We are being denied the text that is being negotiated by the 34 countries involved in this hemispheric deal, the free trade of the Americas agreement.
It makes a mockery of democracy when we are being told that we are able to pronounce ourselves on the implications of the FTAA, the summit of the Americas, and yet we do not have the text itself. That is the first point I want to make.
It is a perversion of democracy to suggest that somehow we could have a serious debate or a serious dialogue on the issue when in fact we have no opportunity to view the text itself.
I might just add that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I should have mentioned that at the outset of my comments.
Not only are we denied access to the text that is being negotiated behind closed doors, but the government says that it has been totally transparent and that all we have to do is go to its website to see its position on the key issues that are being negotiated in the framework of the FTAA.
Some of us have actually gone to that website. What are some of the most critical issues? They include things like the dispute settlement mechanism, intellectual property, investment and services. Here is what the Government of Canada has to say on its official website about its position on investment:
To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment. Any submission made by Canada will be made available on the website.
So much for transparency: it has nothing to say about investment. In response to a question from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, this same government said that it was very concerned about the implications of chapter 11 of NAFTA. It was to make sure that no similar provision was being negotiated in the FTAA. What a fraud when, by its own admission, it has not bothered to make any submissions at all on the issue of investment.
That means quite clearly that the government does not care. It certainly does not care enough to make submissions about what this investor state provision might mean for Canada's sovereignty, for our ability at all levels of government to make decisions in the best interest of the citizens that we have the honour of representing.
When we look at what the FTAA is really about, or what NAFTA and the WTO are really about, more and more they are about taking power away from democratically elected governments and putting it in the hands of corporate elites that are unaccountable to anybody but their shareholders.
The House does not have to take my word for it. I will quote from a couple of people who have made very clear that this is the agenda. One is Renato Ruggiero, former director general of the World Trade Organization. Here is what he had to say:
—there is a surplus of democracy in the world that is interfering with the free movement of investment and capital.
God forbid, a surplus of democracy. We have to build up trade deals like the free trade of the Americas and NAFTA which will prevent democracy from actually influencing corporate power at all. Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute said:
A trade deal simply limits the ability to which any statutory government may respond to pressure from its citizens.
Ain't that the truth? God forbid that citizens should be in a position to actually influence their government over things like the future of health care, education, culture, social programs or the environment. We know that all these areas are at grave risk in the so-called trade negotiations.
Just yesterday, for example, the common front on the World Trade Organization released a document voicing its deep concern about the implications of the current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the so-called GATS. It has made very clear that the sole purpose of the current GATS negotiations is to open up public services to privatization and international competition. In other words, it would replace services which are now delivered in the public interest through the public sector with private for profit companies. That would destroy many of the social programs we have come to take for granted.
This is a totally undemocratic process. I want to point out as well with respect to the process that we are witnessing in the context of the summit of the Americas an increasing criminalization of dissent.
We know that Quebec City itself is being turned into an armed fortress and that any dissent, and I am speaking of non-violent, peaceful protest, people marching in the streets voicing their concerns about what these deals will mean not only for the people of Canada but for the people of the hemisphere, is being criminalized in many areas.
We have the obscene spectacle of the corporate elite buying its way into the corridors of power. Half a million dollars gets the opportunity to say a few words at the opening reception. If they can only afford $75,000, all they can do is decide which of the leaders they want to cozy up to and lobby in the context of the free trade of the Americas agreement. What a contempt for civil society.
Civil society outside that four kilometre parameter, with the friends of the government and the corporate elite inside wining and dining, having paid the necessary fees to have access to the process, is an appalling spectacle.
I want to say a word about another element that troubles us as New Democrats. This is not a process that includes all 35 countries in the hemisphere. Indeed one country has been left out because the United States made very clear that it is its rule about the summit. That is Cuba. It is totally unacceptable that Cuba should be isolated because of American pressure.
It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister said Cuba should be a member of la grande famille, should be invited to be at the table, but now we have seen in a profound reversal of Canada's policy the new foreign affairs minister saying no, Canada does not support Cuba's presence at the table. It is clearly unacceptable.
It is a process that is totally undemocratic: denial of access to the documents being negotiated and criminalization of dissent by people who object not only to the process but to the substance. There are concerns around the participation at the table and about corporate influence in the whole process, but the substance of the WTO, NAFTA and now the FTAA is of deep concern to us as New Democrats.
I know the member for Winnipeg—Transcona will elaborate on some of these concerns, particularly around the impact of chapter 11, the so-called investor state provisions. We have seen the impact of corporate power in the so-called intellectual property area with pharmaceutical companies trying to stop Brazil and South Africa under the WTO from making cheap generic drugs available to aid in the fight against AIDS and HIV. That is what we have seen as a direct result of the so-called trade deals.
In closing, I again say that these trade deals are not about trade. They are about corporate power. We as New Democrats say that it is time we had a government that negotiated a fair trade deal. We believe in a rules based economy and rules based trade, but rules that put ecological sustainability, worker rights, human rights and the environment ahead of corporate profit and the bottom line.