Whitehorse , Yukon
Wednesday, November 19, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any tributes?
Introduction of visitors.
Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Mr. Hardy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of oil and gas information legislative returns for tabling.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have for tabling the 1996-97 annual report of the Yukon Heritage Resources Board.
Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?
Petitions.
Petition No. 4 - received
Clerk: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 4 of the first session of the Twenty-ninth Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Member for Porter Creek South on November 18, 1997.
This petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Speaker: Petition No. 4, accordingly, is deemed to be read and received.
Are there any additional petitions to be presented?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
Are there any statements by ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Land claims training for government employees
Hon. Mr. Harding: I am pleased to rise today to inform members today of a major policy initiative that the Public Service Commission and this government are undertaking.
The initiative clearly demonstrates the high priority our government has assigned to the successful completion and implementation of land claims and self-government agreements, as well as our commitment to making government work better for all Yukon people.
During the last election, Mr. Speaker, we promised to enhance training programs for public employees. The initiative I'm outlining today relates specifically to training government employees in the key areas of land claims and self-government agreements. This comprehensive training will provide employees with the knowledge and understanding they require about the land claims agreements and the roles and authority of First Nations governments, outlined in the self-government agreements.
This knowledge should become essential as the Yukon and First Nations governments develop new working relationships at all levels.
The Public Service Commission has been working with First Nations representatives to determine the best way to deliver this training. The working group met over the summer to establish terms of reference for the project and chose a First Nation company, Legend Seekers, to design and develop appropriate training modules.
This fall, Legend Seekers began meeting with employees to gauge their levels of knowledge and understanding of the umbrella final agreement and self-government agreements. They will assess what employees need to know to do their jobs better and how best to deliver this information. They will also meet with First Nations that have signed final agreements to obtain information specific to their agreements, constitutions and cultures.
Once the training curriculum is developed, Yukon facilitators will be trained to deliver the course modules beginning in March 1998. The training will encourage participation and accommodate different learning styles. The number and variety of modules developed will depend on the specific knowledge needs of different groups of public employees.
This comprehensive approach will also provide public employees with a clear understanding of individual First Nations' governmental structures, constitutions and culture.
Our government believes that the promise of the land claims and self-government agreements can only be fully realized when all Yukon people and their governments have a good working understanding of how the new governance relationships will function. We are committed to ensuring that Yukon government employees are equipped with that understanding.
The shared approach to land claims training that I have outlined today will benefit all Yukon people because it will contribute to a greater understanding and appreciation of the government-to-government relations between the First Nations and the Yukon government as we move into the next century.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly support the concept of bringing up to speed the government employees with respect to understanding better the land claims agreements and the self-government agreements to the First Nations. I think it's an important task that has to be done so that the agreements can be implemented in the way they are intended.
The concern I have, Mr. Speaker, with the comprehensive training is the issue that we have heard several times since the signing of the first four agreements, and that is the appearance of, in some cases, three different interpretations of what the agreements say. Some people feel, for instance, that the word "consultation" in the agreements - I know that the Government of the Yukon has stated from time to time that they have consulted with the First Nations according to the agreements, and the First Nations have said no, they haven't consulted according to the agreements. The problem is that the agreements are written in such broad language in some cases that there can be more than one interpretation, and the federal government may even have the third interpretation of what real consultation is.
So, what I would like to know from the minister today when he stands to reply is which interpretation the government employees will be instructed on? Will it be the Yukon government's interpretation of all of the agreements? Will it be the First Nations' interpretation, or will it be the federal government's? Because, it has been shown in the past that there are some differences between the three.
I would also, Mr. Speaker, like the minister to tell us - with respect to the project the minister said in his ministerial statement that they chose the Yukon First Nation company, Legend Seekers. I've never heard of that company and I wonder if the minister could tell us who the principals are in that company, and maybe the minister can tell us if the project to select Legend Seekers was tendered, and what the contract price for it is and how long will Legend Seekers be employed in this project? It would be interesting to find out those facts and figures if we could.
Finally, if the minister could, we would appreciate on this side receiving a copy of the training module or training curriculum, once it's developed, so that we can see what actually is being done and how it's being done. And perhaps the minister could give us, as well, a total cost of the overall project and where in the budget this particular cost is coming from. Is this part of the land claims implementation costs that the federal government's paying for, or is this an additional program of the Government of Yukon, and where would we find this particular line item in the budget?
Ms. Duncan: The Yukon Liberal Party caucus is supportive of this initiative.
There is an expression that "society will be judged by..." - and at various times the blank is filled in depending upon what sort of topic you are discussing.
I believe our generation of Yukoners will be judged by how well we implement the umbrella final agreement that was reached. In order to do something effectively, you must fully understand the policy or legislation that you are trying to implement - or in this case, the umbrella final agreement.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important that I feel understanding the umbrella final agreement is, not simply for governments and elected officials, but for all Yukoners.
The minister said in his ministerial statement that the promise of land claims and self-government can only be fully realized when all Yukon people and their governments have a good working understanding. I believe that and feel quite strongly about it.
I would like, therefore, to make what I feel to be a very positive suggestion for the minister in this regard. There are a group of Yukoners who are not government employees, whose lives and whose work touches countless Yukoners, and I am referring to the executive directors of non-government organizations, such as the Yukon representative of Ducks Unlimited and the managers of the various chambers of commerce. There are non-government organizations involved in the health and social services field that my colleague from Riverdale South is more familiar with.
I would like to suggest to the minister that this opportunity for training and understanding be extended to that group of people. Now, I understand and appreciate that there are costs involved, and the Member for Riverdale North has asked about costs, and I would like that information, as well.
However, I would like the minister to give this idea consideration. Perhaps for the cost of training materials, these Yukoners could also be involved in this training initiative. If it is at all possible, it would enhance greatly all Yukoners' understanding of this important agreement.
Hon. Mr. Harding: I thank the members for their comments. There are a few points I would like to make in response. Number one, the UFA commands that we undertake this, so we are going to bear some costs for it, but it is something we are obligated to do by our signatures to the umbrella final agreement and it is something we intend to do.
The Yukon Party critic has talked about problems with interpretations out of the UFA and differences of opinion that sometimes occur between individual First Nations, the CYFN, the federal government and the territorial government. The whole point of this initiative is to try and foster greater understanding to lessen the times and the number of times we have conflicting interpretations, to gain a greater understanding of what is actually in the land claims agreement. That's the whole point of this.
We want to, where possible, by approaching this on a joint basis in a government-to-government way, create joint understandings, joint interpretations, shared knowledge and shared understanding. That's the whole reason. The concern is not an illegitimate one from the member opposite, but that's why we've brought this program and this statement forward.
With regard to the line item, we made a strong commitment in the last budget of some money - I believe $250,000 - in the Public Service Commission budget to make good on our commitment to land claims training as it pertains as well to some of the other commitments we have to chapter 22 in the UFA to a representative public service. We believe we can accommodate our commitments that we've made under chapter 22 by having a greater understanding of the land claims agreements together and more knowledge about the agreements together.
And one other point ancillary to that is, in terms of that understanding, we published a lay-language dossier on the UFA so that the average Joe or Mary Yukoner can pick up a copy of this and, without having to read the entire thing, get a better understanding of what is envisioned in the claim and what it speaks to, what the principles are and what the actual nuts and bolts are.
As well, with regard to the suggestion about broadening the training, that has already being done. There are initiatives underway to expand the training, to identify areas in the private sector, possibilities with NGOs could take the form of seminars, and we're still consulting and thinking about those things, but there have been overtures made to organizations about expansion of the training. The point is one that we have recognized and is well-taken by this government from the opposition. I think we have an agreement on that. So we're acting on it and we have been for some time.
These things are new. They're going to take time to develop. We have to consult. We have to work with our partners, and we intend to do that.
With regard to the details of the contract, I'll provide those for the member regarding the questions he had on the tendering, the cost and the people. I'll provide that for the member.
Speaker: This then will bring us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Social assistance costs
Mr. Ostashek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. The supplementary budgets, Mr. Speaker, that were tabled in this House clearly show the spending priorities of this NDP government. They show that the priority is to put more Yukoners on social assistance rather than to provide opportunities for Yukoners to go to work. And, as a consequence of those spending priorities, social assistance costs have increased by over $1 million.
My question to the minister is this: does he have any contingency plan at all to try to curb these rising social assistance costs, or is he prepared to stand by and watch them escalate out of control?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I think, first of all, it's necessary to lay some of the groundwork with regard to these costs. These costs have largely been driven, I think, by three factors, the first one being the demographic increase. We know that we have had a population increase. The second is the increase attributed to unemployment and the third increase - and I believe very strongly - is related to the inability of people to access some of the social safety net that they did previously, specifically the unemployment insurance.
We are monitoring these, but I would remind the member that these are mandated programs. We have a responsibility to people and we intend to fulfill that responsibility. We're not going to be taking any precipitous action to slash social assistance, nor are we going to be trying to cut people off.
Hon. Mr. Harding: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: Order. The Member for Faro, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I noted the first exchange to take place here, but I do believe that our standing rules say that a question is out of order in Question Period if it's scheduled for debate later that day and we are scheduled to have a full debate on the supplementary budgets this evening.
Speaker: The hon. leader of the official opposition, on the point of order.
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, we're going into general debate on the supplementaries tonight. The Health and Social Services department is not scheduled to be up tonight. So, I believe the question is totally appropriate and in order.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: We will continue the question on the two supplementaries, and we will deal with the matter tomorrow if there are further matters to be dealt with.
Mr. Ostashek: If the members opposite feel uncomfortable, I can start referring to the budget last spring, because they are basically the same documents, and I think that would be appropriate and would be in order, so I think we're nit-picking at this one.
Since I've asked the main question, and the minister has been good enough to answer it, Mr. Speaker, I'll now go to my first supplementary.
This NDP party that's in government now, when they were in opposition, severely criticized the Yukon government for creating the position of a fraud investigator within the social services branch. My question to the minister is, now that we have social services costs escalating, can the minister tell this House if the workload of that office has gone up, has it gone down, or has it remained the same?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I think inherent in that question is the assumption that somehow there's a huge amount of fraud going on, and that that's a driver. I think fraud is perhaps one part of the question of overpayments, and I think overpayments can come about as, perhaps, you know, there may be some actual fraud, there may be results of overpayment by people receiving money to which they haven't been entitled, et cetera, agreements to pay back bills, hydro hook-ups and that kind of thing - administrative errors.
With the result of this, since January 1997, approximately $87,000 in payouts have been identified as the result of possible fraud. That represents about one percent of total expenditures.
