Madam Speaker, I am speaking today on Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade.
As we are aware, the federal government must implement that agreement through Parliament. There are a number of points covered in this bill: the process for appointment of a federal representative to the Committee on Internal Trade; payment of the federal government's share of expenditures associated with operating the secretariat; the power of the governor in council to suspend, in special cases, the benefits granted under the agreement. Also, no private course of action may be taken based on the text or its implementing orders, nor the dispositions of the agreement, other than specific exceptions, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Here are a few more: retaliatory powers where the federal government is an injured party; changes in certain federal legislative texts to bring them in line with the agreement, such as the Financial Administration Act, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Interest Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
The role of the Committee on Internal Trade is to supervise implementation of the agreement and to facilitate dispute settlement. This bill ensures equal treatment of individuals, goods and businesses, regardless of their origin within Canada. It harmonizes standards and regulations in order to eliminate certain practices which might present an obstacle to interprovincial trade. It calls for the free movement of individuals, goods and capital.
The eleven sectors covered by the agreement are public contracts, investments, labour mobility, consumer measures and standards, agrifood products, alcoholic beverages, natural resource processing, communications, transportation, energy, and environmental protection. These various sectors are affected to varying degrees.
Retaliatory measures may be taken by the injured party against the party does not comply with the agreement. A party may be a province, a territory or the federal government.
The main purpose of Bill C-88 is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. As other members of my party have already said, the Bloc Quebecois has always supported free trade, both internally and internationally. Consequently, we support the principle of this bill, and I must say I never understood why trade barriers existed between the various provinces in Canada.
I may point out that I object to the wording of clause 9 which provides that:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
It could be interpreted to mean that the federal government may intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when it is not a party to the dispute. Through this bill, Ottawa acquires a mechanism for imposing sanctions on the provinces. In fact, the federal government could impose all kinds of sanctions, including a reduction in transfer payments for provinces that do not abide by the agreement. This new intrusion by the federal government is unacceptable.
I said the Bloc Quebecois supports free trade both internally and internationally. I would like to comment briefly on NAFTA and continental free trade in the Americas.
At the summit meeting attended by presidents and government leaders in Miami, in December 1993, there was some discussion of this topic, and it was decided to expand NAFTA to include all countries in the three Americas in the largest free trade zone ever, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
The first country to sign this free trade agreement after the United States, Canada and Mexico will be Chile, and I fully and strongly support the decision of Chile, my country of birth, to become a member of NAFTA. The Bloc Quebecois has done so as well. Everything was in place for Chile to become a member of NAFTA on January 1, 1996, but unfortunately, the fast-track legislation was not passed by the U.S. Congress, and there will be no quick negotiations as planned. It will take several months more before Chile can sign this agreement.
I would also like to say that, although I am in favour of free trade zones, including NAFTA, I am very critical of the agreement, especially its lack of a social dimension, although a parallel agreement on labour was adopted and a secretariat is starting to operate in Texas with officials from all three countries. Last March, I attended a conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to discuss the social aspects of NAFTA with participants from Mexico, Puerto Rico, the United States, Canada and Quebec. We noticed, as I do now, that unfortunately there has been very little debate in this Parliament and in Canada as a whole on the impact of NAFTA on workers. I found that unions do not play a role at all in the operation and administration of NAFTA.
Having lived in Europe for a number of years, I am familiar with the European integration process. I found that Europeans had more social concerns. Their treaty, for example, contains provision for the creation of a special fund to assist workers affected by the European common market; a social charter, containing principles and provisions protecting workers, and an economic and social council where employers and workers may meet to discuss European integration.
Unfortunately, NAFTA contains no provision for minimum working standards, except in three areas: minimum standards must be met in health and safety on the job, child labour is prohibited, and each country in NAFTA must comply with its minimum salary legislation. No standards are set, however, for the three countries. There is no standardization in either social or labour terms. Provision could have been made for the inclusion of international labour standards in NAFTA, such as the convention on the right to unionize, unrestricted collective bargaining and the right of association. NAFTA contains no provision on the free movement of labour and nothing to protect immigrant workers. International free trade agreements must contain a social element, just as this social element must be included in free trade or common market agreements.