Maurice Godin

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister admit to his inability to force Hibernia to respect his decision when the federal government is investing over $3 billion of taxpayers' money in this risky venture?

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The MIL Davie shipyard, the only other bidder for an important Hibernia contract, has clearly been wronged by the Hibernia consortium's decision to award the contract to Saint John Shipbuilding without a call for tenders. The Canada-Newfoundland Board, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister have all admitted that. The Hibernia consortium has itself ignored the Prime Minister's directive by flatly refusing to review its decision.

How can the Prime Minister explain that, despite the clear directive issued by him to the president of the consortium, Mr. Ken Hall, Hibernia has refused to redress the injustice to which he has himself so strongly objected?

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to fool anybody. This is simply the reality. This is business. When you do business, whether it is milk, beef or other products, it is a matter of give and take. You negotiate and you strike a deal: I buy your product and you buy mine.

As regards Quebec's sovereignty, if it is so bad for Quebecers, then why is English Canada about to spend hundreds of millions? Already, the government is preparing to air 13 television broadcasts in Quebec, to show the benefits related to being part of Canada.

When I was 14, I was apprised of the sale of our neighbour's business. The buyer asked the following questions: "Do you want to sell your business?" "Yes." "Do you have debts?" "No." "Are you incurring a deficit or making a profit?" "I make a profit." "How much do you want?" The scenario will be the same for Canada. If Canada has a debt of $508 billion and a deficit of $40 billion, this will have to be taken into account. You can be sure that if it were not good for Canada to keep Quebec, it would let us go much more easily than it is doing now.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think I may have been misunderstood earlier. The hon. member should refer to the November 1 issue of Hansard . He will see that the member for Rosemont provided a very good answer to that question. This has to do with Article XVI(5)(c) of the GATT, which I could read, but what I said earlier is that a new state carved out of a country which is already a member of GATT need only apply to automatically become a member.

Also, you have to understand that trade is a matter of give and take. The government should not use scare tactics and have people believe that the milk which we sell to English Canada will suddenly no longer be bought by those provinces.

Let us not forget too that western provinces sell 600 to 800 million dollars worth of beef to Quebec. I do not think that the beef industry in English Canada exists merely to help Quebec. That beef is raised because there are profits to be made. And why do they sell it in Quebec rather than elsewhere? Because they have the advantage of selling it right here in Quebec, where their clientele is located.

It will be a matter of give and take. If you refuse to buy Quebec's milk, you might have to consider selling your beef elsewhere.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. When we talk about sovereignty, we must understand that if Canada were completely self-sufficient, maybe it could force its way or dictate to Quebec, but I think that Canada, like Quebec, is a country that needs outside markets and I am sure that Quebec will do very well in this big system of international trade which will be increasingly governed by such treaties.

To give the hon. member a better answer, I might suggest that he refer to what my colleague from Rosemont said in the debate on November 1. Here is an excerpt:

It is largely a matter of international law, the broadening and reinforcement of which the minister praised today. Article XXVI(5)(c) of the GATT agreement provides that a new state carved out of a country which is already a member of GATT automatically becomes a member on becoming a sovereign state, provided it accepts the conditions and requirements applicable to the parent state. It is quite simple and clear. A C.D. Howe Institute study says that most Canadian experts fully recognize that fact.

Quite simply, Canada will respect and work with Quebec just as it works with all other sovereign countries.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question. I am not a specialist in the field and besides you must understand that the application to this field is fairly recent. It is rather difficult for me to say exactly what is good or what should be subject to quotas or to tariffs.

Last week in my riding, the issue of the chicken trade came up.

A businessman came to see me about it. Here again it is rather difficult to say exactly what is good or what might be good in the future, tariffs or quotas. For now, I think that the businessman of course always tries to pay the lowest price for chicken and naturally he does not limit himself to our producers very often. I think that a balance must be found and only time will tell.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Put it down to my lack of experience. I thought you were going to call me at the beginning. I promise I will be there next time.

Today it is my privilege to speak in the debate on third reading of the bill to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or GATT.

This debate follows the defeat of two motions to amend the bill that were presented by two of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, the hon. member for Laval East and the hon. member for Longueuil.

The purpose of the first motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Laval East, was to establish a process for consultation with the provinces when implementation of the agreement relates to a matter within provincial jurisdiction, any matter relating to trade dispute resolution or any economic matter of major international significance. The motion also intended to make prior agreement of the provinces essential before authorizing any change to the agreement in respect of allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas and before establishing or implementing policies for selecting trade partners to receive access to the Canadian market.

According to the same motion, with respect to subsidized exports, the minister shall have regard at all times to actions taken in the relevant areas by foreign competitors. Finally, in respect of agricultural products imported beyond established tariff quotas at a time of shortage of such product in domestic markets, the minister shall take certain measures to ensure that such products are not imported at prices lower than those prevailing in domestic markets.

