Debates of Oct. 24th, 1997

Petitions

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the petition concerns the massive increase in CPP premiums that are proposed by the government.

The petitioners ask Parliament to enact legislation to wind down the CPP, protecting the pensions of current seniors and that Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present on behalf of constituents is with respect to the criminal justice system. It is a lengthy petition requesting a number of amendments to the criminal justice system.

On behalf of constituents, I would like to table these now.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief petitions today. The first states that managing the family home and caring for pre-school children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to assist families who decide to provide care in the home for pre-school children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the Food and Drugs Act. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to warn expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition has to do with our police officers and firefighters who place their lives at risk on a daily basis and that we all mourn that loss when one of them loses their lives in the line of duty.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families who lose their spouses in the line of duty.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting two petitions on the same subject.

The petitioners are extremely concerned that the moral structure of society is being threatened and community standards eroded by the increasing incidents of topless women in public places.

They request Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit the exposure of female breasts in public.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion: That Bill C-11, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Customs Tariff

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the debate was interrupted, the hon. member for Rosemont had five minutes left to complete his speech. The hon. member for Rosemont therefore has the floor.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue with my speech on Bill C-11.

The Liberals would only be too happy today to forget about the 1993 election campaign, in which they stated time and time again that they were prepared to tear up the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States if this agreement was not renegotiated. In this context, it is surprising to see the Liberals going at it again in red book II, where, on page 34, they try to pass themselves off as the great champions of trade liberalization.

Unlike the Liberal Party, which fiercely opposed free trade in the 1980s and changed its tune once in office, the Bloc Quebecois has always supported free trade.

We believe that trade liberalization has always been essential to the economic prosperity of Quebec and the rest of Canada in its present form. Just think that more than 3.5% of Canada's GDP depends on exports. In Quebec alone, exports account for 40% of all the goods and services produced.

I feel it is important to spend some time looking at how trade has evolved in Quebec. Some federalists seem to think that, by constantly putting down Quebec's economic performance, they are furthering their cause. I personally think they are shortsighted individuals who put their parties' interests before the greater good of Quebeckers.

There are currently 16,000 exporters operating out of Quebec. These are mainly businesses, commercial concerns, boards of trade and individuals doing business in foreign countries. The top 260 exporting firms alone sell for more than $10 million abroad. This performance is the result of a gradual and steady rise.

Indeed, between 1984 and 1996, the value of Quebec's exports abroad more than doubled, growing from $17.3 billion to nearly $49 billion. During the same period, Quebec's imports rose from $19 billion to $40.9 billion. Because of this strong and sustained growth of exports, in 1996, Quebec showed a large trade surplus, amounting to $8.1 billion. In 1995, the trade surplus was $8.7 billion.

When we take a close look at Quebec's economic structure, we notice that international exports of goods and services account for more than 25% of the GDP in Quebec, which is twice as much as in Japan and 2.5 times higher than in the US.

On the international markets, Quebec ranks among the top 30 exporters and importers in the world. This ranking sets us far apart from a mere province without any economic vitality at the international level. Quebec is actually a leader in the export of certain products. It does particularly well in the export of aluminium, being number one in the world, and the export of asbestos. In the area of newsprint export, Quebec ranks second in the world. In fact, in 1994, Quebec was among the 10 leading exporters in the world for some 20 products.

Add to that interprovincial trade within Canada and Quebec ranks 17th in the world in the export of goods and services, before countries like Norway, Korea and Australia. It would rank 23th in the world, just before China, for imports. Overall, approximately 50% of what is produced in Quebec is sold abroad.

To better understand these figures in the context of free trade, we must clearly identify where this economic activity is taking place. While Quebec's trading activities span the whole world, they are primarily concentrated in North America. In 1996, over 86% of its exports went to the North American market. The second most important destination, western Europe, received 10% of Quebec's exports.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois feels that expanding the free trade zone to include all the Americas is essential to increase our trade, including Brazil and Argentina, for instance. A step has already been taken with the signing of a free trade agreement with Chile. Canada must keep going in this direction.

In this context, it is not surprising that Quebec's movers and shakers are in favour of gaining access to new markets. Quebec has established successful economic ties with its main trading partner, the United States, but also with other partners overseas, such as Germany, France, Japan and Italy.

Therefore, we reiterate our general support of free trade. Bill C-11, which we are debating today, is a step in the right direction. Needless to say it will not arouse passions. It is a very small step, as the Prime Minister likes them. We do not expect any better from a government that has always lacked vision as regards the future of this country, preferring once again to go “one step at a time”.

