John Duncan

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss the multilateral agreement on investment today. This is an official opposition Reform motion which is being debated. I will read it.

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.

I have received a significant amount of correspondence on this issue. The main theme in the letters deals with concerns about the MAI as posing a threat to our economy, our environment, our resources and our social and cultural programs, that it is a threat to Canadian sovereignty, and that it would provide new avenues for corporations to challenge national, provincial and municipal laws. There were major concerns about what we termed roll-back and stand-still provisions of the agreement.

The theme seems to be the loss of our Canadian way of life and a concern that any exemptions Canada may negotiate may be difficult to define and difficult to enforce.

What information do we have regarding the MAI? We have the website which has a draft of the text agreement. We have the exemptions proposed by Canada in November 1997. We have the statements of the minister and we have some parliamentary committee proceedings.

What does this information tell us? The first thing we know is that the committee never left Ottawa. Any concerned Canadians from other parts of Canada who appeared before the committee had to travel to do so. Very simply, it is not good enough to only consult in Ottawa on an issue of this magnitude. My position is that it is not for the official opposition to do this homework, it is for the government. In the words of one of my constituents “if it is so good for the Canadian people and the economy, why is it not being debated publicly?”

There are some things I looked for in the 52 pages of the reservations tabled by the minister in November which are of major interest to my constituents in Vancouver Island North. For example, the fisheries exemption. We have one for fishing, harvesting and processing and one for fishing related services which deals with port privileges and foreign fishing within our 200 mile zone. Critics have stated that if the MAI is signed the way it is currently worded, the exemptions do nothing to prevent Canadian fishing licenses from being owned by non-Canadians. If this is the case, it is a major change and one that I believe Canadians would not support.

I have read the fisheries exemptions carefully. They do nothing to alleviate my concern that Canadian fishing licenses should be reserved for Canadians only. The standing committee on fisheries has invited the Canadian negotiator to attend our committee to respond to this and other concerns. This has not yet occurred. There are many things that have not yet occurred on this file.

I attended a standing committee environment meeting two weeks ago because the Canadian negotiator was represented at the meeting. He stated that the minister was considering signing a letter of intent regarding the MAI at the end of April because there would be no final text available at that time. This is highly inappropriate as it takes us further down the road without knowing where we are going. It is also a dismal negotiating position for a government already known as a patsy in international circles. The minister should not sign anything at the end of April.

There are some concerns about provincial jurisdiction in particular from British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. For example, in B.C. the crown owns 95% of the forest land and uses the forest as a strong instrument of government policy making. Many people involved in the industry as well as government do not want this agreement to tie their hands in terms of promoting value added British Columbia manufacturing and other initiatives.

B.C. has the added complexity of the recent supreme court decision on aboriginal land title, the Delgamuuk decision. The current aboriginal affairs exemption is totally inadequate and does not cover the eventuality of investor compensation by government for ongoing aboriginal land claims.

This is an obvious shortcoming given that government may unavoidably be compelled to transfer assets or deny investment. This is a tremendously complex area that can no longer be glossed over. Provincial interests have been seriously neglected by the federal government on the major issue of aboriginal affairs for a long time. The time for Liberal government fudging is over, not to be continued with the MAI on this file.

It is readily apparent that a major set of consultations with stakeholders is required across the country and it has not happened. Canada has further reserved the right to adopt or maintain any measures with respect to public law enforcement, correctional services, income security, social security, social welfare, public education, training, health and child care. On the surface this sounds reasonably sensible. In addition, there are several exemptions for oil and gas, banking and financial services and land ownership. The list does not look as comprehensive as I would have anticipated given public concerns about the environment, for example.

What do I have to stack up against these criticisms? The minister is now saying that there is virtually no chance of an agreement by April and lots of chance for consultation. He made a speech. What did he say in his speech? He said: “Canada will not accept any general commitment to freeze the so-called standstill or phase out restrictions on foreign investment. Canada will retain the flexibility to carry out public policy in core areas of national interest. The MAI would also not force Canada to lower its labour or environmental standards. In fact, it is intended to keep other countries from lowering theirs to attract investment away from Canada”.

