House of Commons Hansard #88 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreements.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

To be certain of what has been said in the House, if I have properly understood, the opposition is in agreement, until a decision has been made on the matter, to allow this debate.

The government House leader seemed to agree. I wonder if you reached this conclusion and whether, regardless of the conclusion on the point I raised, I may, in the meantime, do so in the coming days.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes, but unanimous consent will be required.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. Returning to the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier, I stand by my first conclusions. The Chair will take the matter seriously under advisement and return to the House, if necessary. However as to the matter of unanimous consent, that is for any member to seek from his or her colleagues at any time.

The awkwardness of the situation is that under our present standing orders only a minister or parliamentary secretary can respond if he or she so chooses. However we must keep in mind that in this case the question was asked of someone in a different position with a different responsibility. I cannot rule on the question of unanimous consent. That is for the House to exercise in its own wisdom. However I stand by my decision to take the matter originally raised under advisement.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested in question period that I had pleaded on behalf of immigrants that exceptions to the Immigration Act be made for them. That is not true. However I was trying to point out that errors are made by the department in applying the law.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Respectfully to the member for Blackstrap who raised the issue, it is not really a point of order but a matter of debate between two parliamentarians across from one another. I will leave it at that.

House of Commons CalendarOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 28, I have the honour to table the House of Commons calendar for the year 2002.

First Nations Governance Review ActRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, an act to establish a First Nations Ombudsman and a First Nations Auditor to assist with administrative and financial problems.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill. Its purpose is twofold. Part one would establish the office of first nations ombudsman to assist persons who consider that they are being dealt with unfairly or unreasonably. The ombudsman may investigate complaints and report to the minister regarding complaints that are not satisfactorily resolved. He may also propose changes to first nations administrative policies and practices.

Part two would provide for an official from the office of the Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as first nations auditor. The official would carry out audits of first nation communities that are insolvent or where impropriety in financial management is alleged.

Both the ombudsman and the auditor would make reports to the minister. The reports would then go before parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to present a petition concerning the release of census records to genealogists and historians. The petition is signed by more than 2,500 Canadians from all 10 provinces. If we add that to previous petitions I have presented this year, more than 11,700 signatures have been submitted.

The petition points out that an estimated 7.5 million Canadians are engaged in the pursuit of their family histories and that census records are a valuable tool for such research. Such records have been used for historical research, tracing genetic diseases and settling wills and estates.

The petitioners are calling on parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to retroactively amend the confidentiality clauses of the Census and Statistics Act, 1906 to allow the release to the public of post-1901 census records after a reasonable period of time.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.

Today, the focus of my remarks will be to show my solidarity with the workers and the management of the Lantic Sugar refinery located in my riding, not very far from my office, on Notre-Dame street. I will have the opportunity to explain further during my speech. It is a world-class refinery, and people there are extremely concerned about the liberalization of the sugar industry that will result from the bill before us today. Before getting to the central part of my speech, I would like to make some preliminary comments.

First, never ever should one believe that the members of the Bloc Quebecois, or the rest of the sovereignist family, are against free trade. Everyone knows that Quebec played a leadership role in the first free trade agreement that was signed in 1988. Quebecers are essentially in favour of free trade. Nearly half of Quebec's production is exported to the United States, to the Canadian market or to other destinations. So there is no question that Quebecers support free trade.

We know full well that any bilateral or multilateral agreement Canada enters into can generate economic growth over time. We are not questioning that.

What is troubling with the way the government acts is that we are being confronted with a done deal. One must not think that today, when two sovereign states sign a treaty that will have an impact on trade, it will only affect the manufacturing sector or the business community. The liberalization of an industrial sector may affect culture, financial institutions in the short term, medical equipment and, consequently, the viability of businesses and the maintaining of employment. What is particular with the way the government acts is that we are being confronted with a done deal.

The Minister for International Trade, who is very self-confident, as we know--the least we can say, as Jacques-Yvan Morin put, is that he thinks he is the cat's meow--came to the House saying “I signed an agreement, I have committed the executive and I ask parliamentarians to ratify this agreement without prior debate”.

One could also use the same logic for the bills introduced by the hon. member for Mercier: we want treaties involving the executive and, ultimately, parliament, to be submitted to the House before their final approval. The same applies to treaties on foreign policy. Unfortunately, our demands have fallen on deaf ears: the government has not listened to us. This is deplorable.

Signing a trade agreement is not an isolated, rare, and marginal phenomenon. We can even say that it is increasing at an incredible speed. Some 28 bilateral and multilateral treaties signed by Canada came into force in 1997, 44 in 1998 and the forecast is for that number to be over 50 in the years to come.

I believe one cannot talk about valuing the role of members of parliament, of striking a better balance between the executive, that is to say the government, and the legislative, which is the parliament, if we are only a rubber stamp and are not involved in the making of treaties before they are ratified.

With regard to the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica, there are a few issues of concern that I would like to talk about.

The free trade agreement Canada signed with Costa Rica, which of course is a multi-dimensional agreement involving several sectors of the economy, raises concern regarding a particular sector, namely the sugar industry.

It must be known that the free trade agreement with Costa Rica will totally eliminate tariffs on refined sugar. This is one of the main problems we, as parliamentarians, see in this agreement.

More to the point, there is an agreement with Costa Rica. As we know, this country is tiny albeit beautiful. I went there on my second honeymoon. As one can easily imagine, I had the opportunity to see Costa Rica in very romantic terms. This small country is politically stable, its agrifood industry is extremely important, and of course it is very interesting for its fauna as well as the way it welcomes tourists.

It must be said that the agreement between Costa Rica and Canada could be used as a model, and be a prelude to freer trade with four other countries in Central America. I refer of course to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

The spokespersons for the sugar industry, be they on the workers' side or the management side, are worried. They are wondering whether the free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica is a sign of freer trade in the sugar industry among El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.

If that is the case, then we have a problem. Let me put it very simply: if the same model were to be used to liberalize trade with four other countries, then whole segments of the sugar industry would collapse.

As we know, the sugar industry is extremely fragile, not only because the profit margin is not very high, but also because--as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot reminded us--in the 1970s, an international cartel made up of a number of countries tried to fix the price on the world market, something which caused significant price increases at one point in time.

