Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that I have only the highest regard for him as an individual and for his history in parliament. I have been very impressed in the last few weeks with some of his sage wisdom that he has given to parliament.

I will not debate him on the issue that he has just put forward. I have a fundamental disagreement with his thesis. I would like to give him and perhaps the New Democratic Party an opportunity to go on record about a related issue. I sincerely respect the New Democratic Party, particularly this member, and the fact that they have a particular perspective. They want to go to Quebec to make those statements.

I also sincerely respect other thoughtful Canadians who hold to that perspective. I would like to give him the opportunity to make some comment about those who take the credibility of thoughtful people like him and others who want to protest and take it to the anarchistic extreme.

It is unfortunate that the government has had to put up barriers and walls and take other security measures. I would like to give the member and his party the opportunity to say that they want to have the right to democratically attack this summit, that they want the right to demonstrate peacefully and that they want the right to make their statement as forcefully as they possibly can, but that they resent and reject the anarchistic tendencies of some who will be coming with the avowed intention to get up to anarchy and public mischief.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that there has never been any doubt in any of the statements that have been made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas on behalf of the NDP as trade critic; by myself, formerly the trade critic; or by our leader that we are going to Quebec City to be in solidarity with the people who want to peacefully protest against the free trade area of the Americas.

I was in Seattle representing the NDP. This was not inconsistent with what we will be doing in Quebec. It was not inconsistent with what had been done before. Tens of thousands of people in Seattle were demonstrating against the World Trade Organization who had nothing to do with the planning, the executing or the approving of the actions of a minority of protesters who had a different philosophy that chose to break windows.

There are people who are against any kind of world governance. We have already said we are not against a multilateral rules based economy. We want one that is designed not in the interests of multinational corporations but in the interests of the well-being of all peoples. That means we have to include core labour standards and environmental standards, et cetera, all the things that the corporations do not want included in these agreements.

I thank the hon. member for the question, but the answer is something that has been given many times by myself and other New Democrats.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a brief question. It is a complex issue, but I do want to give the member an opportunity to comment briefly on one of the most dangerous provisions in the existing NAFTA which is being proposed as quite possibly extending into the FTAA. It is chapter 11 dealing with the investor state provision.

We have seen challenges by UPS of our public postal service, by S.D. Myers on banning PCB exports and by Sun Belt Water regarding bulkwater exports. Could the hon. member comment briefly on his concerns with respect to this very dangerous provision?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I had more time to elaborate on how these agreements affect democracy and how they threaten democracy, I would have turned to chapter 11, the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, as a prime example.

The things the member for Burnaby—Douglas listed, and one can list others, are basically a list of public policy options or public policy decisions that democratically elected governments have made in the past or could make in the future which could now be challenged through this investor state dispute settlement mechanism.

Not only do those decisions then become challenged, but we have this chill effect whereby governments never make other possible decisions because they are afraid of this mechanism.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Skeena. From April 20 to April 22, 2001, 34 democratically elected heads of government representing a territory that spans from Iqaluit to Tierra del Fuego, with a combined population of some 800 million people, will gather in Quebec City for the summit of the Americas.

On the agenda are such topics as economic integration, improved access to education, alleviation of poverty, enhanced respect for human rights and democratic development.

The goal is to take a collective step forward toward implementing a free trade area of the Americas, a hemispheric free trade zone which would offer increased economic integration, increased economic growth and broad development that would benefit all concerned.

Those of us who accept and encourage the dynamic competitive and comparative advantage hope the talks will be frank and productive. However the talks might pale in comparison with the vigorous and shrill anti-summit disruptions that will occur throughout Quebec City. The press, always seeking to sell a racy story, will have to choose between dry stories predicting increased Canada-Costa Rica trade or explicit, loud and disruptive images of anti-summit protesters.

In the end protesters may succeed in selling their trade is bad, anti-capitalist message to an apathetic public, as they partially did in Seattle. However the average Canadian, using common sense, will know that just the opposite is true. Not only is trade good, but fair rules based trade is a goal we should pursue with vigour.

A mere look into the average Canadian kitchen, where Latin American fruits and coffee sit side by side with Mexican beer, Chilean wines and Canadian cheese, confirms the very obvious benefits of trade for all, benefits we often take them for granted. At its heart, the Quebec City summit of the Americas seeks to define rules that will ensure free trade of the Americas benefits all concerned. Unfortunately the popular focus has fallen victim to anti-free trade propaganda, propaganda that, frankly, is devoid of truth.

I will deal with some of the more often uttered objections to free trade.

We heard a minute ago from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and, before him, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. They claim, as does the Canadian Union of Public Employees, that:

Under NAFTA Chapter 11, virtually any action by a government that limits the current or future value of assets held by a foreign corporation is subject to a claim for compensation.

While that statement is true, CUPE conveniently forgets to mention, as do opponents of NAFTA, that in Canada citizens and corporations alike, both foreign and domestic, have long had the right to sue the government for compensation for actions of the government that unjustly and unfairly damage them.

