André Bachand

[Globalization Of Economies, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have discussed with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and I find it unfortunate that we are not always talking about this motion as he has moved it. People are using the conference this week in Seattle as a pretext to talk about the pros and cons of globalization.

The important thing is not whether we are for or against globalization, but that we look at the impact of globalization. That is the whole point in the motion of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Globalization is a very important phenomenon, and it is having major impacts on the lives of all Canadians and on all businesses in Canada.

The importance of that phenomenon cannot be overstated. The positive impact, and certainly the negative impact also, is in the tens of billions of dollars. Can we have a standing committee to assess this impact on an ongoing basis?

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade suggested greater openness as well as public consultations. So, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean went around with his form to get members to sign. He collected 100 signatures, including some from the other side. Liberal members are signing, saying “No problem. We want to encourage young people who have good ideas”. But when the time comes to seek unanimous consent, we will see what their signatures are worth. They are not worth a cent, not even a Canadian cent. And it is worth even less than an American cent.

They are saying “We want to support the young member who left with his chair last year. It is important”. But among those who signed the request from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, not one will rise. These Liberals are not even making good their own signature. It does not look good for Seattle.

What we are saying is that people should be involved. We are in favour of globalization. Everybody is in favour of opening up Canada, but there are ways to go about it. Free trade with the United States was, for the most part, a good thing. But it had negative as well as positive effects. Do we know what they were? Are able to find solutions?

Changes were made to employment insurance. We said “Let us create a transitional job creation fund because to counteract of the negative effects of the EI reform”. Could the same be done for globalization? We are in favour of that.

The NDP member spoke about water exports. Maybe we should ask ourselves questions. Wars are waged on this planet for control over drinking water. In the negotiations, could our political sovereignty here in Canada be maintained?

We are in favour of opening up Canada to the world. We cannot live in complete isolation. It is impossible. When we are asking for openness and consultation with what is commonly referred to as civil society, we have examples.

Canada has just signed a trade agreement with China. Not with any little place in the world, but with China. Nobody in the House knows what was negotiated. We have just signed an agreement with China, the most densely populated country in the world. China needs the support of a certain number of countries to be able to join the WTO. This issue has never been debated in this House.

I asked the Minister for International Trade “Why do you not take this opportunity to talk about the environment and human rights?” He answered “No, no, no, this is a trade issue”. If trade can help to promote human rights, that would be acceptable.

There are examples like these that we find very disturbing, even though we are open to the world. No other party is more open to the world than our own. Quebecers are also very open minded. Quebec is one of the provinces most open to the world. Canada is one of the countries that is most open to the world. But we must not be dense and compromise on all kinds of issues. We have to know what is going on.

If a lot of Canadians take part in demonstrations in Seattle, it means something. It means that there is no way to show the other side of the coin in the Parliament of Canada. There is no permanent process to do so. Could it be done?

At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars in economic spinoffs everywhere. Could we have a committee? That would not cost too much, I am sure. Could we have one?

There are things that can be negotiated or settled in Seattle. Let me give an example. One of the first countries to join the WTO or GATT was Cuba. Is there free trade between Cuba and the United States? Of course not. Canadian corporations are penalized if they do business with Cuba. Some positive measures could be taken for Canada, Cuba and the United States. We could use that forum to this end.

Right now, agriculture is on the table and it is, of course, a very important issue. We have to settle this problem. At the same time, while we are open to negotiations, we should also share the information with the people we represent.

I am not talking about strategy here. On both sides of the House, there are very capable people who can deal with strategy, and that is a good thing. Perfect. But right now, we have no idea where we are headed.

Did the House get a single official report on the preliminary negotiations in Geneva? People have been arguing for three months now and have been unable to reach an agreement on the agenda for their meeting in Seattle this week.

Three months of work. How many times were we, as parliamentarians, briefed? How many times? Not once. So, members should not be surprised if some people are rather angry. And that is why they are say that they will go to Seattle and voice their disapproval of some points of view and especially of the negotiation process.

They are right, because last Friday, to give the example I mentioned earlier, the minister signed an agreement with China. Absolutely nobody here knew that an agreement was in the works. Just imagine what we will end up with in Seattle. It is not with one briefing in the morning, in Seattle, and another in the evening that we will be well informed. Certainly not.

But what will happen after Seattle? Could we put strike this committee? That would show people we represent that we take globalization very seriously. I submit that it would be easy to strike a standing committee and that it would not cost much.

What the hon. member from Lac-Saint-Jean is asking for is unanimous consent to make the motion votable. That is all. So, may our Liberals buddies on the other side sign on and honour their commitment for once, and we on this side of the House do the same, so that there will be a vote. This is what the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is asking. After that, we will see where people stand on it.