The governments then decided to subsidize the sugar industry to ensure that the product could be sold on the world market at a very competitive price per tonne. We then found ourselves in a situation where the U.S. generated a dramatic drop in the demand for sugar products, which resulted in an extremely low demand price.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot reminded me that we are not immune to the schemes of another cartel. At such a time, I am sure that I will find the input of the member for Longueuil very useful.

I would like to get to the core of the issue and say that I fully support the workers of Lantic Sugar Limited, in the riding of Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, and the management of that company. This is not a dispute between the union and the management.

This is very interesting and I am proud to say that when this Canadian sugar company had to streamline its operations and choose a location to carry on its production, it opted for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve. This was made possible because the union agreed to review existing collective agreements and sign a new long term collective agreement. This is a very good example of industrial peace where both the workers and the management at Lantic Sugar made compromises to ensure the survival of the company and to protect jobs in Montreal's east end.

Lantic Sugar is a world class refinery. It is at the very top of the world's leading sugar refineries.

As we are speaking, the company operates at 90% of its regular capacity. In 1999 and 2000, it invested $100 million to modernize its operations.

It is with regret that I must say that while the city, the Quebec government and local stakeholders developed a plan to rescue the company, the federal government did not invest one penny in that plan to save Lantic Sugar.

This is another example which shows that, when it comes to regional development, particularly in Montreal, it is extremely difficult to enlist the federal government's co-operation.

The Lantic Sugar refinery, which is a world class company, currently employs 345 people. Imagine what it would mean for these workers if there was a sudden drop in the demand for sugar products at the international level. When we look at the negotiations conducted by the Minister for International Trade, we truly get the impression that the sugar industry was not considered at its fair value. The possible threat facing the sugar industry was not taken into consideration, as it should have been, following an early and unfavourable liberalization process, as I will show later on.

This means that if changes are not made and if the government intends to use this model for negotiations to come with four other Central American countries, we could lose tens of jobs. But rest assured, because the Bloc Quebecois will not let this happen.

A business employing 345 workers has made major investments, to the tune of $100 million, on the east side of Montreal, which means essentially from Papineau street to the end of the island. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you spent part of your childhood in Montreal, as we have discussed before, so you know the city pretty well.

As I was saying, investments were made in that business that provides $28 million worth of salaries and benefits. That business also needs supplies and services for its day-to-day operation and has a list of 200 suppliers. This represents investments totalling $40 million.

What is interesting is that Lantic Sugar does not provide just any type of jobs; it provides interesting jobs for blue collar workers. We are not talking here about people with university degrees, but they are honest workers who do their job well and who have received serious on-the-job training.

I asked what the average salary was at Lantic Sugar. Members will not be surprised to know that it is $20.67 an hour. This is very interesting for workers to have businesses offering these kinds of jobs in a neighbourhood like Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.

Now let us go to the heart of the issue. As we all know, the Minister for International Trade is bursting with self-confidence. He is proposing a treaty with Costa Rica that will liberalize trade in one particular industry, without really thinking about the impact this could have on people's lives.

At the present time, Costa Rica does not produce refined sugar, which is primarily produced by Lantic Sugar. Costa Rica will be permitted to export 20,000 tonnes to Canada, starting next year, in 2002. Costa Rica's access to the Canadian market will be progressively increased from 20,000 tonnes in 2002 to 40,000 tonnes in 2009.

Canada, in turn, will be permitted to export 3,528 tonnes to Costa Rica beginning in 2002, and this will increase to 6,990 tonnes in 2009. Why am I giving these figures? Because the public needs to understand that when the Minister for International Trade negotiates with Costa Rica to liberalize trade, there is some give and take involved. One has the impression that the sugar industry was sacrificed to the benefit of other sectors. That is what is unacceptable.

I hope that the minister's parliamentary secretary, who is nodding his head, will give us guarantees that not only will the signing of this agreement not be used to implement other agreements with four other Central American countries, but that there will be no loss of jobs in the sugar industry. That is my concern as the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, because of the importance of Lantic Sugar.

In this agreement, Canadian exports are based on the country of origin rule, so that it will only be possible to export products containing sugar produced in Canada to Costa Rica.

As for raw sugar--not refined--there will be no tariff. Right now, there is no tariff on raw sugar. In the four countries of Central America, imports of raw sugar rose from almost nothing in 1995 to 275,000 tonnes in 2000.

It is interesting to note--I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has been kind enough to be in attendance for this debate, is aware of this--that, in relative terms, the countries of Central America and Costa Rica have been given ten times the access to the Canadian market than they have to the United States.

This adds to the concerns of manufacturers because--as I will point out--the U.S. sugar market is much more protected than the Canadian sugar market, although it is ten times larger.

I note that the agriculture minister is nodding. I am not convinced that these considerations were taken into account in the Costa Rica-Canada agreement.

I therefore have a few raw figures I will try to refine somewhat during my speech.

In Canada, the tariff on refined sugar products is $30.86 a tonne. Let us understand clearly that the rate for the Central American countries is far higher than that. For example, it is 160% in Guatemala, or 20 times the Canadian rate. The two countries wish to give access to the market in the same proportions, but they do not start with the same basic reality because of the different levels of market protection. What have the consequences of this been?

Refined sugar imports from countries in Central America are constantly increasing. This is not hard to understand. For example, Guatemala exported almost nothing over the past five years, but in 2000 exported 3,200 tonnes of refined sugar to Canada. This is a situation of considerable concern for those working in the industry and for their company management.

What needs to be done? What the industry is calling for, both employees and management, is that the sugar market not be freed up with a single country, and that any liberalization not take place until discussed in a multilateral forum.

There will be other WTO negotiations in 2005, held in Latin America in fact. People are saying “Why not look at the type of freer trade we want with a number of countries?” Allowing the sugar industry to be placed in a negotiating or competing position with countries that have historically protected their market to a far greater extent than Canada has been able to does not seem fair. I am being told my time is up, so I will close.

