Denis Paradis

[Foreign Affairs, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, Canada offers its deepest condolences to the families of the victims on both sides in this tragic conflict.

Canada condemns the violence and terrorist acts and calls on all parties in the region who truly want peace to condemn these events themselves.

The report of the Mitchell commission represents a constructive contribution to the efforts of the international community and suggests a way out of this conflict for the various parties. Its recommendations mirror Canada's policy and as long as—

[Iraq, May 10th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, while the government is sympathetic to the humanitarian objectives of the motion before the House, we cannot support the proposition that Canada seek the removal of U.N. sanctions on Iraq in the absence of Iraqi compliance with U.N. obligations.

Canadian policy toward Iraq has been motivated by the government's concern both for the humanitarian situation and for the security challenges Baghdad continues to pose for the region. This balanced approach must continue to guide our actions on the Iraq file.

We do not dispute the fact that sanctions have had a profound impact on the people of Iraq. It is the prescription called for in the motion with which we disagree. The call to lift sanctions is an appealing response to the situation, but it neglects not only the security risks of such a unilateral step but also the measures that have been and continue to be instituted with increasing success to minimize the civilian impact of the Iraq sanctions regime.

The approach that Canada and the international community have brought to the design and implementation of the Iraq sanctions regime has been focussed, from the outset, on both the security and humanitarian dimensions of the problem. While the international community has been justifiably determined to put an end to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, equal attention has been paid to the need to mitigate the humanitarian impact of sanctions.

Resolutions 661 and 687, which set up the sanctions regime after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and extended it following Kuwait's liberation, exempted food and medicine from the embargo. When, because of Iraqi obstruction, it became clear that Iraqi disarmament would take longer than the few weeks or months originally anticipated, the UN tried to establish an oil for food program which would enable Iraqi oil revenues to be used for humanitarian purposes. UN resolution 706 creating the oil for food program was passed in 1991.

For its own political reasons, the government of Iraq rejected UN resolution 706, delaying the implementation of an oil for food program for nearly five years. The result was a catastrophic degradation of Iraqi society. When the Government of Iraq relented in 1995-96 and finally accepted the oil for food program, it was already far too late to avert a collapse in Iraqi health and living standards.

However the oil for food program did help in ending the Iraqi decline and it was continually modified over the years in an effort to improve its effectiveness.

This effort culminated in December 1999 with the passage of UN Security Council resolution 1284, which brought even more sweeping changes to the humanitarian program in Iraq.

These changes included a lifting of the oil ceiling, which allowed Iraq to sell unlimited quantities of oil, and the development of pre-approved lists of items that would not need to be reviewed by the sanctions committee.

These so-called green lists have been expanded continually and now cover medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, agricultural equipment, educational materials, water and sanitation equipment, housing materials, oil spare parts and agricultural items, effectively lifting UN sanctions on these items.

However, Iraq rejected resolution 1284 and has, where possible, blocked the implementation of a number of its key humanitarian provisions.

Despite Baghdad's efforts to weaken the program, there is little doubt that the impact of the oil for food program and the changes brought about by resolution 1284 are having a positive impact in Iraq, as UN secretary general Kofi Annan indicates in his report of March 2, 2001.

With funding for the humanitarian program at $5 billion to $7 billion every six months, the UN secretary general noted, “Iraq is in a position to address urgently the nutritional and health status of the children of Iraq”.

Whether Iraq will in fact realize and make full use of its revenue potential to address the needs of its citizens, however, is an entirely different question. It has already been mentioned here in the House that Saddam Hussein preferred building houses for himself to looking after the needs of the people.

Efforts by Baghdad to impose illegal surcharges on oil contracts slowed Iraqi exports through most of 2000, prompting the UN secretary general to worry in his report whether sufficient funds will be available to meet the humanitarian targets in Iraq.

At the same time, concern continues to grow regarding Baghdad's willingness to spend the humanitarian funds that are available in a timely manner.

For example, as of January 31, Iraq had contracted for only 21% of the medical items contained in the distribution list for the last phase of the program, which had expired at the beginning of December.