He also said: “I can tell you what the MAI is not. It is not a charter of rights for multinational companies, nor does it spell the end of Canada's sovereignty. We will retain the right to enact laws in all areas, social policy, health care, corporate rules, labour and the environment. We will still be able to impose restrictions on foreign investment in sectors like culture, health care and education”. That is what the minister said.

Where did he make this speech? To the Standing Committee on Industry in Ottawa. It is no wonder Canadians are wondering where the minister is who is responsible for the MAI. The question is who is right, the critics or the minister. Who are we to believe and where is the missing dialogue? Why is the government failing to explain to the public why it is negotiating the MAI and what the costs and benefits are for the Canadian people?

This is a very significant initiative which is certainly deserving of a much greater profile and public consultation than the government has given it. I would like to be able to analyse the information and come up with a reasoned response as I think many Canadians would like to do. Given what has transpired to date, this is impossible and I blame the government. I am in full concurrence with the official opposition motion to condemn the government for its lack of proactivity on this issue. It has had the time, the opportunity and the resources, but it simply has not had the political will.

In the minister's own words: “My department is consulting closely with the provinces, the private sector and non-governmental organizations”.

Without challenging that statement there is one thing very wrong with it. He has left out the public. That concludes my remarks.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 20th, 1998]

What percentage of current “The Atlantic Groudfish Stategy” recipients were sent letters of commitment regarding the benefits they would receive for the original five year program to May 1999, and how much money does the twelve month commitment between May 1998 and May 1999 represent for those receiving letters?

[The Senate, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia I have done random testing and most British Columbians can name only one of our six senators, Pat Carney.

It goes without saying that if facing elections five of our six might as well not even file. We are in danger of becoming the only western democracy sleep walking into the 21st century without an elected Senate.

Recently I spent some time with some American senators and congressmen. They were very interested in the workings of the Canadian Parliament and in some of the democratic reforms which the Reform Party promotes.

I had a simple response to their questions about the Canadian Senate. Canadians understand that in the United States if one wants to become a senator one has to win an election, but in Canada one has to lose an election.

When is the government going to fix this dysfunctional setup?

[Petitions, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 147 residents of the village of Zeballos in my riding. They are asking Parliament to reinstate the northern residents deduction guide for the 1996 taxation year for the residents of Zeballos, as there is an unfair tax burden due to the remote location of the village.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my wife and my children are status Indians. When the minister of Indian affairs accuses us of being motivated by prejudice, she is insulting me and my family. I demand that the minister retract her statements that she made to the member for Skeena.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an obligation to support our allies in stopping terrorism by Saddam Hussein. Generally speaking Canadians do not have a clear picture of the weapons of mass destruction the United Nations has confirmed continue to exist in Iraq despite the fact that UN inspection units have destroyed 480,000 litres of chemical weapon agents, 30 chemical warheads, 38,000 chemical and biological weapons, 690 tonnes of chemical agents and 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapons ingredients.

Three months ago UN inspectors reported that there were still 200 suspected chemical and biological Iraqi manufacturing sites. Of those 100 would be biological facilities, 80 chemical facilities and 20 nuclear facilities.

UN inspectors confirmed the existence of an industrial scale VX nerve gas production facility, four tonnes of VX nerve gas—one drop can kill—anthrax, botulinum, aflatoxin inventories and the Al Hake biological weapons facility.

President Clinton of the United States had this to say on November 14 about the UN inspection teams: “These quiet inspectors have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction potential over the last six years than were destroyed in the entire gulf war”.

I could say more about all of this but I think what is clear is that we have a terrorist in Saddam Hussein who is producing weapons of mass destruction and he is prepared to use them. We know he is prepared to use them. He used chemical agents against Iranians and people in his own country.

