Debates of Feb. 19th, 2001

Free Trade Area Of The Americas

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we parliamentarians, and also civil society, are asking to have access to the documents that are being discussed in anticipation of the Summit of the Americas.

In our opinion, these documents should be debated in this House, before the government signs any agreement.

Will the government make public not Canada's position which is on the Website—and we know it—but, rather, the documents of the nine sectoral tables that are being discussed regarding the free trade area of the Americas?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Bloc Quebecois leader acknowledges that our government was the first one of all the countries of the hemisphere to put its bargaining positions on the Internet.

The Bloc Quebecois leader should also recognize that 34 countries are engaged in these negotiations, which means there are 34 parties involved. It is not up to Canada to disclose the content of discussion papers that concern 34 countries.

We will not do so unilaterally but, as Canada's Minister for International Trade, I will ask that these documents be released in Buenos Aires or before, if possible.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, because a document from the office of the President of the United States, in Washington D.C., reads exactly as follows:

The initial draft chapters in these nine areas were developed based on texts proposed by individual countries or groups of countries. The draft text is available for review by cleared advisors, including all Members of Congress.

Therefore, if members of the U.S. Congress can have the texts of the nine sectoral tables, why are we not allowed to have these documents? I would like the minister, who is very open, to explain this to us.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Bloc Quebecois would like to see the americanization of our institutions and, instead of a parliamentary democracy, a presidential system that is completely different and that has nothing to do with our own system.

Here in Canada, we have our own way of doing things; the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade does a very serious job. Canada's position is largely based on the work of parliament's foreign affairs committee and we will continue to proceed in this fashion.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is very serious. On February 8, the Prime Minister said he could not make Canada's position public, because the other countries did not want it and he could not reveal it to us parliamentarians.

Today, the minister has just said the same thing, that we cannot make it public, since the 34 countries do not want us to. A U.S. government document, dated January 17, says that American elected representatives will have access to the documents.

How can the government justify what the Prime Minister said and what the minister has just said?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Bloc Quebecois' surprise at the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade saying the same thing on such an important issue. It would have been totally surprising if the Prime Minister and I were to say the opposite thing.

I can assure the hon. member of one thing and that is that the Canadian government wants there to be as much transparency as possible in the negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas. We were the first country to make our bargaining positions public and we will ask our partners in the Americas to release the texts of negotiations, because this is what we want. However, Canada will not do it unilaterally. It will do it with its partners and the other parties to the negotiations.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, when the U.S. government, whose members are not exactly in the pee-wee league of this type of international negotiations—as members will acknowledge—consider it legitimate to make the other countries' positions public and accessible to their representatives, the minister should not be surprised that we consider it unacceptable for the Canadian government to call itself transparent and refuse to reveal its position. This is abnormal.

Instead of talking about transparency, the minister should act coherently, tell us the truth and show us the documents.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the leader in transparency. We set Canada's position out before all the other countries, and the United States and Chile followed our example.

We were the first country to ask for publication of the negotiations texts, and I really hope we can convince our partners in the Americas so that we may all look at them together. However, Canada will not do this unilaterally. We will do it with the other parties to these negotiations, our 33 partners.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade.

The minister seems to not appreciate the seriousness of the fact that documents may be available to American members of congress that are not available to Canadian members of parliament.

I would like the Minister for International Trade answer a question. Never mind Americanization. The most Americanizing thing that one could think of would be the FTAA. It is not a question of Americanization. It is a question of democracy and access for members of parliament to important documents. Will he make a commitment that whatever is available to members of congress will also be available to Canadian members of parliament?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that we see the NDP joining the Bloc in wanting the Americanization of our way of proceeding. I will look into exactly how they are proceeding in the United States and I will look into what is available. If it is available to congress, it will not be long before it becomes public. Let me look into exactly how the Americans are proceeding.

The one thing I can tell the House is that nobody will give Canada lessons in transparency in these negotiations. We have been transparent and have taken the lead in dialoguing with society on these issues.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the dumbest answers I have heard and, believe me, that is going some.

My second question is also for the Minister for International Trade. It has to do with the way in which he as the minister has been misleading the Canadian public with respect to the GATS.

We have a study done by the CCPA which shows that Canada's health care services are in fact critically exposed now under the GATS and will be even more exposed under the agenda that is now before the GATS. Will the minister stand in the House and indicate Canada's intention to take out a general exception—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the GATS explicitly excludes “services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”.

