Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question that is from a constituent so I hope this will be one question the minister actually answers. It is a specific question. Could jobs in our resource extraction sectors go to foreign workers? For example could Americans come in to buy up Canadian fishing licences and could Fletcher Challenge bring in New Zealanders to work for lower wages in the woods? Could the minister please answer those questions for a constituent.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I was saying I was unfortunate while I was in Florida over Christmas to get kidney stones. I had to go into a hospital in Florida. The service levels were spectacular. It really put to shame what happens in my riding in North Vancouver with socialist medicine.
I do not think there is any harm in having some competition. Even though it is reserved out of the MAI by the Liberals, I know it is widely supported in my riding that there should be some competition to get some efficiency into the system.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, health care is reserved under NAFTA. The government has indicated that it would also reserve it under the MAI.
Unfortunately enough in January when I was in Florida I got kidney stones—
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the big 52 page draft of reservations that he is talking about, but it is the government's responsibility to make sure it is widely circulated. It has not done it.
Even though the minister cannot talk in absolute specifics, he should be debating Maude Barlow on national television in general terms. Frankly, I cannot think of anything that would be more entertaining than this. It would probably get the largest TV audience of the entire year.
To talk about the amount of information available, if the government is not doing its best to get it out there, people do not get it.
The Internet address was given earlier. It is www.parl.gc.ca. That is the general Internet site. It is not the specific site. Let us get the specific site so that people can actually find the stuff.
This is just an example again of how poorly they communicate with the constituency.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is always a little disconcerting when speeches are interrupted in the middle but I will continue on from this point.
I had just finished explaining to members how I would be finding out the political will of the constituents in my riding so that I could vote that way when or if the MAI comes before the House.
I would challenge other members particularly those of the NDP who assume that their constituents are against this thing to really get out there and start sharing information from both sides. Do exactly what I do and find out how the majority feel.
I would like to turn to a few of the questions that have been sent to me in a stack of letters from constituents. I will not be able to go through all the questions but I will give a few.
Is it not true that foreign corporations would be able to ignore our environmental and labour laws, leaving us to be ruled by large corporations? The government's response to that has been that it is not true. It says that all corporations will have to abide by the same environmental and labour laws in Canada as domestic corporations. They ask why we should have two sets of laws anyway as it does not do anyone a favour to have domestic companies working to a lower environmental or labour law than we would have for a foreign company.
I accept that explanation as reasonable. But my question is, why are the Liberals not out there telling the public? Why are they not out making this information available? That is what today's debate is all about.
The second question asked, and it was mentioned earlier here today, why is there a 20 year opting out period? If the deal turns out to be bad for Canada, why should we be stuck in it for 20 years?
The government's response is that it is not true. We are only tied in for five years. The 20 years refers to any companies, perhaps like McCains, that have made a large investment in one of the participating countries only to find that country then opts out again. McCains or any other company for that matter would be protected for the following 15 years.
Members on the government side are nodding their heads so I have got their explanation right. But why are they not out there telling the public? Why do we in Reform have to stand here to facilitate this when it is the government's job to be selling the program, to be answering questions from the Maude Barlows and the Paul Hellyers? Why is the minister not out there debating those people? Instead of that he sits in his chair doing nothing, waiting for this thing to explode around him.
There are adequate statistics available from NAFTA from the last 10 years to show that these types of investment programs really work. I have in front of me the figures for NAFTA for more than 10 years actually, the figures from 1984 to 1997. In that time the volumes of exports to the U.S.A. almost doubled from $85 billion to $157 billion a year, thanks to NAFTA. Meanwhile our exports to other countries, almost all the other countries of the world, have actually gone down. In Europe they have gone up, but to a lot of other countries they have actually gone down.
If we can get a good MAI which facilitates trade in the same way that NAFTA has in North America, we have a really good chance of building our exports and therefore our job creation in Canada. That would not just help McCains and Northern Telecom, it would work for the small companies in my riding that are very busy exporting in small quantities to those other countries.
The MAI or at least the principle behind the MAI, the concept of an MAI promises similar benefits. If it is properly and fairly negotiated it should ensure that any person or company investing in one of the signatory countries will find identical investment rules in place in each country. That is good. Negotiating such an arrangement makes good sense.
It even makes sense if it forces our cultural and health industries in Canada to compete in a real world marketplace and to become excellent instead of mediocre, to strive for excellence in the climate of competition. I think that may be good. I have two pages of letters to the editor of the North Shore News in the last week complaining about the health care system being in disarray. If there was a little bit of competition introduced to the marketplace we might find it would go a long way to solving some of the problems.
It is always possible of course that even under the best possible negotiated MAI some inefficient and subsidized industries are going to go out of business and jobs will be lost. Under NAFTA, jobs disappeared from the costly and inefficient shipbuilding industry in my riding but they were replaced by high tech, cleaner, new industry jobs, many, many more of them. Frankly the unions in the shipbuilding industry let down their members badly by not helping them to retrain and adjust to the new marketplace reality.
This brings me once again to criticize this Liberal government which is not adjusting to the reality of the information age we live in. People want to know what is going on. They want to know what the government is negotiating on the MAI. The Liberals have failed to acknowledge that they need to do that.
The minister has blown it completely. As I mentioned, he should have been out there debating Maude Barlow. He should have been debating Paul Hellyer. He should have been debating the professors, the academics from the socialist universities who are complaining about this MAI. The Speaker laughs but, Mr. Speaker, the universities are loaded with socialists.
As for the question of sovereignty disappearing, I would like to see the minister debating Maude Barlow about the loss of sovereignty. Frankly I do not believe there would be a loss of sovereignty because the Liberal government is so dictatorial, I cannot see the Prime Minister giving up even one iota of his power to anybody else. To suggest that we are going to lose our sovereignty is totally ridiculous.
