Debates of Feb. 9th, 1998

Multilateral Agreement On Investment

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our nation's sovereignty is again being compromised by individual negotiators, acting on the whim and direction of ministers, who do not reflect the will and expectations of the people of this nation.

Liberal government representatives state that the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, will not affect sub-nationals, which is bureaucratic talk for provinces, territories and their jurisdictions.

The Minister for International Trade says this is true. In fact, he disputes international consensus which says the MAI will apply to Canadian provinces.

The minister supports a carve-out for financial institutions such as the banks from the MAI but not for the environment. Is foreign profit more important to this government than the protection of Canada's environment?

Canada's environment will be at risk if the MAI opens the doors for resource exploitation and it will be Canadians paying the piper, not the minister.

We challenge the Liberal government to a full public debate on the MAI to let Canadians decide how bad the MAI really is.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a particularly important issue to both the agricultural industry and international trade. The World Trade Organization negotiations begin in 1999 and other countries have already begun to chart their course with respect to their agricultural sectors. Our current minister of agriculture has a tendency to simply let lawyers defend the industry rather than have his own ministry set policy for the future.

It is time for the government to start defending this multibillion dollar industry. Is our government going to begin a substantive plan on how our industry will fit internationally and compete in the global agriculture and agri-food market? Unlike the government's environmental initiative in Kyoto, we cannot wait until the last minute.

Now is the time to begin a comprehensive consultative process with both industry and consumers on how we should compete in both the international and domestic markets. I urge the government to start looking for such a plan.

The Late Mark Macguigan

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mark MacGuigan, who died last month, was a professional philosopher as well as a lawyer. His career moved quickly through the different domains: university law teaching, university administration, politics as a backbench MP for 12 years, then in the space of four more years, foreign minister and justice minister, and finally judge of the appeals division of the Federal Court of Canada.

He continued, through his long illness, his scholarly interests, with a treatise on law and morality in 1994 and leaving two other manuscripts, on foreign policy and the administration of justice, partly completed upon his death.

His life represents the continuing attempt to reconcile a natural law based set of ethical values with the practical necessities of a rapidly evolving Canadian society.

Heart Awareness Month

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, February is heart awareness month. Cardiovascular disease remains Canada's leading cause of death and one of the major causes of disability. More than 79,000 Canadians die every year from heart disease and stroke.

Besides the human toll of the disease, the cost to the economy is considerable, about $20 billion per year and more than 6.5 million days of hospitalization.

We are making great progress in fighting cardiovascular disease. Strokes and heart disease are caused by our lifestyle.

By eradicating smoking, promoting a healthy diet of physical activity, we can help Canadians in preventing and/or postponing the onset of this disease.

By investing in heart health, we can reduce significantly this disease. By mobilizing society as a whole, we can enhance—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

The Senate

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our absentee senator from Mexico will stroll into Ottawa tomorrow to make an appearance in the Senate so that he can continue to collect his pay for another two years.

This particular senator has taken advantage of the Canadian taxpayer for 31 years and now the government and the Senate have made his life easier. He has been freed from his party obligations and was recently relieved of his Ottawa office. Now he does not even have a phone should his constituents try to get a hold of him.

What kind of representation are Canadians receiving when senators can live on the beaches of Mexico and show up once a year or so only to qualify to collect their pay?

Now is the time to end this senator's siesta. The Prime Minister must take responsibility and ask the senator from Mexico to withdraw from the Senate so that Canadians can have legitimate representation in the upper chamber.

Canada Train Project

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to give its support for the Canada Train national unity project.

In August 1998, 250 young Canadians will begin a cross-country tour to explore Canada. Delegates' responsibilities will include taking part in public debates and forums, and performing community services. Enriched by this experience, they will meet 25 days later to discuss their vision of the country's future.

I would like to congratulate corporate and individual sponsors, particularly the Students' Union of the University of Alberta, on their vision and enthusiasm. I urge young Canadians to take part in the Canada Train project.

I urge all members to support this project now, in its preparatory stages, and in August when the Canada train passes through their ridings. The initiatives of these young people are a reminder to all of us—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laval East.

Child Poverty

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics on child poverty are increasingly conclusive.

Since 1989, the number of children living in poverty has increased by 58%; the number of children living in families on welfare has increased by 68%; the number of children living in unaffordable housing has increased by 48%; and the number of children whose family's net income is under $20,000 has increased by 45%.

We are a long way from the House's unanimous resolution in 1989 to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. These children are suffering and cannot even aspire to the strict minimum needed to get off to a good start in life. They are feeling the effects of the cuts made by the Liberal government since it took office.

The Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to give back to the provinces the money it owes them, the money it used to improve its accounting image and achieve a budget surplus.

Only the provinces are in a position to use this money—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The member for Ottawa West—Nepean has the floor.

Central Experimental Farm

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Secretary of State for Parks and the minister of agriculture designated the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa as a national historical site.

This does not mean that the farm will be frozen in time. It will continue to evolve as it has for 111 years but it will evolve in a way that is consistent with the important contribution it has made to agriculture in Canada and internationally.

It will be a permanent visible reminder in the nation's capital to all Canadians of the importance of agriculture to our economic and social development.

The people of this region are proud of the nation's capital and its national institutions. I know they will want to contribute to and be part of planning the future of the Central Experimental Farm, our newest national historical site.

Multilateral Agreement On Investment

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, left-wing groups like the NDP and the Council of Canadians have been having a field day out west with a misinformation campaign about the MAI. They lost the battle on free trade, so now they want to make a bogeyman about liberalized investment.

I know where they are coming from but I wonder why this government has allowed their fearmongering to go unchecked. I challenge the Minister for International Trade to go out to B.C. and deal with these many allegations surrounding the MAI.