The second motion, presented by the hon. member for Longueuil, reflected the spirit of transparency and accountability by which we should all be guided today. We hoped to amend the bill to make it incumbent on the Minister of International Trade to lay each year before the House of Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external affairs. Such matters would concern the implementation of the agreement in Canada, trade obligations and commitments undertaken at the international level by trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially the United States, and finally, the impact of the agreement on Canadian workers and companies.

Unfortunately for the provinces, for the public, for taxpayers and for democracy, both motions were rejected by the Liberal government's silent majority. The bill would have been improved as a result of these two amendments. However, we can conclude from this exercise, whether we are talking about these motions or all the others, that the federal government is not at all in the mood for a real debate on the question, a debate in all serenity, a consultation that would enhance the bill before the House today. All the government wants is to see that this agreement, whose bulk is as impressive as its consequences for our economy, is bulldozed through the House at record speed.

Some people here have a good memory and will remember that parliamentary indiscretion, that breach of good government practices. We will remember how this very fundamental legislation was passed in dreadful conditions. If this bill seems to be an incidental measure, a legislative adjustment to the agreement signed by Canada in Marrakesh on April 15, 1994, the details of that agreement will have impacts which are yet largely unknown.

Perhaps even specialists in the field are still not aware of those impacts. The simple fact that they will not consult with the people who experience the market economy, that they will not listen to their representatives, that they will not listen to common sense and that they only deal in figures and macroeconomic data shows that the government is intentionally eliminating this information and, in so doing, could very well worsen the financial crisis in this country. The government is not assuming its responsibilities by passing this Bill C-57 so quickly.

My colleagues have explained it clearly. Quebec is in favour of free trade and international trade agreements. As the hon. member for Rosemont so rightly said, this is even a very elegant way of confirming the sovereignty of signatory countries while ensuring their association in this globalization of markets and economies. A sovereign Quebec would easily be recognized by

the World Trade Organization according to section XVI(5)c) of the GATT. This would lead to a definite trade association with all other member countries, including Canada.

I am not an expert in this very complex area of international trade. However, I do know that it is advantageous for all nations of the world to agree in order to set a level playing field for the relations between their respective markets, in a spirit of mutual respect. As Gilles Vigneault once said, the complexity of international trade is seven times greater than the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Ordinary people have a very hard time understanding the issue. That is why I feel I should explain the impact of the implementation of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization with a very concrete and down-to-earth example, the marketing of chicken.

Canada signed both the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA. Article 706 of the Free Trade Agreement says that if Canada maintains or introduces quantitative import restrictions on chicken products, it will have to allow import quotas equivalent to no less than 7.5 per cent of the previous year's domestic production. The provisions of NAFTA are much the same.

For 1994, the import quota for chicken is 46,488,000 kilograms. This is the maximum nationwide, and within this limit an importer can apply for chicken import permits. This quota seems quite sufficient for this year, since import permits granted up to October 25 represented only 76 per cent of the total quota.

Uruguay Round negotiations have replaced the quota system by a tariff system for agricultural products. This was a way to apply Article XI of GATT. Under this agreement, Canada submitted to GATT, on December 15, 1993, the list of tariffs which will replace the present quotas. According to this schedule, imports of chicken over and above the quotas accepted under free trade agreements will be allowed, but subject to duties amounting to 280 per cent of their value, a tariff high enough to protect Canada and Quebec producers for a number of years.

According to the agreement these tariffs must come down by at least 15 per cent over the next six years. It is, therefore, a new protection system. The previous quota system which restricted imports to 7.5 per cent of domestic production is now replaced by a tariff system.

This new formula still recognizes the notion of quotas, but any import above the quota will be subject to duties amounting to 280 per cent of the value. It is quite likely that this new tariff quota system will be in place by January.

Chicken will remain on the list of controlled imports established under the Export and Import Permits Act, so that all imports will require a permit. The way our domestic market protection system is evolving, in a paradoxical free trade context, is causing a certain amount of friction with our great neighbour. The United States claim that, by imposing new tariffs on bilateral trade, Canada directly contravenes its obligations under NAFTA. A strict interpretation of article 302 of this agreement shows that Canada must abolish all tariffs aimed at the United States by the end of 1998, and that no new tariff can be introduced by either partner. If that were the case, chicken production would no longer be protected.

For its part, Canada is of the opinion that GATT must prevail over NAFTA. Indeed, article 309 of NAFTA recognizes Canada's right to cite article XI of the GATT or any measures that might replace it, to protect its agricultural industry. This debate is still to come.

As far as the chicken market is concerned, we must recognize that there is no drastic change. Whereas we only had quotas per se, under this legislation we will now have quotas plus very heavy tariffs. What concerns our parliamentary wing, excuse the pun, are the provisions in case of shortages.

