2001-09-28

Government Orders
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActHon. Paul Martin (for the Minister for International Trade): 
moved that Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-32 which would implement the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.
This agreement is an important step forward on several levels. To begin with, the success of this endeavour clearly demonstrates that free trade agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies. That bodes well for the future of the free trade area of the Americas.
At the same time, this agreement will open up a new market with exciting potential for Canadian exporters. It also includes precedent setting chapters in the areas of trade facilitation and competition policy.
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement includes side agreements on the environment and labour that are an important improvement on those found in earlier agreements.
I am especially pleased that we have concluded an agreement with Costa Rica, sometimes called the Switzerland of Central America. As a country of some 3.9 million citizens with no military and longstanding, democratic institutions, Costa Rica has been an important beacon of stability in Central America. With a large percentage of its budget devoted to education and health care, Costa Rica's future looks very bright.
Canada and Costa Rica share similar political cultures, placing primacy on respect for the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights and the environment. Our relationship with Costa Rica has been one of longstanding co-operation, trust and mutual benefit. Formal trade relations between our two countries date back more than 50 years to a bilateral commercial agreement concluded in 1950. Since then our relationship has developed steadily. A free trade agreement will only make it stronger.
Both countries' citizens will be able to share in the prosperity that freer trade creates. Already our bilateral trade with Costa Rica has seen an average annual growth of over 6% in the last five years with a 7% increase in exports and a 5% increase in imports. The FTA will accelerate this growth.
Although our bilateral trading relationship is small, approximately $270 million, this number is rising rapidly. Indeed, there was a 25% jump in our exports in the year 2000. It is also worth mentioning that we have invested about $500 million in Costa Rica.
Canadians are quick to seize an opportunity which could explain the enthusiastic response to the extensive consultations that were concluded regarding this initiative. The response from Canadians was strong and indicated support for pursuing an FTA with Costa Rica. It should also be noted that a significant number of small and medium sized enterprises expressed an interest in such an agreement. For them, numbers like $270 million, our bilateral trade with Costa Rica last year, are very large indeed. Their support is not surprising considering that there are considerable opportunities in the Costa Rican market for many Canadian goods, including automotive products, prefabricated buildings, some fish products and a number of agricultural products.
The improved access we will gain with this FTA will give Canadian businesses an edge in Costa Rica, particularly over foreign competitors who do not have preferential access to the Costa Rican market. As our businesses that benefited from preferential access through the Canada-Chile FTA could tell us, getting into a market first matters.
The agreement will include immediate elimination of Costa Rican tariffs on most Canadian industrial exports. It is expected that over 90% of Canada's current agriculture and agri-food exports to Costa Rica will realize market access benefits.
Canada and Costa Rica believe that a commitment to environmental and labour co-operation along with the effective enforcement of domestic laws should go hand in hand with trade liberalization. That is why, in addition to the FTA, two complementary co-operation agreements on the environment and labour were negotiated in parallel.
These parallel agreements are practical and reflect the scope of our relationship with Costa Rica.
They are also designed to promote values shared by both countries, such as the rule of law and sustainable development.
Considering the benefits I have mentioned, as well as many others, it is not surprising that free trade enjoys widespread support in this country. As I am sure everyone in the House knows, to the chagrin of some I might add, the vast majority of Canadians, more than 70% in fact, support freer trade. They recognize that increased trade is a prerequisite for economic growth and Canada's continued prosperity and social well-being.
The statistics demonstrate that this is true. In the year 2000 Canada's exports of goods and services represented over 45% or almost half of our GDP, a substantially higher proportion than that of our major trading partners. This share is up from 43% in 1999 and up considerably from just 28% in 1990.
Some 80% of the over two million new jobs created since the government took office in 1993 can be attributed to our increased trade. That means that one in every three jobs in Canada is now linked directly to our success in international trade. One in every three jobs is directly related to our success in international trade. That is so important that it bears repeating.
Most of our exports are now high value-added goods and services: telecommunications, aerospace, software, environmental technologies and other areas of the new economy.
Many Canadian companies, including small and medium sized firms and their employees, depend on trade for their growth and success. Trade puts money in the pockets of Canadians who teach in our schools, work in our factories and run our hospitals. As well, Canadian consumers and producers can obtain a broader choice of cheaper and better goods and services through trade. To put it simply, trade translates into better and higher paying jobs and increased opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians.
I would like to turn now to the importance of new WTO negotiations which have been the subject of increased attention and some concern over the past few days. Given the growing importance of trade to the Canadian economy, it is obviously in our interest to have clearly understood and widely accepted rules to ensure that we are not left subject to the whims of larger and more powerful economies.
A rules based trading system also gives Canadian companies access to larger markets abroad, while at home these companies can take advantage of global economies of scale and maintain or increase employment in their communities. Canada's continued prosperity depends on an open and healthy global economy. That is why we strongly support the launch of new WTO negotiations.
Although differences over an expanded negotiating agenda remain, most WTO members are seeking a launch of new negotiations at the next ministerial meeting scheduled to take place in November in Doha, Qatar. In Canada's view, expanded negotiations should improve access to emerging world markets and ensure trade rules keep pace with changes in technology and business practices.
We are working closely with our trading partners, including the United States, the EU, Japan and key developing countries to build support for new negotiations.
WTO members have many challenging issues left to resolve before Doha, but I believe, with political will on all sides, we can make good progress in bridging the differences among members. A new round offers our best hope to gain access to dynamic new markets and to both expand and strengthen the rules based system which has worked so well for Canada.
I would also like to say that in light of the tragic events that took place recently in the United States, I firmly believe that it is more important now than ever to pursue the goal of worldwide trade liberalization.
Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative, has recently stated that trade reinforces openness, opportunity, democracy and compassion. I think Canadians overwhelmingly endorse that statement. I believe, as he does and as does the Minister for International Trade, that the WTO meeting in Doha should proceed so that the world trading system can continue to promote international growth, development and openness.
The many benefits of free trade are evident on a regional level. Canada's continued engagement with regional trade agreements such as NAFTA and more recently the FTAA are critical to our collective economic prosperity and social well-being. With a combined population of 800 million people and a GDP of some $17 trillion, the Americas is one of the fastest growing markets in the world in terms of consumers and growth in per capita income.
The FTAA represents an historic opportunity to unite the countries of the hemisphere in a comprehensive free trade area that would contribute to job creation and growth throughout the region, including Canada. That is one of the reasons we are enthusiastic supporters of the FTAA negotiations now under way and why Canada continues to play an active leadership role in the negotiations.
The FTAA would create greater prosperity throughout the entire region. Poorer countries of the hemisphere would have the opportunity not only to improve their economic situations through trade and investment but to begin to address the real problems of poverty, crime, environmental degradation, threats to democracy and human rights.
I will quote from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's report to the preparatory committee for the high level international intergovernmental event on financing for development.
The secretary general was speaking of the important benefits of freer trade to less developed and developing countries which are struggling to enjoy the benefits we in Canada and other countries enjoy. This is exactly what he said:

There is now widespread acceptance that, in the long run, the expansion of international trade and integration into the world economy are necessary instruments for promoting economic growth and reducing and eradicating poverty...Estimates of the potential gains in developing countries from a variety of liberalization measures range from $100 to $150 billion. There are thus large gains to be captured by developing countries from continued liberalization in goods markets.

I have heard it argued by a minority of Canadians and a minority of members of the House that free trade is somehow bad for the poorer countries of the world. They argue that it is a trick meant to take advantage of poor nations while benefiting only wealthier countries like Canada and the United States.
Many of my colleagues and I sat in the Chamber and heard the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, state the same sentiments as the UN secretary general. He said we must challenge false accusations about liberalized and globalized freer trade. He said that in his view as prime minister of a major country freer trade is fundamental to helping poorer nations develop their economies.
Those were not popular statements with a minority of Canadians and some members of parliament on the far left. Nonetheless the facts support them. An independent person like Kofi Annan, whose statement I quoted, cannot be dismissed as someone who does not understand the reality of the global trading system. Poorer countries of the world stand to gain immeasurably by liberalized and globalized trade if we go about it in a careful and fair minded way. That is what Canada is strongly committed to.
Canada is also committed to pursuing technical assistance programming for the Caribbean and Central America to help countries build their capacities for trade, investment and financial stability. At the same time, Canadians have invested $54.8 billion in the nine NAFTA countries of the Americas. Canadian investment in those countries increased sixfold over the past decade. This means that more Canadian money is flowing into South and Central America and the Caribbean.
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a symbol of our long term commitment to the hemisphere. It will help advance negotiations leading to the free trade area of the Americas. The agreement will provide much needed insight into how to address the needs of smaller and more vulnerable regional economies.
In the end our efforts to liberalize trade on the multilateral, regional, and, as in the case of Costa Rica, bilateral level will all lead to the same goal: a more open and rules based trading system which will benefit all economies and nations of the world, a system in which there are only winners and no losers. That is what Canada is strongly committed to. Such a result would greatly benefit the people of Canada and people around the world.
I sincerely hope members of the House will support the legislation. Concerns have been expressed about it already, even by some of my colleagues. We are quite prepared to hear and address those concerns. However let us make no mistake. Canada is a free trading nation. We stand by that and support Bill C-32.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate today on Bill C-32 which gives considerable detail to expanding free trade. I will set out a preamble to my comments today and say that in general members of my party and I are supportive of free trade. It is in fact our party policy.
We have another adjective we use with respect to trade. Trade should not only be free, that is free from tariffs, countervailing duties and all those things. It should also be fair. That is unfortunately where the Liberal government often fails. It is imperative that we vigorously defend Canadian industries.
The government does not have a good record for doing that with other commodities, including agricultural commodities. The government has often entered into agreements without enough forethought about the implications. As a result it backs itself into a corner and we in the country suffer enormously.
I cannot help but digress to the whole question of western Canadian farmers and the tariffs and controls the government has put on grain marketing over the years. Canadian farmers are not able to market their product at the best price. Instead the government controls it. It is almost an inverse Zellers' law. Zellers says the lowest price is the law. The Government of Canada has told farmers the worst deal for them is the law. That is unfortunate.
The government is making the same error with Bill C-32 in that it is not giving enough thought to the long term effects. There are a few things we ought to be aware of. Bill C-32 would expand free trade with Costa Rica. It outlines a 10 year plan. Some tariffs would be reduced in stages over 10 years and others would come into play rapidly.
It should be noted that we already have a free trade agreement with Chile. There is also NAFTA which is about seven years old. The purpose of these free trade agreements is to give Canadian producers better access to foreign markets and give our trading partners abroad better access to our market.
A problem arises. Canada for some reason has gone ahead of all the other countries in the agreement by being the only country to refuse to substantially subsidize its producers. All the other countries subsidize, in some cases very richly, their producers of agriculture and food products. Canada is way down the list, almost at zero. When it comes to sugar producers, subsidies from the Canadian government are essentially zero. Yet the other countries subsidize them.
How are we to compete? It is impossible. That is common sense. It should not escape Liberal members of the House and the Liberal government.
If there is another country competing with our producers and its producers are being substantially subsidized over and above what Canadian producers are, that puts our guys at a huge disadvantage. It is as if we were to enter a race and we were to say to our athletes that we would like them to carry an extra 50 pounds. I guess I already have mine and that is why they do not enter me into Olympic races, because it is a bit of a disadvantage.
Canadian producers are operating under this disadvantage. They are working against a trade barrier of price because of the fact that producers in other countries like the United States and those in Central America substantially subsidize their producers. As a result, our people have to be very efficient to compete, which they are, but in many cases they lose out on the fight.
We should be aware that 80% of the products that Costa Rica exports to Canada, and we are talking about fruits and vegetables, coffee and coal, already at this stage enter Canada duty free. Therefore the market in Canada is already largely open to Costa Rica. Canada of course is now looking to expand its market into Costa Rica, so in that sense it is a good initiative because if it already has so much duty free access to our market then it only makes sense that we should negotiate with Costa Rica to remove its tariffs to give Canadian producers access to that market.
Unfortunately this is done sector by sector. Sometimes we fail to recognize that when we are in a trading agreement like this we must have all of the food on the platter at the same time. We cannot make a deal commodity by commodity and then in the end land up with a few commodities left that were not negotiated, because consequently we are unable, because we have lost our bargaining position, to get a really good deal for our own producers.
It just so happens that in the year 2000 Canada exported to Costa Rica approximately $86 million worth of goods. In that same year we imported from Costa Rica $183 million worth. At this stage, then, we have basically a net loss in income as a country because of the fact that while Costa Rica spends $86 million a year here we spend $183 million there. That is fine because it allows us to bring into this country products which we need and which are saleable here, but we must recognize that those products are also competing with those of Canadian producers and Canadian processors.
One of the areas of much concern to us as a party is the impact on the sugar industry. One of the fond memories that I have of being a youngster growing up in Saskatchewan, and which young people of today would not have any knowledge of at all, is that there used to be metal pails of Rogers Golden Syrup. It is probably the best syrup in the world. If I recall correctly most of the sugar beets that produced that syrup were grown in southern Alberta and some in British Columbia. If I am not mistaken, the processing refineries for this sugar were actually in eastern Canada, in Ontario and Quebec. At any rate, we had this syrup and it was a wonderful product. In fact I would hasten to surmise that perhaps Rogers Golden Syrup has had a significant contribution in making me into the man I am today, and I mean that in a humorous sense of that word, because we used that syrup a lot in our home.
Rogers syrup came in little 10 pound pails that when empty became our lunch buckets that we carried to school. Nowadays this of course would never be done. Nowadays the youngsters have designer lunch kits. However in those days we were not different from our neighbours. We were poor and we made use of everything we had. When the pails were empty they became our lunch buckets and we walked to school carrying these pails with Rogers Golden Syrup written on them. They contained our sandwiches or whatever our mother produced for us for the day.
We can see that the history of the Canadian sugar industry is a long one, not that I am terribly old, but we are talking about 50 years ago at least. Even at that time the syrup was a wonderful, very good, high quality product.
At this stage, as far as I know, Costa Rica does not have any substantial amount of output in actually refining and processing its sugar. This means very simply that the tariff on sugars, which is designed to protect the market in whatever country, is very one sided. In fact, the United States and most Latin American countries have an import tariff on their sugar ranging anywhere from 50% to 160%. In other words, when we export that product our people have to be very efficient in order to compete in those markets since there is an automatic price added to our product as it crosses a border.
My biggest complaint about Bill C-32 is that there is not nearly a rapid enough or substantial enough removal of those tariffs that tend to inhibit the flow of our product into the other countries. As a matter of fact, knowing the way the Liberal government operates I can see that in the future, perhaps under CIDA or some other of our other wonderful plans, we would actually be helping Costa Rica build a processing plant so that it could process its sugar there and export it to Canada duty free. If we try to do that with our product when sending it there, we will have a tariff to pay in various stages for at least 10 years. There is no guarantee, as I see it in the bill, that the tariff would ever be removed.
Why would we not negotiate on this issue in such a way that it is fair for Canadians instead of lopsided? We may have all sorts of altruistic motives in this matter. Perhaps we want to help the Costa Rican people. I have no problem with that. Sure, let us help them, let us trade with them, but if we are to compete let us compete on a level playing field.
I hasten to point out that this agreement could become a template for future agreements with some of the other Central American countries. If we do not fix this problem, it will be embedded in the agreements with countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras. Each of those countries not only has some considerable capacity to refine their sugar and to export it, but they also have large subsidies.
For the life of me I cannot see why we would not, while we are negotiating these tariffs, also make sure that we do not repeat the errors that we made with wheat agreements. We should say very clearly that if we remove tariffs they must remove their subsidies. We did not do this with wheat. That is why the United States, still subsidizing its farmers substantially more than Canada, is a very unfair trading partner with respect to the sale and the movement of Canadian products.
In Canada with respect to wheat we have the barrier of the wheat board which applies, by the way, only to the prairie provinces. Go figure that one. Why should wheat producers in Ontario or Quebec or Atlantic Canada be able to sell their grain without going through the wheat board? If the wheat producers happen to be in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta the mighty thumb of the federal government is on top of them. If they try to make a move they go to jail. That is scary. We have actually had our own government, not the importing country, not the United States, put our own farmers in jail because of their attempts to sell their own products at a price that is better and more immediate as opposed to what the wheat board offers.
In negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States did we insist that it remove its subsidies? No. Consequently it has them. Consequently our farmers are operating at a disadvantage.
