Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this important issue to the House of Commons for debate.
It is extremely important that as members of parliament we take time to debate not only the important issues facing us today but the important issues that will face Canadians in the future. We in this place can play a significant role in preparing Canadians for the risks and opportunities of the future. That is what this motion is all about.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois spoke earlier today. I guess he previously had some ties to the Marxist-Leninist Party. Perhaps he was so disappointed that Marx was proven wrong about communism that he was anxious for an opportunity to prove that maybe Marx was right about capitalism. I can say that I am not in favour of a common currency for the Americas certainly at this time.
The European comparison and the Euro comparisons that have been made are highly specious. The European Union was a very intentional political union first which evolved over a 40 year period. It was focused on defence related issues and ultimately evolved into an economic union, particularly in the post cold war environment.
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty was reached after a considerable amount of debate and discussion. Ultimately a lot of sacrifice and work went into ensuring the countries that eventually signed on to the Euro complied with the Maastricht criteria.
This is a very complicated issue. I would hope that the Bloc Quebecois is not supporting some race to a common currency in the short term because clearly Canada is not ready for it.
If we were to look at the weakness of the Canadian dollar and the secular decline in the Canadian dollar over the past 30 years, our Canadian dollar would now be at record lows. It would be extremely inadvisable for Canada to entertain participating in a common currency now when we would not be negotiating from a position of strength. To permanently entrench that position of weakness would be inadvisable.
If we were to try to strengthen our currency in the short term with interest rate policies, the Canadian economy simply could not stand the increase in interest rates necessary to strengthen the Canadian dollar to be in a strong negotiating position in a common currency for the Americas.
It was interesting last summer to see the Prime Minister's approach to the Canadian dollar. At one point he even had the audacity or economic naiveté to say that the lower Canadian dollar was actually good for tourism.
I think most members in this House would agree that a nation cannot devalue its way to prosperity. In fact, the logical corollary of the Prime Minister's arguments last summer would be that if we reduced our dollar to zero and gave away all our merchandise, we would be the greatest trading nation in the world. The fact is that we would not be getting any money for those goods. A country cannot devalue its way to prosperity and it is naive to assume that a country can.
A secular decline in the Canadian dollar has occurred, a significant amount of which has been due to the secular decline in Canada's productivity. Productivity in Canada needs to be addressed with taxation issues, the differences in the Canadian tax system, our levels of taxation and the structure of our tax code relative to our trading partners. Those issues need to be addressed. Interprovincial trade barriers, our regulatory burden, all these issues need to be addressed. It is going to take a long time to strengthen our Canadian currency through that type of systemic, holistic approach to very complicated issues.
Some proponents of a common currency say the positive of a common currency would be that it would take the power away from the government to make bad economic decisions. I have more faith in parliamentarians, in this House, in the ability for a sovereign country to make the right types of decisions for the future than those who would advance that type of argument. That is a very perverse argument to make, that to make the types of decisions necessary for Canadians in the future, we somehow have to rip more power away from this sovereign parliament and away from our sovereign Canadian institutions in terms of the Bank of Canada.
Without the exchange rate mechanism which currently compensates for the disparity between our productivity and that of the U.S. for instance, our unemployment rates would become the operative mechanism. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois concurred with me this morning that in fact in the short term this would be a major issue.
I do not believe that Canadians want to see as part of any step toward a common currency an increase in unemployment rates. I do not believe Canadians can afford an increase in our unemployment rates, particularly in the riding I represent in Atlantic Canada which has seen insufferably high unemployment rates. In the process of embracing this common currency or further globalization and emasculation of our national institutions, a higher unemployment rate as a cost or a casualty of that is not acceptable.
In the long term, many of us will recognize trends toward global integration, in some cases political and in some cases economic. As the party that introduced and supported free trade, we recognize and continue to believe that free trade and the free trade agreements have led to increased opportunities for Canadians. We believe there are opportunities in globalization. We also believe that Canadians have to be prepared to embark on that journey. That takes certain types of economic policy.
For instance, the replacement of the manufacturers sales tax with the GST was one of the domestic changes necessary to embrace freer trade. It ensured Canadians had an opportunity to participate in freer trade and had an opportunity to prosper as a result of freer trade and Canadians have. We believe all Canadians need to be positioned to prosper in a more global environment.
To relentlessly pursue one element of globalization, a common North American currency, without dealing head on with the issues that have consistently hurt our Canadian dollar, productivity issues such as taxation, interprovincial trade barriers and the regulatory burden in Canada, would be naive.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I am sure they would understand my position as a Canadian and my value of Canadian sovereignty. They would understand the importance of our defending the sovereignty of our nation and preparing Canadians to participate in any global opportunity and challenge in the future.
I would hope this is not an issue being advanced by the Bloc Quebecois in some way to further reduce Canadian sovereignty with the hope somehow that it would increase Quebec's sovereignty. As a Canadian I believe that the recognition of Quebec as an inextricable part of Canada is fundamental. I believe very strongly that the distinctiveness of Quebec is extremely important and I defend that, as does my party as a national party in the House of Commons. I would certainly hope that reciprocally members of the Bloc Quebecois would not be advancing this argument to somehow reduce the sovereignty of our country. I would not be so cynical as to assume they would be advancing this as a uni-dimensional attack on Canadian sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a very important issue. While the U.K. has for a significant time, since Mrs. Thatcher, implemented types of changes necessary in the U.K. to prepare the British for the opportunities of the future and to undo a lot of the damages the Labour Party had inflicted on the English prior to her election, U.K. arguments against the common currency in Europe have not been economic arguments solely. They have been arguments on the sovereign right of a nation to determine its own future.
I believe parliament and Canadian institutions have the authority and can make the right decisions. I do not believe we need to remove power from Canadian institutions to somehow ensure Canadians become competitive.