To be sure, it is not easy to find a balance between the importance that must be given to human rights and the opportunity for Quebec and Canadian companies to do business in those countries that violate human rights the most. Still, the Bloc Quebecois is convinced that international trade is not incompatible with promoting human rights. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that this government did not do enough to promote human rights in the context of its international and trade relations.

As for the trade agreements themselves, I stress once again the lack of concrete measures to provide protection that goes beyond merely protecting the rich in our society. It is essential that all trade agreements include adequate clauses to protect labour and the environment. Canada will continue to negotiate international agreements until Quebec becomes sovereign and should protect the effective provisions of labour and environmental standards with our trading partners.

Certain bilateral agreements already contain parallel accords that provide for such provisions. However there is no such accord in multilateral agreements Canada has signed. Environmental protection and social protection clauses provide more benefits to a greater number of people and are to be viewed in the context of sustainable development.

The government must stop hiding behind confidential reports in order to justify its lack of action in this area. We want the government to raise the issue of human rights in its meetings, during its discussions and on its trips abroad. It is high time this government publicly condemned, not only in camera, human right violations committed in foreign countries and, more specifically, in countries that trade with Canada. This government continues to drag its feet in establishing a code of behaviour for Canadian businesses active abroad.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-11. However, this government cannot use this initiative as a substitute for developing an overall international trade policy.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to conduct my order as a responsible member of Parliament in a most crucial debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on our esteemed appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House.

I would like to state at the outset that I am against Bill C-11. The intent of the bill is to provide relief against the imposition of certain customs duties and other charges.

This morning the government asked for quick passage of this legislation. It said that there would be a quick elimination of the nuisance rates.

In recent years in some of the shopping centres in my riding we have seen the introduction of Wal-Mart stores. Are these nuisance rates for Wal-Mart trucks coming across the border? It looks like $1 billion will be gained by outside multinationals trading in our country. The estimate is that $90 million will be saved by our companies in trading elsewhere. Where is the balance? Foreign corporations will be saving $1 billion while Canadian companies will only be saving $90 million.

This is a test of our sovereignty, a test of who Canadians are. Canadians live here. When we look at the intent of all our resources, our markets, our economy and our needs, and we look at tariffs, when people want to trade with our country and we look at the history of our country, the colonization of the world was the reason that brought many of our investors here. We should not continue on the rampant path of pillaging and plundering resources and taking markets to the lowest common denominator of simply making a profit and not looking at the social aspects of our people, the need for higher education, the need for medicare, the need for people to find meaningful employment in all aspects of our economy, not just in manufacturing or the providing of products but also in the protection of our environment. It is a role where the citizens of our country can create a meaningful future for our children.

On the record on the previous agreements that have been made, Bill C-11 seems to be a process of completing the North American Free Trade Agreement. When we sing our national anthem we are the ones singing it as Canadians when we say “our true north strong and free”. It is not an American singing it. It is a Canadian singing it and being proud of who we are. We are strong and we are free to work for the future of our country and the future of our people.

It is not an American person saying it is a free country in northern Canada. It is not. They cannot come across here and get benefits from our lands, our measurable jurisdiction which we call our home. This is our future and our children.

To cause a political awareness I call on Liberals who have formed the government and in their time have served their purpose on this side of the House that in 1988 the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was an issue. The 1993 election came about with NAFTA as a major issue in the red book of the Liberals. The NDP was very clear in its opposition to the free trade agreements and the direction that was being taken, as did the Liberals, but the difference is that the NDP has stuck to its guns. We are still against the free trade and the implementations of the regulations of free trade. That is what Bill C-11 is all about. It is implementing free trade provisions.

The Liberals have turned full circle. Now they want to be champions of the free trade agreement. They ran two elections against the whole free trade aspect in this country. The Liberals were certainly right when they told Canadians that in 1993 their election campaign was if you are opposed to NAFTA you should vote NDP.

In future elections I call on Canadians to remember the New Democrats of this country. We seem to be the only ones protecting Canadians, not multinational interests, not profit making interests, but the future of all Canadians, the future of our land, the environment and also the generations to come.

Despite these claims, these ironclad assurances that we have been crying for regarding labour and environmental standards have not been signed. They have not been protected in the NAFTA and we are afraid that the government of the day will not be protecting them in the multilateral agreement on investment.

The extent to which the Liberals have joined the ranks of globalizing elites is this whole issue of NAFTA and MAI. These are major issues. Globalizing in the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994 where the negotiations began toward free trade of the Americas and where Canada began negotiating with Chile to join NAFTA, the government claimed that the trade deal with Chile would lead to cheaper bananas for Canadians. This government evidently believed that a Latin American country like Chile was a major banana producer.

