Debates of March 15th, 1999

Supply

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.

The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois proposes a monetary union between Canada and United States.

[An hon. member]

That is not it.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Excuse me.

The example which members give us is that of the European Union. The European Union is very different from the United States and Canada. There were 11 countries all trading with one another in 11 different currencies. Together they are roughly the same size economically as Canada and the United States.

Can we imagine the complexity of doing business in a market where there are 11 currencies and 11 different borders to cross in order to have the same economies of scale? A monetary union had transactional cost savings inherent in it.

Another advantage, and we have to look at it, is that with a single currency there is no possibility of the currency either going up or down against a foreign currency. Perhaps this causes difficulties when doing business over a long period of time. The costs from a supplier cannot be guaranteed for six months because the exchange rate may differ.

We could find ourselves producing goods or services in Canada which are not competitive. However there is a way around that. All businesses involved in international trade which need to deal with international currencies do what they call hedging. They buy a currency six months ahead if that is when they will need it. Or, they sell a currency six months or a year ahead, if that is when they will be selling their products, in order to ensure that their costs are ascertainable and fixed.

That is what we in Canada do with the United States. We do not have the huge problem of 11 different currencies; we have just two. If we were to go into a monetary union it would be very unlike the European Union which involves many countries. However there is a certain homogeny, a certain sameness about the countries. The United States vis-à-vis Canada is about 11 times as big economically. The inevitable result would be that we would lose our monetary policy independence.

The member of the Bloc Quebecois who just spoke said that Canada never had an independent monetary policy. This is not true.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Since 1950.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

When our government took office in 1993, Canadian interest rates were 2.5 points higher than in the United States. Today, our short and long-term interest rates are almost the same as in the United States.

In the meantime, we followed an independent monetary policy that everyone benefited from, because the huge decrease in our interest rates led to many more benefits, including a drop in the unemployment rate that now stands at 7.8%, down from 11.4%.

We also saved a lot on debt service charges. Our independent monetary policy greatly benefited to all Canadians and each and every region of the country.

There is another reason it is very important for us not to follow the course of the Bloc. When we have our own currency we have a buffer against changes in economic circumstances, against economic shocks. Canada, side-swiped by the Asian crisis, has seen commodity prices around the globe fall approximately 25%.

Canada is a net exporter of commodities while the United States is a net importer. Just because of global commodity prices the terms of trade with the United States have gone against Canada by about 6% and in favour of the United States by about 5%.

If we had the same currency, what would have been the result? It is very simple. We would have seen a cut-down in Canadian production. We could have seen workers leaving Canada and being able to move to the United States which is experiencing the upturn, but we know that is not feasible. We would have seen price declines, wage declines where there were no fixed wage contracts, and job losses.

In spite of commodity prices falling, the Asian crisis followed by Russia on August 17, and the flight to security of currencies everywhere, in spite of being hit by those crises our unemployment has continued to fall. Our currency, the Canadian dollar, has gone down a bit. It has gone down 7% vis-à-vis the American dollar.

We could look at other countries in the world that have suffered. South Africa's is down 34%; it has been sideswiped completely. Australia's is down about 15% and New Zealand's is down about 19%. Norway's is down a tremendous amount.

Thanks to the fact that Canada had put its economy in good order we were able to get through it. Thanks to the fact that we had a flexible independent monetary policy, jobs continued to increase in Canada and workers did not suffer. That was the great benefit we enjoyed as evidenced through the last nine or twelve month period.

I cannot help but asked myself if the Bloc is not being a little bit naughty in putting this motion before the House? Could it be their way of trying to create some kind of link with the United States? If another referendum were to be held, would that not make them somewhat closer to the United States?

Never before has such an idea been put forward in the House, and it is being put forward by the Bloc for the whole of Canada. Most of the time, their ideas only affect Quebec, not the whole of Canada.

Let me conclude by saying that the Bloc believes this motion will promote separatism in Quebec, because the people will feel that there is some kind of pre-agreement with the United States.

Never will we support such an assumption or such ideas. We will protect our economic independence and our independent monetary policy, while recognizing what is going on in the rest of the world.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised when I heard the member across the way say that our monetary policy has had a positive influence on the unemployment rate. I would ask him to compare it with what it is in the United States. It might wake him up.

Here we go again with this notion of Canada's monetary independence vis-à-vis the United States. I would like to know how independent Canada's monetary policy has been, since we know that from 1950 to 1986 all one had to do, to determine the Bank of Canada rate, was to add about 1% to the U.S. federal reserve rate for the same period.

