Nelson Riis

[Petitions, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are concerned about the lack of reasonable sentencing for people who do harm to animals. They point out a whole variety of ways the courts seem to take this in a rather cavalier fashion and they say people who mistreat animals in whatever way and who are found guilty of this conduct should be fined and dealt with more harshly.

[Petitions, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one has to do with international trade agreements and water. The petitioners are concerned about the recent developments of the government, which seems to be getting into bed with the United States administration in terms of future exports.

[House Of Commons, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when visitors look around the Chamber do you know what they see? They see men and women who essentially have become political eunuchs or human rubber stamps.

The budget debate takes place in the media as a result of leaked details, and parliament rubber stamps the budget. The government works hard to introduce the MAI and committing future governments for up to 20 years, and parliament is all but ignored. Ministers rarely make public policy statements in parliament but choose instead the national press theatre. The government negotiates NAFTA in secret with its dispute settlement panels operating in secret, locks in future governments and basically ignores parliament.

Parliament conducts take note debates on peacekeeping missions and the government essentially ignores the content of the debates. Parliament passes a motion calling for a moratorium on water exports and the government then asks the United States government to join Canada to study the pros and cons of water exports and water diversion. We pass legislation banning MMT and then back down when the U.S. pressures us just like we will do with Bill C-55 later today.

Parliament has become Canada's national theatre and parliamentarians speak not in the House of Commons but in the house of eunuchs.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, as usual my hon. friend has a thoughtful question so I will respond in kind.

It is fair to say that the value of our currency is a reflection of what international financiers feel is the health of the Canadian economy.

My friend will be well aware that in terms of our commodity exports, the present value of our currency is certainly helpful during these difficult economic times. We would agree that major changes are required to the economy of the country in order to make us more productive in a positive sense, meaning better, more secure and better paid jobs for men and women and higher productivity meaning a more appropriate knowledge based economy of the 21st century. We might have different views on how to get to that point, I would suspect, but nevertheless we might agree on the end run.

In terms of the one sector of the economy that is experiencing incredibly hard times because of international markets, the commodity sector, it is being assisted by our relatively low currency vis-à-vis the United States dollar. I would also agree that it is a reflection of what others feel is the health of our economy. They are not always accurate. I think some of them are evaluating in old fashioned ways and are not appreciating some of the—

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this hon. member does not think much of that suggestion.

Behind the initiative of a North American currency is corporate America. The BCNI headed up by our friend Thomas D'Aquino said that the best thing for Canada to make us highly productive was to privatize, to adopt free trade, to deregulate, to balance the budget, to impose the GST, to cut social programs, which would make us more like the United States and that would boost our productivity.

We have done all those things. We as a country followed the advice of the BCNI. We followed the agenda of the corporate voices of Canada, which are the voices behind the Euro and the voices behind this call now for a North American or Pan-American currency.

The problem, as we read in the papers today, is that we are not that productive. Having taken all of these steps, Canada has not increased its productivity. What is absent from this discussion is the high level of unemployment and underemployment and the relatively low wages people are being paid and therefore the relative lack of purchasing power. Those are some of the reasons we have to discuss.

Rather than discuss a North American currency, I would go along with my friend's partner, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada, the growing gap between the rich nations and poor nations. That kind of discussion would have much more merit than talking about integrating Canada's currency with that of the United States of America.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I say first of all that I love debate and I like to talk about any topic, and will debate and discuss almost any topic at any time. However, we only have a certain amount of time.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean brought forward the suggestion today that we strike a committee to look into the widening gap between haves and have nots and the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the country, in the world and in our communities. That is a laudable suggestion.

The motion put forward by the Bloc today has me puzzled. I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois would put forward a motion to at least consider seriously a Pan-American currency. Then I thought of one idea. If I was a separatist in Quebec and I was successful in separating, and then I had to have the Canadian dollar as my currency and the Bank of Canada setting monetary policy for an independent Quebec, this would be somewhat embarrassing. What else could be done? If we had a North American currency we could avoid this little dilemma and we could avoid this discussion in the whole debate around separation.

I now understand at least why we are having this discussion today. It is part of getting the fundamentals in place for a move toward another vote on separation. I will set that aside. That is the motivation. I think it is a useful discussion for us to have in the House today because I hope we can set this thing aside once and for all.

I must say that from time to time I feel a bit like a political eunuch. We pass legislation in the House and then the United States says it does not like the legislation and we yank it off the table. We saw that with the MMT legislation. The House of Commons passed legislation to protect the health of Canadians and then an American company said “Hold it. That is not right. We do not like that legislation”, and the government bent over, said it was sorry and backed off.

Now we have Bill C-55, the split-run magazine legislation. The Americans say they do not like it, so the government is saying it will see if it can come up with another deal. It goes on and on. We are losing our sovereignty.

We have seen imposed on us a form of economic feudalism. Our country was founded by people who fled feudalism. They fled those regimes around the world where they had no say, their voice was unheard. They had no power. They were unable to have elected representation. If we agree with the thrust of this motion, that is were we will move on monetary policy.

Let us face it, our economy with the United States is very much integrated. Eighty per cent of our trade is with one trading partner. There is not a single country in the world, other than a banana republic, that would even come close to that. To suggest that we now use the Yankee dollar as our currency, so that when we go to buy CDs or to the movies we reach into our pocket and bring out Uncle Sam's currency, that is not the Canada that Canadians want for the future.

If members went out on the streets and asked Canadians “Do you really want to have American dollars as your currency?”, they would think we were nuts. They would say “Of course not. We are proud to be Canadians. We are proud of our currency. We are proud to have a separate currency from that of the United States”.