Overall, we're looking at some reviews of social assistance files. There's more of a problem, I think, in terms of us being able to work with the RCMP in this regard but, overall, I couldn't say that there's been a dramatic increase.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, the insinuation by the minister is that one percent fraud is irrelevant, and we ought not to be collecting it. That's what I interpret the minister to be saying. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe a lot of the problems stem from this government itself, from the political masters. I would like the minister to explain to this House, in light of rising social assistance costs - from one reason, as well as other reasons of principle - why his department paid the outstanding tax bill of one of his constituents after the Yukon government has spent many years and many dollars, at taxpayers' expense, to reinforce the principle that people must pay their taxes? Does the minister not feel this is abuse of the social service safety net that we have in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, the member knows that I'm somewhat limited in discussing the details of such a matter, but I can tell the member that there was no political interference in this at all. This was done as a loan under section 27 of the social assistance regulations. If the member cares to take a look at section 27, that identifies what is called urgent but temporary needs. As a matter of fact, this section specifically mentions the question of back taxes.
Question re: Social assistance, back taxes payment
Mr. Jenkins: My question today is for the Minister of Social Services. It concerns a squatter, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gary Bemis, who had 10 years to legitimize his property under the previous NDP government squatter policy of 1987. Mr. Bemis' property was approved to be transferred to him, providing he paid the outstanding taxes, penalties and interest. Mr. Bemis indicated that he was fundamentally opposed to paying these taxes, and chose instead to go to court, which he subsequently did, and lost in a ruling by the Yukon Supreme Court on July 25, 1995. Mr. Bemis appealed that court decision, but again lost, and was ordered to vacate the property.
The social assistance minister, acting as the white knight, came in at the eleventh hour to rescue Mr. Bemis by loaning him the money necessary to pay taxes, penalties and interest.
My question is why?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: The member knows that I am restricted in mentioning specific cases. I can tell the member that the details on this are that this was granted under section 27. We did not "white knight" this, as the rather colourful Member for Klondike likes to refer to it. This was done under regulations and was done - I'm just trying to see what I can say here - in accordance with approved procedures.
Mr. Jenkins: As the minister knows, or probably has learned since this payout occurred, social assistance paying Mr. Bemis' taxes on an urgent and temporary need, under section 27(1) of the regulations, just does not hold water. This gentleman had 10 years to legitimize his property under the squatters policy and has been in the courts since 1992. That is not an urgent situation, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister advise the House what other section of the act authorized the minister to do what he did?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: For one point, this was not authorized, as the member so colourfully puts it. This did go through a Social Assistance Appeal Board, not once but twice. The member is asking me to state details of a social assistance case. He knows that I am limited in what I can say. I can tell the member, however, that it was done by procedure.
Mr. Jenkins: We are discussing the principle, Mr. Speaker. In this court decision -
Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: It's a specific case, and the principle surrounding this specific case is what we're aiming at, Mr. Speaker.
In this court decision that went against Mr. Bemis, the Yukon Supreme Court Judge ruled on an action taken by the Yukon government itself, stating that Mr. Bemis was trespassing and he was given 120 days to remove his property and restore the lot to its original condition.
Mr. Bemis did not own the property on which he resided. That's the issue. He does not conform to section 27(1). Can the minister explain how he used a section 27 authorization when it specifically refers to the recipient owning the property? Mr. Bemis did not own the property.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Member for Klondike and the word "principle" used together in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron. However, I would suggest that, in this case, the details are that Mr. Bemis, as you characterize him, did seek assistance. The Social Assistance Appeal Board intervened on his behalf and that is why the assistance was granted. I did not, as the member likes to suggest, intervene on his behalf.
Question re: RCMP auxiliary program
Mr. Cable: I have some further questions for the Minister of Justice on the RCMP auxiliary program.
The minister wrote to me on January 8 in relation to the RCMP auxiliary program and she stated, "It is important that legislation be developed to ensure the long-term success of the program." When I asked the minister in April whether that was still her view, she said, "Let me assure the member that I wouldn't have signed the letter saying that to him if it wasn't, indeed, my view." Now, yesterday, when I asked the minister again about that quote in her January 8 letter, her position seemed to soften.
So, just for the record, and to confirm whether my understanding is correct or not, is the minister now definitely committed to bringing in legislation dealing with the RCMP auxiliary program?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll say this slowly and clearly for the member and hopefully he can understand it. We intend, in the new year, to release a discussion paper to the public regarding policing in the Yukon Territory, dealing with the issue of the auxiliary police, and intend, after receiving responses back from the community, to further deal with how the auxiliary police program can continue in effect. It is our expectation that we let people who are interested in seeing legislation established to give the auxiliary police force legitimacy under a territorial police act -
Mr. Cable: I'll ask the question slowly; I wasn't asking what other people were thinking, I was asking the minister what she's thinking. Is she prepared to commit to this House to bring in legislation dealing with the RCMP auxiliary program?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to bring in legislation to this House dealing with the RCMP auxiliary police program, but I will not be bringing that legislation in until I have heard from the community at large, including the RCMP, including the auxiliary police members, and including other members of the public, both inside the justice community and outside of it, who want to have an opportunity to express their views.
Seems to me, I've been hearing the Liberal Party in this House over the last couple of weeks indicating that they believe it's very important that we consult with the public before we bring in legislation. We have consulted the public before we have brought in legislation and we will do so in the case of policing legislation.
Mr. Cable: Okay, we now have a commitment on the record.
Now, it's my understanding that the members now comprising the auxiliary were originally appointed under the RCMP Act for a one-year term, and that that one-year term was renewed for a further one year. That second-year term has apparently expired, and if my understanding is correct, the auxiliary members no longer have any status; their status is in limbo.
Could the minister tell us whether my understanding is correct and, if so, why the appointments have not been renewed.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that I have been talking about the matter of the status of the auxiliary police with the RCMP. It is the RCMP who can bestow status on auxiliary police members. I'm in communication with the chief superintendent on that matter.
Question re: Northern Network of Services/Gibbs Group Homes
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Does the minister agree that when we privatize services, especially social services, there have to be checks in the system to ensure accountability by checking that services that we are paying for are provided safely and that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: As a matter of principle, I would assume that that is indeed the case. I sense that the member is slyly going some place with this, so I welcome the question.
Mrs. Edelman: That was thankfully short. A for-profit business operates all the youth group homes in Whitehorse. Are there regular onsite inspections of these homes and reviews of the programs offered and, if so, will the minister provide copies of these onsite inspection reports and program views to the House this week?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think the member would have to be somewhat more specific in what she is seeking. If she is thinking of one specifically, I would ask her to give me the name of that so that I can follow up on it.
Mrs. Edelman: Well, I am very pleased to see that the Minister of Health and Social Services is not overreacting again when I ask him about safety issues around youth and his department.
These youth group homes that are operated by a for-profit business have some very high-risk, dangerous and vulnerable youth under their roofs on a regular basis. Are there safety audits being done by the department to ensure safety of staff and clientele and, if so, will the minister provide a copy of those audits to the House this week?
I would presume that the Minister of Health and Social Services knows about the youth group homes here in Whitehorse.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I do know about the group homes. I do know about the process that goes into monitoring them, but I'm afraid I'm still at a loss, as the member circuitously sets out her evil trap here. So, perhaps she could just come forward with this so that we can go some place with the question instead of making allegations.
Question re: Social assistance, back taxes payment
Mr. Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Justice. The lands branch referred six squatter situations to legal services for court action, one of them being the squatter, Mr. Gary Bemis. Approximately 300 squatters took advantage of the squatter policy introduced by the NDP government in 1987; they agreed to pay the policy and pay their back taxes and ultimately received title to their property over the course of 10 years.
The lands branch referred six squatter situations to legal services for court action in 1992 and one of them was Mr. Bemis. Since that time, the Government of Yukon has been in court several times with respect to this case.
I'd like to ask the minister, if she can, to tell us how much it cost the Government of Yukon - in Justice and in Community and Transportation Services or in any other government department - how much it cost the taxpayer to bring Mr. Bemis to court and to get a judgment against Mr. Bemis with respect to his back taxes?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'm the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, and this falls within my responsibility. I do not have any idea on the cost of the mentioned dealings that the member opposite wants. If that is his specific question, I'll certainly have to get back to the member opposite with the costs of the proceeding.
Mr. Phillips: Well, the minister should have known that this type of question would come up. Mr. Speaker, this is a case that has been going on for some time. There are a lot of Yukon taxpayers out there who are very upset, Mr. Speaker, with this government - taxpayers who pay their taxes on a regular basis, and some taxpayers who, in fact, give up a few things so that they can pay their taxes and not be bailed out by Health and Social Services, as Mr. Bemis was.
I'd like to ask the minister if he would come back to this House with a full accounting of the cost to the Yukon taxpayer to take Mr. Bemis to court and win a judgment, as we did, against Mr. Bemis for failing to pay back taxes. What's the total cost to the Yukon taxpayer? I know the minister can get that figure.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I can come back with the details of the case for the member opposite.
Mr. Phillips: Well, it must dismay some Yukoners out there to see the members of the side opposite chuckling and laughing about this particular case, because there're a lot of Yukoners who work hard every year to pay their taxes on a regular basis so they can stay on their property. Mr. Bemis didn't pay his taxes because he didn't have the money. Mr. Bemis didn't pay his taxes, Mr. Speaker, because he didn't believe in paying taxes, and now our social system has picked up the tab, and Yukoners are upset about that. It's not fair, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister of Community and Transportation Services come back to this House early next week with a full accounting of the cost of the Bemis case? Would he bring that back to the House for us, please?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I think I've answered that question twice already. Certainly I will answer it again. I will be bringing back an answer for the member opposite, but I must say to the member that we should certainly remember which government - which administration - put the burden of taxes on all Yukoners. Certainly it was not this government.
Question re: Northern Network of Services/Gibbs Group Homes, audits
Mrs. Edelman: My question is again for the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked for documents to do with onsite inspections and safety audits to do with the only non-profit business that operates youth group homes within the City of Whitehorse - that would be Gibbs Group Homes. I'm not making accusations, I'm merely asking the Minister of Health and Social Services for some documents - the information that his department is supposed to be collecting as a matter of course.
Why is the minister over-reacting and can we have these documents?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I didn't think I was over-reacting at all. I think I was merely asking for some clarification from the member, since she was the person that seemed to be implying some sort of nefarious dealings. If it does not violate any questions of confidentiality, certainly I can make those available.
Mrs. Edelman: To be clear, I would like to have program reviews of the Gibbs Group Homes and the NNS operation here in Whitehorse. Is that acceptable to the minister, that he will bring forward those reviews?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: As I said to the member, I certainly will bring forward any material that doesn't violate confidentiality. I would, however, ask the member if she could be somewhat more specific. Are there any particular areas of concern that she wants identified or any particular points that she needs to see? Are there particular elements of concern to her that she could give me so that I can direct my department to provide that information?
