Debates of April 28th, 1998

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

On a brief question, the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the irresponsibility and the naivete of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I would like to remind him that this is a country of 30 million people who produce far more in a year than we could ever consume. Therefore it is an absolute necessity that Canada trade with other nations and take part in the global marketplace. That is what fuels the economy of this country.

In case the member does not know it, if it was not for the NAFTA and the free trade agreement right now the economy of this country would be in disastrous shape because we do not have a buoyant domestic market.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is just one of those things where it does not matter what one says because Reform members only hear what they want to hear. I never said Canada did not need trade. I never said we did not want to be part of the global marketplace. I never said any of those things. Reform members either have wax in their ears or they are just committed to a particular point of view no matter what people say.

I said we had to have a global marketplace that was regulated in a certain way so that there was social and economic justice. That does not mean we do not trade. It means we trade in a particular way.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for the intent of this motion. While we may differ on the means, we agree on the end. We would like to eradicate child poverty in Canada. Progressive Conservatives recognize that one of the best levers to eradicate child poverty, not only within Canada but globally, is liberalized trade.

It was a Progressive Conservative government that led Canada into the free trade agreement in 1988 and the NAFTA in 1993. In fact if members want to talk about transparency and about openness and engagement, there was a federal election fought in 1988 on the free trade agreement. Compare that to the secrecy of the current MAI discussions and negotiations, Canada's participation and lack of consultation within Canada.

[An hon. member]

Where do the Liberals stand on that debate?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

The Liberal Party has been consistently inconsistent in its trade policy. Recently the Minister for International Trade said the Liberal Party was on the vanguard of the rising anxieties of the free trade agreement of 1988. In fact the Liberals were the leaders of the anti free trade movement in 1988. Now the Liberals cannot get enough free trade. In fact they like it so much they do not feel it is important to negotiate or to engage Canadians in these discussions. That is how much they like free trade.

We actually have some commitment to commitment. They are born again free traders. Now with the public opposition mounting they are posturing against the MAI agreement. Or at least they are indicating in a very public sense that they have some difficulties with it when in fact privately they do not have a great enough understanding of it to have any opposition to it.

The PC Party believes that a good multilateral investment agreement could benefit all Canadians. However we do not believe that any agreement at any cost without any negotiation or consultation with Canadians is the right agreement. The lack of public consultation within Canada on the MAI is appalling. The motion today has helped us bring to light some of this lack of consultation.

It is important that we have public debate on this kind of issue. Public debate is the best way to dispel some of the arguments put forth by some of the most vociferous opponents and indeed proponents of the MAI. There is common ground between these two extremes. That is why the PC Party asked the subcommittee on the MAI to table the agreement before parliament 15 days before it was ratified by cabinet. The idea was taken from a bill introduced by Alexander Downer, the Australian minister of foreign affairs, in the Australian parliament in 1996. This became the Australian model for treaty negotiations.

The Bloc motion claims an agreement like the MAI would weaken legislative rights. That is why the PC Party introduced a recommendation to the MAI subcommittee to conduct a full impact analysis of the effect the MAI would have on our federal, provincial and municipal programs.

The Bloc's motion blames globalization for the growing gap between rich and poor around the world. Globalization is not the largest contributing factor to this dangerous spread between the rich and the poor. Globalization is not all bad nor is it all good. It is like most things. It brings risk and it brings opportunities.

The Americas and Europe have come to see the benefits of trade union rights and child labour legislation but they have become wealthy enough to absorb those costs. Without the expansion of liberalized trade, the engine of job growth, workers in underdeveloped countries may never have that same opportunity.

Liberalized trade is the most effective lever that developing countries have to bootstrap themselves into a decent standard of living, the decent standard of living we take for granted in this country. Free trade critics argue that globalization pushes labour offshore to cheaper markets when in fact the majority of foreign investment flows between rich countries, or flows between rich countries in search of markets, not poor economies offering cheap labour.

The effect of globalization forces free trading economies to increase labour flexibility. For those countries that increase their labour flexibility, it allows them to react quickly and adapt to shift people and resources away from declining industries and toward growing ones.

This motion should not be about the fear of liberalized trade and its perceived effect on the gap between rich and poor. Free trade has not been the cause of the increase in this gap, and there is very little substantive or credible data to support that argument.