While we all prefer a diplomatic solution, it is perhaps worthwhile to go back a bit in history and consider a statement Winston Churchill made in 1938:

If we do not stand up to the dictators now, we shall only prepare the day when we shall have to stand up to them under far more adverse conditions. Two years ago it was safe, three years ago it was easy and four years ago a mere dispatch might have rectified this position. But where shall we be a year hence?

That was in 1938. We know what happened in 1939.

In the U.K. a couple of weeks ago the House of Commons noted that Saddam now has enough anthrax to fill two warheads every week. He is continuing to receive missile components and may soon be able to produce long range missiles. There is no room for compromise here. Diplomacy will only work if Saddam Hussein's evasions stop.

When I speak of committing the Canadian military to support our allies to stop terrorism, I do so with the clear thought in my mind for the military personnel and their families, people such as those in Canadian Forces 19 Wing in Comox in my riding. The military stands ready to carry out missions assigned by Canada.

There is a clear message in all of this for Canadians. We must give our military the resources they require to carry out the missions we demand of them. These missions from time to time are going to require combat capability.

I recognize that there are some widespread concerns within our military and we should not bury these concerns in these debates.

Skilled Canadian forces personnel in some categories such as pilots and technicians are being lost faster than they are being replaced due to active recruiting and substantially higher pay in the private sector. There is concern and uncertainty about the future strength of the military and viability of some military occupations and trades. Continued downsizing has led to a belief that more bad news is on the horizon.

Frequent deployments in hazardous and difficult theatres of operation away from spouse and children have adversely affected individuals and families. I believe if we are going to ask our professional military to carry out combat operations, that Canada owes it to our military to provide them with the resources they require to do their jobs. That should be our caveat. The military put their lives on the line and they need and deserve our collective support.

I have to ask myself why would Saddam Hussein produce four tonnes of VX nerve gas when one drop can kill? Why would he produce 8,400 litres of anthrax when less than one one-millionth of a gram can kill?

Why would Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that Iraq had signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, put himself in a position to produce a nuclear bomb by 1993 if the gulf war had not intervened?

Why would Saddam Hussein refuse to fully document missiles until 1996, five years after it was required? And why does Saddam Hussein continue to produce contradictory and unreliable reports on chemical and biological weapons for the UN inspection team?

We all appreciate the fact that when all else fails, our military is asked to pick up the pieces. The current situation in Iraq may lead to a particularly nasty circumstance which everyone would prefer to avoid. We have a moral obligation and it is in the national interest to stop terrorism. The military is the instrument and agent of last resort if diplomacy fails.

There is no doubt we are facing a serious international threat. We must focus on getting Saddam Hussein's weapons factories out of business and allowing UN inspectors to do their job.

I have some difficulty in concluding my remarks because I am left with an empty feeling in the pit of my stomach. If only the world were full of reasonable people we could entertain a reasonable solution. History tells us that the world simply is not like that. That is why our military and our military tradition is so important.

It is much easier to debate this issue in the House of Commons than it is for a military family to say goodbye to a member of the service departing for a combat mission. Let us hope it does not come to that but let us be absolutely prepared if it does.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Will the minister release the documents and put a stop to this racially divisive aboriginal commercial fishery?

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the department admits that there are 20 secret legal opinions on the race based fishery locked away in its vaults. The minister knows they exist and I assume you have read past the executive summary—

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister keeps insisting that a race based commercial fishery is legal. He has ignored advice from native and non-native commercial fishermen that racial tinkering leads to racial tension.

Last week a B.C. court ruled that the aboriginal commercial fishery has no validity.

Will the minister ask the crown to drop the charges against 22 B.C. commercial fishermen who protested his racial policy?

[Petitions, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 37 names of residents from the Campbell River area in my riding. They ask parliament to hold a binding referendum on restoring the death penalty for first degree murder.