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, naturally my concern is with the safety of youth.
Could we also have those documents tabled here in the House and, in particular, safety audits of those facilities?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'm assuming that the member from her questions is indicating that there is some kind of safety concern, and I would suggest that once again she might be well-advised to, rather than make unsubstantiated accusations, to perhaps give us the information in question, because, as before, I've urged the member that if she has some concerns she has a duty to bring these forward to the department so that they can follow up on them.
Question re: Social assistance, back taxes payment
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the taxation.
Mr. Speaker, in the Bemis case, Mr. Bemis refused to pay his taxes based on the principle that one should not have to pay taxes if one is a squatter. The court ruled against Mr. Bemis - that he was wrong, that all people do have to pay taxes. Mr. Bemis applied to Health and Social Services under a section of the act to get a loan to pay his back taxes. It is a bit of a stretch of that social assistance section of the act.
Does the Minister of Finance believe that all Yukoners who can't afford to pay their back taxes now can apply to social assistance for money to pay those back taxes by way of a loan? Is that the new policy of this government?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'd suggest to the member there, when he says "a stretch," section 27 of the social assistance regulations does allow for the loaning of money to individuals who may not otherwise qualify for assistance. The individual must demonstrate they have the means to meet their needs within a relatively short time, and the section does mention back taxes specifically as an area that can be considered. It also requires an agreement to repay must be entered upon. One of the conditions exists that the individual must "own or reside on the property."
With regard to the question - "or reside" - the question, I suppose, hinges on the question of ownership. While this is a technicality, the individual didn't own the land. He had been on it for 20 years and qualified under the government's squatter policy.
So, I think when the member says that it's a stretch, I think the only thing that's being stretched here is the patience and credulity of this House.
Mr. Phillips: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the courts ruled he didn't own the land, and the act says he has to own and reside - that means he has to own it. Other than this Minister of Health and Social Services and this NDP government, there are very few Yukoners out there who believe that social assistance should be used to pay back taxes of people who refuse to pay their taxes based on a principle - not that they couldn't afford it, but based on a principle that they shouldn't pay taxes. It's a total and absolute abuse of our social assistance system, and this government is condoning it.
Wouldn't the minister agree that this abuse should stop and that this government will never again loan money to any person who opposes paying taxes based on principle, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the government did pursue this case, right up until the time that the Social Assistance Appeal Board did provide relief and, as far as I am concerned, the Department of C&TS did its duty, as they were doing.
As a matter of principle, I suppose the question comes down to: would this occur again? We have some difficulty, I suppose, from the department's point of view, about the Social Assistance Appeal Board in this case. However, we did follow their directive and we will be taking some steps to clarify that position in the future.
Mr. Phillips: It's too bad the minister didn't say that in the first place. First, he tried to hide behind the Social Assistance Act, saying he can't talk about a case, and now he's saying it's the board's fault. This government over there is absolutely red-faced over this particular issue, where they came in with social assistance money, money that's supposed to help people in need, not somebody who's opposing a principle of paying taxes like all of us have to pay.
Mr. Speaker, this government should reverse that decision immediately and not forward any more money to Mr. Bemis to pay these taxes, and should demand that Mr. Bemis pay his taxes like every other Yukoner who owns property. That's what Mr. Bemis should have to do, and I'm asking the minister to make sure that Mr. Bemis does that.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, we didn't step in to bail anyone out. Mr. Bemis entered into a loan agreement, and this is what is occurring now.
Question re: Abattoir business plan
Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Renewable Resources on the abattoir. The minister, earlier this week, gave a ministerial statement on the abattoir project, and he told the House that $113,000 of public money will be given to Partridge Creek Farm to get the project off the ground. He then told the House that the Partridge Creek Farm proposal and business plan was chosen by an evaluation team. When asked about tabling the business plan and proposal, he went on to explain that the business plan was confidential, but that he would look into whether the proposal could be released.
This is an issue that has been talked about for several years, with a lot of public input, and now some public money. Could the minister tell us why he views the business plan as confidential, and whether or not he has decided to release the proposal?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I believe that all business plans that are submitted to governments are confidential. They have information of companies that should not be in the public eye, and it's believed that we should be keeping that information to ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I said that we'd be looking at whether we would be releasing the other. I have not gotten information back to say that we can release it.
Mr. Cable: I think the theory behind holding a business plan confidential is it might affect the competitive situation of the proponent, and I think we have just acknowledged, or we've realized this week, that the first competitor in the market is the one funded, so it's a bit of a stretch.
Now, the minister released projected production figures for the first year, and from information that has been previously published, this production appears to be about one percent of Yukon meat consumption. Could the minister tell us what the eventual production will be, so we can evaluate the scope of the claims that were made for economic diversification?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: At this time, it's difficult to say what the numbers could be. We don't know how the industry and market will use the business.
We believe that, in the first year, those numbers that we've put forward are fairly accurate. It remains to be seen in the years to come how many people access and use it. With the feedback we did get back from the public, people seemed to be positive about this move, and we're thankful for that. It all depends, I guess, on the business. We feel that the business has a good management plan and would be successful in years to come.
Mr. Cable: I will ask the question a little differently.
Is it anticipated that in the future this abattoir, to be run by Partridge Creek Farms, will slaughter a significant amount of the red and white meat that will be consumed in the Yukon Territory? By significant, I don't mean one percent; I mean 10, 15, or 20, or 25 percent.
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: It is anticipated that the business will grow. We have said what the business can do in its first year. We believe that it will grow.
We have committed dollars toward inspections, and we believe that, by year 5, the business will grow quite a bit from where it is and we would be providing more and more inspections and dollars toward that business.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has elapsed.
We will proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Clerk: Motion No. 82, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.
Motion No. 82
Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre
THAT it is the opinion of this House that:
(1) the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, (MAI), sponsored by the U.S.A., supported by Canada, and currently the subject of secret negotiation by the 29 industrial nations and the OECD (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), represents a major attack levels; and
(2) the democratic process which Canadians so value is seriously threatened by the MAI whose aim is to remove control of the economic process from the people's elected representatives and to consolidate it in the hands of the transnational corporations; and
THAT this House calls on the federal government to cease all negotiations on the MAI and to facilitate full participation of all Canadians in the major decisions affecting our economic future.
Mr. Hardy: I was going to start with a quote, but there was something said in the House today that I feel ties in with this debate. It was said by the Member for Riverdale North, "Never again loan money to an individual." What about the companies? What about loaning a country to a company? This is what the MAI is about. All I can say is, God, he hates the poor. Boy, does he hate the poor. I'll be very interested in his comments today about giving away a country because that's what the MAI is about.
I'll get back to my quote. The quote is from Shawn Ewald, from an article entitled, "The MAI, Making the World Safe for Corporate Criminals. "
"A little known, unelected, unaccountable international trade group called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD is busily drafting a document called the MAI, or the Multilateral Agreement on Investment."
I'd also like to add to that that the OECD is made up of 29 countries and 447 of the top 500 transnational corporations of the world. Tell me who has the power and who is pulling the strings here.
It's vitally important that we delve into the background, intent and ramifications of this agreement, which would, in the words of a local economist, Luigi Zanasi - and I do believe in asking the local people what they think - who said, "This is to replace one person-one vote, with one dollar-one vote." He also said something that was a little bit bluer but I'll get to that one later.
Because I present this motion, I want to take some time to present the kind of context I feel is necessaryfor an examination of what's clearly a critically important global treaty on investment. I hope this will be helpful to the members for the debate that will come and to those who have only recently learned about the MAI and its far-reaching implications for Canadians.
I'm going to read something out of a book I've been reading lately, and it's about the UN. The UN has had a profound effect upon the world and social policies and directions of countries, and it has had a huge effect on Canada. We were very, very involved, especially through Prime Minister Pearson many years ago. This is Dag Hammarskjold's quote, 1960: "Those who advocate world government and this or that special form of world federalism often present challenging theories and ideas but we, like our ancestors, can only press against the receding walls which hide the future. It is by such efforts, pursued to the best of our ability, more than by the construction of ideal patterns to be imposed upon society that we lay the basis and pave the way for the society of the future."
Thirty-eight years later, we're going to see a corporate view of our society if this goes through, and there's been a lot of work done in order to bring this view around. I see it as one of the final steps in getting complete control.
In 1998, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The principles this enshrines bear careful reflection as we survey the world from our current vantage point, especially in light of the MAI, which has been called a charter of rights and freedoms for transnational corporations.
Now, I've heard other comments about it and all the people say it's NAFTA on steroids, but that's their opinion.
In 1948, following the most horrific conflict the world has ever seen, a new spirit prevailed - one committed to ensure that such atrocities would never happen again. That year, the universal Declaration of Human Rights was written and it broke ground on a number of fronts. It affirmed basic human rights for all people - rights like equality, life, liberty and security, regardless of race, colour, language, origin, religion, class or other status.
After the experience of the war, it banned slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention and exile. It established the rights of freedom of movement and asylum from persecution. But the declaration went further and laid out what governments must provide to protect human rights and what citizens have a right to expect of those who govern them. Paramount among them is the right to social security. I quote, "Every one, as a member of society, is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation, in accordance with organization and resources of each state, of economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for the dignity and the free development of his or her personality." Everyone, the declaration asserted, has a right to work. Significantly, everyone has a right to just conditions of work, to remuneration worthy of human dignity, to membership in a trade union, to protection from unemployment, and the list goes on.
By right of citizenship, every person is entitled to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of the whole family, including the right to security in the face of unemployment, illness, disability, old age, or other circumstances that lead to a lack of livelihood and are beyond the citizen's control.
Covenants were later ratified by most nations, binding them to a legal and moral obligation to protect and promote human and democratic rights. The individual collective rights delineated in a declaration and a covenant came to serve as a foundation stone for democracy in the modern world.
The declaration of universal human rights and the covenants had a major influence on the world, and their impact was certainly felt here in Canada. They served as a basis for a global crusade to establish universal health and education programs, to end child poverty, and to eradicate infectious diseases. The declaration served as a kind of template for the creation of Canada's social programs and coincided with our country's development into a social nation state, in which all Canadians had equal access to universal education, health care, pensions, social assistance and unemployment insurance.
Our commitment to fashioning a domestic policy ensuring decent wages, working conditions and full employment was very much a reflection of declaration principles. Developing countries used the UN declaration and covenants in negotiating protection for their industries, their national resources, their agricultural and cultural products when they entered into trade agreements. In order to protect their citizens' social and employment rights, many nations maintained state regulatory tools to place certain conditions on foreign companies and investments.