He was right when he said the gap in the bank rates was even wider between 1986 and about 1993, this is when the recession was worse in Canada than in the United States. John Crow, the Governor, who was responsible for raising the interest rates to such high levels, is now defending an independent monetary policy.

What is the point of having an independent monetary policy if it jeopardizes jobs?

Where was the independent monetary policy of the Canadian government when the Canadian dollar collapsed in 1997-1998, the Bank of Canada had to raise its interest rate 1% above the Americans', returning to the same econometric model we had between 1950 and 1986?

Where is the monetary political independence when both curves are parallel? I wish I could show them to the House. They are exactly the same. Where is the independent monetary policy in all this?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a globalized world, we must look at what other countries do.

I would like to mention the six points our finance minister presented to the IMF. Among these was the suggestion that all western countries, countries with a strong economy, should recognize that the world economy is at risk and should lower their interest rates to stimulate growth within their economies and to encourage imports from Asian countries or from other countries that had problems because of the Asian crisis.

We worked together with other countries that have a strong economy. That is not a lack of independence. On the contrary, working in co-operation with our allies is a sign of independence.

I must repeat. When we took office in 1993, our interest rates were a lot higher than those in the United States. Thanks to our low inflation policy and our tax programs, we have managed to eliminate the deficit. Our interest rates have gone down and were really lower than American interest rates six months ago.

Because of the changes occurring worldwide, we have had to adjust our interest rates little by little, sometimes by increasing them and sometimes by lowering them.

Today, we can see the results of our independent monetary policy in terms of economic growth and jobs.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder when I see our Liberal colleagues worry about the intentions of the Bloc Quebecois.

Let us look at the facts. When the issue of free trade came up, whether it was about the original agreement or the one we have now, Quebec was at the forefront of these changes. Quebec was the one with a vision for the future.

The situation here is exactly the same. Trade between Canada and the United States totals $1 billion a day, maybe more. As for trade between Quebec and the United States, 55% of our exports go to the United States.

Now imagine the problems related to the exchange rate, to a dollar that goes up, that goes down, that is unpredictable. Sooner or later, we will have to go the way of a common currency, and I would rather we thought about it now and not when it is too late. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing with this motion, the creation of a committee. What does my hon. colleague has to say about that?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our exchange rate is floating. It is not fixed, it is not set. It fluctuates depending on the U.S. dollar and the currencies of all the countries in the world.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the poor content of the member's speech is not surprising. The member himself explained why it is so: he began thinking about this issue at 10 o'clock this morning. One can understand why his arguments are so weak.

He said the Americans give no thought to this debate. He should read this morning's Miami Herald . The columnist Andres Oppenheimer, whose by-line is also carried in 40 other newspapers across the U.S., mentions today's debate.

Maybe the member should also know that the Florida trade secretary spoke about this subject and thought about it; the president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, gave some thought to this issue too, as well as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Mexico Business Council. Finally, the Canadian ambassador in Washington, the Prime Minister's nephew, also said we should discuss this issue. That all brings us to the original motion proposing such a debate.

I have a question: how is it that the Liberal members who were so in favour of holding a debate on the free trade agreement with the Americans in 1988, who wanted to extend it, are now doing their best to avoid this debate?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would correct the hon. member in one respect, namely that I started thinking about his motion at 10 o'clock this morning. I have thought about the issues it raises on many occasions. In my view, as it is phrased, the motion is a nonsense motion and not one that yields a serious conclusion.

As to whether people in Florida are discussing this issue, I am not privy to that information. It may be that Quebec is going to annex Florida or Florida is going to annex Quebec. I am not sure. However, I understand that there are a number of people down there who would like to do that.

I would address my hon. colleague's attention to an article in this morning's National Post entitled “The Case for a World Dollar”. I read that article initially not even knowing the debate would occur here today. I put the article down and thought it incoherent. It made no case for a world dollar, let alone a North American currency. With the greatest of respect to my hon. colleague, I would suggest that his case has not been made and that in fact he has created for himself difficulties that he has yet to anticipate.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed my colleague's speech. As we all know, this is about the Bloc Quebecois seeking security under the wing of the mother hen of the U.S. dollar. We all know that it is not a hen, it is actually an eagle.

Two examples have been used today of countries that have sought the protection of the U.S. dollar, Puerto Rico and Liberia. I know my colleague is a very quick study. He has proved that by the fact that he developed that wonderful speech in a relatively short time. I know he follows the economy of Africa with great interest.

