeed it is
true that perhaps some of the fiscal policy of the government has
indeed resulted in a net increase over and above the investment
that foreigners direct into Canada. Has foreign direct
investment to Canada been exceeded by the direct investment in
other countries by Canadian firms? There has been a shift and
there is a negative balance there.
It is all very well to speak about how wonderful it is that
people have invested in Canada. I think he made the statement
that this reflects the maturity of the Canadian economy. I would
like to suggest to the minister that he should clarify that,
indeed, it is not the maturity of the Canadian economy here that
has caused this negative balance. In fact, the reason that
people are investing more money outside of Canada than in Canada
is due to the fiscal policy of the government.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity
to give an address to the National Press Club today at the
luncheon, in which I revisited the extraordinary performance of
the Canadian economy in the year 2000.
We are presenting a report on the health of the Canadian
economy, on the growth in our trade. We now export 45% of what
we produce in this country, of our GDP.
Last year we received extraordinary foreign direct investment of
$92.3 billion, so Canada is really a land that attracts a lot of
foreign direct capital and it is extremely good for our economy.
Indeed, Canadians are now in a position to invest abroad and that
is very good, because if we want to export our goods, if we want
to export our technology and if we want to export our services,
we have to invest abroad.
1535
There was a time when trade led the global economy, that is,
first we traded with a foreign country and after having traded
with it for some years we would then invest in it. Instead of
exporting to it we would start producing the goods in that
country. Trade led the economy and investment followed. It is
the other way around now, and it has been the other way around
for the past 15 to 20 years.
If we want to maintain our export level and trade development we
have to invest abroad because now it is investment that leads the
international economy rather than trade.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we just saw a glaring example of the reason
why people do not trust governments and of the current
government's lack of transparency.
The minister mentioned the website. The website says: “Canada is
not advocating the replication of NAFTA investor-state rules in
the FTAA”.
On December 13, the minister himself said that he would not sign
an agreement if it included a chapter 11 equivalent. He said:
[English]
“That is my position. I am very preoccupied with this”.
[Translation]
Today, in a way that is absolutely extraordinary but that will
fool no one, they have decided to do a complete about-face and to
change their position.
Does the minister not realize that, with this attitude, he is
justifying the position of those asking that negotiations be
done in a more transparent fashion? If the minister is able to
change his position like this at a time when negotiations are
not yet in full gear, we can imagine how it will be when we are
seriously negotiating these issues.
Can the minister explain to us this complete about-face?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Minister
for International Trade, which I have been for the past year,
has fought for transparency throughout the Americas. We were
successful in Buenos Aires in gaining the consent of all
countries to make the draft free trade agreement public. Canada
directed an effort of remarkable transparency, a successful
effort.
We do not need any sermons from the Bloc Quebecois member who
always resorts to personal insult, to making accusations of flip
flops and of lack of transparency, to laying all the blame on
us. This is a deplorable way of focussing on the remarkable
efforts being made by our government and our international trade
policy.
My position on chapter 11 is unchanged and absolutely clear:
Chapter 11 serves the interests of our investors and our
policies well.
What I called for, and what our government wants, is to clarify
within the mechanisms set out by NAFTA certain interpretations
that have been made by the courts so that they may be taken into
account in future. Obviously, we will be taking into account
the improvements I would like to see in the free trade area of
the Americas.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The minister
says I insulted him personally by saying that he changed his
mind.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: No. He mentioned the lack of
transparency.
Mr. Paul Crête: This government could not be any more arrogant,
and this is unacceptable. I ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. This is not
really a point of order, it is more a question of debate.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I would first like to say that the charge by the Minister for
International Trade disappoints me. I was fairly happy with the
work he had done on transparency, work we had strongly
encouraged him to do, we in the Bloc Quebecois, and all the
participants in the civil society. I am prepared to acknowledge
what he has done, except when he defends, as he has just done,
his change in position on chapter 11. That disappoints me.
1540
Let him explain it. Let him say that the United States would
not listen, but let him say what he himself has always said.
What he has just said today, unfortunately, is not supported by
the facts, and by the repeated quotes we can show him. This
concerns me, and I think the public too.
I have been told several times by various sources that the
negotiators who worked out the NAFTA agreement and the famous
chapter 11 never thought it would be interpreted the way it has
been by the rather special and secret courts, which evaluate
complaints lodged under chapter 11.
Even the negotiators did not think businesses would be so low
minded, as some colleagues would put it, as to complain, with
the astronomical figures they put forward, because they
negotiated in little closed private clubs. Had they asked
certain union people what they thought the businesses were
capable of doing, they would have been enlightened. They would
have made no mistake as to the possibility of expanding these
texts in a direction contrary to public interest.
The problem is that, whatever the intention of those
negotiators, now, chapter 11, with a number of cases pending—and
we can be sure many cases will arise in the future—is tending to
limit the ability of governments, at all levels, to make laws
that defend public interest.
There are a number of fairly simple cases.
For example, Metalclad Corporation, is a waste treatment company
from California. It settled in Mexico and asked for a federal
permit. The problem is that while it was building its plants,
the public was totally opposed to such activities. The governor
of the state had no choice but to order Metalclad to shut down
its operations. Metalclad turned around, sued under chapter 11
and won. The whole thing cost $16 million to Mexico, which
decided to appeal the ruling, and the appeal was heard in
Vancouver.
This ruling is disturbing in a number of ways. I am mentioning
one, but there are several. In that example, the federal
government of Mexico had given its authorization, but the
municipality had the authority to legislate, just like the
state. By using its powers, the company had the right to sue.
If the government cannot see cases that could occur here, it is
because it definitely does not want to see the obvious.
They are now defending chapter 11 without any reservations, when
the Minister for International Trade himself had the common
sense to say that he would not ratify it again, in its present
form. The minister heard many people who also displayed common
sense, including Pierre-Marc Johnson, the former Premier of
Quebec, who is not a hothead and who told the committee that
Canada should not use chapter 11 again, at the risk of
experiencing very serious environmental problems. And we know
how concerned people are about the environment.
What is extremely disturbing is that Canada, which has held
various positions, just boasted about signing an agreement with
Costa Rica. In an agreement with Costa Rica, Canada is the one
calling the shots. This is not the United States, which is a
strong country, with Canada trying to manage. With Costa Rica, it
is Canada that has the upper hand.
1545
In a agreement with Costa Rica, Canada is not in a weak
position. It is not like in a agreement with the almighty United
States, where Canada has to find a way to manage. With Costa
Rica, Canada has the upper hand. Yet, the provision of chapter
11 can be found in the agreement with Costa Rica. Canada's
position boils down to what is stipulated in chapter 11 of
NAFTA.
The House will soon realize that opposition members are against
this. Before going any further, we need to reconsider what we are
about to do. Because we are about to give more power to companies
and foreign corporations. Foreign corporations can file suits for
discrimination, something local companies are unable to do. But
let us not forget that, abroad, Canadian companies are foreign
companies, and that we promote international exports not only for
the big corporations, but also for smaller businesses.
At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, important business
people for whom exports have no secrets told us “It is not a
market for small companies, because you stand to lose your shirt
again and again”.
This is a very serious issue, and I want to thank the NDP for
raising it, as we did previously, so that we could hold this
debate. The important thing is for parliamentarians to be able to
express their views before the agreement is signed. It is
crucial.
I am going to introduce a private member's bill of which I am
very proud, which was introduced earlier by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry. This bill must become law. I am sure
that there are government members who share our view, but whose
hands are tied right now and who will be able to do nothing but
talk among themselves and look sad, hoping that things are not as
bad as some are saying.
What is really being decided right now is the future, not just
of Quebecers and Canadians, but also, and even more so, of the
citizens of Mexico and of Central and South America.
An hon. member: The Americans too.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, the Americans too, but they have
more weapons, including democratic ones, to defend themselves
than we do. They have much more clout, as parliamentarians, than
do Canadian parliamentarians.
Chapter 11 is not the only issue that concerns us. It is one
that, along with others, poses the problem of the need to expand
trade. We are all for this, but not unconditionally and not just
for the rich and the strong.
It needs to be said that while free trade has produced some good
results, it has not been good for everyone. This is true between
countries and within countries.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the comments of my colleague from Mercier. It was
refreshing to hear a member of her party recognize the
outstanding leadership of the Minister for International Trade in
trying to bring the greatest possible transparency to the FTAA
process. It was largely because of the efforts of the minister
in Buenos Aries that we had an agreement to publish the
negotiating text.
My colleague from Mercier mentioned that there was a long list
of cases that had been arbitrated but she only mentioned one,
Metalclad and I know about that case. I would submit that there
is not a long list.
Kept in context, I challenge the member on the number of cases.
My information is that there are only five cases under
arbitration involving Canada. That is not a large number
considering we do $1.9 billion of trade every day with the United
States and Mexico. I would like to have her answer.
1550
I would like to ask her one final question. Is it the position
of the Bloc Quebecois that we do not need to protect investors in
Canada and that we do not need to protect Canadians when they
invest abroad? Surely that is not the position of her party is
it?
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, while I did recognize that
the Minister for International Trade did good work, I did not
talk about outstanding leadership. I said that we, as well as
civil society, had to push him a lot. But I want to recognize
that he did something.
However, I take this opportunity to say that we still do not
have the texts. I was at the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade when the sherpa, Mr. Lortie, came
today with Mr. Carrière, the chief negotiator. We asked them
where the texts were and how come they had not brought them
along. They are still waiting for one of them to be translated.
Concerning transparency, they made an effort, but we have yet to
see the result. We have seen nothing so far.
As for the number of cases, I will tell my colleague that there
are problems with this agreement because everything is secret. If
he did any research, he should know that, if he speaks to certain
groups, they will tell him that they know there are many cases
because everything is secret. It is a horrible part of the
process.
The number given to me was 17, but it is just a start. With the
decisions that were handed in, there will be more and more of
these cases to scare all levels of government. Governments in
poor or developing countries are much more vulnerable to these
threats. That is what we have to act on.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade indicated that there had been
great transparency. That has not been the case. He flip-flopped
over whether or not Canada would go in there with a proposition
of an investor state trade rule in chapter 11. Now another story
has come out.
There really has been no transparency. Had there been, we would
not have objected. We would have known and could have
discussed it.
Could the member comment on whether or not there has been
transparency with the government?
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged that the
minister had defended this position. I have seen the Buenos
Aires declaration but I am waiting for the texts. It is true
that it was decided at Buenos Aires that we would have the texts,
and have them regularly. That is a step forward, I find.
I am pleased about that, but I am really anxious to have them,
just dying to have them. We do not, and we did not at the time
of the summit. So the Buenos Aires declaration is all very well,
but it stated “after the Quebec Summit”. That is not what we had
been told. We are waiting for those texts and they had better
hurry up and get here, or we will be even more disappointed.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the
NDP motion. I will read it again so that our audience will have a
proper understanding of what is going on. It reads as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to respect the spirit
of the evidence given by the Minister of International Trade
before the Foreign Affairs Committee, who stated “I can assure
you that we are not seeking an investor-state provision in the
WTO or anywhere else”, by refusing to sign any trade agreement,
such as the FTAA or the GATS, that includes a NAFTA Chapter
11-style investor-state clause.
In other words, what it says is that there is a problem in the
government's present position in wanting to negotiate a free
trade agreement with all of the Americas. We hope there will be a
free trade agreement with all of the Americas, and that it will
be an agreement with a human face.
1555
The attitude we are seeing at the moment on the part of the
government could lead, in a pinch, to a situation in which the
people would have to speak out against the free trade agreement
if things that are unacceptable, such as chapter 11 of NAFTA,
persist. Chapter 11 leaves room for things that are
unacceptable and strangely reminiscent of the multilateral
agreement on investment.
So the people watching may understand, chapter 11 concerns the
whole issue of dispute settlement. When there is a problem
between a business and the interpretation of NAFTA, by which
governments may intervene, the agreement sets out the mechanisms
so we know how it is to work.
Among other problems, there is the fact that precedents are not
taken into account. There is a lack of transparency as to
whether the decisions that will be taken will be appropriate.
The governments themselves have realized that there was a major
problem with the application of these articles. It could be
seen in a matter involving Mexico, and we can see it in matters
involving Canada.
This article also defines just what constitutes an investment.
It moves from the closed concept of an investment to a concept
open to interpretations that give short shrift to the rights of
governments over the rights of businesses. It is a repeat of
the debate involving the multilateral agreement on investment.
The agreement also deals with national treatment, providing that
a foreign business should be entitled to the same benefits as a
business from the country in which the economic activity is
taking place. This would eliminate many of the possibilities of
support for local and Quebec businesses. These are things we
should look at closely before signing such an agreement for all
the Americas, in addition to the whole issue of expropriation.
Where things get even worse is when one realizes what is
actually going on. This is probably what prompted a reaction
from the minister earlier. When we are forced to eat our words,
it is not easy. A few months ago, the minister said that he
would not sign a free trade agreement of the Americas containing
a clause similar to the one in NAFTA. For him, this was
unjustifiable and unacceptable.
Now he tells us that maybe chapter 11 is fine after all. On the
one hand, there is what he said on December 13, 2000, when he
maintained that he would not sign an agreement with anything
resembling chapter 11. On the other, there is his statement on
April 24 that the government believed strongly that chapter 11
was working reasonably well. Something happened between these
two statements. Someone, somewhere, changed the minister's mind.
It is the same with respect to his comments earlier on the issue
of his having apparently obtained agreement in Buenos Aires for
the texts to be made public.
It must be remembered that these texts were made public once the
business council told the heads of state “If we want there to be
less pressure so that we can get through the summit, it would
perhaps be best to agree to publish the texts because, if we do
not, we are going to meet with even more resistance.
So, let us agree to make them public, which we will do later on,
after the summit.”
Now that things have quieted down and the summit is over,
they are taking their time to have them translated. In this
marvellous federal Parliament, where translation in both
official languages should be a source of pride, we have not
found a way to make these documents public because we had a
problem.
This is what brings us back to reality. I think today's
motion is interesting and acceptable and that we should support
it. If we were to sign a free trade agreement with the Americas
only to suddenly find out, the day after its implementation, that
it contains something similar to chapter 11 and that corporations
can tell national governments what to do, I think many of us will
not have much to be proud of and will have to answer to their
constituents.
Also, we made the commitment to implement the FTAA in 2005. For
this to happen, debates need to be held. And there could be a
federal election riding on this issue.
1600
We will have to be able to tell our fellow citizens that, yes,
the agreement is acceptable to the people of Quebec and Canada,
yes, such an agreement is beneficial to us and, yes, we will
create wealth and distribute it fairly. But we must ensure that
we do not engage in something that we will not be able to get out
of and that we do not have to spend public funds to defend
ourselves against businesses that want to do unacceptable things.
The free trade agreement must not become some kind of operating
code that would put states at the mercy of businesses. It is very
important to avoid this type of situation.
That is why today's motion requires the attention as well as the
support of the House. I intend to support it.
We are not saying that the agreement should not contain any
definition regarding the treatment of investment. That is not
what we are saying. But we want to be sure to draw from past
experience, from the situations we faced with NAFTA and are still
facing now, so that the agreement takes it into account. We want
the texts to be amended accordingly to give enough power to the
states so that businesses cannot impose their will upon them.
Let us not forget that the great challenge of the free trade
area of the Americas is to ensure that the agreement does not
only create wealth but also allows for the fair distribution of
such wealth, so that it enables the government to continue to
represent the people.
Democracy was the key issue at the summit of the Americas. If
democracy is to be more than a policy statement, if it is to
eventually translate into concrete action, the chapter on
investments in the agreement on the free trade area of the
Americas will have to include an assurance, a guarantee.
Clear and specific answers are required on the whole issue of
the dispute settlement mechanism, and the definition of
investments, national treatment and expropriation, to ensure
that control over development remains with the members states
and has not been completely handed over to businesses,
multinationals and people whose objectives are very specific,
but do not necessarily take into account the well-being of the
public.
This is why I will support that motion and urge all members of
this House, particularly the government majority, to also
support it. Surely, there must be some Liberals who were opposed
to free trade. We all remember that the Liberal Party was
completely opposed to free trade a few years ago. Today, there
must still be some watchdogs in that party to stress that, in
the end, we must have an agreement that is acceptable.
I will end on that note. This agreement will not be in place for
two or three years. This matter, including the whole issue of
investments, will have an impact on the lives of our children
and grandchildren. I saw it in Quebec City. I saw young people
who were very aware of why they were going there, and this was
the main reason why they were opposed to the free trade
agreement of the Americas.
They probably had an even keener and deeper vision than ours,
because they had already anticipated the possibility of a
flip-flop by the Minister for International Trade like the one we
have witnessed today.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to what my colleague from the Bloc was
saying. One of the things he said was that democracy was one of
the most important things about the summit of the Americas in
Quebec.
He is absolutely right in all sorts of ways. It seems to me
that we would never have been in the position of holding such a
summit had all 33 or 34 countries not moved toward democracy so
considerably. We know a great deal of progress still has to be
made but at least the development of the trading framework has
encouraged those countries to move toward democracy.
My colleague also talked about democratization of the
organization itself, which is very important, but he focused most
of his remarks on chapter 11. I wonder if he could comment on
another thing. I have been struck by the spin off or side
benefits of these trade agreements, like the summit of the
Americas.
1605
Something that particularly struck me in Quebec City, which I had
not realized before, was how much we had in common with the
nations of this hemisphere with respect to first nations. Given
that our first nations were inside the fence and outside the
fence, does the hon. member believe that this summit provided
great hope for first nations people in the Americas?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about the
importance of making democracy stronger. When I say that in a
chapter on investment, we should avoid the problems we have met
in NAFTA, I mean that this may be the best service we could
provide to countries with a fledging democracy.
If, with the excessive powers this agreement would give them,
corporations can override the governments and get decisions that
will abolish democracy and turn corporations into the governments
of these countries, we will go back to the banana republic era.
The gist of the matter is that, if we have a good free trade
agreement of the Americas, with a clear framework, it will be
better than pure competition, where the big fish always eat the
small ones, and the small ones have a hard time getting away.
On the other hand, the rights the people or the states have must
be protected. The hon. member gave the example of aboriginal
peoples. When we define national treatment in a free trade
agreement dealing with investment, we must make sure that the
countries that are party to the agreement are allowed to promote
the development of aboriginal communities, for example.
Should we not make sure that multinationals cannot sue the
government for having given special consideration to aboriginal
peoples to improve their condition? We have to make sure that
those issues are dealt with in the agreement.
We are not saying today in this motion that there must be no
investment clause, but rather that this clause should be
acceptable. It should be well structured, take into account past
experiences and above all avoid what we felt was coming with the
multilateral agreement on investment, that is government by
multinationals. That is what the people are telling us. Those who
went to Quebec City to protest, the 60,000 who engaged in
peaceful protest in Quebec City said: We might find a free trade
agreement acceptable, but it must have a human face. That must be
obvious in every aspect of the agreement, especially concerning
investments.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continuously talk
about democracy but what about democracy for lower income people
throughout the hemispheres to have the right to public health,
public education and a clean environment? That is part of our
democracy as well. This particular deal, as it stands, threatens
those very institutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, in the free trade agreement
signed with the United States, there were some very positive
aspects, like the market growth. But there were also some very
negative aspects, like the attempt to standardize the employment
insurance plan to align it with the American one, a decision that
penalized our workers.
When we sign agreements in the future, not only will we have to
benefit from the trade, but we also have to ensure that the
wealth is adequately distributed. This is what we must do as
parliamentarians and this is where we will hopefully assume our
role. We must go beyond simply rubberstamping agreements
negotiated elsewhere without anyone knowing what they include.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in
the debate today on the NDP motion which, while focusing on the
so-called chapter 11 of NAFTA, is really a cover for the NDP's
very negative attitude toward free trade. I am very pleased to
assist in putting down to some of the ideas that the NDP would
put forward.
1610
I come from the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin in northern Ontario
where a large number of people—and we hope more in the
future—work in the forestry sector, the mining sector and in
tourism. If nothing else, these are very important commodities
in trade. We should try to imagine what our lives would be like
if we did not trade in forest products and minerals, and there
was no movement of people across our borders to enjoy our fine
country.
We could start with the premise that all trade begins between
two people bartering something. In the history of humankind,
trade started with two people bartering commodities for each
other's mutual benefit. If we take that notion and carry it to
the level of trade within a village and among villages, and take
it to a higher and more sophisticated level involving trade among
nations, the simple premise that trade should be mutually
beneficial applies as much at the international level as it does
at the local level. What is good between two people in terms of
trade must and should be good between two people at opposite
sides of the planet. There is no line beyond which trade no
longer is a good thing.
What we are really debating is not that there should be free
trade but that there should be freer trade. It is hard to
imagine a world where there would not be some rules of
engagement, but the point is that we want to move forever closer
to a notion of free trade in a universe where everyone can play
by the same rules.
I had the opportunity to spend two years teaching high school
math and physics in Jamaica back in the early 1970s. Jamaica
traded mainly bananas and sugar within the commonwealth. At the
time it had a sweetheart deal with the United Kingdom. The
United Kingdom actually paid a premium for Jamaica's sugar so
that it would have a guaranteed supply. Some years ago the
United Kingdom decided it did not want to pay a premium for the
sugar and abandoned Jamaica as one of its suppliers.
During the years when Jamaica had a preferred sale for its sugar
to Britain, a certain dependency was created. As a result,
diversification in the Jamaican economy did not occur. When the
British buyers decided to no longer pay that premium and abandon
Jamaican producers, there was no diversified economy in which to
respond. I had a chance to visit a couple of summers ago, and
sadly the economy in Jamaica has gotten worse over the years, not
better.
What we really want to be sure about in free trade is that there
are as few rules as possible because the best and most effective
way to eradicate poverty, not only in our own country but around
the world, is to make sure everyone has equal and fair access to
the markets of others.
If we really want to make sure that education, health care and
other social services are available around the world on an equal
basis, we must share the benefits and the markets, which are easy
for Canadians to access but very difficult for poor countries to
access, through trade.
In terms of our own economy, I have a few simple facts. Others
may have mentioned these but they certainly bear repeating.
Since 1993, under our watch, the country has produced something
like two million new jobs, 80% of which are the result of trade.
In fact, exports make up about half of our gross domestic
product. There is $2.5 billion a day in trade. There is no
question that Canada is a trading nation.
1615
Again there is the guise of a concern about chapter 11. I want
to make it very clear that our Minister for International Trade
and, I think, our Prime Minister have said that we need to look
at chapter 11. We need to tighten things up and we need some
clarification, but let us agree that things are generally
working. It is not unusual when we have an agreement to need to
fine tune things from time to time.
I submit that if we waited at all times to sign an agreement
that we knew was perfect before we began, we would never sign
agreements. We would never buy a house. It would have to be
perfect before we bought it and there is always something wrong
with a house when we buy it, whether it is new or old. This is
something we have to face after we get the key and open the front
door for the first time.
We have to go into agreements and deals with the idea that we
have made the best arrangement possible in the circumstances
facing us and that we know ongoing negotiations will be necessary
to ensure that as time goes by we can make those adjustments and
tweak those rules and regulations so that things get better for
all players.
A deal that impoverishes one partner and enriches another is not
a deal. The government believes in trade that is fair, honest
and transparent. I submit that the government, through the whole
FTAA process, has been totally open to an extent limited only by
our obligations to other nations in terms of confidentiality. To
the extent that the Canadian government could be open, it has
been so.
Before I use up all my time, I want to comment on a question
from the member for Peterborough, who asked about the place of
our first nations, our aboriginal people, when it comes to free
trade or national trade. I think it is a very poignant question.
I have about 25 first nation communities in my large northern
Ontario riding. In fact, with the support of trade officials
with whom I have had a chance to discuss these matters, we are in
the process of planning a one day conference on free trade in my
riding to make sure that our aboriginal people as well as
aboriginal people right through the Americas have an equal and
fair opportunity to participate in the whole free trade process.
To the extent that we leave people behind—and nobody on either
side of the House would argue that we would leave anybody
behind—either for reasons of illiteracy or reasons of access to
resources and so on, to that extent we have failed.
Mr. Speaker, did I let you know ahead of time that I am
splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South? Pardon
me for not reminding you of that at the beginning.
Let me conclude by making a comment about the well televised
protests we saw at the recent Quebec summit. I was a university
student in the late sixties and early seventies and was involved
in protests myself, although I never threw a brick or damaged any
property. If one was in university or college in the late
sixties and early seventies, one was no doubt involved in some
form of protest or another. Those who would damage the
reputation of legitimate protesters by damaging property have ill
served all parties to the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank you for this opportunity, as I
pass this on to my colleague, and say that the government plans
to continue its excellent job when it comes to negotiating free
trade for all its citizens.
1620
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech made by the member opposite. I
share the opinion of my colleague, the member for Mercier, who
was telling the minister a few moments ago that what troubles
her—and it is troubling, even if the minister does not like it
when we say that he did a complete about-face—is the fact that
he changed his position dramatically with regard to chapter 11.
If it makes him happy, let us say that he did not do an
about-face, but rather that he failed to give us an explanation
and that, like the member who just spoke, he does not seem to be
aware of the deadly political implications of chapter 11. Once
adopted, chapter 11 could prove disastrous to future generations.
Governments can make mistakes and they have. I saw maybe 35
finance ministers table 35 budgets year after year, and they all
said their budget was the best that had ever been prepared and
presented to the people. Nevertheless, we ended up with a huge
debt.
If the member takes for granted that governments do not make
mistakes, would it not be fair, in case they make one some day,
to discuss with the opposition in order to find mechanisms that
could, should there be a threat, allow parliament to express its
opinion on the matter? I am not sure the Liberals have a monopoly
on the truth.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Chambly for his question. As I said in my remarks earlier, it is
impossible to go into any kind of agreement with a perfect
document.
I recall that in the lead-up to the summit of the Americas it
was reported, in the papers at least, that the international
trade minister had asked the president of Mexico to work with
Canada in terms of finding some adjustments to chapter 11 in
order to make things clear, to provide for clarification.
It is my understanding that for the time being the president of
Mexico is saying it is well enough as it is, but I think the very
fact that our trade minister asked his counterparts in Mexico to
look at this shows a very clear intent that as we move forward we
would always want to try to improve things. We support making
improvements. We are not in support of throwing the baby out
with the bathwater, so to speak.
The member suggests that maybe the opposition could have an
opportunity to propose mechanisms for a new or revised chapter
11. This is the very opportunity for the member to do so. I
would encourage all colleagues who want to see improvements to
chapter 11 to take the opportunity here in this debate to bring
forward some good ideas.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to clarify that my party is not opposed to trade. We
recognize there has to be trade. We recognize that trade is a
good thing. We always have.
However, trade without regulations, trade without ensuring the
environment is looked after and trade that threatens the
sovereignty of nations, that kind of trade is not a good thing.
I say to the hon. member on that side of the House that if his
government is not ashamed of that agreement then let us see it.
Let us see it on the table so people can have honest discussions.
That is what democracy is about. Let us see the text. If the
hon. member is not too ashamed to show it to the people of Canada
and people throughout the Americas, let us see the text.
We were in Quebec City. We listened to people from throughout
the hemisphere, from those countries that trade is doing so much
for. We heard how the wages have been lowered by 10% in Mexico.
We heard about the first nations or the aboriginal people who are
being wiped off their land; it is no different from what our
governments did to the aboriginal people here in Canada. It is
exploitation of indigenous people and we want to ensure that
their rights are there as well.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member
for Churchill taking the opportunity to comment. Just before I
came here I was meeting with some aboriginal leaders from my
riding. We were talking about free trade. They are working to
find ways for businesses in their communities to become more
involved with international trade, not the contrary.
The very fact that there was a huge lack of protest from the
poorer nations, who are looking at the store window from the
outside, from the sidewalk looking in, shows that they want to be
part of the process.