If one looks at the export levels of Quebec in 1988 before the FTA and in 1996, exports have increased from $16 billion to $40 billion. Those exports are extremely important to Quebec. Those figures have helped to stabilize the employment levels in Quebec, not destabilize them.

If we are serious about child poverty in Canada, perhaps we should be working together to create an economy that works in a country that works. We know full well the cost of separatism, the debate on separatism and the cost to children and all people in Quebec in terms of poverty. We should be very careful that we are not blaming the wrong demon when we talk about child poverty.

Bloc members should be reminded that their PQ cousins in Quebec have vowed to remain part of NAFTA if separation occurs. They understand full well that NAFTA has benefited Quebec as it has benefited Canada.

The most important contributing factor to the gap between rich and poor has been a global transitional economy from the resource and manufacturing based economies to the information technology and knowledge based economies. This gap between rich and poor has been exacerbated at this critical and pivotal time in this paradigm shift by the cuts in the health and education transfers made by the Liberal government in Ottawa.

A new study which came out recently states that after the changes were made to the unemployment insurance fund, only 36% of unemployed Canadians now actually collect EI. The 35% decrease in health care, welfare and education funding to the provinces invoked by the Liberal government has disproportionately affected the poorest of Canadians. It has denied the poorest Canadians equality of opportunity which is fundamental.

We believe in the free enterprise system. We believe it is the best system for all Canadians. For the free enterprise system to be sustainable, all Canadians need access to the levers of the free enterprise system. They need a strong health care system. They need a strong education system.

Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable, nor is unfettered socialism. A balanced free enterprise system with a sound education and health care system is the best system for everybody. It could be argued that Marx was wrong about unfettered communism, but he may have been right about unfettered capitalism.

We need to ensure that a balanced approach which combines lower taxes, globalized opportunities in trade and strong health care and education systems is a recipe that will not only benefit Canadians but will benefit children around the world.

The cuts the Liberal government has inflicted on ordinary Canadians and the poorest of Canadians have affected the access of young Canadians to the opportunities provided in a global knowledge based economy as we enter the 21st century.

If we are really serious about addressing child poverty in Canada, I have some suggestions. I reiterate that we should support and continue to seek solutions to this problem. The government should work toward this.

We must utilize a progressive trade policy and a progressive free enterprise domestic economic policy. The combination of those two policies will first of all ensure that Canadians have opportunities to participate in the global economy and second, that they are not burdened by intrusive government in Canada which denies them the opportunity to participate effectively in that global economy.

I would suggest as well that we work together across Canada toward a national unity agreement that works and stop this endless debate on the national unity issue. We must work to stop the tremendous cost that has been borne by ordinary Canadians and ordinary Quebeckers for the separatist movement over the past 20 years.

We must start working together to build economic bridges across Canada and economic bridges around the world which will benefit young people in Canada and around the world.

If we work seriously toward those ends we will all be better served. In fact all Canadians will be better served by constructive policies coming from all sides of this House.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague refer to Marx, and I am glad he did, because I myself have based my speech on something Marx said that is one of the reasons I am obviously supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion. I will explain.

Marx—or Engels, but I think it was Marx—said that the gap between rich and poor would only widen under capitalism. With the introduction of communism, the system he founded, it became clear that, despite what he hoped, this gap between rich and poor continued to widen, with the disproportionate wealth of the nomenklatura.

Bearing in mind what the leader of our party said earlier about the gap between rich and poor also widening in our capitalist society, I wonder whether it has something to do with human selfishness, with the powerful doing what they can to become increasingly wealthy, even if it means trampling the poor. One might think it was inevitable.

I support the motion just introduced by the Bloc Quebecois, because I think that, if capitalism is not to prove Marx right, this debate on growth must go hand-in-hand with a debate on everyone's right to share in the fruits of that growth.

I therefore support the motion because, although I am not a Marxist, I do not want his prediction to come true.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member.

I have tremendous concern about the gap between the rich and poor. In the U.S. there is the gated community concept. Families and individuals live in gated communities. They pay for their children's private education, private hospitals and their own security service. They live in gated communities which are effectively insulated from the public at large. They do not really care about what goes on outside their communities.

