Debates of Feb. 15th, 2001

Supply

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear some rather surprising things here. This is a democratic parliament, and the minister has just told us that everything is public and we can discuss it here, no problem. We are also told to go and look on the Internet for our answers. Why are we elected and who do we represent, we might ask.

The previous speaker said “There is no point having a debate here, because we form a majority, in any case, and it will pass”. I would like you or someone to enlighten me. They say democracy wears out if it is not used. If we lose it one day, we will be sorry.

We still live in a democratic country, I hope. We call for a debate on a fundamental project that will affect the future, one my grandchildren will live with. We ask to debate it. We are not being arrogant. We are saying “It should be debated”. We get “We do not have the time” on one side. And we get “We form a majority, so it will pass anyway” on another. The minister says “Everything is open, we can debate it”.

How should we proceed in order to get satisfaction, I ask her?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a debate today but there are also the standing committees. It does not minimize the members. There is a set membership of the committees but members of the House are ex-officio and can participate at committee. They can also make a representation as a witnesses, if they wish. The committee process is open.

There will be debates and discussions at the committee level. That is where intensive discussion does take place. That is part of the parliamentary system. There is nothing hidden here at all and that is why they are elected. The fact is members may wish to appear as witnesses and I am sure all members will want to do that.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the minister. First, 400,000 Canadians every year travel to Cuba, yet Cuba has not been invited to the summit of the Americas. In the post-Castro era which will come in the not too distant future, the exclusion of Cuba from a free trade agreement with the Americas will only contribute to the continued poverty that exists in that country. Why has Cuba been excluded from the summit in Canada?

Second, will the minister present to her counterparts in cabinet that all free trade agreements and international treaties be put in front of the relevant standing committee before they are ratified by the government?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada's position in the free trade discussions has been made public. The committee will have hearings. The committee will be discussing Canada's position. All members of the House are free to participate, both as witnesses or as participants around the table to intervene and ask questions of the witnesses. This is the parliamentary system. We have a committee process especially for that reason, so we can get into issues in a more in-depth sort of way.

I said that the Minister for International Trade has made Canada's position public, which is why it is being discussed widely, not only in the standing committee and in the House, but also across the country. At the same time he has asked his counterparts to agree to make all of their positions public as well. That has not happened yet and may not happen. However, with respect that is not something we have control over.

It is important that we as Canadians ensure that we protect the kinds of issues that we care about. This is why it is happening at committee, in the House and in the public forum as well.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask the minister a question.

Madame Minister, I do not understand what you just said. I listened to the interpretation, I listened to what you said in English, but I think that what you are telling us now is that there will be committees.

On the one hand, the government says “No, we cannot say what our positions are because that is a secret and must remain so, because our partners do not want us to put that on the table”. On the other hand, you tell us to look on the site—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I simply wish to remind the House that members must always address their remarks to the Chair.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I would like to put a question to the minister.

She continually contradicted herself in everything she said in response to both speakers. I believe she is not aware of what is happening currently with respect to the negotiations.

Government members keep on referring to the Internet site, but we know what is on an Internet site. All of a sudden, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade tells us we cannot talk about this because our partners do not want us to talk about it. Then the other one tells us parliamentary committees will review it.

We were elected. We represent the people and we want to be part of something that will have an impact on the life and the future of our children and grandchildren.

I ask the minister how we, who are parliamentarians just as she is, should go about it? She was democratically elected, just as we were, so that our voices and those of the people we represent could be heard.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even before the last election the committee met and discussed publicly Canada's position. It is being discussed publicly across the line. Anyone who wishes to participate can. The information is there.

More important, parliamentarians from the hemisphere will be in this very room the week in March when the House is not sitting to debate exactly that. What better opportunity to discuss not only among ourselves, but with other parliamentarians in the hemisphere, the issue that we are debating today. It seems to me there is a great deal of opportunity to get into the details and to share the issues.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Calgary East.

Before I start on the topic today, I would like to thank the people who put on the flag ceremony in Lethbridge today at the legion. I was supposed to be there but I was unable to attend. I want to acknowledge the fact that they did that. They do it every year and I really appreciate them that.

Also, the other day some of the members in the House had the opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for London—Fanshawe and the staff for the tremendous job they did. We have already used some of the things we learned and we will certainly take up their offer to come back anytime.

