Debates of Feb. 23rd, 1998

Supply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the secretary of state for regional development.

I am somewhat disappointed in the motion as it fails to move the debate off this eternal merry-go-round. It is in distinct contrast with the participation of the Reform Party in committee and its helpful contributions to the committee.

If I may, I would like to refer to the committee's minority report as it was written in the larger report. I take the Reform Party at its word when it says that it is a free trade party and supports Canada's participation in the construction of a multilateral agreement on investment. It continues:

The Reform Party is a free trade party that supports liberalized trade and investment. We thus support the MAI initiative at the OECD subject to the concerns we have outlined on labour and multinational standards and culture.

Having stated its position as supportive of the government's initiative, I propose to turn to two of its criticisms in the time allowed.

I highlight these in contrast to the motion which seems to be highly critical of the government. I characterize its critique as one of nuance rather than adamant opposition, as one with which reasonable people might disagree but one which is characterized by a broader sense of agreement.

The Reform Party states in its minority report:

We endorse most of the recommendations contained in the subcommittee's study of the multilateral agreement on investment with the exception of the one on labour and multinational standards and the one that has a broad exemption for culture.

I would like to turn to those two exemptions and ask whether Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is giving the government good advice.

We have heard from a great variety of sources with respect to cultural exemption. It has a variety of names, a cultural carve-out, cultural exemption, sectoral exemption, et cetera. The argument is that the agreement will severely limit Canada's ability to foster indigenous culture and Canada's voice. Some of the rhetoric borders on paranoia and uses silly language like NAFTA on steroids.

The Reform Party, to its credit, is a bit more nuanced in its critique. For those of us who sat in on some of the testimony it became quite clear very quickly that not all cultural industries are created equal. Writers and artists dependent upon grants from government and other sources appeal to a limited audience or are just starting to feel the need for some protection.

Cultural industries that are capital intensive and have a degree of mass cultural appeal need access to large, international markets and international capital.

I would like to quote from the report:

Canada's film and television production industry increasingly depends on foreign markets. Peter Lyman of the Nordicity group pointed out the importance of foreign trade and investment from a Canadian perspective. Foreign financing and foreign revenues contribute about $600 million to Canadian film and television production.

The example of CanWest Global was given as a Canadian firm that gets tens of millions of dollars in revenues from its foreign investments in Australia and New Zealand, which strengthens its ability to finance traders.

To state that all cultural industries are created equal is not consistent with the testimony of the witnesses. Clearly quite a number feel the need for protection, but there is also a number who feel that the protection of an MAI carve-out may be a serious detriment to their eventual success.

The Reform Party's position is that if the protection of culture must exist it should be drawn as clearly and narrowly as possible. In fact it would prefer a cultural policy which does not put stressful artists and companies at risk.

I am of the view that when the minister negotiates the final working agreement he should be very specific as to what culture, for the purpose of the agreement, means. This is not an abandonment of culture. I believe that this is the direction the government is going. It is one which is desirable and has broad support within the House.

The second area of dissent is on labour and multinational standards. The Reform Party's position in the minority report is:

Although the Reform Party fully supports the labour standards at issue—the right to organize democratically, bargain collectively and strike peacefully in the absence of discrimination—we cannot support thrusting these standards on to other countries.

I believe that the Reform Party is wrong for two reasons. It is missing an opportunity to develop a practice of raising international standards. Many of the countries with which Canada is negotiating have labour standards and practices which are appallingly low.

A number of countries that are party to these negotiations routinely exploit their labour force. In some respects it is an ideal time to try to raise labour standards rather than let them slip off the table as the Reform Party advocates. The argument which has the direct or indirect effect of raising standards needs to be supported.

The second reason I think the clause needs to be included is to level the playing field. I would much prefer that other countries bring their treatment of workers up to our standards, rather than the reverse. If we miss the opportunity to raise the standards for other countries, our own competitiveness will be eroded and therefore defeat what we hope to obtain from the agreement, namely the ability to sell into other countries without exploiting our labour force.

I believe this is an opportunity to enhance the lot of workers around the world and to provide a measure of dignity to all. No country including our own should be put in the position of having to exploit its own labour force to obtain a measure of prosperity. At its root, raising worldwide labour standards is enlightened self-interest and one which the minister should pursue with vigour.