Now we have Canada making this agreement with Costa Rica and looking ahead at some of the other countries with which we will undoubtedly be processing a trade agreement . We are in favour of that, but we had better make sure that we put all of the elements on the negotiating table, not just the tariffs and the free trade. Let us also very clearly specify and demand as a condition that the subsidization be included in those negotiations and that the subsidization be removed. How can we compete?
A number of years ago I had a friend who sold one brand of imported Japanese vehicles in Canada. Along came another importer from Korea. The Canadian government for some reason exempted the Korean manufacturer's automobiles from some of the import tariffs. As a result it became a very unfair playing field, just because of the negotiations of the government.
We need to make sure that all Canadians in these trade agreements are treated fairly.
We should also note that right now, to the best of my knowledge, every country in the Americas, Central America and South America, and including the United States, subsidizes its farmers except Canada. At least to put it this way, their subsidies are much higher in proportion. We are remiss in our duties to our own people if we do not make sure that these tariffs are not stacked against us in view of those duty free agreements.
I would also like to say that there is a considerable movement of agricultural goods around the country and it is so important to Canada. It is my belief that approximately 80% of our food production is destined for export, so we had better have good trade agreements. We had better have fair tariffs. We had better make sure that our producers are protected.
As a matter of fact, our economic well-being is largely dependent on the export of those agricultural products. For every $100 worth of food that Canadian farmers produce we Canadians consume only about $20 worth of it and $80 of it goes to feed people in other parts of the world. That is great. We should be very proud of that.
I happen to come from an agricultural community. I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. To this day my brother farms on the family farm and on more land he has added. We often speak in our family of the contribution that we have made in providing food not only for Canadians but also for people around the world. One of the great things that some of our people have done in Saskatchewan, and I think this happens in other parts of the country as well, is that farmers have actually given some of their surplus as a donation to some of the third world countries where people are starving because of a lack of food when we have so much.
It behooves our government to make sure that we have a market for the food we produce for export, but it has to be done fairly.
We had a considerably lengthy and interesting debate last night on agriculture. I do not think we adequately recognize that a good, solid, secure food source is a very important base of our national security. If we were ever to lose our agriculture industry, and I mean all agriculture, our food producing sources, the farmers and fishermen, and our infrastructure to process food, we would suddenly no longer enjoy the security of a plentiful and safe food supply.
It is incumbent upon on us as a country, especially in these troubling days, to make sure that our producers and processors can survive and be strong economically and in their businesses. We need to make sure we do not jeopardize that in any way.
I am inclined right now to vote against the bill simply because it is not good enough. I absolutely love the idea of free trade and being able to export our food around the world. I love the idea that we can provide it to those who do not have as much we do. However let us make sure that we do not hobble our own farmers. We should not attach a weight to their ankles.
This is just a small diversion. In the agreement dairy, poultry, egg and beef products are excluded from this present provision. Presumably that will come at some future time in some future agreement, but it is not included now.
I think I have laid my case in front of the House and the Canadian people. It is very important that in this instance our government be given a message. It should go back to the bargaining table. It should strengthen the protection of our sugar industry. It is not there now. Unless we change that, I cannot vote in favour of the bill because of that very serious and fatal flaw.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I ask for the House's unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The Deputy Speaker: Could the hon. member please tell me if he wishes to split the 40 minutes allocated to him into two periods of 20 minutes?
Yvan Loubier: Yes, exactly.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot have the unanimous consent of the House to share his speaking time with his colleague for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my proposal to share our speaking time on this important debate.
Indeed, this is an important debate. Each time Canada signs a free trade agreement with another country, it is, in theory, excellent news, because when these agreements are carefully negotiated, and especially when we have been able to have some input, they pave the way for improved bilateral or multilateral trade.
These free trade agreements and multilateral agreements also contain a certain amount of discipline, which is quite welcome, given that over the last 50 years we have experienced some extremely turbulent times in international trade, with subsidy wars and price wars, particularly in the agricultural sector, as my colleague from the Alliance mentioned earlier.
Therefore, in theory, we can only applaud each time an agreement is signed to civilize trade, to ensure that there are clear rules, and to improve trade, employment and investment opportunities.
There are, however, three problems in this agreement between Canada and Costa Rica. Despite our support of it in principle, these three problems are worth raising. Perhaps the government, if it is open, if it as smart as it claims to be, could remedy them readily.
The first problem is the lack of transparency as far as the negotiation of free trade agreements is concerned. This applies to the agreement between Canada and Costa Rica, it applies to all other agreements, of which there have been many in recent years.
The second problem concerns the provisions relating to investments. We have frequently criticized these provisions within NAFTA and now we find them again in the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Costa-Rica.
The third, one that crops up every time there are negotiations, even for the entire 50 years there have been negotiations for GATT, the WTO, and bilateral agreements, concerns the international distribution of the sugar market. A dangerous precedent was set with negotiations between the Canadian and Costa Rican governments.
As far as the first problem is concerned, that is the lack of transparency and a certain lack of democratic spirit on the government's side, people are becoming somewhat annoyed by it.
On the one hand, we have a government that claims to be democratic and, particularly since the dramatic events of September 11 in the United States, a defender of democracy, freedom and democratic institutions.
Yet every time there are negotiations on free trade agreements, bilateral or multilateral, or any other—and their numbers are increasing with each passing year—parliament, the direct expression of our democratic system, is not involved.
And every time an attempt is made, particularly by my colleague from Joliette, who is the Bloc Quebecois trade critic, to introduce bills here to ensure that parliament is consulted at every stage of trade treaty negotiations, every time those bills have been introduced, they have been roundly rejected by the Liberals.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Disgraceful.
Yvan Loubier: In other words, the Liberal members—each of them—who claim to represent the public, do not even want the public involved. And yet, the agreements increasingly concern, not only international trade and the economic terms of trade, but culture, services, education and even health. These are things that affect the public directly.
So, how can they have the gall to deny us the right to properly, honestly and vigorously represent the public who put us here in this House? It is disgraceful. And it is not for lack of trying to teach our Liberal colleagues the values of democracy, the fact that parliament is the ultimate symbol of these values and that parliamentarians ought to be included at all stages of negotiation.
Five times my party, and the member for Joliette specifically, introduced bills calling for the participation of the public and MPs at all stages of the negotiation process for any trade agreement. There are many. In 1998, to give an idea of what is involved, Canada signed 44 agreements with different countries. This year, some 50 agreements are expected to be signed. This is not insignificant.
When government talks of globalization and says it will increasingly determine the direction national governments take and affect our daily lives, the least if could do would be to include the public and, first and foremost, parliamentarians.
The first bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois concerned this. It asked as well that all treaties be tabled in the House for debate, prior to their ratification, specifically to avoid the government's presenting flawed agreements, as we have seen, containing things that do not suit the majority of the people and that require more work.
No one is going to convince me that the Minister for International Trade, despite what he claims, is the source of all truth. However, he, without consulting anyone, decides with a few officials what they are going to involve the Canadian and Quebec public in by signing this sort of treaty.
In the private members bills we introduced in this House, we asked that the provinces be consulted as well. Why? Because, increasingly, as I mentioned earlier, international treaties do not involve just the economy and trade. They concern education, health and all other services provided to the public. The areas of jurisdiction involved are often exclusively those of Quebec and the other provinces.
The provinces then find themselves in a bind, because a single minister along with a few public officials negotiated, on their behalf, international treaties that concern their jurisdictions. They find themselves in a bind because they have to implement these agreements, and moral pressure is exerted on them if they decide not to do so. If we find this acceptable, then it follows that anything goes in this parliament.
Whenever such bills were introduced, we always asked for transparency with a capital T. We asked for public hearings on the progress of negotiations, we asked that the public be kept informed of these negotiations and of their content, and we asked that the impact of these negotiations on the daily lives of people be explained. But the Liberals rejected all our requests for transparency, in a negotiation process that ought normally to be open and accessible to the public.
What does the government have to hide? What are the government and the pedantic minister up to, when they show us an agreement after it has been negotiated, signed and approved and tell us “Vote in favour, all you have to do is approve it. This is your only role in this parliament”? The members who sit here, who represent Quebecers and Canadians, are only here to rubber-stamp things. We are all here to approve the agreement once everything has been negotiated without our input and without knowing the terms of the agreement before it is signed by Canada and the other country. This is unacceptable. Things are worse since 1993. The process is even less transparent since the Liberals came to office in 1993.
But the number of agreements is growing; more and more of them are being signed every year. And this trend will continue, because globalization is now a given. It is in our interests to negotiate agreements with all countries of the world.
It seems to me that it would be easy to have a little more transparency, to be guided by a stronger sense of democracy than that which has guided this government in the hundreds of international agreements it has signed since 1993.
We all remember what happened with the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment. For two years, an agreement on investment was negotiated, behind closed doors, between the world's richest nations, the OECD nations. Had the principles in this agreement not been condemned by Lionel Jospin, in France, and by ordinary citizens, who mounted a campaign over the Internet, which is now a global link, no one would have known a thing about it until after it was ratified by 28 OECD nations. This multilateral agreement on investment would have been disastrous.
It would have meant that governments worldwide would have had their hands tied by transnationals, by multinationals, which have no interest in the common good. As for investments, these companies would have controlled all the countries who signed this terrible agreement.
Yet the Minister for International Trade told us that he would consult Quebecers and Canadians. As recently as last January, he said that consultation of Canadians is an ongoing process, which is an integral part of Canadian trade policy.
Where is this consultation? Where is this consultation at all stages of the process of negotiations with countries with whom Canada is signing trade agreements? Where is this consultation with parliament, whose members are democratically elected to represent the people of Quebec and of Canada?
We are used to the minister doing the opposite of what he says. At some point, he is no longer taken seriously; he no longer has any credibility. What are his statements and his promises worth when, a few months later, what happens is the complete opposite of what was said in the House? Where is his sense of dignity? Where is his conscience as a member, if he has one? So much for investments.
Since I see that my time is running out, I will resume after oral question period.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. Moving to Statements by Members. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Statements By Members
Governor General's Performing Arts AwardsMr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, our governor general released the names of the recipients of the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards.
These awards celebrate Canadian performers who have made an exceptional contribution to the cultural life of Canada. Each year, they are presented to Canadian artists who have been nominated by members of their own performing arts community. They are selected from six fields: theatre; dance; classical music and opera; popular music; film; and broadcasting.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of these performing arts awards, and six great artists have been selected.
I know members will join with me in extending our warm congratulations to Anne-Claire Poirier, Diane Dufresne, Christopher Plummer, Mario Bernardi, Max Ferguson and Evelyn Hart.
They have all brought us both inspiration and enjoyment over the years, and as we celebrate with them we thank them for their outstanding contribution.
National Memorial DayMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the 24th Annual Canadian Memorial Service for Police and Peace Officers killed in the performance of duty will be conducted this Sunday on the steps of Parliament Hill.
Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day is held on the last Sunday of September each year. This is a day to show respect for those honourable custodians of law, order and public peace who paid the supreme price with their lives while in service to the citizens of Canada.
The motto “To Serve and Protect” well describes their daily duty. The memorial on Parliament Hill attests to the tragic toll in personal human sacrifice adhering to this duty.
I am sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who should be remembered not only this Sunday but all year long.
Herbert HomerMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues I extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Herbert Homer, one of 26 Canadians who perished on September 11 when his airplane was hijacked and crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
Todd Burke, a friend, constituent, and a cousin to Herbert Homer, is one of many family members from across Canada deeply affected by this tragic loss. Todd had talked to his cousin only a few days before his death. They were looking forward to a family reunion in Ottawa before this brutal and senseless act of violence took away so many innocent lives.
The family asked me to share this moment with the House to remember Herbert Homer: a husband, father, son, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin and friend. To paraphrase a quote attributed to several authors “I am in every wind that blows and I am in the glitter of the snow. I died but I did not go”.
Our deepest condolences go out to the Burke and Homer families and their friends.
National Memorial DayMs. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, September 30, is Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day. The ceremony at the Canadian Police Memorial Pavilion will recognize and honour the courage and sacrifice of officers killed in the line of duty.
I personally recognize Ontario Provincial Police officer Duncan MacAleese, my cousin, who was killed some years ago in the line of duty. To his wife Dorothy and their three sons, Shawn, Tom and Ian, and to my aunt, Ruby MacAleese, our deepest appreciation for their immense sacrifice.
I take this moment to let these officers and their families know that they are not forgotten and to give special acknowledgment to the officers and firefighters that we all lost on September 11.
International Translation DayMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Sunday will be International Translation Day. This year's theme is “Translation and Ethics--The ethical commitment of professional translators”.
International Translation Day was inaugurated by UNESCO and the International Federation of Translators. In today's global society there is a growing demand for language professionals.
Personally, I would like to point out the importance of the work done by the House of Commons translators.
Given this year's theme of translation and ethics, we particularly recognize and appreciate the confidentiality and impartiality of the House of Commons translators. Please join me in thanking all our language professionals for their good work.
G-8 SummitMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, now that the G-8 summit in Kananaskis is less than nine months away, security experts are calling out for the high powered gathering to be relocated.
In all my research I have yet to come across a security expert who feels that the isolation of Kananaskis is an asset in providing the required security for the world leaders attending this summit. They have stated that it would be foolhardy to hold a conference in such an isolated area since it is virtually impossible to secure the forest and the mountains.
Since there is only one access route, there could easily be bombs placed along the road as well as ambushes, just to name a few. This does not even begin to touch upon the concerns of property owners after seeing the violence of the protestors in Quebec and Italy.
My constituents are justifiably concerned that protestors may destroy their homes since there are simply not enough security personnel to cover such a vast area. I am asking and my constituents are begging the Prime Minister to relocate this summit while time is still on his side.
National Family WeekMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw attention to National Family Week, which will be October 1 to 7 this year. It is a week that provides us with the opportunity to acknowledge the importance and vitality of families in our society.
This year's theme is “Volunteering is a family affair. Connect with Kindness”. This being the International Year of Volunteers, the two part theme lets us call attention to the remarkable work of contributing to family solidarity.
The family, the foundation of our society, represents the roots of all Canadians. The events surrounding National Family Week will emphasize just how important families are.
St. Lawrence RiverMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency published their 2001 report on the state of the Great Lakes.
This report reveals that the water quality of the St. Lawrence River is improving. Cleanup efforts are starting to yield results.
However, as an ecosystem, the river is deteriorating. On this subject, the report is disturbing. It reveals that wetland habitat continues to deteriorate. Urban sprawl, farming activities and air pollution still threaten the ability of plants and wildlife to renew themselves.
While the state of the Great Lakes is stabilizing, the St. Lawrence River watershed is particularly threatened. Some shoreline wetlands have completely dried up as a result of human activity and numerous bird and aquatic species are becoming endangered.
On behalf of all those who earn their living from the St. Lawrence River, and particularly on behalf of future generations, I wish to remind the House of how important it is that we urgently take action in order to preserve one of our environmental treasures.
Chris EganMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too convey the sympathies of Nunavummiut, the people of Nunavut, to all affected, and especially to the family of Chris Egan and her brother who both perished in the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11 in New York City.
During the 20 years Chris Egan spent in Nunavut as a nurse in Pond Inlet, Coral Harbour, Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet Chris contributed to the quality of life by her energetic and positive involvement in community activities such as the Girl Guides.
Arriving in Pond Inlet as a young nurse in the seventies, Chris always vowed she would one day do her Ph.D. This goal was attained by Chris in 1999. In keeping with her passion for the north, her thesis was on Inuit women's perception of pollution.
As far away as we are, we too were touched by this tragedy and many prayer services were held throughout Nunavut in support. The hearts and thoughts of Nunavummiut are with the Egan family and all the families of the victims of September 11.
National SecurityMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about security at our Canada-U.S. border. This week I received a shocking letter from a constituent whose husband, a truck driver, was re-entering Canada from the U.S. only hours after the tragic events of September 11. In her letter she states the following startling facts:

My husband was not asked for any form of identification, his country of residency, or his destination...and...the crossing was only about 250 miles from the horrible tragedy unfolding in New York City.

My constituent's questions to the government are: Why was this border crossing not asking the most basic identity questions before allowing someone into our country and why are we not doing more to keep Canada safe and secure?
In spite of what the Prime Minister says, Canadians are concerned that Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists. It is high time the government acted responsibly to ensure the safety of Canadians by moving quickly with effective security measures and the much needed anti-terrorism legislation.
Pierre Elliott TrudeauMr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 28, 2000, Canada was stunned by the death of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One year later, Canadians are still affected by this great loss.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau left an indelible mark on our country. He shared his passion for Canada with each and every Canadian. He was a man who fully explored his ideas and dreams. He strove for a just and modern society in which everyone could thrive. He dreamed of a bilingual country that would respect diversity, of a country that would make its name in the world by defending liberty, peace and justice.