I call upon the minister and the parliamentary secretary to be very much aware that, should the agreement in place for Costa Rica ever be applied and then used as a model for four other Latin American or Central American countries, we would be placed in a situation where there would be considerable risk of job losses in the sugar industry. And that we will not accept.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the debate on Bill C-32 regarding the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. I think it is quite well known that the NDP party has great reservations about liberalized trade agreements, about the way Canada enters into these agreements and about the terms and conditions that are either within or fail to be within the agreements.

Our position is quite clear. We do not think Canada should enter into any free trade agreements or liberalized trade agreements that do not enshrine basic labour rights, environmental standards or human rights. We believe there is a role within trade agreements to deal with those social issues. We reject the argument that there is no other place for those other issues within trade deals of that nature.

I point out the irony that we should even debate or consider this bill in the legislature or in parliament. These free trade agreements are specifically designed to bypass freely elected legislatures and parliaments around the world. It is part of their job to provide a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations that bypass freely elected governments. Some of our ability to control our destiny within this country is taken away by these free trade agreements.

It may sound like a strong statement, but Ruggiero, the former head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods and services and capital. That is why we need free trade agreements to bypass this tedious democratic process that we spend our lives representing.

That in a nutshell sums up what the NDP's concern is about free trade agreements. There are people who actually believe that there is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital and investment. It is a frightening thought.

The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement resembles in many ways NAFTA, the FTAA, the GATS agreements and other free trade agreements. There are many similar features in it. There are no noticeable improvements. In other words, all the things we pointed out as flaws or omissions in those other agreements are not dealt with in this new Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.

Canada as a nation is dealing with challenges under the current free trade agreements under which we are living, NAFTA challenges, et cetera. I point out some cases where we are vulnerable to these challenges, one of which is dealing with the bulk sale of water. We just heard eloquent and passionate debates about Canada not getting into exporting bulk water, or the bulk sale of interbasin transfer of water.

The Americans, through the free trade agreement, are challenging Canada now. Sun Belt California is a company that is challenging Canada, saying that we have denied them economic opportunity by refusing to commodify our water resources. This is the kind of thing to which we are vulnerable.

Another issue is our postal service. We have chosen to have a federally owned postal service to deliver our mail. However, American companies such as UPS, have challenged that. They have said that this is a service they wish to provide and that they have a right to offer free competition in that arena. Because they want to provide the delivery of mail service, they have said that Canada cannot give Canada Post a monopoly on its courier service.

This is an example of where we are losing our ability to control our own destiny and shape the kind of country as we want it because of the free trade agreements we have entered into at times.

At the onset of my speech I mentioned that we are critical of any liberalized trade agreement that fails to recognize core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues. When we raise that, we are often told that by trading with less developed nations, those standards will be elevated by some kind of osmosis and that they will naturally come up to our level.

In other words, we will not go to the lowest common denominator, they will come up to ours. There is no empirical evidence anywhere in the world where that has been the case. In fact, the opposite has been true. The harmonization has been a downward trend, except in places where it is specifically contemplated and dealt with, such as the European Union.

The EU was a free trade agreement that the NDP could probably have endorsed. Over 20 years they carefully set out the terms and conditions that would not harmonize to the lowest common denominator. In fact, the less developed countries were brought up to a mean average at least.

We look at examples like the APEC meetings in Vancouver that resulted in riots and the pepper spray incident, et cetera. We objected to inviting somebody like Suharto to our country. We considered him an international criminal, a butcher. Yet we hosted him in our country. When we raised that as an objection the government said that by dealing with people like that and trading with them, we would pull them into the democratic world and would elevate their standards of labour conditions.

When we ended up pepper spraying our own citizens for having the temerity for a peaceful protest, it looked like we went down to his level. That kind of harmonization to the higher common denominator does not seem to happen. We are very critical of it.

There are specifics in the bill that I should deal with. First, the preamble of this hefty piece of legislation is written in such flowery language. It is almost poetic. It is almost beautiful to read the principles being espoused in that preamble. Unfortunately those same principles do not find any room within the actual text of the document.

It says that the Government of Canada and the government of Costa Rica have entered into this agreement to strengthen the special bonds of friendship among their peoples and to contribute to the harmonious development and provide a catalyst for broader international co-operation. They are all very lofty goals and wonderful principles that anybody would be happy to be associated with, until we see what it really translates into.

If our interest is really to elevate the standards of living conditions for people around the world and if it is true that the globalization of capital is supposed to bring with it the globalization of the rule of law, the globalization of human rights, the globalization of foreign labour standards, then where is it in this document? Where is it in the empirical evidence around the world where these trade agreements exist? It does not exist. It is a fraud. We are being sold a bill of goods here that do not translate into elevating anybody's standards. In fact, it has had a reverse effect. It has had a negative effect on wages and working conditions. It serves only one interest and that is the interest of global capital.

The NDP is concerned. I should make it clear there is nothing anti-free trade about the NDP or our party's policy. We are very much for free trade. Other speakers mentioned that we are more interested in fair trade. The world should develop and evolve, toward a fair, rules based trading mechanism, not a free hand in the market shall prevail and good luck.

Labour standards are of particular concern to me as a former trade unionist and labour leader. We have watched Costa Rica for many years. Frankly, Costa Rica has a terrible reputation for labour standards.

One of our criticisms about this trade agreement is the same as with NAFTA. It relegates labour issues to a side agreement. They are not found within the actual text of the document. All those annoying labour issues will be dealt with by a separate tribunal, which is slow, tedious, cumbersome, bureaucratic and has not given any satisfaction to the working people who object or have a legitimate grievance.

Costa Rica is notorious for its persistent denial of basic labour rights, especially the rights of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to withhold services.

All this agreement requires the parties to do is enforce their existing labour legislation. There is nothing in here about enhancing current labour legislation to bring it up to the highest common denominator. It just says that there is a requirement to enforce whatever labour legislation they have.

Costa Rica's labour legislation is woefully behind western standards or standards within the free world. It is another one of those countries, through no fault of its own but through its desire to bring economic development to its country, that has bought into this idea of free trade zones or economic trade zones. They are called export processing zones, or EPZs, in Costa Rica. These are areas that are excused from the pathetic legislation that exists in that country. These particular zones, these fenced compounds, do not have to live up to those regulations. It is a cowboy attitude toward labour standards.