In conclusion, the Reform Party has a useful contribution to debate. It is my view that it is a more nuanced approach to the cultural exemption and one which needs to be examined. However, on the issue of labour and multinational standards, Reform is clearly wrong and cannot be supported.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear so much talk about the Reform Party's dissenting opinion. I guess it must have struck a nerve.

It seems to me, though, that there was some talk about international markets in terms of culture. We know there are about $700 million of investment in our Canadian cultural industries from countries such as Australia. If we decide to go the protectionist route, two can play that game. Other countries can play that game as well.

If we put broad cultural exemptions on instead of defining narrowly exactly what we need, how will that serve our interests with countries such as Australia which are investing in Canada? Would that not cut off some of the investment?

Most of the so-called threat to Canadian culture seems to be coming from the United States. We already have the NAFTA with a so-called cultural exemption which says that we can have retaliation and equivalent effect. It would be pretty tough to get a weaker exemption than that. That will remain in place whether or not we sign the MAI.

How does the member see the MAI destroying the cultural exemption which is already in place under the NAFTA?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I do not. The issue is the form of cultural industry which appears to be in need of protection. I believe the minister is in the process of negotiating that form of cultural protection.

The issue really is to equally access and have a level playing field with respect to those industries which have either mass appeal or that need large capitalization. In this way we can have our cake and eat it too. Those industries which do not require that protection will not have it in the agreement.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that some Liberals choose to say that the Reform Party is not out to protect Canadian culture. It is quite the contrary. The Reform Party recognizes that Canadian culture is a very valuable commodity to this country but cannot be protected with a broad instrument such as they are talking about.

A quote in the Ottawa Citizen on February 17 from Paris reads “Scores of French writers, film-makers and composers joined forces yesterday in Paris to defend their government cultural subsidies against the threat posed by a new global investment pact. They fear it will undermine its cultural identity”.

Protection goes both ways. French-speaking people who want to export Canadian culture will be stopped at the border of France if the MAI is under a broad cultural exemption. If that is what we want and what France has asked for, we will have a wonderful little fortress with our Canadian culture with a great big wall around it because we cannot get it out in spite of the fact that Canadians and Canadian artists are world class people. We want to give them the opportunity to be able to export.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the member opposite in that it appears he has missed my major point. I will repeat it.

The major point is that the industries which feel they are in need of protection will obtain protection from this agreement. However, those cultural industries which are not in need of protection, such as the CanWest and Nordicitys in this world, will not necessarily obtain it in the agreement.

My point is simple: We will have our cake and eat it too. That is the essence of good negotiations and good agreement.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. What the hon. member is saying is very good but he has heard some good comments from this side. The hon. member is a fair member and has been around for a while. Does he agree that this debate should come back to this House for a full debate by all members of Parliament and voted on so that all Canadians understand fully what the agreement is going to be about?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already said that and answered that question fully. It is an agreement of this country and goes through the normal parliamentary process. I do not know why the member needs to be concerned about that.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the government to speak to such a delicate and important matter as the multilateral agreement on investment.

For Canada, the MAI is a fundamental agreement with regard to what we are as a society, not only in social terms but also in terms of economic development. On the subject of economic development, I would point out that Canada is a leader around the world. It is also a leader in the establishment and advancement of multilateral processes.

The vitality of our economic component speaks eloquently of our international interventions. Canada, whose foreign trade represents over 40% of GDP, is one of the biggest trading nations in the world in terms of the figures involved. This figure is the highest of that of any of the G-7 countries.

Secondly, Canada's favourable trade balance increased from $7 billion in 1991 to $41 billion in 1996. So this agreement on investment is very important for us.

I said we were and still are leaders in this area. In this regard, we could perhaps look back and consider the first free trade agreements. We could even consider the notion of free trade.

It will be recalled that the first discussions on free trade, on liberalization, date back to the turn of the century, with the first Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Wilfred Laurier. Then, in the aftermath of the second world war, there was as we know a surge in globalization. Certain structures were put into place, leading to the creation of the World Trade Organization or WTO, which started out as GATT.

We know that the purpose of the WTO is to regulate international trade, to make sure that the rules of the game, so to speak, are respected. It is increasingly evident now as we speak that economies are no longer strictly national, that they are subject to international rules.

The phenomenon of globalization is gaining strength. Obviously, even if the WTO is doing a good job with trade regulation and liberalization, through its own framework and through the various bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that may been signed, in this era of globalization there are other elements that must be taken into account.

