Val Meredith

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was apparent from the answer given by the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he was reading from polling data.

I ask that the minister table that poll in this House.

[Calgary Declaration, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about promoting the Calgary declaration in Quebec, he replied that according to all the information we have, including polls, the Calgary declaration is strongly supported in Quebec. The minister's answer reflects the same overconfidence this government had prior to the 1995 referendum.

What consultation and what polling is this minister referring to that gives him this confidence? Will he make that information public?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that 65% of our investment is with the United States, not 95%. This is why we need to have this kind of debate. It is so those kinds of figures get put on the table and everybody knows what they are.

The issue here is, yes, Canada already through NAFTA has this investment agreement with the United States and Mexico. However, what is happening here is we want to use that same framework and expand it to 28 countries, some of which we already have an investment agreement with. It is not under NAFTA but in bilateral agreements.

What we have is 28 countries agreeing to consider this option. I understand there are more undeveloped countries that are waiting for this to happen so they can come on board as well.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers are not afraid to say that Canadians can compete at any level, whether it is on a cultural basis, business basis, industry basis or anything else. Canadians have the potential and it has been proven. Whether it is Céline Dion or Bryan Adams in Vancouver, Canadians have proven that they can compete on an international scale. They do not need protection. They need promotion and support.

What we would like to see is a tighter concentrated framework for culture because things like the Internet and the new technologies can be easily drawn under that cultural characteristic. We feel that would be detrimental to development, investment and jobs in this country.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

This is an interesting discussion that we are having. I was appalled at the comments of the minister when he indicated that Reform had no history in this debate.

I inform the minister that I was involved in a debate during the 1988 election campaign when the Conservatives were talking about free trade and the Liberals were against free trade. The Liberals and the NDP argued against the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

I was also involved in the debate on NAFTA during the 1993 election campaign. I remember the Liberals and the NDP arguing against NAFTA. It is interesting how things change when one gets into the government.

The debate today is about the Reform motion which I will read again for the understanding of viewers who are just joining this debate:

That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (the MAI); (2) failing to explain what benefits and costs it foresees for the Canadian people; and (3) failing to take part in public discussion on the Agreement.

The motion must sound familiar to some Liberals because it is similar to a motion they made against the Tory government in March 1992 while the Tories were negotiating the free trade agreement. The Liberal motion on NAFTA which was presented on March 24, 1992 was put forward as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.

Now the Liberals are saying that our motion is bad although they put a similar motion before the House in 1992. Come on.

The hon. member's comments are even more interesting. The hon. member who just gave us a 40 minute dialogue on his position said in 1992 “We had to rely this morning on the Toronto Star , as have Canadians, to try to learn what the Government of Canada has been dealing with in terms of the other two countries. It is a shame that we have to rely on one of our newspapers to begin to enlighten not only Canadians but elected Canadians who are supposed to deal with issues on behalf of 26 million shareholders of this company called Canada”.

We are talking grassroots here now “Back home on an issue that is fundamental to the livelihoods of all Canadians there is silence and ignorance. When there is silence and ignorance, whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the very least”. This is from the hon. minister who just spoke.

The NDP and its allies are out in strong force, in particular in my province of British Columbia. Whether it is the Council of Canadians or whether it is the environmental groups, they are telling Canadians one side of the issue. And where is our government in this? Nowhere. Nowhere has the other side of this issue been debated either publicly or individually with Canadians. This is the same group of people, with the exception of the Liberals who were against the free trade agreement and NAFTA. We see them once again out there campaigning very strongly against this government proposal.

The comments from the NDP are that Canada will lose its sovereignty, that we will have to give up our health care and that we will lose our Canadian culture. Those of us who do not see the boundaries and the borders can understand why somebody is not debating the other side of the issue, why somebody is not challenging those kinds of comments which are being put before Canadians.

I believe Canadians want to hear both sides. I am convinced that Canadians want to know not only what the benefits are but what the drawbacks are. I believe Canadians are sophisticated enough to know that in any international treaty Canada enters into and which Canada signs there will be some winners and some losers. Canadians want an honest evaluation of what is likely to happen. They are not getting it with a government that sits in silence and does not want to participate in this debate. That is where this government has failed. This is why Canadians across the country are very concerned.