I am rapidly running out of time and I have only asked a fraction of the questions that are in the big pile of letters from my constituents. I have passed on copies of some of those letters to the parliamentary secretary to be answered.
I know he will do that for me. However, I will finish with a quote from a fax from Dr. Koscielniak who sent it to me. He says in one of his questions: “Why the secrecy? Could it be that the Liberals are ashamed of this treaty?”
Maybe Dr. Koscielniak has hit the nail on the head. This minister and his entire government are actually ashamed of the treaty because they are ashamed to admit that world trade is a reality. It needs to be properly negotiated and fairly implemented.
Those members made the promise to get rid of NAFTA and found out that it works. Now they have the responsibility of the MAI and they are so ashamed at having to back peddle that they do not want to talk about it.
I would just like the minister to get out there and actually start doing something.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion.
Coming as I do from a small business background and a small business community in North Vancouver, it should not be surprising that I am personally supportive of the concept of the MAI. I think it is a good idea. Frankly the intent of a multilateral agreement on investment is shared by the majority of my constituents as far as I can determine at this time. That does not mean there are not some people opposed, but at the moment it appears the majority are in favour.
The big problem is that the government has not been speaking clearly and forcefully in conveying its position in the Vancouver area. If an MAI can be negotiated, which truly levels the playing field for investment between the participating countries, thereby making it easier, less expensive and more efficient for small businesses to expand and create jobs by servicing those new markets, it would be an excellent deal. The government would be well congratulated if it could achieve such a thing.
Our support in principle does not mean that we do not have some tough questions for the government on the issue. The government and the minister in particular have put on a disgraceful display in connection with the MAI. People have been begging for information for just about the entire time it has been negotiated. There simply has not been enough public presence out there.
Why has the minister not been out in public debating the Maude Barlows and Paul Hellyers of the land. If he has such a good deal he should be involved in intelligent debate and be able prove to Canadians that it is a good deal.
Before posing questions of the government provided to me by some of my constituents, I would like to put on record my position regarding the MAI once it comes before the House if there is enabling legislation.
First, as soon as the MAI is signed in principle by the government, I will advertise in my local newspaper for people to come forward who are opposed to and in favour of the MAI. I will split them into two groups and with research assistance from my office we will create a written position against and a written position for the MAI. Equal space will then be given to each side in a householder that will go to every house in my riding.
Then, as the letters and calls come in, the material from the opposing side will be used to answer those letters and calls. In that way we will facilitate a widespread exchange of ideas, opinions and criticisms. People will get a chance to see the other point of view. I will also hold public meetings according to the demand.
Finally, before the House comes to a third vote on any enabling legislation, I will do a scientific poll in my riding and that is the way I will vote in the House. My constituents have that commitment from me.
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member. It intrigues me that he made the statement that this is the first opportunity he has had in the House to talk about the MAI. Then he went on to criticize everyone else for being supportive of the concept.
One question I would like to ask him is why the NDP did not bring this issue before the House itself. The NDP has had supply days. What did it do? It used up its supply days on other situations that were not nearly as important as this. The first thing I would like the hon. member to do is to explain to the people of Canada why he did not bring forth this issue right away.
The second thing I would like him to explain to me is this 20 year rule he mentioned toward the end of his speech. The government has said that it is actually not 20 years, that it is five years. The 20 years only apply to companies that have invested during the five year period if a country then opts out.
For example if McCain Foods were to invest $300 million in a canning plant in Malaysia and Malaysia then opted out, McCain Foods would be protected for a further 15 years. That is the government's explanation. Does the hon. member have some other version of that explanation?
Supply February 23rd, 1998
Why aren't you telling the public?
Supply February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Reform actually agrees with the NDP that the Liberal government made a big mistake cutting transfers in support of education and health. Since 1990 it has always been Reform policy that we would not cut those transfers and that has always been printed in our policy. So it is one thing we do agree with.
However the NDP is constantly bleating about the growing gap between the rich and poor but it does not offer any solutions other than taking other people's money in the form of taxes and spending more. We do not help the poor by killing the rich. We do not help the poor by destroying the rich. We do not help people get jobs by destroying businesses.
New Zealand, which is the country I emigrated from, found out in 1983 that socialism does not work. I had a two hour meeting with the prime minister at the time, Mr. David Lange. He was an NDP equivalent. He told me that he had learned that without a vibrant private sector there were no social programs. It just does not work.
Capitalism does have a heart, but we see a different way of getting there. If we do not have businesses with good job creation we have not got any social programs whatsoever.
I ask the hon. member to give some solutions please. Stand up and tell us how we get to where she wants to be. We have a plan to get there and it is beginning to work. We can see it in Alberta and in Ontario. Unemployment nationally is going down. Let us hear her solution and tell us of a country where it has actually worked.
Supply February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at length about CEOs and how much they earn. I wonder what he is exactly suggesting here. Is he suggesting that we just print money and pay everybody $2 million a year? In which case we know for certain that it will not be long before we will be like Russia, communism all over again with total collapse of the economy, no incentive to work, no incentive for private enterprise or business whatsoever. I would like to know if he is suggesting that. If not, I would like to know whether he is suggesting that we reduce everybody's wages to $10 an hour, in which case I hope he and his colleagues would set an example by getting out of their business class seats on their flights back to Vancouver and by starting to act like socialists.
Surely they can see that 30 years of government overspending to get us $600 billion in debt did not create any jobs. We had the worst unemployment when we had $40 billion deficits every year. It is only now that unemployment is coming under control, thanks to Klein and thanks to Harris who finally have brains in their heads unlike the socialists who were in power.