Someone in the Department of International Trade forgot to tell this government that Chile is not a tropical country. It does not produce or export bananas. The vision and the explanation of this agreement is simply to protect multinational interests and to break down our borders with other countries which have huge amounts of assets and capital to come in and invest, take our resources and our markets and break the economic cycle that we need in this country.

We need to produce, to finish our products and use our products. We need to create a cycle where our Canadian dollars are changing hands within Canada, not externally. If we can attract outside interest from European countries, Asian countries, the America countries and other American states, let them come in but let them invest in our future. Let them pay the tariffs and duties that come with the existence of creating these provisions by our country.

With these tariffs we can invest in better education. We may have a future where children can have tuition free education. Let the corporations pay not only tax dollars through income tax, GST, BST, HST and provincial sales tax to improve our standard of living, but through investment into Canadians' means of providing a better future. Let them pay for medicare and the building of hospitals. Let them pay for the betterment of our medical personnel.

There are doctors in rural and northern Canada who are being imported from outside Canada to come and work and provide health services to our communities. Why can we not teach our children from our local communities to be doctors? The one simple fact is they cannot afford it. If we cannot afford to buy a career or a profession in our own country what is this country's role? What is this government's role? We have to protect our children's future.

If we do not stand up against multinational interests of pure and simple capitalism, of taking profits for their own corporations, we are going in the wrong direction. The vision of this country has been to provide a means for continued investment and globalization. Globalization is a nice, cute, sexy word but it does not mean anything to Canadians. Our purpose in this country is to look within our boundaries for the betterment of our future.

I have looked at the Liberal's trade policies. They have enjoyed the support of the Bloc Quebecois, as was obvious this afternoon when we heard Bloc members speak in favour of this, the Reform Party and the Conservative Party because it introduced the whole NAFTA project. The NDP members are the only ones to take the choice to speak in favour of Canadians, in protecting Canadian companies, in protecting the Canadian labour force, in protecting the future of Canadians and in protecting our land.

Globalization of Canadian sovereignty is for international communities. It is not for Canadians.

I would like to speak on the irony of this. As Canada has sought allies against Canadian trade harassment, it has built alliances with countries that do not contain American trade harassment. Americans are strong and powerful and they will harass you however they can. Canada has been looking for alliances to keep human rights, labour rights and environmental practices on all trade agreements, to a greater extent, in all of North America.

On the question of the social clause of the World Trade Organization, common labour practices in the free trade agreement and supporting UN resolutions condemned Chinese human rights. However, Canada has been on the side of trying to keep the social dimension of trade off the agenda against countries like the United States which have been supportive of broadening trade agendas globally. We must protect the consciousness of all people.

Canadians and Americans, like others around the world, have been asked by multinationals and their allies in government to sacrifice considerable national sovereignty; our investment policy in social, labour and environmental standards in exchange for rule based regimes and profit making schemes by multinationals.

The NDP wants to work toward international trade rules that are not so one sided in favour of multinationals. We are part of a system of international governance that balances economic opportunities for a new economy.

We must build a responsible international economy that is accountable to our communities and the public interest of our country. That is why Canadians have put us to the challenge of being here in the House of Commons to create the consciousness of this government and all governments of the world.

The social clauses are a major source of awareness for our party. We have fought to protect labour, farmers and other people of our communities. A co-operative movement has striven in many corners of the country to protect the community interest, to keep the investment, profits and the dividends at a community level. These are part of a Canadian vision for Canadians.

The biggest challenge is to build a more democratic international community. Multinational and international agreements have been trying to create international trade agreements. They must deal effectively with the social dimensions of trade. A growing international movement seeks to build social clauses such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. We are calling on the government to keep that consciousness in mind when it is negotiating the multilateral agreement on investment.

Such clauses should respect human rights, basic labour rights, economic decision making within the new economy and the ability of workers to negotiate the terms under which they will participate in the global economy. Social clauses allow states to establish environmental regulations that have challenged non-tariff barriers to trade.

The new trade rules are remarkably one sided in defence of the rights of investors. I guess their lobbying strategy is working. They seem to have multi-parties talking in favour of multinational rights to intellectual property.

Intellectual property rights are a major cause for sovereignty and national interests. If we have resources within our country we must work to create, negotiate and fight for the rights of our people and our interests. We cannot simply give them wholesale access to multinationals. For the pharmaceutical companies to have access to resources for medicinal purposes, the interests might be in our backyards in Canada.

We must protect our environment and our livelihoods. If we trade them off and give them to the profitable right of somebody else we will never create an economic cycle with our own resources. We will have lost it.