Capitalism without the effective interventions of the state in areas of health care and education is not sustainable. I mentioned Karl Marx and said that he may have been right about unfettered capitalism but he was wrong about communism. The communist system arguably would not have a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor because everybody would be poor. However, I do not think that is the most effective system either.

I again commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for having initiated this debate. The benefit is that we have the opportunity to debate in a very philosophical and concrete way important policy initiatives. We are able to look at the problem very seriously.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to declare the motion votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to make the motion before us votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague's remarks with interest, and I would like to give him a few figures concerning the matter of smaller countries and globalization.

In 1997, the unemployment rate in Canada stood at 10.3%. It was 3.6% in Austria, 8% in Denmark, 5.4% in Norway, 6.8% in the Netherlands, and 3.6% in Switzerland. So a country's size has nothing to do with the impact of globalization.

We have never suggested that globalization per se is bad. What we would like is some parliamentary control over globalization so that ordinary citizens can benefit from it, and not only those who can make big profits. Profit is important for companies, but the governments should also be able to redistribute wealth.

My colleague said he finds it strange that Quebec sovereignists should support free trade. He should not forget that it is Quebec that brought free trade to Canada, because it was in its own interest to do so, and Quebec's development depends on north-south trade.

Will the hon. member not admit that it is the way countries are governed and the development tools they give themselves, and not size, that determine how well they do internationally?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that although Quebec has been strongly supportive of free trade, I come from a province that was in free trade prior to Confederation. We have some contributions and agree with the member on that.

Smaller countries have more to gain from liberalized trade in many ways than some of the larger countries. That has been demonstrated in almost every equation, such as in the access to larger markets, especially for a country like Canada where it is absolutely essential.

In terms of the support within Quebec for free trade, I would expect that the support would be there and will continue to be there. The benefit has effectively led to the tripling of exports since 1988.

I appreciate the member's intervention. I look forward to continuing this dialogue elsewhere.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this point in the debate it is very important and opportune to read the motion again because we have heard all kinds of things even if there was not much in way of a debate, except from one or two speakers from each party.

The answer given by my colleague from the Reform Party confirms why we should support the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois leader. I support the motion and I am going to read it again to prevent the debate from going further off course. After only a few speeches, it is already off course.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000, urge the government to act, and strike an all-party Special Parliamentary Committee with the main objective of considering Canadian parliamentarians' ability to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the new context created by the globalization of markets—

This motion does not indicate we are against liberalizing trade or that we are against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, quite the opposite. The motion does not indicate anything of the sort.

This motion suggests that parliamentarians from all parties look into a problem which is very real. In their first red book the Liberals said they would eliminate child poverty before the year 2000. What we are asking is to strike a committee to see whether this deadline is realistic, to see if we can reach this commendable goal which is desirable for all.

I would like speakers from the Liberal Party to tell us why they are now opposed to something they had espoused before. It is rather odd. When the Liberals, the New Democrats and members from other parties say: “Therefore the Bloc Quebecois is against liberalizing trade, against the MAI”, it becomes necessary to remind them of the spirit and the wording of the Bloc Quebecois' motion.

The third point in the motion says: “globalization and the international agreements that frame it, particularly the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as now written—”. I believe this is underscored by what the international trade minister just said in Paris. We are not against the MAI, but the Bloc Quebecois would never give its support to a government's signing such an agreement as it is currently written, because there is a risk of limiting certain powers of states and hence of the representatives elected to this House—we are not saying it does so, but there is that risk.

What we want is a committee of parliamentarians. I would be very surprised if MPs wanted to shirk their responsibilities. That is why I am surprised the Liberals are unwilling to agree to discussing the MAI among other things in a committee setting.

I would point out that I am going to split my 20 minutes with my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis.

I wish to focus on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has demonstrated with his speeches and with his exit from the House, many in Quebec, in Canada, and everywhere else in the world, are intrigued and greatly concerned by the gap between rich and poor due to globalization. What exactly is this agreement? Where does it come from? What is its intent? What are this agreement's objectives?

We have heard many legitimate fears expressed. Many concerns have been raised about the signing of an agreement such as the MAI. Negotiations or discussions on it date back to 1995 under the auspices of the OECD. It is worth repeating here that we call the OECD the rich countries club. The NGOs often use that same term. It is a group of 29 countries that make up the OECD.