Canada, sharing a border with the world's largest superpower, had become one of the most foreign-controlled, developed countries in the world, so we, too, built up a regulatory framework to ensure protection for our resources, our culture and our social programs. We established protections for vulnerable industries, such as transportation and communications, though some were, admittedly, rather weak. We screened foreign investment and regulated access to energy and water. We established domestic content rules for media, communications and education. The list goes on with that, as well. We made sure our social programs were strictly off-limits to foreign ownership. Generally, during that period, we prospered.
Times have changed. Just on the basis of the motions debated in this Legislature, it is plain to see that the previously unshakable commitments, and even so-called "sacred trusts", have developed some alarming cracks and breaks in them. This hasn't occurred overnight. Even while the post-war process to secure human rights, promote nation/state democracy was being launched, another parallel process was also getting underway. Economic globalization was starting to take root.
I want to draw your attention to several significant developments along both these parallel but, basically, contradictory paths. In post-war years, the U.S. aggressively promoted open global investment in order to advance the interests of its corporations. It assumed the role of global defender of the free market, and its rebuilding of Europe after the war was a project built on a market model of economic recovery, one that led to the growth and dominance of U.S. corporations.
Two important initiatives were undertaken in support of this process. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund were established, supposedly to assist developing countries, but their underlying mandate has always been the expansion and integration of a global financial system through which the U.S. would secure economic dominance in the world.
I would like to expand a little bit on that. It has gone way beyond U.S. economic dominance. It's now transnational corporation dominance. I believe that you could go into any of the Third World countries and see the phenomenal effect - the devastating effect - that these loans have caused in the countries that can't pay them. Our closest neighbor to that one would be Mexico. It is very clear what has happened down there.
The U.S. resisted attempts to set up international trade regulations that would incorporate provisions of the UN declaration. Things like setting up standards for employment, working conditions and social security. In fact, the U.S. even refused to present the charter of the newly formed International Trade Organization to Congress, thereby killing it.
Instead the U.S. created GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, whose main purpose was to open up world markets for U.S. goods by reducing tariff barriers worldwide. Right into the 1980s, the U.S. continued its attempts to secure protection for its corporations through introduction of foreign investment rules in the UN. But, the UN consistently proved unsuitable as a tool for accomplishing this goal; it was just too democratic in its structure and its beliefs, and too committed to the principles of human rights and democracy to accommodate the U.S. agenda. This is partly the reason why the U.S. doesn't pay it's bills to the UN.
In 1974, with many developing nations supporting the direction taken, the UN enacted a charter of economic rights and duties of states which affirmed the rights of member nations to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investment. It stated that no state shall be compelled to grant preferential treatment to foreign investment. It granted nations the right to regulate and supervise the activities of transnational corporations in the national interest. It allowed member states to nationalize, expropriate, or transfer ownership of a foreign property providing compensation was made to do so.
The U.S. voted against this charter - where was Canada? It abstained - easy way out, I guess.
And now for those of you who know something about the MAI, this charter sounds quite familiar because it is almost exactly the inverse in terms of provisions and what it was designed to accomplish.
This, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to explore in more detail unless the feds manage to fast-track this through. And, then of course, once again the people are not going to have a voice.
I'm almost finished preparing the context for this discussion and I would appreciate everybody just listening a little closer because, without the background, it is very difficult to debate an issue like this.
I'm going to quote Tony Clarke, who talks to the trends which eventually gave rise to MAI. He said, "Over the past few decades, the discrediting and eventual collapse of Communism provided fertile grounds for an emerging global regime. Based on ideology that replaces the needs of capital and corporations above the needs and rights of people. This ideology is fundamentally opposed to the notion of citizen and nation/state democracy contained in the UN declaration, a notion that the powerful trilateral commission called "an excess of democracy" in its 1970s paper.
The trilateral commission consisted of a global forum of CEOs and leaders of major industrialized countries which was formed in the early 1970s to restructure the global economy.
Their doctrine, which became known as the Washington consensus, called for governments to relinquish controls on foreign investment and to ensure competitive labour conditions and the dismantling of social programs. They promoted the doctrine that such conditions would eventually produce prosperity and that nations would have to make sacrifices in the interim. It's been called "democracy delayed," and we've seen some pretty dramatic examples of how it works in practice.
Developing countries have consistently suffered as the World Bank and the IMF have grown in their power to exact deep structural adjustments to the policies of poor nations seeking debt-free negotiation. These institutions have used Third World country debt obligations as a way to weaken their national autonomy and to force adoption of a free-market economic model, regardless of the consequences for their citizenry.
Mexico and Zambia, both heavily in debt, were forced to reduce the role of government, particularly when it came to regulation of foreign corporations. They were forced to lower wages, to relax working standards, to slash funds for education, pension and health care, to deregulate transportation, telecommunication, utilities, to replace traditional cultivation practices with giant agribusiness for export. In short, barriers to unrestricted trade and investment had to be removed. Transnational corporations actually secured preferential treatment over local businesses as part of the Draconian measures imposed on these impoverished countries.
Eighty countries who have undergone similar restructuring at the hands of the IMF have also had their sovereignty seriously undermined, and almost all have emerged with a significantly higher level of poverty than when the process began. The UN says these countries have paid their debts with the health and life of their children.
They had very little choice, and if the MAI is ratified, the consequences for the Third World nations in particular could prove much more serious further down the road. This is because - and I'll quote again - "It is widely recognized that the central purpose of the MAI is to limit the role of the state in developing countries." And that's by Andrew Jackson of the CLC, out of Canada.
There are a great many more steps we could talk about in the march toward an absolutely unfettered movement of investment capital and corporate operations. The MAI has been under negotiation, secret negotiation, for over two and a half years, since 1995.
The U.S. chose to negotiate MAI within this context, because it was very clear that other forums in which Third World nations have a stronger voice would never agree to its provisions. They picked the OECD as the forum to do these negotiations.
If you remember the structure of the OECD - 447 transnational corporations, 29 countries - you'll see why they picked it.
So we start with the richer nations and gradually strong-arm the poorer countries into joining us. They would find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to attract foreign investment capital if they remain outside the MAI and the conditions that are laid down by 29 countries.
Now this sounds very much like colonialism all over again. It's exactly the way it was done before. The only difference now is, at one time, it was the countries that went out and colonized. Now it's the countries who are the puppets, and the transnational corporations are holding the strings and developing their own colonialization throughout the world. There are no Third World countries represented.
So the controversy surrounding the MAI is about far more than economics, although economics, at root, has always been about ideology, and the ideology here, when you take away all the smokescreen, is pure and simple greed. It's not about helping other countries. The debate that arises is about fundamental principles of democracy - that's our debate - of human rights - that's what we believe in - of nationhood, of true democracy, nationhood, and self-determination, and of our moral obligation to eradicate conditions that give rise to crushing poverty, exploitation and human suffering, certainly not to promote it. The MAI would do so, and that's why I feel so compelled to oppose it every chance I get.
Back in 1960, Stanley Knowles said, "Democracy is not real unless the people, through their elected institutions, control the economic order." The World Bank, IMF, GATT, NAFTA, APEC - which is happening right now - they're in control. They're removing control from the people. I wonder how Mr. Knowles would be feeling right now, seeing the phenomenal change that's happened, and how fast it's happening, how much it's out of the control of people of Canada and around the world.
John McMurtry calls MAI the latest fast-track initiative for replacing democratic government with a transnational framework of private corporate ownership and trade. Its focus is the protection of foreign investment capital and its primary principle is that transnational corporations shall have national status, that is they will receive the same rights and privileges as domestic companies and cannot be subject to any regulation which might promote the interest of the home nation.
Foreign investors are guaranteed access to the wealth of all countries. Think what this could mean for Canada and what it could mean for Third World countries. So, the MAI consists, in large part, of a list of rights for TNCs, transnationals. The paramount right articulated by this agreement is that TNCs be free of all performance requirements, little things like job creation, local hire, minimum wages and purchasing of domestic goods. The list goes on in this, too.
Equally disturbing is the right of corporations to bring suit against the government, be it national, First Nations, provincial, territorial or municipal, if it feels its being unfairly restricted in any of its activities or operations. This right is not reciprocal. Governments have no recourse against any corporate actions or practices which could potentially harm its citizens or its environment.
This is carte blanche for the transnationals, the dawning of an age of corporate rule, the conquest of the final frontier for the free-market economy, going where no one else has gone before. I don't think it'll be settled here. I think if they get this, the next day they'll wake up and look around and say, "What more can we have? How much more control can we have?
I know everyone wants to speak on this. I'm just going to touch on a couple more spots. I'm going to go through some of the areas that the MAI has a profound effect on. I know a lot of people in here, my colleagues especially, have their particular areas that they want to speak on and feel strongly about.
The concerns are jobs, stagnating living standards, increased inequality and disappearing employment security and social programs and huge environmental concerns, and of course on top of it all is our disappearing democracy.
How does it affect the social services? Under current provisions, the TNCs can claim that delivery of public service or subsidies to NGOs providing health or social services are discriminatory. For example, in the view of MAI supporters, maintaining public health care discriminates against the U.S. health care management giants.
Child care, elder care, programs for disabled Canadians - all would be up for grabs, all would have the potential for being completely privatized and turned into profits - profit-driven on the backs of the poor, profit-driven on the backs of the disabled. Viewed from the perspective of the private health care industry, Canada has a lucrative $72 billion market, most of which is funded by governments through public revenues but, due to massive cuts in federal transfer payments for health care plans, the federal Liberals have set the stage for the privatization of medical services. Already we see hospital closures and delisting of health services and pharmaceutical drugs. Once drugs and services are delisted from the public health care system, the market is open for private companies to move in and set up for-profit corporations.
A Canadian-owned corporation known as MDS has recently emerged as a major player in the private health care business, providing services in seven provinces. In 1996, MDS announced joint ventures with hospital chain Columbia ACA and pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Furthermore, the world's largest management consulting firm, KPMG, which master-minded a drive to privatize hospitals in London, has been hired to do the same in Canada.
So, this is not paranoia. This is a corporate strategy to take over Canada's public health care system. Adoption of the MAI would greatly facilitate this process. It's all tied together. They're on the OECD. They're driving it.
There's so much that could be said about how MAI could impact on other aspects of our health and social services. Because we've recently talked about the Canada Pension Plan, I'd like to consider this. If Ottawa decides to reserve a major percentage of the CPP fund exclusively for provincial government bonds, foreign investments firms or banks could challenge this as a violation of the MAI investment rules. Many government policies calling for a portion of pension funds to be invested in community development within our local community could be struck down because they impose performance standards on capital for investment.
The MAI prohibits discrimination in favour of Canadian companies if governments directly support job creation, training, research and development in new investments. Some countries are urging MAI to go further and even prohibit any requirements that a company should maintain or create jobs in return for government support. Even NAFTA - and NAFTA's not a great model - preserved our right to make corporations deliver in return for public support.