To reverse this process seems to be a battle in itself. How can we get away from NAFTA once we have signed on? It seems to be a big ship that goes down. We just cannot to keep it buoyant.

There is nothing about workers rights and trade unions and the right to a safe workplace. They speak loudly of level playing fields but globalization, according to many observers, has certainly been a race to the bottom, to the lowest common labour standards, to the lowest possible wage levels with the highest level of profit.

There is no limit to profit taking. The banks of the country brag that they are making 25% to 30% more profit than they did last year. This means they made profits the years before. They are measuring percentages over their profits, just leapfrogging their profit-making margins.

Then international banks are coming into our markets. They are trying to break down the rules to allow them to compete against our banks. We must speak on behalf of our own banking institutions as well. We must protect our own market, our own industries.

We see products like old growth forests being cut down on the west coast. Whole logs are shipped to Japan for the people there to provide products and possibly sell back to Canadians. Let us finish our products here. Let us market and be aggressive.

In order to be aggressive and competitive we have to train and teach our children. If we do not acquire further taxes from our corporations and the multinationals operating within our market, we will lose a big source of revenue generation. We must create revenue and wealth by taxing the people doing business with us.

The Liberal government accepts one of the cliches of globalization, that the best way to address the problem of human and environmental rights is by developing open trade in society.

Where does Canadian sovereignty fall into place? Support for the social cause is a start. We are seeing the government going hell-bent to negotiate these agreements. We must call on the government to have a social conscience and link trade benefits to the human rights of the people of the world.

Without such causes the World Trade Organization is like a turkey shoot where multinationals and their allies in some developing countries can exploit the most vulnerable. Chile is an example. Why is it not negotiating free trade agreements with the other countries of South America? It chose Chile because it was the most vulnerable.

I call on the government to be fair and equitable to all developing countries of the world and not to pick on the weak. Speaking of the weak, Canadians cannot be seen as a weak entity. We must stand up for ourselves. I call on the government to stand up on behalf of all Canadians, to be strong and to be free to speak for the will of all Canadians.

I call on the government and the House of Commons to challenge each other to provide a way of negotiating our needs with the rest of the world. If they are willing to invest in our country, let us stop the colonization move.

There are remnants of colonization remaining in our northern communities. I draw attention to the reality that in northern Canada the Hudson's Bay Company has changed its name to Northern Stores. The Hudson's Bay Company and Northern Stores do not invest in our communities.

We talk about our aboriginal communities needing to create an economic cycle for the betterment of their lives and those of their children. The Hudson's Bay Company does not invest in our communities. It deals in profits as it did in the days of the fur trade and takes them elsewhere. We have to put up trade barriers to stop profit making and keep some of those revenues in the country.

I speak on behalf of our party against Bill C-11 because it is a remnant of the NAFTA. I challenge the House of Commons and the leadership of the country to protect the interest of Canadians wholeheartedly. Let us keep our companies, workers, banks and our railroads in this country for future generations. Let us stay Canadian, strong and free.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

The PC Party of Canada supports making legislation that simplifies our lives and the lives of business owners. However there are matters that need to be addressed in the legislation.

I thank the hon. member from Manitoba for acknowledging it was the Progressive Conservative Party that introduced and brought forward the free trade legislation.

We are happy to see the Liberal government has realized our initiatives on free trade in the late 1980s are so important, a lead that it continues to follow. Our initiated agreement made trade between countries competitive, boosted economic success and began to tear down the walls that hindered successful open trade transactions between countries.

At that time the Liberals did everything in their power to oppose the initiative. Today we witnessed something else. What was so profusely objected to almost 10 years ago is today the largest bill on our shelves and the biggest factor in the contributing of tax revenues to the recovery of our economy.

While we are flattered the government of the day continues to carry out our initiatives and our tariff agreements that we put in place when we were in government, there are several important factors to be considered.

Just a few weeks ago the government was reprimanded for the untimeliness of the year 2000 project. How can we expect modern innovation from the Liberals when the bill is distributed in paper form instead of CD-ROM? The documents are composed of about a foot and a half of paper. In the last couple of days we have heard about the importance of the environment. This is truly an unfriendly environmental document.

Let us look at the size of the bill. Instead of setting an example and proving that we are moving into the 21st century, our offices are cluttered with these volumes.

Perhaps my most important message today is that this is the beginning, not the end. We cannot stop now with the progress that we have made because the bill has been simplified. Work still needs to be done.

I ask the government to commit to continuing with the work in progress, to continue developing trade agreements with our partners, to look ahead to the global marketplace and to achieve a standard of excellence with our trading partners. This means the government must continue to promote trade and encourage business development in Canada. It is imperative that taxes in all areas be competitive.

