André Bachand

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I asked whether he informed the Prime Minister. The solicitor general said he did not. How is it then that the Prime Minister commented that the matter was not all that serious?

There is a real problem here. I am giving the solicitor general a chance to rethink his answer. Did he inform the Office of the Prime Minister, yes or no? If he did not, on what did the Prime Minister base his remarks?

I hope they will get their act together, because there is going to be a need for a new solicitor general very soon.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

When did he inform the Prime Minister's office or the Prime Minister of the disappearance of the documents?

[International Circumpolar Community, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to speak on the hon. member for Churchill River's Motion No. 237.

Essentially, the discussion on this private member's motion is focused on where Canada's north begins. Where do we start applying the term “northern Canada?” This is an important issue.

Those who have spoken before me referred to the international aspect, but there is a very significant national, domestic, aspect as well.

I would like to mention, before I go on, that our Reform Party colleague has referred to a new document on foreign policy: “Canada and the Millennium”. But which one is it? It seems to me that when the Reform Party refers to the millennium, it means the last century, not the coming one.

I hope it is a mistake. We are going to speak of Canada and the new millennium and not of the millennium, because we could be speaking of the 19th or the 20th century, rather than the 21st century.

That said, when the member for Churchill River speaks of the 55th parallel rather than the 60th parallel, I think that what he wants first and foremost is to strengthen the people, the representatives living and working in what is called northern Canada and the eight countries in this circumpolar group, the world's circumference in the north.

The member explained very well that the north is often taken for granted. The desire is to strengthen the people living there, politically, so issues concerning the environment and sustainable development in the north may be recognized.

The member also wants—and we may or may not agree with him—to give the north greater political clout within the country. If the parallel is changed from the 60th to the 55th, many more people and groups will be involved, and many more provinces will be concerned about the issue of the Canadian and international north.

The issue, in the end, is where does the north begin? Unfortunately, because of the way we work, we do not have a lot of time to get to the heart of what is behind this motion. However, it would be interesting to know the aim and the impact locally, within the country itself. Does the hon. member know, for example, if the territory identified as the north will increase? What will be the impact on the departments concerned? What will be the impact on the departments of natural resources and Indian affairs? There will certainly be a financial impact.

If part of the provinces' territory is now included in the Canadian north, they will have different obligations provincially, federally and internationally. There will be an impact. Before the provinces are told “We are going to impose on you part of what will be called the Canadian and international north” they should be thoroughly consulted.

Quebec is considered an example because of its work with its northern communities, except that such work is not easy to do.

Unfortunately, we will not be supporting the motion as introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. He should, however, be congratulated for bringing the issue of Canada's far north and the international north before the House.

Often, the far north is seen as a deserted area with few inhabitants which has little political clout domestically and internationally but which is a source of revenue and a national treasure because of its natural resources.

There is an increasing realization that it is a treasure that must, of course, not be polluted, that must not be taken for granted, a treasure that must be developed in co-operation with the people who have lived there for a very long time, and who were there even before the Europeans arrived here. They must be included.

I am not sure that changing the international boundary would make a big difference. It would perhaps give stakeholders in Canada's north additional political clout.

That having been said, the far north is going to take on increasing importance. There is much talk about high technology. We have only to look at investments in high technology, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications in the national capital area and in the vicinity of Quebec City. We are told that these are the technologies of the future.

Any decision to manufacture silicon chips in Canada's far north would be hampered by transportation considerations. Nonetheless, Canada's economic stability lies in its natural resources. The far north is an absolutely marvellous place that must be developed, but that must be developed wisely and in a measured, or sustainable as they say, fashion.

The natural resources of the far north and the high tech industry of the south must be developed within the parameters of sustainable development.

We maintain that the hon. member's motion would increase the critical mass of people living in the international north. This is the idea. However, we must not forget that the provinces' boundaries, both in the south and in the north, are defined by parallels.

The situation created by the provinces in Canada does not exist in most of the other countries that are part of this circumpolar community. We must be careful. Canada's situation and history are different from those of the other countries that are on the same parallel, whether it is the 60th or the 55th. The provinces' territorial division reflects a situation and a history that are different and that are not found in the other countries.

This must be recognized and Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, did recognize it.

That being said, the objective is to give the north much greater political, demographic and economic clout. We must also be logical in our approach. When we refer to the 55th parallel for seven or eight countries, we are speaking for all the countries concerned.

What we are saying is that Canada's historic and territorial reality prevent us from supporting this motion. However, we ask the government to set a clear policy, not to deliver a policy statement here in the House, but to truly work on a permanent basis with those who have the honour and the pleasure of living in what we call the north.

If you asked Quebecers and Canadians to name a place where they would like to live, I am convinced that the vast majority of them would not choose northern Quebec or northern Canada. We must therefore help and support those who live in the north and, more importantly, we must respect their social, economic and cultural environment. We must recognize that these people are giving Canada a territorial sovereignty over a very sparsely populated region of the country.

