Debates of April 23rd, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I must say how proud I am to return to the House today, knowing that it was because of Canadian leadership that an agreement was reached in Buenos Aires to make the texts public.

Another of our achievements in Buenos Aires was to obtain agreement for institutionalizing formal dialogue with civil society in the hemisphere. Canadian leadership was responsible for this as well.

Our efforts resulted in the most transparent international summit to date. Part of the summit was even televised. Saturday morning, a complete session of heads of state was televised.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a weekend in Quebec City makes.

Before Quebec the government said that it would never sign another trade agreement with NAFTA chapter 11 provisions. After the weekend in a Quebec hotel, the Prime Minister is in love. He said that chapter 11 was working well and that there was no problem with corporations suing democratically elected governments for acting in the public interest.

Would the trade minister please advise Canadians: Has the government changed its position?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

No, Mr. Speaker, the government has not changed its position.

The Government of Canada signed chapter 11 of NAFTA some years ago and we believe that it is absolutely imperative that investments be protected around trade agreements.

What we have been seeking as a government has been a clarification from panels that have made some decisions which we think do not really reflect the intentions of the countries when the agreement was signed. There is a difference. We are not reopening or renegotiating the chapter. We want to clarify some elements for the future.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds a bit like the difference between marital bliss and adultery.

Let me remind the trade minister what he told a parliamentary committee just over a year ago. He said “We are not going to enter into those kinds of investor state dispute mechanisms in any other agreements and we're going to try to find a way to get this particular chapter out of NAFTA”.

Now we have the Prime Minister huffing and puffing about a democracy clause, while he shackles this and future governments with the threat of being sued by foreign corporations for responding to citizens.

What kind of democracy is that?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I know the sort of democracy that the leader of the NDP chose recently. Last weekend it was pretty obvious.

The kind of democracy we support was 34 elected leaders of this hemisphere asking for access to markets and asking for development. That is the kind of democracy we believe in: a better hemisphere, a lot more democratic than it was 25 years ago, based on solid development that trade can bring to all of them. There were a lot of socialist leaders among them, but they have come to live in this century instead of the last one.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is very proud to have said that the Prime Minister served P.E.I. potatoes in Quebec. The issue, however, is that potatoes from P.E.I. must be served in the United States.

When did the minister of agriculture that the secretary of agriculture would be in Quebec City? Why is it that the Prime Minister of the host country did not get the minister of agriculture into the summit to deal with this issue?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I found out at 8 o'clock on Friday night and arrangements could not be made, for security reasons, for me to get into the summit.

A meeting was arranged. As I said earlier there was a conference call and the minister of trade was present. The two ambassadors of our countries were present. A number of officials were present. Secretary Veneman was present. I was present on the phone and led the discussion at that time. As a result our officials are in Washington this afternoon to continue the discussion.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture is not building any confidence in producers, believe me. Agriculture was not even on the radar screen of the summit. The minister was not even available to talk to the secretary of agriculture with respect to P.E.I. potatoes and other issues.

Why could the Prime Minister not get the minister of agriculture in? The secretary of state from the United States got in. Why could the minister of agriculture not get into the talks?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have been following the agenda. It was made very clear. I stated it here and it was in the press.

The Prime Minister and the president discussed the issue. Further, the minister of trade and I discussed the issue with Secretary Veneman. We cannot take it any higher than that.

Lumber Industry

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too just spent the weekend at the Quebec summit and I would like to commend the police for an outstanding job.

We heard all weekend from President Bush about the shortage of energy in the U.S. and its desire for Canada to significantly increase its exports in oil and gas. He made it very clear that they are in a serious situation and are looking to Canada for help.

On the other hand we heard very little from our Prime Minister or Minister for International Trade on softwood lumber. Our Prime Minister was more interested in being an amigo and hoping to get an invitation to the White House for dinner.

Why the silence from our government on softwood lumber? Why was there so little on softwood lumber?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I could not tell how many meetings and how many bilaterals I had on the softwood lumber issue during that weekend.

It was raised with Don Evans. It was raised with Bob Zoellick. I have had the great pleasure of meeting Max Baucus, who has been leading the charge as members know against Canada for so many years. I have discussed it with Senator Grassley.

There was a lot of explaining to the Americans of our Canadian position. I reiterated what the government and what Canadian industry said last Thursday and Friday at the consultations with the commerce department.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is reassuring that he is meeting with the Americans, but he is not talking to Canadian people about what is going on.