One year after his passing, it is fair to say that he will continue to have a place in the memory and history of Canadians. We will miss him for a very long time.
InfrastructureMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is free falling into a recession. We have not seen a week with so many job losses and falling stocks since the early nineties. If ever there was a time that we needed a new infrastructure program it is now.
A new infrastructure program would accomplish two things. First, it would stimulate the economy by creating jobs and help avoid a recession. Second, it would address the long overdue repair and improvement that our national infrastructure desperately needs.
The Liberal government has been neglecting infrastructure for years now and that neglect is being felt around the country. In every province and territory we have highways that need improvement and public water systems that are not up to the demand. Our crumbling infrastructure must be improved.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I call on the government to stop standing idly by while our economy continues to sink. It is time for a new comprehensive national infrastructure program.
Economic Development Agency of CanadaMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the art of keeping secrets seems increasingly to be the trademark of the Liberal government, and specifically the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
This week, a member of the Bloc asked the agency to provide the details of grants it had given in her riding. The answer given by the secretary of state's policy assistant was clear: this information was confidential, and access to information was the only way to get additional information.
The Bloc members are entitled to be informed of grants to businesses in their ridings, especially when the grants come from the taxes of Quebecers. This money does not belong to the Liberals and even less to the Minister of National Revenue.
The office of the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada is revealing itself increasingly to be a leviathan where keeping secrets reigns supreme.
Pierre Elliott TrudeauMr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true Canadian hero. One year ago today Canada lost Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Pierre Trudeau was an inspiration to an entire generation of Canadians. He gave us the courage to believe that we could be greater than we were. He dared us to dream.
Pierre Trudeau showed us that Canada was more than the sum of its parts; that to aspire toward a just society was a noble and worthy cause and that we really could all make a difference. His vision included all Canadians, whether from the east, west, Ontario, Quebec or from foreign shores. Indeed, many Canadians call this country home today because of him.
A year ago today Canadians shared their grief at the loss of a man who helped us to see not what we were, but what we could become.
Today I call on the House and on all Canadians to pay tribute by remembering the vision and the passion that Pierre Elliott Trudeau inspired in all of us.
Tropical Storm GabrielleMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, tropical storm Gabrielle dumped 120 millimetres of rain on the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland within a few hours. The result was severe flooding. Roads were washed away, sewers overflowed and houses and businesses flooded. The city of St. John's declared a state of emergency.
The province has established a disaster assistance committee to deal with those affected. Municipal and provincial affairs minister Oliver Langdon says he is certain Ottawa will come up with the lion's share of a flood aid package, but to date no word has been received on federal approval. What's the problem? Why is the government hesitating?
The province of Newfoundland, the city of St. John's, businesses and individuals particularly need assistance now. Why does the government not do something different for a change? Why does it not respond quickly to this situation?
Big Brothers and Big SistersMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, September is Big Brothers and Big Sisters Month.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada provides mentoring programs to children in more than 300 communities across this country. Most Canadians know at least one or two generous volunteers who give their time and energy to ensure that a young person has a role model to look up.
High school graduation rates among little brothers and little sisters are 20% higher than the national average. Right now there are over 10,000 young people matched with adults through this program.
I ask the House to join me in saluting the volunteers whose efforts make such a significant difference in the lives of so many of our young children in Canada.
Human RightsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been shamefully silent about the crimes against humanity being committed in Sudan by the brutal National Islamic Front regime.
Today the Ottawa Citizen indicates just how involved in international terrorism the Sudanese regime has been. It has used its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given diplomatic credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in the world. It has worked with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on civilians. It has fostered close working relationships between bin Laden's followers and both Sudanese intelligence officers and high ranking Sudanese military officers. It has used its military officers, working with al-Qaeda members, to ship arms across the country of Sudan.
Also, CSIS documents say that for the past 10 years or more, bin Laden operatives have used Canada as a support base for terrorizing Americans. The CSIS report states that the group al-Jihad in Canada is part of a co-ordinated international al-Jihad effort aimed at pursuing a terrorist agenda.
The Canadian government should condemn the brutal Sudanese regime. It is shameful that the Liberal government is turning a blind eye.

Oral Question Period
TerrorismMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has been loath to admit that there is a Canadian connection to international terrorism. Now we find that CSIS believes that al-Jihad has been operating in Canada in support of bin Laden and his terrorist efforts.
Will the solicitor general fess up to the fact that there is a Canadian connection?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my hon. colleague many times in the House, the web of terrorism reaches all democratic systems around the world. The fact is that there is no evidence of any direct link between Canada and the events of September 11.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that Canadians had to read in their newspapers this morning that CSIS, the minister's own department, says that al-Jihad is operating here in Canada.
Why do they have to learn from their morning newspapers that there is a Canadian connection instead of from the minister who should really be the one to tell them that we have these sorts of problems?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague is not just trying to create fear. What I said is absolutely correct. There is no evidence of a direct link between Canada and the events of September 11. Those are the facts.
All measures that need to be taken and all leads that need to be followed are followed by the RCMP and CSIS, and they are working with their counterparts in the U.S. to make sure that the people responsible for what took place on September 11 are brought to justice.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the briefing book says that and the minister keeps saying it but CSIS says something different.
It has been 18 days since this terrible act of terrorism and there has been no action on anti-terrorism legislation, no action on air marshals and no action on tightening up our deportation system.
What will it take for the government to really take some action?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this country has taken a lot of action with our security intelligence agency and the RCMP. We have taken steps to strengthen our border and to fight terrorism fundraising.
We have also indicated quite clearly that any steps that need to be taken to improve legislation will be taken.
ImmigrationMrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, immigration officials have lost track of 27,000 people who were supposed to be deported. It is almost the equivalent to the population of cities like Brandon or Charlottetown. It is the whole population of Nunavut.
When will the minister put the resources into enforcement so that we do not lose track of another 27,000 deportees?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion that these people have vanished into thin air is just simply false.
We know that people leave the country. We do not check them as they leave. We know that others are deported, and last year we had the highest number ever with well over 8,600 people who were deported.
Our number one priority for deportation is criminals. Last year 1,700 were criminals but of the others, 5,700 were failed refugee claimants.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, immigration officials are saying that the deportees would have a difficult time living in Canada without identification, yet we have seen reports this week about how easy it is to forge identification documents.
When will the security of Canadians be a priority for the minister?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, by innuendo the member is suggesting that failed refugee claimants pose a security threat. That is false. All failed refugee claimants have had security screening. We will move as quickly as we can.
I say to the member opposite that it was not long ago that she was standing in the House making a statement urging me to allow failed refugee claimants to remain in Canada.
The EconomyMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to Desjardins' economist Joëlle Noreau, 10,000 jobs will be lost in the region of Montreal alone as a result of the September 11 attacks.
In light of the global economic dowturn, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the U.S., is considering investing $100 billion, while the Quebec government announced that it will speed up its investments to promote economic recovery.
At a time when other governments are taking action, what is the federal government waiting for to take measures to restore confidence?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, first, last week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada lowered interest rates by 50 basis points. This is a very substantial reduction that will certainly help our economy throughout the country.
At the same time, the government has taken measures, including the infrastructure program and amendments and improvements to the employment insurance program, to help Canada's unemployed and those who do need help at this time.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the minister is referring to the situation as it existed before the events of September 11, but things have since changed.
The measures that he announced in his minibudget of last fall are no longer adequate. The economy just took a nosedive, while the government is enjoying a $10 billion surplus.
When will the government realize that the new economic situation requires immediate new measures? When will the government finally decide to act?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I regret but I must correct the hon. member. The 50 basis point reduction in the Bank of Canada rate occurred last week, that is after the September 11 events.
At the same time, the measures that were put in place continue to work. The tax cuts continue to provide in excess of $17 billion to the Canadian economy, and the infrastructure program remains in effect.
In fact, we would really appreciate it if the Province of Quebec were to co-operate with the Minister of National Revenue and with the President of the Treasury Board to truly speed up the whole process.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in his speech to Liberal backers, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to travel, buy cars and sign mortgages.
But the government is refusing to act in a manner that will help restore the confidence essential to economic recovery.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that the key to economic recovery is confidence and that the government has a role to play in restoring that confidence?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the confidence of consumers is paramount, and this confidence is tied directly to the fiscal integrity of their country.
The fact that the country has put its fiscal house in order, that it has eliminated the deficit, and wishes to maintain that position, the fact that the government is showing fundamental discipline, as other governments are doing, is crucial to consumer confidence.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, restoring confidence will take more than words; it will take action. The U.S. government is taking action; the Quebec government is taking action, the French government has just announced measures.
What additional specific action does the federal government intend to take in the coming days to help boost the economy?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec wants to boost confidence, I would suggest that it stop talking about a recession.
International AidHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The United Nations yesterday said that one million people in Afghanistan may die of starvation by the end of the year unless they receive emergency aid. The United Nations has also called upon the world community to come up with an aid package of $875 million.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what Canada will contribute to this emergency aid package? So far all we have committed to is $1 million, which is a paltry sum in terms of what is needed to help with this great emergency.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been there in emergency situations across the world. As the member mentioned, last week the Minister for International Cooperation announced a $1 million aid package to the United Nations in response to their $6 million request.
Our funds helped kick-start the operation that he is now talking about. The alert is a worst case scenario. Obviously the UN has to prepare and so do countries, and Canada will be there.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the acting prime minister. Maybe that will get the Minister of Finance on his feet.
Lloyd Axworthy, a former cabinet minister, has said that Canada should take a lead in a major diplomatic offensive to organize humanitarian aid for this crisis in the world.
Will the acting prime minister take the lead of Lloyd Axworthy and will Canada lead a major diplomatic initiative to organize humanitarian aid in Afghanistan? What is our position? What are we doing to take this leadership role? Could the Minister of Finance answer that question?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not the Minister of Finance, but I believe I can answer the question. Canada has been helping Afghanistan for over 10 years. We have given over $120 million to Afghanistan.
We do not recognize the Taliban, that is clear. Our money is funnelled through the UN agencies and the NGOs. We are working closely with both to ensure that we are there to help the refugees who are there now and those who may become refugees in the future. We will be there.
ImmigrationMiss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, we should just take a couple of seconds to find out actually where some of that government money is funnelled through. We learned from the new unpublished public accounts that the government gave the Tamil Eelam Society of Canada $278,229 for “immigrant settlement services”.
Could the government confirm that all of this money went for those purposes for which it was intended and not one dollar went to any terrorist activities?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that funds for immigrant settlement services are audited by my department to ensure that they are used for the intended purposes. They do provide important services for new immigrants to Canada.
National SecurityMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to admit that there is a problem with porous border security. Yet United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has called our border a terrorist transit point and has already announced that the United States will toughen security along the Canadian border. Yet Liberal cuts to CSIS, the RCMP and customs have resulted in vulnerabilities at home and abroad.
When meeting with President Bush did the Prime Minister put forward a particular Canadian point of view on the idea of a North American security perimeter? Faced with the new realities of security can Canadians expect that resources will be allocated to our security forces at home?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one should be proud of the work done by Canada Customs since September 11, but of course one should be proud as well of Canada Customs as a whole in the sense that if there is one customs system in the world leading in regard to the brand new challenges ahead for customs systems, it is Canada Customs.
We have started to reform the whole system. As I have said many times, I met with the U.S. ambassador this week and it seems that there is really a meeting of the minds.
Talking about additional money to proceed with our Canadian reforms, we have been allocated an additional $100 million in order to put these reforms in place to keep our society safe.
The EconomyMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Nova Scotia just minutes ago issued a forecast projecting a deficit of $5 billion for the fiscal year 2002.
In addition to the massive layoffs and the fact that the Canadian dollar is hovering at an all time low as we speak, what is the finance minister doing to take into account this dramatically new fiscal situation in this country? Will he proceed with plans to let his cabinet colleagues like the Minister of Industry spend billions of dollars when we are now staring a deficit in the face?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government will maintain fiscal responsibility. I have said that from the beginning and the government has demonstrated that by its record.
I can also assure the hon. member that the spending the government engages in will be designed to increase the growth and productivity and the quality of life of Canadians.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, no budget, no recognition of reality, no changing of priorities to recognize the imperatives of national security, it is business as usual even when one of our major banks is projecting a $5 billion actual deficit within two fiscal years.
What action is the finance minister taking to account for the new economic realities in this country? When will he bring forward a budget? Will he avoid a deficit now, come hell or high water?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member in another intervention would explain to us how anybody could add up a set of numbers involving massive tax cuts, which the hon. member has suggested, massive spending, which they have been suggesting over the course of the last two weeks, and avoid a deficit.
Why does the hon. member not accept the fact that his party is now recommending huge deficits? They are the logical consequence of his party's policy unless that party cannot count, which is more than likely the case.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance kept on telling us that he had done everything possible in the past to get us through the present crisis. However, it is his inertia at the present time that is likely to jeopardize the sacrifices everyone has made to put public finances on a healthier footing. The drop in value of the Canadian dollar is indicative of a loss of investor confidence, which is in addition to the loss of consumer confidence.
Does the minister realize that his inaction is making him the author of an even more serious economic downturn than we are experiencing at the present time?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition knows very well that the surplus we have today is certainly decreasing because of the events of September 11 and those of the third and fourth quarter of this year.
I have a question for him. Is he recommending to us, or to Canadians, that we should spend ourselves back into a deficit situation?
Yvan Loubier: We are the ones asking the questions, Mr. Speaker. That is not what we are asking. We are asking him to tell the truth on the extent of the surplus at this time. We are also asking him to take off his rose coloured glasses.
All of the economic indicators point to the severity of the downturn. Consumers are putting off purchases. Investors are shunning Canadian stocks and the Canadian dollar is in a free fall.
Is the minister capable of analyzing the present and looking to the future, instead of dwelling on the past, and of bringing down in the near future a true plan for bolstering the economy and helping the workers who are victims of the downturn?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the hon. member, who has even refused to give an indication of what he thinks ought to be done, whether what he is saying is that we should abandon fiscal balance? Is he saying that we should give up on that, and is he recommending that we go back to a deficit situation? Is that what the Bloc Quebecois position is?
National DefenceMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong with the government's priorities. Yesterday the auditor general slammed the way the government gave $7 billion to unaccountable foundations, calling it “very troubling”. The Conference of Defence Associations yesterday said Canada's military is “simply not operationally ready”.
Does the government understand that the price for its misplaced priorities is Canada's failure to uphold its international obligations?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, in regard to misplaced priorities, do I understand what the hon. member is saying? The Canadian Foundation for Innovation has funded the synchrotron project in Saskatchewan and is funding basic research right across the country, which is an essential element of the new economy and of any country's growth programs.
Is he saying that basic research and applied research in the country is a misplaced priority? It is wonderful to know now the real agenda of the party opposite.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I think the finance minister should speak to the auditor general and understand that the vast majority of the $7 billion is sitting in cash deposits. It is doing nothing for the good of the country.
The reality is that while the Canadian forces are being starved, an amount nearly equal to their entire annual budget is handed out and the government does not know what is being done with the money. Meanwhile Canada is becoming known around the world as a condolence card ally, a bed and breakfast for terrorists, and it is the weak link of NATO.
Could the minister explain why handouts are more important to Canadians than keeping our word to our allies?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us understand what the member is saying. He is saying the synchrotron project in Saskatchewan is a handout. He is saying the money that is going to hospitals in his province for research and development is a handout. He is saying that the money going to fund researchers across the country, that brings people back to Canada to develop the new economy and to educate young Canadians is a handout.
That shows where the priorities of the hon. member and those of his party are. Let me say those are not the priorities of Canadians. Canadians want to build the country and the government will build it with them.
Air CanadaMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to newspaper reports, Air Canada's request to the federal government for financial assistance predates the September 11 attacks. Indeed, the company purportedly approached the federal government for assistance to the tune of $1 billion dollars.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us if Air Canada's request for financial assistance was made prior to September 11, and will he provide us with details of the request?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly Air Canada was experiencing difficulties prior to September 11. This was widely reported in the press. There were talks held between myself, my officials and Air Canada to discuss the problems. Air Canada made a number of proposals for improving the situation.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us some assurance that the financial assistance he is planning for Air Canada will be directly related to the events of September 11, and that he is not using these events as a pretext to get Air Canada out of a financial mess that predates the New York attacks?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of our analysis at this time.
TerrorismMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice have said that Canada has laws allowing us to seize terrorist assets. What they did not tell us was that the government agency responsible for identifying terrorist assets, Fintrac, is not even up and running yet.