This is why the Multilateral Agreement on Investment represents another important element. It is one we must have at any price, if Canadian companies are to enjoy more freedom on the international scene, to be able to invest more readily and more confidently, and consequently to ensure that the Canadian economy prospers and that we are able to continue to hold our own and to create quality jobs.

Those who are against this agreement decry the fact that the negotiations took place behind closed doors. I think that those who say that are trying to mislead people. As a government, we announced the start of negotiations with the other countries involved in the discussions on May 24, 1995, three years ago. Since then our government and all the other governments involved have indicated their intention to reach an agreement.

My hon. colleague responsible for International Trade has also been working extremely hard with parliamentarians in order to develop a position that is strictly Canadian and will open up markets, while respecting our strictly Canadian values.

In this connection, I must refer to the three guiding principles underlying these discussions. The first element is that this is a totally open process, not a secret one.

Second, the goal is to provide a framework for what, in this era of globalization, is termed international investment, to provide rules, standards, that will offer some security to businesses with an eye to development on the international scene.

Third, we as a government will be signing an agreement that will respect the principles of Canadian society, that will respect our society's interests, and that will have job creation as its ultimate goal.

In fact, a closer scrutiny of the MAI shows that this is, essentially, an agreement which will provide businesses with a framework and, in some cases, will create regulations such as those already in place within the G-7.

The MAI will consist of a number of elements, three of which we would classify as fundamental. First, there is the question of the rule of expropriation.

It is self-evident that this is a fundamental rule, and must not be interpreted in such a way as to end up as a kind of hobble, if I may use that word, to our role as a government to regulate and legislate in the public interest.

My colleague responsible for international trade is perfectly aware of the importance of defining the terms “expropriation”, “legislation” and “national regulation”. He is aware too, because it works both ways, of the importance of those definitions for our companies when they wish to establish an international presence and when they invest in other countries.

The second important element is the protection of our freedom of action in areas that may be found at the very heart of Canadian society. We obviously are referring to health care, social programs, education, culture and programs for native peoples and minorities.

The third element is the status quo. In other words, it means that we will not accept any restriction in the areas indicated of the freedom of action we currently enjoy.

In conclusion, we are told by our negotiators in Paris— since everything is happening in Paris under the aegis of the OECD —that negotiations are going well and we may reasonably expect to reach an agreement that honours the points I have just mentioned and the nature of Canadian society.

In other words, if we leave things in the hands of time and the fine team of negotiators we have and with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, we will reach an agreement that can only benefit Canadian society and all Canadian industries.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before any multilateral agreement is agreed upon by the Canadian government, would this member favour this issue coming back to the House of Commons for debate? Would he favour allowing time for us to consult with our constituents, having a full debate in the House of Commons and voting upon it here in this House?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the negotiations with regard to this agreement were announced three years ago. It is a custom with international agreements that negotiations are carried out on a sort of confidential basis. The member states involved in the negotiation of the agreement are discussing the issues among themselves. At the end of the process, they will reveal to their populations the contents of the agreement. The negotiations are underway.

As far as this government is concerned and as far as my colleague, the Minister for International Trade has been involved, we have been very open minded. We want to be sure of the principles in this agreement. At the end of the day if we decide to sign this agreement it will be because we have found some Canadian principles enshrined in the agreement. We will make sure those Canadian principles are good for—

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We need some relevance here. I asked the question of whether the government would bring this issue back to the House for a vote in the House of Commons. I want an answer to my question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In the opinion of the Chair, the hon. parliamentary secretary was on topic.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. The negotiations currently under way with the other countries are very important for our country's future.

Why not hold public hearings and allow a parliamentary committee to travel across the country? This matter is so important for Canadians as a whole. It is democratic to hold public hearings, to discover the opinions of Canadians across the country. Why not do that? It is a democratic thing to do.

I have a second question. There is a provision in the agreement that concerns me a great deal; it says that, should Canada sign the agreement, there would be no review for 20 years. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with that?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of consultation, I think my colleague for international trade was quite eloquent in his remarks on the government's consultation process.

As was pointed out, the agreement is essentially still under negotiation among the parties to the round table, and, as I mentioned earlier, under the aegis of the OECD.