By March, the figure had climbed to only 48%. Education sector contracts were less than 50% of the allocation, while oil spare parts contracts amounted to just over 10%.

It appears that this lax attitude towards the program on the part of the government of Iraq will continue in the current phase, as Baghdad was more than two months late submitting the distribution list for phase nine, which began on December 6, 2000.

As a result, by March 31, nearly three months later, there were no contract applications for health, electricity, water, sanitation, education or oil spare parts. This is despite the fact that with around $3 billion currently sitting uncommitted in the escrow account in New York the financial resources for these items are clearly available.

The money is there, and the Iraqi government is not using it. It is very clear that the international community has tried to mitigate the humanitarian impact of sanctions from the very beginning. This process continues under the aegis of the United States, in an effort to better target the Iraq sanctions regime by easing the import of civilian goods into Iraq, while tightening the restrictions on military related items.

While the details surrounding this effort are still being developed within the UN Security Council, the initiative appears consistent with the approach Canada has long advocated. Canada will contribute what we can to this process to ensure that the security goals and humanitarian needs in Iraq are indeed addressed with equal vigilance and priority.

Better targeting of the Iraq sanctions regimes may seem an inadequate response for those who see a full lifting of sanctions as the only solution to the Iraq situation, but the fact remains that sanctions must continue to be applied in Iraq because the disarmament job is not complete.

From the earliest days through eight years of UN inspections, Iraq offered far less than what Baghdad had pledged and the ceasefire arrangements demanded.

Obstruction, deception and outright lies were daily occurrences, as Iraq was trying to save key elements of its weapons programs.

The crucial question regarding disarmament efforts is, if Iraq, as it claims, has honoured its obligations and is not in fact rebuilding its weapon programs, as a number of recent reports have claimed, why is it not allowing arms inspectors to verify its statements on site?

Lifting the sanctions now, while Iraq continues to fail to meet its obligations to the UN, would send a dangerous message on the weakness of the international system in the face of a ruthless and rebellious regime. The international community cannot accept Iraq's intransigence and its refusal to comply with its obligations toward the UN.

There is little doubt that left to itself Iraq would again constitute a serious threat to its neighbours and to the security of the entire Gulf region. The country is run by one of the world's cruellest regimes, with a disastrous human rights record.

The Government of Canada is sympathetic to the objectives which underlie the motion. While the international community has tried with increasing success to mitigate the worst effects of the sanctions and make their humanitarian provisions Saddam-proof, the Iraqi people have suffered too long. Ultimately sanctions must be lifted but the option put forward in the motion is not the way.

Unilateral actions are not the answer. There is a process in place to achieve the common goal of removing sanctions and it begins and ends with Iraq's compliance with its international obligations.

Security demands require that sanctions remain in place until Iraq meets its obligations, but this does not mean that the people of Iraq need to bear the full burden. The instruments are in place to address the pressing needs of Iraq's civilian population, and efforts are underway to make them more effective.

Pressure must be brought to bear to force the Government of Iraq to both use the humanitarian tools that are available to their full potential and abandon its long established policy of sacrificing the well-being of its population to achieve its political and military objectives. Baghdad can ensure the return to normality in Iraq by complying with its UN obligations, and Canada should do what it can to move Iraq in that direction. This motion, by rewarding Iraqi intransigence, does the opposite.

[Natural Resources, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the opposite. Our intention is to conserve our Canadian water. We are using a method to prevent the bulk removal of water. That is what we will be doing, in co-operation with all the provinces.

[Natural Resources, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for future generations, for everyone, that we take steps to ensure that Canada's water cannot be taken from its lakes and rivers.

That is why we voted in favour of the bill at second reading yesterday evening. The bill was referred to committee and will be reported to the House. It is very important for all future generations of Canadians that we protect our Canadian waters.

[Volunteers, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks during my weekends in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, I have had the pleasure to attend several galas as part of National Volunteer Week.

I must again express my admiration for the men and women of Farnham, Magog, Bedford, Cowansville and many other localities who give time and energy to their community.