How are we supposed to identify, freeze and seize the assets of Osama bin Laden if the agency responsible for identifying these assets is not even operational?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the organizations have been already identified. They were identified in the annex to the letter that OSFI sent to the banks. The banks have issued a public statement saying they are co-operating and acting on the request. It has been taken care of.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, yesterday former RCMP commissioner Norman Inkster said that he thought that the events of September 11 would mean the highest priority given to freezing the terrorists' assets in Canada.
This weak Liberal government has repeatedly refused to make firm commitments regarding when it is going to get serious on fighting terrorism. Why is it ignoring recommendations from the opposition, from the private sector and from its own departments? Is there something it is not telling us?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would simply read the communiqué from the Canadian Bankers Association he would see that in fact the government has taken action, that Canadian banks have taken action and that they took it forthwith. I simply would read it:

Banks in Canada are complying with Canadian law enforcement agencies (the RCMP) under the laws of Canada and will continue to co-operate in the efforts against terrorism by reviewing records and providing relevant information to appropriate Canadian law enforcement agencies.

The press release goes on to say that our legislation has “the effect of giving the banks in Canada” the right to freeze the account activity of Osama bin Laden and--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
Softwood LumberDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, since meetings with U.S. trade representative Zoellick and commerce secretary Evans two weeks ago, what has the government done to defend Canada's softwood lumber industry from U.S. trade actions and protectionist American lumber industries?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and his continued interest in this important matter.
The government has been very active on three specific fronts relevant to softwood lumber. First, we are committed to trade action. We are now in the process of requesting a WTO panel and the government will take six measures to the WTO for adjudication regarding the U.S. trade action. We continue to hold official discussions. Last week in Toronto there was enough progress made that there will be discussions next week in Washington to look at the root causes.
In light of the tragedy in the United States, the government is advocating quietly but persistently for our lumber industry.
Airline SafetyBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport was quite right when he said our airport security does not need to exactly mirror the U.S. to be safe. Many people think that some of the U.S. measures like armed air marshals are making it easier for generals to shoot down civilian airliners and will actually make people feel less safe in the air.
That being said, the minister has not convinced Canadians that our security systems are fine as is. One can become an airport security guard in Canada with 20 hours of training. That is the same amount of training that one gets at McDonald's.
Why will the minister not admit that this training is insufficient and that contracting security out to the lowest bidder is--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member from the NDP continues to denigrate unionized workers who do a very valuable job across the country screening all the baggage. These people are trained. They are re-tested every two years. If they need additional training that is something we would be prepared to look at.
Why does she continue to beat up on individuals who are trying to do their best?
TerrorismLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister. Apparently, according to CNN, British and American troops have begun special operations in Afghanistan.
I would like to ask the acting prime minister, was Canada informed before this took place? What did we know? What can he tell the House? It is extremely important that we know whether or not Canada has been informed of these operations and what took place.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of such action being taken at this point in time. I just came back from the NATO meeting. There has been a lot of discussion about it. Of course when it comes to special operations there is not a lot of information that would be divulged publicly for security reasons.
Airline SafetyMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, one of the first anti-terrorist measures to guarantee airline safety needs to be securing the cockpit.
When will the Minister of Transport be able to assure travellers that, number one, the cockpit doors are locked, and number two, the cockpit doors are reinforced?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the regulation for the locking of cockpit doors was issued on September 17, the first day the House was back. Transport Canada, as the regulator in Canada, is working with the FAA and the European authorities to ensure that new design changes come into effect to strengthen cockpit doors. These will then apply to Bombardier, as our principal manufacturer, and Boeing and Airbus.
We are all working together to the same end, to the same result, which is to protect airline passengers.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the minister's answer is going to reassure the passengers who are flying today that the cockpits are secure.
He insists that the baggage handlers are adequately trained and have sufficient numbers to do their job yet they disagree. He refuses to consider allowing the crews to carry stun guns or pepper spray. He refuses to take precautionary measures, such as protecting the passengers with air marshals. He even intends to prevent U.S. aircraft with sky marshals on board from entering Canada. Why?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has been too preoccupied with the integration problems of his rump group and the Conservative Party to have noticed that we have added additional security measures. They have affected hazardous materials and sharp objects on planes. There are measures dealing with access of airside workers to planes, screener training, photo ID, enhanced infiltration testing, and the strengthening of the cockpit doors as I mentioned.
Why is the opposition so intent on trying to discourage the travelling public from getting back into the air?
Employment InsuranceMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the publicly stated promise of performance for employment insurance states that when a Canadian loses his or her job, the claim should be processed in 21 days and the first benefit cheque should arrive shortly after that.
In eastern Ontario the reality is a whole lot different. In August only 32% of claims were processed within this timeframe. Many laid off workers have to wait eight weeks or more. Callers to the information centre are advised it will take 15 days just to inform them of the status of their claims.
When will this unacceptable situation change?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the increase in EI claims reflects the impact of a downturn in the economy that is being felt in some parts of the country and in the economy itself. In addition, recent work stoppages have greatly affected productivity. This has limited the number of workload reduction options, that is, overtime, and has added to the backlogs in many offices around the country.
We are working to reduce this backlog to provide the level of service that Canadians have come to expect. Our goal is to maintain service levels to 28 days for new claims.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the speaking notes prepared for the hon. parliamentary secretary were intended for a different question.
A year ago when Kanata's high tech sector was booming, the 21 day promise of performance was almost always met. Now that thousands of workers in Kanata and the rest of eastern Ontario actually need help, the EI system is falling apart at the seams.
The government's main campaign point in recent elections has been that it is a competent manager. A manager who meets his targets only 38% of the time could expect himself to be collecting employment insurance pretty soon.
How long will it be before the targets that were met last year will be achieved in this part of the country this year?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer that I gave a moment ago.
There have been a number of factors that have meant that the work has slowed down. We are working on this right now.
I would like to add that the employment insurance program is there for Canadians who face layoffs. HRDC officials are working now to ensure that employees affected by layoffs are able to access the benefits they are entitled to.
Foreign AffairsMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, whose lack of leadership at the international level can only be deplored, recently said that he is in favour of a diplomatic approach and that he would seize the opportunity provided by the Commonwealth meeting and the Francophonie summit to broaden the coalition in the fight against terrorism.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain that Canada is one of the countries that announced that it would not take part in the Commonwealth meeting, thus contributing to its cancellation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to postpone the Commonwealth meeting was taken by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Commonwealth Secretary General. It is a decision that we must respect.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, since Canada's decision was made before the decision of the Prime Minister of Australia, can the minister tell us if the Canadian government intends to take part in the Francophonie summit, which is scheduled to take place in Lebanon, in October?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the Prime Minister is prepared to travel to all the way to Australia, as well as to Lebanon, if meetings take place as scheduled.
SudanMaurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to take a see nothing, do nothing approach toward the extremist brutal regime in Sudan. As recently as two days ago in this very House, the Liberal government refused to condemn the Sudanese government for its crimes against humanity and genocidal acts toward its own citizens.
Why will the Liberal government not condemn this terrorist and genocidal regime?
John Manley: If only the world were so simple, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this week the United States praised the Government of Sudan for the attitude that it has taken in the current circumstances.
I hope the hon. member understands what we, with our allies, are endeavouring to do at the present time. It is to build the broadest consensus possible to move against terrorism. Comments such as his are probably not that helpful.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, to take an example of that, a low Flight to justify his position, CSIS documents show that the Sudanese regime has continued to very aggressively pursue an agenda of international terrorism. It has used its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given diplomatic credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in the world. It has actually budgeted for international terrorism. It has worked with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on civilians.
Again, I ask the foreign affairs minister, what more does this brutal Sudanese regime have to do before the Liberal government will condemn it?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the choice of timing for such a question is unfortunate. I will not comment on security intelligence reports as I think the member should expect that I would not do. In the present circumstances I reiterate to him, we are endeavouring to build the broadest possible international consensus to act against terrorism. We and the United States certainly hope that the Government of Sudan will continue not only the encouraging words it has used but will be part of that consensus.
Porcupine CaribouNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski made recent remarks to re-emphasize his desire to drill in the sensitive Porcupine caribou calving grounds in Alaska. He also criticized Canada's opposition to this plan, singling out our Minister of the Environment.
Will the Minister of the Environment tell the House his position on this important issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Senator Murkowski's reaction to my remarks on the 1002 lands indicate very clearly why it is important not to allow recent events to be used to stampede governments into ill-considered decisions in other unrelated areas.
Canada will continue to urge the United States to honour the 1987 agreement on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd and its habitat. Canada will continue to emphasize that protection of the Porcupine caribou calving grounds is critical to the health of the herd and to the culture and way of life of the Gwich'in first nation people, both in Yukon and in Alaska.
Firearms RegistryMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as of March 31, 2001 the government admits it had a staff of 1,800 people and spent half a billion dollars implementing the problem plagued gun registry, $200 million last year alone. In 1995 the Minister of Justice promised it would only cost $85 million to implement.
Since August the auditor general has been trying to make sense of this colossal cost overrun. Will the Prime Minister please explain why tracking duck hunters is still a bigger priority for the government than tracking potential terrorists?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that about 85% of Canadians support the gun registry program. In fact it is a public safety issue. The government confirmed that it will provide public safety for Canadians and will continue to do so.
Garry Breitkreuz: I am all for public safety, Mr. Speaker,
Yesterday, officials in the office of the Minister of National Revenue advised that firearms licences with photo IDs are not suitable identification for Canadian citizens crossing the border, but provincial drivers licences are okay.
Law-abiding firearms owners have to go through criminal record checks, background checks, reference checks, pass a test and have their privacy invaded to get a firearms licence.
If Canada customs will not trust a firearms licence as an acceptable piece of identification, just why do we spend half a billion dollars issuing them?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when people cross the border, they have to go through the standard screening.
We have talked many times about the question of risk management. We are using different tools that we have at our disposal at the border, especially at the American border.
We are managing as well the question of the registration of firearms. However, we on this side of the House have made a choice as a society to make sure that having firearms in Canada is seen as an exception. It is not a right in Canada.
We on this side of the House want to make sure that we have a good and safe society. Canadians support that.
Employment InsuranceMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the auditor general tabled a report with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It reveals that the surpluses of over $36 billion in the employment insurance fund as at May 31 are far in excess of the $15 billion considered necessary. Once again, we have proof that the minister is incapable of managing employment insurance. Worse yet, the auditor general indicates that the spirit of the law has not been followed.
Will the minister finally implement the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled in this House on May 31?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, this government favours a balanced approach to employment insurance. We are trying to balance our obligation to Canadians to help them if they are in need with that of protecting the integrity of our social programs.
As the report on the performance of our department indicated, we realized savings of $553 million in the employment insurance account in the last fiscal year.
As to the second question—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That is not the question.
Raymonde Folco: —I have already told the House we are working on the report and will release it very soon.
National DefenceMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister will know that yesterday the Conference of Defence Associations released a report on the state of the Canadian military. Could the minister provide the House with his comments and observations on the report?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, some of the comments of the Conference of Defence Associations are valid and some of them are not valid. When we add to that the distortions and exaggerations of the media and opposition, we get some statements that do not fit at all.
First, the Canadian forces are fit to carry out their job as a multipurpose combat capable force. Second, they can meet the provisions of the 1994 defence policy white paper. Third, the government is modernizing the Canadian forces. It has put $3 billion into the forces over the last three budgets. It has clearly stated that it will provide what is necessary for them to do their job.
National SecurityMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as everyone is aware, the first line of defence in our fight against terrorism is a strong border.
This week we learned that student employees are manning many of our border crossings. This is a dangerous proposition for our country and the students as well. Customs expects these students to make independent decisions on who crosses the border and who does not. They are forced to work in an unsupervised manner.
Will the minister reconsider his directive of using students as our first line of defence?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canada Customs hires students during the summer and all year long. They are receiving good training. It is part of the government's youth strategy.
As I said, they receive good training, they work under supervision and they are doing a very good job.
Canadian BanksMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the measures taken by the United States to trace funds linked to the terrorists, the superintendent of financial institutions asked Canadian banks to trace funds deposited in their accounts and to co-operate with the U.S. authorities.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not funds identified as belonging to individuals or to terrorist groups include funds they hold in foreign branches of Canadian banks, including the 50 branches of Canadian banks located in the Caribbean, a region considered to be an absolute hotbed of tax havens and money laundering?
Paul Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the legislation applies to Canadian banks everywhere, both within and outside our borders. I can also tell the member that, this week, the Canadian Bankers' Association issued a press release in which it said very clearly that it would co-operate 100% with the request from the government and from the United Nations.
National DefenceLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Globe and Mail website this morning at 11.23 a.m. said that U.S. and British special forces are in Afghanistan. Why was the minister kept in the dark? Why is he being kept out of the loop?
Why do members of parliament have to rely on the Globe and Mail for important news like this instead of hearing from the Government of Canada?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear the last time that when it comes to covert operations that special operations groups from any country, including our own, may carry out for reasons of national security we do not talk about them.
HousingLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Seventy-five hundred people in British Columbia have had to declare personal bankruptcy due to the leaky condo crisis. The personal stress and hardship cannot be measured.
When will the government show some leadership, step in and help the quarter of a million British Columbians who are affected by this crisis?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 2000, the Governments of Canada and B.C. announced an agreement that will help owners of moisture damaged residential units. We gave the British Columbia government a commitment of $27.7 million, of which $11 million has already been advanced.
PrivilegeMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to report a situation that, in my opinion, infringes members' rights.
On May 30, I put a question in the House to the member for Ottawa West—Nepean in her capacity as the spokesperson for the House's Board of Internal Economy on the subject of a Library of Parliament service that was being developed for parliamentarians, including the members of this House.
Standing Order 37(3) affords all members the opportunity to debate a matter further if they are not satisfied with the answer. This is what I am doing right now. I gave notice here, to the table, that I intended to raise the matter in the House during adjournment proceedings.
We recognize that there is a bit of a gap between the time the member gives notice of intent to raise a matter and the time the announcement of matters to be raised during adjournment proceedings is given, since only three matters may be debated at that time.
I let some time go by, thinking that, by parliament's resumption on September 17, I would have been told when I might raise the matter.
I noted the first week that subjects were lacking for adjournment proceedings. So, I made inquiry with the table, which referred me to the Private Members Business Office.
On the 26th, a letter arrived at my office. The next day I notified the Speaker of my desire to raise this matter of privilege. Here we are.
In the letter, which I will table, if necessary, I am told that, according to the Standing Orders, I cannot request debate on the matter during adjournment proceedings, because the member for Ottawa West--Nepean is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 38(5) provides, and I quote:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes to do so, may speak for not more than two minutes. When debate has lasted for a total of thirty minutes, or when the debate on the matter or matters raised has ended, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried and shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.

This paragraph sets out how the privilege may be used during adjournment proceedings.
Because the member, the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary, my privilege is infringed.
It clearly says “if he or she wishes to do so”. This means that if the government wants to, someone may reply to the comments of the hon. member who has the privilege of speaking for longer on the issue of concern to him or her, that is four minutes instead of the 30 seconds that are available to put a question.
So, because there seems to be an internal conflict in the rules of the House, there is a breach of my privileges.
This may not seem like a very important issue to some, but it seems to me that a parliamentary institution, the Library of Parliament, seems immune from questioning.
I cannot, as a member of parliament, ask questions to the Speaker of the House—this is what I am told—even though the Library of Parliament is accountable to both Chairs, in the House of Commons and in the other place. Since I cannot address the Chair in the House before the Canadian public about issues that are of importance, who can I turn to?
I asked this question in the House. I was allowed to do so. But I am not being permitted to elaborate and I think this is a breach of my privileges.
Secondly, I would like to know why we waited until I raised the question? I had to go back to the Office to find out when adjournment proceedings were scheduled, only to then receive a letter saying that they would not.
In my opinion, my request could have been replied to when I submitted it, or soon thereafter, instead of waiting until the month of September. This seems to become a pattern with parliamentary institutions. I will probably have the opportunity to raise another question of privilege on another case dealing with a similar situation.
I do not understand why I would be deprived of my privilege to address the House on what is a current issue, this under the pretence that no one can answer my question.
I do hope that the Chair will determine whether there is indeed an internal conflict in the rules, as seems to think the clerk at the Private Members' Business Office and, if so, that it will be corrected. But in the meantime, I hope I will not be deprived of my privilege to address the House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member and the question he is raising.
I was informed of the situation about a week ago. I myself approached our clerks, who do such a great job for us, to indicate that I saw a problem developing.