While we know that industry generally supports the bill, we also know it has qualms about it. First and foremost is the sense of urgency being placed on the bill. The Canadian Importers Association is concerned with its speedy passage as it says importers will not have enough time for what will be a very time consuming and costly exercise. The Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters also shares this concern. It states that it is a scary exercise and there is very little time to do the programming it needs.

Unlike the government that has known about the year 2000 problem for the last five years, perhaps we should give businesses a month or two leeway to implement the bill.

These are the affected parties. We demand that the government listen to their concerns and continue with the theme of simplification. If we are to simplify the process we need to continue with their agreement and simplify the lives of business owners. We will hold the government accountable and demand that it listen to the suggestions that have been received.

The recurring message we are hearing from the business community with respect to the uneasiness it faces is related to the delivery and the implementation of the tariff simplification initiative. While it supports the elimination of regulation and business procedures, it is deeply affected by the timing of the bill. It feels quite rushed and that it has not been granted enough time to prepare for the upcoming changes and enormous challenges it must face.

This is the most complex tariff system in the world. We know it and our trading partners know it. I urge the government to consider the huge tasks that lie ahead for importers in Canada and demand they be given time to adopt to the enormous changes ahead.

Since the Liberal government obviously agrees with us on the importance of free trade, why do its members not agree with us on simplifying the lives of businessmen, simplifying the lives of Canadians, decreasing red tape, lessening government interference, simplifying Bill C-11 and agreeing with changes to the complexity and short term allowances given to these important businesses?

The PC Party stands for less red tape, less government interference, less government involvement in people's lives, more power to businesses and more power to the people.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Markham for allowing me to share his time.

The Conservative Party in fact is very proud to support Bill C-11. We are delighted that Liberals are today behaving like the Conservatives of yesterday. Nevertheless, we are surprised that the New Democrats of today are behaving like the Liberals of 1993. We hope that the miracle will continue and the people will understand that isolation is passé.

We do agree with this bill. For over ten years now the Conservative Party has been working on a process, and we must not forget that NAFTA was only part of it, to globalize Canada's trade. Quebec and, in large measure, Ontario most strongly supported the debate and the treaty in the 1980s, so that today, all provinces may enjoy increased trade through the free trade agreement.

However, as my colleague pointed out, the problem we have with people opposite is that there is no planning. Businesses are told to get ready because, in January, things will be made simpler. However, in fact, as my hon. colleague pointed out, the thickness of the document would indicate that people will not be ready by January 1.

As my colleague also pointed out, we are asking the government to be patient. This is a bit surprising for the Conservative Party, but we are asking the government to perhaps pay attention to the bill's wording. Even though we support the bill, we honestly believe that it should have been introduced much earlier in the previous legislature so that people could prepare for it. People in private industry in Canada, big and small business, are not aware of the government's position and are still waiting, with a bit of surprise, for the bill to fall on their heads.

So, as I was saying, NAFTA was good for the country and for Quebec. Now there are more treaties with other countries. That is why the Conservative Party will always support any bill that means that Canada and Quebec will not be isolated in the international marketplace, but will assume their rightful place.

I would also like to point out that it would be a good thing in this House if the government were to start being much more conservative, in the good sense of the word. I think that the gods must be smiling on us, because yesterday the Prime Minister said that the GST was a good thing. A tax is always heavily criticized, but in the end it was a good thing. It is now recognized that NAFTA was a good thing. However, there can be no doubt that the election of the Liberals in 1993 was a bad thing. But this will surely get sorted out with time.

As for Bill C-11, it is extremely complex. It is, however, a step in the right direction. We hope that it will benefit all import businesses in Canada.

We must not be afraid of isolating ourselves. Our New Democratic friends worry about this. The hon. member of the NDP gave the example of western forests. Western forests were being cut down and the logs sent outside the country, only to come back in as finished products. I would like to explain to my hon. colleague that Quebec imports wood from the United States, processes it and sells it back to the Americans. International treaties must therefore be examined as a whole and international trade looked at much more globally.

Nor should it be said that only large corporations have benefited from NAFTA. Ten years ago, there were fears that textile companies, in Quebec for example, would take a terrible beating. They had to adapt quickly, and today Quebec's textile companies are among the province's largest exporters.

What we are saying, therefore, is that the tens of millions of dollars that will be saved will result in our being much more competitive. Here again, the government has a problem. They are helping companies save money, using the argument that the economy has to make a better recovery, that we must help our businesses. However, this is just one point of view, the issue of imports. What we are saying is that there are also other ways of helping businesses. We are prepared to support Bill C-11, but we are also prepared to support, and have always supported, a reduction in employment insurance contributions, among other things.