1625
I can agree with her that we do not compromise sovereignty but
rather that we advance access to education and health. There is
no disagreement there. What I am talking about is the long term.
As the resources and access to social programs become more
equalized around the world, there will be less need for rules and
regulations.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a
bill, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TRADE AGREEMENTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's
motion basically suggests that Canada not enter into any trade
agreements that include a NAFTA chapter 11 style investor state
clause. I am not sure whether most Canadians would know very
much about that subject, but certainly chapter 11 does conjure up
all kinds of interesting discussion and debate.
My contribution to the debate is simply to look at a little of
the history and background of trade liberalization. The main
agreements to which Canada is currently or has been a party to
are: GATT in 1947; the free trade agreement or FTA; NAFTA; the
WTO agreement; the Canada-Israel agreement; the Canada-Chile
agreement; and most recently, the Canada-Costa Rica agreement.
Each of these makes provision for dispute settlement mechanisms
that apply in specific cases. That is the reason why the member
from the NDP would raise issues such as the environment, poverty
and sovereignty, et cetera. There are issues that do come up
that do touch on those issues and are very relevant.
In order to fully understand how the dispute settlement process
works, it is important to review the history of how the process
emerged, starting with GATT in 1947. Where the GATT is no longer
in effect, the dispute settlement mechanisms that were applied
for nearly 50 years under the treaty have served as a reference
and have greatly influenced the conflict resolution measures
adopted in contemporary trade agreements.
The dispute settlement mechanism of GATT in 1947 is contained in
articles XXII and XXIII of that agreement. It provided that in
the case of a dispute the contracting parties must initially hold
consultations in an attempt to settle that matter. If the
dispute cannot be resolved through consultations, the point at
issue may then be put before contracting parties who may suggest
corrective measures.
Over the years the contracting parties adopted complementary
procedures to articles XXII and XXIII in the form of
understandings or decisions by the contracting parties. Under
these procedures, if there were no successful outcomes,
consultations with the secretary of the GATT would act as a
mediator before the dispute was submitted to the contracting
parties. Moreover, when a question was put before the
contracting parties, they had the option of forming a panel to
review the matter, to hear the claims from the parties involved
and to prepare a report.
The contracting parties then had to decide, by consensus,
whether to adopt that report. Even when adopted by the
contracting parties, the report was not directly binding although
the parties would try to implement it. Under GATT there were no
procedures for appealing or challenging the report adopted by the
contracting parties.
With regard to the FTA and NAFTA, the FTA incorporated and
improved on the dispute settlement mechanisms of GATT. It
contained not just a single dispute settlement procedure, but
rather a number of procedures applicable to specific areas.
Chapter 18 of the free trade agreement, like GATT, provides for a
general dispute settlement procedure respecting the application
and interpretation of the treaty.
It contains the following various stages of the procedure. First
is inter-party consultation, followed by calling of a joint
Canada-U.S. trade commission, with the possible assistance of a
special adviser or mediator. Next is the constitution of a panel
of experts who report to the commission. Finally there agreement
by the panel on the solution to the dispute.
Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides for settlements of disputes over
anti-dumping and countervailing duties. This is a procedure for
reviewing the decisions of international bodies responsible for
implementing domestic legislation and countervailing duties. The
usual review proceedings that may take place under the applicable
legislation before a national tribunal may, at the request of one
of the parties, be conducted before a binational panel
constituted for this purpose under the provisions of this
chapter.
1630
With respect to investment, a dispute over the application or
interpretation of chapter 14 of the FTA may be brought before a
board of arbitration or a panel constituted under chapter 18.
However the panel that rules on the dispute will do so
internationally under internationally recognized rules of trade
arbitration.
NAFTA also made changes and improvements to the procedures
previously in effect. Chapter 20 now contains measures for
settling disputes over the application and interpretation of the
treaty. Chapter 19 concerns the consideration and settlement of
disputes over anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Chapter 11
deals with the settlement of investment disputes.
Pursuant to the WTO agreements, articles XXII and XXIII of the
GATT of 1994, and the WTO understanding on the settlement of
disputes or USD, set out the rules of procedures for settling
disputes over application and interpretation of the WTO
agreements.
The WTO structure also includes a dispute settlement body. This
is a plenary conference of all members of the WTO whose function
is to supervise the application of the dispute settlement
procedure under the various WTO agreements.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Canada
has used the dispute mechanism in NAFTA and the WTO to great
effect. According to the WTO Uruguay round of negotiations, all
countervailing duty orders must be reviewed at least every five
years to ensure that they are still needed. Recent reviews under
the United States government concluded that at least six of the
countervailing duty orders were revoked. These included steel
jacks, elemental sulphur, racing plates, sugar and syrups, red
raspberries and potash, just to name a few. The ultimate result
of these decisions will mean a further increase in trade that
flows.
It would appear to me in listening carefully to the minister and
to other members, that there are things which have occurred in
the past and which have led to some concern about the
consequential items. Chapter 11, a dispute settlement mechanism
with regard to contracts and agreements, is one aspect. Many
members raised concerns about some of the more socially oriented
subject matter, such as the impact on the environment and on
people who cannot help themselves.
However one thing we know is that $1 invested in promoting trade
in Canada results in $2 of export trade. It also means that one
in three jobs in Canada is sustained by that trade. When we
improve the economy, when we grow the pie, there are more
resources available for Canada to invest in Canadians.
Therefore, I can only conclude that free trade is good for
Canada and that there are areas which have to be constantly
monitored. That is why we have the very best Canadians making
sure that our agreements are fair and equitable, that we protect
Canadian investors and that we protect Canadian interests as well
as the interests of all, especially those who cannot help
themselves.
It also is good for the 34 countries of the Americas that met
and agreed to pursue this.
I believe members would agree that we cannot wait for the
perfect situation in order to move forward on this. I think they
are approaching the summit of the Americas dialogue in a
responsible fashion. I look forward to receiving, as do all
other members, more information on the specifics of that trade
agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am back from my riding and I just became aware of the very
interesting debate on chapter 11 of NAFTA being held here today.
We are hearing pretty incredible things in this House today. I
do not object to the remarks of my colleague, who spoke of the
benefits of international trade, stating that $1 invested abroad
brings in $2 in return, and of other such spinoffs. I am not
against that, and I could hardly be.
What we should be very careful about today is the wording of
chapter 11 which, I believe, has a profound effect on democracy.
1635
My fellow citizens are appalled when I explain to them that
companies and multinational corporations are able to sue
governments, which are elected by the people, and take them to
court.
Take for instance the case of Ethyl Corporation, which is
probably the most talked about. I want to address my comments to
the people in the galleries, because when they hear that for the
first time, I am sure they will think it goes against common
sense.
We have adopted an environmental rule. I voted in favour of that
rule because I agreed with the government on the need for a rule
to ban the use of MMT. However, an American corporation sued the
Canadian government for potential market loss. This turned
against the Canadian government before the NAFTA tribunal. So, I
believe that the question to my colleague opposite—
An hon. member: Three hundred and fifty-four million dollars.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, it was sued for $354 million. However,
it was settled out of court, and the Americans were paid
$15 million.
The question is the following: what becomes of democracy in such
cases?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, chapter 11 is there because,
as an investor state in foreign markets, when we get involved in
those situations we are required to protect the interests of
Canadian investors. Very simply, whether or not chapter 11
exists in those agreements does not affect whether or not a
multinational or another foreign jurisdiction can start a law
suit. Contract law is not affected by chapter 11. It is
available to all at all times.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the history lesson given to us by
the Liberal member was most enchanting. Although the member did not
mention it, there is this trickle down theory where if the
government gets more money it passes to the people who need help.
Would the member like to speak to the 22,000 farmers who
have left the family farm this year? Would he like to talk to
the thousands upon thousands of senior citizens who are having to
make a decision between prescription drugs, home heating fuels
and food?
While he is thinking of that, the whole essence of our debate is
quite clear. The Minister for International Trade said he would
not under any circumstances sign any deal with an investor state
provision in it. That is what we are holding the government to
account to. The Prime Minister said something completely
different. Now we see the Minister for International Trade
backtracking ever so quickly to appease his master, the Prime
Minister.
First, if the government is so confident about the agreement,
where is the text? Second, why is there a flip-flop on a
commitment the minister made to the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona that the government would not sign any deal
with the investor state provision?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, there are two responses I
would like to give. First, there appears to be a disagreement
between the member and others, including UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan, about the impact of trade on the poor and those in
most need in our society. The secretary general said very
clearly that trade is good for the poor.
Second, with respect to the text, and I think the member from
Churchill also raised the same question, it does not exist yet.
It has not been finalized but it will be available soon. All
members of parliament will have access to the text as soon as it
is ready.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I find this is a rather important debate.
The only thing that concerns me at this point is that I find
myself in agreement with the hon. Minister for International
Trade on the Liberal side of the House. I find myself in
agreement with my colleagues, of course, and with my Conservative
colleagues. The only people with whom I am in disagreement are
members of the NDP group over on the other side.
1640
I notice that there are some interesting points being made by
the NDP members. The hon. members are entirely welcome for any
gratuitous remarks made in their direction because there are so
few of them.
We are dealing with the single most significant element in the
Canadian economy, trading with other nations. The NDP has given
us an opportunity to express our position on this particular
issue, which is foundation to the economy of our country.
Members who are opposite on this issue need to recognize much of
the support that has made the country what it is today, the
democratic institution that exists, the various political parties
that exist, the freedom of speech that exists and the
opportunities for individuals to develop their businesses, is as
direct result of free trade among Canada and other countries.
Also I point out that free trade is not just in agriculture. I
come from a constituency in British Columbia. We call it
paradise because it is beautiful in Kelowna. I want to thank my
constituents who elected me for the third time. I am humbled
with the responsibility they gave me. It is an honour to
represent them in the House.
In my constituency there are a number of fruit growers, as well
as other agricultural producers. The fruit growers depend to a
large degree on their income from the trade that takes place. The
Okanagan Valley is now developing some of the finest wines in the
world. These wines compete internationally and are winning
awards. The wineries also depend to a large degree on
international trade.
We need to recognize how dependent agriculture is on trade. We
should also recognize the significance of manufacturing and how
it depends on international trade.
All we need look at is the automobile assembly plants that exist
in the southern part of British Columbia. Industries have sprung
up around those assembly plants. Magna International is
extremely successful. It has become a major auto parts
manufacturing firm. The members should recognize that some of
the mutual funds in which they have invested have stocks in Magna
International, so they are direct beneficiaries of that
particular company. Some of their friends probably work for
either Ford, Chrysler or GM in the assembly of automobiles,
trucks and various SUVs. All these jobs are directly dependent
on international trade.
We need to recognize that trade is not only in the areas of
agriculture and manufacturing but also in the area of our natural
resources. Where would the economy of the country be if there
was not a good arrangement for trading natural gas, oil, coal and
lumber?
Let us not forget lumber which is a significant part of our
Canadian economy. Lumber is an $18 billion contributor to our
gross national product in British Columbia. It is a major issue. Trade
with the United States is very well developed and needs to be
done properly. That is what we are talking about today.
To suggest that chapter 11 somehow is an anathema to developing
strong free trade is simply misleading everything. Why is that
the case? I suggest that the first and most important provision
of chapter 11 is to protect investors.
1645
There is not a single person in the House who does not want
their invested capital to be preserved, protected and to grow.
That is what our party wants.
We want Canadians to have the same kind of protection for their
investments in another country as we give foreigners investing in
Canada. If there is no reciprocal guarantee for the protection
of capital then why would anyone want to invest.
I cannot help but take a little shot here at the parliamentary
secretary and his minister. I would suggest to them that
Canadians investing abroad is not so much a reflection of the
strength of the Canadian economy but rather an expectation that
they can do better with their investments outside of Canada,
particularly with respect to the huge tax burden placed on
corporations and individuals in Canada.
We need to recognize that Canada has a negative balance today in
terms of direct foreign investment in Canada and Canadian
investment elsewhere. Canadians are investing more elsewhere
than others are investing in Canada. We have a negative balance
and it would be good if it were the other way around.
I recognize that in the past there was a point where Canada had
more foreign investment coming into Canada than going elsewhere.
One of the reasons for that was the fact that these foreigners
needed access to our resources.
Knowing something about Alberta, which is where I grew up, oil,
gas and natural gas were major contributors to the success of
that province. If oil and gas had not been sold to the American
market the province would not have grown in the way that it has.
Alberta received that investment from foreign investors not
Canadian investors. Today Canadians are realizing how important
it was to invest in those natural resources, and it is going
along very well. However it first took risk capital from outside
Canada to see the vision and develop that particular sector of
our economy.
The reason the investors came to Canada and invested was that
their investment was protected. We should be forever thankful to
them for having done that. I know I certainly am. If we intend
to invest elsewhere we would want that kind of protection as
well. Chapter 11 does that and that is why it is good.
It is not just the protection of capital in that sense. We want
to make sure that it is safe in the sense that it competes fairly
with other industries that are investing in the same area. We
want to make sure that the competition that exists in those
countries is such that it is not mitigating against the
successful development of a particular country.
We need to recognize that this investment allows us to benefit
from technological development. It takes money and very often
takes a considerable risk in order to develop these technologies.
This is what happens when good investment and risk capital comes
into this country or goes elsewhere.
I will now move on to the second reason that chapter 11 is not
all that bad and why the motion before the House should be
defeated. It is the negative effects of tariffs.
Some countries have taken the view that they have to protect
their industries and development to the point where they impose
tariffs on any product competing either directly or indirectly
with their local industries which are imported from another
country. In many cases this mitigates against the best interests
of the consumers who buy those particular imported products. This
does not encourage competition in the local economy. It does not
allow, encourage or provide an incentive for manufacturing or
other industries to be innovative, competitive or efficient, nor
does it encourage them to seek innovation or apply new
technologies.
1650
We have seen this in the lumber industry. We have in Canada
some of the most modern, efficient, technologically aware and
developed sawmills and processing plants of lumber of anywhere in
the world. People are coming here to have a look at the way in
which we do these things.
If we send lumber to other places in the world and they have
inefficient plants where they cannot on a per capita basis or on
a per worker basis produce the same kind of lumber or they do so
with more waste, they would not be competitive. So they place a
barrier and then say that they will put a tariff on Canadian
lumber which goes into the particular country. The people of
that country then have to pay a premium for the lumber which is
produced locally because it is inefficient and they have to pay a
premium on the lumber which is imported even though they could be
saving dollars to do so.
Tariffs work against efficiency. They work against good
competition and they very often work against good relations
between nations as a consequence.
There is a need to have a level playing field. That is another
reason chapter 11 needs to be protected. If people establish a
business in another country they want to be sure that their
business competes with another business that may be in the same
area or may provide the same kind of service or product. They
want the same rules that exist in that country to apply to them.
A car manufacturer goes into the United States and builds cars.
It could also want to build cars in Canada. We want to make sure
that all companies are operating under exactly the same rules and
that the playing field is as level as it can possibly be.
That is what we need to be sure about. That is what chapter 11
would do. It would make sure that the advantages given to our
industries would also exist for a company that comes here and
vice versa. We need to be sure that all protections are
provided.
There is one thing that I wish to emphasize at this point. No
agreement that has ever been put together by human beings is
perfect, and neither is chapter 11. The North American Free
Trade Agreement is not perfect. The agreement with the Americas
on trade will not be perfect either. It is totally false for
anyone to stand in the House and imply that if the government
would do this one thing the agreement would be perfect. We will
always find ways in which we can improve something.
The hon. member opposite spoke earlier about buying a house. If
on the day we turn the key in the door and enter and discover
something we did not expect, we immediately want to change it. I
doubt whether there is a person in the House who has not
renovated a house to some degree somewhere along the line. I
doubt there is a single person in the House who is living in a
house today which is as it was when it was purchased.
We need to evolve and we need to develop. Later on today we
will be talking about democratic reform, reforming this
institution. Why is that? It is not because this place has not
been working for 125 years or that we have made no changes. It
is because we believe we can improve this place and we will.
There is another point that needs to be made. It is the
philosophic base from which the motion emanates. This is where I
find myself very much away from the party that presented the
motion. It is almost as if to have private capital and profit is
somehow bad.
Private individuals do a better job of running a business than
government ever did, no matter how smart the bureaucrats are who
back up the legislation and the policy development of government.
1655
Individuals applying their capital, having a personal interest
in what is developing and in what is happening with that capital,
would do a better job of managing that money. It is significant
that tax dollars left in the hands of individuals always produces
a better economy than if the government takes it away from them,
thinking that it could spend it more effectively.
We could go through all kinds of countries in the world. We
could go to Ireland, the United States, Great Britain and New
Zealand. We could go anywhere in the world where governments have
cut taxes to see the result. The result has been an improvement
in the economic welfare of everyone. People have said over and
over again that when taxes are reduced revenues are reduced, and
in almost every case, if not in every case, the total revenues of
the government have increased and not decreased.
The net result is that it is false economy to raise taxes. The
government should cut taxes if it wants more money and it should
stop interfering in the lives of individuals.
Chapter 11 would protect the investment of individuals of
private capital into production and services so that an incentive
would be there, a profit could be made and more people could be
employed. The end result is that the economy grows, things get
better and we are all happier.
We need to look at the various agreements. We have had the
agreement with the United States. We have had the North American
Free Trade Agreement which expanded that considerably. Now we
are talking about an even broader agreement.
It is interesting because we have had people saying today that
somehow the summit in Quebec City two weekends ago was
undemocratic. I would like to ask what is democratic. If that
summit was not democratic, this institution cannot be democratic
because the people who met in Quebec City were also
representatives. There were 33 different duly elected heads of
state representing their countries and the best interest of those
nations. Is that undemocratic?
There are 301 MPs in this institution, elected to represent
respective constituents. We are here to make decisions and laws.
Is it undemocratic because we represent those people? It is
anything but undemocratic.
It is the essence of democracy to be able to vote in the House,
representing the best interest and working in the best interest
of our constituents. That is what we are all about. That is
democracy. At least that is how I understand democracy. If that
is not the way some hon. members understand democracy, I wish
they would tell us what it is. I would suggest that they would
probably be defeated with their definition.
Another question is who signed the North American Free Trade
Agreement. It was not signed by an RCMP officer or by a farmer.
It was not signed by a president of a college, by a president of
a university or by a president of a particular corporation. It
was signed by heads of state who were in agreement. It was
signed by them, each of whom was duly elected on a democratic
basis to represent his or her country. What could be more
democratic than that?
Was the process totally open and transparent? No, it was not. I
take extreme exception to that. The process should be as open as
possible. Has it been as open as possible? No, it has not. We
need to concentrate on making these processes open so that
democracy is not only done but appears to be done.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague
for his excellent speech on the subject. It is interesting to
listen to people from different political parties speak to the
subject. However the detractors of free trade keep trotting out
Ethyl Corporation and Metalclad as examples of chapter 11 without
any knowledge or thorough understanding of it.
They just say the corporation sued and the corporation won, but
there seems to be no deeper understanding of the issue than that.
However that is not the basis of my question.
1700
I wanted the hon. member to comment on the assumption which has
been spun that there is swelling support of young people against
free trade. I am the youngest member of the House. I am
speaking uniquely for myself, unlike other young people who are
active in politics and who claim to speak for all young people.
Members of my family have left Canada because of high taxes and
lack of opportunity. They came from British Columbia where the
NDP governs. They decided that high taxes and shutting off trade
was not the way of the future.
I also want to speak to the issue of civil society. We have
heard this term trotted out by Maude Barlow and her ilk, that
they represent the burgeoning group of civil society. They say
that those who oppose free trade are examples of civil society.
Any serious political scientist who understands the nature and
root of the ethic of civil society, where it comes from in
communitarianism, knows for a fact that the term civil society is
being hijacked by the radical left.
Civil society is organic people coming together and voluntarily
deciding that their ideas have a common cause through community
instinct. It is not the well informed and badly intentioned
leading the badly informed and well intentioned, which is
precisely what happened in Quebec City.
My question is for the member for Kelowna. What does he think
of the hijacking of people by the radical left that claims to
speak for all young Canadians, the hijacking of the good ethic of
communitarianism and real civil society that represents people?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I am going to make two points. The first one
is with regard to hijacking civil society. I suspect that will
come to an end very quickly in British Columbia as the NDP is
bound to be defeated in the election.
The second point I would like to make in response to the
member's question is simply to suggest that no one can say he or
she represents everyone in an area. We do the best we can. To
say that I totally represent the hon. member to my right and the
hon. member to my left is probably wrong. They are individuals
in their own right.
We need to recognize that we come together in a value system
where we believe in democracy and we believe in the
representation of people in the decision making bodies of the
country.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to this afternoon's speeches with great interest
and to my colleague in the Alliance with no less interest than
the others. There are some things he says that I am very
interested in and some actually disturbed me a great deal. I
will divide my remarks into two questions.
First, it seems to me that rural Canada at the moment, be it
farm country or the more remote parts of the country, depends on
foreign trade more immediately than the rest of the country.
For example, I live in a riding which is 40% rural. Half of it
is cottage country with one mine, forestry and that kind of
thing. The other half of the rural part of my riding is very
mixed farming: 150 dairy farms, 500 beef farms, a 50 year old
buffalo farm, chicken farms, hog farms and things of that type.
Fifty per cent of the farm gate income in my riding depends upon
exports. The mine's products are almost entirely exported.
Rural Canada needs rules based fair trading overseas. I accept
the member's enthusiasm, but I would like to ask him a question
regarding the dispute settling mechanism in chapter 11 we are
discussing at the moment.
How would he as a member of the Alliance deal with the
oversubsidization that is occurring within and without the trade
agreements from which our farmers suffer so deeply?
1705
I support fair rules based trading. How would he and his party
deal with these subsidies which we as a government have been
struggling with to try to reduce the subsidies in the United
States, in Europe and so on, which are crippling our farmers in
their foreign trade?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for raising that question. It is a wise question and a very
insightful one. I commend him for that. I wish all members on
his side of the House would share the same feelings he has just
implied in his question. I congratulate him on that.
There are three approaches that I think we need to think about.
The first one is that there is global competition and a
competitive market exists. When one country subsidizes and
another one does not it places the producers of one country at a
severe disadvantage. There needs to be competition now at that
level.
The unfortunate part of it is that our rural producers are in
exactly the position where governments are now in competition and
there is a ratcheting effect. They subsidize at this level one
year and we try to beat them next year by going a little higher.
The war happens at the subsidy level. We need to recognize that
is wrong.
What should we do about it? The ideal would be for all
countries to say that they will open their doors to competition,
be as efficient as possible and eliminate all existing subsidies.
Everyone would have to do that in order for it to work. It would
be significant to do that.
It does not only affect rural producers, by the way. This is
not only in agriculture. It also exists in the manufacturing
sector and in certain other sectors of our economy. The ideal
position is to eliminate all subsidies.
The next position and probably the one that is realistic is to
get to the point where we agree we will not get into a war
between each other, gradually eliminate them or get involved in a
process like that.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to weigh in on this very important topic tonight. I am
delighted to be able to add my voice to the debate on the most
anti-democratic clause of the most anti-democratic agreement
Canada has ever seen, chapter 11 of NAFTA.
We are all deeply concerned with the contradictory words and
actions from our government on this critical matter. We have
seen the Prime Minister run in 1993 guaranteeing that NAFTA would
not be adopted unless he got changes to protect Canada. He then
adopted NAFTA with only a few cosmetic changes.
As the motion points out, we even had a glimmer of a reprieve
from the minister before the committee a while back, saying that
investor rights would not move into the WTO, into GATS or the
FTAA. Once again we saw the Prime Minister crack the whip and
drive dissenters back in line.
I was recently in Quebec City where 50,000 people marched in the
streets to protest the undemocratic process being used to make
decisions which will affect human beings the world over. The
most common complaint of the hundreds I spoke with was that the
inclusion and the existence of the investor rights outlined in
chapter 11 which, according to a leak on the eve of the summit,
were to be included and strengthened in the FTAA.
I went to Quebec City as a member of parliament, along with all
my NDP colleagues. We clearly felt that was the place to be if
we wanted to know what was going on in the hearts and minds of
citizens of the country. A recent poll showed that 4.4 million
Canadians would have been in Quebec City if they had the time and
the resources to be there to protest against trade deals and the
effects they are having on our democracy, our environment and our
culture.
The obvious place for us as elected representatives would have
been to be inside the summit. The obvious place for the text of
the FTAA to be discussed would be right in the House of Commons
and in public forums across the country. As we know that is not
the case.
The scene that I saw behind the fence where I was with the
50,000 people was a real forum of participatory democracy. There
were thousands of caring, concerned people there because they
wanted to have a say in the kinds of deals being made for the
future of our globe and our country.
1710
Events in Quebec City were as much about culture as about trade.
I am talking about culture in as broad sense: what kind of world
we want to live in and how we could continue to express our
vision of that world.
Critics of mine and the critics of other protesters have tried
to say that we are anti-trade. We have heard that today in this
room. We are not anti-trade. We are pro-trade. We are
pro-community. We want our voices to count through our
democratically elected government.
We understand that we are inextricably linked globally by our
telecommunications, by our labour and by our environment. We
have global problems that we all have to work on together, but we
do not believe that business, that money and that the wealthy
should have special legal rights.
Under chapter 11 a foreign company can sue a democratically
elected government because the government chooses to operate
state enterprises or allows for monopolies which it deems
desirable for the public good.
Under chapter 11 a company can sue a democratically elected
government because through its actions on behalf of its citizens
it has denied the company the opportunity to profit in a specific
sector of the economy.
Let us imagine how our history would have evolved if this had
been true in the past: no railways, no Canadian broadcaster, no
Petro-Canada, no national airline, no post office. That is not
to mention another real threat, which is to our public hospitals,
our schools, our environmental controls and eventually our
democracy.
I recognize that there are phrases in NAFTA which give lip
service to protecting some of these things. However, in the
details, in the incomprehensible language of these agreements,
none are protected. If a service were to modernize, it is no
longer protected. If we protect our culture, we get zapped in
another sector. If a single province chooses to export bulk
water, all taps are open. If a single private school can get
public funding, we will have to compensate all comers.
My time is running out, but I would like to use a current case
before the NAFTA tribunal to illustrate my point. UPS is suing
Canada because it opposes Canada Post couriering mail. UPS is
saying that because Canada Post is a crown corporation, which it
is, it accepts parcels for delivery by the equivalent of a
courier service, which it does. UPS is losing potential profit
and it feels our taxpayers should cough up a chunk of tax money
and give it to UPS, which we may have to do.
It could win this one. Under NAFTA we no longer have the right
to have crown corporations that are efficient, that use new
technologies and that update their business plans to deliver a
service which we as parliamentarians say Canadians want and need.
We have never debated this issue in the House that I know of,
but it is not rocket science to realize that we are a big country
which has a small population that is very spread out. Having
efficient, reliable and affordable service to send each other
mail, parcels and goods makes a lot of sense to me. Apparently
we can only do this if we first compensate UPS. This case shows
how we are stuck to agreements with ineffective exemptions that
never allow public enterprises to change, to modernize or to
survive.
Our democracy is our most special public right. Under our
charter, four of the five sections deal with guaranteeing these
rights. I am frightened, along with my colleagues, that unless
we change our tune on chapter 11 these rights will be traded away
for the sake of guaranteed profits for transnational
corporations.
I am very honoured to finish the debate tonight on chapter 11
and to have expressed concerns on behalf of the New Democratic
Party respecting the protection of our democratic rights under
trade deals.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
1715
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
– 45
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams – 201
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to the motion
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I missed the previous vote.
I will be voting with my party and opposing the motion.
The Speaker: With the one addition, is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
– 45
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Day
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harris
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 202
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-9.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
Party will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the PC Party
will be voting yes to the motion.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
counted as voting with the government on this motion.