There were some consultations, it is true, but for the most part negotiations were held in secret.

When 29 rich countries negotiate behind closed doors agreements that are designed to promote investments, it is only normal for the populations of these 29 wealthy countries—and of those other countries interested in joining them—to wonder about these agreements and to even question them.

It is also important for Canadians to remember that the Multilateral Agreement on Investment includes about 90% of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, dealing with investments. Therefore, it is not completely new stuff, since 90% of the MAI is found in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Why were discussions held on such an agreement? There are two main reasons. First, the purpose of the agreement is to set rules and to regulate—I know this is somewhat redundant—the investment sector, since there are currently over 1,300 bilateral investment accords, of which 50 were signed by Canada, including NAFTA.

The idea was to promote, regulate and facilitate exports and investments from Canada to other countries, and conversely.

The purpose of the agreement is also to benefit from globalization. There are disadvantages, but there are also some advantages, such as increased investments. Also, if the agreement is amended as we wish, it should promote economic development.

These are the two reasons why we supported the principle of the agreement. But again, in its current form, we cannot support the ratification of the MAI.

As our party leader mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois has been supportive of the free trade agreement with the United States, since the beginning, and we also supported its extension into NAFTA.

We even supported in principle the continuation of the negotiations, but we object to the signing of the agreement in its present form. We are not like the Liberals who, in 1988, were opposed to multilateral agreements and saying that they were the worst possible things for Canadians, but turned around after the election and started signing all kinds of such accords. We are consistent in our position and we will continue to be.

Those who have been following us are aware of the very serious reservations that the Bloc had regarding this issue. Among other things, and the member for Rimouski—Mitis will elaborate on that later on, we want a general exception clause for cultural industries, which we did not have as of this morning, and that is why we would oppose the signing of the agreement in its present form.

The Bloc Quebecois wants countries to retain the right to take or maintain measures to protect the environment and labour standards. We would not sign or support the signing of any multilateral agreement that would not include a clause to protect the environment and labour standards.

We also want such an agreement to specify that countries cannot lower their national standards with regard to health, environmental safety and occupational safety in order to attract foreign investors.

We also want legislation such as the Helms-Burton Bill to be deemed ineffective and non enforceable under such an agreement because it goes against the principle of trade. We also want immigration laws, regulations and national procedures to be given precedence. And, of course, we want provincial jurisdictions to be fully recognized in an agreement such as the multilateral agreement on investment and other agreements. Without that, we will never sign or support the signing of such an agreement.

Regarding the lowering of health and occupational safety standards, particular attention must be paid to the text of the agreement in these two areas. There are two versions of that part of the agreement. One says that a party “should not” lower its health, safety and environmental standards. The other version says that a party “shall not” lower these standards. There is a world of difference between “should not” and “shall not”. If we ended up with a version that said “should not” or “it would be desirable”, again we would not support such an agreement.

The exception for cultural industries is also a precondition that must be met before we sign or support such an agreement, as well as a clearer definition of “expropriation” and “expropriation requiring compensation”.

We also have to ensure that the role of the provinces will be respected before we give our support.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Liberals and the Reformers signed a report in which they asked that the agreement be submitted to parliamentarians before it was signed, as requested by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, so that parliamentarians can fulfil their duties as auditors and as the people's representatives.

We ask, we demand that the text of the agreement be submitted to the subcommittee before it is signed, which hopefully will not be until all the issues are resolved. Now that the OECD is no longer considered the forum for negotiating such an agreement, we also ask that the agreement be referred to the WTO, so that all the countries in the world can take part in its development.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. colleague.

The motion urges the government to immediately strike an all-party special parliamentary committee. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that globalization emerged a few years back and that we had to wait until today for the heartfelt cry of the hon. member for Lac-St-Jean to reflect the awareness that all kinds of dealings and agreements are in the works.

We hear about the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas. We have NAFTA. We have the MIA. We also have organizations like the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and the WTO. What about the people in all of this? What role do the citizens expect their parliamentarians to play? What do the people expect their parliamentarians to say or do to ensure that globalization serves the interests of all and not only of those who want to make money out of this phenomenon?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify parts of the motion before the House today.

I would first point out, with respect to the role of parliamentarians, that, when the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded a special debate on the free trade agreement with the United States. They did not insist on an opposition day, as the Reformers did, they called for a special debate.