I will quote the minister's own words again from his March 1992 speech on NAFTA “When there is silence and ignorance, whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the very best”. That is so true. It is the silence and the government's reluctance or the refusal to even talk to people in Canada about what the MAI is, what does this multilateral agreement for investment mean. Who are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers? When we talk about losing our sovereignty to the large corporations of the world, is it true, is it not true? What exactly does this multilateral agreement on investment mean to Canadians?

Because I believe I have a commitment to my constituents I had a full page in my householder on this particular issue trying to bring it to their attention so that we could start this kind of debate. I must say that most of the comments I received from my constituents were negative. They felt that there was a problem with it.

I want to read the question so that the House understands what they were asked. The question was: Do you support the basic principle of the MAI which states that foreign companies shall be subject to the same regulation as domestic companies? There were almost 2,000 responses to that survey question. Of those almost 2,000 responses 1,507 or 77% of the people said yes that they supported that principle. Only 317 or 16% said no.

Again, despite that support for the principles of the multilateral agreement on investment the people who chose to comment, who actually wrote to me, had negative things to say. I want to share with the House one of the comments that I received. I quote “The citizens of Canada require an across Canada forum to be held on the MAI now. This has been negotiated in secrecy until it was leaked to the press last spring. This government was elected on promises to renegotiate NAFTA, so where is their mandate to progress with the MAI? The repercussions for Canadians and Canada could be so grievous that open and free debate across this country is needed. This government does not represent Canadians. This has become very clear in this country since 1993”.

That is a comment from a constituent of mine. There were many others who made comments which support that issue.

The MAI is a draft agreement, as I understand it, that is being negotiated by this government. It is a draft agreement that applies to 28 other countries around the world, but most Canadians do not know that. Most Canadians do not know what other countries we are talking about entering into this negotiation. That kind of debate and that kind of information should be widely known so that people can understand who it is we are talking about entering agreements with.

There is a whole list of exemptions that Canada has already placed through the NAFTA and NAFTA is the basis on which the MAI agreement is being negotiated. Canadians need to know that. They need to know what exemptions already in place in NAFTA are going to be carried over to the MAI.

Canadians need to be brought into this discussion. I and my colleagues believe that Canadians deserve to be included in the governance of their country and that Canadians deserve to have the right to have this kind of debate before that agreement is signed.

I would like to know from the minister and from his department, are they going to provide this debate before the people of Canada and before this House of Commons before the agreement is signed?

[Quebec, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more involved than just the legal issue.

Three years ago the country was almost lost because the government refused to inform Quebeckers about the consequences of a yes vote. Today it refuses to inform Quebeckers of the efforts of the other provinces to keep the country together.

When will the government start talking and communicating with Quebeckers about the Calgary declaration terms for discussion?

[Quebec, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday while responding to the separatist government in Quebec, the President of the Treasury Board stated that the time when federalists were timid had passed.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affair previously stated that if Canada is divisible so is Quebec. Yet the government urged the supreme court not to consider the question of partition. The government continues to give Quebeckers mixed messages.

Which minister and which position represent the Prime Minister and the government?

[Petitions, February 19th, 1998]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is brought about by the concern of a number of Canadians about nuclear warfare.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning.

The first one is a petition by a number of individuals across British Columbia and soon to be across Canada who are terribly concerned about the justice system and the way pedophiles are treated in the justice system. These petitioners feel that more stringent guidelines must be given to the courts.

They are therefore petitioning and calling upon Parliament to enact stringent legislation with mandatory minimum penalties of incarceration for all convicted pedophiles and legislation requiring mandatory publication of the offender's crime, conviction and sentence and upon their release, their location in the community in which they will reside.

[National Unity, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians across the country, with the exception of Quebeckers, have been able to debate the Calgary declaration.

Why will the Prime Minister not commit to sending Quebeckers the Calgary declaration for them to debate? What is the problem? What is he afraid of?