1750
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the
government in favour of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Roy
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wilfert – 193
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Day
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Manning
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peschisolido
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 56
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that the vote just taken be applied to the vote on
second reading of Bill C-25.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of
Bill C-3.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that those who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with
Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
will be voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be
voting no to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
|
Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Day
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Roy
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 237
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Godin
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Robinson
| Stoffer – 12
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April
26, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the referral to committee before second
reading of Bill C-16.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent in the House that those who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before
the House with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members vote in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wilfert – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Day
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 89
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
* * *
[English]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-25.
1755
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House
with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be
voting yes to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Roy
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wilfert – 193
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Day
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Manning
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peschisolido
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 56
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Folco
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Minna
|
Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that
it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-23,
the Competition Act amendments bill, be referred to committee
before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
The Speaker: It being 5.55 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and
entering), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of
the constituents of Calgary East to speak this afternoon to my
private member's bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the criminal
code (breaking and entering).
The purpose of the enactment is to provide for a minimum
mandatory imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent
conviction for breaking and entering where the offence is
committed in relation to a dwelling house.
1800
Break and enter crime is much more than a property offence. It
is a crime against the person. Canadians view break and enter
crime as a very serious and traumatic violation of their sense of
safety and security. Victims of house break-ins rarely talk
later about the television they lost or the other property that
was taken. However, they talk about the fear and the fact that
someone invaded the sanctity of their home. This is not a
property offence in the same way we view an auto theft.
On April 19, I had a town hall meeting in my riding to discuss
break and enter crime. A constituent came forward at this
meeting to describe the fear she still feels after break and
enter thieves violated her home several years ago. She described
how she still feels unsafe in her own home and how she thought
about selling her home because she is scared that the thieves
will one day come back.
These kinds of stories show the reality of break and enter
crime.
To quote Chief David Scott of the Saskatoon Police Service in a
recent letter of support for the bill, he said:
You have correctly identified what we so often neglect to realize
is the psychological damage and the tremendous trauma suffered by
victims of home break and enters.
Constable Guy Baker of District 4 in Calgary said:
The best sentence I ever saw for a repeat offender was three
years, however, the effect on the victims lasts forever.
Females feel personally violated and their house no longer has a
sense of being a home. Men feel they have failed in their role
as the family protector. Children have a hard time sleeping and
many children start bed-wetting after their home has been
burglarized.
While the psychological impacts of break and enter crime are
often devastating in their own right, this can also be a violent
crime because every break and enter is potentially a home
invasion. In fact, according to statistics from the Canadian
Centre for Justice, 58% of break and enter incidents involved a
weapon being present.
I would like to quote an Edmonton man who was viciously beaten
in a break and enter that turned into a home invasion:
Physically I am okay. Mentally I am not. It's almost like I
have to force myself to do things—even to go to work. I don't
know what could be enough jail time (for this). There is no
justification for what they did.
The bill is a victim's amendment to the criminal code because
the result would be fewer victims brought about by imposing a
real deterrent on professional break and enter criminals.
Chief Julian Santino of the Toronto Police Service said:
Deterrent sentences such as the one you have proposed are
absolutely necessary if we are ever to realize the goal of truth
in sentencing.
Sergeant Al Koenig, president of the Calgary Police Association,
stated:
Staff Sergeant Dan Dorsey of the Calgary Police Service said:
You have to take repeat break and enter offenders out of the
circulation because they don't stop. We try to keep the habitual
home breakers incarcerated for as long as possible.
Bill C-290 will also cut off what is a real source of revenue
for career criminals and organized crime by breaking the cycle of
using the proceeds of break and enter crime to finance other
criminal activities, including drug trafficking.
Break and enter is a crime once thought serious enough by
parliament that it imposed a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Today conditional and suspended sentencing has reduced the
average jail term served by a repeat break and enter offender to
six months.
Only one in ten repeat offenders receives a sentence of two years
or more.
1805
That said, parliamentarians must provide a clear distinction to
the courts about the serious nature of this crime by imposing a
minimum sentence. As Chief Alex McCauley of the Sudbury Regional
Police stated:
I view incidents of break and enter as a far more serious crime
than it appears to be getting credit for, especially in the
courts today.
Saskatoon Police Chief Dave Scott said:
I am confident the Canadian public is exasperated and distrustful
of the Canadian justice system's ability to deal with this
offence appropriately.
The courts do need a clear direction from our legislators
regarding Canadian citizens' concern over their personal safety
and their homes. A two year minimum would act as a deterrent to
potential thieves and would take the professional thief off the
streets. It would not add substantial numbers of new prisoners
to already overcrowded prisons because of the relatively low
numbers of repeat offenders committing a large percentage of
break and enter crimes.
Statistics in Calgary suggest that as few as 5% of the repeat
professional offenders are committing 80% of the crimes. A two
year minimum would also prevent the provincial justice system
from imposing different sentences from one jurisdiction to
another. An offender in Alberta should be looking at the same
sentence as a person from Ontario.
The bill was seconded by the former attorney general from
Manitoba, my colleague, who will be speaking shortly on this
bill. He said:
The courts need a clear direction from parliament that sets out
the concerns that Canadians have over this very serious crime.
This bill would provide that direction.
I would conclude by reading the following letter sent to me by a
constituent, who said:
Dear leaders of our great country's political parties;
As I'm sure you are all aware, the member for Calgary East is in
the process of introducing a private member's bill to give repeat
break and enter artists a minimum sentence of two years in
custody.
I would like to ask all of you, especially the Prime Minister,
to please ask for all MPs in your respective parties to disregard
party politics, and vote in favour of this bill. Please do not
let a great bill, that could potentially help all Canadians in a
great way, get squashed in favour of party politics.
The letter writer was concerned. This crime happens from coast
to coast and is not unique to any province. I believe home break
and enters to be one of the greatest invasions a family or person
can endure. I am sure my family and I would be deeply traumatized
by that experience. I believe this is a huge problem and is
always in the minds of all Canadians. Please help all of us in
this great country feel a little more secure and at ease by
helping to reduce such heartbreaking and demoralizing invasions.
I would like unanimous consent from members of the House to make
this a votable bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the member want
to first finish his remarks and then put the question to the
House, or does he want to put the question to the House now? He
has five more minutes.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, if I have five more
minutes I will talk about this more and ask the question when I
am finished.
The seriousness of this break and enter offence should be viewed
from a different angle. I was talking to the justice minister
who said that she may have some concern about a minimum sentence.
I can understand, but let me explain. We are dealing with the
criminal code but not all of the criminal code.
We are dealing specifically with a crime on the increase. What
is happening is that the sentences the courts have been giving,
which are now only six months for everything, have created a
lucrative business.
1810
I was told by a police officer on the beat for break and enter
that these repeat offenders are now using breaking and entering
as a job. It is a profession, a job, just like me and everybody
else going to work. Repeat offenders do not see the seriousness
behind it. They do not see the seriousness of the invasion of
individual privacy. They view it as a job. Why? For the simple
reason they know that if they are caught they will be back out on
the streets. Eighty per cent of people who break and enter are
repeat offenders. They will be out. How do we stop it?
How do we nip this thing in the bud before it becomes one of the
most serious crimes in this country? Let us have a minimum
sentence of two years. That way we will be able to break the
cycle of break and enter and we will be able to take them off the
streets as well as give them help if they need it.
I am not talking about the first time offender. I am talking
about repeat offenders. We have to be very clear. If somebody
slips a first time, I can understand that. We are talking about
repeat offenders and the problem staring us in the eye needs to
be addressed.
In conclusion, I am sure my colleagues and everybody understand
the gravity of this situation of break and enter. It is to be
hoped they would give unanimous consent to make this a votable
bill. May I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make this
bill votable?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member's motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, an act
to amend the criminal code with respect to breaking and entering,
which has been introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East.
The safety and security of Canadians within their own homes is a
key priority for the Government of Canada. The government has
responded to concerns about home invasions by including section
23 in Bill C-15, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, introduced
on March 14, 2001.
Proposed amendments to the criminal code would indicate that
where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home
invasion, the court must consider this to be an aggravating
factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.
Bill C-290 would amend subsection 348(1)(d) of the criminal code
by providing, in the case of a first offence, for a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment, and in the case of second or
subsequent offence, a maximum life sentence and a minimum
sentence of two years imprisonment.
Section 348 of the code makes it an offence to enter a place
with intent to commit an indictable offence, to actually commit
an indictable offence, or to have broken out of a place after
having committed or intending to commit an indictable offence.
The current maximum penalty for committing any of these acts in a
dwelling place is life imprisonment. I would add that the
offence of robbery also carries a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment.
I suspect most Canadians would be surprised that these offences
attract such a severe maximum penalty. In fact, surveys
conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s
showed that the public has very little knowledge of either
maximum or minimum penalties generally and that many were taken
aback by the severity of the existing maxima.
The current maximum penalties for breaking and entering and
robbery demonstrate that the government recognizes this conduct
is of serious nature which may have significant impacts upon its
victims. The sanctity of an individual's home as a place of
safety and one free from intrusion has been recognized at common
law for hundreds of years. It is, in part, for this reason that
the criminal code offences of robbery and break and enter of a
dwelling house are subject to a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment.
1815
The criminal code states that the fundamental purpose of
sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.
The objectives of sentencing in the criminal code include
denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit
offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in
acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the
community.
The government shares the concerns of Canadians with regard to
the relatively new phenomenon of home invasion robberies which
occur while the home is occupied. To protect the right of
individuals to feel secure in their own homes and to address the
need for denunciation and deterrence, courts across Canada have
been imposing stiff sentences for this crime.
The proposed amendment signals that home invasions are a serious
crime that should be met with significant penalties. In addition
to the maximum life imprisonment already in the criminal code for
breaking and entering into a dwelling house, Bill C-290 would
provide a mandatory minimum of two years' imprisonment for a
second or subsequent offence.
Canada has historically utilized mandatory minimum sentences
with restraint and allowed courts the discretion to fashion
sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offence and conduct
of the offender. Judges, who have the benefit of knowing all the
facts and evidence regarding the offence and the offender, are
well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in individual
cases. Such circumstances must be weighed in light of the
sentencing principles I have outlined.
There is no clearly demonstrated need for a minimum penalty for
second or subsequent convictions for breaking and entering into a
dwelling house given the high maximum penalty already in the
code. Courts also take into account whether an offender has
previous convictions for the same or related offences. A prior
criminal record is an aggravating factor and the greatest
predictor of a longer sentence.
With respect to home invasion, the creation of an aggravating
sentencing provision in Bill C-15 would encourage judges to use
the tough penalties already available. As noted, courts
throughout Canada are already doing so in recognition of the
seriousness of this offence and its devastating impact upon
victims.
I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East
with respect to breaking and entering. However I believe the
existing penalty of life imprisonment for this offence and clause
23 of Bill C-15 clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing
safe homes for all Canadians.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the
bill in respect to break and enter crimes. As my hon. colleague
for Calgary East has stated, Bill C-290 provides the courts clear
direction from parliament on the seriousness of break and enter
crimes.
The bill would set out a minimum two year sentence for repeat
and subsequent offences for break and enter crimes in a dwelling
house. That needs to be stressed. We are talking about the
residence of a person.
The bill would not simply denounce break and enter crime as a
serious violation of a person's sense of safety and security. By
providing a two year minimum for repeat offenders the bill would
prove a very effective deterrent against these kinds of
criminals.
Let me give the House a quick but telling example of why Liberal
policy with respect to break and enter law has failed and why we
need to seriously consider amending the sentencing provisions for
break and enter crimes.
In my home province of Manitoba preliminary statistics released
by Winnipeg police on March 20 show that Winnipeg's crime rate
jumped almost 40% in the first two months of this year. The
police service is stretched to the limit as front line officers
fight to protect law-abiding citizens.
According to Winnipeg police, these statistics show that certain
crimes, particularly break and enter crimes, are on the rise
after several years of decline. A member across the way says we
should talk to the province or to police. There it is. We are
told to blame the province and the police when we have the tools
to deal with it here.
1820
It is a typical Liberal response to simply pay lip service to an
issue and let someone else deal with it.
I want to compare statistics for the first two months of 2001 with
those for the first two months of 2000. I will give the precise
numbers. Nine hundred and nineteen residential break and enters
were reported in January and February 2001. Seven hundred and
ninety-three were reported for the same period last year. This
is not just a matter of statistics. This is a matter of personal
safety for the people of my province and the people of Canada.
People live in fear because of what is happening not only on the
streets but in their own homes.
This parliament does not show its citizens the respect to which
they are entitled in their own homes. If we let gangs run loose
on the streets what courtesy are we showing to citizens? What
fears build up in their homes when they cannot even lock the door
and know they are safe?
Members across the way say that it is a police problem. It is not a
police problem. Police arrest these lawbreakers every day and
the turnstile justice system sets them free almost immediately.
The situation is not unique to Winnipeg. As my hon. friend from
Calgary has indicated, it is a serious problem in his city as
well. It has become such a problem that the Calgary police
service has formed a break and enter unit in every district to
take over from the single unit which until recently served the
entire city.
Officers are becoming increasingly frustrated watching criminals
receive little more than a slap on the wrist from the courts. My
friend across the way said that we should let judges determine
sentences because they have all the facts. Yes, they have all
the facts and all the tools, yet they are doing nothing.
When I was in provincial politics one of my constituents
suggested that one way to reduce crime in Winnipeg would be to
make each judge live on a block in the downtown core. We would
perhaps not see the callous attitude with which people in those
areas are treated when they come to the courts for justice. Let
judges live in the downtown core and deal with gangs not in the
courts but face to face when they come through the doors into
their homes. It is disgraceful.
The police know what they are talking about. Thinking citizens
know what they are talking about. The statistics are clear. The
vast majority of break and enter crimes are committed by a very
small group of people. Winnipeg City Police have told me that
when they put one of these gangs away the break and enter rates
drop dramatically. As soon as they are on the street again the
rates zoom up.
Incarceration for break and enters into residential homes is a
clear deterrent and has a clear impact on this horrific crime.
This is not a property crime.
This is not a property crime. It is an invasion of people's
security. It is a violation of the rights outlined in the
section 7 of the charter: the right to life, liberty and security
of the person.
1825
The charter protects criminals in our courts but parliament does
not grant the same courtesy to law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
That is a disgrace.
Break and enter crimes fund gang related activities, such as
drug purchases and distribution. The bill's sentencing
provisions would cut off what is a real and substantial revenue
source for these career criminals.
My friend across the way indicated that the new amendments would
give the courts direction. The courts have always had the
ability to impose life sentences, although they gave up on that a
long time ago. They no longer even take the facts into account.
My learned friend knows that the real purpose behind the Liberal
bill is to allow the government to stand and pay lip service
knowing that judges will do nothing about this crime. It is a
fraud on the Canadian people. That is why my hon. friend from
Calgary introduced this private member's bill. It is absolutely
necessary.
The terror of this crime is illustrated by a newspaper article
in today's Winnipeg Sun. The article describes an ordinary
break and enter that turned into a home invasion in which police
officers and citizens feared for their lives. I recommend that
you read the story, Madam Speaker.
Let us think about it. While people in core areas of Winnipeg,
Toronto and Vancouver are crouched in their homes worried about
what is happening to their cities, the government refuses to
respond. I ask all hon. members to respond by voting in favour
of this very necessary bill.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak
to this private member's bill. I am also honoured to follow my
colleague from Provencher and attach myself to his remarks.
The bill has a great deal of pragmatism and takes a practical
common sense approach to the very real problem of home invasion.
I commend the hon. member for his intent and his perseverance in
bringing the matter to the forefront.
The bill would amend the criminal code to provide for minimum
mandatory imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent
conviction for breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling
house. The dwelling house is the key principle. The home is the
castle, the sacrosanct place where Canadians first and foremost
should feel a sense of security.
This offence has become rampant not just in cities and towns but
in rural Canada. In isolated areas the chances of home invasion
are sometimes increased by the isolation.
Sadly, this crime is on the rise among youth and particularly
young women. It is popular among gangs because of the lucrative
rewards involved. I say rewards in a negative sense because
those who engage in the activity seem to feel they can achieve
something by breaking into people's homes and taking their
possessions.
The real danger is when individuals are at home and find someone
in their domain, particularly at night under the cover of
darkness. The potential for violence is very real.
It has happened on numerous occasions when individuals were
protecting their home, their possessions and their loved ones. It
is a recipe for disaster and violence. Why would we as
legislators in the Parliament of Canada not want to put great
emphasis on something that is happening with alarming frequency?
1830
Many have complained about the legislation. The parliamentary
secretary has referred to it as infringing upon judicial
jurisdiction. He says that it would infringe upon a judge's
natural task of assessing each case separately. Surely the
emphasis by judges is always upon the facts in a particular case.
When we talk about recidivism and repeat offences, the scales of
justice must be tipped in favour of protecting the public. The
scales of justice must be tipped toward deterrence and
denunciation of that particular type of offence.
If we do not take the chance that has been put before us with
the legislation, we will miss the opportunity to send a message
to those offenders who choose to act in this way and who watch
with some glee when a light sentence is handed down, to the
horror of victims and to those living in fear of having their
home invaded, their possessions stolen or to potentially face
violence in their homes where they should feel most secure.
The Conservative Party supports the principle of the bill which
recognizes the public safety concerns that arise from such
offences. The type of offence that is portrayed in the bill
endangers people's lives. That is part of the entire equation.
That is why the judiciary in some instances must be reminded of
the important message of deterrence.
Home invasion is described as breaking and entering into a home
when the invader either knows or ought to know that the dwelling
is occupied. Currently such an offence is considered by judges
to be an aggravating factor. This comes from Bill C-15 wherein
it talks about it being an aggravating factor in cases stemming
from break and enter, assault and drug related offences,
depending on the particular case. Breaking into a home when the
offender knows that the individual is at home is a penetrating
statement of the obvious. That is an aggravating factor. What
could be more aggravating and what could be more distressing to
an individual?
The Liberal government's response to this issue has been nothing
more than the typical Liberal legislative half measure to please
everyone and to appear to be addressing the problem when the
upshot of the legislation really falls far short of what it
should be achieving.
Bill C-15, which was tabled in a previous parliament and is now
back in its watered down form, does not really achieve that goal.
It does not achieve the message of deterrence. It does not
achieve the goal of sending a clear direction to the judiciary or
to the general public that public safety has to take priority
when it comes to this type of offence.
In light of public demand for this type of legislation, the
federal Minister of Justice had an opportunity to send that
message to those who invade homes and to those who put their own
lives in jeopardy. In some sense this type of situation almost
encourages vigilante justice because of the sheer frustration
that exists on the part of those who have been victimized and
those who see offenders constantly being treated leniently by the
system. They are then left to feel that they have no recourse
but to take the law into their own hands. Nobody wants to
condone or encourage that but that is very much the sense that I
get from talking to people who have been victims of this type of
offence.
Bill C-15 had the potential to correct this anomaly and correct
the impression that home invasion would be treated with a strong
hand. It did not happen. There is a strong faction in the
Liberal Party who would like to embrace the legislation and the
ideal that we have to do more to deter those who choose to break
and enter into people's homes.
1835
Judges definitely have a great deal of discretion when looking
at sentencing. It seems to me that if we break and enter on one
occasion and we are caught, apprehended and brought to justice
and we do it again, a two year mandatory minimum sentence sends a
very clear and concise message that it will not be tolerated.
We should not shy away from this type of direction to the
judiciary. There are occasions where the offence is so serious
and the implications so grave that there should be a legislative
directive. Why on earth would we shirk that duty?
In terms of the Criminal Code of Canada that is very much within
the domain of those who dwell in these hallowed halls and who
look for ways to improve upon legislation. The criminal code was
a product of this Chamber many years ago. It has been subject to
all sorts of amendments. Why should we for a moment believe that
it is not proper to bring forward this type of amendment?
Home invaders have been victimizing Canadians from coast to
coast. This is not a regional epidemic. It has been happening
with alarming numbers throughout the country. Senior citizens
appear to be those most vulnerable and those most affected. The
terror and the mental anguish that result from this type of crime
is something that is very lasting.
I am sure members can relate to the fear that people would feel
when their home has been invaded even if they were not at home at
the time. Their sense of security is shattered every time they
come into their home after something like this has happened,
where their personal belongings have been tampered with. They
are looking behind doors and always wanting the lights on. I
have heard these remarks from seniors who have been victimized by
home invasion. This type of mental anguish is incalculable. It
is difficult for a sentencing judge to take into consideration
just how disruptive and how unsettling this is for a person.
I know that many Nova Scotians were very pleased that the
Conservative government of John Hamm responded by handing down
tougher sentencing directions for home invasions. The justice
minister, Michael Baker, took a very lead role and position with
his provincial counterparts in lobbying the federal justice
minister to enact legislation to create a separate criminal code
offence for home invasion which accomplished very much of what
the hon. member from Calgary intends his private member's bill to
do.
Justice Minister Baker argued that a separate offence could give
the court an opportunity to send that clear message but also
provide an opportunity for communities to more effectively
measure the impact and therefore deal with the problem of home
invasion specifically.
I have before the House a private member's motion that deals
with marrying this exact initiative on the part of Nova Scotia.
The bill, although impugned to effect judicial discretion, would
very much assist judges in putting the emphasis that many of them
would like to put on this type of offence.
I would be more comforted if there was a limitation on the
timeframe in which the offences occurred. I would favour the
mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years if there
was a subsequent conviction within a set period of time, for
example five years. This would do away with the possible anomaly
of having committed an offence as a youth and then 10 or 15 years
later a subsequent offence.
I support the bill in principle. I would hope that all members
give it due consideration and embrace this type of initiative. I
congratulate the member for Calgary East.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to represent the people of Elk
Island on this important debate. I would like to begin by saying
that it is quite inappropriate of us to have a committee
arbitrarily say that the member for Calgary East who proposes the
motion has the right to bring it to the House for a one hour
debate after which it is dropped.
There is a committee that has said we cannot even vote on this
bill. I want to be on record as saying that I strongly object to
it. I believe that on an issue of importance like this one it is
totally appropriate for us to be able to express our opinions on
it. At the end of the debate process we should all be given the
opportunity to say whether or not we favour the measure.
1840
If the Liberals are against it, let them stand and say that they
are against it. Let them say that they will continue allowing
people to be attacked in their homes and have their property
removed while they are out. That is atrocious. I would like to
see them stand and say that to Canadians across the country.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about the whole system
of justice and the idea of break and enters. I wish to emphasize
that we need to do better right across the country in building
into our youth when they are young a strong sense of morality, a
strong sense of what is right and what is wrong.
What has happened in the country? We actually have young people
and even adults who think that they are doing nothing wrong when
they walk into another person's property with the intent of
removing property, whether or not the people are there. Where
did that come from?
I remember growing up in Saskatchewan many decades ago when we
did not even have a lock on the door of our farmhouse. My dad
used to say that someone could come by when we are not home and
need to use our phone. We left the house open so that if people
came by to use the phone they could.
There was no fear that someone would take our furniture. Maybe
we were so poor the furniture was not worth taking, I do not
know, but it was probably as good as someone else's down the
road. We did not worry about those things in those days because
there was a built-in sense of morality and community. We cared
for each other and we would not in any way steal from one
another. We have lost the sense that it is wrong to take someone
else's property. Somehow in our society that built-in sense of
morality has evaporated.
I remember when I was the chairman of the Strathcona Christian
Academy, a new private school that we started. I was involved in
writing our first handbook. We patterned it after handbooks in
other schools. There was an instruction in one of the handbooks
which said that students should not bring valuable property to
school because of the danger of it being stolen. We added in our
book, and I am very proud that I was part of the construction of
that book, notwithstanding that students should be careful what
kind of property they bring to school, we expected them not to
take things which were not theirs even if the temptation
presented itself. We made that very clear because in our school
we taught more than academics. We taught respect for one another
and respect for property.
I wish that we would have strong schools, strong churches and
strong families that would pass that sense of morality on to the
next generation so that this epidemic of break and enters and
stealing would come to an end. It is atrocious that we have
allowed it to happen.
I would also say that in no small way I attribute the onslaught
of violence to all the sorts of things that have been on
television over the years. I read somewhere that by the time a
student graduates from grade 12 he or she has observed an average
of 18,000 murders on television. How could we then be surprised
when students grow up and simply act out what they have been
taught all their lives, that it is okay to do that? There is
something fundamentally wrong. We have lost the handle.
That is step one. We should train our young people so that as
they become adults they are responsible and respectful citizens
who do not abuse other people and their property.
Lo and behold, some people make mistakes. What should we do
with a first time offender? The bill that my colleague has put
forward does not deal with first time offenders. He is talking
about repeat offenders. What do we do with a first time
offender?
My brother-in-law would be very happy if I were to mention a
program he has worked with. He was involved in the justice
system in a provinces I will not identify.
He worked hard as a volunteer in what was called restorative
justice.
1845
There are a lot of young people who just simply make a mistake.
They bow to peer pressure or whatever. They with their friends
break into a place and take things that are not theirs. It is a
genuine error. Those young people are retrievable. Those young
people can be shown, taught and corrected.
I do not believe putting young people in jail at that stage is
as good as what my brother-in-law and his wife did. They worked
with couples and young people. They also worked with families
whose homes were broken into. In conjunction with the justice
system in the province, they brought the offender and the
offended together.
I remember my brother-in-law saying that one young person said
that doing six months in jail was nothing compared to having to
look the person in the eye whose house the individual broke into
and finally saying sorry that he or she had made a mistake.
The next stage then is restitution. The young people stole
something that was not theirs. Now it becomes their
responsibility to restore the property that was stolen. Those
young people, having faced the victim and having restored the
things, are much less likely to reoffend. This is statistically
proven. Generally, we do not teach people to not reoffend by
putting them into jail. I personally am in favour of that kind
of restorative justice at the early stages of young people's
lives before they become hardened criminals.
This bill talks about repeat offenders. If the young person has
failed to learn the principles of respect before the first
offence and, having gone through the restorative process or
whatever is chosen for the first offence, has still failed to
learn, now the law has a responsibility to restrain and to
protect innocent victims. The member is talking about the
sentence for a repeat offender, the one who did not learn it in
the first place, who did it once, still did not learn and did it
again.
There was a case in Edmonton where a group of thieves were
found. In a one week period, while on probation, they broke into
80 homes. What a busy week they had. Are they incorrigible? I
venture to say they need to have some time to think about it. A
minimum of two years would not be too much for them to admit they
were on the wrong track.
I remember also the grievous case in Edmonton of Barb Danelsko,
a young mother. She and her family were sleeping upstairs in
their house. She heard a noise downstairs. She thought the dog
wanted to go out. Dogs do that in the middle of the night. They
say “Please, master, let me out. I have some need to go
outside.” She went downstairs. Lo and behold there were three
youngsters there. Before they left, that young mother was dead.
They attacked her with a kitchen knife when she came down. She
was not expecting invaders in her house at that time of the
night. They prevented her from seeing her children grow up.
They deprived those children of their mother and her husband of
his wife.
I simply want to say that we need to make sure that those who
have not learned the lesson are restrained. A mandatory minimum
two year sentence is the minimum that we can do to show those
people that if they have not learned the lesson after the first
offence, then this is what will happen. We as a society will
take the measures necessary to remove them from society because
we deserve to be protected.
I urge the government to rethink its decision on whether or not
we should vote on the motion. We really should get this thing
going because it is a necessary step.
1850
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the
consequences of our actions and the importance that we recognize
consequences.
Consequences, as we would address them through our justice
system, are at least in part meant to be a deterrent. A
consequence to be a deterrent must be serious enough to provoke
some thought. It surprises me today to hear that one could be
imprisoned for life for a break and enter. I am one of those who
did not know that.
I dare say the government of the day would never vote for life
imprisonment for break and enter unless it had the full
confidence that the likelihood of that happening was so very slim
that it would never be the case. Therefore, it is not a serious
enough threat to the offenders to even consider.