The 1988 election campaign focused primarily on the free trade agreement with the United States. What is happening today? The free trade agreement with Chile was negotiated under wraps by unelected negotiators and officials. What was the role of parliamentarians? They passed the bill implementing the agreement. Not one comma of the agreement was debated.

Members would surely agree that the free trade agreement with Israel and Palestine is likely to have some fairly special provisions. And what was the role of parliamentarians in this agreement? They passed the bill to implement it. The agreement and its conditions were negotiated by unelected officials. Canadians today are facing a fait accompli and are obliged to live with these agreements.

We are requesting initially, as my colleague mentioned, to be increasingly involved in these multilateral agreements. Parliamentarians must have a role to play. They must first look to see how their role as representatives of the public may be expanded in the proliferation of such agreements. That is what must be done.

I would like to ask the Liberals why they refuse to fulfill their parliamentary duties. Why are they not meeting the commitment they made in black and white in the red book? Why do they refuse to strike a committee or, at the very least, why do they not say something?

If they do not want the role of parliamentarians—and there are a number of them here who have been re-elected—why are they here? They are here to serve as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, but they do not honour their commitments. They do not fulfill their parliamentary responsibilities. They hide and refuse to speak.

I would like them to answer certain questions in their speeches. It is indeed vital to keep a close eye on all the agreements, often negotiated on the sly by officials who have not been elected and often presented to parliamentarians as a fait accompli.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on the opposition motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, which calls for the striking of a committee to consider parliamentarians' ability to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the context created by the globalization of markets.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for Canadian heritage, I will deal with this issue from the perspective of the MAI, the famous Multilateral Agreement on Investment, but from its cultural dimension or the impact this agreement might have on the cultural sector, because this agreement, as presently designed, represents a real danger for cultural sectors in Canada and Quebec.

We cannot think of a massive liberalization that would lead to the outright abandonment of policies and measures designed to support the cultural sector without first knowing the economic importance of this sector.

Cultural activities in Canada provide about 900,000 direct jobs and an estimated 300,000 indirect jobs, for a grand total of 1.2 million. These jobs account for 9.2% of the labour market. The direct contribution of cultural activities to the economy amounts to $29 billion, or 4.7% of the gross domestic product, while its indirect contribution is $42 billion, or 6.8% of the gross domestic product. Consequently, we cannot consider the cultural sector as minor and make it a pawn to be sacrificed on the altar of major international trade agreements.

Over the years, Canada has put in place some measures aimed at supporting domestic art production. The main measures implemented were the imposition of limits on foreign property and of quotas on Canadian content, subsidies, support for distribution and exports, tax credits and the creation of crown corporations.

Despite their scope, these measures barely allowed Canada to have access to part of its domestic market. Indeed, Canadian cultural products have a marginal position in the market. For example, 92% of the movies shown on our screens are foreign, 60% of books sold in Canada and Quebec are American and 88% of sound recordings put on the market have a foreign content. As you can see, we are far from being protectionist in the cultural sector. We only want to keep some room so that our creators can express themselves.

Obviously, without those support measures, Canadian and Quebec artists would not even have that minimal share of the Canadian market.

Quebeckers distinguish themselves from their Canadian fellow citizens by the fact that in some areas they have a preference for their own writers and productions. However, in the event of complete deregulation, foreign conglomerates could flood our market with products so cheap that even that preference would not allow us to preserve a Quebec content.

The supporters of neo-liberalism often argue that Canada is an exporter of cultural products and, hence, it would be beneficial to liberalize trade in cultural products. They forget that to begin with you must have something to sell. In the cultural area, it is vital to have a safe domestic market to develop products we will then be able to export. Government policies were the means which stimulated and encouraged the creation and production of cultural works for Canadians and which indirectly created cultural goods and services that could be exported.

If we destroy the base for cultural creation in Canada and in Quebec, there will probably still be a cultural industry, but it will in no way be the mirror of Canadian and Quebec identities. We will become producers of americanized cultural products that will be sold in Canada as well as in foreign countries.

The MAI includes copyright in the definition of investment. Since the most recent commercial agreement always takes precedence over other agreements, the MAI would weaken copyright by invalidating the gains made under previous agreements such as the Rome Convention, the Berne Convention and the International Treaty on Intellectual Property. The MAI would bring to an end collectives which defend the rights of artists. This would be the triumph of the American business approach over the rights of creators.