Liberia is a country which long ago took the U.S. dollar. It moved under the protection of the U.S. dollar.

I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on whether the people of Liberia feel they have been better off under the protection of the U.S. dollar these many years. Has the Liberian economy become better or worse in his view?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes this is a motion about going under the mother hen of the U.S. dollar. I would respectively suggest that this motion lays an egg. The only question is how to poach it.

The real issue is that no country has fared better under the U.S. dollar. Puerto Rico, in particular, is an excellent example of a country that is without sovereignty, without direction and a country that cannot make an impact because it has no control over its finances or its fiscal or monetary policy.

If the hon. member wishes to have Canada or, more particularly, Quebec become another Puerto Rico in this hemisphere, then he is welcome to it. We on this side of the House will resist very strongly.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with one of my colleagues.

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion which I will read for the benefit of those who have just tuned in:

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.

Why are members of the Bloc Quebecois calling for the creation of such a committee and why are we holding this debate today? Because in this rapidly changing world, because of globalization—as members opposite keep telling us—members of Parliament must be able to see further down the way.

Yet, the attitude of the members opposite concerns me; it reminds me of the attitude that prevailed during the debate on free trade. The Liberals started by shouting their indignation. We all remember what they said, that free trade would be the mother of all evils and that if they were elected, they would never sign the agreement. Once elected, the new Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien, finally signed the agreement.

I would say finally with pleasure—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. member that we must not refer to an hon. member by name, but by his or her constituency or title, as the hon. member knows well.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the hon. Prime Minister. I hope you will forgive the history teacher when she gets the upper hand.

Just after his election, the hon. Prime Minister finally signed the free trade agreement. But more importantly, he became the defender, the grand champion of free trade areas all over the world because Canada is ready to establish free trade areas with APEC countries, the Americas, as well as EFTA—Canada has ambitious plans but it also has more modest ones—whose members are Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

There is no doubt that, after a positive vote on sovereignty, we will be able, if that is deemed desirable, to create a free trade zone that will include Quebec. But if the future is influenced by what is happening in Europe—and chances are that it will be—should we not examine the impact this will have and prepare for that?

Why should we prepare? I am my party's critic for industry, and I know how serious the productivity problem is in Canada, and the Canadian monetary policy did not help.

The secretary of state has suggested that the depreciation of the Canadian dollar preserved jobs, but the low value of our dollar has also made Canadians considerably poorer compared to the Americans. This low value of the dollar, based on a lack of productivity and low salaries, does not only make us poorer, but also makes improving our productivity more difficult, since that involves buying new equipment. But two thirds of equipment purchases in Canada come from abroad, and 90 % of this is from the United States.

The lower the value of our dollar, the more difficult innovation is for Canadian businesses. While we hear flattering pronouncements on that extraordinary Canadian economy, we find a more sobering description of our reality in reports from the industry department. The truth is that if our productivity had improved at the same pace as in the United States, for example, each Canadian would be richer by $7,000. That is a lot of money.

This is not just more separatist trickery, but a real issue that more and more people want us to grapple with, because there are good reasons why we should.

We do not suggest this should be done tomorrow. We say this matter ought to be examined by parliament, because it poses a number of problems, including Canada's increasingly lag behind the U.S.

It is all very fine to go on about an independent monetary policy, but I would point out to my hon. colleagues from Ontario that they have not experienced the chill the eastern provinces have as a result of the Canadian monetary policy. The east has always had the opposite reaction to the rest of Canada. When Ontario was overheating, the rest was just beginning to warm up a little.

I am most anxious to see a committee struck to continue this debate. The debate is under way, however, and it is going to continue, because we are lagging further and further behind the United States, and the rest of the world as well, moreover. In the past 25 years, Canada has recorded the least growth in productivity of all G-7 countries.

The Alliance of Manufacturers of Canada has developed a competitiveness index. For each factor, the country's performance is compared with the top performer in the OECD, and the rating is expressed as a percentage. In 1997, Canada—proud of its performance that year, moreover—was rated at 76%, compared to the Americans' 89% and the OECD countries' 82%.

Michael Porter, the universally respected guru when it comes to competitiveness, judges Canada harshly in a study he has carried out on us. Among Canada's five greatest weaknesses he lists the poor growth in productivity, and the little invested in science and technology.

This prompts me to say that, under those circumstances, one would expect the Canadian government to take a lead role in improving Canadian productivity.

Of course, there were a number of initiatives promoting the knowledge economy, but the truth of the matter is that the budget this year provides $80 million less for science and technology than it did last year.