We have watched Costa Rica develop over recent years. Whether it is Central America, South America and Costa Rica, there is no exception, they have what we call anti-worker Solidarista movements or phony union movements. They are unions of convenience, much like CLAC, the Christian labour alliance, in Canada. By voluntarily signing a contract with CLAC, real unions are prohibited from organizing in a particular workplace. These dummy unions have been organized nationally and are put place to try to keep bona fide unions from organizing. This was a conspiracy to deny people basic union rights and freedoms.

If we were sincere about elevating the standards of wages and working conditions of people in developing nations and using trade agreements to help do that as an instrument, then we would require our trading partners to adhere to the same standards of freedom and rights to association for collective bargaining that we give our workers. The agreement is completely and deliberately silent on that. We object to that. If nothing else it is a missed opportunity for those of us who do genuinely care about international development and moving society forward in a global way.

This is not the instrument to do that. Once again, this is an instrument of exploitation. If we do not say it here, there is certainly no opportunity for the working people of Costa Rica to object. This is happening above and beyond any input from them.

I stand in solidarity with my fellow working people in Costa Rica to object to this agreement and to any so-called free trade agreement that does not recognize core labour standards, the right to free collective bargaining and the basic principles that we take for granted in this country.

People say that trade unionists object to free trade agreements for selfish reasons because they are worried that their standard of living will be dragged down. Frankly, if labour and commodities are cheaper in one of our trading partner's country, there is nothing to stop Canadian or American companies gravitating to that country for manufacturing purposes.

I resent that and object to that position. I also resent the argument that we are worried about losing our good paying manufacturing jobs. We are worried. We would be crazy if we were not. The only sensible thing Ross Perot ever said in the election in the states was with regard to the great flushing sound of Canadian and American jobs racing to Mexico with the first free trade agreement. We noticed that and have not fully recovered from all the promises that those blue collar jobs would be replaced with better paying jobs. That has not happened among the neighbours that I know.

We are watching Canada negotiate badly on our behalf. Every time it enters into a trade agreement we are dumbfounded. What kind of negotiators are these people who negotiate on our behalf, go into these closed door meetings and sign deals like this?

When I was in Quebec City, I was outside the fence protesting while the negotiators were inside the fence signing yet another free trade agreement. There is kind of a cruel irony there as well.

This bill falls short of any of the lofty goals and principles that are talked about in the preamble of the bill. If the government were serious about doing something to move the global community forward in terms of bringing less developed nations up to our standard of living, I could endorse it.

The NDP caucus would happily buy into any kind of agreement that would move society forward in that way. Bill C-32 and bills like it keep people back. It does nothing to elevate the human condition on the planet.

I put it to the House that the Canada-Cost Rica a free trade agreement is less about eliminating trades and tariffs and more about institutionalizing a freedom that global capital enjoys today. It enshrines it in such a way that even freely elected democratic institutions like parliament cannot touch.

Members are made irrelevant by agreements like this one. Renato Ruggier, head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods, services and capital, and that therefore we needed free trade agreements to bypass annoying nuisances such as legislatures, parliaments, et cetera.

The best example is Ethyl Corporation. I am sure hon. members heard this case cited before in the House of Commons. We as a nation decided that it was bad to have MMT in our atmosphere and environment. MMT is poison as a gasoline additive; it kills people and causes cancer. We decided to ban and outlaw it.

However Ethyl Corporation which produces MMT said that we could not do that. It said that we were interfering with its right to capitalize on selling MMT. In other words there was a lost opportunity. It sued the Government of Canada because it had nation state status under the free trade agreements.

A company can sue a country because we allocated a nation state status to a corporate entity and it won. We had to back off. We had to pay it damages for lost opportunity because we as a nation decided that for our children's benefit we would ban a toxic chemical as a gasoline additive.

It was ruled that we could not do that any more. Somebody traded our right away. Some bright eyed negotiator on behalf of the Canadian government signed away our ability to protect our own environment in a free trade agreement.

It is not being alarmist to raise these issues. These are legitimate concerns and I am horrified by that. What did these people agree to? It is like sending Jack to the market with a cow and he comes back with three beans. There is no guarantee that any of those beans will even sprout. It is a serious concern and a legitimate issue.

Our NDP caucus, along with a significant number of Canadians who are concerned about the globalization of capital and the free for all interest in the free trade agreements, is disappointed. Speaking on their behalf, we are very concerned that we have failed to represent the real issues at hand.

If it is our goal, duty and obligation as elected members of parliament to elevate the human condition and to move society forward, how can we knowingly sign on to something like this which has the reverse effect? It broadens the gap between rich and poor by enshrining bad behaviour. It institutionalizes irresponsible corporate behaviour and locks people in developing nations into that situation and holds them back.

There is a missed opportunity here. This free trade agreement should specify that if a country wants to trade with Canada its standards of labour conditions have to be elevated in harmony to those of Canada. Otherwise Canada would not trade with it. If it wants to do business with Canada it must do something about the abominable, wretched labour conditions in its country.

We would then be using our position of privilege as a nation to help raise standards in that country. However there is no mention of that here. When we raise it we are told that it is a deal between economies, not countries, and that it is not our job to deal with social issues.

We are told that we cannot do anything about child labour, but if those children were burning bootleg CDs the economic community would intervene in a minute. It would be down there in a second to protect its intellectual property. In some cases it acts very quickly. In other cases it says child labour is not its issue. We should wait until child labour is bootlegging CDs to see how quickly it acts.

Bill C-32 does not deserve our support. It does not achieve what it should achieve as a free trade agreement. If the government were serious about free and fair trade this would be a far different bill.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the good people of Costa Rica rest well at night knowing the member from Winnipeg is standing up for their human rights, particularly given that Costa Rica has proportional representation, something the NDP likes but Canada does not have.

Costa Rica has a constitutional democracy and a presidential system. The president is elected for a four year term and can only be in office for one term. He can then run after eight years. It has 57 members in its legislature, which is a unicameral legislature, and a two-thirds vote of the legislature is required to change the constitution. Costa Rica has more checks and balances in its domestic law than we do.

A Canadian member of parliament states that he will lance any injustices that happen in Costa Rica. He also says that parliament has been rendered irrelevant and he references the MMT decision. The MMT decision proved that parliament had power because it was taken to court. That decision consistently gets misrepresented by the radical left in the House.