So, if all these objectives could be combined, Canadians and Quebeckers as a whole could benefit. Slowly but surely, this government is learning, and we hope that will continue to be the case.

We are proud to support Bill C-11 and any bill, as I was saying earlier, that means that Quebec and Canadian businesses can benefit from the globalization of markets.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because of the ramifications it will have, along with the NAFTA deal, the free trade deal, the MAI, APEX and all those other deals that governments past and present have made.

We would assume by listening to government members that the sun rises and sets on their current policies. They have repeated on several occasions that Bill C-11 was created in consultation with industry. Industry, industry, industry. If I am not mistaken, the government member who previously spoke said that five times. However, not once have I heard them say they have consulted the working people, labour groups, citizens groups or action groups. Any group having a leaning toward the social left was not consulted with respect to Bill C-11. That is typical of the government when it comes to modifying or altering current legislation.

If I may digress for a moment, a few years back this government did not like the regulations which governed the foreign sale of nuclear CANDU reactors. Literally overnight, with an order in council, it changed the trade regulations and the environmental regulations in order to sell two CANDU reactors to China.

I remind the House that China has one of the worst human rights records in the world today and yet this government, without consulting the House of Commons, without allowing proper debate, changed the environmental and trade regulations and sold the CANDU reactors to China. Organizations such as the Sierra Club have taken the government to court to fight those arrangements.

I could go on and list more spectacles of that nature. That is the despicable nature of the government.

Slowly, bit by bit, this government and previous Conservative governments have relinquished control to the corporate elite. I have said time and time again that I would much rather have an elected Bob Rae or an elected government official than I would an unelected Conrad Black. The reason I say that is that if people do not like an elected official, he or she will come up for election again in so many years, and the people can kick them out.

Elected officials have to listen to the concerns of the people whether they like them or not. An unelected corporate official does not have to listen to the people. They never have to attend meetings. They can totally ignore the wishes of the Canadian people.

I have held talks with members of the professional bankers association in my riding. They have indicated, as we have suspected for quite some time, that the big six banks will soon merge to become the big three. The bankers are saying that will happen because we cannot compete globally. That they can make $1 billion in six months is not good enough for them. Now they are saying we have to compete globally. Globally, globally, globally. That is all we ever hear.

What will happen to the thousands of people working in the banking institutions? What will happen to them years down the road? What kind of jobs will we be able to offer our children? Are there going to be any jobs?

The hon. member from Saskatchewan indicated that we should be working toward the benefit and health of our children. Our children are our most valuable resource.

During the wars and after the wars this country produced all kinds of equipment, machinery and products. For example, the world's largest gypsum mine borders on my riding. Ninety per cent of the gypsum is shipped out of Canada, into the United States, turned into gyproc, and we turn around and buy it back. That is insanity. There could be hundreds of jobs created in my riding if there were a gypsum board factory. That would be tremendous.

We do the same thing with whole logs. We ship them to countries like Japan when we could be manufacturing those logs in Canada today. We could be creating thousands and thousands of jobs.

The Minister for International Trade, through the Economic Development Corporation, is giving $285 million to a firm to set up a pulp mill in Indonesia. That is another country with a terrible human rights record.

We give it $285 million to build a pulp mill so it can compete with our pulp mills in Canada. We have pulp mill workers in Skeena, which is represented by the Reform, and I have yet to hear a Reform member stand up on behalf of those working people out there.

They have to give labour concessions and more wage cuts and more benefit cuts in order to compete through the government's turning around and giving millions of dollars to another country to compete with ours, and not just a country with a good record, a country that has some of the worst human rights records in history.

The APEC deal is coming around, and who do we invite with open arms and the red carpet? Soeharto, one of the vilest people on the planet, and Canada is going to sit there and welcome him with open arms.

I wish I had brought the picture with me that I had taken a few years ago of the defeated minister of health, Mr. David Dingwall, who was soundly defeated in the riding of Cape Breton. He could not wait when the premier of China, Li Peng, the butcher of Beijing, came to Canada in his big 747 to the Halifax airport.

Members should have seen Mr. Dingwall tripping over everybody, pushing away security guards in order to get in that limousine and have his picture taken with the butcher of Beijing. Those kinds of attitudes in this Liberal government are still there.

Liberals are willing to sell their souls to anybody in this country or anybody in the world willing to pay, without proper debate and without consultation of the House of Commons.

I recently referred members to the CPP bill, one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever in Canadian history. Whether someone is for or against it is really not the question. The question is that we should be having proper debate on something that affects every single Canadian.