If the government is going to be out there negotiating this agreement, it needs to explain it to the people.

Investment is the lifeblood of economic development. Investment leads to trade and trade leads to jobs for Canadians.

Canadian firms investing abroad need the protection that a rules based investment agreement provides through national treatment.

Canadians deserve to know that a good agreement will be good for Canadians.

Sixty Minutes

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend we were subjected to an attack by an American network, CBS, in its report on Quebec's language policies on

Sixty Minutes

It is one thing to agree or disagree with Quebec's decisions which are aimed at protecting and promoting the French language, but it is quite another to show so much subjectivity in denouncing bodies and regulations, the underlying principle of which is to reaffirm the position of francophones within the vast expanse of North America.

Contrary to what was said throughout that report, we do not believe that Quebec wishes to be a francophone enclave within North America, for the simple reason that it has, for decades, been working in every possible way to promote the French language and culture.

In a desire for objectivity, the people responsible for the program should have shown the other side of the coin, giving a complete picture of the collective efforts focussed on promoting the French culture in America.

Government Of Quebec

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak out vigorously against the partisan remarks made by Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard this past weekend concerning the Canadian government's assistance to disaster victims.

The Government of Quebec is going too far with its barefaced statement that the federal government is attempting to stop it from attaining its objective of eliminating the Quebec deficit, by refusing to comply with Quebec's request that it assume the costs incurred in getting the hydro-electric system up and running.

Once again, the federal government is being blamed for Quebec's administrative shortcomings.

We must make it clear. Right from the start we have insisted that assistance to the victims of this catastrophe go to families, small businesses and communities, not to viable major public and private corporations.

The Premier of Quebec even wants to make this into an issue in the next election. Well, we are ready and waiting for him. Let him go ahead, and we will not even have to say a word.

Go right ahead, Mr. Bouchard. The people in the affected areas are ready and waiting for you. But take care, because sometimes shots like that backfire.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, all too often there is a most important but ignored element of the criminal justice system, the victim. All too often we hear the plights of those individuals forgotten by the system that seeks to obtain justice on their behalf. Strange but true.

While the Criminal Code contains provisions dealing with victims, it is simply not enough.

While all provinces and both territories have provisions for victim rights, it is still not enough. It is time for a comprehensive study and action.

The federal government will soon conduct a wide ranging consultation with Canadians in all parts of the country on the issue of the victims in the criminal justice system.

I welcome the participation of all Canadians and especially those residents from my riding of Erie—Lincoln at a series of spring town hall meetings on this very important subject.

The final results of this consultation will be a report containing committee findings and recommendations, after which I will continue to press for the introduction of a comprehensive victim bill of rights.

Canada and its victims of crimes are crying out for fair, compassionate and sensitive redress. It is long overdue.

Iraq

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, throughout our history Canadians have shown that we are willing to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and the world from tyrants and terrorism. If Canadians were asked whether we trust Saddam Hussein or whether we trust the U.S. and the U.K., we will stand by our allies. But we still have some serious questions for our Prime Minister.

When President Clinton called, did he make it clear exactly what the objective of any military strike against Saddam Hussein would be? Is it to take out Saddam Hussein's weapons factories, or is it something bigger and broader?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I talked with President Clinton and earlier today I talked with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The goal that we all have is to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects the resolutions of the UN and stops the production of armaments like biological weapons and so on that are extremely dangerous.

We have proof that they were producing and are still producing them and we want to terminate this production. It is extremely dangerous for countries around the world if we do not stop Saddam Hussein with this production.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are possibly on the eve of a war. The leaders of the nations of the world are taking positions. It seems to me that it is time Canada's Prime Minister stood up to be counted and got off the fence.

Will the Prime Minister go beyond vague comments and clearly tell Canadians whether he is convinced that military action to stop terrorism by Saddam Hussein is required?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, like everybody else, I am hoping that there will be a diplomatic solution to the problem. As everybody knows, there are a lot of people who are trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to change his position. In order to have him change his position we have to show with determination that if he does not change his position we will be there to make sure that he stops the production of this absolutely unacceptable armament he is building at this time.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when Canada decided to support military action to halt aggression by Iraq against Kuwait, the House debated the issue for three days, not just a few hours. It debated a motion on a position put forward by the government reaffirming our support of action by the United Nations followed by a vote.

Is tonight's debate merely window dressing, or will the government put forward a real motion on a real position followed by a vote?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we intend to have a debate, to have the views of the House of Commons expressed on this subject.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to stand very firm on a position at this time. At the same time I said to the House that I want to have the views of the House of Commons before I make my views known publicly.

To have a definitive resolution as the member is proposing at this time would be giving a final opinion of the government before listening to the opposition. If that is what you want, it is not what you were asking for a few hours ago or last week.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still has not given us an answer to the question. We have been asking it now for two weeks.

We know the position of the President of the United States. We know the position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We know the position of Germany. We know all of these positions.

The Canadian people want to know what the Prime Minister's position is. Why will the Prime Minister not tell us? Is he for military action or is he against it?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to me a minute ago, I said that I hope that there will be a diplomatic solution. If there is no diplomatic solution, we want to be ready to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects the resolutions of the UN. That is a very good position.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that there could be a diplomatic solution and we wonder why Canada was not involved in helping to get that diplomatic solution. But now the position is it has gone beyond that and we now need to know where the Prime Minister stands on military action and that he take some leadership. That is what we are asking for. Leadership.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just stated a very clear position. We want to find a diplomatic solution but this is already over for the hon. member.

When I talked yesterday with President Clinton and when I talked this morning with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, they told me that they still believe there is a possibility of a diplomatic solution and that in order to achieve it, we must be ready to act if Iraq does not accept that solution. That is exactly this government's position which is the same as the position of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain.