Debates of March 15th, 1999

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Scarborough—for Mississauga West.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is the problem? Scarborough. Toronto. It is Mississauga. It is a beautiful city. It is the fifth largest city in the country. It has a wonderful mayor and a wonderful council. It is a great place. It never rains or snows in Mississauga. What else can I say?

Let me say to the hon. member that I do not have the longevity in this place that he does and I cannot answer for what happened in the era of Mr. Trudeau, but I can tell him that when I was elected in the last election I did not run on cancelling the GST. Not this member. This member will not run on that.

I believe most Canadian subscribe to what this party stands for. It was obvious in the election results. We have eliminated the deficit, no thanks to the Tory party. We have the country working again. We have created 1.6 million new jobs since we took office.

I cannot help it if members from Kicking Horse Pass or wherever cannot see the success that has accrued during the term of this government, but that is the reality. Let the hon. member read it and weep.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member speak and he certainly likes rhetoric. But surely the member does not think it is helpful to the efforts of Canadians right across the country, who are trying to unify this country, for him to be so partisan and so disrespectful of the people of Quebec.

Well over one and a half million Canadians in the province of Quebec voted for the Bloc Quebecois. As distasteful as he may find it that there are members of the House who believe in a separate Quebec, they were given a mandate by about one and a half million Canadians in that province. Surely he should respect the people of Quebec.

What I read between the lines, between the rhetoric, is an anti-French attitude that is simply not helpful. Surely the member from Mississauga owes the people of Quebec an apology for some of the disrespectful comments he made a few moments ago. I am wondering whether the hon. member is speaking with the authority of the Government of Canada. I noticed that the House leader was here. The least he could do is—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Mississauga West.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing to hear this member make remarks like that. If we want to research Hansard we will find three words uttered by that very member. These are not my words; they were his words. He said “Separatists are traitors”. Is he telling me that he would make a remark like that and somehow be denigrating the people of Quebec? That is nonsense.

At no time have I spoken against the people of Quebec. I speak against the Bloc. I will always speak against the Bloc because they are trying to destroy my country.

The future leader of the united alternative had better watch out. As I have pointed out before, if he is on their hockey team, they should not let him shoot on their net because he will score against his own team.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am pleased to rise today in this debate on a motion put forward by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, asking for a committee to be struck in order to consider the possibility of the creation on a pan-American monetary union.

This is a very serious issue and I am very proud to speak to it. I am not dealing with it the way opposite members are doing nor in the way they have been behaving for the last few minutes.

On the eve of the year 2000, in a world where economy, science, politics and energy are changing rapidly, we must deal with this issue within the broad modernization process in the context of globalization.

Every day, the media report large business and economic mergers. How can we remain passive in the face of the strong possibility of the creation of a joint pan-American currency?

The arrival of the Euro on the market last January was the trigger and the real beginning of this important reflection.

Who would have thought that only 40 years of negotiation would be needed for European countries to decide to create the Euro? The creation of the Euro gives back to Europe the look of an economic power resulting from the interdependence of eleven different countries.

The printing of the first Euros is the tangible result of the hard work of European countries after the second world war on the economic and social reconstruction of Europe.

We will soon be in the third millennium, and we will enter into multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization.

The debate on a common currency for the three Americas should start right now. While the Prime Minister of Canada and the governor of the Bank of Canada oppose this concept, the deputy premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, who was an adamant proponent of the free trade agreement in 1988, is supporting the position of the Bloc Quebecois and its leader.

The FTA, followed by NAFTA have given Canada and Quebec a better access to the American market, and exports from Quebec have risen annually by 7% or 8%. Mr. Bernard Landry was right, and this trade agreement was fitting nicely in our agenda for Quebec sovereignty.

The creation of a common currency is another political and economic issue that should be dealt with seriously, in the context of discussions and negotiations over international trade agreements and more particularly in the context of a sovereign Quebec.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is requesting that a committee be set up to study this important issue. Even if the Prime Minister of Canada and his finance minister are completely opposed to this, all members in this House should do something concrete and demonstrate that a common pan-American currency is a most realistic project that should be examined right now.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois is that a sovereign Quebec should keep the Quebec-Canada monetary union, but we should go further than that in our thinking. We know that sovereignists are for change. They are open to this worldwide debate, contrary to the federal Liberals who do not want to move away from the status quo and who refuse any kind of change.