The MMT decision stated that according to the law put in place by the Government of Canada one could not import or export MMT. It was a badly written law given the realities of free trade. Free trade mandates a level playing field. A properly written law would have said that people were banned from possessing MMT on Canadian soil. In that way everyone would have been banned from possessing MMT and it would not have prejudiced Canadian people who were importing or exporting it. The law must be applied equally to everyone.

That is a standard of equality that I thought was the foundation of the NDP. The law was badly written and it did not prove that legislatures were irrelevant. In fact it proved the exact opposite.

The member says that free trade deals have a negative impact on human rights. I hesitate taking that as a credible source after the NDP bashed and attacked Suharto, the former president of Indonesia, when he came to the University of British Columbia. At the same time the British Columbia NDP were holding policy conferences in Havana, Cuba, like it did last year. Cuba is a country where Fidel Castro has driven out, incarcerated, or murdered one-fifth of the population.

I also question the veracity of the NDP when it says that it is protecting human rights and that it is opposed to free trade unless it enhances human rights.

Given that he is so in favour of international standards for human, labour and environmental rights, did he communicate that to NDP Premiers Romanow, Dosanjh and Doer when they went on the team Canada trade mission to China, given China's record on the environment vis-à-vis the Three Gorges dam and its human rights approach to Falun Gong and labour standards? Has he given the same preaching sermon to the NDP premiers of those provinces?

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is probably the longest question in the history of the House of Commons. The member did come to the point so I suppose he deserves a response.

It is our position that the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is more notable for its omissions than what is in it. When we talk about core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues it is not just the NDP talking. We are not the enemy here. We are not the only voice in the wilderness calling for these things. It is the ILO, the United Nations, and international NGOs from around the world that are calling for a more progressive attitude toward our trade policies.

I know the hon. member has a thing about the NDP. He wants to place us as the enemy or the lone voice on this issue. In actual fact the rest of the world agrees with us. Most of the developed nations are questioning their role and trade as an aspect of their overall policy.

I will use the European Union as an example. If free trade agreements were comparable to the economic harmonization within the European Union, we would not have any objections and I would not be standing here complaining. However in that case one is dealing with countries that are a lot more similar in size and shape. There is not the incredible imbalance in the power structure between the two signatories.

I have used the example of when the lion lays down with the lamb, the lamb does not get much sleep. That has never been truer than in a situation like this one. It is an overwhelming imbalance in the power relationship between the two signatories to this agreement.

That is not true in the European Union. It is finding consensus and agreement that took 20 years to negotiate. The agreements at the European Union were not written on the back of a napkin.

The deal we have here was signed at the Quebec summit. While we were protesting outside the fence the deal was being signed inside the fence. It was a hasty and flawed job because it failed to address the real issues that most people care about. These are issues that would affect the quality of life of the people in those countries.

What else matters? If profit is the only motive then we have a satisfactory document. However it falls short if it was intended to elevate the human condition by using trade agreements. There is nothing radical about an observation like that. It is an objective opinion that we could do better.

It is a missed opportunity any time we enter into one of these trade deals that does not use every tool in our toolbox to try to elevate the human condition. What else is it all about and why else are we here?

I resent the tone and the content of the hon. member's intervention because it fails to appreciate the legitimate concerns I am trying to raise. I speak for a significant percentage of the population when I do that.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

London—Fanshawe Ontario

Liberal

Pat O'Brien LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, as part of the government I speak for a more significant part of the Canadian population in that survey after survey has shown that over 70% of Canadians support freer and liberalized trade. Therefore I will stand with the 70% and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre can stand with the 30% if he chooses.

I listened to his remarks and several times he cited that the EU as a great example in trade agreements. I attended on behalf of the Minister for International Trade a trade discussion day concerning less developed countries. I hope my colleague will listen to this point because I will ask him a specific question and expect a specific answer with no ducking.

At that trade discussion day EU ministers of development were categorically opposed to including labour agreements in trade deals. The very EU ministers that he cites with such praise were categorically opposed, led my none other than the U.K. minister, Clare Short.

Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre tell us why the NDP seems to be one of the few voices anywhere in the world that is insisting that labour agreements be included in trade deals, when almost everyone else including his cousins in the U.K. labour party is saying that it would lead to back door protectionism?

How could the member ignore the comments of a man like Kofi Annan who said that liberalized and globalized free trade are the best possible courses of action we can take to help the poor countries my colleague addressed in his comments?

I have never had an answer from the NDP on those two points, so I am anxiously awaiting one now.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, life must be so simple when one is a Liberal. It must be really convenient to be such a gifted chameleon, to flip-flop from one's position.

I remember the Liberals in the late 1980s and early 1990s arguing and opposing free trade vehemently and vigorously. They had passionate debates saying that free trade would bring us down and that Brian Mulroney was evil for trying to foist free trade upon us. Today they have conveniently flip-flopped and are now the champions, the vanguards of the free trade movement. It must be really easy to be a Liberal. I guess that is why there are so many Liberals, it is so bloody easy.

When labour issues are raised within free trade agreements, the side agreements are so hopelessly feckless, absolutely useless, that no workers ever get any satisfaction from them. That is why we are saying they should be within the actual document, not in some parallel side accord. Those side accords have never given satisfaction to the grieving parties.

If they set up an institution that is completely feckless, they are dooming it to failure, and it is a deliberate thing. There was a conscious choice to not put those terms and conditions within the contract and to put them on a side deal because they would brush those issues off to the side so nothing would interfere or interrupt with the free movement of goods and services of capital, not even the legitimate grievances of working people who are being affected in a negative way by these issues.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

September 28th, 2001 / 1:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to hopefully contribute somewhat to the debate before the House on Bill C-32.

I do not necessarily attach myself to very much, if anything, that the previous speaker puts before the House other than to say that at the very least his party and he himself have been consistent in their approach to this issue.

The member spoke in his remarks about Jack and the Beanstalk . I am reminded of other fairytale red book promises that pertain to this issue of free trade.

As I listened to the member, I could not help but think that the current Prime Minister would have been on the other side of the barrier in Quebec City if that free trade negotiation had taken place in the 1980s. He would have been out there with the protestors. He would have been espousing the complete opposite position that his current government is presenting through Bill C-32.