We are talking about the Bloc motion today to have the House, this elected body, ratify agreements, particularly dealing with the FTAA conference which is coming up in March. That is something we support.

We feel that these agreements should come here to be ratified. It is done elsewhere in the world. I cannot quite understand the government's hesitancy to not do that. Certainly there is a lot of information available. We know that. However, when going into negotiations on an agreement, not only should our position be known, but what we agree to in those negotiations should be available for Canadians to peruse before it is put into effect. Therefore, we will be supporting the motion that the Bloc has put forward.

Since 1994, the government has signed 470 different treaties and ratified 295 of them. This is something that goes on at a pretty aggressive rate. All kinds of treaties are signed to deal with all aspects of our lives and our society. It is important that we be aware of what the government is working on, what it is dealing in and the positions that it is taking when it goes through these negotiations.

Right now it only needs the approval and the construction by bureaucrats and the approval of cabinet. We feel Canadians should have a last look at what has been agreed to and what the final position is because what we go in with is not always what we come back out with.

There have been instances in the past where I would have liked to have known what went on at the WTO meetings and the GATT meetings on agriculture. I would liked to have known who was traded off against whom and what the position of the government was going into the meeting as to who was dispensable and who was not.

The sugar beet growers in my area are the only group of producers in Canada left that grow sugar in Canada and their future looks a little dim. There has been a concern for years about some of the things that happened at some of those negotiations and how they might have been traded off against other sectors of the industry.

This leaves a little bit too much power, we feel, in the hands of a few and takes it away from the people of Canada through the representation that they have given us in this House.

The NGOs, witnesses and people who the government brings together to put these positions and to do the negotiating are certainly experts in their field. We do not disagree with that. It brings together the people who have the knowledge in their respective areas.

That being said, who selects them? Is there a public process to make sure that the people who are selected are the people we want representing us as a country? It is important to bring back to the House what has been negotiated.

Any trade has to be rules based and fair. We feel that in the agricultural community this has not always been the case. The situation in which we find the grain and oilseed primary producers in agriculture is deplorable. It has to do with unfair subsidies in both the United States and the European Union.

We used to have some support for our farmers, such as the Crow rate and others. When the deal was struck that we would get rid of this subsidy and these supports, as the other countries did, Canada went ahead and cut the support to our primary producers putting them in the situation they are in now. We did that but the other countries did not follow suit. In some cases, particularly in Europe, there have been instances where they have increased the support while we have decreased it.

We put our primary producers in a spot that is almost unbearable. Farms are going under on a daily basis. It is due to the agreement that was struck and what the government did to a particular sector. Those types of agreements could have been brought back here. I am sure the agreement that the government took into those negotiations was not the one it came out with. What it agreed to should have come to the House for all of us to look at, and certainly for the people who it was going to affect, which were the primary producers.

The government indicated that it was something it could not do. It could not bring an agreement back to the House. However, it is done in the United States. Treaties have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the elected upper house. That is fair. It gives everybody another chance to look at what is going on. It gives the Americans who are affected a chance for more input. That is what we would like as a country and for the citizens in Canada.

I was given some information concerning France. It states: “Peace treaties, trade treaties, treaties of agreements concerning an international organization, those involving state finances, those amending rules of a legislative nature, those concerning individual states and those calling for the transfer, exchange or annexation of territory, may be ratified or approved only by an act of parliament”.

It is being done elsewhere so to say that it cannot be done here does not quite cut it. We have some suggestions that we would like to offer the government on ways it could improve the process. Consultation in this elected Chamber would be one way to do that.

One of the first things I mentioned was parliamentary ratification. It is a simple process. It should be brought to the House after it has been negotiated. We could then look at it and either agree with it or offer some changes or amendments to make it better.

We also suggest a requirement for an assessment. This is what we have agreed to do on these trade issues but let us look at the impact that that will have on Canadians in general. Let us look at the impact it will have on industry. Let us look at what it will do to families. Let us look at what it will do to services. Let us look at how it will affect other parts. Have we asked the provinces how it will affect their situations? Including the provinces would strengthen the whole idea of federalism. We have talked about the alienation of parts of Canada. This would give the provinces and different regions a feeling that they are a bigger part of some of the decision making.