He said there has been progress. Let me tell him what Mr. Zoellick is saying in public. He is saying that the dispute could easily slide out of control. Senator Baucus warned the fight is likely to get wider, and our government is silent.

The minister said earlier in question period that there has been progress. We are not seeing it. I would like to ask the minister what exactly are the government's plans. What is it planning to do for industry, as this issue is likely to escalate and cost the Canadian industry billions and billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, this government, the provinces and Canadian industry were in Washington explaining our point of view to the commerce department in formal consultations.

I do not know what the commerce department will decide today. I suspect that it will accept delegations of the industry and begin to investigate our practices, but I said over the weekend to every American I had the opportunity to meet that our Canadian softwood lumber industry trades fairly in North America.

We will defend and promote our industry very energetically. I reiterated that all through the weekend.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that chapter 11 of NAFTA was no problem whatsoever. This chapter enables a major transnational to sue a state for the loss of potential revenue specifically as a result of that state's adoption of legislation or regulations.

How can the Prime Minister explain the contradiction between his statement on chapter 11 and the one recently made by his Minister for International Trade, who again indicated that he would not sign any FTAA containing such a mechanism?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be sure that I am quoted correctly here.

What I have always said is that protection of investments was absolutely necessary. We have Canadian investors throughout the world and throughout the Americas, and their investments must be protected.

What we have said, however, is that we wanted to clarify, not reopen, not renegotiate, chapter 11—which we have already signed off on—but that we want to clarify certain aspects of chapter 11 because we believe there have been, or may have been, certain interpretations which, without any doubt, do not reflect the intentions of the three signatory countries at the time we signed it.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The minister has often said he would not sign any FTAA if there were any provisions similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. Even on the federal Internet site, which we are constantly being invited to visit, we read that “Canada is not advocating the replication of NAFTA investor-state rules in the FTAA”.

I would therefore ask him what explanation he can give today for the about-face by his government, the about-face by his Prime Minister last night in stating that there was no problem with chapter 11, that he was prepared to renew it within any future agreement between the three Americas.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, our government has not yet tabled its position relating to investments with respect to the free trade area of the Americas.

What I have always said, however, is that we are going to take into account, within the free trade area of the Americas, of the experience we have acquired with NAFTA. There are certain precautions we are going to take, because we are currently engaged in the process of clarifying certain potential interpretations of this chapter, and obviously cannot sign anything in the FTAA that would not reflect the improvements we want to make in light of present realities.

At this point in time we are still involved in consultations with Canadians and our position will be made public as soon as it has been established.

Business Development Bank Of Canada

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Prime Minister's former chief of operations, Jean Carle, is in charge of the Business Development Bank's legal department. This is the same department that asked to search, seize and destroy documents related to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Did Jean Carle play any role at all in getting his legal team to go after those documents?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I know members opposite would share my concern, and indeed the concern of members on this side of the House, that BDC documents were forged, that false information was put on those documents, and that those documents were attempted to be distributed.

When that information was brought to the attention of BDC, BDC called in the RCMP and the RCMP is now dealing with the matter.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the BDC wanted these documents because they contained information about an alleged debt owed by the Auberge Grand-Mère to the Prime Minister's company.

Only after the Prime Minister's Office determined that these documents were forgeries did the BDC decide to refer the matter to the police. Did the Prime Minister or the PMO have anything to do with the BDC's decision to refer these documents to the RCMP?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the documents were provided to a national newspaper, the National Post . The National Post attempted to contact both the PMO, and I suspect the BDC. The National Post sent a copy of the documents to the PMO, so the PMO received them from the national newspaper, looked at them and said “These are false. This is a forgery”.

That information was communicated back to the newspaper, communicated to the BDC which, determining these were forged documents, called in the RCMP. I am glad the member has acknowledged that these documents were forged and I assume is happy that the RCMP will find out who did it.

Prime Minister

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a loan approval from the Business Development Bank of Canada dated August 1997 reveals that the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime, owed the Prime Minister $23,000 at the very moment the Prime Minister intervened so that the auberge would get financing from the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the Prime Minister was blatantly in conflict of interest and that it was far more out of a financial interest than out of a sense of duty as a member of parliament that he approached the management of the Business Development Bank of Canada?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no, absolutely not.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question remains in its entirety and we have to know.

Did Yvon Duhaime owe $23,000 to the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister intervened in support of the Auberge Grand-Mère with the Business Development Bank of Canada? Yes or no.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no.