I will speak from the perspective of being a father of four
children. When I came to the point of needing to discipline
them, the consequences needed to be serious enough that they
really considered them ahead of the offence. I wanted to make
them think. Do members know what I did? I did exactly what the
government pointed out it was doing. I had a son who was a
repeat offender in my house. He knew I was not serious. I
cannot say the number of times that I would say to him “Son, you
are grounded for life”. I always paroled him before the week
was over.
That is the kind of threat we are hearing from the government,
that if offenders break and enter they will be liable to be put
in jail for life. I hardly think so. The threat is not really
serious and therefore is not a deterrent. A consequence to be a
deterrent also needs to be not only serious but needs to be
consistent enough to be taken seriously. Sometimes they do,
sometimes they do not.
We know in our justice system today that there is a huge
discrepancy between what judges do. On a bad day maybe they give
a few more years. On a good day maybe they do not give more than
a few minutes. I cannot believe that we would leave it totally to
the discretion of the judge to determine from zero to life
imprisonment and shirk our responsibility as legislators to give
the judiciary some sort of guideline a little narrower than from
zero to life imprisonment for break and enter. We need to be a
little more consistent.
A consequence that will be a deterrent also needs to be fair. It
needs to be fair as it relates to the offended and to the
offender. This is hardly fair to the offended. In a sense it is
not even fair to the offender because he did not really take it
very seriously and offended again.
A consequence to be a deterrent comes from a respected,
responsible authority. I worked hard at that as a father. I
wanted to know that I had the respect of my children. To have
that, I had to be serious, I had to be consistent and I had to be
fair to have them really respect me and understand that I was
being responsible.
I am disappointed that we as a parliament so often want to take
the easy way out and not be responsible. It hardly seems harsh
to me that we would consider a two year minimum sentence to give a little
more direction for a repeat offence of break and enter.
I support the bill wholeheartedly.
1855
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank all members, as well as the PC Party, who
supported this bill. I appreciate that they were able to
understand the seriousness of this and I am grateful for their
support.
I notice the other two parties are absent. Regretfully they do
not seem to think this is a serious issue. However the important
thing is that I wanted to hear from the government side, and I
did from the parliamentary secretary.
I am totally confused by his comments regarding the seriousness
of this issue and how the government is tackling it, the maximum
sentence of life imprisonment and all these things, as if it was
not a large problem. He claimed that the government and the
justice system were addressing it and that everything was fine.
He admitted there was a little more problem with home invasion
and that the government would address it.
I had held a town hall meeting. I went out across the country
and spoke on radio talk shows. The message I got was a totally
different one. The message was that this government did not seem
to be listening.
I challenge every member over there to go out, have a town hall
meeting and listen to their constituents who will tell them how
serious the act of breaking and entering is. The parliamentary
secretary and the justice bureaucrats are saying this issue is
being addressed. It is not. It is staring us right in the face.
We have six month sentences and 80% repeat offenders out there.
The justice system is failing to ensure safe homes for Canadians.
Everybody is talking about it. It is only going to get worse.
I am amazed that the parliamentary secretary and the government
said that everything was fine. It is not fine because that is
what I have heard. I am not going to ask for unanimous consent
because I know I will not get it. However this issue will come
back because I will keep fighting for it. It is what Canadians
are demanding out there.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the order paper.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House shall now
resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government
Business No. 6. I do now leave the chair for the House to go
into committee of the whole.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MODERNIZATION OF THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: The House in committee of the
whole on Government Business No. 6.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
He said: Madam Chairman, I will be sharing my time with the
hon. member for Durham.
[English]
This is the second debate we have had on
modernization of the standing orders in this House. The first was
held on March 21 in which 44 members spoke for almost 10 hours, a
very long time, which obviously indicated a lot of interest on
the part of members on all sides of the House. I thank the
members who contributed on that day to the process.
As members are aware, the House agreed to establish a special
modernization committee on the House rules, which has been
meeting since that first debate. Tonight we are actually
participating in this debate in committee of the whole where all
members are able to congregate around the clerk's table instead
of the far corners of the House, as is normally the case. That
is something that was developed in the modernization committee on
which the House leaders sit.
I hope that some members will speak tonight as well and add
their contribution to the debate to give us some more good ideas
on how to modernize the House rules.
In the last debate I gave an extensive talk on some of the ideas
that I had on modernization. I will not repeat them again this
evening because obviously they are all on the record. I am sure
that all members read Hansard on a daily basis, so they are
aware of what I said at the time.
1900
I will take a moment, though, to thank all members of the
modernization committee; in other words the House leaders of all
parties, as well as the Deputy Speaker who chairs that committee
so well.
I have to say that we are making considerable progress. We have
gone a long way, but I cannot reveal the content because pursuant
to the order of the House we are sitting in camera until our
report is tabled.
I cannot in any way criticize my colleagues in other parties.
They have been most productive. We have worked very well
together. I am looking forward to the June 1 tabling of our
report. I am quite optimistic that we will have a number of
changes to present to the House. As a result of tonight's debate
hopefully we will gather and garner new ideas and be able to add
to that again.
[Translation]
As I said on March 21, the House has already taken several
parliamentary reform initiatives since the beginning of this
parliament, along, of course, with the changes that have been
made to the Standing Orders.
For instance, funds for political parties represented in the
House have been reallocated to take into account the new
standings in the House following the last election and, of
course, each political party was given additional staff.
We have provided political parties with an additional
$900,000 in funds for items such as party research, caucus
services, whips' offices and so on, so that they could do a
better job for their constituents.
Members office budgets have been increased by $20,000 per
member of parliament to cover items such as salary expenses and,
of course, other operating costs.
The members of parliament housing allowance has also been
improved by $3,000 to cover higher accommodation costs that MPs
face in the Ottawa housing market, which is of course very tight.
So, accommodation costs have gone up.
The Library of Parliament has received an additional
$986,000 to better support House committees.
[English]
One point that is not said enough around here is the quality of
work performed by parliamentary committees. I have had occasion
to visit several other parliaments and bar none, the quality of
the work that comes out of our committees is tremendous,
particularly the review of legislation from the House.
It is quite common to have dozens and dozens of government
amendments after we hear witnesses and so on. What does that
mean? It does not mean that the legislation was initially poorly
drafted or some such. It means that the system we have developed
whereby many people make contributions to the debate makes the
legislation better. We should thank members who sit on the
committee, the clerks, the research staff, the witnesses and so
on.
Everything I have described so far today have been non-partisan
changes made by all members of the House or on behalf of all
members of the House. I am looking forward again to more members
contributing tonight.
I know that one member talked in the House today in a different
context about private members' bills and how we should handle
them. There is a subcommittee looking at that now. It will make
recommendations to the modernization committee. I am quite
willing to hear those recommendations. I know all other House
leaders are as well.
Some people say that every bill should be votable. I do not
disagree, per se. We have to remember, though, that a votable
bill takes six hours of the House: three hours at second reading
and three hours at third reading. That is six hours instead of
one. It effectively means that we reduce the number of private
members' bills that will be considered in any year by
approximately two-thirds. We could say by five-sixths, but it is
not quite like that because some are votable already.
It is fair to say that the number would be reduced by
two-thirds. How would we construct that? I would like to get
the advice of hon. members. Perhaps, for instance, members
should be limited to one private member's bill per parliament to
ensure that everybody gets their turn.
Even then they would not all get their turn but a greater
proportion of them would. That would be another method of doing
it.
1905
We cannot just say all the items will be votable. We have to
look at the rest of the picture and provide an answer. I know
that the committee is doing that now. I thank the committee for
the work it is doing. I hope it will make its counsel available
to the modernization committee so that we can take it into
account.
That being said, those are the preliminary remarks I wanted to
make tonight. My parliamentary secretary will be attending later
and making a contribution of his own. I know the hon. member for
Durham with whom I am sharing my time this evening would like to
give us his ideas on modernization of House rules. I hope
members on all sides of the House will contribute to that
process.
In closing, any comments made by members on the modernization of
the House rules are compiled by the clerk of our committee on
modernization. The suggestions by members are presented to us
and we go through them every week trying to find where there is
consensus and where could incorporate them into the changes we
are about to make. Anything that is said here is obviously very
useful to us. It is brought immediately to the attention of our
committee in the subsequent week.
I want members to know that their contribution is helpful and
what they say tonight will assist us. We do not go at this in a
partisan way. First, the way our modernization committee works
we must have unanimity to change any rule. If all parties agree
then a recommendation is presented. If one or more of us
disagree a recommendation is not presented. That is the way the
modernization committee has been working and working very well,
if I can describe it that way.
I am looking forward to listening to the contributions of other
members to the debate. I repeat for the benefit of another House
leader who is joining us that the advice given to us by members
tonight, as was the case the last time as well, is extremely
useful. It is compiled and it is brought to the attention of our
committee by our researcher, Mr. Robertson, who makes a list of
all recommendations that are made, and then they are studied. The
list also indicates who made each recommendation so that we can
speak to those particular measures at the committee.
If there is any time left I would be pleased to answer questions
for the few minutes until the member for Durham takes over.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Chairman, I need a clarification. We are in committee of the
whole which means that there is no time limit on speeches, except
as regarding courtesy to each other. Also, we can speak as often
as we wish. Am I correct in that or not?
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: The second part is
correct, but on the first part a motion was tabled in the House
this morning that says two members may divide one 20 minutes
speaking time period. That motion was accepted this morning in
the House. Therefore there are 20 minute periods.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chairman, I spent about six hours
today in the finance committee so I was not here at that time.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I should read the
motion.
Mr. Ken Epp: No, that is fine. I have some questions of
the government House leader. I concur fully with the suggestion
that perhaps members should be given one private member's option
in a session. I think that would work.
I remember when we were kids at camp that nobody got seconds at
the meal until everybody had firsts. Everybody could have
firsts, and if there was some food left over we went back for
seconds.
I have been a member for seven and half years, since the 1993
election, and I have never been drawn. It is just not my lucky
lottery day, I guess. I have some good private members' bills
that I would like to get on the floor and voted on. I feel that
they are important enough for actual decision making.
The member opposite made that suggestion. I am ready to write
the computer program. In fact I already have one. I recommend
that we take all members and simply randomize their order. If
members do not have a private member's bill or a motion and want
to pass on it, they can let their name go to the bottom of the
list, or maybe we could have a scheme whereby we could trade with
others so that everybody would be involved in one rotation.
There are other members in the House who have been picked three
or four times in the last seven years. That is one correction I
think would be really worth while.
1910
Another one he mentioned was that we would not have enough time.
Very frankly I would rather have one private member's bill every
seven years and actually have it votable so that we can make a
decision on it than have three or four that I can just talk about
and never do anything about. I would not mind dealing with a
reduced number of bills.
Furthermore, let us take for example the private member's bill
we dealt with today. It was not votable, but surely after one
hour of debate we pretty well all knew the issue. I do not think
that it should take more than an hour or maybe an hour and a half
of debate before it is sent to committee.
Private members' bills generally are quite focused. They are
single issues. If we could send them to committee and then maybe
have them come back for another hour debate in what would compare
to third reading of another bill, I think it would really
expedite the matter. Basically it would take the House two hours
instead of one hour for one that we just debate and do not vote
on.
We could also increase the number of hours. I have no problem
at all with having an additional hour or two per week of private
members' business. I have a little problem with some people who
have suggested making Friday private members' day. That is
really bad because it basically tells members it is an
unimportant day and they do not need to be here.
As a matter of fact, if I can even be a little facetious, I have
said to some people that I think it might not be a bad idea to
make a member of parliament's salary in direct proportion to the
number of hours he or she spends in the House while we are
debating private members' business. If we were here 50% of the
time, we would get 50% of our salary that month. That is a
little facetious. It is not a serious suggestion.
I really think that some of the best ideas come forward from
private members. They are the ones out there listening to their
constituents. Those constituents have concerns. We start
dealing with the bureaucracy and find out that we cannot solve
their problems, so we come here with a private member's bill.
I would like the government House leader to respond to some of
my suggestions.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: That was a question that
took four minutes, so we will go on for one minute to the
government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, it is somewhat
informal, so I do not mind that the question took a bit longer.
That is all right with me. At any rate, it does not seem that
dozens of members are ready to make speeches.
As the hon. member knows, there is an ongoing survey of members
in this regard. I think it is a good idea. I suspect all House
leaders are looking forward to its conclusion.
What the member said about the three hours is not quite correct.
It is a maximum of three hours. For instance, we had a votable
private member's bill last week. I am trying to remember what
was the subject. We adopted it and sent it to committee after
one hour, even if it were votable.
That is the maximum. If we are amending the criminal code, it
is not a bad idea if we knew it was votable to have a longer
speech. Perhaps we do not need that long at second reading, or
we might want to have that long at second reading and once a
committee goes at it we would not need that long at third
reading.
If I go back to the British example, they tend to have very
short, if any, speeches at all at third reading on anything, even
government bills. It is quite common to have a government bill
debate of five minutes at third reading. Second reading, I would
argue in this case, would probably be a little longer than that.
In any case, as I said, I am not against per se some of these
ideas about all of them being votable. I was very lucky as an
opposition member in terms of getting my name drawn. For
whatever reason, I always seemed to have something that was on
the floor of the House of Commons. Probably one of the greatest
satisfactions I had was the motion I sponsored which was passed
to erect a statue in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
1915
That statue beside the west block, Mr. Pearson sitting in a
chair, if members have noticed, actually includes a design of the
chair of the House of Commons. That was my idea, everything,
including that he should be sitting in a chair and so on. That
was my motion. I was there when we unveiled it. The then prime
minister, Prime Minister Mulroney, did the unveiling. I think it
was a tremendous exercise by an individual member. Had I not
done that, like other members who took similar actions, these
things probably would not have happened. We just cannot get
things to move sometimes without prodding from members of
parliament.
Probably another good example of this is the bill on
competition. It will be before the House this Thursday with
reference before second reading. The bill on competition bears
great similarity to two private members' bills, one in the name
of the member from Kitchener and the other in the name of the
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
One involves gasoline pricing and competition in that regard.
The other one involves issues regarding the misuse of Canada Post
to send out phony things where people are alleged to have won
something. To claim their prize they phone a 1-900 number, which
gives them a huge telephone bill and usually a prize of exactly
nothing. That bill largely covers those items. They are private
members' ideas.
As a minister I think this is great. I support that entirely.
As I said, though, in my opinion the price to be paid for it is a
dramatic reduction in the number of private members' bills
debated. Perhaps that is not bad. As my colleague said, it
means that the more important ones will be debated, and because
we know they will be votable, they will always be of that
importance because otherwise we would not put them. We would not
want something to be put to the House to have it defeated by
everybody because it was a very bad idea. Of course if it is not
votable anyway, one does not really care. So arguably there is a
benefit in that regard.
Finally, I think all of us should think of the effect of what
the hon. member just asked and hopefully the committee doing the
work will think of it, namely, should people have two or three
tries at it before everyone has had at least one?
Perhaps one way of doing it would be this: at the beginning one
would draw from the list of everyone who has at least one item
for private members' business in the kitty. We would draw, and
as we go through the process, three or six months later we would
draw a name and if that name has already been drawn it would be
thrown out and we would take the next one, until we find one that
has not been drawn. At the beginning of a session that would not
be a problem, but as we go along it would be.
If we reach the end and everybody who had an item in the kitty
has had their name drawn and other members just do not want a
private member's item, we could start again. We would assume the
list is complete because we would have zero names left in the
kitty, or at least zero names that have items in the pot.
For instance, ministers such as myself are ineligible.
Secretaries of state are ministers at a different rank but
similarly are ineligible. Parliamentary secretaries while they
are parliamentary secretaries are also ineligible, but because
they are generally on a rotational basis serving a term of two
years, someone could be ineligible and then a year and a half or
two years later become eligible for the draw.
Whatever mechanism we develop should bear all these things in
mind to ensure that it is fair for everybody. Those are some
ideas on how to handle that one, but I am not married to those I
am suggesting. I am giving them as examples of how to reform
this. I would like other colleagues to add to them the good
ideas that they might have as well, and by the way, not just on
private members' items, I hope, but on everything else we do
around here.
1920
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, I was an assistant here with Ian McClelland
before I became a member of parliament. In terms of the
relationship between private members' business and government
bills, one of the researchers for the Library of Parliament told
me that before 1911 most of the bills that were passed were
private members' bills but that since that time there has been an
increasing tendency to spend most of our time in the House on
government bills.
The researcher felt that the system actually worked better when
more time was devoted to private members' bills. As the hon.
member for Elk Island pointed out, we tend to be closer to the
ridings than the government bureaucracies are. Perhaps it has
shifted too much in favour of government bills and there should
be more time allotted during orders of the day for private
members' bills. Would the hon. government House leader comment
on that?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, when I came here in
1984 it was almost impossible to get a private member's bill
voted on. The system was somewhat different and was reformed to
the way we have it now as a result of the McGrath committee
report.
Before the McGrath committee report the items were all
theoretically votable, but they were votable when the debate had
concluded. We had one hour of private members' bills debate
every day. The trick at the end of the day was to talk the bill
out, as it was called. Then it went to the bottom of the list,
only to reappear perhaps 18 months later.
It was the same as killing it except that it was not really the
same. It was in a state of suspended animation. With any luck,
of course, 18 months later the House had prorogued and we were
into a new session and it started all over again. It was the
same as killing it, except we were not killing it. That is the
problem we had then. I think that was the absolute worst system
one could have ever devised.
The system we have now is from the McGrath committee report.
There is one member of the McGrath committee who is still a
member of the House. That member is the House leader for the New
Democrats. He is the only survivor of that committee,
politically speaking, although there are several other survivors
otherwise speaking. It was a good innovation. That does not
mean we cannot improve it again.
In terms of the numbers of private members' bills passed, I know
of some provincial legislatures that pass exactly zero private
members' bills. It is just not done. Very few, if any, are ever
passed in the Quebec provincial assembly. It does not happen.
I served for a number of years at Queen's Park as a provincial
member in Ontario. There it was a different system. They were
all theoretically votable, but there was so little independence
in voting that effectively the government stood up and killed
them every time by voting them down. It really did not do
anything.
The innovation we have here, I think, is that first of all there
are enough of us in the House with 301 members that there is a
critical mass of people and at private members' hour it is a lot
harder to separate strictly along party lines. That is a good
thing. It makes for members with a little bit more independence
of thought and that works reasonably well.
In terms of the numbers of private members' items, we have
some every day, with a couple of exceptions, and hon. members
will know that occurs if we are having the budget debate or the
throne speech. For the throne speech is easy to understand why
we would not want to have any there. It is at the beginning of a
parliament and we have not had the private members' items in yet
so there is no reason to have them there.
As to why we cannot have them at the same time we are having
budget debates, I do not particularly object to that. I do not
see that there is anything particularly offensive about other
times around here. I do not know why we cannot simply have them
every day. It is effectively the case now, with a few
exceptions. Why not remove some of these exceptions? I am not
against that either. All of those things seem to be at first
glance good occasions to have private members' items.
Of course we will always be governed by our constitution in any
case. Obviously members know that we cannot have a money bill at
private members' hour, unless we find a minister who will provide
a recommendation from the crown, a royal recommendation. That is
a constitutional issue.
1925
Furthermore, if a bill is to generate a tax then it is even more
complicated. Not only must it be a minister but a minister must
have tabled a notice of ways and means and have the ways and
means motion adopted by the House before he or she can even
introduce a bill to levy a tax. The equivalent in the United
States is that there has to be a recommendation of the ways and
means committee. The Canadian equivalent of that is a little
different. It is the same as the British in that we have
concurrence in the ways and means motion, which is the enabling
motion that permits a minister to even introduce taxation
measures in the House.
Those are two restrictions that I suspect will always be there
because of our constitution, but that does not mean that there
are not dozens of good ideas that can be addressed by way of
private members' items.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Chairman, I would like to take advantage of the
fact that the government House leader is here because he has a
very long memory of parliamentary procedure.
One of the problems that I noted in my time here with respect to
private members' business and trying to give it more opportunity
was that often members would say, “Well, let us just vote yes
for this at second reading and it will go to committee”.
Clearly the problem with that was that the committees were
suddenly burdened with business that they did not properly have
the time to manage. Some committees were burdened more than
others. I think, for example, of the justice committee.
I have thought a lot about this. I wonder what the government
House leader thinks about restoring the old legislative
committees. Is there not an argument to be made for creating a
legislative committee to receive private members' legislation to
in some way, if you will, pre-examine it for appropriateness and
viability before it goes on to the proper committee? Or perhaps
the legislative committee could handle it right on to report
stage.
It just seems to me, Madam Chairman, that in order to make more
bills votable we have to find a new system that makes it possible
to process these bills without adversely affecting the very
limited time of committees.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, on the second point,
this business about having a pre-approval by a committee, that is
in fact what members are advocating tonight to get rid of,
because now we have a committee that in a way screens them to
make them votable. It is kind of the same thing, not quite, but
it is analogous to that, I would argue. My feeling is that most
people do not want that.
The other thing, though, is in regard to once a bill has been
read a second time and sent to committee. We did make an
amendment a few years back whereby committees now have to report
the bill within a certain amount of time. Otherwise the bill is
deemed reported anyway without amendment. We have that in our
present rules. That did not exist even in 1993.
It was an amendment produced I think in large measure as a
result of an innovation of the then Reform Party House leader,
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. I believe that was one
of his innovations. Perhaps others were involved with it too,
but he was associated with the cause of bills deeming to have
been reported, which made it such that bills that kind of
disappeared into a black hole called a committee do not do that
any more. They go to committee but they now have to come back
out, and the period is reasonably short.
There is one problem that remains, though, and I guess we will
all have to be very frank about this, and that is that private
members' bills are more times than not all about justice. For
instance, on the weekly list that I was looking at Monday when I
had a meeting with my staff, four out of the following six days
were about justice issues. Of course if they all were votable
and all sent to the same committee, I think the hon. member who
just raised the question obviously has seen what would happen
then. That is going to absolutely overload the system.
Hopefully when the subcommittee makes it recommendation it will
address that because it would make it impossible to function if
that happened.
1930
In terms of a legislative committee, it is still in the rules.
It was largely unused because it had a tremendous deficiency. The
last time we used it was on Bill C-20 of the previous parliament.
The difficulty with legislative committees is the following.
Suppose we set up a legislative committee on agriculture to
review a particular bill, like the bill we passed today on farm
credit. The agriculture critic and the agriculture parliamentary
secretary and so on would want to sit on it. All the people on
the agriculture committee would also end up sitting on this
special committee but there would be a different clerk. The end
result was the agriculture committee would be the legislative
committee with a different clerk. That was always the result of
that.
After a few years of this, people began to look at it. They said
why not keep their usual clerk and the usual everybody because
they were the people who knew something about agriculture? Why
was somebody else doing this and not the people who actually had
the expertise in the area? That is how they fell into disuse.
If we had the multiplicity of private members' items in a given
area, we would obviously have to rethink that in a way perhaps
like or somewhat like the suggestion made by the member who just
asked me the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chairman,
I am sure that the government House leader will agree with me that
in a parliament, it is advisable that members use available
resources to inform parliament of all concerns pertaining to their
immediate communities. Private members' bills allow that.
However, I do not agree with the House leader when he
suggests that there are enough statutory resources available.
Resources alone are not enough, there must be no strings attached
to them.
Could the House leader tell us how many legislative counsels
there are at present? I do not think there are more than three;
they are very dedicated, extremely competent and a credit to this
House, of course.
And does he have any idea of the timeframes that are
involved when, as an ordinary parliamentarian, one has to
register to have a bill drafted and would like the work to be
performed within a reasonable time? It may take a legislative
counsel weeks to come up with a bill that satisfies the member.
Once again, we are not questioning the individuals'
abilities, but rather their numbers. There are only three, four
or perhaps five legislative counsels who draft amendments for the
committees.
Madam Chairman, you were yourself a member of the standing
committee on justice for a long time; you know that many
amendments come from committees, particularly from the justice
committee. Legislative counsels then draft bills which take
considerable time. The government and the Clerk of the House of
Commons were very reluctant to commit additional resources for
legislative counsels.
Does the leader agree with me that, to restore the function
of a member of parliament and the independence of thought that must
be a attached to it, it is important that we have a sufficient
number of legislative counsels to ensure a speedy process with
regard to the drafting of private members' bills?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, I do not disagree in
principle with what the member is saying. However, as the member
knows, the amount of money for that is not determined by the
government, but by the Board of Internal Economy, and all the
political parties represented on it.
Improvements have been made; our clerk and his predecessor
addressed this issue. The staff was increased, budget estimates
were made, and increases were granted.
The member is also aware of what happened. Following an
unexpected increase in the number of amendments that could be
presented at report stage, it was taking legislative counsels a
lot of time to draft them, sort them and so on.
With the rules having been restored—because these are not
new rules—there may be more resources available.
1935
I do not know if they were affected by that. In any case,
the issue will be raised with the Board of Internal Economy. If
they were not affected, we will check to see if the delays are
still unacceptable. In any case, the Board of Internal Economy
sits every two weeks or almost every two weeks and goes over
these kinds of issues when they arise.
Unfortunately, I now have to conclude on this issue. If the
member is asking me if delays of several weeks and even months
are normal, I would say no, this is not reasonable. A member
should have the right to speak, which means, of course, the right
to introduce a bill.
This brings us to a whole new debate.
Will a private member's bill have to be as precise as a
government bill? Can it be amended in committee? This is a whole
new debate.
If these bills are to be considered much more seriously by
the House and always be designated as votable items, then they
will have to be as well drafted as government bills. If they are
rarely designated as votable items, then will it be necessary?
Maybe not.
Finally, members can always, of course, raise issues through
motions. It does not take a legal adviser to do so. I have
drafted enough motions to know that. Issues can be raised simply
through motions.
Again, I want to thank the chair and my hon. colleagues. I
will now let the hon. member for Durham have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to
be sharing my time with the government House leader. I also want
to congratulate him on his initiative to allow members not only
the time in the House of Commons but in this format. I find it
very friendly and congenial to possibly reforming the rules of
the House.
I am interested in pursuing an issue which is dear to my heart
and I guess is an issue that has been around since parliament
started. That is the whole concept of the estimates process. In
a lot of fundamental ways parliament was formulated as a watchdog
to focus on the whole area of government spending.
Historically an estimates process was developed. If one studies
the history of parliamentary democracy, most parliaments spent
most of their time reviewing the estimates of departments, asking
questions about why they were spending money certain ways and
tried to ensure that governments spent taxpayer money effectively
and efficiently.
I want to elaborate on the estimates for those people at home
who may not understand the process. Estimates come from the
budgetary process. The budget is presented, then individual
departments prepare estimates. In other words, they are
estimating the costs of running their programs for the
forthcoming year.
Since 1993 we have improvised two other fundamental reports that
come with the estimates. One is called plans and priorities,
which is basically a document that looks forward two years to
what individual departments will do. It is not so much trained
on dollars and cents. It is more about their ideas and so forth
and where they are going in the future. I suppose one could
actually look at the budgetary process which talks about two year
rolling budgets, which also fits into this analysis to some
extent.
The other report that was added was the performance report. The
concept was that the performance report would be the report card.
In other words, it listed a department's plans and priorities and
what it said it would do. The performance report obviously comes
after the fact and tries to measure what a department's plans and
priorities were and how well it measured up. That was an add on
to the accountability function.
Having been in the House for seven and a half years and watching
this process unfold, I think it is fair to say the estimates
procedures and the review of the estimates has declined in
importance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
that it is a deciphered process. The estimates show up in
various committees, whether it is health, transport and so forth.
They are dealt with in very short order and a very short period
of time is spent on them. A lot of members do not have the
resources or the wherewithal to get involved in the estimates
process.
1940
This is very much a problem for us as members of parliament and
how we represent our constituents. It really gets back to the
fundamental duties of members of parliament and what they are
sent here for in the first place.
Basically, the whole issue of estimates and improving how we
handle estimates has been around a number of times. I go back to
Senator John Stewart who back on December 5, 1995 tabled an
all-party Senate report. It recommended that we establish an
independent committee to deal solely with estimates, plans and
priorities and the performance of reporting.