I told them at these galas just how much I have been touched over the years by the anecdotes and little stories I have heard from them all because of their great human interest.

They never make the headlines yet they are unique examples of the spirit of respect, sharing, patience, generosity, love and creativity.

In this the International Year of Volunteers, I salute all the volunteers of Brome—Missisquoi whose contribution is so vital to our communities.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for the tremendous work he has done and for a wonderful summit that brought everyone closer together.

The member mentioned the protests. Yes, there was a huge protest with 25,000 to 30,000 people walking peacefully from one end of Quebec City to the other in order to peacefully get their point across. We are open to such peaceful suggestions.

But we draw the line at violence. Everyone agrees with that. Canadians do not tolerate violence.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst most certainly wants to speak about job creation. So, let us talk about job creation, but in a positive way.

With the free trade area of the Americas, we have a powerful neighbour, namely the United States, with whom we are used to trade. It is the country just south of ours. Since the FTAA also includes every South American country, we would have a market of 800 million people. If we take away the 300 million people living in the U.S., we have 500 million more people with whom everyone in Canada can do business in a free trade context.

The benefits are clearly there. In Canada's justice system, common law exists alongside the civil code. Latin American countries usually have civil law. Common law applies in Canada and the U.S. We also have a culture similar to that of Latin American nations.

We should stop looking at the negative side and view in a positive light all the jobs that can be created and the improvement to the quality of life that can be made throughout the Americas. That is what the free trade area of the Americas is all about.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to talk a bit about NAFTA.

Whereas the success of NAFTA is usually linked to the opening up of markets to goods and services, its capacity to attract foreign investment in the regions could end up being the most powerful and durable impact of the agreement. As the Prime Minister said, NAFTA works quite well.

I will quote some figures. The total direct foreign investment in NAFTA countries was $1.97 billion in 1999, more than double the figure of 1995.

American investments in Canada has doubled since 1993 and reached $186 billion in 2000, whereas Mexican investments in Canada reached $132 billion in 2000.

Canadian investments in NAFTA countries have also been quite sizeable. In 1999, direct foreign investments of Canada in the United States and Mexico were $134.3 billion and $2.8 billion respectively.

I will now say a few words about the World Trade Organization. The WTO is not the multilateral agreement on investment, commonly called the MAI. These are two different things. The WTO has more than 130 member states, most of which are developing countries. The multilateral agreement on investment was meant for an elite group of developed countries, the OECD countries. Each member of the WTO has its own approach to investment, and, for the time being, there is no consensus to proceed with an agreement on investment.

Proposals on investment brought forward during the period leading to the ministerial meeting in Seattle were quite different from those in the MAI. Nobody has suggested we should include dispute settlement mechanisms for investor-state conflicts. We can expect that any new WTO agreement on investment will include developing countries.

During the ministerial meeting in Seattle, many countries, the United States included, wanted our international trade minister, who is doing an excellent job, to chair the implementation task force of the Seattle meeting. He has accepted, and he has shown that Canada is perceived as a country that helps build bridges between developed and developing countries.

The task force was supposed to highlight the enormous challenge of including these countries in the round and determining the means to implement the agreement. The idea of a new round at the WTO is not dead. A ministerial meeting will take place in Doha, Qatar, in November this year.

Whatever its position on investment, the government is determined to protect the rights of Canada to make regulations in strategic sectors such as health, education, culture, and the environment. That is what Canadians have always wanted, and that is what their government will stand for.

I would like to add a few words on the free trade area of the Americas and the FTAA mechanisms.

In the free trade area of the Americas, every country will have to submit a proposal to the nine negotiating groups, one of which will deal with investment.

To date, Canada has not yet submitted its proposal to the group dealing with investment. We prefer to pursue our negotiations and wait for the other countries to submit their proposals. We expect to submit our position after we have held all our consultations with the provinces and with the stakeholders.

However, the Canadian proposal will look at the rules applicable to investment in the light of its experience with trade negotiations and with the implementation of its rules concerning investment with other countries such as, obviously, NAFTA member countries, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. We will rely on our past experiences.