We should ensure that the people who put us in this elected Chamber are aware of what is going and that they have an opportunity to look at what these treaties will do and how they will affect their lives.

The last aspect is that it would increase the accountability of government. Knowing that anything that is agreed to would have to come back to the House to be ratified, it would put a new focus on what is being agreed to and what is being done. It would give a bit more accountability to the whole process. It would add some credibility to what has been negotiated. It would add some confidence to what is being done. It would allow Canadians one last chance to look at something that could affect their lives.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his appointment as trade critic. In reference to the briefing the other day, I appreciate those remarks and I look forward to working with him and the other critics in the spirit of co-operation to advance the agenda of trade.

My colleague cited the United States and France and how things were done differently in those two countries. I remind him that both of those countries are republics and that Canada is not. We have a parliamentary system. The government negotiates trade agreements to promote Canadian trade interests. It signs those agreements only when it is convinced that those agreements are in the best interest of the country. Parliament is then asked to review the agreement and debate the implementing legislation. Amendments are possible at that time.

I have a question for the member. Does he not see the Bloc motion for what it is? It is a radical departure from a process that has been followed by governments of different political stripes in every trade agreement we have had, a process that has served the country very well. It is more of a radical departure than perhaps how my colleague sees it. What would be his reaction to that?

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He says that the government only agrees to agreements that are good for the country. I remind the parliamentary secretary about the Kyoto agreement.

We went through that scenario in the House a couple of years ago. We asked the government day after day through question period what its stance would be when it got to Japan, what it would have on the table and how it would affect Canadians. We asked that question almost everyday for months and we never did get an answer.

When the government went to the meeting to establish guidelines that would affect absolutely all Canadians and how they lived their lives and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the amount agreed to, it did not know the position of Canadians. It agreed while it was there and came back with the agreement. It told Canadians what it had agreed to. It did not have any idea how it would get there, but it was to start a process of consultation with the round tables to decide how it would be done.

I disagree with the parliamentary secretary when he says that the government only agrees to things that will benefit Canada, when it goes to a negotiation and does not know what its position is and does not have the degree of effort it will take from Canadians to reach those goals. I use that as one instance.

Another example is something that we have been working on in western Canada for a year and a half. Our cattle producers were challenged by a group in the United States called R-Calf. Our live cattle going south across the border were being unfairly subsidized. There was a long process. A tariff was placed against our cattle. Bonds had to be placed at the border and a tariff had to be paid on every head of cattle that went across the line.

The whole process ended up costing the industry $5 million. In the end it was found that we were not subsidizing our cattle. The tariff was taken off and the money was refunded.

These agitations go on. North Dakotans are constantly challenging and looking at the wheat board. There are agitations and irritants within the agreements that we presently have. There is a process in place that we can go through, as countries, for grievances and challenges to get them worked out.

Some of the agreements that have been struck have really hurt different sectors of our country, such as the grain and oilseed sector which had its support reduced here when it was not backed up by the same kind of reduced support elsewhere. I do not know if what we have done is reparable. It will take a lot of effort. We keep asking the government when that help and those funds will come through but we have heard nothing yet.

When we talk about the process, I believe I just gave a couple of instances where the process did not worked. If the government had agreed to an agreement and had brought it back to the House to be fully debated, perhaps some amendments and changes could have been put forward that would have helped.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the member not find something slightly paradoxical in the fact that one of the three themes for the upcoming summit of the Americas is the strengthening of democracy, when the government refuses to bet on democracy with regard to the free trade area of the Americas negotiations?

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that detail but parliamentary reform is something that we have talked an awful lot about since the last election. We are also trying to get more democracy in the House and in our committees.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the United States and France are republics but democratically elected people should be responsible to the people who elect them. I believe a process of consultation and open review is the way we should be doing it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak on today's motion, which would require the government to subject any project or accord on a free trade agreement with the Americas to a debate and vote before it is ratified by the government. It is a very simple question and a very simple motion.

I have been listening to the government's position all day and what I have heard is an attempt by the government to bring in the ministers and other players to tell us what is happening with free trade in the Americas and how good free trade will be in the Americas. It has been attempting to point out the issues that it is trying to bring to the table of free trade with the Americas.