This problem was well understood by the Culture, Youth, Education and Media Commission of the European Parliament, which stated in January 1998, and I quote:

Incorporating intellectual property issues in a general agreement to regulate investment would be the equivalent of applying an extremely minimalist approach to the whole idea of intellectual property. This is why the MAI should not be applied to that area but should abide by the international agreements already in force that are the result of long and complicated technical negotiations.

We deeply regret that there is no single Canadian position regarding the cultural industries, but rather multiple positions that change according to the mood of the Minister for International Trade, the public whom he addresses or the pressures exerted on him, in particular the telephone calls from the U.S. Trade Secretary.

For instance, on February 12, the minister asserted that this agreement would not be signed unless it provided for a full cultural exemption. However, the next day, he was less definitive. On February 13, he said that, if he did not get a full exemption, he would settle for country specific reservation. The minister speaks out of both sides of his mouth in his response to the report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment regarding the MAI.

Is there a distinction between an exemption and a country specific reservation? Yes, and an important one. A country specific reservation is neither sufficient nor acceptable. Reservations have a lower legal status. Moreover, to settle for a country specific reservation instead of a full exemption would be a major compromise never seen in multilateral and bilateral agreements.

The general exception clause has the advantage of not identifying a particular country. All countries are entitled to the same exception, while a mere reservation identifies a country trying to protect itself. A reservation clause shows that this protection is an irritant that will eventually disappear.

Reservation clauses are limited by two principles: the status quo and dismantling. The status quo principle implies that the only authorized changes to measures to which the reservation clause applies would be those which would make those measures more compatible with the agreement. It would therefore be impossible to establish new cultural protection measures, either in the traditional sectors or in the new media resulting from technological progress. Under the dismantling principle, all the measures listed by the various countries are gradually eliminated. Once a country has abandoned a measure it is for good, it cannot be reactivated.

If we agree to sign a MAI which does not have a general exemption clause for cultural matters, we must realise that we are forsaking whatever small Canadian or Quebec content we still have. Without a way of expressing our culture we cannot preserve our Canadian or Quebec identity.

There is also a democratic component, because without a truly Canadian or Quebec cultural space it is impossible to maintain a diverse public space allowing our citizens to participate in our cultural life, which is necessary to public life. We have to leave some room for a democratic expression which goes beyond the simple producer-consumer relation.

The minister must be inflexible concerning the MAI. Without a general cultural exemption, no MAI. A reservation is not acceptable. The heritage minister must play an active role in the international negotiations to have culture excluded the same way defence is excluded. If they really care about the future of their own country, Liberals should worry more about the MAI than about separatists because the MAI is a bigger threat.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis for her excellent speech and the point she made concerning the cultural exception clause in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as well as in the other agreements. As she reminded her Liberal and “Canadian” colleagues in her conclusion, it is very important that we think not only of us but also of their future.

I want to put a question to my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis about something that is a surprise to me this morning, the inconsistency in the speeches and positions of my colleagues from the Liberal Party.

I would like to have her opinion on what we heard in the House, because she also listened very carefully to the speeches, as we do. How can the Liberals—who wrote in their red book that they wanted to eliminate child and family poverty in general by the year 2000—oppose today a motion reiterating the 1989 commitment to eliminate poverty by the year 2000?

I would also like to know what she thinks of the position held by Liberal members about our demand to strike a committee made up of Reform, Liberal and Bloc members. A majority of committee members would be Liberals since, as everybody knows, they hold the majority in the House and form the government. But Liberals are opposed to the creation of such a committee.

What, in her opinion, are the Liberals thinking, if such a thing is possible, in opposing a motion for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000 and the striking of a parliamentary committee to take position on this matter? I would like to hear her opinion on this.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is clearly a worrisome situation.

Indeed, we are asking that a special committee be struck to look into this extremely important issue. My hon. colleague from Repentigny mentioned that many things have happened since 1993. All kinds of agreements were signed without parliamentarians being involved. Individuals who are not accountable to anyone have negotiated agreements on our behalf and did not even ask our opinion. That is unacceptable.