From an economic point of view, from now on, will our hon. colleagues opposite want to bury their heads in the sand or look at the development tools we will be needing?

Canada can no longer base its sovereignty on an economic policy that has its citizens getting poorer all the time and its exports, which we are so proud of, rely on costs whose main features are our low wages.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. I listened very carefully to what she had to say.

The first question is one which I posed previously. I would be grateful if the hon member would comment on the success of the country of Liberia taking the U.S. dollar as its own currency and giving up power over its economy and financial affairs. Does she consider that the economy of Liberia and the people of Liberia benefited from that experience?

Second, I wonder if the hon. member would comment on this. This is from today's issue of l'Actualité . It is an article by Professor Pierre Fortin, who is an economics professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. I will read the last paragraph of the article:

Times have changed. To let the smallest change in world prices for our raw materials disrupt our currency is a notion that dates back to the 1970s and that we need to drop. Texas does not have a monetary policy distinct from that of Washington and that has not stopped it from prospering. Even Honduras does not let its currency vary according to the world price for bananas.

Would the member care to comment on Professor Fortin's article?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two fine questions from my colleague. However, the first one concerns me.

What is being proposed is a committee for Canada. He is prepared to compare Canada's weight with that of the United States and that of Liberia. As we try look at a future with a pan-American or North American currency, he agrees to consider the question. He is assuming that the model will be that of Liberia.

Let us all use our brain a little. Should discussions occur, can we not ask our colleague whether the Americans might not wonder what would be in it for them? Naturally, the United States is elephantine, but living next door to it can be costly too.

As to his question on Pierre Fortin, I do not understand it at all. He is talking about Canadian policy, which the secretary of state said had fluctuated with the price of natural resources, permitting jobs to be saved. What Pierre Fortin said is that for a self-respecting country, it made no sense, and doubtless he would agree with me, the effects on productivity are terrible in the end.

I am not saying that in the short term this should not be done, but the situation must be seen for what it is. Everyone is becoming poorer. That is what it means.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois motion, because no one can oppose studies. Everyone here is on continuous training these days. So we agree to go on.

Mr. Fortin said that a common currency was absolutely unacceptable and that the furthest one could go would be monetary association.

Any thought of a common currency involves the assumption that the Americans would forgo their national currency, the strongest in the world, even stronger than the Euro. In this vein, I would ask my colleague what she thinks.

In the event it would be possible to negotiate a date for the establishment of a common currency, I would ask her what fiscal measures should be passed to strengthen Canada's monetary and economic position.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I am pleased by the announcement made by the whip of the Progressive Conservative Party.

As for his question on Pierre Fortin and L'Actualité , as I said earlier regarding the notion of fluctuation—the secretary of state boasted about this—there is no doubt that issues such as the distinction between a union and an association must be discussed. The idea is to look beyond the Canadian dollar and the monetary policy, and to try to anticipate what the North American and tricontinental economy will be in the years to come. This is what we must look at.

It would be a good sign if members opposite agreed to discuss this issue, because the situation is changing and will continue to change whether we want it to or not. This is true for the economy, but also for other areas. The government would be well-advised to create a serene atmosphere to discuss this whole issue, because the future of our fellow citizens and of our children is at stake.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mercier for sharing her time with me.

I say to the deputy government whip that if he wants to quote L'Actualité , he does not have to go that far. On page 10 of the magazine, we find the following: “I anticipate a North American currency within five years. It is unavoidable”. That comment is from Sherry Cooper, the chief economist and vice-president of Nesbitt Burns. Incidentally, Ms. Cooper is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions said he was opposed to the motion of the Bloc Quebecois on a monetary union with the United States. Up to that point, I understand him, because he is not referring to today's motion. He is opposed to something we are not discussing. The Liberals are off the track, but we are used to that. It is par for the course with them.

However, today's motion calls for a committee to consider a pan-American currency. We cannot presume to know at this time what conclusions such a committee would reach, as the Liberal members are doing.

It is also puzzling why there is such vehement opposition to a committee to consider the possibility of a form of monetary union in North America and in the Americas at the very time when members of this House are giving thought to a free trade zone for the Americas.

How can the Liberal members be so removed from a topic such as a common currency at the very time when we are debating international and intercontinental trade? These same individuals who, as my colleague, the member for Mercier, pointed out, are now supporting the elimination of barriers between all countries in the Americas, are the same folks who said in the red book, and I quote from page 24, for my colleague, the member for Outremont:

A Liberal government will renegotiate both the FTA and NAFTA to obtain a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code, a more effective dispute resolution mechanism, and the same energy protection as Mexico. Abrogating trade agreements should be only a last resort if satisfactory changes cannot be negotiated.