It seems that when we changed the Standing Orders a few years ago, allowing questions to be asked concerning the Board of Internal Economy—prior to that, no questions whatsoever relating to parliamentary spending were allowed—and when we changed to rule about questioning the whip or leader of the opposition in the House, these generally being the spokespersons for the board, that made it possible for a question to be asked in the House. But for other questions, the rule is that an adjournment debate is allowed, what is often called “the late show” in the vernacular.
But when the Standing Orders were changed in the case of the Board of Internal Economy, we did not change the other one. This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that.
If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.
We frequently find rules in parliamentary law that need to be adjusted. You have just presided over a review of the entire modernization process in which a number of us were involved.
I have met twice with my colleagues in the House. No one on my side of the House raised this, no one had even imagined it.
Under these circumstances, perhaps the hon. member's request could be left pending, rather than doing away with it completely, and we could all focus on changing the rule promptly so that the question could then be allowed. If the Chair could take that into consideration, it seems to me that this would be the way to remedy the situation.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, noting the potential procedural gap there may be in this context, we would be prepared to give our consent to proceed with the member's application to have what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons calls the “late show” in the vernacular.
We would give our approval so that, until the standing orders are amended, we may proceed accordingly in the present case.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier, it strikes me at first glance that this is not a question of privilege. It is certainly a grievance, but given the seriousness of the matter, the Chair will examine it, take it under advisement and return to the House if necessary.
I appreciate the co-operation apparent from members on both sides of the House in this.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa--Vanier wishes to speak again, but I believe I have made a ruling on the question he raised. If it is on another matter, I will allow him to speak. If it is on the same point of order, I have expressed my decision on it.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
To be certain of what has been said in the House, if I have properly understood, the opposition is in agreement, until a decision has been made on the matter, to allow this debate.
The government House leader seemed to agree. I wonder if you reached this conclusion and whether, regardless of the conclusion on the point I raised, I may, in the meantime, do so in the coming days.
Don Boudria: Yes, but unanimous consent will be required.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Returning to the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier, I stand by my first conclusions. The Chair will take the matter seriously under advisement and return to the House, if necessary. However as to the matter of unanimous consent, that is for any member to seek from his or her colleagues at any time.
The awkwardness of the situation is that under our present standing orders only a minister or parliamentary secretary can respond if he or she so chooses. However we must keep in mind that in this case the question was asked of someone in a different position with a different responsibility. I cannot rule on the question of unanimous consent. That is for the House to exercise in its own wisdom. However I stand by my decision to take the matter originally raised under advisement.
Points of OrderLynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested in question period that I had pleaded on behalf of immigrants that exceptions to the Immigration Act be made for them. That is not true. However I was trying to point out that errors are made by the department in applying the law.
The Deputy Speaker: Respectfully to the member for Blackstrap who raised the issue, it is not really a point of order but a matter of debate between two parliamentarians across from one another. I will leave it at that.
House of Commons CalendarThe Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 28, I have the honour to table the House of Commons calendar for the year 2002.

Routine Proceedings
First Nations Governance Review ActMyron Thompson: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, an act to establish a First Nations Ombudsman and a First Nations Auditor to assist with administrative and financial problems.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill. Its purpose is twofold. Part one would establish the office of first nations ombudsman to assist persons who consider that they are being dealt with unfairly or unreasonably. The ombudsman may investigate complaints and report to the minister regarding complaints that are not satisfactorily resolved. He may also propose changes to first nations administrative policies and practices.
Part two would provide for an official from the office of the Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as first nations auditor. The official would carry out audits of first nation communities that are insolvent or where impropriety in financial management is alleged.
Both the ombudsman and the auditor would make reports to the minister. The reports would then go before parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsMr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to present a petition concerning the release of census records to genealogists and historians. The petition is signed by more than 2,500 Canadians from all 10 provinces. If we add that to previous petitions I have presented this year, more than 11,700 signatures have been submitted.
The petition points out that an estimated 7.5 million Canadians are engaged in the pursuit of their family histories and that census records are a valuable tool for such research. Such records have been used for historical research, tracing genetic diseases and settling wills and estates.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to retroactively amend the confidentiality clauses of the Census and Statistics Act, 1906 to allow the release to the public of post-1901 census records after a reasonable period of time.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Today, the focus of my remarks will be to show my solidarity with the workers and the management of the Lantic Sugar refinery located in my riding, not very far from my office, on Notre-Dame street. I will have the opportunity to explain further during my speech. It is a world-class refinery, and people there are extremely concerned about the liberalization of the sugar industry that will result from the bill before us today. Before getting to the central part of my speech, I would like to make some preliminary comments.
First, never ever should one believe that the members of the Bloc Quebecois, or the rest of the sovereignist family, are against free trade. Everyone knows that Quebec played a leadership role in the first free trade agreement that was signed in 1988. Quebecers are essentially in favour of free trade. Nearly half of Quebec's production is exported to the United States, to the Canadian market or to other destinations. So there is no question that Quebecers support free trade.
We know full well that any bilateral or multilateral agreement Canada enters into can generate economic growth over time. We are not questioning that.
What is troubling with the way the government acts is that we are being confronted with a done deal. One must not think that today, when two sovereign states sign a treaty that will have an impact on trade, it will only affect the manufacturing sector or the business community. The liberalization of an industrial sector may affect culture, financial institutions in the short term, medical equipment and, consequently, the viability of businesses and the maintaining of employment. What is particular with the way the government acts is that we are being confronted with a done deal.
The Minister for International Trade, who is very self-confident, as we know--the least we can say, as Jacques-Yvan Morin put, is that he thinks he is the cat's meow--came to the House saying “I signed an agreement, I have committed the executive and I ask parliamentarians to ratify this agreement without prior debate”.
One could also use the same logic for the bills introduced by the hon. member for Mercier: we want treaties involving the executive and, ultimately, parliament, to be submitted to the House before their final approval. The same applies to treaties on foreign policy. Unfortunately, our demands have fallen on deaf ears: the government has not listened to us. This is deplorable.
Signing a trade agreement is not an isolated, rare, and marginal phenomenon. We can even say that it is increasing at an incredible speed. Some 28 bilateral and multilateral treaties signed by Canada came into force in 1997, 44 in 1998 and the forecast is for that number to be over 50 in the years to come.
I believe one cannot talk about valuing the role of members of parliament, of striking a better balance between the executive, that is to say the government, and the legislative, which is the parliament, if we are only a rubber stamp and are not involved in the making of treaties before they are ratified.
With regard to the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica, there are a few issues of concern that I would like to talk about.
The free trade agreement Canada signed with Costa Rica, which of course is a multi-dimensional agreement involving several sectors of the economy, raises concern regarding a particular sector, namely the sugar industry.
It must be known that the free trade agreement with Costa Rica will totally eliminate tariffs on refined sugar. This is one of the main problems we, as parliamentarians, see in this agreement.
More to the point, there is an agreement with Costa Rica. As we know, this country is tiny albeit beautiful. I went there on my second honeymoon. As one can easily imagine, I had the opportunity to see Costa Rica in very romantic terms. This small country is politically stable, its agrifood industry is extremely important, and of course it is very interesting for its fauna as well as the way it welcomes tourists.
It must be said that the agreement between Costa Rica and Canada could be used as a model, and be a prelude to freer trade with four other countries in Central America. I refer of course to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
The spokespersons for the sugar industry, be they on the workers' side or the management side, are worried. They are wondering whether the free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica is a sign of freer trade in the sugar industry among El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.
If that is the case, then we have a problem. Let me put it very simply: if the same model were to be used to liberalize trade with four other countries, then whole segments of the sugar industry would collapse.
As we know, the sugar industry is extremely fragile, not only because the profit margin is not very high, but also because--as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot reminded us--in the 1970s, an international cartel made up of a number of countries tried to fix the price on the world market, something which caused significant price increases at one point in time.
The governments then decided to subsidize the sugar industry to ensure that the product could be sold on the world market at a very competitive price per tonne. We then found ourselves in a situation where the U.S. generated a dramatic drop in the demand for sugar products, which resulted in an extremely low demand price.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot reminded me that we are not immune to the schemes of another cartel. At such a time, I am sure that I will find the input of the member for Longueuil very useful.
I would like to get to the core of the issue and say that I fully support the workers of Lantic Sugar Limited, in the riding of Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, and the management of that company. This is not a dispute between the union and the management.
This is very interesting and I am proud to say that when this Canadian sugar company had to streamline its operations and choose a location to carry on its production, it opted for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve. This was made possible because the union agreed to review existing collective agreements and sign a new long term collective agreement. This is a very good example of industrial peace where both the workers and the management at Lantic Sugar made compromises to ensure the survival of the company and to protect jobs in Montreal's east end.
Lantic Sugar is a world class refinery. It is at the very top of the world's leading sugar refineries.
As we are speaking, the company operates at 90% of its regular capacity. In 1999 and 2000, it invested $100 million to modernize its operations.
It is with regret that I must say that while the city, the Quebec government and local stakeholders developed a plan to rescue the company, the federal government did not invest one penny in that plan to save Lantic Sugar.
This is another example which shows that, when it comes to regional development, particularly in Montreal, it is extremely difficult to enlist the federal government's co-operation.
The Lantic Sugar refinery, which is a world class company, currently employs 345 people. Imagine what it would mean for these workers if there was a sudden drop in the demand for sugar products at the international level. When we look at the negotiations conducted by the Minister for International Trade, we truly get the impression that the sugar industry was not considered at its fair value. The possible threat facing the sugar industry was not taken into consideration, as it should have been, following an early and unfavourable liberalization process, as I will show later on.
This means that if changes are not made and if the government intends to use this model for negotiations to come with four other Central American countries, we could lose tens of jobs. But rest assured, because the Bloc Quebecois will not let this happen.
A business employing 345 workers has made major investments, to the tune of $100 million, on the east side of Montreal, which means essentially from Papineau street to the end of the island. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you spent part of your childhood in Montreal, as we have discussed before, so you know the city pretty well.
As I was saying, investments were made in that business that provides $28 million worth of salaries and benefits. That business also needs supplies and services for its day-to-day operation and has a list of 200 suppliers. This represents investments totalling $40 million.
What is interesting is that Lantic Sugar does not provide just any type of jobs; it provides interesting jobs for blue collar workers. We are not talking here about people with university degrees, but they are honest workers who do their job well and who have received serious on-the-job training.
I asked what the average salary was at Lantic Sugar. Members will not be surprised to know that it is $20.67 an hour. This is very interesting for workers to have businesses offering these kinds of jobs in a neighbourhood like Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.
Now let us go to the heart of the issue. As we all know, the Minister for International Trade is bursting with self-confidence. He is proposing a treaty with Costa Rica that will liberalize trade in one particular industry, without really thinking about the impact this could have on people's lives.
At the present time, Costa Rica does not produce refined sugar, which is primarily produced by Lantic Sugar. Costa Rica will be permitted to export 20,000 tonnes to Canada, starting next year, in 2002. Costa Rica's access to the Canadian market will be progressively increased from 20,000 tonnes in 2002 to 40,000 tonnes in 2009.
Canada, in turn, will be permitted to export 3,528 tonnes to Costa Rica beginning in 2002, and this will increase to 6,990 tonnes in 2009. Why am I giving these figures? Because the public needs to understand that when the Minister for International Trade negotiates with Costa Rica to liberalize trade, there is some give and take involved. One has the impression that the sugar industry was sacrificed to the benefit of other sectors. That is what is unacceptable.
I hope that the minister's parliamentary secretary, who is nodding his head, will give us guarantees that not only will the signing of this agreement not be used to implement other agreements with four other Central American countries, but that there will be no loss of jobs in the sugar industry. That is my concern as the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, because of the importance of Lantic Sugar.
In this agreement, Canadian exports are based on the country of origin rule, so that it will only be possible to export products containing sugar produced in Canada to Costa Rica.
As for raw sugar--not refined--there will be no tariff. Right now, there is no tariff on raw sugar. In the four countries of Central America, imports of raw sugar rose from almost nothing in 1995 to 275,000 tonnes in 2000.
It is interesting to note--I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has been kind enough to be in attendance for this debate, is aware of this--that, in relative terms, the countries of Central America and Costa Rica have been given ten times the access to the Canadian market than they have to the United States.
This adds to the concerns of manufacturers because--as I will point out--the U.S. sugar market is much more protected than the Canadian sugar market, although it is ten times larger.
I note that the agriculture minister is nodding. I am not convinced that these considerations were taken into account in the Costa Rica-Canada agreement.
I therefore have a few raw figures I will try to refine somewhat during my speech.
In Canada, the tariff on refined sugar products is $30.86 a tonne. Let us understand clearly that the rate for the Central American countries is far higher than that. For example, it is 160% in Guatemala, or 20 times the Canadian rate. The two countries wish to give access to the market in the same proportions, but they do not start with the same basic reality because of the different levels of market protection. What have the consequences of this been?
Refined sugar imports from countries in Central America are constantly increasing. This is not hard to understand. For example, Guatemala exported almost nothing over the past five years, but in 2000 exported 3,200 tonnes of refined sugar to Canada. This is a situation of considerable concern for those working in the industry and for their company management.
What needs to be done? What the industry is calling for, both employees and management, is that the sugar market not be freed up with a single country, and that any liberalization not take place until discussed in a multilateral forum.
There will be other WTO negotiations in 2005, held in Latin America in fact. People are saying “Why not look at the type of freer trade we want with a number of countries?” Allowing the sugar industry to be placed in a negotiating or competing position with countries that have historically protected their market to a far greater extent than Canada has been able to does not seem fair. I am being told my time is up, so I will close.
I call upon the minister and the parliamentary secretary to be very much aware that, should the agreement in place for Costa Rica ever be applied and then used as a model for four other Latin American or Central American countries, we would be placed in a situation where there would be considerable risk of job losses in the sugar industry. And that we will not accept.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the debate on Bill C-32 regarding the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. I think it is quite well known that the NDP party has great reservations about liberalized trade agreements, about the way Canada enters into these agreements and about the terms and conditions that are either within or fail to be within the agreements.
Our position is quite clear. We do not think Canada should enter into any free trade agreements or liberalized trade agreements that do not enshrine basic labour rights, environmental standards or human rights. We believe there is a role within trade agreements to deal with those social issues. We reject the argument that there is no other place for those other issues within trade deals of that nature.
I point out the irony that we should even debate or consider this bill in the legislature or in parliament. These free trade agreements are specifically designed to bypass freely elected legislatures and parliaments around the world. It is part of their job to provide a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations that bypass freely elected governments. Some of our ability to control our destiny within this country is taken away by these free trade agreements.
It may sound like a strong statement, but Ruggiero, the former head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods and services and capital. That is why we need free trade agreements to bypass this tedious democratic process that we spend our lives representing.
That in a nutshell sums up what the NDP's concern is about free trade agreements. There are people who actually believe that there is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital and investment. It is a frightening thought.
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement resembles in many ways NAFTA, the FTAA, the GATS agreements and other free trade agreements. There are many similar features in it. There are no noticeable improvements. In other words, all the things we pointed out as flaws or omissions in those other agreements are not dealt with in this new Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.
Canada as a nation is dealing with challenges under the current free trade agreements under which we are living, NAFTA challenges, et cetera. I point out some cases where we are vulnerable to these challenges, one of which is dealing with the bulk sale of water. We just heard eloquent and passionate debates about Canada not getting into exporting bulk water, or the bulk sale of interbasin transfer of water.
The Americans, through the free trade agreement, are challenging Canada now. Sun Belt California is a company that is challenging Canada, saying that we have denied them economic opportunity by refusing to commodify our water resources. This is the kind of thing to which we are vulnerable.
Another issue is our postal service. We have chosen to have a federally owned postal service to deliver our mail. However, American companies such as UPS, have challenged that. They have said that this is a service they wish to provide and that they have a right to offer free competition in that arena. Because they want to provide the delivery of mail service, they have said that Canada cannot give Canada Post a monopoly on its courier service.
This is an example of where we are losing our ability to control our own destiny and shape the kind of country as we want it because of the free trade agreements we have entered into at times.
At the onset of my speech I mentioned that we are critical of any liberalized trade agreement that fails to recognize core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues. When we raise that, we are often told that by trading with less developed nations, those standards will be elevated by some kind of osmosis and that they will naturally come up to our level.
In other words, we will not go to the lowest common denominator, they will come up to ours. There is no empirical evidence anywhere in the world where that has been the case. In fact, the opposite has been true. The harmonization has been a downward trend, except in places where it is specifically contemplated and dealt with, such as the European Union.
