Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I must admit that when this resolution came across my desk this morning at about 10 o'clock, I scratched my head and could not quite fathom why a sovereignist party, a party dedicated to sovereignty should propose a motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.
I first of all became a little suspicious and thought there was some mischief here.
It reminded me somewhat of the free trade agreement where our first struggle in the free trade agreement was to try to get the Americans' attention. Frankly, as far as the Americans were concerned, we were a small economy, somewhere close to the size of California, nothing more, nothing less, approximately the same number of people. The Americans were not overly concerned about entering into any kind of agreement with us.
It was somewhat difficult to get them to take us seriously to the point where we actually ended up for the first part of the negotiations negotiating both sides of the agreement so that we could have some framework with which to move forward. We finally cut a deal with the Americans and entered into what was the free trade agreement and then became the North American Free Trade Agreement. As they say, the rest is history. I will leave it to others to debate the merits of that agreement.
The real problem as I see it is that Canada is perceived to be a bit player in the entire exercise, particularly in world economic terms and indeed in North American terms. We take some pride I suppose in being the largest trading partner in the world with the Americans. As others have pointed out, basically $1 billion a day goes back and forth across our borders. Might I suggest that the Americans perceive it, particularly through the lens of Washington, as nothing more than a state border, a bit of a strange state border but a state border nevertheless.
If the government were persuaded to proceed with this resolution as is urged by the hon. members, I would argue that in fact that issue is even more exaggerated. If Canada has a problem being perceived by Washington as a bit player, imagine how Quebec would be perceived by Washington or New York.
I am sure that people in the offices that control the American monetary policy, particularly Mr. Greenspan, would be in a bit of a scramble to find out where Quebec City was. Then they would probably be told that they speak French up there. That is kind of nice, sort of like Louisiana. And that Quebec has civil law. That is kind of quaint, a novel idea. And really it is a distinct society. That is different altogether.
Mr. Greenspan and others who determine that kind of policy would not be interested only in issues of culture and language, because frankly for them, what counts is the bottom line, who has the most dollars. The issues that are of the greatest concern to Quebec and also of concern to the rest of Canada are very minor issues as far as Mr. Greenspan and his people might be concerned.
The monetary policy for a North American currency will be set in Washington. Let us make no bones about that. That is a reality. What Ottawa thinks or what Mexico City thinks or what Quebec City thinks will be utterly irrelevant if this resolution goes forward and if we have a unified currency. To think otherwise would be completely naive.
It is a perfect case of taxation without representation. In particular, this is the creation of monetary policy without representation. It will be the ultimate in alienation. It will be the ultimate in frustration and it will be a colossal error.
If this resolution goes forward and if the contemplated result occurs, we might as well say goodbye to sovereignty for all of us. If sovereignty is an issue now, and it has been for 150 years, it will be an even more exaggerated issue.
In the final analysis, he who has the most toys wins in an issue of this kind, and he who has the most bucks wins.
One of the speakers from the opposite side used the analogy of the European Union. The argument was that it went relatively smoothly. There were 11 countries, 11 currencies, 11 different sovereign jurisdictions, et cetera, et cetera. What the speaker failed to mention was that one of the countries did not have about 80% of the economy. This would be a strange analogy. If for example Germany had 80% of the economy in the European Union, do hon. members think that Berlin would really care what Madrid thought about fiscal or monetary policy? I would argue that all it does is encourages assimilation.
We have to ask ourselves at some point what is the game, what is the real resolution behind the resolution? There is a certain cleverness to the resolution. I have to admire the other side in that respect. I suppose that instead of going through a painful four step process we might as well just eat the pain and go for it.
If I understand the resolution and the desire on the part of the members opposite, I would first of all understand that they would want separation. That is clearly the reason they are here in Ottawa. That will cause a certain amount of pain for Canada and a certain amount of pain for Quebec. There is just no getting around that.
Then we would have this strange understanding of a joint use of the currency. That is probably more pain for Quebec and a little less pain for Canada, because frankly Ottawa will not give a hoot what Quebec City thinks about monetary policy and the joint use of the Canadian dollar. We will do what we want.
Then I would assume a certain element of frustration will set in on the part of a sovereign Quebec and there will be a desire by Quebec to go to a separate currency. We can skip that stage and go directly to an American currency, but I think that would be the logical outcome of the inevitable frustrations between Ottawa and Quebec City over the management and joint use of the Canadian dollar, which I would argue is basically pain for Quebec.
The final stage would be stage four, which is to go to the U.S. dollar. Inevitably I think that is where we would all end up, which would be pain for everyone. I would say pain for everyone in Canada, but not for the Americans who will not care.
I commend the hon. member for the cleverness in his resolution. He is basically skipping all the stages and going directly to the American dollar and who cares about what the rest of Canada might think about the issue. If we need high interest rates to provide a stimulus, forget that. We are not going to get that. If we need low interest rates to reduce inflation, there is no point in having that. We will not be able to achieve it in any event. We will have absolutely no control over fiscal or monetary policy in this country. We have to then ask whether we would have any control over any other policy in this country.
We have already gone through the pain of the federal government trying to get control over its fiscal situation. If it had not gotten control over its fiscal situation, we would not have been able to talk about the health budget. There would not be anything to talk about because we would still be in deficit. If we have no control over our fiscal and monetary policies, we will have no control over any other policies in this country and we might as well kiss sovereignty for all of us goodbye.
I mentioned the analogy of the European Union which I would argue is a false analogy. It is an analogy which simply does not make sense. It is as if Germany had 80% of the economy and let all of the other bit players join in the European Union. That makes no sense. It is a false analogy and needs to be denounced as such.
This is a stalking horse motion. It is there to promote Quebec sovereignty. This is part of trying to develop winning conditions and trying to convince the rest of Canada that we will agree to what will, by any other name, be the U.S. dollar. That will in one respect create winning conditions. We will just go from stage one to four like that. There will be pain all the way around and I do not know that any of us will be a great deal better off.
I would urge hon. members to see this motion for what it is, a stalking horse motion that is part of creating winning conditions with the ultimate result being a great deal of pain for us all.