I remind members of the position taken by the Liberals in the 1988 debate on free trade. They were against the idea, including the then premier of Ontario, David Peterson. In 1999, it is the same scenario. Ontario Liberals are opposed to change and show no openness to prepare for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.

A few weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois, a democratic party that listens to its grassroots members, formed a task force to examine the place of a sovereign Quebec in the world. The issue of a common currency will also be considered.

Personally, I support the creation of a common currency, as do my colleague from Charlesbourg and our leader. I am still convinced that, by the year 2020, three currencies will dominate the world market, namely the U.S. dollar, the Eurocoin and the Japanese yen. Twenty years is not a long time. Therefore, we must prepare ourselves for that economic possibility.

Members of the House of Commons must follow our lead immediately and consider the possible creation of a common currency. The federal Liberals still have closed minds and are incapable of dealing with such an important issue. They just refuse to get away from their old conservative way of thinking, from their unhealthy obsession with the status quo and from their narrow vision of Canadian nationalism.

I understand them. How can we expect them to be proactive and to renew their rhetoric when they are led by a man who is mostly inspired by the Trudeau philosophy of the 1970s? And what about the position of the New Democrats, who are also stuck on their old centralizing paradigms that are very close to those of the federal Liberals who are unable to have a world vision?

The Bloc Quebecois has taken the lead. Our members want to talk about this issue right now. We are a sovereignist party that anticipates the exceptional interdependent relationship of a sovereign Quebec with its other economic partners throughout the world. We are a party that looks forward to the future, not an old fashioned party like the Liberal Party opposite.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the last member who spoke.

I think this is a very important motion and certainly one which is worthy of debate. I am not one of those who believes we should not be discussing this issue. This is probably an issue which will be the subject of discussion in the House and in the country for the next 10 years.

As the last member who spoke said, it is very clear that we are moving into a new community in the world where there will be three major currencies. The establishment of the Eurodollar has established conditions where in fact it will be very difficult for other currencies, smaller currencies, those that are not part of a block, to survive, whether it is the United States currency or the European currency.

People who are interested are very concerned about this. However, I think that the problems Bloc members have in terms of bringing up this issue are several.

The first is the paradox of wanting to jump immediately into a Pan-American currency over which they will have no control, when they would be leaving a currency which they presently, through the Minister of Finance who comes from Quebec and through their members of parliament from Quebec, have a direct interest in preserving. I do not understand that paradox from their perspective.

I ask the member another question. For those of us who are looking seriously at this issue, and who recognize that it is an issue, we realize that we are going to have to deal with the Americans. We are going to have to deal with the American Congress.

The member opposite and every member of the House knows that the American Congress today acts in a very unilateral way. Does the member seriously think that it is in the interests of Quebecers to abandon a system in which they have a direct role in participating in the decision making process to go to a system where the Americans will not allow us to have any input? Or does the member actually believe that we will get a seat on the federal reserve board of this new currency?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that there is at least one hon. member who is open to the possibility of a committee being struck. The pan-American currency is a project for the future. We have to talk about it. This is our position and we want to set up a committee. Is there anything more democratic that a committee?

Members opposite have chosen to address today the issue of Quebec's sovereignty. Let us be serious here. What we are proposing today is becoming a more and more distinct possibility in a global environment. The hon. member opposite, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, should know this.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga West early on in his speech today severely insulted me along with many western Canadians. He also gravely inflicted damage on the people of Quebec.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that we are in questions and comments following the speech of a member of the Bloc. Is this relevant to that speech?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary is correct. The hon. member making his comments is supposed to make the comments and questions on the speech just heard. I am sure he was getting to that point.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that point, precisely.

The records of this House are meant to reflect what went on in the House and to reflect what happened.

I stand once again to ask the member from the Bloc if the debate today from the Liberal side does not make him want to cry out, as I do, for an apology from the Liberal government for what it has said and done to the people of Quebec and to the people of western Canada.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to demand one too.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just learned a few moments ago that, according to a poll the FM 93 radio station in Quebec City held during one of its shows, 91% of its listeners are in favour of a pan-American monetary union.

So, my question to my hon. colleague from Lotbinière is the following: Is he surprised at the results compiled by the FM 93 radio station?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, radio listeners in Quebec City are open people who believe in the future, so I am not a bit surprised by these results, and I am sure that if such a poll had been held throughout Quebec, its results would have been positive. It just goes to prove that Quebeckers are all for change and not for the status quo, unlike the federal Liberals opposite.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any 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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)