However, we are certainly glad that the Prime Minister has seen the error of his ways and recognizes that this is a global trend and the direction in which countries, not only in North America but countries worldwide, are headed in terms of liberalizing trade to the benefit of those participating countries.

That is not to say that it does not take a great deal of intellect and a great deal of effort in negotiating these agreements to see that they are beneficial. I will give the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and his party their due. They raise very important issues that pertain to human rights, working conditions and the type of social issues that are very often given short shrift in these negotiations. We do know that the multinationals and companies that engage in trade are interested in the bottom line. There are national state concerns that often should be addressed during these negotiations.

The bill recognizes that a Central American country, like Costa Rica, is a very dynamic and developing country. This is a country that arguably has led the way for that region of the world. As other members have pointed out, this small country is a very interactive, democratic country. It has implemented a new constitution. It has a bicameral system of parliament. It has checks and balances which, in many ways, we ourselves might learn from.

Former President Arias hosted the first meeting that was the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The diplomatic skills exercised by Costa Rican politicians are very admirable on a number of levels.

Of interest is the fact that Costa Rica has no military budget. It has a national police force but much of its resources and much of its governmental focus is on trade, which is beneficial to those countries that wish to participate, as Canada will, under this new agreement.

In terms of Central American standards, Costa Rica is very much at the forefront. It has been very proactive in reaching out not only to Mexico and the United States but now, through this agreement, it is looking north. It is exploring new markets looking for ways in which it can export its raw and manufactured materials and looking to improve the standard of living and the quality of life for its citizens by enabling access to goods and services to which it might not otherwise have access.

Costa Rica has a very extensive program for social housing which would be of interest to many Canadians. A number of Canadian construction companies have played a very active role in Costa Rica's attempt to provide adequate shelter and housing for its citizens.

Opportunities for both participants in this agreement abound. Costa Rica has co-operated closely in the past with other countries. It has exhibited the goodwill that is tantamount to a good basis of bridge building when it comes to trade.

Some of the purposes behind Bill C-32 will evolve over time. Much like the commentary we hear quite often about the benefits of trade, time will tell.

I would be quick to point out that some of the same arguments that we have heard against this agreement were heard prior to 1988. In fact some of the members opposite on the government side, who are now wrapping their arms around the legislation, endorsing it and espousing its virtues, were the same members who stood on this side of the House and berated the government of Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party of Canada for taking the initiative, for spending the political capital that is sometimes necessary, and for taking the risk that is sometimes necessary for the good of the country.

I think even the most critical of individuals in viewing free trade would have to admit that huge benefits have accrued to this country, particularly for the people of western Canada who are very much the beneficiaries of this particular practice of free trade.

Bill C-32 would implement all the negotiation that took place leading up to this bill. I believe the agreement itself was signed in April 2000. Miguel Angel Rodriguez, the president of Costa Rica, was here in Canada signing the agreement, and the bill would put those elements into effect.

It is quite clear that Costa Rica's economy is growing and expanding rapidly, arguably not at a rate that we would consider rapid by North American standards, but it is certainly moving in a direction that will help its citizens, help to improve conditions and help to improve those very essential things that all humanitarians should be concerned about.

This is a chance for Costa Rica. This is a legitimate opportunity that it hopes to seize upon. To its credit, it has been very proactive in looking at other countries' economies and trying to find a way in which it can be a greater participant in those economies.

The agreement itself will be two way in terms of the merchandise exchanged between Canada and Costa Rica. It is interesting to note that in the year 2000 the trade between our two nations rose by $269 million according to figures. That was a jump of 25% over that short period of time. The agreement itself would naturally accelerate that growth.

We have to take into account, as others have, the difference in size of economy and levels of development. However I believe there is a mechanism that is supposed to help integrate this trade system, this difference in the size of the economy and that is that Canada will, more or less, move at a more rapid rate in terms of liberalizing trade. Our economy will be more open to Costa Rican products at a faster rate. The lack of tariffs will be phased in in Canada over eight years, whereas in the Costa Rican example it will be over fourteen years.

Our borders will be open at an earlier rate allowing Costa Rica to tap into the Canadian market somewhat quicker, taking into account this difference in size and scale of economy.

I would suggest that the overall benefit to eliminating the trade barriers is to facilitate these goods and services at an accelerated rate and facilitate and promote conditions of fair competition that are the underpinnings of any free trade agreement. Those are set out in some detail by the enactment of this bill. It would also establish a framework for further bilateral, regional and multilateral co-operation to expand throughout the years and create effective procedures for implementation and application of the agreement.

Also built into this contract, as in any contract, are methods of dispute resolution and of monitoring the progress. Where disputes might break out there will be a procedure that can be followed to try to resolve those types of disputes.

Some of the products that will be affected in the short term will include fruit, coffee, raw sugar, gold, flowers and jams, Costa Rican imports that we currently see quite often on the Canadian market.

The trade agreement will allow those products to come into Canada with ease, with fewer tariffs in the coming years, and will allow those companies, because of their climate and agricultural potential, a greater market and potential for growth and therefore a higher standard of living when they achieve the success they badly want.

On the other hand, Canada currently exports to Costa Rica paper, wheat, potato products and automotive parts. When I think of potatoes I will not say the solicitor general. I am obviously thinking of the potato crisis Prince Edward Islanders have faced in recent years and the great potential the agreement will provide for them.

They suffered through two abysmal years in terms of their potato exports because of the potato wart which was blown hugely out of proportion. We were virtually excluded from entering the American market. This will provide a new and large market for potato products.

For provinces like Prince Edward Island I would suggest that Bill C-32, which brings to effect free trade with Costa Rica, will expand their potential and help island potato farmers explore this new market.

I draw attention to some of the other positive elements of the agreement that include building up the free trade of the Americas, which links the 34 countries currently in North America that are working with South America. That unfortunately is something upon which perhaps we have not focused enough. The expanding markets in Central America and in all of South America is the direction in which we recognize we are moving.

Canada has taken a much more inclusive view and can play a much more active leadership role in this regard. I would suggest that this step is very much reflective and representative of Canada's leadership role.