The EU was a free trade agreement that the NDP could probably have endorsed. Over 20 years they carefully set out the terms and conditions that would not harmonize to the lowest common denominator. In fact, the less developed countries were brought up to a mean average at least.
We look at examples like the APEC meetings in Vancouver that resulted in riots and the pepper spray incident, et cetera. We objected to inviting somebody like Suharto to our country. We considered him an international criminal, a butcher. Yet we hosted him in our country. When we raised that as an objection the government said that by dealing with people like that and trading with them, we would pull them into the democratic world and would elevate their standards of labour conditions.
When we ended up pepper spraying our own citizens for having the temerity for a peaceful protest, it looked like we went down to his level. That kind of harmonization to the higher common denominator does not seem to happen. We are very critical of it.
There are specifics in the bill that I should deal with. First, the preamble of this hefty piece of legislation is written in such flowery language. It is almost poetic. It is almost beautiful to read the principles being espoused in that preamble. Unfortunately those same principles do not find any room within the actual text of the document.
It says that the Government of Canada and the government of Costa Rica have entered into this agreement to strengthen the special bonds of friendship among their peoples and to contribute to the harmonious development and provide a catalyst for broader international co-operation. They are all very lofty goals and wonderful principles that anybody would be happy to be associated with, until we see what it really translates into.
If our interest is really to elevate the standards of living conditions for people around the world and if it is true that the globalization of capital is supposed to bring with it the globalization of the rule of law, the globalization of human rights, the globalization of foreign labour standards, then where is it in this document? Where is it in the empirical evidence around the world where these trade agreements exist? It does not exist. It is a fraud. We are being sold a bill of goods here that do not translate into elevating anybody's standards. In fact, it has had a reverse effect. It has had a negative effect on wages and working conditions. It serves only one interest and that is the interest of global capital.
The NDP is concerned. I should make it clear there is nothing anti-free trade about the NDP or our party's policy. We are very much for free trade. Other speakers mentioned that we are more interested in fair trade. The world should develop and evolve, toward a fair, rules based trading mechanism, not a free hand in the market shall prevail and good luck.
Labour standards are of particular concern to me as a former trade unionist and labour leader. We have watched Costa Rica for many years. Frankly, Costa Rica has a terrible reputation for labour standards.
One of our criticisms about this trade agreement is the same as with NAFTA. It relegates labour issues to a side agreement. They are not found within the actual text of the document. All those annoying labour issues will be dealt with by a separate tribunal, which is slow, tedious, cumbersome, bureaucratic and has not given any satisfaction to the working people who object or have a legitimate grievance.
Costa Rica is notorious for its persistent denial of basic labour rights, especially the rights of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to withhold services.
All this agreement requires the parties to do is enforce their existing labour legislation. There is nothing in here about enhancing current labour legislation to bring it up to the highest common denominator. It just says that there is a requirement to enforce whatever labour legislation they have.
Costa Rica's labour legislation is woefully behind western standards or standards within the free world. It is another one of those countries, through no fault of its own but through its desire to bring economic development to its country, that has bought into this idea of free trade zones or economic trade zones. They are called export processing zones, or EPZs, in Costa Rica. These are areas that are excused from the pathetic legislation that exists in that country. These particular zones, these fenced compounds, do not have to live up to those regulations. It is a cowboy attitude toward labour standards.
We have watched Costa Rica develop over recent years. Whether it is Central America, South America and Costa Rica, there is no exception, they have what we call anti-worker Solidarista movements or phony union movements. They are unions of convenience, much like CLAC, the Christian labour alliance, in Canada. By voluntarily signing a contract with CLAC, real unions are prohibited from organizing in a particular workplace. These dummy unions have been organized nationally and are put place to try to keep bona fide unions from organizing. This was a conspiracy to deny people basic union rights and freedoms.
If we were sincere about elevating the standards of wages and working conditions of people in developing nations and using trade agreements to help do that as an instrument, then we would require our trading partners to adhere to the same standards of freedom and rights to association for collective bargaining that we give our workers. The agreement is completely and deliberately silent on that. We object to that. If nothing else it is a missed opportunity for those of us who do genuinely care about international development and moving society forward in a global way.
This is not the instrument to do that. Once again, this is an instrument of exploitation. If we do not say it here, there is certainly no opportunity for the working people of Costa Rica to object. This is happening above and beyond any input from them.
I stand in solidarity with my fellow working people in Costa Rica to object to this agreement and to any so-called free trade agreement that does not recognize core labour standards, the right to free collective bargaining and the basic principles that we take for granted in this country.
People say that trade unionists object to free trade agreements for selfish reasons because they are worried that their standard of living will be dragged down. Frankly, if labour and commodities are cheaper in one of our trading partner's country, there is nothing to stop Canadian or American companies gravitating to that country for manufacturing purposes.
I resent that and object to that position. I also resent the argument that we are worried about losing our good paying manufacturing jobs. We are worried. We would be crazy if we were not. The only sensible thing Ross Perot ever said in the election in the states was with regard to the great flushing sound of Canadian and American jobs racing to Mexico with the first free trade agreement. We noticed that and have not fully recovered from all the promises that those blue collar jobs would be replaced with better paying jobs. That has not happened among the neighbours that I know.
We are watching Canada negotiate badly on our behalf. Every time it enters into a trade agreement we are dumbfounded. What kind of negotiators are these people who negotiate on our behalf, go into these closed door meetings and sign deals like this?
When I was in Quebec City, I was outside the fence protesting while the negotiators were inside the fence signing yet another free trade agreement. There is kind of a cruel irony there as well.
This bill falls short of any of the lofty goals and principles that are talked about in the preamble of the bill. If the government were serious about doing something to move the global community forward in terms of bringing less developed nations up to our standard of living, I could endorse it.
The NDP caucus would happily buy into any kind of agreement that would move society forward in that way. Bill C-32 and bills like it keep people back. It does nothing to elevate the human condition on the planet.
I put it to the House that the Canada-Cost Rica a free trade agreement is less about eliminating trades and tariffs and more about institutionalizing a freedom that global capital enjoys today. It enshrines it in such a way that even freely elected democratic institutions like parliament cannot touch.
Members are made irrelevant by agreements like this one. Renato Ruggier, head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods, services and capital, and that therefore we needed free trade agreements to bypass annoying nuisances such as legislatures, parliaments, et cetera.
The best example is Ethyl Corporation. I am sure hon. members heard this case cited before in the House of Commons. We as a nation decided that it was bad to have MMT in our atmosphere and environment. MMT is poison as a gasoline additive; it kills people and causes cancer. We decided to ban and outlaw it.
However Ethyl Corporation which produces MMT said that we could not do that. It said that we were interfering with its right to capitalize on selling MMT. In other words there was a lost opportunity. It sued the Government of Canada because it had nation state status under the free trade agreements.
A company can sue a country because we allocated a nation state status to a corporate entity and it won. We had to back off. We had to pay it damages for lost opportunity because we as a nation decided that for our children's benefit we would ban a toxic chemical as a gasoline additive.
It was ruled that we could not do that any more. Somebody traded our right away. Some bright eyed negotiator on behalf of the Canadian government signed away our ability to protect our own environment in a free trade agreement.
It is not being alarmist to raise these issues. These are legitimate concerns and I am horrified by that. What did these people agree to? It is like sending Jack to the market with a cow and he comes back with three beans. There is no guarantee that any of those beans will even sprout. It is a serious concern and a legitimate issue.
Our NDP caucus, along with a significant number of Canadians who are concerned about the globalization of capital and the free for all interest in the free trade agreements, is disappointed. Speaking on their behalf, we are very concerned that we have failed to represent the real issues at hand.
If it is our goal, duty and obligation as elected members of parliament to elevate the human condition and to move society forward, how can we knowingly sign on to something like this which has the reverse effect? It broadens the gap between rich and poor by enshrining bad behaviour. It institutionalizes irresponsible corporate behaviour and locks people in developing nations into that situation and holds them back.
There is a missed opportunity here. This free trade agreement should specify that if a country wants to trade with Canada its standards of labour conditions have to be elevated in harmony to those of Canada. Otherwise Canada would not trade with it. If it wants to do business with Canada it must do something about the abominable, wretched labour conditions in its country.
We would then be using our position of privilege as a nation to help raise standards in that country. However there is no mention of that here. When we raise it we are told that it is a deal between economies, not countries, and that it is not our job to deal with social issues.
We are told that we cannot do anything about child labour, but if those children were burning bootleg CDs the economic community would intervene in a minute. It would be down there in a second to protect its intellectual property. In some cases it acts very quickly. In other cases it says child labour is not its issue. We should wait until child labour is bootlegging CDs to see how quickly it acts.
Bill C-32 does not deserve our support. It does not achieve what it should achieve as a free trade agreement. If the government were serious about free and fair trade this would be a far different bill.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the good people of Costa Rica rest well at night knowing the member from Winnipeg is standing up for their human rights, particularly given that Costa Rica has proportional representation, something the NDP likes but Canada does not have.
Costa Rica has a constitutional democracy and a presidential system. The president is elected for a four year term and can only be in office for one term. He can then run after eight years. It has 57 members in its legislature, which is a unicameral legislature, and a two-thirds vote of the legislature is required to change the constitution. Costa Rica has more checks and balances in its domestic law than we do.
A Canadian member of parliament states that he will lance any injustices that happen in Costa Rica. He also says that parliament has been rendered irrelevant and he references the MMT decision. The MMT decision proved that parliament had power because it was taken to court. That decision consistently gets misrepresented by the radical left in the House.
The MMT decision stated that according to the law put in place by the Government of Canada one could not import or export MMT. It was a badly written law given the realities of free trade. Free trade mandates a level playing field. A properly written law would have said that people were banned from possessing MMT on Canadian soil. In that way everyone would have been banned from possessing MMT and it would not have prejudiced Canadian people who were importing or exporting it. The law must be applied equally to everyone.
That is a standard of equality that I thought was the foundation of the NDP. The law was badly written and it did not prove that legislatures were irrelevant. In fact it proved the exact opposite.
The member says that free trade deals have a negative impact on human rights. I hesitate taking that as a credible source after the NDP bashed and attacked Suharto, the former president of Indonesia, when he came to the University of British Columbia. At the same time the British Columbia NDP were holding policy conferences in Havana, Cuba, like it did last year. Cuba is a country where Fidel Castro has driven out, incarcerated, or murdered one-fifth of the population.
I also question the veracity of the NDP when it says that it is protecting human rights and that it is opposed to free trade unless it enhances human rights.
Given that he is so in favour of international standards for human, labour and environmental rights, did he communicate that to NDP Premiers Romanow, Dosanjh and Doer when they went on the team Canada trade mission to China, given China's record on the environment vis-à-vis the Three Gorges dam and its human rights approach to Falun Gong and labour standards? Has he given the same preaching sermon to the NDP premiers of those provinces?
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is probably the longest question in the history of the House of Commons. The member did come to the point so I suppose he deserves a response.
It is our position that the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is more notable for its omissions than what is in it. When we talk about core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues it is not just the NDP talking. We are not the enemy here. We are not the only voice in the wilderness calling for these things. It is the ILO, the United Nations, and international NGOs from around the world that are calling for a more progressive attitude toward our trade policies.
I know the hon. member has a thing about the NDP. He wants to place us as the enemy or the lone voice on this issue. In actual fact the rest of the world agrees with us. Most of the developed nations are questioning their role and trade as an aspect of their overall policy.
I will use the European Union as an example. If free trade agreements were comparable to the economic harmonization within the European Union, we would not have any objections and I would not be standing here complaining. However in that case one is dealing with countries that are a lot more similar in size and shape. There is not the incredible imbalance in the power structure between the two signatories.
I have used the example of when the lion lays down with the lamb, the lamb does not get much sleep. That has never been truer than in a situation like this one. It is an overwhelming imbalance in the power relationship between the two signatories to this agreement.
That is not true in the European Union. It is finding consensus and agreement that took 20 years to negotiate. The agreements at the European Union were not written on the back of a napkin.
The deal we have here was signed at the Quebec summit. While we were protesting outside the fence the deal was being signed inside the fence. It was a hasty and flawed job because it failed to address the real issues that most people care about. These are issues that would affect the quality of life of the people in those countries.
What else matters? If profit is the only motive then we have a satisfactory document. However it falls short if it was intended to elevate the human condition by using trade agreements. There is nothing radical about an observation like that. It is an objective opinion that we could do better.
It is a missed opportunity any time we enter into one of these trade deals that does not use every tool in our toolbox to try to elevate the human condition. What else is it all about and why else are we here?
I resent the tone and the content of the hon. member's intervention because it fails to appreciate the legitimate concerns I am trying to raise. I speak for a significant percentage of the population when I do that.
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, as part of the government I speak for a more significant part of the Canadian population in that survey after survey has shown that over 70% of Canadians support freer and liberalized trade. Therefore I will stand with the 70% and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre can stand with the 30% if he chooses.
I listened to his remarks and several times he cited that the EU as a great example in trade agreements. I attended on behalf of the Minister for International Trade a trade discussion day concerning less developed countries. I hope my colleague will listen to this point because I will ask him a specific question and expect a specific answer with no ducking.
At that trade discussion day EU ministers of development were categorically opposed to including labour agreements in trade deals. The very EU ministers that he cites with such praise were categorically opposed, led my none other than the U.K. minister, Clare Short.
Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre tell us why the NDP seems to be one of the few voices anywhere in the world that is insisting that labour agreements be included in trade deals, when almost everyone else including his cousins in the U.K. labour party is saying that it would lead to back door protectionism?
How could the member ignore the comments of a man like Kofi Annan who said that liberalized and globalized free trade are the best possible courses of action we can take to help the poor countries my colleague addressed in his comments?
I have never had an answer from the NDP on those two points, so I am anxiously awaiting one now.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, life must be so simple when one is a Liberal. It must be really convenient to be such a gifted chameleon, to flip-flop from one's position.
I remember the Liberals in the late 1980s and early 1990s arguing and opposing free trade vehemently and vigorously. They had passionate debates saying that free trade would bring us down and that Brian Mulroney was evil for trying to foist free trade upon us. Today they have conveniently flip-flopped and are now the champions, the vanguards of the free trade movement. It must be really easy to be a Liberal. I guess that is why there are so many Liberals, it is so bloody easy.
When labour issues are raised within free trade agreements, the side agreements are so hopelessly feckless, absolutely useless, that no workers ever get any satisfaction from them. That is why we are saying they should be within the actual document, not in some parallel side accord. Those side accords have never given satisfaction to the grieving parties.
If they set up an institution that is completely feckless, they are dooming it to failure, and it is a deliberate thing. There was a conscious choice to not put those terms and conditions within the contract and to put them on a side deal because they would brush those issues off to the side so nothing would interfere or interrupt with the free movement of goods and services of capital, not even the legitimate grievances of working people who are being affected in a negative way by these issues.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to hopefully contribute somewhat to the debate before the House on Bill C-32.
I do not necessarily attach myself to very much, if anything, that the previous speaker puts before the House other than to say that at the very least his party and he himself have been consistent in their approach to this issue.
The member spoke in his remarks about Jack and the Beanstalk . I am reminded of other fairytale red book promises that pertain to this issue of free trade.
As I listened to the member, I could not help but think that the current Prime Minister would have been on the other side of the barrier in Quebec City if that free trade negotiation had taken place in the 1980s. He would have been out there with the protestors. He would have been espousing the complete opposite position that his current government is presenting through Bill C-32.
However, we are certainly glad that the Prime Minister has seen the error of his ways and recognizes that this is a global trend and the direction in which countries, not only in North America but countries worldwide, are headed in terms of liberalizing trade to the benefit of those participating countries.
That is not to say that it does not take a great deal of intellect and a great deal of effort in negotiating these agreements to see that they are beneficial. I will give the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and his party their due. They raise very important issues that pertain to human rights, working conditions and the type of social issues that are very often given short shrift in these negotiations. We do know that the multinationals and companies that engage in trade are interested in the bottom line. There are national state concerns that often should be addressed during these negotiations.
The bill recognizes that a Central American country, like Costa Rica, is a very dynamic and developing country. This is a country that arguably has led the way for that region of the world. As other members have pointed out, this small country is a very interactive, democratic country. It has implemented a new constitution. It has a bicameral system of parliament. It has checks and balances which, in many ways, we ourselves might learn from.
Former President Arias hosted the first meeting that was the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The diplomatic skills exercised by Costa Rican politicians are very admirable on a number of levels.