If it were not for these people, territorial sovereignty as we know it in the Canadian far north would not exist. Quebec's old civil code used to provide that when a person occupied a piece of land for 25 or 30 years, that land belonged to that person, unless it was claimed by another party. The occupation of a territory is a concept that exists in international law.

In order to ensure that Canada does not lose the great and rich territory, the difficult territory that is our Canadian far north, the international north, efforts must be made to ensure that the people living there are supported and have a voice both here in Ottawa and in the provinces, as well as internationally.

I therefore congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River on his great concern for northern issues and for increasing our awareness of them. Every time this hon. member raises something in the House, it is something positive. The people living in a region must be respected, as must the region in which they live.

There is a connection between the two and we salute the hon. member for Churchill River for raising our awareness of an issue with which he is so familiar, the people of the northern region and their region itself.

I congratulate him on his undertaking, but the question of whether to use the 55th or the 60th parallel is a highly complex one, deserving of far more debate. We congratulate the hon. member, therefore, but unfortunately cannot support a change in the international border for the international far north and the Canadian far north.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the hon. member. This is an excerpt from

Hansard

, dated December 23, 1988, on page 767. He said:

He has come out and said that well over 100,000 jobs in the agri-food sector could be lost. I rest my case.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

I hope the parliamentary secretary will be much more open with members of this House, in the future.

He is well aware that committee members from both sides of the House, except himself of course, were disappointed about how the recommendations were drafted, very disappointed indeed.

I hope that the quality of replies will be better with the Minister for International Trade than with the parliamentary secretary. I have more faith in the minister than in that fellow opposite.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will use an expression which is not unparliamentary. I checked a few years ago. I find the parliamentary secretary to be patronizing, because given the situation in the Progressive Conservative Party, one must wear several hats.

I find it somewhat despicable to see the parliamentary secretary would so patronizing as to say that a member was or was not present at meetings of a committee. I want to say that I was there rather often, if not on a regular basis. When I was not there, I could always rely on technology to follow proceedings.

I want to point out that we do not live in a third world country. We have documents. We have everything.

Indeed, we had quality witnesses. The parliamentary secretary said that I may have been there less often than him. I can say that I brought a lot more to the discussion than he did. I am very disappointed by his attitude.

If this is how the parliamentary secretary behaves, if this is how the debate is to proceed, I find it somewhat despicable. But I will remind the parliamentary secretary that if there ever was one person opposed to free trade, it was him.

If there is a person who made an about face, a 180 degree turn, it is the parliamentary secretary.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we have a motion by the NDP. Members will agree is a very, very tough one. There is reference to sabotage. It says that if there is no guarantee, we ought not to negotiate.

I have heard comments by just about everyone today, either here in the House or on television. Among these was the last comment made by our Bloc Quebecois colleague. He said that they had understood that the empty chair tactic does not work. Quebec must be present for negotiation, to be sure that it is not dealt a bad hand by Canada. Perhaps they ought to adopt the same attitude during negotiations within Canada. That might be a good thing.

That said, there must be openness to consultation with the provinces in order to ensure that indeed, when the time comes for the next round of negotiations, the position will suit the greatest possible number of Quebecers and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I must indicate that I am going to share my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I forgot to say that when I started.

Today we also learned that our friends in the Liberal Party have discovered free trade. I have never heard such passionate speeches about free trade from Liberals. They are saying “We have always been for free trade, just not the Conservative brand of free trade”.

We remember the 1993 election campaign. After the election, they said “You know, there are some technicalities to be changed”. We never really knew what, and whether it was really important.

However, we must remember that free trade, despite everything that was said on both sides, was no miracle solution, but is now a vital tool for a country. It will not fix everything, however. Today, we have to pay attention, with what the NDP is telling us.

On the eve of the negotiations, a constructive and credible position is needed for the people of this country. The government has a report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee travelled, with some difficulty from time to time, and heard exceptional witnesses.

When the time came to write the recommendations, they were completely fudged. We hope that the response by the Minister for International Trade will improve the quality of the recommendations and the work done.

There are a number of examples. In cultural matters, I would like someone to show me where words such as “protection” and “cultural exemption” are to be found in the recommendations. They are not there.

All they did was come up with a new instrument that was unanimously approved, supposedly, by the cultural sector. There was no such unanimity. They said that if we were really not capable of getting real protection, real cultural exemption, we should have a mechanism as strong as the WTO or we would have to protect our culture. That was not a recommendation at all.

We hope that the government response to the recommendations will be much more credible. The upcoming negotiations have changed. Five, ten or twenty years after signing a treaty or a contract, we realize that there are some good things and some not so good things we did not think about. It is not possible to think of everything, because society is evolving as well. It is therefore normal that the major rounds of negotiation are occurring more frequently. Before, they were few and far between. Why is the cycle shortening? Because things are changing more quickly.