Since then we have had two other committees of the House with
members from across party lines. The member for St. Albert
chaired one of these committees along with our member from Ottawa
West—Nepean. Once again, back in 1998 the committee recommended
the importance of establishing a separate estimates committee.
There was another election but it was reported to the House.
Subsequent to that on May 4, 1998 another House committee, this
time chaired by the member for Mississauga South, came back with
the same recommendations. These were not government committees.
They were committees of the whole and creatures of parliament.
They have recommended this over and over again. Looking back at
this there was all-party support in pursuing this matter.
Why is it important that we develop this in one committee? Some
people will say what is wrong with the process now, that we look
at estimates and so forth? I was in a discussion the other day,
not only members of parliament but also the bureaucracy. The
suggestion came up that it would be very interesting to ask
members of parliament, who just received the estimates recently,
if they actually opened up the binders. I think if we polled
members of parliament and they were honest about it, we would
find that it would not be a great number.
We should be ashamed of ourselves because of that. However
there is something wrong fundamentally within the system that has
created that lack of interest in that whole process.
In addition there is a number of other things going on in this
country and in the world. We are changing technologically. We
are talking about government online and people are able to
interface with a government using the Internet. Often people now
think in terms of horizontal issues. I heard that mentioned
earlier today. We have to find a way to deal with horizontal
issues imprinted on a system which is now working in silence, a
vertical process.
We talk sometimes at length about societal indicators. We as
members of parliament should be thinking about what it is that
our constituents and people across the country expect of
government. There are things called societal indicators. They
want employment, a good quality of life, quality of air, et
cetera. There are a number of societal indicators.
It seems that we need a committee to develop a filtration system
picking out maybe 16 societal indicators, and treasury board has
16. We could all sit down and argue about what we thought were
societal indicators. Once we agreed on the societal indicators,
these documents could then possibly be reviewed by an estimates
committee and members of parliament could look at the whole
process somewhat through that litmus.
Another thing that would be very useful for members of
parliament would be the plans and priorities procedure. They
could interface with the bureaucracy before a plan and priority
was established by a department.
There are limitations as to what members of parliament can do
obviously. We still have the concept of responsible government
and ministerial responsibility.
1945
It would be a great place for members of parliament to have a
significant impact, not necessarily on changing the overall view
and direction of the government's policy but rather to look for
things that perhaps are inappropriate.
If the object of the exercise is to improve culture in our
country, is the expenditure better on CBC television or on CBC
radio? These are some fundamental things with which we could
deal. In other words, we could deal with the internal shifting
of money within the estimate process and the plans of priority
process.
More important, the system we have today is not working well,
even with the plans, priorities and performance reporting. Most
members of parliament who were not involved in that process would
say that it was not working very well. If I were to pick up a
performance report on any government department today I would not
find one negative comment. It would be like having a report card
with all A's. Most people would agree that if we really want
performance reporting we should really have some failures.
It is up to members of parliament to refine the process and
create a filtration system that each department could go through.
We could create a litmus test for situations dealing with
budgetary things. Sometimes we are over budget and sometimes we
are under budget. This triggers questions and accountability
arguments from members of parliament.
We need to talk about the accountability of government and our
ability as members of parliament to impact on the accountability
of government. By having an estimates committee we could develop
an expertise.
The counter argument is: What is wrong with the process? One
committee of parliament, which is the government operations
committee, deals with about half the government estimates. I sit
on that committee and the operations committee is a hybrid. It
is not even an independent committee. It has been coupled up
with transport issues and the whole thing is getting lost in the
process. My experience on the committee is that people come for
two or three hours to talk about the estimates, spend
billions of taxpayers dollars and then shuffle out the back door.
We then get back onto a legislative agenda. That is kind of the
norm of what we are doing.
With a little bit of direction, perhaps Treasury Board people
and others could come to that committee. We could develop a
significant expertise on how to analyze estimates, how to report
on them and how to change them to have some impact on that
process of government. Our constituents elected us to do that.
They elected us to come here and ask about the accountability
process.
I know a lot of members of parliament who came here in 1993
studied estimates. I know I did. I went through page after
page. Members who have been here longer do not pay any attention
to them at all because they feel they do not have any impact on
the system. Some members do not have the expertise to understand
them, but even if they have raised questions the money has
already been spent.
I keep talking about the estimates committee, which is
inappropriate in some ways because the estimates are historical
documents. When we talk about estimates we are really talking
about something that has already been processed. The likelihood
of changing the estimates is not of much value but the plans and
priorities certainly are. If we could link the plans and
priorities process to the performance reporting process it could
have an impact on future estimate processes and a significant
impact on how governments spend or do not spend and how we could
save the taxpayers money in some of these areas.
The issue is not new. There has been a lot of resistance to
moving in this direction. Some common law countries already have
all kinds of estimates committees. Some have an estimates
committee just for transport. New Zealand has a number of
estimates committees. These committees study and improve the
estimates process on a department by department basis and have
developed an expertise in those things.
The people of this country deserve a better accountability
framework for government. We need to take this a lot more
seriously than we have in the past.
1950
If we had all party support on establishing a pilot project to
start an estimates committee, we could deal with one or two
departments to see how it would work. Perhaps we could develop a
degree of expertise to impact on the system and to talk about the
societal indicators that people are interested in impacting on
the government system.
We have to change government to some extent. The whole idea of
silos is very difficult. There are many bureaucrats and
governments trying to talk about cross horizontal issues. The
issues of disability affect many departments. It could affect
transportation. It could affect health. It has all kinds of
cross indicators. Sometimes the directions of one department are
doing something in tandem with another department when they are
working at cross purposes.
An estimates committee could define those problems and eliminate
them. It could have the power of bringing departmental officials
forward to ensure that we alleviate some of those problems.
I will leave the House with the concept that something as unique
as an estimates committee would be useful. Some people would ask
why we cannot use the public accounts committee. The public
accounts committee is entirely a different animal because it is
examining things that have already happened and things that have
been reported by the auditor general. The estimates committee is
a forward looking committee that would examine how it could
change government financing and how governments spend.
On that note, it would be my suggestion that we try to look at
some of the recommendations made by parties of the House in the
past and to create a pilot project in the fall involving an
estimates committee. We could see if we could work on this with
a degree of co-operation from all parties. The object of the
exercise would be to spend taxpayer money wisely.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian ALliance): Mr. Chairman,
I have a couple questions. I
respect the member. He is an accountant. There is no doubt in
my mind that he is very concerned about government expenditures
and the whole process of approval and accountability after the
fact. However he dreameth in Technicolor. When the finance
minister presents a budget most of what he says, in essence, is
already law.
I remember that less than a year ago we had a bill in the House
respecting the Budget Implementation Act that dated back 10
years. That is how far back we went in implementing a budget
provision. Meanwhile, the finance department and the revenue
department had been implementing those things per the date of the
budget speech. The hon. member, like I say, dreameth in
Technicolor when he thinketh that he can have any impact on that.
When it comes to vote on the budget, we have this arcane process
that says that no government member can vote against the budget
because it is considered a confidence vote. There is no
mechanism in parliament now, according to the present rules, to
change even the smallest part of the budget.
When it comes to the estimates, they are tabled in the House. We
usually start the voting at 10 o'clock at night and by the time
we are finished at 2 o'clock in the morning we have approved the
expenditure of maybe $70 billion to $80 billion. It sort of
rolls off our backs like water off a duck's back. There is never
an adjustment.
I remember about three or four years ago our party made an
amendment to change HRDC's budget to reduce it by $20,000, which
in the grand scheme of things is like changing my budget by a
penny or thereabouts. We said explicitly that it was for the
purpose of making a statement to declare that parliament had
final control over expenditures. Every Liberal member on command
voted against that little amendment to change the budget, showing
that parliament did not have control over the budget process.
1955
While I appreciate what he just said, I wish him lots of luck. I
hope he has lots of fun with his proposals and that the
government House leader accepts his suggestions, because I favour
what he has said. However I do not believe they will go
anywhere.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member
misunderstood what I said. I used the words estimates committee.
I see the functioning of the estimates committee as having less
to do with estimates and more to do with what are called plans
and priorities.
What happens is that every department, in addition to giving
their estimates, gives their plans and priorities for the next
two years. In other words, I am not talking about something that
is written in cement. I agree with the member in the sense that
once we are into the estimate process, we are pretty much into
cement. We ask people why they did what they did, as opposed to
why would they do what they are planning on doing.
Possibly the name of the committee is wrong. Maybe we should
call it the plans and priorities committee. However the object
of the exercise has two functions: to deal with plans and
priorities and with performance reports.
The plans and priorities would be an interface for members of
parliament to get involved with the process that has not happened
yet. In other words, the budget has not happened. It will, two
years from now. The budget has not been presented, but the
internal mechanism of departments is now planning on how they
would spend money two years from now. It is the interface for
parliamentarians to be able to catch up with a forward looking
concept.
The second part of it is to make departments accountable for
their plans. Right now, if we read their plans and priorities,
there are great latitudes and platitudes. Some of them are good
and some of them are not so good, but the reality is that they
are not much good to members of parliament because they do not
tell them specifically how or where they would spend the money
and so forth.
The same fault exists with the performance report. This is all
new. This is new in terms of parliament. It is six or seven
years old, but the reality is that the performance report today,
if we read it, gives all the departments an A. They never make a
mistake. It makes no mention of some of the worst scenarios of
which all members would be aware.
The object of the exercise of an estimates committee would be to
try to link the plans and priorities with the performance report.
We would agree as a committee on the plans and priorities or
disagree with them. We would report to parliament. We may think
the spending plans could involve the spending of money in better
ways if the objectives were based on societal indicators. That
is the concept and therefore when the performance report comes in
we expect there to be failures.
When we are involved in this process there are risks and with
risks there are failures. We are big enough to realize that. We
talk about letting government departments manage. We should let
them manage. If we let them manage, they will make a mistake
somewhere along the line and that is fine. We understand that,
but it should show up in the performance report.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we would all agree that
what the member for Durham is saying is appropriate. We want
that. Everything that he said about the lack of oversight on the
estimates and the lack of oversight on performance reporting is
certainly a shortcoming of the way government is operating and
how parliament is operating on the committee system.
However what we have to ask ourselves in the context of what the
member for Durham is saying is how do we achieve what it is he
wants us to achieve. How do we make time for that special
committee on the estimates?
The reality is that the number of members of parliament, out of
the 301 in the House, who have an interest in things financial is
probably less than 10%. Maybe it is more than 10%, but just
around there. They are spread over the finance committee, the
government operations committee and the public accounts
committee. There is literally no time to use this talent to give
the estimates the kind of attention they deserve.
What I would suggest, and I would like all the members here to
consider it, is that this is all about modernizing the way
parliament works.
2000
Maybe what we ought to be considering is setting up a committee
on the estimates that sits outside the time that parliament is
sitting, that sits perhaps during the January break which is one
month long or perhaps sits after the House rises in June.
To give incentives for the expertise that we need on this
committee of the estimates we could, as they do in the United
States, actually pay the members of parliament who agree to
sacrifice the time they should be in their constituencies for
working on this committee. We could pay them in the same manner
that is done in the United States.
I do not like the idea of paying members of parliament to serve
on committees, but this is an exceptional problem that actually
needs to be addressed. It requires members of parliament with
particular interest and expertise and indeed it requires a
sacrifice on the part of members of parliament.
I wonder what the member for Durham and other members here think
about the possibility of striking a committee that sits outside
the normal sitting days of parliament and that may even involve
giving a special remuneration to those members who agree to sit
on the committee.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for
his comments. I must admit that I have not put my mind to doing
that. My experience has been that members of parliament work
very hard when they are here and look forward to their time back
in their constituencies. There are obviously some problems, but
his opinion has merit and is probably worthy of some
investigation.
With regard to the member's first comment that all the people
interested in these areas are already gainfully employed, I do
not know if that is quite true. If this thing could take on a
life of its own, I suspect that once people got the impression
they could have some impact on the way governments spend in the
future it would possibly be more popular than the other two
committees he talked about.
Another function of creating this committee and its interface
with some of the other ideas about societal indicators and
horizontal issues as opposed to vertical issues is basically to
raise awareness. What would come with that pilot project would
be some kind of education process for members of parliament.
Treasury board officials or others would explain the process and
how they could impact it. It would be a very powerful tool.
People would warm up to the idea once they understood that they
had an impact.
I have seen the reverse scenario. People came to this place in
1993 and were all keen about these things. Now that keenness has
declined and people are not interested and have drifted away to
other things. This would be a great forum to attract members who
are keen and idealistic about changing things.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, this is my second term in the House and as such people
call me a veteran. I do not know why they call me a veteran.
Just before the election I was called a rookie and overnight I
became a veteran. I am supposed to know overnight exactly what
is going on in the House.
In my four years one thing that has become consistently clear is
that there is something wrong with the system. Everybody on the
opposition side and backbenches, whether they want to say it
openly or not, were unanimous that something was wrong with the
system. We were elected to represent the people but somehow we
are not able to do that. That was becoming quite clear.
Everybody kept saying that, even the gentleman who is laughing.
2005
We remember the member standing over there talking and saying
that this was a bill with a problem. We all know there is a
problem. There is a problem. Nothing is happening.
I am amazed that government members were on the opposition
benches.
An hon. member: Be non-partisan.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This is non-partisan. They were in
the opposition so they know there is a failing in the system.
When they got on the other side they were totally closed on any
kind of reform. We would think that members on the other side
who have been on this side would use their experience on this
side to make the system work better.
We are all Canadians here. We are here representing our
ridings. Our country is diverse in its views. I do not think we
can say anyone is wrong or right. We have different points of
view. We all represent Canadians here and we need to speak on
behalf of Canadians.
My colleague has spoken about a private member's bill. He said
that for seven and a half years one of his private member's bill
has not come forward. I just went through the experience of
having a private member's bill. There was debate on it and I
asked myself what I was doing here. It was the most horrible
experience I have endured in trying to address and get a point of
view across.
I spent three and a half years going across the country from
coast to coast speaking on every radio talk show that I could. I
had townhall meetings and I had Canadians expressing their views.
I came to the House, supposedly a democratic House, and with one
swat it was wiped out.
An hon. member: Gone.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Gone. People out there are thinking
and saying something about this. There is a viewpoint out there.
If a person does not agree with a viewpoint, that is fine. If
the government does not agree, it should not allow the whole
Canadian voice to go out the window with one swat. We are a
little concerned. Now what? I stand here shaking my head and
asking now what. What do I do with the bill?
One member has been in the House seven and a half years and has
never been allowed to speak his mind. Now what should I do?
An hon. member: I spoke my mind on yours, though.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Is that right?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I spoke my mind too. The question is
what should I do now.
Mr. John Bryden: Was it voted on or not?
An hon. member: No, it was not. That is the frustration.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, because the committee did not make
it votable. There are four people sitting out there deciding
what should be on the table. There is something wrong with the
system.
We have identified this issue and the government House leader
has come here and said there is an ongoing survey. I do not
know, but maybe my colleagues can remind me. In the last
parliament did a survey come out on the same issue, on whether
private members' bills should be in committee?
I was a new member. I was not experienced on private members'
business so I did not fill out that one. I have strong views now
on how the system works. I strongly believe that if a member
works hard for two or three years to get an issue before the
House, we owe it to the member that the issue be votable. There
is no point in doing three and a half years of work otherwise.
Mr. John Bryden: We agree.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I know the member agrees. I just
heard the member say he agrees, but the question is: Will those
who have the power to make the changes agree? That is the point.
I do not know. Frankly speaking, after listening to the
minister, I do not know whether he will agree to this votable
bill. He has put out a survey. So what?
I have sat on enough committees that have been chaired and have
seen manipulation take place. Whatever the government side
wanted, the frontbench wanted, it was done.
Mr. John Bryden: You are supposed to be non-partisan.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: What do you mean by non-partisan? I
suppose we can use ordinary language since we are in committee?
Mr. John Bryden: We cannot swear.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Then stop heckling me.
2010
Let us make all private members' bills votable. Interestingly I
heard the government House leader raising objections that it will
take too long. He asked how many hours and what we should do. He
also said that it would tie up resources.
Because the government House leader raised these issues I see
reluctance on his part. He is trying to say that this cannot be
done. I am telling him everything can be done if it should be
done.
The point is that 301 members of parliament represent 301
constituencies and speak on behalf of their constituents. Even
the Prime Minister phoned a bank on behalf of his constituency
and proudly said that he was working for his constituents. The
fact of the matter is that we are working for our constituents,
but if we are muzzled, if we cannot raise anything after spending
so much time on it, what is the point? We must be objective
about it. Let us make them votable.
At this point in time we should put no restriction on it. They
should just be votable. It is common sense. The government
House leader said it and I agree with him. I do not want to put
forth a bill that will be defeated. I will look pretty stupid if
I put forth two votable bills that are defeated. Maybe I could
come along and put forth three bills. In the beginning I could
be very proud, but I can say very rapidly that I will become a
laughing stock if my bills are not acceptable all round.
I have a question that counts. Should private members' bill be
subject to a free vote? It would be best to have private
members' bills votable but they should be free votes. If they
are not free votes, they fall back on to the government agenda.
It would be far more advisable for such bills to reach committee
stage to consider their good elements. One good thing about
committee is that witnesses are called before it and provide a
broader view of what people are saying. At the end of the day,
whether or not it becomes law, I agree the government has been
chosen but at least we know that good points in a bill have been
picked and the voice of Canadians has been heard.
Let us have all private members' bills votable. They should be
free votes. It is not binding on the government. The free vote
would only say it is going to committee. Once it goes to
committee, we can take the good points and filter out those that
do not fit or make a slight amendment.
When we start doing this we will have an argument from the
government House leader saying that it will tie up resources,
that they do not have the resources and the committees will be
tied up. I do not think so. At the end of the day we can do it,
if we want it to work.
I am totally opposed to the subcommittee on private members'
business. I have been through that subcommittee and I can only
say that I will not appear before it again. I will not appear
before those four people to try to tell them what I am doing on
behalf of my constituency. I felt like a bloody fool. I know
that is not parliamentary language, but I do not feel that I
should appear before four people to represent my constituents. I
do not feel that subcommittee should be made available.
2015
If it is a frivolous bill the House leader could sit and explain
to the member that it has no chance. The bill could be weeded
out through common sense. If not, we should let it go.
If the government has two or three defeated bills the opposition
would love it and could play on it during election time. Members
must therefore work hard to make sure their bills are passed.
We all come here to work. We do not come here to play a media
game. We come here to work and we put in a lot of hours. I put
in a tremendous amount of hours behind the scenes on these
things. It is not a media circus.
I am sure that at the end of the day it will settle down and we
will find a happy medium. The problem is that we are not letting
things rise to the top because we are putting up barriers. The
government House leader says there are not enough resources and
that a bill may tie up the system.
I did a quick calculation regarding private members' bills. Let
us say we have a votable bill and are deciding whether to take
one, two or three hours to debate it. If we have a maximum of
two speakers on such a bill it would take the five parties two
hours to debate it. It is as simple as that.
Two speakers is enough. My colleague made a good point when he
said two speakers could put forward their own and their party's
position. He is right. We do not need three or four speakers.
Two speakers could present the gist of an issue. After that it
becomes repetition. I therefore recommend two hours for private
members' bills to become votable.
The House leader said a lot of private members' bills deal with
justice and could therefore tie up the justice committee. Let us
think for a second. What is wrong with setting up justice
subcommittees? There are 301 members of parliament. Why should
the main committee be stuck on this? The Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade could not handle all its
work so it created subcommittees. What is wrong with that?
Justice is an issue on the minds of Canadians, and members of
parliament are bringing questions to the justice committee. Why
not have subcommittees? Once the justice issues settle down we
will perhaps no longer need subcommittees, but let us not have
restrictions. There are solutions to this issue.
I want to address another point. House leaders, government
ministers and private members put forward bills and then we are
forced to stand and do a lot of huffing and puffing and all that
kind of stuff, and the parliamentary secretaries do not have the
foggiest idea. We should have a question and answer period for
bills that are tabled. Dialogue is more important than simply
making statements.
Speeches should be followed by a question and answer period,
with extended time for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the
Opposition and the members tabling the bills.
2020
I have sat here at times and heard statements I did not agree
with. I would have liked to offer my point of view but could not
because there is no question and answer period. I believe there
should be a question and answer period after every speech.
This is a house of debate. This is not a place to sit, make
statements and then go away. We want to debate the issues. That
is why we are here.
My third point, and this is quite a contentious one, is
committees. The way our committees are structured must be
addressed to better deal with the issues. If we are to send
private members' bills to committee we must structure committees
to be able to deal with them. We are all here to see that things
improve. We are all speaking for Canadians. We must therefore
take a serious look at committees.
I do not know which government members formerly sat on this side
as the opposition, but I am sure they know that sitting in a
committee is very frustrating. At times I have gone to my leader
and asked him to take me off committees. I find it hopeless. I
asked him to send me where I could do something useful.
I cannot do anything the way this committee is structured. No
one is interested in listening. The witnesses all favour one
point of view. Government legislation needs to be pushed through
so everything is done accordingly. Ministers come to the
committee and make a speech, and I have three minutes to ask them
questions. What can I ask in three minutes? Nothing. Then the
ministers get to say they have set up a committee to address the
issue. The committee tables its report and it ends up on the
shelf.
Canadians have this notion that parliamentarians are not
effective. As far as I am concerned, the protests in Quebec City
reflected the feelings of the Canadian public that parliament is
irrelevant. Maude Barlow has said quite clearly that she feels
parliament is irrelevant.
When I was in Geneva I heard United Nations bureaucrats saying
that they, and not parliamentarians, speak for the people because
they talk to them better. There is a growing mindset out there
that it is okay to bypass parliament. Why? It is because of the
way parliament is structured.
I am glad we are having this debate tonight. There are good
points coming from all sides. The hon. member made a very good
point about the estimates. He is not comfortable because the
estimates come in and go out and billions are spent and gone.
The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot
said something about being paid for sitting on committees and I
have a hard time agreeing. I am not here to make money. I came
here to make a contribution. I had quite a comfortable job
before I came here. We need to make this contribution. I am
sure 99% of members of parliament are here to make some kind of
contribution.
2025
I will now look at committee structure and recommendations on
how to make committees more effective. First, we must get
parliamentary secretaries off the committees. I call them the
whips. They sit there and control what happens. We should also
rotate committee chairmen so that government members do not
always occupy the chair.
The government controls committees but does not give them power.
One may wonder if at the end of the day the recommendations of
committees are binding on the government. They are not, and yet
the government wants to control the committees.
I totally enjoyed making this point because of how I feel about
it. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I
listened with great interest to what our colleague had to say.
Some of the things he said I have great sympathy for. Some I
have less sympathy for, but I was concerned about his tone. Most
members this evening have avoided blaming whatever faults there
are in the system, and no system is perfect, on the government.
I realize that in a majority parliament the majority has a good
deal of sway. However I honestly believe that in the end the
operation of this place depends on the co-operation of all
parties and members. When we have unanimous consent on an issue
almost anything can be done, as we all know.
I would like the hon. member's comments on a few things. We
need all parties to make committees work. I believe televising
committees gives them more power and influence. Public input
carries more weight when it is televised across the country.
The last time I was involved with discussions about the
televising of committees there were all sorts of hang ups,
including those of leaders of the opposition parties, about
whether it would make committees freer than they are at present.
I wonder if the member would commit to televising committees
more than they are now. Would he compromise a bit on the views
of his House leader and other House leaders so that we can get
our committees out to the Canadian people through television?
The second point relates to committee travel. Our committees
have more influence when they travel, and it has nothing to do
with the standing orders. Visiting the regions of this great
country is not only the right thing. It allows committees to
carry more moral authority.
I was parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for
two years. When I was last involved with travel arrangements in
the House the most common reason for not travelling was lack of
unanimous consent by the opposition parties.
I ask the member if he would work with his party and other
opposition parties to make it easier for our committees to
travel. It would give them more strength. I understand the
difficulties the smaller parties have with committee travel, but
it is a practical thing and has nothing to do with the standing
orders.
I would also like to see more formal use made of the small
quorum committees already have for hearing witnesses and
receiving testimony. We do not need a full quorum to receive
testimony.
I know it is difficult for the small parties to staff
committees. However if they had the confidence of their House
leaders they could give committees the authority to operate for
several meetings, knowing there would be only five or six members
and that the number would vary with the size of the committee.
They could then hear testimony and report back. That would feed
back into the travel arrangements as well.
2030
The hon. member mentioned the formation of subcommittees. That
is very special in this parliament. The subcommittees are
effectively small equivalents of our large committees, but I
think committees operating comfortably with a small quorum would
work. It would be practical and would not need a change to the
standing orders. It would simply need the willingness of the
committee.
The next thing would be to strengthen the liaison committee. The
liaison committee is the committee of chairs of committees, which
I believe should have much more influence over the operation of
committees. To give you an example, I have been to the liaison
committee as chair of a committee with a unanimous direction of
my committee, including the unanimous direction of each of the
parties opposite, only to have what I proposed annulled by the
opposition members on the liaison committee.
Or, going back to the power of the liaison committee, it is the
liaison committee's requests for committees to travel that are
annulled by opposition parties when they come to the House.
Would the member work with me to strengthen the liaison
committee and through it strengthen the role of members of
parliament?
Lastly, this is much more to do with the government, that is, to
have the chairs of committees being given status equivalent to
that of parliamentary secretaries. I believe it would be a
simple step that would encourage members to seek the chairs of
committees and to stay longer in their positions as committee
chairs to get some continuity between years. It would give them
more confidence and as a result would strengthen the committees.
Would the member be willing, rather than simply blaming the
government side, to work with his party and the other opposition
parties to strengthen committees in ways such as those?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the
NDP is telling me to say yes.
An hon. member: It's the only way I can get in on it.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, actually he is
absolutely right. For the first time I am hearing some positive
suggestions on the committees. On all the suggestions that have
been made I do not have any difficulty, except maybe a caveat
here or there, but on the general scheme of things, no. A caveat
for argument's sake on TV, yes. I think it is a good idea. It
is accountable. We will probably have to be accountable for
committee travel.
I think travelling is a good idea because we want to hear from
Canadians and not all Canadians can come here. However, I do
have a problem with travel. A judgment has to be made on travel.
We cannot just have blind requests coming from every committee.
When I was vice chair of a committee I definitely looked at the
purpose of the travel, how it worked and what the advantages
were. I will tell members that I did extensive travelling on the
foreign affairs and international trade committee on the WTO
hearings. I thought we were totally wasting our time and our
money at some of the places we went to because the input was
hopeless.
I agree, but what I am saying is that there is a need to sit
down and review it and see if this travelling we are doing gives
Canadians a voice. I do not have an objection to it, but every
travel request should be looked at to see if it functions within
the broader objective of getting what we want to get at. At
times we are denied travel because the government is muscling its
majority and not giving it to us.
On continuity, yes, there is nothing wrong with it. We do need
to have continuity in a committee. Also, the idea of smaller
committees is good. We need to have smaller committees to be
effective. What the member is saying to me is that he recognizes
that committees need improvement and that all members of
parliament, not only the opposition members but every member of
parliament, should be feeling that they are contributing to that
committee and doing an important job.
I am sorry, but right now if we were in the government and we
had a parliamentary secretary over there, the hon. member would
probably be standing up saying the same thing to me and saying to
take the parliamentary secretary off, because then the government
would not control it. So the hon. member is right.
2035
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak. If I may ask the indulgence of the House, I would like to
thank the Tory caucus staff and the New Democratic caucus staff
for holding a wonderful birthday party on the sixth floor and I
will say happy birthday to the hon. member whose birthday was
celebrated.
On a more serious note, talking about committees, I would like
to ask the hon. member from Calgary a question in regard to the
effectiveness of a committee. One thing I feel very proud of is
my work on the fisheries and oceans committee from 1997 to 2000.