What could this mean for our future when so many jobs have already disappeared, never to return, when downsizing and massive layoffs are almost everyday occurrences? One critical role of government - and perhaps the most critical - is to protect its citizens from the most damaging impacts of the free-market forces. A big part of that means reining in corporate greed - insisting that, in return for access to resources, domestic markets and special treatment, corporations must create jobs, good working conditions and cooperate with community development goals - the very things the MAI is designed to prevent.
There will be huge environmental impacts if this agreement goes through. Even the weak commitments to the environment that we find in existing trade agreements would be entirely missing from the MAI. International trade lawyer Barry Appleton says, "The MAI is the most aggressive investment treaty in the history of the world. It could allow foreign resource companies to sue governments for trying to implement their own perfectly legal environmental or resource protection laws and could even allow them to sue governments who try to keep them out of the countries because of a history of environmental destruction elsewhere."
The MAI says that the government cannot discriminate when awarding licences and concessions, so foreign corporations could challenge preferential access by Canadians to our own forests, energy sources, wildlife, forest resources and other natural resources. Requirements to process resources in Canada or to create Canadian jobs would be disallowed. This is a very serious sellout of the Canadian environment and resources. No wonder environmental groups and Canadian corporations, who depend on Canadian natural resources, are among the first to sound the alarm about the MAI.
I've already mentioned that the MAI contains provisions that allow TNCs to assume political rights equivalent to those of nation states. This is not really new. Corporations have been acquiring political rights under international law and corporate law within countries for years and years. In fact, corporations were granted the legal right to personhood and citizenship in most countries, including Canada, before even women or aboriginal people were allowed or recognized.
What is new is the extent to which a TNC is granted nation state status. Under the MAI, corporations are accorded most favoured nation status, which has always been restricted to select nations, typically on a reciprocal basis. This means that OECD countries are required to extend most favourable treatment possible to not only OECD members, but to their TNCs - transnational corporations - as well.
Further, the MAI would make Canadian governments liable to damages for actions which foreign investors see as unreasonable and discriminatory. International panels would hear these challenges on things like environmental protection or extension of public services. They would go beyond even NAFTA in preventing federal and provincial governments from requiring that Canadians be represented on boards of directors and in senior management of companies incorporated in Canada.
It's interesting to note that Canada's already on the U.S. watch list for possible trade violations arising from our new copyright act. This is the first step to launching a full-scale trade dispute. What is so objectionable about this act? Well, it allows us to compensate the creators and owners of an intellectual property when their products get airplay on the radio, for instance, or when they miss out on royalties because of home copying of tapes, and so on. It's hard enough in Canada for artists and musicians, and other cultural workers, to make a living.
The fundamental MAI rule against any government action that would seem to discriminate in favour of Canadians, but essentially removes all subsidies and protections in support of Canadian media and cultural products. The government promises that culture would be exempt, but the NAFTA exemption has proved to be of little use against challenges from U.S. corporations. These are only promises. Once again, we've heard more promises from the Liberals. They don't come through.
If the MAI has its way, no support for Canadian culture, in any form whatsoever, will be allowed. The MAI exceeds NAFTA in privatization as well, by stopping all discrimination in favour of Canadians if public assets are privatized. This means that if the CBC, our national Crown corporation, were sold off, share sales could not be restricted and maintenance of Canadian jobs could not be made mandatory.
Even NAFTA could be abrogated. We can get out of NAFTA. If we had a government that was strong, we could get out of NAFTA.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Hardy: The member across asks why. Obviously he hasn't listened for the last 20 minutes.
Once signed, the MAI remains in effect for 20 years. So once this is signed, if it's not working, if it's devastating a country, if the people are starving, you can't get out of it. Future governments, as they change, cannot get out of it - 20 years. The next generation gets stuck with the consequences. We can't create or protect jobs and protect communities. We can't have local hire. We can't have initiatives that help small business. We can't protect our environment and our resources, and we can't protect our poor social programs that so many in the Liberal caucus seem to hate.
I urge everyone to find out as much as possible about the MAI and to learn about the likely consequences should Canada continue on the route it has chosen. I'm very hopeful this debate that we have today will provide movement for Yukoners to inform themselves and demand a say in how this federal government, the federal Liberals, decide our social and economic future.
Here in the Yukon, we believe - on this side for sure, we truly believe - that we have a unique opportunity to do things differently, that we can shape and control our economic development to provide a good quality of life for all our citizens, and that we can do that while preserving the wilderness and the environmental values that we find so important to us in the Yukon, and that on a nation-to-nation basis, our territorial government can join together with First Nations to realize a destiny based on fairness, cooperation and prosperity for everyone.
I can stand here and slam the Liberals for not consulting, for having secret negotiations, for the lies, deceit and denial surrounding the sellout of our country, but I won't at this moment. The federal Liberals are just puppets. They were bought long ago. TNCs are holding the strings.
The vision we have for our communities and our territory is not the vision of the creators and the promoters of the MAI, and I hope that everyone in this House opposes it in every way possible.
Mr. Jenkins: I rise to speak to this motion on the multilateral agreement on investment, and unlike the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who takes just a negative side and amplifies the negative side - doesn't even consider that there may be a positive side that's driving this agreement - let's look at both sides of the equation, Mr. Speaker, and there are two sides to every issue.
Mr. Speaker, money knows no boundaries. Money moves to where it receives the best rate of return on investment - its ROI. And the Member for Whitehorse Centre would have us believe that profit is a four-letter word, but profit, or ROI, is what drives industry. It's what makes Canada the country it is today.
We live in a global economy and it's expanding at a increasing pace, and money is moving around at a very rapid rate. What the MAI is is essentially a corporate bill of rights to ensure that, when money is invested in a foreign country, the ground rules for that investment are laid out and established equally for all.
Canadians have about $170 billion invested abroad, and Canadians want those investments abroad shielded from protectionism governments. At the same time, there's about $180 billion of foreign investments in Canada, and conversely, Mr. Speaker, those foreign investors want their money invested in Canada protected as well.
Canada is a very massive country but a small population base and it's very wise to open ourselves to international trade and investment. The MAI will guarantee foreign investments the same treatment as Canadian firms. No special conditions. No employment quotas. No extra Canadian content rules.
We have to look, just a few years ago, to the debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement or to the debate on the free trade agreement before that between Canada and the U.S., especially on automobiles. That agreement drove the economy of Canada for quite a number of years and contributed significantly to where Canada places in the world.
Our ability to maintain Canada as the best place in the world to live, according to the United Nations, is contingent upon the government levelling the playing field for financing.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins:
Yes, the member opposite said "our resources." Let's look on either side of the Yukon. Let's look to the southeast to Alberta and the west to Alaska. If anyone here has had the opportunity to travel to any of these areas in the last couple of years, they will recognize that both Alberta and Alaska have booming economies. There's a shortage of labour of all sorts. They're going very, very well, and both of these areas have achieved this as a result of foreign investment and the government in those respective areas levelling the playing field and setting the stage for foreign investment - something this government is failing to do and failing miserably to do. In fact, it's driving industry out.
It is interesting to note that in Alaska the majority of the mining industry is dominated by Canadian firms, unlike the Yukon. Pretty soon, we'll have, probably, one operating mine - and that's if we're fortunate.
Where is the Yukon on this scale, Mr. Speaker? Our unemployment rate is up. It's one of the highest in Canada. Our inflation is up. It's one of the highest inflation rates in Canada. The Northwest Territories is going through a period of deflation. The Yukon is on its way up.
There are no new initiatives on the horizon, because this government is listening to people like the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who wants protectionism. He wants everything sheltered and held in house. These policies that are being advanced by the Member for Whitehorse Centre are going to kill our economy.
Next year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the multilateral trading system. During the past 50 years, globalization has represented huge opportunities for countries and for the businesses in those respective countries for all levels of investment and development. These historic agreements are securing global trading opportunities for all of us.
Just look at some of the areas where Canada has benefited. Our wood products abroad bring home tremendous dollars. Our balance of payments are considerable as a consequence of the trees that grow all across Canada. Yes, we haven't done everything right. There are always areas we can improve on, Mr. Speaker, but overall, Canada has done a very good job in foreign investment, allowing foreign investment into Canada and reaping the benefits with a balance of trade consistently in our favour.
In the telecommunication industry, there are opportunities worldwide because these agreements are benefiting us and it has opened markets to Canadian firms that are providing fantastic opportunities for companies in Canada staffed by Canadians, operated and owned by Canadian investors and foreign investors.
Non-discrimination of foreign investments means that governments treat foreign and domestic investors in the same way. If a government imposes a requirement on investors, why would you apply these more stringently to foreign investors than domestic investors and vice-versa. We want the same opportunities abroad as investors have in their country.
This MAI would make Canada more attractive to foreign investors and would also provide greater protection to Canadian investments abroad. More investments in Canada means more jobs, more jobs for Canadians.
There is going to be a shakeout initially as there was during the first free-trade negotiations -
Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jenkins: - but, overall, Canada has benefited significantly from the free-trade agreements that we have negotiated.
Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order please.
Mr. Jenkins: Canada has benefited greatly and the people of Canada have benefited greatly as a consequence of these investments in Canada.
Canada is still the number one place in the world to live. That's been recognized by the UN
Those areas of Canada that are prospering, Mr. Speaker, are those areas of Canada that are under a government that is encouraging investment, allowing for privatization of some of the sectors, and allowing business to thrive - setting the stage, setting the ground rules for all. They are the successful areas of Canada.
I have an amendment to Motion No. 82 that will probably make it more palatable to all. I encourage the members opposite to support this motion.
Amendment proposed
Mr. Jenkins: The amendment to the motion is
THAT Motion No. 82 be amended by adding the word "left-wing" before the word "governments"; and
THAT subclause (2) and the last clause be deleted and replaced with the following:
"(2) the democratic process which Canadians so value is seriously threatened by these left-wing governments whose aim is to remove control of the economic process from the people's elected representatives and to consolidate it in the hands of transnational unions;"
THAT this House calls on the federal government to proceed with negotiations on the MAI to facilitate full participation of all Canadians in major decisions affecting our economic future.
Speaker: Amendment to Motion No. 82, moved by the Member for Klondike
THAT Motion No. 82 be amended by adding the word "left-wing" before the word "governments"; and
THAT subclause (2) and the last clause be deleted and replaced with the following:
(2) the democratic process which Canadians so value is seriously threatened by these left-wing governments whose aim is to remove control of the economic process from the people's elected representatives and to consolidate it in the hands of transnational unions;
THAT this House calls on the federal government to proceed with negotiations on the MAI to facilitate full participation of all Canadians in major decisions affecting our economic future.