But, what message is the government sending the people of Quebec, of Ontario, and of Canada if it refuses to consider the matter through a vote or even rejects the creation of a standing committee on globalization and its effects?

It is not because they are afraid, but what message are they sending people? Either that globalization is perfect and its effects are purely positive or that the government is so afraid of having its cage rattled by the people in this country it is supposed to represent that the Liberals are saying “No, we do not want to touch that”.

It is time to act, because Canada is becoming increasingly globalized internationally. It is also time to change the committees of this House and strike a standing committee that will examine this issue routinely.

So I invite everyone to give their unanimous support to Motion M-41 by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Referendums, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Mr. Binns, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, cited the supreme court. But the minister should ask Mr. Binns what he thinks of the government's strategy this week.

I come back to my question, because I was a bit short of time earlier. The minister is downplaying the urgency of the situation. Can the minister tell us whether, at the meeting in Hull this weekend, he will suggest that there is time to take stock of what exactly will happen in Quebec? Is it not time to wrap up the debate?

[Referendums, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs start to backpedal in the debate launched this week by the Prime Minister.

It is now apparent that he does indeed admit that the question is a matter for the National Assembly and that any decision as to whether it is clear and whether or not there is a large enough majority after a vote to force Canada to negotiate will be based on this question.

That having been said, while the minister is beginning to backpedal, will he tell us what is left for his government to do, with statements such as the one he has made? Would it not be better for him to state—

[Referendums, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is refusing to talk about the downside of the referendum. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I will put the question to the Minister of Finance.

Can the Minister of Finance, who has spoken about the downside of the referendum, tell us what impact the debate launched by the federal Liberal government is having on the financial, social and economic well-being of Canada?

[Referendums, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said there would be less poverty if there were no debate on separation. Is poverty a component of the downside of the referendum?

Things had been quiet for a while, but it all came to an end with the Prime Minister's statements on a clear question in the future, a clear majority in the future and a possible referendum in the future.

Does the minister not realize that he and the Prime Minister are the ones responsible for bringing the whole referendum issue back to the forefront?

[Referendums, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Joseph Facal is now telling the Prime Minister what to include in his agenda. This is unbelievable.

I thought the Prime Minister was big enough to decide what his own agenda should include. We know what to make of minister Facal's statement.

But what about the Prime Minister's statement? Is it a declaration of war? The question really is: Will the Prime Minister introduce, before the Christmas recess or soon after, a bill on referendum rules? Will the Prime Minister table such legislation, yes or no? Can he provide a clear and straight answer to this question?

[Referendums, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians in general cannot figure out what is going on right now. The Prime Minister is completely out of touch with reality.

At a time when real priorities such as poverty, unemployment, economic growth and tax reduction should be on the agenda, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs keep harking back to the issue of Quebec's future and sovereignty.

What is going on in the Prime Minister's head for him to be so out of touch with the priorities of Canadians and Quebecers? What is going on?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. The Bloc Quebecois are the ones who told the Gitanyow, and even the Gitksan who have joined with the Gitanyow in some proposals. And that will occur this week.

That did not stop me the day after from picking up the phone the next day to call the Nisga'a and asking “How could we accommodate everybody?” It is important to accommodate everybody.

Certainly the Reform Party is trying to find all areas of tension and to focus on them to prevent this bill from passing. We can see what they are doing. But our way is a constructive one and, if necessary, we will sit down with the Gitanyow, the Gitksan and the Nisga'a, and we will eventually come up with a proposal that will be agreeable to everyone, with the additional information that the Nisga'a will have to provide to us on this issue. It is true that witnesses see things from their own perspective, but so do those who will benefit from this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot be criticized for having a constructive approach on this issue and for ensuring that everyone's interests are taken into account. I must, however, condemn those who purposely draw attention to existing tensions, in an attempt to prevent the bill from being passed. The Bloc Quebecois prefers to have a constructive approach rather than a destructive one.

[Csis, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general says he looked after it and that he cannot intervene in internal matters. But he did not inform the PMO and he did not inform the president of the Privy Council so the matter would be known and the whole thing examined.

I would ask the solicitor general, if he is incapable of looking after the matter, why he does not make like the documents and disappear?

[Csis, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the stolen documents, the solicitor general is, you know, rather like the stolen documents. He sits in a back seat. He does not move. He waits for someone to collect him and deliver him safely.

I would like to ask the solicitor general, sitting in a back seat and not attending to the matter, whether he will finally take some disciplinary action and suspend the agent and the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.