Out of that committee we produced 13 reports, 8 of them
unanimous. The one I am most proud of is the east coast report.
As we all know there was a crisis in the cod fishery and the
ground fishery on the east coast. That report cost Canadian
taxpayers $182,000. We travelled extensively throughout Atlantic
Canada.
All five parties unanimously agreed to every single word of the
report. When we moved consensus of that report in the House of
Commons through a vote, guess what happened? The same Liberals
who signed the report and agreed to every single word voted
against it.
My question, then, is this: what are we telling the people we
spoke to? We spent an awful lot of their money listening to
them. We spent an awful lot of their money travelling in
helicopters and on hotels and for meals, et cetera. Those people
spent a considerable amount of their energies and efforts coming
to the committee to listen, to talk to us and to pour out their
stories. One man near Pouch Cove poured out his heart about the
fact that he only had 18 cents left in his bank account because
he was running out of TAGS money.
The Liberals were there. They heard the stories. The
parliamentary secretary heard them. We made a report. It was
unanimous. We sent it on to the House for consent and the same
Liberals that worked on that report then voted against their own
report.
I am very proud of committee work. It is essential to what we
do as parliamentarians.
My question, then, is very clear. When this happens in Canada,
does that not send a very negative message to Canadians? We are
saying we will listen to them, do a unanimous report, bring it to
the House and then the government side will ignore it.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, frankly I have no
comment except to say that this is exactly what I am saying. We
feel that after working so hard in the committees at the end of
the day it does not go anywhere. The member has given a dandy
example of it. Then we ask what we were doing on the committee.
This applies to the members on the government side as well.
We are not in a boxing match. We are trying to see how we can
really work this out with suggestions from this side and that
side.
The point he indicated about committees was to say how
committees can be ineffective. Maybe the government did not want
it. If it did not want it, its members could have been told.
We need effective committees. The member is right. He has used
an excellent example.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, it
is a new experience for me
to rise closer to the Chair and to talk from the first row. I felt
it was important for me to participate in this debate.
For the benefit of those people watching us tonight on
television, I would like to explain that this debate is focused on
a review of the standing orders of the House of Commons. It is
therefore a debate that concerns all parliamentarians.
I do not agree with my colleague who just spoke and who
suggested that decisions are not made in parliament.
I myself have not yet lost my illusions as a member, and I still
believe that it is possible for all members to work together to
make parliament a place where real decisions are made.
2040
For parliament to become a place where real decisions are
made, we obviously have to change a few things, because the way
it is working now, members do not trust parliament.
If we were to ask every parliamentarian how the caucuses
work during the Wednesday meetings and how unsatisfied the
members are with the way the parliamentary system is presently
working, I think that the dissatisfaction index would be
very high in all parties, on the government side as well as on
the opposition side.
It is quite disturbing when one thinks of it, because the
duties of a member should normally inspire confidence.
Members are rather well paid to carry out their duties. They hold
socially prominent positions, but when asked to assess their
work, members of parliament express a considerable degree of
dissatisfaction.
This feeling of dissatisfaction comes from the belief that
we cannot change things around and there is no room for a member
of parliament to become a true spokesperson for his or her
constituents.
I have jotted down some things, since our House leader, the
member for Roberval, your friend, Mr. Chairman, said that the
clerks will be taking notes tonight on what members say and that
a report will be submitted. So, this should be a real opportunity
to change things.
I have thought about the five things I would like to change.
We all know that we cannot bring 50 changes about, that is not
how members work and the system works; we could not deal with
dozens of changes at the same time.
However, if, as the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who loves parliament, who has yet to
lose his illusions, and who is quite happy as a member of
parliament, I were asked if there is anything else I would like
to do beside being the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I would
say no.
Maybe I would not mind, from time to time, sitting in your
chair, Mr. Chairman, but for the main part, I am very happy as
the member representing the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I
find my work very rewarding and I love the people of Hochelaga—
Maisonneuve. I also love the relations I have with all of my
colleagues.
I would like to suggest five changes, however.
First, we must have confidence in the fact that we are producers
of laws. We chose to live in a society where it is believed that
all people are equal. We chose to live in a society where the
rule of law is paramount and where social relationships are
enshrined in laws. We are parliamentarians whose first concern is
to produce laws. This is why bills are so important.
I wish all members could, once a year, produce a bill that
would be voted on. I make a distinction between bills and
motions.
I think that, over the span of a year—there are 365 days in a
year—which is divided into two parliamentary sessions, the 301
members of the House should have the opportunity to introduce a
bill which, of course, would reflect a concern of their
community. That bill would go through a three stage process and
then be voted upon. The fact that the member would win or lose
that vote is not what is important here. The purpose of a private
member's bill is to tell the government “There is, in my
community, such and such a concern that needs to be brought to
your attention”.
And this is also true for members of the government
majority. Let us not think that government members are satisfied
with the way things work.
We will certainly hear from members who are called backbenchers.
I do like this expression, because a backbencher simply does not
exist. We are all members of parliament who have the same
responsibilities and who enjoy the same trust from our fellow
citizens.
There is some dissatisfaction because we do not feel that we
can really change things. One way to give more freedom to members
of parliament so that they can truly be spokespersons for their
communities would be to allow them to introduce bills that would
be votable items.
2045
I make a distinction as regards motions. In my opinion,
motions should not automatically be votable items. If a member so
indicates, then the motion should be voted on, of course. The
member would then use up his turn.
It is important that, in a given year, each member have the
possibility of triggering a debate on a motion or a bill
reflecting a concern of his or her community. During the course
of our parliamentary mandate—assuming that it would last three
or four years—we would have three or four opportunities to
introduce bills.
The Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business circulated a
questionnaire, which members of parliament had to fill out by
April 27 and in which they were asked if they thought that this
should be done by party. I do not want some time allotted to the
Bloc Quebecois to discuss bills, because party politics are such
that it would always be the most important bills, electorally
speaking, that would be debated.
Let me give an example. In 1995, I introduced a bill to
recognize same sex spouses. This was a controversial and
relatively new issue on which there was no consensus.
I am not upset with the government, but do you know what
subterfuge it used? The member for Saint-Léonard, who was the
leader of the government at that time, called a vote at 11
o'clock on Monday morning. Because this was a controversial
bill, there was not one minister in the House to vote on it,
except the member for Hamilton East, who was responsible for
Canadian Heritage and who showed great political courage. She
was the only member of Cabinet to vote in favour of the bill.
I am not saying this to blame the government, but if we do
not have strict rules that are equitable and applicable to all
MPs, certain controversial matters will never get discussed. In
a democracy, just because a question gets only minority support
at one point in time does not mean that it cannot gain majority
support at some other time.
I repeat, if we want our fellow citizens and our fellow MPs
to have confidence in the parliamentary process, we have to allow
bills to be debated and voted on.
The second amendment I would like to propose relates to
parliamentary committees. When I was first elected as an MP, I
was not even 30 unlike you, Mr. Chairman. Let us recall the
situation. Mr. Bouchard was the leader of the Bloc Quebecois at
that time. At the first Bloc caucus, he told the members “the
place within the parliamentary system where an MP can really make
his presence felt, where he can show what he knows and what he is
capable of, is the parliamentary committee”.
A parliamentary committee is not supposed to be partisan. It
is the only place we are supposed to work without any partisanship
for the good of our fellow citizens.
The problem is that parliamentary committees become a tool of
the government. For parliamentary committees to become a truly
non-partisan working place, three conditions must be met.
The members appointed to these committees must not be removable.
The whip must not be able to change them depending on whether
or not he is happy with the work they have done. Members must
remain on committees for the duration of the parliament and they
must report only to the parliamentary committee to which they
are assigned.
Second, committee chairs must be elected by secret ballot by all
members of the committee. It is not necessary for a committee
to be chaired by a member of the government majority. This may
be the case, but the chair can be a member of the opposition.
Let us take the example of a member with extensive experience
who is very knowledgeable about a subject and who has the trust
of his colleagues. Chairing a parliamentary committee is a
self-sacrifice because one gives up one's speaking time and takes
on responsibility for management and administration. The work
of a parliamentary committee involves a great deal of
administration.
2050
But if one has the trust of others as chair, if one is elected
by secret ballot, and if committee members are not removable
during the parliament, I believe that we have a guarantee of
impartiality which will serve everyone.
Earlier, my colleague said that there is a problem with
committees' travels. I agree with him because, too often,
opposition members have taken a parliamentary committee hostage
over travel matters.
I do not think that permission for a committee to travel should
be based on unanimity. The rule of the majority should apply,
because it is important that committees be able to travel.
There are costs associated with democracy and there are costs
when a committee travels.
We cannot, on the one hand, hope that Canadians may have a forum
to express their views and that we may become true spokespersons
for our constituents and, on the other hand, still think that
everything must be done in Ottawa.
On Thursday afternoon, the government will be submitting its
bill on new reproduction technologies to the Standing Committee
on Health, on which I sit. I will be begging for the committee
to be authorized to travel across Canada in order to find out
what Canadians, but not only Canadians, think of this issue.
So, this is another way for the committees to become more
effective.
My third suggestion is very important. As a member, I presume
that I have the trust of my constituents and that the trust they
put in me sometimes leads me to act as a arbitrator.
I know that the government member for Beauce works very hard for
the Liberal caucus. I hope that members will be provided with
financial support for community organizations to the tune of
around $1 per constituent.
As the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, if I had $90,000 or
$100,000—which is not a whole lot—I could as a community leader
elected by the people give $3,000, $4,000 of $5,000 to a
community organization and tell its members “On behalf of my
fellow citizens, I am offering a small amount of money to help
you carry on. It is our way, as members of parliament, to keep
an eye on what is going on in our communities”.
Of course, we would have to be held accountable.
I would not have a problem if, once a year, I were asked to
state in the local papers using my own advertising budget how I
spent the $90,000 or $100,000 I am allocated, and my fellow
citizens could know democratically how this money was spent.
I will now raise another point, which is the speaking time MPs
should be allowed. I am not in a good position to say that,
because, obviously, everyone knows that I like to talk a lot and
that I generally use all the time allotted me. However, I think
it can be said that in 20 minutes it is possible to cover the
issue of a bill fairly well. I do not think speeches would have
be limited to two speakers per party, since there may be a
subject more than two people from a single party would like to
speak on.
I say a 20 minute speech in general terms. But when we are at
third reading, since we have become familiar with the principle
of the bill, the bill has been examined in committee, and,
generally speaking, we know the amendments the opposition
parties want, I think we should be allowed 30 minutes, plus ten
minutes for questions and comments, to have an in depth debate.
Generally, when we are at third reading it means the bill is
likely to be passed and is likely to apply to society as a
whole.
So, in summary, I would like all bills to be votable items and
all members to be able to introduce a votable bill once a year,
which would mean three or four bills per mandate.
I make a distinction between bills and motions because motions
involve less work than the drafting of a bill.
I draw the members' attention to the fact that, these last
few years, we did not always have the resources we needed as
parliamentarians. We ought to remember the time when we had only
three legislative counsels here, in the House of Commons, to
draft all the amendments proposed in committee and all the bills.
It was absurd.
2055
There were reputable legislative counsels who paid dearly
for their desire to serve their members well because,
unfortunately, certain members of this House made representations
that cost these people their jobs.
It is important to see to it that these legislative counsels
are independent, that their only concern is their relationship
with the members they serve and that, as parliamentarians, we
have all the resources we need to ensure that the drafting of a
bill does not take three, four or five months.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address one small criticism to you,
a friendly criticism.
You are my respected friend and everyone knows of your
willingness to serve this House. However when, taking a
practice at Westminster as your inspiration, you expressed the
desire to limit Parliamentarians' right to express themselves on
the matter of the amendments, to not allow certain amendments to
be introduced before the House but through the committees,
and when you restricted members' access to introducing
amendments, it is my feeling that, although far from your
intention, you have done considerable harm to parliamentarians.
A bill is something dynamic, and it should be the members'
prerogative to decide whether they want to bring amendments
before a committee or before the House. Taking your cue
directly from Westminster—and we are aware of just how much you
admire the mother of parliaments—could unfortunately lead to our
being gagged as parliamentarians.
I am bringing all our good feelings for each other into play to
call upon you to review this decision, to be the true small-l
liberal one needs to be in a democracy, to allow all
parliamentarians to use all possible forums to bring amendments
before this House, without their having to be screened by a
committee or subjected to any restriction other than the need to
be compatible with the bill in question.
That is all I have to say. I hope our debate will be a
profitable one. I am very confident that the government and all
of the opposition parties want to work together to ensure that
MPs' duties are rehabilitated. If the duties of the MPs are
rehabilitated, then all politicians will benefit.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I thank
the member for his comments. They were well thought out.
I congratulate him for speaking without reading. It is one of
the unwritten traditions of parliament that speeches should not
be read. Written material can be referred to for quotations or
detailed technical information. The enthusiasm and sincerity
comes across much more clearly to people when notes are not read,
so I congratulate the member for that. All members could learn
from that. Possibly our committee should consider maybe applying
that because I would rather see members faces than the top of
their heads when they are reading a speech.
I want to just question the hon. member briefly on the private
members' business. I had much success in the 35th parliament. I
had three or four items selected, three of them were votable. In
the 36th parliament I had none selected. So it has been either
feast or famine.
It seems to me that there are more members than we could
possibly deal with all votes and that is not possible. If we do
not get our item past second reading and the session ends, our
matter dies and we have to go back into the lottery et cetera. We
can only have an item carried forward from a session if it has
passed second reading. Then it could be reinstated at the same
spot.
My point is that there are far too many members and far too many
ideas out there for which to do justice.
2100
Perhaps the solution would be to establish more rigorous
criteria so we could come up with legislation that would be more
innovative and timely and which would capture the imagination and
support of a significant number of members in the House not just
at committee. I believe the entire House must opine on the
calibre of legislation in order to allow it to go the full
process.
I suggest and support a process where the private members'
business committee would not deem votability but rather assess
criteria compliance. The House would then deal with whether the
bar on a particular bill or motion should be set higher.
Motion No. 155 dealing with health warning labels is an example
of a motion where a bill would not have been any more concrete.
We need more relevant bills regardless of the fact that we have
strong criteria. It would be nice to know that if a bill or a
motion meets the criteria and passes the hurdle it will get a
hearing. It would raise us all to a higher level in terms of
quality of bills and motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the
questionnaire that the clerk of the subcommittee on private
members' business distributed to all members of parliament.
A major distinction was made between a subjective and an
objective criterion. We should rely on an objective criterion.
This means that, once a year, all members should have the right
to see one of their bills or motions voted on. If we start
setting criteria, we might ask ourselves what is an innovative
measure, an original measure, an unprecedented measure.
Each member of parliament and each political party may have a
very subjective view of what is an unprecedented, original and
innovative measure.
We must start from the premise that all members of parliament
are committed to the common good. Not all of them will want to
introduce a bill, but we must start from the principle that they
all want the common good and that they speak on behalf of their
communities.
A bill may be extremely important to my community, but less so
for another one. Unfortunately, this cannot be used as a
criterion to accept or reject that bill. All members of
parliament must be able to play their role as legislators and be
able to have a vote on an issue that concerns their community.
The hon. member began his remarks by saying that, in the
previous parliament, three of his bills became votable items,
but our colleague here did not have any bill become a votable
item in recent years. This is why parliamentarians do not all
show the same interest.
Here, just about all of us represent 80,000 people. We all have
the same salary. We all have the same legitimacy. If all
members had the opportunity once a year, that is, three or four
times in their mandate, to have a bill or a motion voted on, I
think we would be very happy with the system.
I will close by telling you that we should do the analysis.
I have no doubt that, if we asked the Chair and the clerks how
many really outlandish bills there have been, that would
embarrass us as parliamentarians over the past 10 years, I for
one have not seen many that were really off the wall. It is
true that I have seen some that did not reflect my political
philosophy.
That explains why in a democracy we belong to different
political parties.
However, I think the members are sufficiently mature to prepare
well drafted responsible bills that reflect their community.
Very few bills have been totally crazy and a discredit to
parliament.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a clarification
for the committee of the whole. Mr. Bill Rodgers, media
relations for the leader of the Conservative Party, is
celebrating his birthday this evening. I just wanted to extend
congratulations to him.
My question for the hon. member from the Bloc is this. The
other day I had a bill drawn actually from the committee and it
was deemed non-votable.
Thirty bills and motions were combined and the committee only
picked seven. Mine, unfortunately, was not of them. It
concerned hepatitis awareness month and it was a non-monetary. I
thought it was a great idea.
2105
The bill was not my idea. It was the idea of a lot of people
who are suffering from different forms of hepatitis. They asked
me if I would, as a member of parliament, be able to do
something. They said that we have breast cancer awareness month,
this month and that month but that we do not have anything for
hepatitis. Over 700,000 Canadians have been inflicted with this
disease.
I moved the bill but it was deemed non-votable. We had the hour
debate. All opposition supported it wholeheartedly. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health supported it,
but he said that since the department said no that he had to say
no to make it votable. The parliamentary secretary, the only one
in the House that day, stood up and voted no, making a tremendous
amount of people very angry.
The good news about this bill is quite clear. The minister
himself decided, through whatever parameters he is allowed to
operate, and the parliamentary secretary said it yesterday as a
statement in the House and today in a conference in Montreal, he
stated to all these people that the month of May henceforth will
be known as hepatitis awareness month.
I personally congratulate the minister for taking the initiative
to do that. Over 700,000 Canadians also thank the minister for
acknowledging their concern.
What I wonder is why we had to go through that whole process
when it was a straightforward bill. I had 100 signatures from
both sides to get it approved yet it was deemed non-votable. I
tried to make it votable but the government said no. The
minister then turns around and says yes. I thanked the minister
for that publicly but why did we have to go through that type of
process to make what I thought was a straightforward bill move
along?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say jokingly that
it was to try the member's patience, to see whether he really
had any. He certainly did, of course.
But, on a more serious note, I think that what the member is
saying is that this was a bill that had no impact on the public
purse and was wanted by all parties.
I remember taking part in this debate one Friday, and our
colleague was very eloquent. The only thought that comes to
mind is that, when we are considering a bill, we should judge it
on its merit alone and not on who is sponsoring it.
If the government introduces a good bill, I believe that all
political parties will vote in favour of it. Regardless of
whether or not the government is introducing it and whether or
not we are members of the government, if the opposition
introduces a good bill, the House should vote in favour of it.
Once again, we must come up with a system which allows this
freedom of thought and this respect for the work of
parliamentarians.
I understand the disappointment of the member, who worked hard
to draft a bill. Furthermore, he had invited Mr. Haché, who was
here with us in the House.
If there is one thing that needs to be changed, it is how
private members' bills are treated. I am confident—because a
majority of parliamentarians understand the importance of
this—that we will arrive at a solution which will satisfy all
members.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I want to correct my colleague from
Mississauga South on three points he made in his brief
intervention a moment ago.
First, his mathematics are not quite up to snuff here. He said
that we would not be able to have all members have a bill made
votable in the life of a parliament.
If a parliament is approximately 600 days in total, although it
may be only 500 days, but if we do sit 150 days for four years
that is 600 days. If there were 300 members and we had two hours
a day devoted to private members' business, which is something I
would like to see, every member would get his or her bill made
votable if we had two hours of debate. That was one of the
options put forward in a questionnaire.
2110
If we were to limit the debate to two hours per bill or motion,
which I think is reasonable, each member could have one bill or
one motion made votable during the life of one parliament. It is
possible. To simply dismiss that as impossible is not right.
The second thing I would like to correct is that labelling a
motion as having the same weight as a bill is not quite accurate.
Using the example of the labelling of alcohol containers that we
voted on is a prime example of how a motion is not the same as a
bill. I could support that motion but I could never have
supported a bill. The motion was very fuzzy. It just wanted to
examine the issue, and yes, of course I could examine the issue.
A bill would have been more definite.
The third thing he mentioned is that he would like to have all
MPs speak from the heart and not use notes. The way parliament
is structured, if I have a 10 minute speech and a lot of points
to make I do not have time to make it up. I need to get all my
points in very quickly and I need them to be tightly structured.
Because of the way the system is set up we often are forced to go
to notes. I am not using notes tonight. It is easy to say that
we should not use notes but it is more difficult to practice
under the constraints of parliament if one has a lot to say.
Let me get into the remarks I wanted to make. For those who are
watching on television, this is a take note debate which is very
different from the normal debates that take place in parliament.
I appreciate the government allowing us an opportunity to talk
about the standing orders that govern the House. For the people
who are watching and do not know what the standing orders are,
they are the rules that we play by in parliament. They are the
rules that govern us. In essence, they govern how democracy
unfolds at this level in parliament.
I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief remarks on a
couple of select issues. I could go off on all kinds of things
and it does not mean I do not have an opinion on them, but we
have to make some changes here. Unless we change the system we
will not change much else in the country.
I spoke at a high school this afternoon, about a 20 minute drive
out of Ottawa. One of the things the students gave back to me as
I spoke about what goes on in this place is that they do not see
much meaningful activity happening here. I do not think those
students are at all out of touch with what is going on. In fact,
I get that across the country.
That is a very sad commentary on what happens here. If we are
in fact the highest court in the land and we are making the laws
by which all Canadians have to play, the laws that govern the
country and set the tone for what we feel is right and wrong, we
need to be perceived as having open debate and that Canadians
have input into what we do here. They need to feel that this is
a meaningful activity and that through their member of parliament
they have a voice in what is happening in parliament.
The cynicism that is developing across the country about the
political process is becoming so ingrained that if we do not
start making some changes here, it will be very difficult to turn
that around.
What is one change we could make? We could make private
members' business votable and make any consequential changes that
may be required in order to do that. I feel very strongly that
if we were to make that simple change and allow members to have a
free vote on that, it would begin to change the way parliament is
perceived across the country. It would give us a lot more
credibility as we participate in things. That seemingly small
change could send a ripple effect through the entire Chamber that
would begin to go out across the country.
The students I spoke to this afternoon asked me what they could
do. They said they felt helpless in influencing things that
happen in the country. They felt their voices were not being
heard. They felt they could not meaningfully participate in the
debate.
2115
If we made private members' business votable, I do not believe
that debate would take place for only two hours. As an issue is
raised and over the three or six months the issue is before
parliament people across the country would begin to debate it.
That is the problem as I perceive it.
The problem is not just in parliament. The problem is that
people do not debate things across the country. They do not take
an interest in what happens in Canada. People do not feel they
have to scratch beneath the surface on issues because somebody
else will do it for them.
We have to give people a voice. We need committees that travel
and do meaningful work. MPs have to tell people that a certain
issue would be coming up in parliament and ask them what they
think about it. That would begin to send out the message that
MPs are playing a very meaningful role in representing their
constituents. This could happen through private members'
business. It could reinvigorate this place like nothing else I
know. It would begin to make MPs feel a lot more meaningful in
what they do.
A lot of MPs feel alienated in that they do not have a lot of
roles to play in what is going on in this place. By making
private members' business votable, many things would happen as a
result.
Private members' business would probably be debated more than
some of the government legislation in the House. We would begin
to have conversations in parliament, behind the scenes and across
the country on issues that really matter to Canadians. The lack
of respect for parliament that has begun to creep in would be
reversed. That would be a very healthy thing. The more we could
make people feel that they are part of the process and that they
have control over issues that govern them, the more they would
take an interest in the affairs of the country.
At election time we can create an impression and get votes.
However we have to be sure that when people vote they vote on
meaningful issues that really affect their lives. I speak from
somebody who has gone through three elections now when I say that
is something that needs to happen in Canada.
I do not wish to belabour these points. I could elaborate on
every one of them. We have to make sure that people across
Canada have the feeling that they have meaningful input into the
process that is used in this place to govern them. One of those
things would be to reinvigorate private members' business.
As deputy whip I happen to sit on the committee, so I have been
able to give this a little more thought than most members. I
feel very strongly that this is something we need to do. I would
suggest increasing the time for private members' business as
well. If it is possible to have it for two hours a day or an
equivalent amount on a Friday or a Monday, we should try and fit
that in. It would be a very healthy thing to do.
I mentioned that this might divert attention away from
government business. I do not know if that is a positive or a
negative. The government might view it as a positive, not having
all the focus on its legislation, but it could also be very
negative because what it introduces is very important
legislation. We need to have that considered and looked at.
All the problems we have will not be solved by that. I am not
naive enough to believe that, but it would be a step in the right
direction. I urge the government to work on that and maybe some
of my colleagues would like to ask me some questions about it.
The media tend to focus on leadership and on issues that really
are not all that significant in the grand scheme of things when
they report things on the evening news. This is another problem
we also have. By making private members' business votable and by
beginning to focus more on issues, we would get away from some of
the extraneous stuff that often occupies a lot of media
attention. That is true of every political party. That is not a
partisan issue. It would be healthy to get issues discussed
rather than personalities and scandals.
I can see a lot of good spinoff benefits from this. I want to
put that on the record. If anybody has any comments, I would
appreciate hearing from them.
2120
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian ALliance): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to respond to a
couple of things. With respect to the number of hours required,
I would point out to my colleague and to the other members that
not all 301 members would have a private member's bill that they
would want to put forward.
If we look at the order paper right now, and even the notices of
bills, we find 25% of members at most have submitted private
members' bills. The issue of how many people would have their
name in the hat at any time is greatly exaggerated if we are
thinking of 301 members. At most it would be 100 members, so
that would alleviate the time.
I will repeat a comment that I made earlier today as the
personalities in the House have totally changed. We should have
a deal whereby nobody gets seconds until everyone has had firsts.
That is the way we used to do it at camp. Everyone got through
the line for food and no one went through for the second time
until everyone had firsts. Can you see, Mr. Chairman, if I went
through the second time? I always made sure that I got enough
the first time.
That would be a good way of doing this. All members who have a
private member's bill they would like to submit would present it
as we do now. Their name would go into the hat. When there is a
draw we would draw them but not put their name back until there
are no names left. That way if other members have a bill then
their name would go in the hat. Those that have their bills
ready would be eligible for each draw until they are drawn. Once
they are drawn then other members would take precedence over
them.
I have said this before. The hon. member for Mississauga South
has had five private members' bills drawn and I have had none, so
it would increase the fairness.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, when
I last spoke I tried to differentiate between the debate changes
that need to take place that would be rightly fitted under some
topic of parliamentary reform.
Some of the issues and the challenges that the Chamber faces are
of much greater magnitude than we would deal with in the debate.
We have to deal with finding ways of changing this place to make
it fit better with the ever changing community that we live in.
Some of the problems that we face are as a result of the Chamber
being unable to find ways to move the pace of the external
community. I will not spend a lot of time on that tonight. We
are here to talk consequentially, to offer some advice to the
committee about specific changes to the operations of the House
that may produce the kind of effect that would allow members of
the community to see this place as more relevant.
I do not mean to dismiss some of the talk about private members'
bills and other instruments. They are not unimportant and their
process is not unimportant. I do however wish to make one point.
We are dealing with an odd kind of loss of authority. It is an
odd kind of loss of authority because the House has enormous
authority. Committees have enormous authority.
2125
There is an incredible power in this place. We make and change
laws. We tax, spend and do all sorts of things. We, the members
of this place, can do it. Yet for a couple of reasons that are
hard to reconcile, it is difficult for us to function in a manner
that expresses that authority in a useful or consequential way.
What I mean by that is that we have two things going on here.
When the hon. member opposite talks about private members' bills
and the importance of individual members being able to put
forward a bill, one could argue that all bills emanating from the
House should be the bills of all members.
One of the things that we have allowed to happen, and it is
interesting to read some of the observations of people who have
studied the British parliamentary system and studied this
parliament, is very hot partisan debate that has very little to
do with governing to intrude upon the process where law is made.
When one talks to members of the House, particularly members who
have been here for a long time or former members, and asks them
what experiences they talk most about or feel proud of, they say
committee work. They say that the real work is done in
committees. That is where they have the debates.