It is quite interesting that the government is telling us all these things now that the Bloc has brought forward this motion. If the Bloc had not brought forward the motion, in all probability we would not have known all these details that are now coming out point by point.

The government has said, and the minister and the parliamentary secretary have kept repeating it, that it has a website, that it is an open consultation process and that everyone is invited to come to the committees and talk. That is not the question. It is a matter of principle.

I agree that in the last parliament the foreign affairs committee did a study on FTAA. I was part of that committee and we listened. However, I have to say that the study was done prior to going into consultation. I thought it was a good idea. We, the official opposition, put in a minority report on that study.

The minority report that we submitted asked exactly for the same thing that is being asked for by the Bloc. We recommended that treaties be brought into parliament to be ratified by elected officials. If the government looks up the Canadian Alliance's minority report it will see that is exactly what we were recommending.

The government could go ahead and do the consultation. When negotiations are done and a final draft is available, the draft should be brought to the elected officials who could discuss the issues in committee.

In all probability, most of us, who believe in free trade, in human rights and in democracy, would probably agree with the government's position.

However, there could be some areas in which it needs attention. We could hear from our own constituents, but where and how will our constituents talk? They can only talk through elected representatives. That is what we have been telling them. We have been telling them for years and years that we are their elected representatives, that we are their voice in Ottawa, their voice in government affairs.

Now what is happening? The minister and everyone said that we go through the committees. We have sat in committees. This is my second term. I have sat in committees and committees are not the voice of debate. Committees will hear witnesses, but they are not a point of debate. Debate should be done by members of parliament in the House.

Let me give an example: NAFTA. The NAFTA agreement was done by the bureaucrats, by the mandarins behind the scenes, was brought in and of course it was signed. One area that turned out to be of concern after NAFTA was signed was the issue of bulk water exports. That became an issue when Canadians got concerned about the bulk water export issue.

The Liberal Party said in one of its red book promises that it would open up the negotiations on NAFTA so it could exclude water. Of course NAFTA had already been signed and of course could not be opened up. The Liberals have not opened it up so far, and so far we still have this problem of water. That is why the government has been running to the provincial governments asking them not to give licences for the sale of water. The government knows what will happen under NAFTA.

As a matter of principle it is necessary to bring treaties that affect the lives of Canadians into the Chamber that is supposed to be their voice. We cannot exclude that. This business of saying that there are committees and websites and all these things is all a minor attempt to open up things. At the end of the day, it is important for elected officials, not only for NGOs. NGOs are accountable to nobody. They have their own agendas, and sure, they will write their own agendas. It is the elected officials who are responsible to their constituents, and constituents should be having their voices heard over there, not just a couple of those other things.

I have a good example. When my colleague was talking about France and the U.S.A., the parliamentary secretary said that model should not apply to Canada because the U.S.A. and France are republics. I want to tell him that in Australia, which is a federation like Canada, the Australian parliament changed its system to ensure that treaties over there would be debated. Treaties would come into parliament and would have the approval of provincial legislatures before they would come into effect.

What I have found out is that the federal government signs all these international treaties that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and then forces the provinces to do something in which they are not interested. The Kyoto protocol is an example.

At the end of the day the Australians said that was not the way a pure democracy should be working, so they changed it and now their parliament and their provinces have input into international treaties before they are ratified.

What is the problem in Canada? We have heard from the parliamentary secretary, who said that this is how we have been doing business in the past year, that this is how we have been signing treaties and so on. Fine. That is how they have been doing it in the past. Now Canadians are demanding accountability. Canadians are asking for change. They are asking that their voices be heard.

The parliamentary reform that everybody is talking about is another example of where Canadians want change, so I do not understand why the government is afraid to bring it forward for debate. Why do they not want to change so that Canadians' elected representatives can talk about it?

If the treaty is good, which I think it will be at the end of the day, nobody will oppose it. We may have somebody opposing it, but if it is good for the country, why should we oppose it? We believe in free trade.

At the end of the day my appeal to the government is this. Yes, we do have certain systems like committees and all these things, but they are not sufficient to bring transparency to international agreements. The FTAA agreement in the motion is just one example. As a principle, treaties and agreements should be coming in front of parliament to be ratified by elected officials.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain here and not comment on three items that came up this afternoon.