Of interest is the fact that Costa Rica has no military budget. It has a national police force but much of its resources and much of its governmental focus is on trade, which is beneficial to those countries that wish to participate, as Canada will, under this new agreement.
In terms of Central American standards, Costa Rica is very much at the forefront. It has been very proactive in reaching out not only to Mexico and the United States but now, through this agreement, it is looking north. It is exploring new markets looking for ways in which it can export its raw and manufactured materials and looking to improve the standard of living and the quality of life for its citizens by enabling access to goods and services to which it might not otherwise have access.
Costa Rica has a very extensive program for social housing which would be of interest to many Canadians. A number of Canadian construction companies have played a very active role in Costa Rica's attempt to provide adequate shelter and housing for its citizens.
Opportunities for both participants in this agreement abound. Costa Rica has co-operated closely in the past with other countries. It has exhibited the goodwill that is tantamount to a good basis of bridge building when it comes to trade.
Some of the purposes behind Bill C-32 will evolve over time. Much like the commentary we hear quite often about the benefits of trade, time will tell.
I would be quick to point out that some of the same arguments that we have heard against this agreement were heard prior to 1988. In fact some of the members opposite on the government side, who are now wrapping their arms around the legislation, endorsing it and espousing its virtues, were the same members who stood on this side of the House and berated the government of Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party of Canada for taking the initiative, for spending the political capital that is sometimes necessary, and for taking the risk that is sometimes necessary for the good of the country.
I think even the most critical of individuals in viewing free trade would have to admit that huge benefits have accrued to this country, particularly for the people of western Canada who are very much the beneficiaries of this particular practice of free trade.
Bill C-32 would implement all the negotiation that took place leading up to this bill. I believe the agreement itself was signed in April 2000. Miguel Angel Rodriguez, the president of Costa Rica, was here in Canada signing the agreement, and the bill would put those elements into effect.
It is quite clear that Costa Rica's economy is growing and expanding rapidly, arguably not at a rate that we would consider rapid by North American standards, but it is certainly moving in a direction that will help its citizens, help to improve conditions and help to improve those very essential things that all humanitarians should be concerned about.
This is a chance for Costa Rica. This is a legitimate opportunity that it hopes to seize upon. To its credit, it has been very proactive in looking at other countries' economies and trying to find a way in which it can be a greater participant in those economies.
The agreement itself will be two way in terms of the merchandise exchanged between Canada and Costa Rica. It is interesting to note that in the year 2000 the trade between our two nations rose by $269 million according to figures. That was a jump of 25% over that short period of time. The agreement itself would naturally accelerate that growth.
We have to take into account, as others have, the difference in size of economy and levels of development. However I believe there is a mechanism that is supposed to help integrate this trade system, this difference in the size of the economy and that is that Canada will, more or less, move at a more rapid rate in terms of liberalizing trade. Our economy will be more open to Costa Rican products at a faster rate. The lack of tariffs will be phased in in Canada over eight years, whereas in the Costa Rican example it will be over fourteen years.
Our borders will be open at an earlier rate allowing Costa Rica to tap into the Canadian market somewhat quicker, taking into account this difference in size and scale of economy.
I would suggest that the overall benefit to eliminating the trade barriers is to facilitate these goods and services at an accelerated rate and facilitate and promote conditions of fair competition that are the underpinnings of any free trade agreement. Those are set out in some detail by the enactment of this bill. It would also establish a framework for further bilateral, regional and multilateral co-operation to expand throughout the years and create effective procedures for implementation and application of the agreement.
Also built into this contract, as in any contract, are methods of dispute resolution and of monitoring the progress. Where disputes might break out there will be a procedure that can be followed to try to resolve those types of disputes.
Some of the products that will be affected in the short term will include fruit, coffee, raw sugar, gold, flowers and jams, Costa Rican imports that we currently see quite often on the Canadian market.
The trade agreement will allow those products to come into Canada with ease, with fewer tariffs in the coming years, and will allow those companies, because of their climate and agricultural potential, a greater market and potential for growth and therefore a higher standard of living when they achieve the success they badly want.
On the other hand, Canada currently exports to Costa Rica paper, wheat, potato products and automotive parts. When I think of potatoes I will not say the solicitor general. I am obviously thinking of the potato crisis Prince Edward Islanders have faced in recent years and the great potential the agreement will provide for them.
They suffered through two abysmal years in terms of their potato exports because of the potato wart which was blown hugely out of proportion. We were virtually excluded from entering the American market. This will provide a new and large market for potato products.
For provinces like Prince Edward Island I would suggest that Bill C-32, which brings to effect free trade with Costa Rica, will expand their potential and help island potato farmers explore this new market.
I draw attention to some of the other positive elements of the agreement that include building up the free trade of the Americas, which links the 34 countries currently in North America that are working with South America. That unfortunately is something upon which perhaps we have not focused enough. The expanding markets in Central America and in all of South America is the direction in which we recognize we are moving.
Canada has taken a much more inclusive view and can play a much more active leadership role in this regard. I would suggest that this step is very much reflective and representative of Canada's leadership role.
Canada's national identity, the Canadian economy and our competitiveness as a trading nation are areas of which we have to be very conscious. We have to be innovative. We have to portray ourselves as a country that is ready and willing to take part in this vibrant new economy.
That was the intent behind the original free trade agreement with the United States, followed up by NAFTA. This is a natural extension of the direction in which the Canadian economy is moving.
The Government of Canada, Canadian producers and Canadian manufacturers can benefit if we go about this in an intelligent and aggressive way.
About 94% of Canada's current agriculture and agri-food exports to Costa Rica will get better access as a direct result of the implementation of this bill. Goodness knows we need to make extraordinary efforts at this time to help our farmers with the drought situation that has been endured in western Canada.
Throughout the country there have been extreme weather conditions and climate turns which have grossly affected the ability of the agricultural industry in Canada. Blueberry farmers in the province of Nova Scotia have suffered great hardships due to the dry conditions this past summer.
When we sign agreements with countries like Costa Rica and other South American and Central American countries, it opens up new markets for our agricultural industry. Canada's exporters will gain an important advantage over some of their principle competitors in Costa Rica, including American, European and Asian suppliers.
Therefore, by giving Costa Ricans preferential trade partners in North America we can be competitive with some of those other countries that have in the past associated themselves and traded with Costa Rica. Costa Ricans hopefully will be looking to Canada as opposed to some of the far off European countries to which in the past there has been a propensity for Costa Ricans to turn.
As with every trade agreement and contractual obligation there are concerns that have to be examined and kept in mind. There are shared concerns on the part of Costa Ricans and Canadians.
As I understand it, Costa Rica currently exports only raw sugar and does not refine sugar within its own boundaries. In the event that Costa Rica as a result of the trade agreement starts to construct refineries and export refined sugar, Canadian sugar producers would have real concern. They have expressed concern already. I know that the member for Saint John has long been a proponent of protecting and assisting the sugar refining industry in her province of New Brunswick. This is one issue that has been raised by sugar producers in Canada as a direct upshot of the proposed agreement. Costa Rica is also a labour intensive country. Having just said that there may be benefits to the increased open market for potato farmers, I will note that some producers have raised concerns about the impact on frozen potatoes exported to Costa Rica from Canada.
These are a just couple of industry related concerns that have been raised by Canadians who would be impacted directly by Bill C-32.
Canada has an obligation to enter into these agreements in good faith and to maintain good bilateral relations with our other significant trading partners. At the same time we have to diversify the market and seek additional international trade agreements. That is exactly what the bill would do.
The direction in which we are headed is very much one the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition supports. It has been our consistent position in doing so that Canada must play a leading and aggressive role at a time when countries are re-examining their relations with other countries vis-à-vis trade and security and on any number of levels.
To that end there is implicit in all our efforts an emphasis on the responsibility of government to proceed with caution but also, I would suggest, with some degree of aggression when looking for new markets to bolster the Canadian economy to ensure that we are competitive and innovative in a very competitive global time.
We support the initiative. We support the direction of Bill C-32 and similar types of agreements. It is imperative as well that we in the Parliament of Canada have an opportunity to have our say and to have input. We must look at the bill at the committee level. We must hear from witnesses who have specific information about the countries in question, the pros and cons of the agreement, the benefits and the contractual obligations that will flow from it.
On balance we feel it is good legislation that is consistent with the direction in which Canada is headed. We feel it would help Canadian producers engage in free markets and it would raise access to products by lowering tariffs.
To that end and for those reasons set out, the coalition will be supporting the legislation. We look forward to its implementation. We hope to see the government play a leadership role in its new and, I would submit, post-1993 support of free trade agreements.
This is the type of legislation Canada needs if it is to be a global competitor in the 21st century.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough. I certainly appreciate his support for Bill C-32, the agreement with Costa Rica, and his recognition of its benefits to Canadian exports like blueberries from Nova Scotia, potatoes from P.E.I. and others.
It was an interesting contrast to hear him after hearing the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. The hon. member from the NDP seemed to suggest we could not find other countries that would want side agreements on labour and the degree of these things does not matter. It seems the NDP wants a one party agreement, a one person agreement, or a one country agreement. With that kind of position it is no wonder it has so little support .
I also want to reflect on what my hon. colleague from Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough said. He took us back in time to the late eighties and the period of the negotiations over free trade. It struck me at the time--
The Deputy Speaker: I will attempt to do this in the spirit of fairness. At 1.30 I have to proceed to private members' business. I would like to give the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough about a half a minute to reply and close the debate for this day. I do that out of a spirit of fairness for two good members of parliament from Nova Scotia.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of my Bluenose colleague about the benefits that can flow from free trade. Free trade is not meant in any way to benefit one region over another. It is, as he would be the first to admit, something that has national benefits.
This is comprehensive legislation. Although it may be described as flowery in language, there is a great deal of pith and substance to it. Bill C-32 touches on parallel accords, environmental co-operation and labour co-operation. It is the type of legislation we should be getting our teeth into. We should be holding it up as progress in the area of trade for Canada.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14, to establish a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The decision to establish a national holiday in honour of a parliamentarian or any other person may seem unimportant to some people, but not to the Bloc Quebecois.
This bill aims to pay tribute to the very first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, as well as to the first Prime Minister from Quebec, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
John A. Macdonald worked relentlessly for an extremely centralized federation in Canada, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier fought very hard to protect Canadian unity, at the expense of the progress of his own people.
This bill would give Canadians the opportunity to reflect on the history of their country and to be proud of the contribution of these two men to Canada and to all of its communities. Do members really think that the people of Quebec will feel like celebrating on such a day? I do not think so.
In the minds of Quebecers, John A. Macdonald wanted to give the impression he was negotiating the terms of federation with Taché and Cartier. Later on, some would go as far as to talk about a confederal treaty when talking about the so-called consensus that is supposed to have taken place before the British North America Act was passed.
It bears reminding that when Lower Canada joined Canada in 1867, it was by a very slight majority, 24 against 22. Needless to say we are talking about parliamentarians who were duly mandated to speak on behalf of the people, but the people were not consulted.
In fact, the British North America Act is drafted in such a way that instead it envisions a very centralized state made up of provinces—which is a far cry, you will admit, from the concept of sovereign states—without in fact the exclusive authority to pass and implement laws without interference from the central government. This historical ambiguity regarding the creation of a Canadian federation or Canadian confederation could only lead to numerous problems later on, both for Canada and Quebec.
Lower Canada displayed a lukewarm interest in what some mistakenly called a confederal treaty but was in fact a constitutional soup by chef John A. Macdonald, seasoned with a unitary, centralized and centralizing federal regime.
As for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he indeed worked very hard to unite the Canadian federation. His 15 year government was marked by a lot of tension: on the one side, French Canadians, who were afraid of being assimilated, and rightly so; on the other, English Canadians, who wanted to have closer ties to the British Empire.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier governed Canada by trying to find a middle ground and keep the country together. Today, the current government's approach, true to Wilfrid Laurier's ideal, espouses the strategy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who wrote that of the ways of making separatism less appealing is to spend time, energy and a lot of money to promote federal nationalism. Such is the goal of Bill S-14.
The establishment of holidays to celebrate John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is part of that strategy. All Quebecers know that the federal government does not hesitate to spend millions of dollars in public funds to promote the Canadian identity. And what about the virtual monopoly of federalist forces on the media?
In his book Le déclin du fédéralisme canadien , Joseph Facal, the Quebec minister for relations with the citizens and immigration, minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, and minister for relations with French-speaking and Acadian communities, wrote this:

The federal government takes a subtle and seemingly generous attitude when it professes to recognize the different identities, the Quebec identity included. What it refuses to this particular identity is its full access to a collective, institutional and political expression. This can be seen in the incapacity of the Canadian constitutional order to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation, in its refusal to institutionalize its definition of Quebec's specific character, and its untiring efforts to control Quebec's international relations.

Since 1867, Quebec has been held back because of the numerous barriers the federal government has put up. All of this stifles the social, cultural and economic development of the Quebec people.
Amongst all the days celebrated in Canada, whether national or international days, only one commemorates a person. And, would you have guessed, it is Queen Victoria. No other person is honoured in such a way. Previous parliaments may have recognized that in cases like this, and many others, discretion is usually the better part of valour.
There are many ways to commemorate the role that men and women have played in politics: streets, parks, cities, government buildings, ports, airports, statues, highways, aircraft carriers, ice-breakers, stamps, libraries, sportsplexes and what not.
A national day that is not representative of a wide consensus is a moot one and it can easily be considered as arrogant.
I call upon the common sense of all parliamentarians. They should vote against Bill S-14 to prevent a precedent that could create pointless tensions. If we create a day for John A. Macdonald and a day for Sir Wilfrid Laurier now, when will we create one for the prime minister who is responsible for free trade? When will we create one for the prime minister who unilaterally patriated the Constitution? When will we create one for the prime minister who stayed in office the longest? The answer is obvious.
I find it extremely dangerous for Canada to start commemorating everything. It is clear that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. I hope there still are sensible people in this parliament.
Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I was born on a small tropical island, then a British colony, located on the other side of the world.
Like hundreds of thousands before and after me, I came to Canada to find peace and stability for myself and for my children. Canada is my country, and I feel deeply attached to it. I am most grateful for the spirit of openness, tolerance and generosity that I have always found here.
This is why I am truly honoured to pay tribute to two men who played a most important role in our history, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Indeed, it is no doubt to these two statesmen and prime ministers that we owe the values that have characterized Canada since its founding and that have made Canada a country that respects others and is peaceful, a country that is open to the world and most welcoming, a democratic country where individual rights and freedoms are truly promoted and defended.
When thinking about Macdonald and Laurier and the enormous political and socio-cultural heritage they have left us, differences in parties, language or origin become blurred.
One was a Conservative; the other was a Liberal. One was of Scottish origin, therefore anglophone; the other was French Canadian. Macdonald was a Protestant; Laurier was a Catholic.
They were from different origins and different backgrounds. Yet, they were united by something that was far more important than their differences, that is their vision and their faith in this new country that they were about to create and shape for the future.
The sum of Macdonald's and Laurier's contribution to the building of Canada and the values it represents is so immense that it dwarfs the differences of party, of cultural origin and of religion and makes those seem trifling. It also dwarfs the many missteps along the way for indeed there were missteps, as there must always be when building a country and running governments.
Builders, creators and visionaries all saw in the vastness of this beautiful land not only new horizons to reach but a new type of country where the two founding cultures and languages could not only coexist but flourish, where the broad expanses and spaces could welcome settlers and new citizens from elsewhere to a life, in the words of Laurier himself, of “peace, harmony and prosperity”.
The challenge of joining one coast of this immense land mass to the other by building a railway was in itself a gigantic undertaking and feat, especially given the context and conditions of the day. If that was a gigantic undertaking and feat, how even more remarkable was the founding of a new and bilingual country open to others and dedicated to democracy, to freedom and to diversity.
When we view statistics and comparisons, we see that Canada remains a modest contender in the bigness stakes. We have a comparatively small population. Our economy is dwarfed by several others. Our military power is very limited. If countries were to be judged by population, their GNP size, or the might of their military arsenal, Canada would be a very moderate success.
The country Macdonald and Laurier sought to build was not a powerful one in the quantitative sense but a new type of country, one of ideals and values that would transcend statistics and numbers. What they have left us beyond infrastructures and material achievements and prosperity, important and impressive as those are, is an infinitely more precious legacy. In the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself: “It is to our glory that hatreds have ended on Canadian soil. There is no longer any family here but the human family. It matters not what language the people speak or at which altars they kneel. There is glory in this fraternity of which Canada can never be proud enough. Mighty nations indeed may well come to us to seek a lesson in justice and humanity”.