With respect to these services it is absolutely clear. I have been saying it in the House and I have not misled the House, as the member of the NDP just said in his question, which is not an appropriate parliamentary way of doing it. The GATS is clear. Services supplied in exercise of governmental authority are excluded.

Business Development Bank Of Canada

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. Just before question period I received a letter from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Could the solicitor general tell the House whether in its review of the file the Royal Canadian Mounted Police interviewed the two former presidents of the Business Development Bank, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder, and will he tell the House whether they interviewed the Prime Minister?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that a former prime minister would not be aware that the solicitor general does not get involved in reviewing material that is supplied to the RCMP. He should be aware of that.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the solicitor general might find out. My question is for the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. On January 25, 1999, Peter Donolo said “The government does not get directly involved in the lending decisions of the Business Development Corporation”.

On April 10, 1999, the Prime Minister wrote to the National Post saying ,“I had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel or with the auberge with the adjacent golf course”.

On November 16, 2000, the Prime Minister directly contradicted himself, admitting that he called the president of the bank twice and invited him once to 24 Sussex to—

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the right hon. member has run out of time. Whether there is a question there or not, the Minister of Industry may choose to reply.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, for greater clarity, the leader of the Conservative Party did not advise the House what the communique, which was in the way of a press release, from the RCMP said.

Following two letters from the leader of the Conservative Party, two requests for a criminal investigation, the communique today says that “the review was done to determine if a criminal investigation was warranted in the matter. Our review of the facts”, something with which the hon. member is not familiar, “has determined that there was no information or facts to support such an investigation. We have therefore concluded this matter and have advised the complainant we will not be pursuing a criminal investigation into this matter”.

Joe, it is time to give this nonsense up.

The Economy

[Joe Peschisolido, Canadian Alliance, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the economy is taking a turn for the worse and the finance minister is ignoring it.

The Bank of Canada has decreased its economic forecast by one full percentage point. Forty-three per cent of Canadian manufacturers are planning for an economic slowdown. Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs. Why is the finance minister ignoring the problem and not tabling a budget in the next month?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously preoccupied by the economic situation. There is no doubt that whenever a Canadian loses a job it is a tragedy and it is of utmost concern.

However, the fact is that in the last six years there have been two crises, the Mexican peso crisis and the Asian crisis, both of which the government has taken the country through. We have done very well. In both cases panic was demonstrated on the other side, which is exactly what is being demonstrated now.

I ask the hon. member, as I have before, if there is to be a new budget what would the hon. member like to see in that budget that will improve consumer demand in the United States. That is where the problem lies.

[Joe Peschisolido, Canadian Alliance, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister clearly said that the economies of the United States and of Canada were slowing down. It is obvious that the Deputy Prime Minister's view is very different from that of the Minister of Finance.

With what part of the Deputy Prime Minister's economic analysis does the Minister of Finance not agree?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be having a little trouble understanding. There is no doubt that the economy of the United States is slowing down. There is no doubt that this will have an impact on us. Furthermore, that is why the government introduced the largest tax cut in Canada's history. That is why we put so much into new spending.

Now, if the hon. member has other suggestions, I look forward to hearing them. Does he want us to go into a deficit? Does he want to cut spending? Does he want to increase tax cuts? And, if so, how will this work? How will this improve the economic situation of the United States?

Free Trade Area Of The Americas

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question a little while ago, the Minister for International Trade told us it would mean the Americanization of our institutions if we were to allow parliamentarians to have a right of inspection, to be informed about the documents relating to the Summit of the Americas.

I am not talking about the countries' positions. I am referring to the nine sectoral working documents, which we have been requesting for several weeks. The Americans are entitled to see such documents. Why would we not have the same right? How is it that our system would be thrown into total disarray if parliamentarians were informed? Are we not headed toward the same situation we had during the negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we are working in conjunction with partners throughout the country. With the standing committee on foreign affairs, we have a web site, a protected site, through which an ongoing dialogue is carried out daily with all provincial governments focused on the multilateral agreements. Whether the free trade area or the World Trade Organization is involved, we are constantly seeking improved ways of working. We are totally open to any possible improvement.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same thing we heard when they were negotiating the MAI. That is what they were saying when a text came out on the Internet at a certain point. A great hullabaloo ensued.

I would ask the minister this. We are told here in the House that the countries had agreed not to make the nine documents of the sectorial tables public, whereas this had happened in the United States as far back as January 17. There are two possible scenarios here: we were not told the truth, we were lied to, or the government was not aware of this. Neither is a particularly attractive situation.

If they want to improve the situation, as the minister has just said, would he accept doing the same as is being done in the United States, here in this very House?