I am having trouble with this debate. I am a bit critical about monetary policy. I think we are too integrated with our monetary policy as it is. It should be much more independent.

I am not saying that our monetary policy and our central bank do a great job. They do a good job, but they could be doing a much better job in terms of fighting issues like high levels of unemployment.

Let us acknowledge those who argue “Look what Europe has done”. I listened to my friend and I respect him. He said that we are seeing the French franc go out the door. We are seeing the German mark go out the door. It is quite a different situation in Europe where they have 11 economies which are relatively the same size. There are certainly four economies that are almost identical in size, influence and power. Here it is us against the U.S.A. I never slept with a mad grizzly bear or an elephant, but I can imagine what it must be like. I would not want to move. I would sit there paralyzed.

The point is that for us to be up against the U.S.A. on an equal basis is, first, laughable. I do not have to go any further than to look at today's La Presse . In La Presse the American government is pointing out that in the discussion of a North American currency it should not be suggested for a moment that it is interested in modifying any of its policies to correspond with problems in Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Chile or wherever. It is an independent country. It has an independent monetary policy. It is basically saying to hell with anybody else. That is the American way.

The American government has made its views very clear about any form of Pan-America currency. We are not talking about the North American loonie or the North American dollar; we are talking about the American dollar, the American currency. In other words, everybody else in the Americas would join in on some aspect of the American currency. That is not on.

Let us look at an example of what is happening in Europe. After the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the European Council of Prime Ministers was set up. It has an incredible amount of power. I know there is a European parliament and other assemblies, but the real thrust comes from the European commission. It has the power. It is fair to say that when it decides on a particular course of action other governments have to abide by that decision. It can overrule legislation in other countries to fit in with the monetary union in Europe and so on. What Europeans have done is to say that they are going to give up some of their sovereignty to be part of that great economic union. That is what it is.

My friends previously talked about the mobility of workers between countries and so on. My friend in the Conservative Party reminded us that it took 40 years to develop a very integrated approach in Europe, and not simply on monetary policy. Here we are talking about monetary policy.

Let us face it, in Europe when it comes to economic issues and currency issues, the decisions are not made by those who are elected and representing the people, they are made by 20,000 faceless bureaucrats in secret. That is the way that system is operated. We have too much of that now. We have decisions about the trade between our countries being made in secret. We almost had the MAI imposed on us. We found out about it at the last minute. Again, negotiations were basically held in secret, behind closed doors. That is not what Canadians want.

Canadians have this sinking feeling that their voices are not being heard. They have a sinking feeling that they are alienated from the political process. There is a good reason for that feeling, because they are. The voices of Canadians are not being listened to.

To suggest that we will now integrate our currency with the United States is absolute folly. I feel a little reluctant to say that we will vote against this motion because debate is often helpful and useful, but if we totally disagree with the premise of the reason for having the debate and completely disagree with the reason to proceed with even considering a North American currency, why would we?

If my friends in the Bloc Quebecois are successful in proceeding with this, they are articulating a call to be a banana republic. They want Quebec to be a banana republic.

What is a banana republic? A banana republic is a country that has no voice over its monetary policy, no voice over fiscal policy. It just goes along with the dictating country, in this case the United States. Some of the representatives from Quebec may want this as an option. I do not think Canadians do generally and quite frankly I do not think Quebeckers do. The idea of turning Canada even more so into a banana republic, kowtowing to the United States, to adapt this version of economic feudalism is absolute folly.

Everyone has probably got the impression that we in the New Democratic Party are not that keen on the suggestion of currency integration. We have all kinds of other reasons to set out why this is not a good idea.

The chairman of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, who now is sort of king of the European Euro said the other day that unions no longer have a part to play in the new Euro Europe. I wonder if the people of Quebec know that this is what is being said about the Euro, and that the Quebec unions would have no role to play in a future Quebec based on a single currency for North America. That is what the chairman of the European Central Bank is saying about the new Euro.

I believe that when we revisit this issue in a few months or perhaps even in a few years, the reality of the Euro dollar will be in disrepair. Countries in Europe will realize the folly of continuing with this and those countries that have not opted into this situation will be doing much better.

In the end, later today we will not be supporting this motion.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate. I find it a fascinating discussion so far. I cannot help but think about what this place would look like if we were filled with political eunuchs.

We have seen many times in the past legislation passed that makes this place irrelevant. To call us a palace of eunuchs makes me nervous. I cannot help but think about this when I listen to my friends in the Bloc. In my judgment they seem to be advocating some sort of Quebec as a banana republic, with no control over its monetary policy, no control over the value of its currency and abandoning decisions on these crucial matters to others.

Are members of the Bloc Quebecois prepared to give up any sense of sovereignty over currency? Is this an extension of their zealous approach to NAFTA and all of the other implications of a free trade agreement?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the motion reads a single pan-American currency. Is the member suggesting a north American currency or a western hemisphere currency?

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with a whole stack of petitions.

The petitioners are perplexed. On the one hand the government has pointed out that it is concerned about the bulk export of freshwater from Canada, while at the same time it has entered into an agreement with the Government of the United States to look into ways and means of exporting bulk water from Canada.

I am summarizing, but basically the petitioners are perplexed.

[Points Of Order, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what has happened in the House of Commons over the last two days, I seek some clarification from the Speaker. Members allegedly quoted from their notes. During question period those quotes were attributed to members opposite. Are we saying that as long as we have something in a note form we can say anything we want about anybody in the House?