Richard Marceau

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

You know it.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the poor content of the member's speech is not surprising. The member himself explained why it is so: he began thinking about this issue at 10 o'clock this morning. One can understand why his arguments are so weak.

He said the Americans give no thought to this debate. He should read this morning's Miami Herald . The columnist Andres Oppenheimer, whose by-line is also carried in 40 other newspapers across the U.S., mentions today's debate.

Maybe the member should also know that the Florida trade secretary spoke about this subject and thought about it; the president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, gave some thought to this issue too, as well as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Mexico Business Council. Finally, the Canadian ambassador in Washington, the Prime Minister's nephew, also said we should discuss this issue. That all brings us to the original motion proposing such a debate.

I have a question: how is it that the Liberal members who were so in favour of holding a debate on the free trade agreement with the Americans in 1988, who wanted to extend it, are now doing their best to avoid this debate?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised when I heard the member across the way say that our monetary policy has had a positive influence on the unemployment rate. I would ask him to compare it with what it is in the United States. It might wake him up.

Here we go again with this notion of Canada's monetary independence vis-à-vis the United States. I would like to know how independent Canada's monetary policy has been, since we know that from 1950 to 1986 all one had to do, to determine the Bank of Canada rate, was to add about 1% to the U.S. federal reserve rate for the same period.

He was right when he said the gap in the bank rates was even wider between 1986 and about 1993, this is when the recession was worse in Canada than in the United States. John Crow, the Governor, who was responsible for raising the interest rates to such high levels, is now defending an independent monetary policy.

What is the point of having an independent monetary policy if it jeopardizes jobs?

Where was the independent monetary policy of the Canadian government when the Canadian dollar collapsed in 1997-1998, the Bank of Canada had to raise its interest rate 1% above the Americans', returning to the same econometric model we had between 1950 and 1986?

Where is the monetary political independence when both curves are parallel? I wish I could show them to the House. They are exactly the same. Where is the independent monetary policy in all this?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Since 1950.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather intimidating to rise after such an eloquent speech by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

My first comment will deal with the notion of loss of sovereignty which underlies the whole of his argument. There is no perfect example, but a moment ago I gave the example of France which, before the Euro was introduced, had no say over its monetary policy because the French central bank was linked to or influenced by the Deutschmark. The bank had no say over the European monetary policy, which was, for all intent and purposes, the German monetary policy.

With the introduction of the Euro, France now has its say. For countries like France and other European nations it does not mean a loss of sovereignty, but an increase in sovereignty.

My question is simple. I heard all the arguments, and some deserve more in depth consideration. Will the Progressive Conservative Party support this motion which is aimed at exploring further all the issues raised by my colleague? These important issues transcend party lines.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it was in 1988 that I voted for the first time in my life, and the main election issue was free trade.

I have the impression I could take any speech the NDP made at the time and I would find the same arguments, the same facts, the same fears and the same anxieties.

That said, my question is very simple. My colleague, whose oratory skills I highly respect, said “Voices of Canadians are not listened to”. That is what he said.

Let us give Canadians the opportunity to express their point of view. Let us vote in favour of the motion. Let us give unions, management groups, student groups, all Canadians throughout Canada and Quebeckers the opportunity to say what they think on this issue.

If he really wants the voices of Canadians to be heard, let him give them the opportunity. A vote against this motion is not the way to let Canadians say what they think.

What does the hon. member think of that?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was fascinated by the remarks of my Reform colleague, especially his explanation as physics professor of the mechanics of moving buildings and grain elevators across the prairies.

The Reform Party boasts of being a party that encourages debate, is opposed to secretive meetings behind closed doors and is desirous of bringing all Canadians from across the country into the debate. In this vein, will it support the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, that is, open doors and windows and ask everyone to express their opinion—experts, lobby groups, unions, management and so on. Let us have a debate in society rather than a closed debate as some, unfortunately, would like.

So, will he support this motion in agreement with the principles he claims to support?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear what my colleague from the Liberal Party had to say. Some of his points merit more thorough study.

That is precisely what the purpose of the Bloc Quebecois motion of today is: to look at both sides of the issue. There are arguments both for and against.

My colleague has decided to vote against the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois. Is this not missing an opportunity to look at such an important issue in greater depth, instead of being restricted to a single day as is the case today?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note the tone the Liberals will be adopting in this debate. It is rather distressing.

They are comparing apples and oranges. This is the first time I have heard the Liberals comparing Canada to Puerto Rico. This gives us some idea of how low they can stoop.

Canada is G7 country. Its economy ranks 7th in the world. They are trying to compare Puerto Rico, which is a political dependency of the United States, with Canada, which is not, and where we could have a say on the North American and pan-American monetary policy. This is an opportunity we must not let slip through our fingers.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am a little bit disappointed by the question asked by my colleague from the NDP for two reasons. First of all, as I mentioned in my speech, right now Canada does not have an independent monetary policy. We could study the issue in committee and I think we would come to the conclusion that our monetary policy is not independent and we would have to take it from there.

Second, I do not see why such proud countries as France, Germany with its Deutschmark, Belgium, Italy and Spain, old countries that were built on a very strong brand of nationalism, would be willing not to give up their monetary sovereignty, but rather to pool it. Maybe the notion of sovereignty in the 21st century is more like a pooling of individual sovereignties.

Here is an example. The Eurocoin, the new European currency, is France's idea. The franc was very closely linked to the Deutschmark, Germany's currency. France saw it had no influence on German monetary policy. It had no representative in the Bundesbank. What did it do? It proposed the adoption of a common currency. As a matter of fact, France was behind the adoption of the Maastricht treaty.

What happened? France now has a representative in the European Central Bank, whereas previously it did not have any control over European monetary policy, which, for all intents and purposes, was Germany's monetary policy. France did not lose any sovereignty; it gained some.