Yes, their legacy is above all that of our enduring democracy, cherishing its core values of peace and peaceful assembly, of individual freedoms and respect for others and their differences, of openness and generosity to others less fortunate than ourselves.
So it is for the lasting achievement of these values and ideals which have marked the building and evolution of Canada that I feel privileged to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier today. It is with pride and conviction that I join Senator John Lynch-Staunton and my colleague from Don Valley West and so many other colleagues from all sides of the House and Senate in supporting Bill S-14 and wishing it Godspeed. I pray that we find a large majority here to support the bill and make it a statute.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-8 would set aside two days, January 8 and November 20, as national memorial days, but not actually statutory holidays, in honour of arguably the two greatest prime ministers of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
In making these two days memorial or remembrance days we are giving them a status similar to the status given to Remembrance Day, November 11, for example, as opposed to Canada Day, which is of course a day on which work ought not to be performed. There is a distinction there that I think is important.
This bill is significant for its symbolic value and for what it says about what we think about these two figures and therefore what we think about ourselves. It is a sense of our own picture of our history. In our view of our own history, in our national mythology, we are in fact building our image of ourselves and our attitudes towards the world.
This is a question of particular interest to me. In my private life I am a Ph.D. candidate in history at Carleton University, working on a doctoral dissertation on evolving Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy. I see some parallels in the studies I have done on evolving Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy and the kinds of evolving attitudes we have had over time toward our historical figures, including of course the great Sir John A. and the great Sir Wilfrid.
Just to draw out the analogy a bit, the monarchy in the eyes of a man like Maurice Duplessis, and in his words at the time of the world visit of 1939, was dramatically different from the status of the monarchy in the eyes of the Quebec nationalists who greeted Queen Elizabeth when she visited Montreal about 30 years later in 1964. This was because the perceptions of the world had changed. The symbolic value that was given to the monarchy and to the visiting monarch had changed over that period of time.
The same thing of course can be said of our views toward Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Keeping this thought in mind, the most striking thing to be said is the very fact that we have never previously set aside the birthdates of either of these two men as national memorial days. That in itself says a great deal about our attitudes, not only toward them but toward ourselves and our own history.
I think there are probably two reasons why this is the case. First, until recently Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid to some degree were seen as partisan figures, in much the same way that in the decades following their deaths Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson were seen respectively as being a northern republican and a symbol of division rather than of unity, and a southern agrarian democrat and perhaps also a symbol of division rather than unity. Later on as the partisan considerations faded, their overarching greatness was recognized and they were properly memorialized and honoured. Of course in the case of Jefferson, no holiday has been set aside for his birthday but there is a beautiful monument in Washington, and of course everybody knows about the Lincoln monument. I think there is still a little bit of this element with Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid. Of course they died much more recently than either Lincoln or Jefferson.
A predecessor bill to this one, honouring only Sir John A., was introduced in the last parliament by my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast . There was some discussion at the time as to whether it was appropriate to honour a representative of the Conservative stream in Canada without similarly honouring a representative of the Liberal stream. I would suggest that this is perhaps an indication that we have not yet matured in our views toward these two men. I would suggest that while it is entirely appropriate to honour Sir Wilfrid, and I am glad that he is being honoured here, it is appropriate not because he was a Liberal and Sir John A. was a Conservative. It is appropriate because they were both men of extraordinary vision.
The second reason that I think we failed in the past to honour these two men is that for decades we saw ourselves, our Canadian identity, as being subservient to another identity. It seems pretty clear that we saw ourselves as being primarily British for at least the first half century of Canada's history as a confederated country.
The great holiday of the 1920s and 1930s that went on and did not vanish in Ontario until the 1960s was Empire Day, later Commonwealth Day. That was a celebration of our perceived Britishness. That of course has diminished over time. As the diminution of that particular identity has taken place, it has seemed more appropriate to honour clearly and primarily Canadian figures.
As we memorialize and mythologize these men, it seems to me it is appropriate that we recognize them not only for the way in which they governed us during their lifetimes, and if one gets into the details of how they governed us, of course they governed in this place, with its adversarial politics and its partisanship, with a fair bit of what could be called sausage making. As one tries to produce laws, there is a bit that is perhaps not all that attractive. I do not think we are memorializing them for that. I think we are memorializing them for some over-arching values they represent.
I suggest that there are five overarching values which each of these two men represent and which we ought to make reference to as we proceed to honour them.
First, both men were clearly reconcilers of competing interests, competing ideologies and competing regions. This is evident in the fact that both men were able to cobble together out of the extraordinarily diverse Canadian political landscape two remarkably effective and long-lasting coalitions. Sir John A. Macdonald was able to govern for 19 years and Sir Wilfrid Laurier from 1896 to 1911 in an unbroken streak that has never been matched.
They were able to obtain representation from all regions of the country. They were able to represent the two great competing religious bases that at the time represented a great division within Canadian politics, to represent both linguistic groups in the country, to represent both longstanding Canadian interests and more recent arrivals to Canada. They were extraordinarily effective in that. That clearly is a primary value in the politics of a diverse country like Canada.
Second, we should honour them as parliamentarians and for their profound respect for this institution.
Of course Sir John A. Macdonald was eminent in actually creating this institution in its present form out of its predecessor, the parliament of the province of Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was known for, among other things, his encyclopaedic knowledge of parliamentary rules of procedure and precedent and for his ability to converse fluently in these matters in both languages.
Third, we should recognize them as constitutionalists.
Sir John A. Macdonald's greatest accomplishment perhaps was that he was able to create for the first time anywhere in the world a constitution that combined the unwritten constitutional foundation of the British system and the written constitutionalism, and indeed federation, of the American model. This is a model that has been achieved with remarkable success in Canada and later on was emulated in Australia. It is indeed an absolutely extraordinary accomplishment that should make all of us very proud or at least very grateful to him.
Fourth, we should honour them as federalists.
It is interesting to note that in 1867, Sir John A. Macdonald really in his heart of hearts would have favoured what was referred to in those days as a legislative union, which meant of course a unitary state. At that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was of course a young man in private life, was actually a separatist. He would have liked to have taken Quebec out of Canada and worked on some new deal. He spoke quite strongly against the new arrangement in his newspaper at the time.
But through the union of the centripetal forces personified in Sir John A. Macdonald and the centrifugal decentralist forces personified in Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we have in fact achieved a model of federalism which, despite perhaps some maladministration in the intervening century, has functioned remarkably well. It has remained generally and genuinely federal to a greater extent than many other federations, indeed most other nominal federations around the world.
Fifth and last, I think we should honour both these men as extraordinary visionaries.
Of course the vision of Sir John A. was confederation itself. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is known best of all for his comment that the 20th century would belong to Canada, perhaps not in the sense that Canada would be the dominant world power, but in the sense that Canada would provide an extraordinary vision which so many other countries around the world could emulate.
In conclusion, I do very much support the bill. I hope other parliamentarians will do the same.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see what would motivate people to put forward a bill like Bill S-14 to honour two great leaders of our country. I understand what motivated them. I understand why they are doing it, but I do not agree that it is good idea for the same reasons expressed by my colleague from Laval Centre who really begged the question, where does it end?
If we do allocate a memorial day for those two prime ministers, what prime minister would not want a day dedicated to him or her? It would open a can of worms; it would open the door to an area where we do not want to go.
I understand why Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were singled out. We should take special measures to honour and respect the enormous contributions that these two leaders have made to our country. There is an irony here as well. As we see the Liberal government honour Sir A. Macdonald for the great things that he did in cobbling together a federation, a very bold move, we see this particular Liberal government taking deliberate steps to dismantle the whole idea of a strong central government.
The very vision of Sir John A. Macdonald which we seek to recognize, the Liberals are taking active steps to dismantle, that very same strong central confederation. It is worth noting what an achievement it was to pull together a confederation and to make the conscious choice to form a federation rather than a single state.
Federations are the hardest form of government in the world to keep together. Of all the world's countries, I believe less than 20 are federations for that very reason. It is very difficult to pacify all the competing interests and the regionalism that goes together. Of those 20 federations in the world, India is the most populous. The United States is probably the most powerful and wealthiest. Even the United States only lasted 75 years before bursting into a bloody civil war.
Of those 20 federal states in the world, three in recent times have either disappeared or are at risk. I refer to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and Canada which is just hanging on by a thread. It is a very tenuous form of government. It is very difficult to keep a federation together. Sir John A. Macdonald to his credit pulled it together. It is a bit ironic to see the government, or individual members of the Liberal government, promoting a day to honour the founder of confederation when they themselves are actively taking steps to weaken the whole concept of a strong central state through the devolution of power to the provinces and a diminishing role for the federal government.
We should recognize Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Again, I do not believe in a memorial day but we should recognize the enormous contribution that he made to basic democracy. He is the man who gave us the secret ballot vote. That is significant. Something we take for granted as always being there was not always there until someone like Sir Wilfrid Laurier came along and said that in the interests of fairness, in the interests of true democracy, this is the way we are going to do things.
I refer to the public schools act. With true vision Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government decided that school should be free of charge until grade 12, and that financial status should not be a barrier because that is what people need to take part in the workforce today.
Again, it is ironic to see the government seeking to honour the founder of the public school system with a memorial day when it itself is taking active steps to preclude the participation in post-secondary education. If anything, if the government wanted to dedicate a couple of hours of debate in the House of Commons, we should be debating the concept of extending the public schools act to include the first university degree. There should be free tuition for the first university degree. That would be worthy of debate in the House instead of a token gesture to memorialize Sir Wilfrid Laurier by a memorial day.
Another of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's achievements we should make note of is immigration, building the west. The member who spoke previously mentioned Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in government from 1896 to 1911, 15 years uninterrupted.
During that period of time Manitoba grew about by 300%. In my home province of Manitoba there were waves of immigration. It took real foresight and real vision to open our borders and invite the world to come and help us build a great nation. That took real, inspired vision. I recognize that and I have a great deal of respect for it.
As I am outlining these things, more come to mind. There is another irony associated with this in that one of the greatest achievements of Sir John A. Macdonald was building the national railway. The single greatest achievement of that century, perhaps, in terms of building this nation was our national railway, the great dream. Here we have members of the Liberal government opposite proposing to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, the architect of that dream, when they themselves are again taking active steps to dismantle the national dream of a continuous rail line from east to west. For years we have been criticizing the dismantling of our rail system. For all the environmental reasons and economic reasons we should be encouraging rail transportation in this country, accentuating it and adding to it, not tearing up the tracks.
We cannot help but comment on the irony associated with that. The Liberals seek to honour the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald with a memorial day when the very things that Sir John A. Macdonald dedicated his life to building in this country they themselves are dismantling piece by piece.
I cannot support the bill. I know it is a private member's bill and so my party members will be voting their own conscience. I am not speaking for my caucus, but I myself support the remarks from the member for Laval Centre, that we do not think it is appropriate to start dedicating memorial days to the memory of prime ministers, no matter how great their contribution to building this country. I will not be supporting Bill S-14.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the coalition, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to rise in support of this initiative, private member's bill, Bill S-14, which I think is significant as well as timely and is one that I almost feel very humbled by when speaking of these two individuals in the political context.
Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this bill came from the other place. I want to congratulate and commend the hon. senators, particularly John Lynch-Staunton of the other place for bringing this matter forward, as well as the hon. member for Don Valley West for his sponsorship here in the House of Commons.
It is a worthwhile initiative. In the spirit that it encompasses these two great men it has a bipartisan element to it and it honours two men who played a huge, fundamental role in founding our country. How fitting, how national, how correct and how positively politically correct that we should bring forward a bill in the names of Laurier and Macdonald, and how necessary at a time when our nation is casting its eyes inward and looking for symbols of identity and the symbols with which we define ourselves in troubled times.
My colleagues and I are extremely supportive and we are extremely pleased to see that the bill has made it to this point.
We already know that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier have very much galvanized their place in history, their figures cast in bronze around these historic buildings. Yet I feel that this initiative would very much allow us to set aside two days of recognition, two days on which all Canadians could pause and reflect upon the contributions of these men in a truly Canadian way. This is an important recognition of men who displayed great vision, political passion and perseverance at a time when our nation was in its infancy.
At a time when some people suspect that Canadians have become isolated and have turned away from their history, I believe this bill may help Canadians to rediscover the origins of this great country, as well as the two men who helped to shape Canada into the country we know today.
Through Bill S-14 we are not honouring a Tory or a Liberal. This is not about partisanship, which so often takes precedence in this place. We are simply honouring two great Canadians who represent the two dominant languages, cultures and religions of their day. One was a founding father and the other was an equal contributor as the first francophone to lead the country.
Bill S-14 does not call for a national holiday, only to recognize their two birthdays.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the member but other members are reporting to the Chair that the translation is not being received. Is it now being received?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc member does not understand French from Nova Scotia. I am sorry, but I tried.
As I was saying, Bill S-14 does not just set aside time for a national holiday. This is not about expanding time off for schools or businesses. This is very much about recognizing in a formal way the birthdays of two great Canadians, Sir John. A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the birthdate being January 11 in the case of Sir John A. Macdonald.
As an interesting footnote, the birth records of Sir John A. Macdonald, who was born in Scotland, indicate that he was born on January 10. When he and his family emigrated to Canada his father, Hugh, recorded his birthdate as January 11, so there was some dispute. On the other hand, I suppose the record keepers are more precise in the province of Quebec and they indicate quite clearly that November 20 was the day on which Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into the world naked and screaming and, from that point on, went on to become one the country's leading francophone politicians.
This bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier arguably sets aside time to reflect on two of Canada's most important politicians and certainly prime ministers. Sir John A. Macdonald was obviously the prime minister during Confederation. In 1867 he led the country into a new federal state. Though he was defeated in 1873, he was re-elected four times subsequent to that: in 1878, 1882, 1887 and again in 1891. He was elected five times as prime minister of the country. He died in office in June 1891. More than any single individual in our entire country's history, we have to give him credit for bringing this great nation together. His efforts and leadership created the country, gave birth to a nation. One cannot emphasize enough the magnitude and the majesty of that accomplishment.
What accomplishment can compare in any way to what Sir John A. really did? It was a tremendous act of will to bring together this vast, diverse and enormous land. He united the country not only through his political efforts but arguably he united the country physically, through the construction of the railway, and philosophically, by having like-minded people pull in the same direction. Through his long range vision, foresight, perseverance and certainly unquestionable inner fortitude, Sir John A. is very worthy of the bill that is before us.
His professional life included his time as a lawyer and a businessman. He worked in a bank and entered politics as an alderman for Kingston, Ontario. He died, as I mentioned, on June 6, 1891, while still in office and is buried in the Cataraqui cemetery near Kingston, Ontario.
His party, quite apropos and relevant in today's political environment, was one of the liberal Conservatives. One can imagine how incongruous. In the current context, it was a coalition that he led. He was the party leader from 1867 to 1891 and was able to bring together like-minded Conservatives with a social conscience.
He represented the constituencies of Kingston and Victoria, British Columbia. Many Canadians are probably not aware that Sir John A. represented the constituency of Victoria from 1878 to 1882 and then returned to Ontario between 1882 and 1887 to represent Carleton, Ontario. His ministries included receiver general, militia affairs, justice, attorney general for Canada, minister of the interior, superintendent general of Indian affairs, railways and canals. He obviously had a diverse interest that he brought to public life.
I want to touch for a moment on Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his accomplishments. He was the seventh prime minister of the country serving from 1896 to 1911. He was the first elected French Canadian prime minister. He drafted John Abbott, who became the first prime minister from Quebec, into the job. When he left after one year, Mr. Laurier, who was seen by many as a young radical, and by some standards today may have been called a separatist, came into an age of wisdom and became the first elected prime minister from Quebec.
He was key to promoting national unity from that moment onward, and like Sir John A., came from a professional life of the practice of law. He was called to the bar in eastern Canada in 1864. He was the editor of a paper and an ensign in the Arthabaskaville Infantry. He served as an MLA in the provincial legislature of Quebec. He died in February of 1919 in Ottawa and was buried at the Notre Dame Cemetery.
His political record, like Sir John A.'s, is stellar and is one that displays an incredible ability and degree of leadership. Although Macdonald was a Conservative and Laurier a Liberal and they were opponents in and out of the House, they had a common belief in a strong and united country where everyone, regardless of religion, race or language lived and worked for the benefit of one nation.
Throughout our remarks we have avoided the degree of partisanship that sometimes slips in. It is an effort for us to ban together to present a bill that would benefit Canadians in the sense that they could recognize, in an official way, the history and the cohesiveness that these two men represent to us. I encourage all members to support this important initiative.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.15 p.m., the time provided for this debate has now expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)