At least two hon. members opposite are members who I have worked
with on committee. We have had very real debates that have
produced very real compromises which produced a permanence to
legislation. We can all feel good about that if that is what we
were doing here.
On the other hand we have the kind of debate that takes place in
this Chamber. The problem with it is that it is easy to make fun
of. I could say that we have spent the last however many months
arguing about Shawinigate and I could deride the opposition about
that. The fact is that we would have done the same thing if we
were on the other side of the House. I was in opposition for a
period of time. The fact is that in the public arena, through
the eyes of the television camera, we get rewarded for outrageous
behaviour and strategic outrageous attacks.
Attacking the credibility and the personality of the Prime
Minister is, I would argue, not a very pleasant thing to do, not
a very nice thing to do. Unfortunately I cannot argue that it is
not a strategically smart thing to do. However it has nothing to
do with running the country. It has to do with fighting the
battles of politics, which are about getting oneself in the
position where one has the power to govern.
The circle I cannot square is that we cannot control that debate
because there is a reward for that debate. There is a reward for
members opposite to make members on this side look like they are
corrupt or stupid. There is a reward for members on this side to
make members on the other side look like they are incompetent or
whatever pejorative kind of phrases one wants to use. If there
was not a public reward for it we would not be doing it, however
distasteful it might be.
I do not blame anybody in the House because we all do the same.
That is the way the community has trained us to behave in the
same way that we have concerns about public servants because that
is the way we have trained them to be. How do we step aside from
that debate into that environment that we all want to be a part
of, which is an environment that produces law?
If there were a consequential change right now in the context of
this modernization of the rules, and modernization is a tough
word to apply because we are not making it very modern, we could
talk about a whole bunch of other things such as the House
getting the tools to function in the world. Unfortunately that
is a topic for another time given the focus of this debate.
If I had to recommend to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the other
members of this committee one change that would have a
significant impact on the operation of this place, it would be to
create a process whereby members would be elected to a committee
for the duration of a parliament.
The exact mechanism for that might be a combination of seniority
in election, much as we do with parliamentary associations. When
a member comes here he or she would know where they would be.
They would make that choice and they would have to fight for it.
Older members who had more experience would have a chance to get
there. Members would have to convince their colleagues that they
are the person to be elected to that committee in the same way
you and Mr. Speaker had to convince your colleagues about the
election of the Speaker.
However once there we have a couple of things. We have
stability. The election of the chairman becomes a consequence of
that because members now own that committee. If we think about
that for a second, there is a whole bunch of powers of authority
that those committees have that we never exercise. Why we do not
exercise them is really the question? We do not exercise them
right now because there is a fear that sits out there that
somehow we will not be on the committee any more or that each
year we will have to face reconsideration for the committee.
2130
However there is always talk about estimates. The estimates
process in this place is a joke. It is a farce. We do not deal
with estimates. We do not provide an accountability function to
anything around here, in part because it is not consequential.
We cannot do anything, so harrumphing about what has gone on in a
department for a period of time is not worthwhile. The amount of
work it takes to get a piece of information in order to have the
harrumph is not worth the effort.
We made a bunch of changes when we came to government. If
members focused on the system that is there, those committees
would have enormous authority. The problem is we have allowed
that partisan debate to intrude upon the committee debate, so in
committee it is hard to have the kind of partnering that we would
like to talk about. We have done it on occasion. I look across
to one of the members who worked with me on a particular
committee where we did a lot of that.
There is an aspect to committee travel that is very interesting.
Not only do we get a chance to understand the country a little
better, we get a chance to understand each other a little better.
We get a sense of the shared values that we all have. Part of
the real value of this place in a Canadian context is the way it
acts as a massive kind of values clarification exercise. We all
understand our country and what makes the country work a little
better
The process is really simple. The departments come forward and
say what they are planning to do. Has any committee ever held
hearings on that and then written a report that has differed with
the department's opinion of what they wanted to do? The
committees have the authority to do it. If the department did
not respond to that comment by putting in their estimates, the
committee could delete the funding.
Everybody gets a little twitchy about that but not only would
that cause a complete reconsideration on the part of the
department or its relationship with the House, it would also
cause members to take their actions seriously. Right now we can
be as irresponsible as we want on committee because we do not
affect anything. However if we actually committed an act that
changed a policy, we would have to live with that and I think
that would force us to be more serious.
We should think of the value we place on minority governments.
Why is that? It is because we have to negotiate. We have to
negotiate, we have to clarify our values, we have to debate and
then we have to decide. Those functions could occur within
committee.
Making members stable on committee, would that produce the kind
of change we want? I am honestly not sure because I think the
real problem in here is us and our unwillingness to exercise the
authority that we have. However stabilizing members on
committee, and committees already have the right to elect their
own chair, would take away an excuse for why the place does not
function in the way we would like it to function.
Very simply, I will help design the system for election but that
one change, break the prerogative, the members control of it, and
then trust us to mess up but as long as we do the right thing.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully
to what the hon. member said and I agree with much of it.
I want to be a bit of a devil's advocate. The member talked
about how we try to find scandals on the other side and the
opposition is made to look like they do not know what they are
talking about, et cetera. How much value does he perceive there
is in question period?
2135
Does the member think that question period meets a need that is
somehow fulfilled in what is played out here every day? I have
found some question periods to be valuable, but if we abolished
question period would there be a great loss to the country? Is
question period just a very easy way for the media to get
something for its time slot every evening or is there a
meaningful role to be played by question period?
I sense that question period is what you were referring to when
you talked about the opposition looking for scandals in
government and that the government was trying to make the
opposition look like it did not know what it is talking about.
What does the member honestly feel about question period?
The Chairman: Before the member replies, I would like to
make a suggestion because we are on new ground. We should be
cautious in terms of addressing one another directly across the
floor. While it certainly appears to be a healthy, positive mood
in the debate at this time should it change it becomes difficult
to bring it back to some semblance of order.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chairman, I have thought hard about
this. The problem is that it is really easy to look at something
like that and say that that is the problem, but the reality is it
is what we do. It is easy to look at it and say it is
inconsequential, stupid and noisy. Do I think the debate that
took place here for the past couple of months served any great
public purpose? Absolutely not. There is a saying I think about
all the time: “For every complex problem there is a simple
answer and it is wrong”. Let us do it with a partisan debate.
Would it not be wonderful if we all just focused on solving
problems?
The reality is the partisan debate is in part how we establish
differences which is how we provide people with choice. The
trouble is the hot medium of television has made it possible to
focus attention around such minutia and forced it to get hotter
so we no longer talk about problems, we use the big words like
liar. We have to get a word like that out there in order to
break through the fog.
However that is also the environment we live in. It is a real
part of the environment. It is really easy to blame the press.
The press is part of the process, it is not the problem. The
problem is the human appetite for that kind of debate. People
watch it, they are interested and make their decisions based on
it. How did they make a decision in the last election? Was it
on a bunch of images about where one party stood versus another
one?
I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be more massive
reform here but I am not certain we are ready to go down that
road just yet. We need to think about that one a little more.
Quite seriously, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how
this place can move faster and become more relevant in the lives
of people. It is not by tinkering with these rules. I can think
of little changes that might help in the short term but I think
we all need to get focused on the bigger changes.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to thank my hon. colleague for his wonderful lead into
the comment that I would like to offer to the debate. This is an
excellent form of debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk
somewhat more frankly than we might otherwise speak.
I would like to offer comments on three areas: personal
behaviour of members; caucus reform; and parliamentary reform.
There is not really a great deal of difference between caucus
reform and parliamentary reform.
On the issue of personal behaviour, I find it of some
embarrassment to go home on a regular basis and talk about what
has happened here, particularly given people's experience with
parliament which is question period, which really has nothing to
do with questions and even less to do with answers.
2140
The analogy I use when I talk to people in schools, whether it
is high schools, universities or public schools, is that if we
had to judge the education system by recess, we would probably
question the value of our taxpayer dollar. Similarly, if we had
to judge question period, we would question the value of our
taxpayer dollar. Regrettably that is what colours the public's
perception of what we do here.
I am a relatively new MP. I have been here almost four years. I
expect that my experience was somewhat similar to others. It is
a little like getting married. I really did not know what I was
doing. No amount of preparation actually prepared me for this
experience. The books are not of any particular usefulness.
I make a point of trying to explain to constituents what I
actually do. I had that experience last Sunday afternoon. We
are all prone to meet with constituents. There was a group of
about 50 or 75 people. I went through my agenda for the last
three weeks and explained what it I did, the interactions I had
with people and what the issues were. Over the course of half an
hour to 45 minutes I did not lose a soul in that conversation.
They were quite fascinated by what an MP does outside this
Chamber and particularly outside of question period.
I developed a series of points that really are random and
somewhat haphazard, but that I think would move us from the point
of personal behaviour as we interact with each other to points of
caucus reform to points of parliamentary reform, which I hope
would be helpful.
I think members, as points of communications with constituents,
should publish their agendas and tell people what they are doing.
They should explain the issues that are of concern to them.
It strikes me as quite strange that parliament is not
particularly proactive in explaining itself to the Canadian
public. The counter distinction is amazing when we think about
it. The Prime Minister's office literally has dozens of people
who do nothing but promote the Prime Minister in a variety of
areas, and justifiably so. Ministers literally have dozens of
people in their offices who do nothing but promote the agenda of
the minister and promote the minister.
The same cannot be said for either parliament as an institution
or members of parliament who have little opportunities to
communicate. The irony is that unless a member does something
outrageous there is no way that he or she will have any
attention.
I suppose it is somewhat naive to say that members should not
take cheap shots but we are all going to do it. I just throw
that out to put it on the record.
Members should be serious about their compensation. I practised
law for 22 years. I never noticed that anyone who came into my
office was overwhelming in his or her enthusiasm to pay me a
retainer. However I learned rather quickly that if I did not ask
for compensation for a retainer, which was commiserate with my
abilities and skills in a particular area, then I would certainly
not get that retainer.
It strikes me as strangely ironic that members are so shy about
dealing with their own compensation. I cannot imagine what
hockey player, teacher or doctor would work for 50% or 25% of
what they are actually worth and still take all the same bumps
and bruises. I find that strangely ironic among politicians.
2145
In particular, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation puts out a
little pamphlet on a regular basis and dumps all over us. I
cannot quite fathom why we put up with that sort of nonsense, but
we apparently do. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is not the
only vehicle that diminishes the role of MPs.
MPs have to start thinking in terms of growing democracy. We
have a group that calls itself the civil society. The civil
society has aggregated to itself the position of defending
democracy. This is hugely ironic, given that not one or very few
of the members of the so-called civil society representing
so-called groups that may or may not appreciate the
representation have ever voted for any of these people. None of
these people have ever run in a municipal, provincial or a
federal election. Yet they apparently defend democracy.
It is somewhat trite civic law to say that there are three
branches in any government: the legislative branch, the judicial
branch and the administrative branch. This debate occurs in a
larger context and there is a huge pincer movement by the
judicial branch and the executive branch. We live in an age of
executive federalism with all its royal prerogatives, and I am
using this pejoratively. Those royal prerogatives are being used
on a somewhat aggressive basis and have real consequences for
members who aspire to having careers in this place.
Similarly the judiciary has been handed an enormous instrument
to involve itself in issues of society, namely the charter. I
notice that the judiciary is not overly shy about exercising the
charter in areas where it feels it should. As a consequence, we
have these two very robust and aggressive aspects of government,
namely executive federalism and the judiciary, squeezing the
legislators and squeezing this place. I respectfully submit that
is the context for this debate. I think it is time for push
back.
On the issue of caucus discipline and parliamentary reform
members need to think through the degrees of discipline. Clearly
budget bills are of great significance for this side of the
House. Clearly items that we ran on in platforms are of great
significance for the House. After that issues of discipline I
think diminish.
I had the occasion to be in Mongolia recently. Mongolia has 76
members in its legislature, 72 of whom are with the government
party. It has electronic voting. As we sat there I was watching
the government lose votes. That was somewhat ironic. Here are
we, a mature democracy, apparently explaining to Mongolia, a
relatively new democracy, how to exercise its democratic rights.
Private members' time should be reorganized so that there is a
reasonable chance that private members' bills will see the light
of day. There has been some discussion about that.
Committee hearings should be opened up so that we have draft
bills at a much earlier stage and that we have white papers,
brown papers and green papers; it does not really much matter.
There is nothing more irritating as a member of a committee than
to listen to staff members from a department saying that they
have consulted with all the stakeholders. Really. Who are these
stakeholders and so what?
In terms of earlier notice on opposition day motions, I like to
speak to those motions from time to time, but I do not find out
about them until 9 or 9.30 on the morning of the debate. Frankly
I do not have a great deal of time to think, and I am up on my
feet 10 to 15 minutes later responding to the motion.
On shortened deadlines for government responses, I do not see
why the government needs 150 days to respond to a committee
report or whatever.
2150
I would not be overly embarrassed if the House was closed down
for a few weeks every year during sittings and we just did
committee work, either committee of the whole or standing
committees. It would not bother me in the least.
We could get through a lot of stuff and make spending and
estimate debates meaningful. We should either have one committee
that looks after it all or have each committee develop some level
of expertise so that we can hold the department's feet to the
fire.
We should give the House leader time to debate and speak to the
issue of time allocation. We have used time allocation from time
to time. Opposition members might know that, but the House
leader has no opportunity to speak to it on debate.
We need to create an MP culture which empowers MPs. MPs frankly
need to go to MP school. They need to know that they cannot be
removed from committee by the whip only, that it actually has to
be by a vote of the House. They are secure. They need to know
that, for instance, they can designate five people in their place
and those people are the first up. Therefore a whip cannot load
a committee with more obedient MPs than others.
Committees have, as does the House, virtually unlimited power of
subpoena which we do not exercise. We can vote for reductions in
departmental bills, and we do not exercise that.
I offer these thoughts as a potpourri of things which can be
done. I am not overly persuaded that a lot of standing orders
need to be amended. I think, rather, that MPs need to realize
there are a great number of things they can do. Whether it is
singly or in smaller groups, they can make impacts such as my
colleague to my left did who I think had a double-double last
week with significant pieces of legislation.
We are debating this motion because we love this place. There
is sort of a bizarre way in which it all works. As Churchill
said, parliamentary democracy or democracy in general is one of
the worst of all forms of government until we look at the
alternatives. That is the context of this debate.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I compliment the government member
on his eloquent suggestions.
My question is really quite simple. Will his government listen
and implement the constructive solutions that he just spoke
about?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for
his concise question. I think the government is moving
incrementally along the path of parliamentary reform, but the
essential problem is that no ministers, no members of government,
can ever convince themselves that parliamentary reform is in
their own interest.
Because members cannot convince themselves that it is in their
own interest, there is no great enthusiasm to do what they need
to do. If this system works, and it seems to work very well from
the government's standpoint, why bother with change?
Ministers and the government in general need to rethink their
position. My view is that good opposition makes good government.
My view is that opposition comes not only from over there but
back here. In our caucus a lot of the most significant
opposition to government initiatives come from its own members.
They refine legislative initiatives as much as they can.
2155
I think certain ministers have seen the light, have reacted
positively to suggestions from both sides of the House and are
prepared to strengthen legislation. Let me take a controversial
example of that.
In the last parliament the Minister of Justice, prior to
dissolution, amended the youth justice bill based upon testimony
before the committee. She introduced voluminous amendments which
have now found their way into Bill C-7. Frankly I thought that
was quite courageous on her part. The consequence regrettably
was that she has been stonewalled by certain members of the
opposition and it is very difficult.
Do I think the Minister of Justice will be persuaded in the
future to amend her own bills after listening to testimony on the
justice committee? I think I will have a tough sell. In that
respect, if in fact we open those kinds of things there has to be
a corollary that members of the opposition and our own
backbenchers have to behave in some sort of responsible fashion.
It has to be recognized at some point that debate finishes.
I cannot answer the question with great precision, but I offer
as a response that government and government ministers need to be
convinced that this is in their own interests. I think
ultimately they can be convinced.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would love to have my
friend from the government define incremental, but I will not
ask.
The current government House leader in 1992, along with a number
of other former cabinet ministers who are not here today, put out
a document that was an unbelievable tome on specific solutions on
how to reform the House. It contained everything from voting
procedures and committee structures to how people are selected to
sit on committees. It was a fantastic piece of work and an
expression of the frustration that the current government felt
when in opposition.
I ask my friend from the government whether he will ask the
current government House leader to resurrect the document he
wrote in 1992 so eloquently describing changes to democratize the
House and implement the changes in that document.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, I cannot specifically refer
to the report of the House leader, but I think there is some
element of good will on the part of the House leader to respond
to some of those issues.
I will suggest in defence of the House leader that there has
been more than incremental progress since January until now,
frankly under the chairmanship of you, Mr. Chairman. One area
was in terms of getting electronic voting. Our caucuses voted on
that issue and I think it will move forward. It is pretty
significant reform.
On the issue of first reading, I think we will see more and more
bills leave the House earlier and get into committee for longer
periods of time, with which I think all of us would agree.
On increases to the budget of the Library of Parliament, $1
million has been put toward that. Any time there is more money
in the Library of Parliament, it gives all of us an opportunity
to be better prepared.
2200
Meetings such as this, committees of the whole, I think give
more opportunities for, how shall I say it, less partisan
interaction. I have to commend the House leader for that kind of
initiative.
One of the things that has been discussed is more opportunity
for first time members to meet the candidates for Speaker and to
give speeches on those candidates so that people who are in this
House for the first time get to know the people who are offering
themselves as candidates.
I understand that for things like closure debates, et cetera,
there may be time issues that are coming up. As well, I believe
concurrence issues are being discussed, with a reduction of the
time that the government has to respond to parliamentary reports.
On one level I could argue this is happening at just a snail's
pace. On the other hand I might also argue that from January to
now, the House leader, with the co-operation of the committee
chaired by the Chairman here, has made significant progress.
Regrettably all votes are equal on the committee and frankly he
can only make as much progress in this Chamber as he is able to
make in the committee with all five members.
Again, at this point I am not prepared to be overly critical of
our House leader. I think we all have our shopping lists, our
wish lists. He was good enough to publish his in 1992.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Chairman, it is an honour to speak
on this topic. I will preface my remarks by saying that if we
looked at all the problems we have in the country today, if we
talked about health care, about jobs, what is the one that is the
most prominent, the one that is actually the most important, the
route that actually can effect change and help the people of our
country? That problem is the problem of democratizing this
House. In my view, there is no challenge or problem in our
country today greater than that of making this parliament a
democracy.
In 1993, like many members of the House here today, I was
elected. We came here motivated by largely the same reason: to
improve the health and welfare of Canadians. What motivated us
to come here, to leave our personal lives aside and to maybe take
a financial hit, was to improve the health and welfare of the
people we dealt with on a daily basis.
Maybe we saw people living in their cars because they were
homeless. Maybe we were struck by individuals who needed health
care and were waiting months to get a test to determine whether
or not they had cancer, waiting for far too long. Perhaps we saw
the conditions that aboriginal people live in, squalid conditions
in many cases, that are unthinkable in a country like Canada.
Perhaps we saw an education system that did not provide the
education our children need. Perhaps we saw an economy that was
declining and slipping far below those of our competitors.
Whatever our motivation, every person, to a man or to a woman,
came here to make our country a better place. We came here with
that in our hearts. We knew this was not a democracy. We came
to change that. We came with hope. However, instead of finding
a House of Commons we found a house of illusions. With the large
change in the numbers of people that we had in 1993 and the hope
that engendered in all of us, rather than making the changes
which we had a narrow chance of doing, we saw this place, rather
than getting more democratic, becoming less democratic.
This speech is not for the members in the House but for the
public out there. It is for the few hearty souls out there who I
hope are tuning into CPAC and listening to what my colleagues are
saying here today, and I hope they bring it forward to their MPs, to
the Prime Minister and to every single elected person that they
know in this institution.
2205
For those changes required in the House are changes that
will enable us to help them. Those changes will enable us to
reform our health care system, to improve our economy and to make
this a land of opportunity, a place where we could start to
achieve our potential rather than being hit below the belt.
The public may or may not understand that the House of Commons
is not a democracy. It is a place that is controlled with a
viselike grip, where the members from political parties are
controlled by leaderships, where they are used as little more
than voting machines and as bodies that attend committees, and
hopefully we have a palpable pulse when we do that.
What a waste. What an abysmal waste of the incredible talent
that exists within the House, for every man and woman in the
House has talent, skills and passions that they came here to
apply for the betterment of the people in their communities.
Can it be done? Absolutely. What needs to be done? First of
all, let us look at the structure. Bills basically come in a
standard form right into committees. Minor changes are made and
they are rubber stamped all the way through.
In regard to private members' business, the public would find it
extraordinary that an MP puts forth a bill and works very hard on
it but only if his or her name is selected out of a big vat with
300 other names in it will he or she be lucky enough to be able
to introduce that bill. Whether it is votable or not is the
jurisdiction and the choice and the decision of a number of
fellow committee members. Why we have private members' bills
that are not votable is extraordinary and completely absurd.
That is what is happening now.
MPs are not allowed to innovate because innovation is called
freelancing, freelancing being a pejorative term to suggest that
the individual who is trying to use his or her skill to build a
plan is a maverick, a lone wolf, a rebel, not part of the team.
When a member is accused of not being part of the team, a member
unfortunately becomes polarized in regard to his colleagues. A
member who tries to work with members from different political
parties is again frowned on as being perhaps not one of us.
At the end of the day, how do we make change? How do we
actually do our job? The most important aspect of that job is to
help the people on the ground who may not have a home, who may
not have health care, who may be unemployed, who are not eating
well or who live in squalid conditions. The only way we can
change that is if we reform this place so that we can use the
collective talent in the House and apply it to those areas.
Why have we seen the death of innovation, particularly over the
last two years? Why has this place been so restrained and
constricted that individual members are frowned on if they work
together? It is frowned on if they try to innovate, if they try
to step ahead, if they lead from the front. Why do we have a
structure like that?
Why do we not tap into the extraordinary potential that we have
in the people in our country who are not members of parliament?
Few of us in the House are experts on anything, just as I am an
expert on nothing, but all of us are wise enough to find the best
people in the country and find the best solutions not only within
Canada but outside Canada and apply them to the problems of the
nation.
When I spoke to my constituents a week and a half ago about
this, they found it extraordinary that there were so many
obstacles to trying to innovate and bring ideas to bear on the
problems that are important at their dinner tables.
We need to allow innovation in the House, so what can we do?
First, and I am probably repeating things that have been said
before, free votes have to take place. Second, free votes have
to take place but if the government loses a vote it should not be
a vote of non-confidence in the government. That would require a
very simple rule to be implemented by the government. It could
be done overnight. No bill, other than a money bill, should be
matters of a vote of confidence in the government. On all other
bills if the government loses a vote, then the government had a
bad bill and it can take it back and fix the problem. It should
not have to lose power.
In regard to committee structure, I was at a committee meeting
about the free trade of the Americas and spoke to a person who
was putting forward a very heartfelt intervention on the free
trade agreement.
She asked me why the committee was studying the free trade
agreement weeks before the actual meeting in Quebec City. I said
to her that surely she did not expect the committee meeting to
have any meaning. I told her that her assessment was perfectly
right. The purpose of the committee was to keep MPs busy. That
was what it was for. It was not meant to use her considerable
talents in a meaningful way. What a tragedy.
2210
It breaks my heart, as I am sure it breaks the hearts of all
members in the House, to sit on a committee listening to
brilliant suggestions and solutions and heartfelt interventions
on the part of members of the public in regard to fixing an
important problem in our country and to know full well that it at
best will become a report that will get one day of press coverage
and then be tossed on a shelf with thousands of other reports to
collect dust.
Health care is a case in point. We are to study it again after
having studied it in 1995. Nothing has happened since then.
There was a blue ribbon panel in 1995 that studied this most
important issue affecting Canadians, a matter of life and death,
and what happened to it? Nothing.
In regard to aboriginal affairs, there was an eloquent, lengthy
$60 million study with umpteen constructive suggestions to help
the group in our society that is most impoverished. Has anything
been done about it? Nothing.
A solution would be to give committees more independence and get
parliamentary secretaries who are really whips for the government
off committees. Bills should go to committee in draft form so
that the public making interventions can actually mould and craft
the bill into something effective and reasonable. They should do
this along with members of parliament from across party lines. We
could use our collective talents and collective wisdom to build a
really effective bill rather than having bills come from the
ministry and made by the minister's lawyers. That would make a
good bill. The bill would go back to the minister and he or she
and his or her people could carve it up. However, ultimately in
this process the bill would be superior because it would have
tapped into a greater potential within our country and within the
House.
All private members' business should be made votable. Every
individual MP should have at least one bill votable per term, bar
none. Each MP should also have one private member's motion
votable, although that is of less importance. Also with respect
to private members' business, why has the government gutted our
legal tools? We have only four lawyers compared to the more than
80 provided to the government to deal with bills. The 250 plus
MPs who are not in cabinet need more than four lawyers to help
them with private members' business. We need to invest in this
so individual MPs can have access to these legal tools. This
would do much to improve the House of Commons.
In closing I can only ask the members of the public who are
listening tonight to please get involved in this process. I can
only ask them to come to the front of the House of Commons and
demand change, demand that we make the House a democracy. With
the same vigour and zeal, in a non-violent way, that people
protested the FTAA in Quebec, although that was misguided,
Canadians should be coming to the House and demanding that we
make private members' business votable.
I challenge members of the public to do that because if they
work with us then we will make a change that will benefit not
only the people of Canada but will certainly benefit the House
and make it a nimble, vigorous institution that will make our
country in the 21st century much better than it is today.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib): Mr. Chairman,
I do not want to turn this
into a debate for members from Scarborough, but I want to ask the
hon. member about his bargain, some might say Faustian bargain,
the bargain that every one of us made when we came to this place,
and that is that we all ran under a party label. I ran under the
Liberal Party label, which was in my case a particularly good
choice and I did very well.
If I am brutally analytical about that vote, almost all that vote
was attributable to the fact that I was a Liberal, running under
the leadership of the Prime Minister. I know the member opposite
has had some awkward moments of late, with respect to his party.
2215
The bargain that I make, as a government member, is that I
support the team. The quid pro quo is that I have virtually
unlimited access to ministers and to the Prime Minister. I can
voice my views on an issue or a bill in private in a very direct
fashion and literally influence the direction of government. I
have seen that among a great number of backbenchers.
The corollary is that no one will ever know about it. That is
the government backbencher bargain, that on issues of concern to
me I will be able to influence government direction. I can give
a variety of examples. The homeless issue was of significance in
my riding. I and a few others had a great deal to do with the
180 degree change in direction by the government. However the
understanding is that once that change in policy is made, I will
support the team in other areas.
I ask the hon. member, in the context of what is a parliamentary
democracy and in the context five parties in the House, how would
he see the whole issue of free votes, freelancing and all that
the member considers to be pejorative to operate, when in fact we
are all here as part of one party or another.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, there is constructive
discourse and destructive discourse. I support freelancing.
Freelancing implies that an individual, at least in the terms I
used, is putting forth views, ideas and solutions that will be
beneficial to the people of his or her community, the country and
perhaps even the world.
Why should members not be allowed to do that? Why is it
discouraged? Why has rigor mortis set in in terms of innovation?
Why are cabinet members not allowed to innovate? What a tragedy
for individuals who have perhaps hoped through their professional
career as a politician to get into the Holy Grail of cabinetdom.
If they get there, they might be lucky to get a cabinet post that
is commensurate with their talents. Why not allow talented
individuals to move forward to push for ideas and changes that
will enable that ministry to function better for Canadians?
We do not have that right now. People are scratching their
heads and asking: why are we studying the health care system
again; why have we not dealt with the environmental problems
which are significant yet are untouched; why are we not dealing
with endangered species legislation; and why is the tax system
not more efficient, effective, reasonable and user friendly?