Mr. Jenkins: By amending this motion in this manner, what we will do is ensure that there are jobs here in Canada for Canadians. We will ensure that the playing field is level, that investment will flow through to our respective areas, that we have governments in place that encourage investment, that want investment and that are prepared to set the ground rules in an equal manner for all, and I'm sure that when one looks at this amendment, Mr. Speaker, one can see the benefits that will eventually accrue to Canada by negotiating this MAI. The major benefits will flow through Canada through time, but it is of paramount importance that we all support an initiative of this nature and the democratic process which we all hold so dear and we value so highly. It will allow these to continue, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of all Canadians.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Phillips: I rise in support of the amendment that's before us here today.
Just a few words on the motion that is before us. Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat interested in the comments that are made by the Member for Whitehorse Centre when it comes to these kinds of motions. He seems to be very concerned about free trade and international companies and corporations, and this kind of thing, but I see some inconsistencies or some cracks appearing on the strategy of the side opposite. It's interesting to note that, although this member vehemently opposes trade of almost any kind - international trade or free trade - his Government Leader doesn't. The Government Leader went to, I think, China or Asia last year, with all the other premiers and the Prime Minister on a trade mission, trying to bolster trade for the Yukon with international companies and attract investment. He was over there trying to do that. I'm sure he wasn't there just for the Chinese food. I think he was there for a little more than that. I understand that he's making travel plans now to go to South America this winter on another trade mission. I hope he's not going down there just for the cultural activities that are happening. I'm sure he's going down there to talk to investors that may come back to the Yukon and invest.
There are multinational investors and very large companies at the present time, which are supporting industry in the territory. We have Cominco and Hyundai in the Member for Faro's riding, who are international companies and have government support. This is international trade, commerce and investment in our country. It seems that this government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The Minister of Economic Development is saying "more trade." We have the Government Leader going on all the national junkets across the country and enjoying the travelling on the pocketbook of the Liberal Party and not saying too much about it - enjoying it. Then we have the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who used to be the member - maybe he still is a member - of an international union that's based in the United States of America and sends some of their dues money down there. There are international ties to them. They go all over North America.
It's okay for him, Mr. Speaker, but it's not okay for others. So I see a problem or a crack emerging on the side opposite where several of the members support increased trade and commerce and freer trade and commerce, and one member over there just wants to trade within the Yukon. He doesn't want to do anything else with anybody, and believes that that's the future.
Well, I have to disagree with that member. I think that that member is dead wrong, and it's kind of ironic, I guess, that we're here today talking about international trade and democratic processes when, if you walk out these doors - I'll ask the Member for Whitehorse Centre to do that - and walk up those stairs and look in the lobby of the foyer of this building, the member will see several displays of local companies who are trying to export their products outside of the territory. And some are being successful at doing so. Some are shipping to the United States and even discussing shipping to other countries - Japan and Russia. There have been discussions with these companies. These are going to provide Yukon jobs for Yukoners.
And I guess the Member for Whitehorse Centre wants to say to them, Mr. Speaker, "Stay at home. We'd rather you didn't trade anywhere else. We'd rather you stayed right here, and the Government of the Yukon will just buy all your products. You don't need to expand any further." I don't know what that member's ideas are.
Like I said, we have the Minister of Economic Development - and I applaud his efforts - making strong efforts, or trying to make strong efforts, to encourage Yukoners to export. The problem is that at the same time they're bringing in a local hire policy under the member that wants no investment from anybody other than Yukoners in the territory - they're trying to close the doors to investment, close the doors to others coming into this territory. It's really inconsistent. It doesn't make any sense.
You know, if you look around the world at the various groups and organizations that are opposing this, it is many of the left-wing thinkers of the world and the left-wing governments, and these particular governments are ones that don't want to see any trade.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order.
Mr. Phillips: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, they have a very sensitive spot over there, and I appear to be circling around the edges of it, because they're squirming in their seats, and it's good to see. It's time the left-wingers gather in a group and circled to protect themselves. Everybody else in the world is looking at the world as a smaller place to do business, with the advent of computer technology and satellite communications, and technology that's available out there. There are some Yukon companies right now, Mr. Speaker - I know of some communication companies in this territory who are working with the State of Alaska and other governments to export their technology, because it's considered to be on the leading edge.
I don't know how this member thinks we can shut other people out from coming in and, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, allow our people to go out and be accepted everywhere in the world. You can't have it both ways. You simply can't have it both ways.
I think this motion amends, in a small way, the motion by the Member for Whitehorse Centre, and it really tells it like it is. It really does talk about the federal government, to proceed with negotiations, to speak out on behalf of Canadians, to protect Canadians at those talks, and have full participation at those talks, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a good move.
You know, it's interesting to note that, in the last free trade debate in this country, the Liberal Party of Canada was going to kill the free trade deal. They were going to rip it up. I think Mr. Chretien said he was going to rip it up. Well, Mr. Speaker, he got into government and he sat down with business leaders, with individuals across this country, and he said, "What has the free trade agreement done for Canada?" Mr. Speaker, he realized that it was good for Canada, that it's helped a lot of businesses. In fact, the free trade agreement has helped a lot of Yukon businesses.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Phillips: It has helped Yukon businesses. The member asked me to name one. I can name one: Northerm, a local window business the free trade has helped.
You want others; I'll name you others if you want other businesses. I'll get you a list of businesses that ship to Alaska and deal across the border all the time. There are local art companies and artists who now can trade freely across the border. There are others in this business that can trade freely across the border and this government seems to be blind to that. They don't realize that by putting a motion forward like this, they're affecting some local businesses in this territory, some businesses of which they have put up displays in the foyer of this building at the present time.
That's the kind of motion we have in front of us here today. These guys just don't get it. The Member for Whitehorse Centre wants to slam the door, believes that unions should control the world and that it's only his way.
Well, I don't agree with that member. This is 1997. Come out of your box. It's a big world out there and it's getting smaller with technology and we now can deal around the world at the touch of a computer. People and businesses in the Yukon are doing that. People in business in the Yukon are putting programs together for people all over the world at the present time.
MAI will open up new opportunities for businesses in this country and new opportunities for jobs in this country, and at the same time protect rights of Canadians.
The side opposite has a closed-door approach to this; half of them do. The Minister of Economic Development and the Government Leader, who both like to travel all over the world - and first class many times - to tell people how wonderful the Yukon is to invest in, that they want to invite this kind of investment into the territory - would be the first ones to open their arms to a multinational company that would come into this territory and spend millions of dollars and create hundreds of jobs for Yukoners. They'd be the first ones, and so they should be - so they should be.
It seems they've fallen into the trap of the Member for Whitehorse Centre who has a closed-door approach to investment, jobs and opportunities in this country and that's unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, I'll be supporting the amendment put forward by the Member for Klondike, because I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the motion that we have in front of us from the Member for Whitehorse Centre.
Hon. Mr. Harding: On the amendment, I have to rise to rebut some of the usual shallow analysis of the Member for Riverdale North. He is quite amusing. He does get some levity from this side of the House with his stretches of logic.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the shallow approach of the Member for Riverdale North is that he fails to understand the difference between free trade and fair trade, and that's the fundamental flaw in his logic, if indeed you can call it logic - and that is a stretch.
This government and nobody on this side of the House has ever been afraid of fair trade. Mr. Speaker, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has actually had considerable support in the New Democratic Party circles in this country for many, many years, and some of the principles of that agreement have formed the basis of our trade policies and practices.
But what this debate today is about is the MAI. It's the extension of arrangements that exist today that give considerable concern, I believe, to many people in this country who are not in positions of power. This is an issue of control. It's an issue of who has the ear of government, and it's clear that organizations like the Business Council on National Issues, which is made of the top CEOs of the country, have considerable authority and ability to influence government and government policy in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this because I want to point out, in terms of the shallow critique from the member opposite from Riverdale North, that there is a fundamental difference in what we say in terms of our support for fair trade versus fair trade, and I make no apologies for going out to try and increase export and investment in this territory to try and create jobs for Yukon people, and I know I have the support of my caucus and colleagues on those initiatives. But when the Government Leader went on a recent Team Canada mission abroad, he raised those issues that are important to this debate that were not being raised by Bill Vander Zalm wannabes, like the folks from the Yukon Party.
Mr. Speaker, the types of issues that were raised - child poverty, environmental standards, labour standards - were all raised by our contingent on that mission. And, we will go again to try to create jobs for Yukon people, but we will continue to raise the issues that talk about raising the playing field, bringing it up to a standard that's higher than what exists in many countries in the Third World and other developing nations, and some of the hot economies around the world.
We're talking about labour and environmental standards, health and safety. We're talking about having some concern for the youth of countries that are put to work in factories at very young ages.
We want to not bury our head in the sand, because we realize that major lobbies of the corporations are having considerable influence on policy, and we're not just going to totally stop in terms of our efforts to try and play that ball game, but we want to play that ball game by our rules, and by setting our standards, and by raising our issues. And we're doing that. And we'll continue to do that.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between our approach and the approach that would obviously be taken by the Yukon Party.
You know, when the NAFTA was being signed, and just prior to the election, I can remember Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberals, who had been cackling over there in their non-confrontational way, talking about ripping up that NAFTA agreement. I remember an all-night debate on the parliamentary channel, where I watched Howard McCurdy from the New Democrats say that there is no way when this election is over, if the Liberals win, they will tear up this NAFTA agreement, and he said, "You watch." He was an amazing speaker. He had a very ministerial approach to speaking and it really captivated me. And, every word he said came true.
In response to the following speaker, Prime Minister Chrétien was very animated and said, "This agreement is gone, it's dead, unless we get some serious improvements on labour and environmental standards." Mr. Speaker, after he'd appointed Sheila Copps to go down there and improve those standards, she came back saying she'd got that. At the same time, Mickey Cantor, who was Bill Clinton's trade negotiator, was saying to the people of the States that there were no concessions made on labour or the environment. So, it was clear to the people of this country and clear to the people of the United States that there were no changes on labour and the environment and the Liberal government caved in and accepted NAFTA. That's how we ended up with it.
Mr. Speaker, that is not fair trade. That's free trade. We stand by fair trade.
Now, I've got a lot more to say when we get in the main debate, but on this amendment I just want to say that there's a fundamental difference. And one other fundamental difference, in terms of our approach, is we believe that developing regional economy does need provisions for local business, for local hire. When you talk to people in the forestry industries, they demand that in this territory - that there are local initiatives that create jobs for local people. So, we're responding to that. We believe we can do that and we can still improve our ability to export. We believe we can have the best of both worlds in this territory for Yukon people and for Yukon jobs.
So, Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to work on that agenda and we believe the MAI is just one step forward towards, as it's been put, free trade on steroids and not a step toward fair trade for the people of this country and the people who don't always have the ear of government and the people who are often the first to be exploited when it comes to profit-driven motives.