The Seattle negotiations are beginning. We cannot rest on our laurels, but things are not desperate either. The Progressive Conservative Party would approach things credibly. It would not put up a wall or establish measures to block free trade. Nor would it do as the Liberals are doing and claim to have rediscovered the true value of trade trade. Credibility must be maintained.

I would remind the House that the Liberals opposed free trade, and not just when the Progressive Conservatives were in power. One of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speeches was mentioned. Members will recall that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had decided to open up the country's borders. Why? Because there was an economic boom in the United States.

Canada had just finished building a railroad, a financial ordeal, and it needed money, so that markets could be opened up for the new territories served, it needed the Americans' money, know-how, and enterprise here in Canada, especially in Quebec, to develop the country's economy. So, Laurier was interested in free trade because he needed money.

When Laurier came to power, Canada was in financial trouble. There was a lack of financial, human and technological resources with which to develop the country and there was definitely no market. The government had just opened up a huge country, built a railroad through uninhabited lands, and there was no market. So yes, Laurier made the right decision to open up to his American neighbour. He had no choice, however.

The Liberals did not always think this way, however. When Mr. Trudeau was in power, what exactly was the Foreign Investment Review Agency all about? It was one of the most protectionist measures Canada ever had. It was not the work of the Conservatives, but of the Liberals.

During the Trudeau era, they created a review agency that prevented billions of dollars of investments from getting in or out of the country. This limited the country's growth. Thank heaven, changes were made when the Conservatives came along. Instead of the concept of screening—surrounding Canada with a kind of sieve instead of a wall—they moved to a far more positive term: Investment Canada.

We must take care. The Liberals are not all that protectionist. But when they are really hungry, when they really have the bit in their teeth they go as far as they can, sometimes too far, not only up to the edge of the precipice, but right over it.

It is all very fine to sign agreements with the United States, with Mexico, Israel, Chile, all of the Americas in fact, excluding or including Cuba—we are not sure which, because Cuba was not at Toronto, so we do not know the government's position on it—but we must take care.

Today we see cases Canada has lost before the WTO and others it has won. In Europe at the present time, if one were to speak with the French parliamentarians for example, one would be told “That beef with hormones, you know, we don't want any more of that—nor genetically modified organisms—nor asbestos”. That is the situation in Europe right now, the barriers are not tariff barriers but non-tariff barriers. At the WTO, this is not sufficiently clear. In the report, a number of witnesses emphasized that this matter must be addressed.

There are currently problems in international trade that have a direct effect on events in this country. We would like them addressed in a credible and proper way.

We should not make free trade available to everyone, and say thank you very much. With our experience, we should look nevertheless at the real effects. Positive, yes, because the Liberals are quite happy to have had free trade. Without these new agreements, Canada would have been in an economic downturn for over three years under the Liberals.

We would have had a recession, because the domestic market was in a slump. Foreign trade, however, was strong. So it is all very well to run around saying that we are open to the world, but when we open the door of our house, we do not want people to go off with our furniture. They are welcome to buy. They can come in and leave as they wish, but they cannot go off with our furniture. So, we are saying we have to take care.

Last weekend, I had occasion to meet Bill Phipps, when he was in my riding. He is the moderator of the United Church of Canada. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona knows him very well, being a United Church minister himself.

I discussed trade with Mr. Phipps. Since becoming the moderator of the United Church, he has spoken of faith and the economy. He raises some very interesting issues; not necessarily miracle solutions from any one point of view, but issues that are worthy of discussion.

What we are saying is that the issue of the individual rights of Canadians is important, but the impact on other people living in a country with whom we have free trade relations should also be taken into consideration. We are saying that free trade is important, as is being outward-looking. Canada has always been an outward-looking nation. This has evolved through successive governments.

However, through experience we have learned to look before we leap, as it were. New information is now available to us and we must do a proper analysis.

[Air Transportation, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the Onex affair—or the Canadian Airlines affair, which we learned yesterday is the same thing—we have become aware that there was a suggestion of a meeting with Deputy Minister of Industry Kevin Lynch prior to making any announcement, because Mr. Lynch apparently has a lot of influence on the Competition Bureau.

Can the Minister of Industry assure us that there was no such meeting and no influence was brought to bear by Mr. Lynch, by himself or by his department on the Competition Bureau?

[Off Reserve Aboriginal People, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is ignoring its responsibilities by failing to include native people not living on reserves in its programs and funding.

In the Marshall decision, the government is once again giving a restrictive interpretation to the decision by the supreme court in refusing to consider off reserve aboriginal people.

Why is the Minister of Indian Affairs content to be responsible for aboriginal people living on the reserve but not those living off it?

[Transfer Payments To Provinces, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a problem. Between now and 2003 or 2004, transfer payments will be at the same level as they were before the cuts.

With his surplus and his great 40-day consultation, is he prepared to consider new amounts for transfer to the provinces? A number of programs administered by the provinces within their own areas of jurisdiction are in difficulty. Is the minister's mind open or closed to the idea of transferring more money to the provinces in coming months or years?