Canada's national identity, the Canadian economy and our competitiveness as a trading nation are areas of which we have to be very conscious. We have to be innovative. We have to portray ourselves as a country that is ready and willing to take part in this vibrant new economy.

That was the intent behind the original free trade agreement with the United States, followed up by NAFTA. This is a natural extension of the direction in which the Canadian economy is moving.

The Government of Canada, Canadian producers and Canadian manufacturers can benefit if we go about this in an intelligent and aggressive way.

About 94% of Canada's current agriculture and agri-food exports to Costa Rica will get better access as a direct result of the implementation of this bill. Goodness knows we need to make extraordinary efforts at this time to help our farmers with the drought situation that has been endured in western Canada.

Throughout the country there have been extreme weather conditions and climate turns which have grossly affected the ability of the agricultural industry in Canada. Blueberry farmers in the province of Nova Scotia have suffered great hardships due to the dry conditions this past summer.

When we sign agreements with countries like Costa Rica and other South American and Central American countries, it opens up new markets for our agricultural industry. Canada's exporters will gain an important advantage over some of their principle competitors in Costa Rica, including American, European and Asian suppliers.

Therefore, by giving Costa Ricans preferential trade partners in North America we can be competitive with some of those other countries that have in the past associated themselves and traded with Costa Rica. Costa Ricans hopefully will be looking to Canada as opposed to some of the far off European countries to which in the past there has been a propensity for Costa Ricans to turn.

As with every trade agreement and contractual obligation there are concerns that have to be examined and kept in mind. There are shared concerns on the part of Costa Ricans and Canadians.

As I understand it, Costa Rica currently exports only raw sugar and does not refine sugar within its own boundaries. In the event that Costa Rica as a result of the trade agreement starts to construct refineries and export refined sugar, Canadian sugar producers would have real concern. They have expressed concern already. I know that the member for Saint John has long been a proponent of protecting and assisting the sugar refining industry in her province of New Brunswick. This is one issue that has been raised by sugar producers in Canada as a direct upshot of the proposed agreement. Costa Rica is also a labour intensive country. Having just said that there may be benefits to the increased open market for potato farmers, I will note that some producers have raised concerns about the impact on frozen potatoes exported to Costa Rica from Canada.

These are a just couple of industry related concerns that have been raised by Canadians who would be impacted directly by Bill C-32.

Canada has an obligation to enter into these agreements in good faith and to maintain good bilateral relations with our other significant trading partners. At the same time we have to diversify the market and seek additional international trade agreements. That is exactly what the bill would do.

The direction in which we are headed is very much one the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition supports. It has been our consistent position in doing so that Canada must play a leading and aggressive role at a time when countries are re-examining their relations with other countries vis-à-vis trade and security and on any number of levels.

To that end there is implicit in all our efforts an emphasis on the responsibility of government to proceed with caution but also, I would suggest, with some degree of aggression when looking for new markets to bolster the Canadian economy to ensure that we are competitive and innovative in a very competitive global time.

We support the initiative. We support the direction of Bill C-32 and similar types of agreements. It is imperative as well that we in the Parliament of Canada have an opportunity to have our say and to have input. We must look at the bill at the committee level. We must hear from witnesses who have specific information about the countries in question, the pros and cons of the agreement, the benefits and the contractual obligations that will flow from it.

On balance we feel it is good legislation that is consistent with the direction in which Canada is headed. We feel it would help Canadian producers engage in free markets and it would raise access to products by lowering tariffs.

To that end and for those reasons set out, the coalition will be supporting the legislation. We look forward to its implementation. We hope to see the government play a leadership role in its new and, I would submit, post-1993 support of free trade agreements.

This is the type of legislation Canada needs if it is to be a global competitor in the 21st century.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough. I certainly appreciate his support for Bill C-32, the agreement with Costa Rica, and his recognition of its benefits to Canadian exports like blueberries from Nova Scotia, potatoes from P.E.I. and others.

It was an interesting contrast to hear him after hearing the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. The hon. member from the NDP seemed to suggest we could not find other countries that would want side agreements on labour and the degree of these things does not matter. It seems the NDP wants a one party agreement, a one person agreement, or a one country agreement. With that kind of position it is no wonder it has so little support .

I also want to reflect on what my hon. colleague from Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough said. He took us back in time to the late eighties and the period of the negotiations over free trade. It struck me at the time--

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I will attempt to do this in the spirit of fairness. At 1.30 I have to proceed to private members' business. I would like to give the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough about a half a minute to reply and close the debate for this day. I do that out of a spirit of fairness for two good members of parliament from Nova Scotia.

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of my Bluenose colleague about the benefits that can flow from free trade. Free trade is not meant in any way to benefit one region over another. It is, as he would be the first to admit, something that has national benefits.

This is comprehensive legislation. Although it may be described as flowery in language, there is a great deal of pith and substance to it. Bill C-32 touches on parallel accords, environmental co-operation and labour co-operation. It is the type of legislation we should be getting our teeth into. We should be holding it up as progress in the area of trade for Canada.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day ActPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14, to establish a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

The decision to establish a national holiday in honour of a parliamentarian or any other person may seem unimportant to some people, but not to the Bloc Quebecois.

This bill aims to pay tribute to the very first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, as well as to the first Prime Minister from Quebec, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

John A. Macdonald worked relentlessly for an extremely centralized federation in Canada, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier fought very hard to protect Canadian unity, at the expense of the progress of his own people.

This bill would give Canadians the opportunity to reflect on the history of their country and to be proud of the contribution of these two men to Canada and to all of its communities. Do members really think that the people of Quebec will feel like celebrating on such a day? I do not think so.

In the minds of Quebecers, John A. Macdonald wanted to give the impression he was negotiating the terms of federation with Taché and Cartier. Later on, some would go as far as to talk about a confederal treaty when talking about the so-called consensus that is supposed to have taken place before the British North America Act was passed.

It bears reminding that when Lower Canada joined Canada in 1867, it was by a very slight majority, 24 against 22. Needless to say we are talking about parliamentarians who were duly mandated to speak on behalf of the people, but the people were not consulted.