I will take what I witnessed this morning as an example. A sub-committee of the heritage committee was set up to examine the issue of sports in Canada. When we heard witnesses from amateur sport, no one was there. The room was almost empty. There were no reporters, hence no media coverage, and just a few Liberals. In attendance were, besides the chair of the committee of course, perhaps one or two Liberal members and myself, the only opposition member.

This morning however, there were not enough seats for all the members who came to hear NHL officials lament about the horrible situation their industry is in because they are not generating enough profits. Mr. Corey told us Molson made only $5 million in profits last year. My comment to him was that it was too bad that members of his team earned more than he did.

That is the tragedy, no effort is made to sit down and discuss. I have nothing against businesses turning a profit, that is what they are about, but they should also pay their share of taxes. Only those who make money have to pay taxes.

I have met with people in my riding throughout the Easter break and all day yesterday. They told me “We do not want to pay for Montreal again, Mrs. Tremblay. We hope you will object to that. We are still paying for the Olympic stadium and now we are expected to pay for the core revival. We are unemployed. On the lumber issue, we went three or four times before NAFTA panels. We won every time, but nothing came of it. Our foresters are going through tough times”.

NAFTA also applies to hockey teams. Let them go and argue before a NAFTA panel their case against the unfair subsidies American hockey teams receive from the municipalities, states and federal government in the United States. Do not come and ask us to give them money.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to hear one of the speakers from the Bloc asking a question of Liberal members. I believe the question was why are you here. I believe that is what I heard him say. I find that an extraordinary question coming from someone from the Bloc. The reality is its own members have questioned the validity of their being in this place because of the results of the last referendum. There has been a suggestion by members from that party that they should just resign, take their ball and go home, which would be just fine with me.

In fairness I must admit I thought the speaker who just finished made some very interesting points. She talked about the success of the Canadian cultural industry.

We have indeed been successful as a government, as a country and as a nation in supporting our cultural exports. Let us take a look at the greatest box office hit I believe in history, Titanic , which featured a Canadian director and the music of the wonderful and talented Céline Dion. One of the biggest stars in Europe is a Canadian, Bryan Adams. We have many things we can be proud of from the point of view of the arts and Canadian culture.

I thought the member actually made some very valid points which sounded a bit to me like she was speaking in support of some of the government programs.

We then get the other extreme. The Bloc members are a bit like chameleons. They change their colours as the mood moves them. They are difficult at times to understand from a logical point of view. I heard a Bloc member this morning say they are democratic socialists. I assume that means they are the NDP en français. It had not occurred to me before but apparently that seems to be their philosophy.

I think what the members of the Bloc need to do and what they should be doing is debating an issue in this place that basically says what kind of a society we want if we are to have an impact on eliminating child poverty.

Child poverty does not happen in a vacuum. Child poverty generally results from family poverty. It seems to be politically more attractive to talk about the children. What about the parents? What about the mothers and fathers working at part time jobs, the working poor in society?

The Reform Party seems to have a solution, broad base tax cuts right across the board so that everybody, particularly its friends, would receive huge tax breaks while the poor it purports to defend would receive minimal or nothing in the form of tax breaks. Reform's solution to child poverty is myopic at best and is simply misguided.

Let me go back to the Bloc and what kind of society we want. Do we want a divided society based on our differences? Do we want a society where we continue to concentrate on the issue of national unity in this great country based on our differences? Of course we have differences. I think the message should be vive la différence et vive le Canada.

If the Bloc would take some of its ideas and put them into practice in terms of constructive debate in this place it might be surprised at some of the support that could arise. I thought some of the debate we have sat through was reasonably well thought out and gave some valid points and concerns.

I think the principle of the motion the young member has put forward, now that he has decided to bring his seat back and join the rest of us, is not a bad principle. The concept is there is a disparity between the rich and the poor and we should strive to eliminate that. There is a problem as it relates to family and child poverty and we should strive to eliminate that.

In my view our government has done a number of things in the last budget with family tax credits, commitments to education and the youth employment strategy. We have done a number of things to help in the area of eradicating poverty. However, it is not enough. I admit that. I think the finance minister and the Prime Minister would admit it is not enough.