All members remember that, in 1993, the Liberals campaigned against NAFTA, against the lack of consultation and information with respect to these agreements, and that they said on page 24 of their red book that they were prepared to abrogate the FTA.

What have they done since? They have signed it without a word, they have let in Chile, and they recently signed with Israel and Palestine. This was another promise they broke, along with the GST and many others.

One might wonder why our Liberal colleagues want to drag the debate down to partisan levels. What we are suggesting today to our colleagues is to act as responsible parliamentarians. What they are telling us is that it is bad thinking and plainly bad to suggest to this House that we act as responsible parliamentarians.

If a review committee concluded that under no circumstances should we adopt a common currency with the Americas, we would certainly abide by and support its decision. It might decide, surprise, surprise, that we should have a fixed exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, set at 80 cents, for example, after negotiations, to avoid the uncertainties—a word we hear often from our Liberal colleagues—regarding exports, which account for one job out of three in Canada.

It might decide we should adopt the American dollar or a pan-American dollar. We are not experts, so today we are suggesting that a review committee be struck to hear what experts, economists, exporters, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Exporters' Association might have to say on the matter. If they tell us “Yes, we should go ahead with this”, why should we as parliamentarians stubbornly refuse to have a quality debate and not do our job?

I will ask this to my colleagues, because soon we will have a question and answer period. I would like them to respond to my arguments. Why do they not want to do their job as parliamentarians? They opposed free trade, what is their opinion of a free trade zone? Do they oppose it too? I have news for them. Their government and their party are in favour of this American free trade zone and even presided over the first 18 months of negotiations. Why not then take advantage of this forum to expand the debate to the possibility of a unique currency for all those partners?

The question is legitimate. Why do they not want to talk about this, and why do they always come back with the same message “the bad separatists are only introducing this debate to be able to separate more easily”. This has absolutely nothing to do with today's debate.

They also raise the objection that, as far as exports are concerned, we have an advantage now. The Quebec minister of finance was saying that it was because our weak dollar. He was saying “Yes, but all this has a pernicious effect, a little bit like drugs. At the outset, it is pleasant, but in the long run, it can be very detrimental to our health”. It is the same thing for the economic well-being and the low Canadian dollar.

It might be that today it is easier to export our goods on certain markets because our dollar is weaker than the U.S. dollar. Who knows. Those who have travelled to the United States lately have certainly noticed that the Canadian dollar is worth very little compared to the U.S. dollar.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

You know it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I know. But if the value of the Canadian dollar increased, would this automatically means that our exports might be penalized? Should we therefore set up a monetary policy to keep our dollar at 63, 65 or 70 cents? Is that the federal government's monetary policy? Perhaps it should tell us that too.

As for the independence of our monetary policy, my colleague for Charlesbourg, my colleague for Mercier and my other colleagues who took part in the debate have shown it very well. Since 1950, if we look at the line of the U.S. dollar value in relation to the value of the Canadian dollar as well as the interest rates, we can see that the lines are following the same curve, they look like exact copies of each other, with one exception, in 1993, if I am not mistaken.

Today, we are doing 80% of our trade with the United States, where our exports are going; we are more closely linked with the United States than the European markets are among themselves, yet the European countries, after ten years of discussion, opted for a single currency.

Why are they closing their minds to any potential discussion and study of such a possibility? Why do they absolutely want to rule out a debate on that subject, in spite of the fact that the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. Chrétien, said that it was something to consider, in spite of the fact that the chief economist and vice-president of Nesbitt Burns said that this was inevitable within five years, and in spite of the fact that several economists and experts said that we should look at this issue today?

Why should we Parliamentarians want it all done for us? Why should we want the people at Finance to discuss this matter, and then we will just vote on the bill to implement it, as was done with the free trade agreement with Chile?

Why should we want to do as we did with the free trade agreement with Israel, and just vote on the bill to implement it?

Is this what MPs should be, mere rubber stamps? Should we adopt implementation legislation and say yes, this is fine, the public servants did a good job? No. Like the hon. member for Charlesbourg, I too believe our job is to study it, to examine all the possibilities, and then to be in a position to make enlightened decisions.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion there is already a pan-American currency, one that is used throughout the world, and that is the U.S. dollar. Many countries do not like this situation, among them France, England and the other European countries.

I have a question for the member across the way. Is it true that the real reason the Europeans created the euro was to protect European sovereignty?