What does the hon. House leader do after only seven hours of debate? He shuts it off. He invokes closure. He uses the majority, by the way only a slim majority, of the government officials to defeat the debate. To us that is simply scandalous.

What is this government afraid of? Why is it not willing to talk to Canadians, all Canadians, not just industry but labour groups, other opposition parties, to form political solutions to the political problems that we have today?

It is unbelievable to those Canadians outside Parliament that this government and former governments would continue on this path of hide and seek policies every time.

We kept hearing when free trade was talked about that it would be good for Canadians. It was not good enough. We have to have NAFTA. That is going to be good for Canadians. No, no, that's not good enough either. We have to go one step further.

APEC really is not anything, just some sort of agreement among economies and businesses, not countries; no human rights legislation, no protection for working people, none, just sort of business deals.

But that is not good enough. Now we have the mother of all trade deals coming down, the MAI. I remind members that if not for the leader of the New Democrats, this deal may already have been passed, as this deal was silently being passed through without any consultation with the House of Commons.

During the campaign she mentioned this deal and all of a sudden the government said “Hold off, the cat is out of the bag now. We are going to have to reluctantly discuss this with the House of Commons”. I cannot wait for the day when that debate comes around. It goes on and on.

I think back to a movie I saw in the early 1970s, “Rollerball”, in which there were no governments and the world was being dominated by five corporations. The corporations were fighting among each other for total control of the planet. I cannot understand why elected officials would relinquish their control through legislation and allow corporations to take over and take over.

I remind members in the War of 1812 we won. We won the sovereignty of our country. We won the solidarity of working people throughout this country from coast to coast to coast, the French and English together.

Jonathan Winters said in a stand-up comic routine “We Americans, gee, we hope we can take you peacefully”. They are doing a very good job of it right now. They are taking us over economically, and what is happening?

There are literally millions of workers in this country who do not even know if they are going to have a job next week. Probably every labour aspect and every trade union have had to go before their employers. Their employers have had to go to them. It is becoming not just protection or improvements to collective agreements but givebacks and takeaways and further wage cuts, downsizing, restructuring, this and that and this. We have had over 80 months with unemployment rates of over 9%. We had heard that free trade was going to cure that problem. We had heard that NAFTA was going to cure that problem. We hear now that the MAI is going to cure that problem. We now hear that Bill C-11 is going to cure that problem. Government had to get rid of the manufacturers sales tax. The former Tory government said we absolutely had to get rid of that and place the burden of taxation away from corporations and on individuals.

What happened in Atlantic Canada? Lo and behold, the Liberals get elected. Eleven Liberals from the province of Nova Scotia are elected. Off they go to the House of Commons. I can see all 11 of them sitting there and agreeing like this: “You know Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. Finance Minister, the GST really isn't hitting those people hard enough. I think we should impose another tax on them called the HST”, or as we prefer it, the BST. “It is no longer acceptable to pay 8% or 9% or combined percentages of rates. We now have to hit them with 15%”.

I remind the House that in three provinces of Atlantic Canada we pay more for postage stamps than anywhere else in this country. That is just one slight example of the scandalous treatment of Atlantic Canadians. It goes on and on. The HST is the most regressive tax ever to hit pensioners on lower incomes and people with low wages.

It is just incredible that government would shift the burden of taxation away from corporations that make record profits year after year and place the burden of taxation on to individuals. It blows me absolutely away.

I could stand here all day and mention example after example but I will cut my speech short and say once and for all that I wish the government, instead of listening to its friends on the corporate world, would start to listen to ordinary working Canadians, those from labour and social action groups, to come up with the solutions we need for today.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to summarize the interventions heard on Bill C-11.

For the record, the bill is intended to improve the competitiveness of Canadian companies and industry and to lessen the regulatory burden on industry and government. It is a bill that has received broad support from Canadian industry. It has been developed in close consultation with Canadian stakeholders over a three-year period.

No new commitments are being implemented in this bill. It is really the elimination of nuisance rates, rates that would benefit Canadian manufacturers, as it mostly affects goods that are used in inputs for Canadian manufacturers. This should help Canadian industry to be more competitive. Certainly in the end it should benefit Canadian consumers.

Comments were made earlier today with respect to the timing of this initiative. For the record I want to state that since April when the initial notice of ways and means was tabled in the House, Revenue Canada and Statistics Canada have been undergoing extensive outreach campaigns to alert those who could potentially be affected by the legislation with respect to the proposed changes. Officials from the finance department have also met with industry and trade associations and participated in customs conferences to inform interested parties of the developments in preparing the legislation.