When we take it in the context of the overall job of running corporation Canada, this great country, and we are the board of directors, we have to priorize. We have to make commitments to keep the interest rates down, to keep inflation down, with record numbers. Of course the hon. member does not agree. He is giving me the thumbs down. I would not expect the thumbs up from someone whose sole purpose in life is to destroy this wonderful country. If I ever got it I would be nervous.

We cannot even talk about something like globalization or the MAI without hysteria coming out of members opposite, coming out of people like Maude Barlow champing at the bit, demonstrating everywhere, whipping people into a frenzy, putting out false information all over the country and the members opposite using the negotiations around the MAI for their own political purposes. It is unfortunate.

Free trade and globalization are all part of reality. We cannot be isolationists. Members can clap if they want. I have never said anything different. We cannot be isolationists.

The Bloc would like to put borders around its own province and be in isolation. That is what would happen. The number one trading partner for the province of Ontario is the province of Quebec.

I think interprovincial trade is a very important issue. There are barriers that should be eliminated in interprovincial trade. We should be working toward that together as the board of directors of corporation Canada. I think we can move in that direction.

At the same time we cannot ignore that there is a requirement, an obligation in fact, for us to have negotiations with foreign countries. If we see where the Prime Minister is today and has been for the past day or two, there is an interesting problem there. The Americans do not want to sign the MAI because they do not like the fact that we are upset with the Helms-Burton act. They want to be isolationists. They do not mind trading with China. They do not mind trading with a country whose human rights record is undoubtedly and arguably the worst in the world, but they do not want to trade with the little island of Cuba.

Yet we see what our Prime Minister has been able to accomplish in softening the relationship with Cuba, in getting a settlement from the Cuban government for Confederation Life. We have to have these kinds of discussions and negotiations if we are to play on the world economic stage.

We should just settle down. Let us get the MAI document out. We should not be abrogating our labour standards, we should not be abrogating our environmental standards, we should not be abrogating our health and safety requirements in this country. This government would not allow that to happen. But because these things are put on the table we get knee-jerk reactions from people who put blinders on and refuse to even discuss it.

We must have negotiations on globalization, on international trade if we are ever to increase the marketplace for the 30 million people in this great country. We cannot do it all internally. Interprovincial trade is a problem but globalization is here to stay. Canadians should embrace it and have confidence to be able to compete on a world stage in the business community and in the arts and culture.

I have that confidence and I know our government does as well.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the member who just spoke was saying, but I have to say I find it utter nonsense.

The member is in favor of free trade, in favor of international trade. But does he know that, for example, Quebec's Unibroue, the micro-brewery Quebeckers are so proud of because it produces a quality beer that is sold all over the world, is unable to sell a single bottle of beer in Ontario because of the tariffs and structures the Ontario government has put in place to keep out producers from Quebec and, I suppose, from other provinces also?

I would like to say to the member that, without customers from Quebec who bought cars made by Ford, Chrysler and GM in Ontario, at almost double the price these same products are sold for in the United States, without protectionist measures, the Ontario economy would have taken a nosedive and its automobile industry would be dying.

I am in favor of trade, but we have to start from identical bases and production costs must be identical because of the commitment of governments to respect certain rights.

How can we sell a welding product, for example, when a welder in this country must wear special protective clothing, his workshop must be heated, and he must receive a minimum salary, whereas in Venezuela, I saw a welder working in shorts, barefoot, on the street corner, using the bottom of a bottle for a mask? How can we be competitive in these situations?

I would like my colleague to explain this to me because he seems to be the one who has the absolute truth, today, in the House.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with the concern raised in the case of the micro brewery in Quebec. It is ludicrous.

The problem is the beer distribution system in the province of Ontario is fundamentally controlled by the big brewers. That is where we need to resolve the problem. They control the distribution system. The hon. member's micro brewery in the province of Quebec cannot get listed on Brewers Retail. We do not sell it in corner stores and in grocery stores like in other parts of this country. There is a fundamental problem there. The hon. member raises a valid point. Quebec and Ontario should sit down and discuss how we can alleviate that injustice.

The province of Quebec buys over $9 billion more from Ontario businesses than the reverse. We have a very healthy balance of trade. We have a very healthy interest in working with the province of Quebec. We have some room because of that balance of trade. I invite those issues to be put on the table.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West did say there was a $9 billion surplus. I have not checked the figures, but surely they will want to keep those billions once Quebec becomes sovereign—