Ms. Duncan: I rise today to speak about the amendment and the motion before us. Discussions, negotiations about the multilateral agreement on investment, are being undertaken by Canada - by Canada, Mr. Speaker, by our national government. We have two representatives at the national level. We have an appointed senator who speaks ably and eloquently on our behalf, in the other place, in the red chamber. We also have a duly elected representative of Yukon people in the green chamber in Canada's Thirty-sixth Parliament.
Our member was elected by Yukon people to represent our interests at the national level. She was elected by Yukoners to speak on behalf of Yukoners on national issues. Canada's Thirty-sixth Parliament - the House of Commons, the green chamber - is not this chamber.
While I compliment those who have tried to address this motion and who have very eloquently stated the debate, by continually putting forward federal motions - national motions - and especially this motion and the amendment that deals with international issues, the members opposite have shown a complete disrespect for our national representative.
The member has summarily dismissed the House of Commons member's ability to speak on our behalf. Why else would they be insisting we must continually deal with national issues in our territorial legislature if they didn't think that our member could speak ably?
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order.
Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if you'll allow me to paraphrase - oh, NDP of little faith. The Member for Whitehorse Centre has put forward a motion that is disrespectful of our federal member. I also draw the member's attention, by comment, to statements made by a member of our Assembly. The Member for Whitehorse Centre urged people at a public microphone on Sunday to attend this important debate, advising 70 people which motion would be debated this afternoon.
We appreciate the heads up, although there are some who would consider that notifying the public outside of this House is somewhat less than appropriate.
The same member referred to the Government of Canada, using expletives and unparliamentary language. Mr. Speaker, I raise these comments because actions of one member reflect upon us all.
This motion and the amendment purport that, somehow, 29 industrial nations are having secret negotiations. I don't know how the learned member - who loves to display his knowledge of language and fine arts - would define secret, but I'm willing to suggest that, whatever the definition of "secret," it doesn't involve 29 industrial nations.
I should also remind the members, if they are not aware, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which has representation from all parties in the House of Commons, has struck a subcommittee called the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. The subcommittee is in the middle of seven days of public hearings on the MAI treaty.
The president of the Canadian Labour Congress and chair of the Council of Canadians - well-known activist Maude Barlow - have both appeared before the subcommittee. Members of the general public, including our representatives in Ottawa, speaking for Yukoners, are free to attend these public meetings. The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post - national newspapers - have printed numerous articles on the negotiations that are proceeding in Paris. So much for the negotiations being secret.
Mr. Speaker, the MAI is referred to by four constituents I spoke with only hours ago as the MIA - missing in action bill. This Legislature is missing the action with this discussion.
To the constituents I spoke with, this is costing you $5,200 per day to discuss the MAI. The constituents I spoke with explained a situation to me that makes the MAI-MIA case rather well. The situation was that an individual wins a court case - a conviction against someone who has abused them as a child - a case in which, to some degree, justice has been served, but not completely. The individual has required a great deal of counselling and assistance, and it costs money - a lot of money - to help this person recover from these grievous wrongs. Members of this Legislature know, or should know, as members of the Yukon bar who spoke to me knew, that legal aid doesn't cover a civil action. So, how do we as a society help to ensure that justice is truly achieved and that these individuals are helped?
I referred this member of the bar to the Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act, which was discussed only recently and a short time ago by this Legislature. The member of the bar was unaware of this particular piece of legislation. I don't know, myself, personally, whether or not this particular victim would be able to receive assistance under this act. I thought so, but I said I would do my job as a territorial representative, find out and get this information to this person.
This issue was entirely relevant to this Chamber and to these members. It is important to Yukoners. That's one Yukoners and that's one issue.
In less than the last 12 hours, I have addressed questions on the abattoir from half a dozen different phone calls from constituents - valid, interested constituents who want questions and more information. I spent my evening at a school council meeting learning about the reading recovery program, an excellent program. It generates a great deal of questions, which will be coming forward in this Legislature later in debate.
These are important issues to Yukoners. They are the focus of the work of this Chamber. We have other representatives to do other work. To just waste Yukoners' time to address a subject that members are not fully briefed on and fully aware of is inappropriate.
Mr. Hardy: Well, those are interesting comments. I see the Liberals want to focus on the fact that we should not discuss national issues that affect Yukon people. We should stay away from it. We shouldn't talk about it in the Chamber. We should not talk about the effects it's going to have on social programs. No, let's stay away from it because we're not allowed to talk about it; we're not representing the people of the Yukon on anything national. What a bunch of poppycock. I never heard such ridiculousness in my life.
Minimum wages, investment, trade - we don't talk about that stuff because the Liberal leader has decided to tell us not to. The authority has spoken, so I guess we have to bow down to that. Dare to criticize the federal Liberals, dare to criticize them - it's a scary moment.
They say I'm wrong to raise the issues. The Member for Riverdale - what is it, Riverdale-Marsh Lake, Riverdale North? Okay, Riverdale North. I've got to make sure where he lives. I'm not sure all the time. He says I'm wrong to raise issues like equality.
He says I'm wrong to raise issues like race, colour, language, religion, class structure for people. He says I'm wrong to raise issues about conditions of work and trade. He says I'm wrong to raise conditions about human dignity and how it affects people in the Yukon and Canada and other people throughout the world. He says I'm wrong to raise issues about unemployment.
Well, I'm proud to be wrong in his eyes then, because the MAI - and I think there's a little bit of distortion here - is not about whether we agree with trade or not. It's about what kind of trade the MAI is going to bring in, and what kind of control do we have over our local, national, First Nation, municipal levels? What kind of control do we have over what kind of trade there is? What kind of conditions are attached to it?
We support fair trade. I support fair trade. I support the businesses in this territory that pay their employees well, that do good business, and that can trade fairly with other countries that also do that. I do not support free trade that exploits the rights of working people, that exploits the environment, that creates unsafe working conditions in which people die. I'll never support that kind of trade, and the MAI, unfortunately, is that kind of trade deal. And what's very important, which I think some people have missed here, is that we have no recourse if this is signed. We have absolutely no recourse to stop a transnational company, because those are the ones that are going to have a huge impact on Canada and the Yukon, destroying our environment. They can sue us, but we can't sue them. Is that a fair trade? Is that what free trade is about? I hope not.
Also they say that it's only left-wing. The Member for Riverdale North said it's only left-wing groups that are opposed to this. Well, you should listen to the CBC in the morning.
The pulp and paper industry in Canada is opposed to this deal. Why? Ask yourself why. Why is the pulp and paper industry opposed to this deal, and has come out and spoken against it? Why has the Republican Congress come out and spoken against this deal? Why? This is not left-wing thinking. There's something happening here. Read what's happening here. There is something happening here that is going to devastate fair trade, that's going to devastate the small businesses, because we're not going to be able to compete against Walmart, if they can set the standards of wages as low as they want. So when you stand up and speak, think about who you're speaking for. Is it the people of the Yukon, or is it only for the investors, as the Member for Klondike seems to like? Only the investors, never mind about the people in the Yukon.
This deal will not help the small businesses. This deal is to serve one master only, and that is the transnationals, the corporations that are so huge that many of them have economies larger than most of the countries in this world now, and they are dictating the conditions that we will work under and live under, and they're taking away the democracy. That is the important element here, that people still have to have some control over their country and be able to vote the people in and vote them out accordingly. With transnationals, you can't do it.
So on this amendment, I'm completely opposed to it, and I hope we get off it and get moving on to something that's more constructive.
Mr. Ostashek: I rise to speak in support of the amendment, and I'm going to try to stick more to the facts than to the emotion that has gone into the debate so far.
Before I do that, I do have a few comments I'd like to make in regard to the debate as it has progressed in this House this afternoon.
I will say from the onset that I'm fundamentally opposed to the position put forward by the Member for Porter Creek South, that we don't have the right to debate this issue in this Legislature. I believe in the democratic process, and this is a democratic Legislature, and this is where these issues should be debated.
The government, in their wisdom, whether we agree with them or not - the backbencher has put forward this motion -there's no doubt that they feel very strongly about their position.
Mr. Speaker, we, in my caucus, also feel very strongly about the position that we take, and that's what this Legislature is for - to debate these issues and put our views on the public record. I believe that's my job as an MLA, representing my constituents. While this may not be something that's near and dear to every constituent's heart, or an issue that they're thinking about at the breakfast table every morning, it is an issue that's going to have a fundamental impact on how they live out their lives in this society, how our children live out their lives, and how our grandchildren live out their lives. So, I believe that we are in order in debating this type of motion on the floor of the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have made some very strong statements on our position on the MAI. The Member for Whitehorse Centre has a fundamentally different philosophical view from ours, and that will be the case. We don't expect a party that has a different philosophical view from us, not even close to us, to agree with the position we're going to take on this.
But I do want to put on the public record some of the things that I believe are important to this debate and some of the things that are important to give our federal government direction. I think it's probably in the main motion, too, but the last clause in the amended motion says that this House calls on the federal government to proceed with negotiations on the MAI and to facilitate full participation of all Canadians in major decisions affecting our economic future. And that is exactly what we're doing here today.
Mr. Speaker, we have some different views of some of the clauses or some of the arguments that have been put forward by some of the left-thinking people in this country as to what MAI will do to our jobs, to our industries, to our small businesses, as we did in NAFTA, as we did in the FTA. There were fundamental differences and I believe that, now that a period of time has gone by, the fearmongering that took place over those bills is now rearing its ugly head again on the MAI and on all of the bad things that are going to happen to Canadians if we support a broadening of our trade horizons and look to a more level playing field to encourage investment dollars in the Yukon.
In the Yukon, as small a jurisdiction as we are, I believe this is one place where we should be looking at that broader picture - not how we curtail investment in the Yukon but how do we make the Yukon an attractive place to invest.
Myself, Mr. Speaker, and my caucus colleagues in the Yukon Party don't believe that is by taking a protective attitude and mentality to free trade or any other kind of trade.
We do not have the financial resources in the Yukon to invest here. We need to have outside investment. We need to have rules of commerce that are competitive with other jurisdictions in the world. My colleague from Riverdale North pointed out that the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement have brought benefits to some of the businesses, those that want to take advantage of it. I don't want to see us going backward.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, when he got up to speak to the amendment, said that the pulp and paper industry is opposed to it. I didn't hear that report that way this morning. I heard that the unions in those industries were opposed to it, but I heard that the mining industry and the forestry industry in Canada were in favour of the MAI. That's what I heard. This certainly isn't an agreement that the unions favour. We know that, but the pulp and paper industry, as well as the mining industry, is in favour of the agreement.
I just want to clear the record on that.