It is also important to note that we have received letters from various associations in support of this legislation that call for its swift passage through Parliament to ensure the business community has a wider window of opportunity to prepare businesses for the competition they face in the global marketplace. Letters have been received from the Canadian Importers Association Inc., the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other types of associations calling for passage of this bill in order to deal with some areas that lack efficiency within this climate.

The current tariff provisions are being consolidated into a single tariff schedule that will be simpler to read and will provide greater flexibility.

The measures, as I said earlier, will enhance industry competitiveness. When industry competitiveness is enhanced, it allows greater opportunity of employment for Canadians.

We are just as sympathetic as all other members toward unemployment. The NDP made reference to that in their speeches today and I congratulate them and thank them for their intervention. It is important to make the point and they made it very eloquently. We must ensure that what we do in enhancing the competitiveness for industry translates into greater opportunities for Canadians in allowing them those employment opportunities.

We hope the simplified customs tariff meets its objectives of improving the competitive position of Canadian industry while going forward and providing a very transparent and predictable regime that lessens the regulatory burden and reduces the business costs that companies face.

We set out to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of our industries. The review was launched over three years ago. We believe, with the help and support of the House, companies will benefit, which will translate to greater competitiveness and employment opportunities. I thank all members for the time that they have taken to participate in today's debate.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments toward the New Democratic Party concerning our trying to get the message across that we should be working with and assisting Canadians.

There is one thing I mentioned. He again said that the government had consulted with various industries and groups. I did not hear him once that he had consulted with the CLC. I did not hear him once say that he had consulted with the Quebec Federation of Labour.

[An hon. member]

What is CLC?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sorry. The Canadian Labour Congress, for those on the other side who do not understand the labour groups.

I did not hear him once say that he had spoken with the CAW, the Canadian Auto Workers. Not once did I hear him say that they referred this bill to working people.

There is one point I forgot in my submission. A few years ago the Mexican government allowed the peso to drop and devalue on the market. This caused shock waves through the financial community. What was Canada's response? Canada had to pump tens of millions of dollars through the auspices of the World Bank and friends in the American government to prop up the Mexican peso.

We were told in the House of Commons—although I was not here at that time—but read the Hansard comments that that was to assist, enable and help out the people of Mexico and the Mexican workers. In reality, it was to help out those Canadian businesses that left provinces like Ontario and the rest of Canada to go down to Mexico because of their cheap labour force.

We were told that the whole aspect of NAFTA and free trade was to prop up the living standards of those workers in Mexico.

Madam Speaker, I invite you and everyone in the House of Commons to go down to Mexico and see how propped up they are. They are not very propped up at all. What has it done? It has not increased the working conditions of Mexican workers. It has decreased the condition of Canadian workers.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the intervention and the question.

The intention of the government with this legislation, as it is with other legislation, is to work closely with all Canadians. We do not want, as a government, to start pitting worker against worker, Mexico against Canada.

We want the entire global economy to become consumers of Canadian products. We want the entire global economy to benefit and grow in its capabilities and become consumers for Canada. Canada's economy is based on exports and exports are an area of our economy which has driven the growth in the economy over the last little while and it will continue to do so.

The proposals that we see before us are proposals that deal with the competitiveness of the Canadian industry, which translates into greater opportunity for Canadians in employment and into lower prices for Canadian consumers. That is what this bill is all about. I again thank the hon. member for the intervention.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that we should go all day with this but there is one thing I do not understand.

With all of the agreements we have signed, such as the free trade or the MAI or whatever, I find that the Atlantic provinces are not on the map anymore. Nobody is working down home.

If we find a new program I hope we will try to put the Atlantic provinces back on the map.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the only comment I have is that there was a conference held in the Atlantic provinces to deal with the future and the vision of Atlantic Canada. It was partly funded by Industry Canada to ensure that Atlantic Canada has an opportunity to express and build its own economic future. There was representation from various ministries along with the premiers and other stakeholders in Atlantic Canada.

The government is very committed to ensuring that all regions of Canada have an opportunity to grow and develop. We will participate, as we have in the past, in ensuring that Atlantic Canada is a strong participant in this great country.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction and a few points, because I attended the Vision for the Atlantic.

I will tell you how I attended it. It was against the will of the premier of New Brunswick. That is the type of vision which they have. The social groups were not invited. No workers were invited and the people who spoke at the conference were not representing the people of the Atlantic.

It is very important to start wondering whose vision it is for the Atlantic. The New Democrats were certainly not invited, a lot of PCs were not invited and actually we were told that they were not welcome there. Tell me what kind of consultation that was?

[An hon. member]

Shame.