On the second question, since the agreement is still being negotiated and has not yet been ratified, the question is a hypothetical one I cannot answer.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when this negotiation is complete and the Government of Canada has made up its mind to sign on, will it bring it back to the House of Commons for a full debate of this House of Commons and a vote by all members of this House of Commons, yes or no?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how many seconds do I have? A minute. It is pretty amazing to see that the hon. member comes back with what I would call with all due respect a hypothetical question.

As I said, the negotiations are still under way. All the member states are still involved in the negotiation process. I would like to remind my colleague from the Reform Party that Canadians supported this government in the last election. They trust this government. The people of Canada know that my colleague responsible for this department is taking care of our Canadian principles. Let us give the negotiation process a chance and we will see afterward.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in this last speaker and this last exchange between the opposition parties and the government exactly why this motion is before the House today. It was brought forward by the Reform Party not because we are not in favour of multilateral agreements, not because we are afraid of free trade, not because we do not think Canadians can compete, but because when this deal is done, it should be debated and discussed and voted on by the people Canada through their representatives here in the House of Commons.

When that is not done, is it any wonder that Canadians spend their time now in town hall meetings looking at one another wistfully saying “Has anybody heard anything about the MAI? Has anybody got a clue on the government side what this is all about?”

It is obvious. Three times now, many times during the day but certainly in this last go around here, there has been a point blank question, when this deal is completed, will the government bring it back to the House for debate and a vote. Then the hon. member from the Liberal side stands up and asks how long he has to answer that question. Is it yes or no? It reminds me of the famous quote by Winston Churchill that it is the people who control the government. Not the government, the people. That is what it should be.

Members on that side of the House seem to think it is a good idea for the government to control the people. Is it any wonder that in the upcoming byelection in Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lou Sekora, now the new found Liberal messiah, will come into the Port Moody—Coquitlam riding and says “This is an excellent opportunity for me to represent you in Ottawa”.

What is he actually up against? Maybe he does not know. I do not know Lou Sekora, maybe he just does not know. Maybe he thinks he is going to run it like his mayor's chair. But he is up against the backroom boys. He is up against the smoky backrooms, the cooked up deal presented to the Canadian people as a fait accompli.

We are all told to accept it like good little boys and girls. When the Liberals are finished concocting this thing in whatever format it might have, we are told to just accept it. Although for some reason we are not at the level to understand the deal, we have to accept it because the father Liberals will tell us it is okay. It is the ultimate in Ottawa sending a message to Port Moody—Coquitlam, British Columbia saying “We know what is best for you. Do not ask any questions”.

Lou Sekora is going to find out in spades that is what he is up against within the Liberal caucus. Do not ask a question. Do not ruffle any feathers. Do not rock the boat. Just accept and then sell the completed deal back in our ridings. Do not for heaven's sake debate it here in the House of Commons. That is what he is up against. That is too bad.

It is too bad because this debate should be about the MAI. Even given the Liberals' reluctance to discuss this, we have learned more from the government side today about the MAI, the process and what they are up to than we have learned in the last two and a half years. It is too bad the minister got so partisan. If he had just answered the questions we would have learned quite a bit more about this deal than we have learned so far through the newspapers, through the rumour mill, through the wild imaginings of Maude Barlow and her crowd.

It is too bad because this debate really is about a very important subject for all Canadians. Free trade is important for Canadians if it is done right. Multilateral agreements on investment could be a good thing for Canada if they are done right.

The problem, and the reason this motion is before the House today, is that the government has not done it right. The process has been wrong. The process is flawed. The government has been very secretive. This secret in the government reminds me of an abscessed tooth. It just sits there and bothers you, it grates at you, antagonizes you and sticks the needle into you. It is a secret. A constituent, a voter wants to know what it is about and somebody says “No, no. It is a secret. You can't know”. His jaw starts to ache. “What is it about those guys that is causing this bunion on my gums? What is it that is forcing me to feel so aggravated?”

It is the secrecy. They say, “You guys cannot know because you are only the voters, you are only the business people and you are only the constituents who have to live with the deal. Why should you have to know about it?”

I am kind of partial to knowing what is going on in the country, and not just because I am a member of Parliament. I have to live here too.

No wonder constituents are looking for answers. They are not getting them. That is secret, it is abscessing, it is getting worse and it is causing this government a lot of damage on the MAI because it has not been forthcoming with what should be going on.

What have we said in the Reform Party? Our trade critic has amply and adequately described it throughout the day during his questions and answers. Let me run through the principles that should be guiding this. What should be guiding it?