I could go down every single cabinet member's post, as any other
MP could, think of some big problems and some solutions, which
the minister I am sure knows, to address those problems.
2220
Why are these problems not dealt with? It is May 1 and we have
a situation where the government is trying to keep the opposition
fractured. It is a political game. The Liberals will not
raise their heads and do something innovative, so no fire is
drawn to them.
What is the point of having power if it is not used for the
public good? If one wants to sit on the government benches and
not use it then it is useless. We may as well go home.
What a tragedy for the members of cabinet and members of the
government, or anyone in that position, to be forced and
shoehorned into that kind of behaviour. What a tragedy for us.
What a tragedy for the people in Canada, particularly those who
are really hurting in our society.
We have only made a Faustian bargain, if we allow ourselves to
make that bargain. We can do much to change that. We can make a
bargain with our souls and with our community that is far better.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I know you have an
important role to play with regard to the committee that the
House has charged to look into the modernization of parliament
issue.
I find it very fascinating the work that has been done and the
proposals which have been presented, for instance the leadoff
debate by the government House leader. Much of that was
discussed at committee and unanimous consent is mandated for any
changes. I understand there is very good progress so far.
Interestingly enough though, the entire debate has split into
two channels. The committee as I understand it is dealing with
the procedures of the House such as how to make it run smoothly,
how to deal with filibustering and report stage motions which are
frivolous and how do we make it more efficient? All those points
are very characteristically how does this place work.
The other stream that has taken a life of its own has to do with
the premise that there is a question as to the relevance of
members of parliament and how do we engage the public and
convince them that they have a role to play and a say? That is
the citizen engagement issue.
The member talked about the public as if they were a homogeneous
group but they are not. Across the country very few members of
parliament had more than 50% of the vote in any riding. So the
views of constituents in a particular riding are going to be
divergent. There is going to be a bit of everything.
There are certain things that go beyond partisan purposes or
objectives. Members of parliament on committee and when they do
special work seek items that can go beyond the partisanship. We
have an official Opposition and other opposition parties, and
their role is to be the opposition. The government's role is to
implement its mandate. Its democratically elected government has
a constitutional obligation to deliver a program under which it
was elected.
The members of the governing party are considered to be sheep
because they support the platform on which they ran. How ironic,
of course they have to support the plan on which they ran. There
are issues that are not specific in the platform but certainly
are specific in a party's policy such as a long standing policy
background. It is clear that the thrust of most of the voting
here probably is reflective of either the platform or the policy
of a particular party.
The member who just spoke raised some issues. There are issues
related to the environment, reproductive technologies, some
cloning and stem cell harvesting and other issues which could go
way beyond partisanship.
These are things I can study and get into. We can hear
witnesses, come up with good reports and help government fashion
a legislative and regulatory framework which could guide some of
these things that are evolving in our society. This is where the
participatory democracy comes from, when we can find those ways
to set aside the partisanship.
2225
I will take this opportunity to suggest three or four items that
I would like the committee to look at in trying to provide some
guidance in shaping some of the things that happen in this place.
The first one is the concept of relevance. I must admit there
was one member who spoke earlier who said that if there was time
to speak, he always got up because he loved to speak. We have to
exercise personal discipline. The Chair has some discretion to
impose or to raise the question of relevance when members rise
and tend to ramble on or repeat themselves et cetera. The
efficiency of the operation of the House, if enforced
judiciously, would encourage members who like to speak for the
sake of speaking to check themselves periodically.
The whole aspect of debate within the House, and it would spill
over to committees, is to make it much more relevant and crisp.
In the British parliament the speeches of ministers on very
important bills are very rarely more than 10 minutes long. There
are certain points to be made and many of them have been well
debated, but when we get down to it, a minister does not need 40
minutes to speak on a bill. Quite frankly, it is very difficult
to fashion a good speech to last 40 minutes and keep everybody
there.
The issue of relevance should not be overlooked in terms of the
principle that the members should try to discipline themselves on
that. However the Chair should also encourage us to keep on
point and ensure that we do not act in a partisan way simply to
repeat or to somehow stretch the envelope into areas that are not
terribly relevant to the matter before the House.
The issue of question and comment is an area which leads to a
lot of abuse in the House in that regard, simply from the
standpoint that comment generally lends itself to members
speaking for some time and raising new issues which were not in a
member's speech. It tends to sidetrack the focus on the comments
of a previous speaker.
I am hoping that the relevance issue will play an important role
in shaping a signal for discipline by all members. Personally
imposed and with the assistance of the Chair, I think we could be
more efficient within the House.
I was fascinated to learn the longstanding tradition in the
British parliamentary system, and I have not seen written rules
on this, is that speeches should not be read in the House unless
they are quoting from some references or providing detailed
technical information. One member responded very quickly by
saying that he had a lot to say, that he had 10 points to get
across and he could not do it by memory.
I am not suggesting that members should not have any paper in
front of them. Certainly they could have one page which would
have the themes to which they were speaking. However imagine
what would happen to the quality of the speaking within the House
if members had to address the House rather than read to the
House?
It would be very important for us to consider whether or not
members should come here with their piles of papers. As the
cameras film them giving their speech all that would show would
be the tops of their heads. I have often thought, when
watching CPAC and the proceedings of the House, that those
members who address the House have eye contact. They can sense
whether or not they have lost people or whether they are
grumbling. There can almost be an interactive dialogue going on
simply by checking the mood of the House.
It is important that we consider the great orators of
parliamentary tradition. That skill has been lost.
2230
Why is it that people can come in here with canned speeches and
read them. If the paper were taken away from them and they were
asked to carry on, they would probably say in many cases that
they could not because they do not know very much about the
subject they were in the House talking about. It would be
terribly embarrassing for some members.
I hate to say this but, if that is the case, what is the
relevance of a member standing up here? We might as well simply
circulate the speech to all members or put it on their ParlNet.
If a speaking spot opened up on a subject on which the member was
not too familiar he or she could just read the speech.
I think the relevance of speaking in the House has to reflect
the fact that these people have evidentiary knowledge or have
done their research because the subject matter is something that
is important to them. Debate is to try to sway opinion. I do
not think many people are moved by looking at the top of
someone's head as they read a speech prepared for them by
somebody else.
Much has been said about committees. Committees have a very
important role to play if they can get their act together.
Fortunately we have some committees that do extremely well. I
would think the finance committee has an excellent reputation.
The foreign affairs committee has quite a good reputation. The
environment committee to some extent has a pretty good reputation
because it has strong leadership, et cetera, and I think the
people on it are very interested. They continue to educate
themselves and champion important initiatives.
One of the big problems we have with five official parties, and
the need to put members on different committees—I think it is 16
members—is that it spreads us very thin. Members who have
served on two committees know what I am talking about. I know of
a number of cases where members are on two committees and the
committees happen to meet at exactly the same time.
How can a member properly prepare let alone keep up with
committee work? It is unfortunate that we are in that situation
but there is not much we can do about it because we have five
official parties. It was a lot different when there were three
parties. We could have 10 members or maybe even 8 members on a
committee and still do some good work. Quite frankly, more work
would get done on committees if there were fewer members.
One of the committees' principal responsibilities is to deal
with government bills. In committee today we went through clause
by clause of a bill and some 30 amendments were proposed by the
government. I would think by and large that most of those
amendments were housekeeping in nature. No major changes were
made to the thrust of the bill. The committee took a long time
to deal with the bill which created a lot of frustration among
the members, particularly those in opposition. They did not like
the idea that the government was ramming through a bunch of
changes.
It was very clear though, by watching the opposition members'
growing frustration, that they were not quite aware of the way in
which bills are dealt with at committee, particularly at clause
by clause, and in fact did not know their rights as committee
members. They could have put forward their own amendments and
called for recorded votes. They could also have stood clauses
for later consideration while they consulted with someone. This
tends to support the suggestion of one member that an MP school
might be important.
When I became a member of parliament and we received orientation
in early 1994, the one day orientation was sadly lacking. There
was more information than could possibly be absorbed. It
certainly did not prepare us for what we had to do. We were just
told to fend for ourselves and hopefully we would learn a little
bit.
Interestingly enough, this time around after the election, there
were, I believe, 17 new members of our caucus. I penned a 10
page typed letter on a potpourri of items just as a heads up. I
probably could have gone on a lot longer.
It strikes me that some of the day to day ordinary activities of
members of parliament do not get communicated to MPs. I think we
do a terrible job, quite frankly, on orienting MPs on the day to
day activities.
2235
What is duty? What are votes? What are motions? What does
it mean when the Speaker says “on division”? Those things are
not written in too many places unless we start using enormous
textbooks. We should probably start building a pragmatic manual
for members of parliament so they can better understand
budgeting, House duty, House hours, private members' business and
where they can get help. They do not realize that they do not
need a legislative assistant. The library of parliament is there
with a large number of people with PhDs who are prepared to do
all kinds of work for them.
The resources we have are enormous. I can look around this
place at members who have been here particularly from the class
of '93 or earlier. I can point to each one of them and tell
exactly the niche they have found for themselves in this place
and the contributions they have made. Regardless of partisan
stripe, I know that each and every one of them looks for a way to
make a contribution and find their niche, usually related to
either their riding or their own personal experience or
expertise.
I have no sympathy for members who just whine about things and
say they do not get this or that. There is an onus on each
individual member of parliament to take up the challenge and to
understand that the best way to get an item past the chair,
whether one is a government member or an opposition member, is to
get a bill or a motion before the House, to have it voted on by
the members and passed. The very best outcome is to do the best
job possible to garner consensus, to get public support and to
convince the government that it should take on the item and
introduce it, just as the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore said. He had an idea on the blood issue
but it did not go the way he wanted. Good ideas should bypass
partisanship.
The last thing I want to talk about has not been mentioned yet.
I hope the House will take this in the spirit in which it is
given. The premise is that Canadians do not feel engaged or they
do not seem to understand parliament. I told the member from
Scarborough what my agenda is. A lot of people were amazed. They
did not know what I did.
It seems to me that we are not doing a very good job of
explaining to Canadians at large the scope of activity that goes
on. More important, I do not think Canadians feel connected to
this place. They can watch CPAC if they can get away from work
but that means sitting in front of a television.
I am hoping there is a way to do this. I am wondering why I as
a member of parliament or a constituent of mine cannot tune in to
a radio band and listen to the proceedings of the House of
Commons of Canada. Why can I not follow the debate unless I am
not in front of a television? Why do my constituents need to be
in front of a television to hear me speak on an issue that
concerns them or to hear the questions I am asked or the answers
that I give?
How hard could it be for the Parliament of Canada to communicate
to Canadians the activities in the House? Question period is not
a good reflection on members of parliament and the quality of
work in this place. The debate on bills, motions, opposition day
motions and the like are very interesting and very important to a
lot of people out there.
I raise that with you, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that you will
bring it to the committee to find out if there is a possibility
for Canadians to listen to the House of Commons when there are
matters of importance they would like to hear rather than waiting
for Hansard to be published or going to the library if they
do not have access to the Internet.
2240
If it is important enough to be debated in this place it is
important enough for Canadians to be aware of it and to be aware
of it on a timely basis. The broadcasting angle may be a way to
address that need and to connect with Canadians about the
important work in this place.
The Chairman: I would like to remind my colleagues that
we have approximately 20 minutes left. I understand there are
yet a few members wishing to speak. We will begin with the
member for Elk Island and I will leave it to the three members
who wish to speak to share the time.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, I will ask some questions of the hon. member who just
spoke. We have had some good times together on the finance
committee. I will ask him the questions, but I will not give him
an opportunity to answer because I am now speaking myself.
He may want to consider this. He said he ran on a party
platform, as we did. There is certainly a lot of truth to that.
The fact of the matter is that we deal with many issues in the
House that are not the object of debate during an election
campaign. It is incumbent on us, then, to make sure that we as
individual members of parliament have the ear of our constituents
so we can represent them in this place.
I have a very curious question for which I have never been able
to get a decent answer, that is, how come we, on our opposition
day, chose word for word a paragraph right out of the election
platform of the Liberals which all of the Liberals on command
then voted against? To me that contradicts what he said, but
that is getting partisan and the whole tone of tonight is very
non-partisan.
I already stated my case on private members' business earlier
today during questions and comments. I also spoke when we had
the debate some time ago. I would like to add a few things that
I do not think I spoke about previously and that I think are
relevant to your committee, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to committees, I have some really important points.
I have enjoyed working on the finance committee. We have a good
working relationship in the committee, but there are some real
frustrations. First, the majority the government holds on the
committee and the presence of the parliamentary secretary, who
seems to direct the votes, are very frustrating.
I do not mind if I present my ideas and the people hearing those
ideas reject them because they are not valid or I do not have a
strong enough argument or I do not express them well enough. Then
I lose that debate and the vote goes against me. That is fine.
However, when I present something in committee and can tell by
the body language that the people agree with me—I taught for 31
years and learned when my students were with me and when they
were not—but the parliamentary secretary opens his mouth and
basically suggests to the members that they should vote against
me and then they all do, I find it very frustrating. I do not
know whether our standing orders can be changed to accommodate
this frustration, but I certainly would echo what some of the
other members have said and that is that perhaps the
parliamentary secretary should not be on the committee acting as
whip.
I found the process of the election of chairs very frustrating.
I do not think it is right that all we get is a motion that
so-and-so be elected and then we vote on that. Usually in
elections there is a list of candidates. In meetings which we
conduct under Robert's Rules of Order, we open the floor
for nominations and accept all the names. Then there is a vote
based on all of the names on the slate.
What happens too often in our committees here is that the
instant the clerk of the committee, who chairs the committee
until the chairperson is selected, says the meeting is
constituted and we are accepting nominations, whoever yells the
loudest gets recognized. I have noticed in the meetings I have
been in that the clerk of the committee always has her face to
the right so that she is looking at the Liberal members, whereas
we on the other side are ignored.
2245
As a matter of fact the last time we elected the chair of the
finance committee I was prepared to nominate the person who won.
That would have been a wonderful non-partisan effort to show that
we were working together as a committee. We should have a slate
of candidates and there should be a ballot, perhaps a run-off
ballot. I would like it to be a secret ballot. The choice of
the chairs of the committees should not be orchestrated from on
high.
I am concerned about government control with its majority on
committees. Some may say that the government has to have the
ability to promote its agenda. That is true to a certain extent.
I have had several experiences in my seven years where the
committee chair has in my humble unbiased view made an error. I
referred to this once or twice.
I brought one to the House as a point of order. A motion
actually passed and the chairperson of the particular committee
said that it had failed. I pointed out to the chairperson that
only two people had said yes, that nobody had said no and that
therefore the chairperson saying the motion had failed was the
opposite to what it should be. Then we got into a bit of a
shouting match because I did not accept the chairperson had the
right to say that a motion had failed when in fact it had passed.
Eventually in this case he went back to the rules and said that
was his decision. Then he said “Shall the decision of the chair
be upheld” and the majority on the government side said yes, the
decision should be upheld, and so it was.
One cannot do that. One cannot do something that is against the
rules of procedure in committee and then somehow justify it by
getting other people who happen to be on one's side to back it
up. I would like to see something in our standing orders which
would allow an appeal for things like that to the Speaker or to
the procedure and House affairs standing committee.
Committee travel was mentioned earlier. Sometimes our party, as
the official opposition, has denied the right of committees to
travel. I recognize that it is important for committees to
travel, but very often the official opposition uses that as a
bargaining chip when it wants something else. Often it is the
recalcitrance of the House leader of the government that changes
that.
I wish to say a little about free votes in the House. It is
something that we should do. Even though the government ran on a
platform, there are sometimes amendments which are needed to
improve legislation. To always wholesale deny a motion, because
it comes from opposition without in my view proper thought being
given to it, is an affront to me as a member of parliament.
I would like to say something about the parliamentary calendar.
I would like to see MPs have more days in the riding. I am one
that is in this place way too much. I do not know why it is.
Maybe I have a problem and should go to see a psychiatrist about
it.
It reminds me of this lady that I have in my riding who is
always watching CPAC. I asked her one day if she had any other
medical problems. The parliamentary calendar should be changed
because I would like to have more days in my riding, but I feel
when the House is in session I have an obligation to be here.
That is how it ought to be. Consequently I would like to see
some change to in calendar to allow members of parliament more
days in their ridings.
I would also like to suggest that we improve attendance in the
House. I really would like to see members actively engaged in
debate in the House, instead of just a token number of people.
With committees running at the same time we are in committee and
then we get a phone call in the committee room which says to get
down here and make a speech. We come down here and make our
speech on the topic, and we have not heard what other people have
said. It is not a true interaction. It is not a true debate. It
is a monologue that we deliver and then rush back to our
committees. I would like to see some changes in that area.
I want to say one thing about time allocation and closure. The
government holds the record on the number of times it has been
used. That defeats what parliament is about. Parliament is
about words. We use words to spread ideas. The clerk will know
that I have stated to him some time ago that one of the flaws of
this place is that we do not know how to use the language.
2250
Language is the embodiment of the ideas that we have in our
heads. I would like to see the rules on closure changed. The
government should not be allowed to introduce closure or time
allocation until a certain minimum period has been spent on a
bill at each level.
On a number of occasions the government has moved time
allocation at the report stage of a bill saying that the bill
will go through all the remaining stages and will be finished at
the end of the day. That is not adequate. We should have a
minimum of one day to debate each stage of a bill, although I
would like to see more.
I want to comment on bills going to committee before second
reading. I find that unsatisfactory. It sounded at first to be
so good, but we need to debate the principal of a bill before we
send it to committee.
Finally, I have some question with respect to all the disallowed
words. We as members of parliament should use our discretion and
should be very careful when we condemn other members. However I
personally find it an affront when other people do something and
I am called out of order for having pointed it out. I resent the
restriction on the words that we can use. Nevertheless, we
should still be very honourable all the time.
The Chairman: In the 10 minutes remaining, I will
recognize the member for Yukon. The hon. member for Elk Island
on a point of order?.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would not have any objection
if we went five or eight minutes longer to give other members an
opportunity to speak.
The Chairman: As this is a new format and in the spirit
of co-operation I hope members will be mindful of the late hour.
The understanding was that everyone would have completed their
remarks by 10:58. Trusting that members will not abuse the
latitude the Chair will exercise, I will begin with the member
for Yukon.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your flexibility and I will try to make the few points
that I have as quickly as possible. These comments have come up
during the debate tonight.
There are 301 of us in the House and we will not always get our
way. In any job that any of us have had I am sure there were
some frustrations. Before people out there line up to break
down the doors of parliament, as was suggested by the member from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I would like to make contrary arguments
to some of the points that he made which I feel are a bit of
hyperbole.
He said that this was not a democracy. In my adult life as a
spectator viewing parliament, whatever government was elected by
the people or whatever party was elected by a majority, it seems
to have been able to make the laws of the land, to promote
programs and platforms that it wanted and to implement them in a
democratic fashion. It seems to be working relatively well in
that respect.
The member went on to ask why we were dealing with taxation
issues or endangered species. The point still puzzles me. This
is a democracy and times have changed so that there is a surplus
and a more competitive world. We need to make tax cuts and that
is why we made the biggest tax cut in Canadian history.
People in parliament and across the country are unified in their
beliefs that we need to solve child poverty or work to reduce it.
That is why we brought in the child tax credit, the largest
recently started, social program. The people of Canada and the
majority of parliamentarians wanted this so the government
implemented it. That is democracy and that is exactly what
should be happening here.
2255
The hon. member talked about the major huge reports on health
care and on aboriginal affairs. Again I think it is hyperbole to
say that nothing came out of them. It is never a loss to do
study. It is never a loss to do education.
There was a major health accord this fall between the provinces
and the federal government that had all sorts of innovative
things in it. I assume that some of those things and other
progress in health care that has happened since that report came
from that report. The people who work in the field refer to
those reports and use what knowledge they can.
Of course in the aboriginal affairs field there has been
“Gathering Strength” and a number of very progressive items
in the throne speech. It is not productive to say that nothing
comes out of the studies.
I appreciate the member for Elk Island being here tonight. We
have shared many late night debates. I want to say that
sometimes party positions change, in all parties, because the
circumstances change. A member would be doing the wrong thing if
he or she did not change. That relates to the taxation item I
mentioned.
One of my frustrations in the parliamentary system is that we
cannot be here all the time when there are debates because we
have so many other events to attend, such as committee meetings
or dealing with constituents. We come into a debate having
missed half of it, so how can we be knowledgeable when it is our
turn to speak on that topic? I do not know how this is solved. I
want to table this as one of my frustrations.
I will elaborate on something one of my colleagues said earlier
on the pincer between the judiciary and the executive. At least
it is not there without our own doing or causing. A strong
executive and also a first past the post system allow us to have
a strong government that can work fast to solve the problems.
That is more important in this rapidly changing world. We have
elected to have government work in that way. As to the
judiciary, the only reason it can make decisions is that we make
laws that are unclear or we give it the latitude to make
decisions. If we want to prescribe it so that the judiciary does
not have an effect, we can do that. Once again, that limit on us
is through our own doing.
I agree with the idea that came up earlier of explaining things
better to the public and to ourselves when bills are coming
forward on the legislative agenda. Perhaps we could have a one
page summary for parliamentarians and Canadians. Perhaps CPAC
could play it. I appreciated the reception that CPAC gave today,
because it explained some things I did not understand in regard
to people knowing what bills were before the House. I
congratulate the Hill Times for doing this. I was reading
it today and I kept that aside. There is not a lot of that
information out in the public so that people know what bills they
might comment on and what the intent is of those bills.
One of my last points is on private members' bills. There has
been a lot of discussion on this, with several debates this
session. If people want more respect for this, they also have to
remember how legislation is normally arrived at: through a large
bureaucracy of professional expertise that has studied and has
been expert in that area for years. Private members' bills might
come forward from members who have not taken advantage of that
expertise and the knowledge of how it fits into the present
environment. Then they expect the bills to be taken seriously.
If that procedure is ironed out it would help to give this more
credibility.
My final point is on question period. Someone asked during the
debate what would happen if we eliminated question period. One
comment is that I think it would be good if we eliminated
discussion in question period that relates to individual members
of parliament. There are issues in the country that are a lot
larger than that. In the last several months, part of question
period has been taken up with discussion on members from
virtually all the parties in the House. To me that has not dealt
with the major issues of the land and our time is limited.
My last quick point is that if we did not have question period,
which is the 45 minutes a day that the press is in the gallery
and everyone is here, I wonder what would be covered.
2300
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon.
member for Yukon for taking part in this debate because these are
important debates. The hon. member for Yukon is a new member to
the House and it takes a lot of courage to just plunge into this
kind of thing. I will try to be brief because I appreciate that
it is late and the staff are staying here, waiting for us to
finish.
I have listened to most of the debate and have been here for
much of it as well. I make the observation that particularly a
lot of it dealt with private members' business. The theme that
ran consistently through the debate tonight was the whole idea
that private members' bills needed to be made votable, but lost
in all of that, in my opinion, is that it is not a matter of
whether private members' bills become votable automatically or
whatever. It is a matter of whether private members' bills
succeed.
The problem is this whole idea of backbench MPs bringing in
legislation. The real message we want to get out to the public
is that these bills that we do introduce actually do become law
eventually.
You well know, Mr. Chairman, with all your long experience, that
in fact the government holds all the cards when it comes to
legislation going through the House, whether it is government
legislation or private members' legislation. That is not wrong.
The government is elected to govern. The government has the
resources and the absolute duty to make sure that no legislation
succeeds through the House that actually does not work or that is
inconsistent with the interest of Canadians.
The difficulty with private members' business is, as we have
heard tonight, that we get focused on our own ideas. We get
focused on the interests of our own constituents. We will see a
piece of private members' legislation as the be-all and the
end-all. It may be selected. It may be deemed votable. It may
go to committee. We as individuals will defend that legislation,
even if that legislation in fact may have a very negative impact
out there.
Indeed in private members' business, as I have discovered
because I have been a great champion of expanding it, the reality
is that we are all politicians here. We all act with the sort of
self-interest of our constituents, but a self-interest
nevertheless of politicians.
The classic example is all those backbench MPs who submit
private members' bills with no intention of them ever becoming
votable, who submit them for first reading debate for the sole
reason that they can get the quick hit in the newspapers. I have
seen members submit six, seven, eight or ten private members'
bills and motions, all for the short political advantage that
they might get in their riding or with their constituents, or
just to say something about a faint hope cause.
One of my first recommendations in private members' business
would be that we restrict the number of first reading motions and
bills that a member can put forward. As you
well know, Mr. Chairman, it is one of the things that so occupies
those members of staff who are responsible for drafting private
members' bills or all those, shall we say, dilatory bills that
members never intend in the first place to ever go anywhere.
The second point that has come up, and I think it is a very good
point, is the proposal that has been bandied about to get around
the subcommittee on private members that we all agree we do not
like. It works by consensus and it determines whether bills are
votable or not votable. It is not a satisfactory arrangement.
What has been proposed is that every member of the 301 MPs has
the opportunity during a mandate to have one bill deemed votable
and that the draw would only determine the order in which the
members have their bills appear on the order of precedence.
That is very good, but it still has a problem. The problem is
that there are still 301 MPs in the House. We cannot deduct the
parliamentary secretaries because they only serve for a short
time and they need to have their turn at their own private
members' legislation, but if we deduct the frontbenches and the
ministers we still have 280 members of parliament, all with a
votable bill. We would never get through them all.
I would propose that in a mandate every MP had the choice of
having one bill deemed votable that he can put forward and still
be subject to a draw, or that he be given the choice of having
three non-votable motions or bills so that he can have three
hours of debate on things that he does not want to go forward but
he wants a debate on.
In that way there will be less votable bills overall going to
committee.
2305
When a bill comes forward to debate I think it is very
important on private members' bills, if we really do believe that
they should succeed and they really have merit, that there be
genuine debate in this House. I have heard one member say that
if it is a votable private member's bill there only needs to be
two people who speak on it and then it should go to the
committee.
That is wrong. What we really need when it is private members'
business and when it is a votable bill are questions and answers.
What we have now is three hours of debate in which there are
token speeches or there are real speeches but there is no debate.
I think if we really believe in private members' bills, that they
should have merit and they should go the whole distance, then we
need to have debate.
I would also extend the hours of debate for private members'
business. Again, if we really believe that it should succeed,
then we have to have opportunities for that debate.
There are a lot of MPs that would rather spend less time here
than more. I can tell you, speaking for myself, Mr. Chairman, I
believe so passionately in this place and in private members'
legislation that I would be quite happy to stay an extra week or
an extra two weeks or stay extra hours in the day in order to
have the private members' debates that we need.
I think it is very important that we consider formulas, ways in
which we can have extended debate on a Friday, for example, or
extended debate on a Monday, or even a special period for private
members' business, maybe a couple of weeks even during the break
in January or in June. I think it is a mistake if the House
leaders rule on private members' business on the basis of those
MPs who are not interested in the business of the House. I think
it is very important that we serve those who have legislative
initiatives that they want to put forward.
Just very quickly, I have four other points related to the
general business of the House. I would like to see reports from
committees when they are tabled by the committee chairman. I
would like to see some words of debate with respect to them
because what happens is today the chairman of the finance
committee tabled the report of the finance committee. I do not
know what it says and it just disappears. I really think it is
important that something be said with respect to that.
On minutes of the committee, I would like the minutes of the
committee to be properly hansarded and put on the Internet. It
is not enough just to televise. It is very, very important to
have the minutes of committees moved into the public domain as
quickly as possible.
Finally, I would just say that like private members' business I
think committee activity needs to be extended. As I proposed
earlier tonight, I think there is much to be said for striking
special committees that can sit when the House is not sitting and
even pay those members to sit on those committees if necessary.
The Chairman: I thank the hon. member for his
co-operation and all members for their participation throughout
the evening.
It being 11.08 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.
The Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.)