We do know that the demand for chicken products is increasing steadily. Be it live, eviscerated, cut up, boneless or processed chicken, these products are increasingly diversified and in high demand. While the quota may look quite high, certain sectors, such as the restaurant business, require products that can appear to be in short supply. In that regard, Bill C-57 leaves it entirely up to the minister to determine access and set the tariff accordingly for products considered in short supply.

Like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Bloc Quebecois would have preferred that the minister be required to take action in case of shortage to ensure that the price of imported products is not lower that the one asked on the national market. Ministerial discretion remains a case-by-case approach that leaves the door open to favouritism, if not to circumventing standard, equal and equitable rules. Not to mention the zoning this bill does, a zoning that confirms all the disparity that exists in this beautiful country. This country is united only in its opposition to Quebec.

This creates some concern. How can we protect adequately our farming industry, all the while ensuring continuous supply by diversifying sufficiently this industry's production? That is the question a good many traders who depend on processed products are asking themselves.

The implementation of this legislation will no doubt give us a chance to get a very good idea of what is at stake over the next few months. As stated in the preamble of the bill, free, fair and open trade is essential for the future of this country's economy and for securing its competitiveness and long-term sustainable development.

Trade expansion contributes to job creation, achieves higher standards of living, offers greater choices for consumers and strengthens the economic union of nations.

A multilateral trading system of mutually agreed upon market access conditions and non-discriminatory trade rules applicable to all, is the cornerstone of any modern trade policy that is open onto the world.

The trade agreements resulting from the multilateral trade talks of the Uruguay Round will create an international trade environment much more open and stable for Canadian agriculture, resources, manufacturing, services, technology and investments. The World Trade Organization (WTO) will pave the way for integrated management of the new strengthened multilateral trade system, particularly with regard to trade dispute settlement.

As GATT's successor, the WTO will be a forum for future trade talks on the continued liberalization of global trade and the establishment of new international trade regulations. In this regard, we must bring Canadian legislation into line. That is why this bill, which amends some 31 laws now in effect, will implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization throughout Canada.

The future of peoples around the world depends on their economic agreements. That is why we are not worried at all about the inescapable links between the people of Newfoundland and those in Vancouver, between the people of Quebec City and those in Los Angeles, between the people of Halifax and those in Miami. The identity, the authenticity, the necessary differences that expand our horizons are not barriers but bridges between men and women of all ages and cultures.

Recognizing our differences does not mean withdrawing into ourselves but opening up to others. The legendary League of Nations is still an avenue which we must seek without denying others or ourselves. It is in this sense that international trade agreements are a concrete way of recognizing national sovereignty. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec will be part of this international reality. A sovereign Quebec will be part of the global market.

In summary, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill. Even though our amendments were rejected, even though we have some reservations, we know that the future of a people depends on its reciprocal agreements. We agree with the basic principles behind this bill. The implementation of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization is necessary and desirable.

[Cultural Communities, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week Quebec emphasizes the vital contribution made to our society by members of our cultural communities.

At a time when Quebec is preparing to choose the country it wants, this intercultural week should not be seen as another forum for dialogue but as an opportunity for co-operation and for actively promoting membership in a common culture while respecting one another's differences.

Since Monday, the unions, schools and municipalities, to name a few, have been organizing numerous activities that demonstrate how open Quebec is to its citizens from other countries and other cultures. For instance, we have the Association des droits des minorités du grand Châteauguay, which will hold a seminar called Contact 1994 , an opportunity to celebrate these much needed intercultural ties.

Our cultural communities are important to Quebec, and the Bloc Quebecois fully supports them.

[Remembrance Day, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, next week, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we will commemorate a major event of this century.

In 1918, the Great War officially ended with the signing of an armistice. Since 1921, Canada has commemorated this fact, in tribute to all those who made the supreme sacrifice of their lives to bring peace to the free world. Every day, the international news reminds us of the price of peace and the cost of war.

We must remember, for the benefit of our collective memory. It is not just for our veterans, for whom this day symbolizes the entire meaning of their lives. It is not just for all those who died. It is just as important for future generations.

We must remember the lessons of history. Our tribute to the past is as important as our responsibility for the future.

[Aboriginal Peoples, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has just announced that it is delaying for the second time the release of its final report. This report, which has already cost $58 million, will not be available until early in 1996. Aboriginal people faced with overwhelming poverty, unprecedented unemployment and suicide rates, and housing conditions which bring shame on Canada around the world, do not need additional studies.

While the commission studies the issues to death, the government makes piecemeal decisions or defers them until the commission submits its report, which will only state the obvious.

The $58 million would have been better used to build 1,000 houses. The minister should take action and give Natives the funds essential to their future, which a royal commission is now wasting.