Openness in all multilateral agreements. Let us be open about it and allow debate. Let us allow votes. Let us allow discussion in a public forum, and this certainly is the most public of forums. Lots of information explaining the costs and the benefits of the deal.

I said before that an MAI could be a good thing for Canada. I think it should be a good thing for Canada. We need foreign investment. In turn we need to invest in other countries and so on. That could be and should be a good deal for Canada.

Another is public consultation. The minister's idea of public consultation with British Columbia at least is to hold a meeting at the Chateau Laurier in the British Columbia room. He thinks that you just throw the doors open in the Chateau Laurier, where of course all the British Columbians are known to wait in the morning to talk to the minister, you crawl down to the British Columbia room, you throw the buffet open and say “They have been consulted. The B.C. room was wide open. All of the British Columbians that could pour into that room on short notice were welcome to attend”.

That is not consultation. That is more of that niggling little pointy part the dentist uses to get right into the filling. That is the part that just says “Gee, you guys in B.C., why not take that. How do you like that?”

The people who could not come to the British Columbia room at the Chateau Laurier are back in my province of British Columbia saying “I don't know what they are doing down there. They will not tell me what they are doing. They will not discuss it. They will not debate it. They will not vote on it when it comes to conclusion. They will not have a discussion in the House of Commons by the representatives we sent there”. Instead, the six Liberal yes men and women they have in British Columbia come here and say “Well, let me just get that needle again and see if I can get it under the tooth and see if I can make you more comfortable”. I think not. It is too bad.

[An hon. member]

It is five Liberals.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Lou Sekora has trouble counting.

I conclude with a couple of comments that came from the minister of trade when he was in opposition. This is what he said about NAFTA. NAFTA is a very similar type of agreement as the MAI, we think, although we cannot know because they will not tell us. This is what he said about NAFTA:

Without any information and with the results clear as day on the free trade agreement, Canadians can only respond with a certain amount of genuine fear for themselves and their nation. Hansard on March 24, 1992, in opposition that Canadians must be part of the equation. I guess that means at the British Columbia room at the Chateau Laurier:

Canadians must be part of the equation. They cannot be told at the end this is good for them. Canadians must decide for themselves, in conjunction with the Parliament, what is good for themselves, their children and the future of the country.

That is what this motion of ours is about today. Sure we condemn the government. Sure we say that it has mishandled this file. The reason is obvious. Canadians have said this secrecy, this way of giving us the fait accompli at the end of the process is not the way to negotiate international agreements and expect the Canadian people to buy into it.

That is the problem. The toothache, the secrecy, goes on too often, too long and the debates here are simply a rubber stamp instead of a meaningful debate and a meaningful vote. That should change. This motion is to address that issue and try to get the debate on the MAI at least started because the government has failed at every step of the way in having meaningful debate on the MAI, one of the most important agreements ever to face this country.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the member opposite. I too believe it is important to have discussions in ridings across this country. I am having a town hall meeting on the multilateral agreement on investment, an open forum, publicized in newspapers, as are many people.

My question for this member who speaks so sanctimoniously about how terrible it is to invite people to Ottawa is why has he as the whip of his party not spoken to Grant Hill? The health committee of this House of Commons wants to travel on the issue of natural products and substances. We had a proposal that was approved by the Board of Internal Economy and only because your member refused we were able to travel the country to listen to the views and concerns of people in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax and other parts of this country where the committee wanted to go.

I ask the member, who is the whip of his party, why has he not spoken to Grant Hill and given—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members, a couple of things. Before we give the member for Fraser Valley an opportunity to respond, we do not refer to other members by name in the House. Also, the Chair cannot recognize members unless they are in their place. A 50 second response, the hon. member for Fraser Valley.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to the hon. member. I do not know why she is trying to divert this debate on to natural products. It was her health minister who started the whole fracas on the natural food products. It was her minister who tried to stymie people who wanted to get access to natural products. It was her minister that put the health police against the health inspector. But I do not want to get excited about that.

Instead, I just want to say again that the opportunity to debate in public forums has to be done across the country on all kinds of issues. If the member wants to talk about natural products, we can get off on that tangent but I am unwilling to at this time.

The MAI should be discussed in public forums. When it is finally discussed and negotiated, then the final debate, the final public consultation happens here in the House of Commons and a vote to ratify it takes place in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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.