First, the Canadian Alliance Party talked once again about reforms of agricultural subsidies. This is so inconsistent with its general platform. The Alliance went through the election talking about the elimination of subsidies, especially regional development subsidies that would help my constituency. I wish Alliance members would be consistent. If they are going to push for one type of subsidy, I ask them to not eliminate the ones that will help my riding.

Second, I would like to commend the Alliance member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for talking about the benefits to the poor of free trade, in response to a Bloc intervention. That allows us to remind people that free trade agreements often allow for the reduction of tariffs and, therefore, lower priced products for poor people in many nations. That will help the poor. It has a second effect on the poor, of course, in that the less developed nations can then export their products with more ease and have more jobs for their people, who may not have an income otherwise.

However, the third and last point I want to make is in regard to another intervention by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He said that the government was putting the exporters at a terrible disadvantage and suggested a whole major revamping of the tax system, which was really not appropriate here. I will tell you, however, that is not what would put our exporters at a disadvantage. What would put our exporters at a disadvantage is following the advice of the Leader of the Opposition who, in his response to the throne speech, talked of eliminating the export programs that have made Canada second to none in this world at export efficiency.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward his three points. The first point was on subsidies. We know what a distortion of the market has taken place in the agricultural sector because of subsidies by the European Union as well as the U.S.A. They have created an unlevel playing field, which is why we need to discuss this with them. At the end of the day, the Canadian Alliance feels it is not the responsible use of tax dollars. We would like to see that going away, but we would like to see it taking place in negotiations to get rid of the subsidies so that there is a level playing field.

We believe in the rules based system of trade, which is the government's position. I agree with that. We have said we agree with the rules based system. A rules based system will help Canada.

The hon. member mentioned the tax issues my colleague talked about. That is about competitiveness. If the member would read what the business leaders in Canada are saying, he would see they are saying that high taxes are a disadvantage to competitiveness for Canada, a disadvantage to taking advantage of globalization or of all the free trade of the Americas. That is absolutely not a contradiction. That is coming out loud and clear. All the member has to do is listen to the business people. The Canadian Alliance policy on that is quite distinct.

The hon. member said the Leader of the Opposition was talking about export subsidies. Export subsidies distort the market. That is why we have the ongoing war with Brazil.

We talk about a rules based system, and all of a sudden that is thrown away by Captain Canada when he comes along and gives a subsidy to Bombardier, a company that is doing extremely well. It is consistent with what I have heard. The government has been talking about a rules based system. It is quite surprising what the industry minister said, which is not what I have been hearing for many years from the government.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech my colleague just gave. I have a fairly straightforward question. Sometimes in negotiations it is good to be able to go in without having laid all the cards on the table. Therefore for us to debate and come to a conclusion on our opening position in some of these negotiations could put Canada at a disadvantage.

Does the member see the necessity of parliament debating in broad generalities the position going in or actually getting specific? Does he advocate that parliament should ratify the final agreement after it has been negotiated by the various officials who do the negotiations?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question. That is the essence of the whole thing.

The committee heard representations and had consultations on what would be our position going into this agreement, which is fine. That is the way it should be. We should open it up to Canadians before talking about it at committee level. We should take the views of Canadians and use them as a position, not leave it to the bureaucrats or mandarins of the department. After having done that, what would be the final outcome? We do not know.

The draft agreement is not the final outcome. That has not been signed. That is what we are talking about today and that is what my colleague is worried about. It is the final version that requires approval by parliament before the Government of Canada signs it.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not understand that what he is calling for is unprecedented in Canada? That practice that has never been followed with any major trade agreement in the past.

Does he not understand that there will be full opportunity to debate and review the agreement in the House of Commons? We are open to constructive criticisms on the deal, and amendments would be possible. Does he not understand that?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend on the other side had heard my speech, that is exactly what I said. We can change.

What happened in the past? We know from the MAI agreement and other agreements on globalization that if we do not discuss and have a transparent system then we have trouble. Let us change the system. We do not want to sit with the old system. It is time to move into the 21st century.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply are deemed put, a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred to the end of the period provided for Government Orders on Tuesday, February 20, 2001.

It being 6.15 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.)