Madam Speaker, I would have thought, with a debate as important as this one on the future of the Canadian currency and the use of a North-American currency, or perhaps a pan-American one, there would have been more interest forthcoming from the government side. They have had virtually nothing to say right from the start, with the exception of using their speaking time for a ten-minute speech of highly dubious nature.
I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Charlesbourg, the man behind this most important debate. The question, as set out in the motion, is not whether we must change to some other currency starting tomorrow morning. The question is this: are we going to put on blinkers in the next few weeks, months or years, when debates arise concerning economic interdependence and the future of macroeconomic tools such as monetary policy?
The question is this: are we going to isolate ourselves from major world trends, or are we going to start right now looking at the pros and cons of changing the way we do things.
What I have heard so far has been pretty esoteric. I did not believe we had reached the stage here in parliament of being so blinded by narrow Canadian nationalism as to declare ourselves “staunch defenders of our independence”. Prepared to fight to the death to maintain the Canadian dollar. Ready to fight to the death to prevent Canada from becoming a banana republic”. I will come back to the remarks by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, which were totally out of the current debate.
Let us consider some of the arguments we heard from the other side of the House. We heard the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions, not just anyone, but someone who is supposed to be somewhat more open to changes in economic development and in international world trade. He said “Canadian sovereignty is vital. We will not hand Canadian sovereignty over to the Americans”.
We have to recognize the fact that the economic interdependence that was built over the past 50 years, in fact since the start of the first GATT agreement in 1947, is practically complete.
There are 134 countries who are signatories to the WTO agreements. Almost all trade is governed at the moment by rules that are liberalizing it, rules that became rules of law with the creation of the WTO and the establishment of the Marrakesh agreement of 1994.
The government is so far behind that it is now avoiding any debate on the use of a North American currency or one for the three Americas. However, the World Trade Organization, in which Canada is represented, is entertaining the idea that, some day, we might have a world currency. Members can imagine how far behind we are right now. And the one who brought up the ides of a world currency is not just anybody, but the WTO's current director general, Mr. Ruggiero.
We are so far behind here that we forget that, while goods and services have been moving freely under the GATT, and now the WTO rules, capital is not subject to such strict rules that would provide similar protection. As we saw with the Asian crisis, the financial sector is not subject to strict enough rules. The result is that secondary currencies such as the Canadian dollar are subjected to devastating speculation.
It must be pointed out that daily capital movement is currently 30 to 40 times greater than the movement of goods and services throughout the world. If we want some form of protection, we should wonder about the recent Asian crisis, which may not be the last financial crisis to occur in the world. We must ask ourselves questions about the forms of protection that we can create. And one of them is to consistently reduce the number of secondary currencies in the world. Eleven of them have already been merged into a single currency, thus eliminating 11 possibilities for unscrupulous speculators, who destroy national currencies, thus threatening the countries' economic future and job creation efforts.
The Liberals are not interested in talking about this. They would rather talk about Canada's independence. I have never heard so much talk about economic sovereignty in parliament as I have this morning. Independence, as they are using the term however, misses the whole point.
Do the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions and the Minister of Finance think it is more important to have symbolic, artificial independence, or real powers within a North American organization of the three Americas or an international organization?
My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, earlier told us how European monetary policy worked, explaining that France had only just recently acquired a say in the future of the French franc, because the future of currencies in Europe was determined by the Bundesbank.
With the creation of the Euro, France will have a say in German policy. That is real power, real sovereignty. France has exchanged an ultimately artificial—because it no longer had any power at all—independence with respect to monetary policy for real power. It did so by banding together.
The same is true for international economic integration, economic interdependence. All members of the House should know this, but they are obtuse. There was the case in 1997 of Costa Rica, a small country of 2.5 million inhabitants, winning an international case against the claims of the American government. Imagine that. Costa Rica never would have thought itself capable of swaying decisions of the United States, the strongest power in the world. Because of economic interdependence and common rules, these small countries have gained extraordinary powers. That is real independence, true national sovereignty.
I listened to the speech of the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. It was a despicable speech. We are fortunate that the NDP will never have a chance to be the government because if there is a party that would establish a banana republic, it is that party.
I thought it was so preposterous of the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to ask “Do we want to avoid, after the separation of Quebec, a debate on the use of the currency and a situation where a sovereign Quebec would have no right to use the Canadian dollar?” I am sorry, but the member is really out of touch with reality.
We hold 25 per cent of the money supply. Twenty-five per cent of the money circulating in Canada belongs to Quebec. Whether there is sovereignty or not, this money will always belong to Quebeckers. That is very clear.
Whether we have a North American currency or not, they will have one heck of problem when this happens and it is decided that we will be using the Canadian dollar whether they like it or not. They do not want to hear about it. I can understand that. It would bother me too.
The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys quoted the governor of the new European Central Bank, who said something along these lines “Countries of the European Union will not have any say in the monetary policy of the new bank”. This goes without saying, since in every industrialized country the monetary policy is essentially independent from political power.
Even under the Bank of Canada Act, the powerful Bank of Canada, which he reveres and which does not have any power left according to us, is said to be independent from the political powers in Ottawa. The member told us, quoting the governor of the new European bank, that the use of a common currency generates a loss of sovereignty. Obviously, the hon. member does not know how monetary policies work.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said “We cannot have a monetary integration of the three Americas. We have different economic realities, different inflation rates, different unemployment rates”. So what? Do the 11 European countries that adopted the Eurocoin as their common currency have similar inflation rates? Do they have similar unemployment rates? Do they have similar domestic policies? Come on. What we heard here makes no sense at all.
I would have liked to have a real debate on this issue, the kind of debate this motion brought forward by my leader and by the member for Charlesbourg deserves. Instead of that, what we have heard so far today is just political bragging about Canada's sovereignty, about the need to defend that sovereignty at all costs. But Canada is losing this debate and it will cost us dearly in terms of our sovereignty.
Canadians may have an identity problem, but Quebeckers do not. We are able to have a debate on economic, monetary and global integration without fear of losing our identity. Quebeckers are sure about their identity. Canadians are not.