In fact, the British North America Act is drafted in such a way that instead it envisions a very centralized state made up of provinces—which is a far cry, you will admit, from the concept of sovereign states—without in fact the exclusive authority to pass and implement laws without interference from the central government. This historical ambiguity regarding the creation of a Canadian federation or Canadian confederation could only lead to numerous problems later on, both for Canada and Quebec.

Lower Canada displayed a lukewarm interest in what some mistakenly called a confederal treaty but was in fact a constitutional soup by chef John A. Macdonald, seasoned with a unitary, centralized and centralizing federal regime.

As for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he indeed worked very hard to unite the Canadian federation. His 15 year government was marked by a lot of tension: on the one side, French Canadians, who were afraid of being assimilated, and rightly so; on the other, English Canadians, who wanted to have closer ties to the British Empire.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier governed Canada by trying to find a middle ground and keep the country together. Today, the current government's approach, true to Wilfrid Laurier's ideal, espouses the strategy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who wrote that of the ways of making separatism less appealing is to spend time, energy and a lot of money to promote federal nationalism. Such is the goal of Bill S-14.

The establishment of holidays to celebrate John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is part of that strategy. All Quebecers know that the federal government does not hesitate to spend millions of dollars in public funds to promote the Canadian identity. And what about the virtual monopoly of federalist forces on the media?

In his book Le déclin du fédéralisme canadien , Joseph Facal, the Quebec minister for relations with the citizens and immigration, minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, and minister for relations with French-speaking and Acadian communities, wrote this:

The federal government takes a subtle and seemingly generous attitude when it professes to recognize the different identities, the Quebec identity included. What it refuses to this particular identity is its full access to a collective, institutional and political expression. This can be seen in the incapacity of the Canadian constitutional order to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation, in its refusal to institutionalize its definition of Quebec's specific character, and its untiring efforts to control Quebec's international relations.

Since 1867, Quebec has been held back because of the numerous barriers the federal government has put up. All of this stifles the social, cultural and economic development of the Quebec people.

Amongst all the days celebrated in Canada, whether national or international days, only one commemorates a person. And, would you have guessed, it is Queen Victoria. No other person is honoured in such a way. Previous parliaments may have recognized that in cases like this, and many others, discretion is usually the better part of valour.

There are many ways to commemorate the role that men and women have played in politics: streets, parks, cities, government buildings, ports, airports, statues, highways, aircraft carriers, ice-breakers, stamps, libraries, sportsplexes and what not.

A national day that is not representative of a wide consensus is a moot one and it can easily be considered as arrogant.

I call upon the common sense of all parliamentarians. They should vote against Bill S-14 to prevent a precedent that could create pointless tensions. If we create a day for John A. Macdonald and a day for Sir Wilfrid Laurier now, when will we create one for the prime minister who is responsible for free trade? When will we create one for the prime minister who unilaterally patriated the Constitution? When will we create one for the prime minister who stayed in office the longest? The answer is obvious.

I find it extremely dangerous for Canada to start commemorating everything. It is clear that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. I hope there still are sensible people in this parliament.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day ActPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was born on a small tropical island, then a British colony, located on the other side of the world.

Like hundreds of thousands before and after me, I came to Canada to find peace and stability for myself and for my children. Canada is my country, and I feel deeply attached to it. I am most grateful for the spirit of openness, tolerance and generosity that I have always found here.

This is why I am truly honoured to pay tribute to two men who played a most important role in our history, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Indeed, it is no doubt to these two statesmen and prime ministers that we owe the values that have characterized Canada since its founding and that have made Canada a country that respects others and is peaceful, a country that is open to the world and most welcoming, a democratic country where individual rights and freedoms are truly promoted and defended.

When thinking about Macdonald and Laurier and the enormous political and socio-cultural heritage they have left us, differences in parties, language or origin become blurred.

One was a Conservative; the other was a Liberal. One was of Scottish origin, therefore anglophone; the other was French Canadian. Macdonald was a Protestant; Laurier was a Catholic.

They were from different origins and different backgrounds. Yet, they were united by something that was far more important than their differences, that is their vision and their faith in this new country that they were about to create and shape for the future.

The sum of Macdonald's and Laurier's contribution to the building of Canada and the values it represents is so immense that it dwarfs the differences of party, of cultural origin and of religion and makes those seem trifling. It also dwarfs the many missteps along the way for indeed there were missteps, as there must always be when building a country and running governments.

Builders, creators and visionaries all saw in the vastness of this beautiful land not only new horizons to reach but a new type of country where the two founding cultures and languages could not only coexist but flourish, where the broad expanses and spaces could welcome settlers and new citizens from elsewhere to a life, in the words of Laurier himself, of “peace, harmony and prosperity”.

The challenge of joining one coast of this immense land mass to the other by building a railway was in itself a gigantic undertaking and feat, especially given the context and conditions of the day. If that was a gigantic undertaking and feat, how even more remarkable was the founding of a new and bilingual country open to others and dedicated to democracy, to freedom and to diversity.

When we view statistics and comparisons, we see that Canada remains a modest contender in the bigness stakes. We have a comparatively small population. Our economy is dwarfed by several others. Our military power is very limited. If countries were to be judged by population, their GNP size, or the might of their military arsenal, Canada would be a very moderate success.

The country Macdonald and Laurier sought to build was not a powerful one in the quantitative sense but a new type of country, one of ideals and values that would transcend statistics and numbers. What they have left us beyond infrastructures and material achievements and prosperity, important and impressive as those are, is an infinitely more precious legacy. In the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself: “It is to our glory that hatreds have ended on Canadian soil. There is no longer any family here but the human family. It matters not what language the people speak or at which altars they kneel. There is glory in this fraternity of which Canada can never be proud enough. Mighty nations indeed may well come to us to seek a lesson in justice and humanity”.

Yes, their legacy is above all that of our enduring democracy, cherishing its core values of peace and peaceful assembly, of individual freedoms and respect for others and their differences, of openness and generosity to others less fortunate than ourselves.

So it is for the lasting achievement of these values and ideals which have marked the building and evolution of Canada that I feel privileged to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier today. It is with pride and conviction that I join Senator John Lynch-Staunton and my colleague from Don Valley West and so many other colleagues from all sides of the House and Senate in supporting Bill S-14 and wishing it Godspeed. I pray that we find a large majority here to support the bill and make it a statute.