Some of the fears that are being put out by people and organizations who are opposed to the MAI are that the MAI would weaken Canada's ability to create jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, the FTA agreement and the NAFTA agreement didn't weaken our ability to create jobs. In fact, I say to members opposite, if we look at the economic activity in Canada today and what transpired during the 1990s, and I ask them to think back: where would we have been without free trade?
We have benefited many, many times over from those agreements, and
as the Member for Faro even pointed out when he stood on his feet, the federal Liberal Party, which was against it, saw the merits of it after they got into office. They saw the merits of it. And, we can thank God that they did, Mr. Speaker, because if it wouldn't have been for our exports in the last five or six years, our economy would be doing very, very poorly in Canada. Our deficit and debt would be continuing to grow. We would not have created the jobs in Canada that we have today if it would not have been for free trade and NAFTA. And, I see this agreement, the MAI, continuing to contribute to job creation in Canada, and I don't believe we need to fear any weakening of Canada's ability to create jobs by the signing of this agreement.
In fact, to Canadian investors abroad, the MAI will provide greater access and protection for making Canada's businesses more competitive. To say that this is going to hurt is wrong because, while we allow those companies and corporations and multinationals, as the member from Whitehorse Centre likes to refer to them, into Canada, we have some multinational corporations in Canada that stand to benefit. And, let's just look at one company, Northern Telecom, and look what they have done because of free trade and NAFTA. And look at what they're doing on trade with Asian countries now. Look at the returns they are bring back to this country; look at the jobs that they are creating in Canada.
Are those the kinds of things that the members opposite want to curtail? Or do they expect that this agreement can be all one sided. Do they expect that Canada can protect itself from everybody else and still have all the benefits of an open-trade society? I don't think so. I don't think so.
Another point is that the MAI would free corporations of any obligations to Canadians regarding labour, environmental and consumer protection. From everything I've heard and read and listened to in this country, all residents of Canada are subject to Canadian law and that Canadian law applies to corporations doing business in Canada, whether they are foreign or domestic. So, I don't believe there are any fears there.
The MAI would undermine Canada's culture. We protected culture in the NAFTA agreement to a certain extent and we negotiated exceptions for cultural industries and, from my understanding of this agreement, Canada's culture is not on the table.
The MAI would remove Canada's ability to place restrictions on foreign investment. That's another fallacy that's being put out by the naysayers to this agreement. Now, a vast majority of Canadian laws and regulations do not distinguish between foreign and domestic companies and, therefore, are consistent with the principles of the MAI.
Another fallacy that has been put out - and I believe we heard the Member for Whitehorse Centre speak to it today - is that the MAI would threaten our public health care and set the stage for a two-tier system. That's one that everyone who was against free trade and NAFTA likes to use, that it's going to have a detrimental effect on the integrity of our health care system. My understanding of this agreement is that, as under NAFTA, Canada will preserve the integrity of its health care system. I didn't see anything in the MAI that would limit Canada's ability to adopt or maintain our own policies on provisions of social service, on provisions of education, health care or child care. I don't see anything in that agreement that addresses those concerns or that has a negative impact on those concerns.
Mr. Speaker, another point that's raised by the naysayers is that the MAI will remove regulations requiring foreign companies operating in Canada to hire Canadians. That's another one they like to throw around all the time, that these companies cost jobs. Well, all corporations - both domestic and foreign - are currently required to look first on the Canadian labour market when hiring employees, and this requirement will not change under this agreement.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of fears being put out by people and organizations that don't want to see this agreement go ahead.
As I said, there are some very diverse and different views on what this will do, but I believe that history has shown us that NAFTA didn't bring the negative impacts that the people who weren't supportive of it said it would. The FTA didn't bring the negative impacts that people said it would bring that weren't supporting it. As with any changes, there are some disruptions - there's no doubt about it - but these disruptions are going to take place whether we have free trade or not.
Let's look at an issue that's going on right today that has nothing to do with this but is a perfect example, and that's the looming postal strike. Here we have an industry that studies have shown is a dying industry - delivering our mail - that is not going to be the big industry down the road that it has been in the past 15 or 20 years. Yet we have some very diverse views as to how we should handle it and some very protectionist attitudes that are entering into the negotiations.
So I believe that the MAI will be good for Canada. I don't believe that it'll be bad for Canada at all. It will still allow the government to review large-scale mergers and acquisitions involving Canadian companies under the Investment Canada Act. It will protect cultural industries, as I have said. It will maintain foreign ownership restrictions to sectors such as transportation, minerals and petroleum. Those aren't on the table. It will preserve the integrity of Canada's health care system, and it will continue to impose and maintain foreign ownership limits when privatizing Crown corporations.
I believe all of the protection clauses are in there that Canadians need to feel comfortable, and I believe the amended motion gives the direction that this House should be giving to the federal government, and that's to proceed with negotiations and to involve the full participation of all Canadians in major decisions such as this that affect our economic future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?
Some Hon. Members: Division.
Division
Speaker: Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Disagree.
Hon. Mr. Harding: Disagree.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Disagree.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Disagree.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Disagree.
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Disagree.
Mr. McRobb: Disagree.
Mr. Fentie: Disagree.
Hon. Mr. Harding: Disagree.
Mr. Livingston: Disagree.
Mr. Ostashek: Agree.
Mr. Phillips: Agree.
Mr. Jenkins: Agree.
Ms. Duncan: Disagree.
Mr. Cable: Disagree.
Mrs. Edelman: Disagree.
Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are three yea, 13 nay.
Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Amendment to Motion No. 82 negatived
Speaker: Is there any further debate on the main motion?
Hon. Mr. Harding: I made a lot of my points on the amendment that I wanted to say about this debate. I won't be long, because I think it's important that we vote on this motion today.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in fair trade. We have problems with free trade, as it is envisioned under the FTA and NAFTA, and we have grave problems with how it is envisioned under the MAI. We feel that there's too much control in the hands of economic interests.
The Member for Klondike, of the Yukon Party, said money knows no boundaries, but I want to tell that member that the people of this country know their boundaries, and they are a proud people in Canada. The people in the Yukon are a proud people. They know their boundaries, and they don't, I don't think, believe that money can have absolutely no conscience. I would believe, and I would argue, that the citizens of this country do believe that Canadians ought to have influence and control over economic interests.
Now, he also said that profit is what makes Canada what it is today, and I disagree fundamentally with the Yukon Party on that score. I believe that Canadians have made Canada what it is today. Our resources have made Canada what it is today. Mr. Speaker, the economy and profit are not an end. The economy and profit are vehicles to create an end, which is a better country, a higher quality of life for Canadians, socially and economically.
So, I think there is a really strong philosophical difference between the Yukon Party and the Yukon New Democrats. That shouldn't be any surprise to anybody. But when I hear the members opposite say that profit is what makes Canada what it is today, I shudder, because it is absolutely false, and I think it's disrespectful to what I believe brings Canadians together and makes us different from Americans, from other cultures and other peoples in this world. I think Canadians do realize that there's more to this country than money. I think it's one of the reasons why there's such an aversion by a lot of Canadians to the huge profits that banks are making. People are accepting Canadians, I know I certainly am, as people being able to raise money, to make profit, to have jobs, but the whole corporate veil or the whole common legal system is created, I believe, for the benefit of people. It's designed to create a corporate vehicle for the creation of wealth, the creation of jobs but, fundamental to that, is that those jobs and that wealth are spread throughout the economy and that there's some levelling in our economic system.
I'm not an advocate of the trickle-down approach. However, I do believe that many elements of our economic system depend on entrepreneurs, on investment, and I think we have to be cognizant of that and we have to pursue it. But when we trade, let's trade fairly. Let's recognize labour standards. Let's recognize environmental standards. Let's recognize what it does to the youth of countries that are put to work in factories at five years old. Let's recognize what that does to their future, their lack of education.
You know, the former Government Leader - the leader of the official opposition - said that the NAFTA and the free trade agreement did nothing in terms of coming true regarding the concerns that were raised in the free trade debate. I disagree totally with that statement. Look at what the federal Liberal government has done to health care and education in the two terms in government thus far. They have cut and slashed and offloaded to the provinces and territories to the point where the sacred trust that Brian Mulroney talked about is no longer sacred.
I believe NAFTA and free trade have had, if not cataclysmic repercussions on our economy and on our social safety net, repercussions of a significant nature, and it has impacted and it is a result of those agreements.
I also want to say, in terms of this debate, that the Member for Klondike's statement about driving industry out of this territory is - I don't know where he comes up with that.
I remember the Yukon Party's claims of nine mines in the offing when they were doing their Yukon Party caucus update propaganda sheet. Of course one of those companies was Redel, which was shortly thereafter kicked off the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I guess they're back on now.
Then there was the Casino project, which they always often touted as being just around the corner and, of course, we know that's not the case.
In oil and gas, forestry and mining we have encouraged many positive developments there. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to compete with the impact of Bre-X, which has hammered all the jurisdictions in this country on junior exploration. Anyway, his comment was totally beside the point, but I did feel, as Economic Development minister, I had to speak to it.
We believe that there should be provision for local benefits, for local preference, for local recognition of the contribution of local people to the economy. We believe that certain things in our country are fundamental and should not be touched and should not be the subject of corporate bartering. We do believe that we should have the right as Canadians to establish those things, and when those rights are infringed upon, then I think we have a problem.
So, what this debate is about is fair trade or free trade. What this debate is about is who has control and ear of the leaders of the country and who are the leaders of the country. While we can support the concept of fair trade, we have a grave problem with what the MAI is proposing.
We don't think it will benefit Canadians in the long run, and I think it's the reason that a lot of business corporations of this country are raising concerns about the MAI and I think it's also the reason that the Republican Congress in the United States are raising concerns about the MAI. They don't believe, in the long run, it will be good for democracy; it will not be good for people.
We feel very strongly about this motion. We're glad the Member for Whitehorse Centre brought it forward and we intend to support him and continue to pursue, when we trade as a territory, fair trade. We will pursue that vehemently and we will pursue increased labour standards, increased environmental standards, a leveller playing field. We will try to raise the plain when it comes to trying to create economic development.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to raise concerns about child poverty and child labour when we trade, and we will continue to fight for those principles.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I just say that I support the motion, and I look forward to further debate.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I am a territorial member of the Legislative Assembly, and as such I consider it my job to represent my constituents on territorial issues.
As Yukoners, we have two fine representatives on the federal level. We have Senator Lucier, and this year we elected Louise Hardy as our new, federal MP. I respect the abilities of both our federal politicians to represent us in the federal political arena. So it makes me wonder why members of this territorial NDP government continuously bring federal issues to the floor of this territorial Legislature on private members' day.
Today, we are speaking to the MAI, another federal issue. Mr. Speaker, I am a territorial representative of the people of Riverdale South, and personally I have plenty to do dealing with territorial issues. Now, if the members