The main objective of Canada is to ensure a clear delineation of the obligations with respect to investment that will serve Canadian interests.

Countries of the Americas need and want capital as well as the opportunities associated with investment, of course. It is in their interest to guarantee that investment flows in a predictable manner in the whole area.

Mexican President Vicente Fox recently stated in Montreal that Mexico benefited from increased investment, which creates jobs, improves health care and raises standards of living. He also recognized that the middle class has made major progress since NAFTA. More than 10 million people are now said to be part of the middle class.

As for the FTAA, Canada is not advocating a reproduction of the rules applying to investors and states under NAFTA, and we did not support any proposal made up until now by other member states of the FTAA to include a dispute settlement mechanism.

In the FTAA, Canada is taking into account the work already started with its NAFTA partners on the issue of investment in this agreement, including the clarification of the provisions concerning investors and states, as the case may be.

I would now like to say a few words on the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Coming back briefly to what I was saying on NAFTA, I would like to say that this agreement is extremely profitable for Canada.

My riding of Brome—Missisquoi, which is located along the Vermont border, is an extraordinary one in the sense that it has a large, qualified workforce. It is a riding, of course, that wants to attract American investors on our side, so that we can re-export goods to the United States and elsewhere.

In this respect, NAFTA gives us that flexibility. In Brome—Missisquoi, I am in the process of building a Team Brome—Missisquoi, so that we can export more goods to the United States and that investments can be made on both sides of the border.

I now want to come back to the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The 1994 Marrakesh agreements provided for new discussions on agriculture and services at the World Trade Organization. The agreement on services is better known as the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the GATS.

Services are not only important to the Canadian economy, they are the cornerstone of employment in many areas and regions, whether for a plant with 500 employees or a business starting up with only three employees.

We have made our position known to the WTO: Canada's objective in the GATS negotiations is to reach the best agreement possible, to improve Canadian service suppliers' access to foreign markets and to provide Canadian consumers with a larger choice of services at a lower cost.

This agreement deals mainly with the issues of market access and non discriminatory treatment of service suppliers. However, the agreement also deals with major issues concerning service suppliers' right to a commercial presence, that is, where to invest to establish a presence in other countries.

However, the GATS lets us choose. All members are free to make commitments on this commercial presence or to choose not to do so. Let us be very clear. This agreement is not an agreement on investment under chapter 11 of NAFTA.

The GATS does not include any safeguards for investors, such as the right to compensation in case of expropriation, or any provision concerning a dispute settlement between an investor and a state.

If the hon. member would withdraw her motion, I would move to replace the motion we are debating now by the following motion:

That this House calls upon the government to respect the words of the Minister for International Trade, who stated in the House on April 30, 2001 “Our view is that we want to clarify certain aspects of chapter 11 within the present mechanism of NAFTA”.

Words intended to ensure a more open and transparent dispute settlement process, and to safeguard the interests of all Canadians in this and all future trade agreements signed by Canada.

Thus, I am proposing that the previous motion be withdrawn and replaced with the one I just read.

[Riding Of Brome—Missisquoi, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in July 1609 Samuel de Champlain discovered the large lake that now bears his name, Lake Champlain. I am proud that this discovery of one of our great explorers is located in my riding of Brome—Missisquoi.

Samuel de Champlain was a true builder, a man who did everything possible to make his dreams a reality

In our ridings, and I am thinking of my own riding of Brome—Missisquoi in particular, we are surrounded by men and women who work just as hard for the development and growth of rural communities.

For instance, two municipalities in Brome-Missisquoi, Stanbridge East near Lake Champlain and Lac Brome, have recently been honoured in the community beautification competition “Fleurir le Québec”. They had more than 260 competitors in this prestigious competition.

I congratulate all those involved directly or indirectly in these community beautification projects. In their own way they too are builders who bring a new face to our rural areas with their creativity and dynamism.

[Summit Of The Americas, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada signed a protocol with the government of Quebec on the compensation of potential victims of summit related damages.

There will be a follow-up on this agreement signed with the government of Quebec and a follow-up with the government of Quebec and with Quebec City.