Many Canadians will probably remember the famous Pearson airport privatization scandal. It resulted from the sale, during the dying days of the Mulroney administration, of Pearson airport terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium that included some political allies.

During the 1993 election campaign the Liberals campaigned on a promise to scrap the deal and re-examine the contract. They won the election and cancelled the deal. The consortium sued. When the Liberals responded that a government could not be sued for keeping an election promise, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled in 1995 that one could sue a government for breaking a contract and claim lost profits.

Faced with that reality, the government settled out of court with the consortium and paid it $265 million.

Canadians and Canadian companies and foreigners and foreign companies can sue the Canadian government. Not more than two blocks from this Chamber is the Federal Court of Canada which has jurisdiction “in all cases where relief is claimed against the Crown”. It recognizes the right of individuals and companies to sue the federal government. Naturally, that right includes the right to sue the government for lost profits or for compensation for loss of property.

Our trade agreements have not granted new rights to foreign companies in Canada. What they do is export Canada's standards of legal and political rights to other countries.

A second myth, often propagated by the detractors of expanded trade, is the belief that global trade is an evil which only benefits large corporations and must be fought at all costs. We heard that in the previous two presentations. This view is simply devoid of facts and serious economic reasoning. We have seen a dramatic increase in prosperity and growth as a result of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA. We have seen firsthand the tremendous benefits of structured, rules based trade with a like minded democracy to the south.

Through the expansion of the proven principles of NAFTA to a Canada-Chile free trade agreement and to a now proposed Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, we have sought to diversify Canada's export market, in part to make Canada slightly less dependent on trade with the United States. That is a step in the right direction.

Today Canada conducts more than 80% of its trade with the United States and we trade more with Japan, our number two trading partner, than with all of Latin America and the Caribbean combined. If trade is good then multilateral trade, trading with many partners, is even better.

The FTAA seeks to create a regime of rules based trade that will serve the interests of everyone. Think back to October of 1999, when the WTO, acting on a complaint from Japan, struck down the longstanding Canada-U.S. auto pact. By striking down the access of Canadian car plants to U.S. markets, the decision could have meant disaster and the loss of thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

Instead, the open trade rule of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement kicked in. Since then Canadian exports to the U.S. have increased by more than 15% in that sector. That benefits auto workers, especially members of the Canadian Auto Workers union at plants in Ontario and Quebec which now build cars for export to such distant markets as Chile and Saudi Arabia.

While the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, denounces free trade, exports are paying the bills for Canadian Auto Worker union members. Perhaps CUPE's leaders should listen to their CAW brothers and sisters who would tell them that rules based free trade is good and that their jobs are proof of it.

That argument has not been lost in the sovereignty plans of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. They have always been careful to suggest separation would not remove Quebec from either the FTA or NAFTA. Whether such a status would persist is a debate for another time, but the fact is that free trade is good for Quebec's economy, and its representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City recognize and are actively reflecting that.

An argument can be made that the recent election in Mexico, which has rightly been hailed as the first open and honest election in Mexican history, was due in part to Mexico's involvement in NAFTA and to the commitment of democracy expressed in that agreement by Canada and the United States.

Similarly, it would seem that in South America a genuine commitment to democracy and all that it entails is seen as a necessary requirement to participation in the free trade area of the Americas.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas asked earlier and at committee why Cuba will not be at the FTAA summit. I told him at committee, and I will tell him again today, that Cuba will not be in Quebec City because there is no consensus among the 34 nations for it to be there. That is, I might suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas, because since 1959 the Castro regime has driven out, incarcerated or murdered a fifth of its population. That might have something to do with it.

Many of those protesting the summit are union activists who are staunch defenders of the collective bargaining process. Canadians have long respected that process, and they accept the need to conduct union-management negotiations behind closed doors as long as the rank and file are consulted before negotiations start and have a chance to ratify the final agreement.

Those principles must apply to the Quebec summit. Anyone who says otherwise is not truly interested in greater transparency but is using the plea for greater openness as a Trojan Horse to scuttle the FTAA process. We must recognize that behaviour for what it is: anti-democratic and contradictory to their own practices and self-interest.

In short, they selectively use closed door bargaining when it is in their best interests but not when it is in the best interests of those with whom they disagree. True democrats recognize this inconsistency as a lack of courage for an assumed, unassailable principle of collective negotiation.

I will end by quoting one of Europe's leading socialists, the Right Hon. Tony Blair, prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He said in this House:

It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair.

On behalf of the official opposition, I say amen to Prime Minister Blair. Greater truth has not been spoken by a prime minister in this place for a very long time.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the matter of the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City on April 20 of this year. I will address my remarks to the issue of trade and, more specifically, trade in softwood lumber between the U.S.A. and Canada.

It would seem the Liberal government is not taking the matter seriously. We on the Alliance benches want to see the current agreement end and free trade instituted, as was supposed to be the case when NAFTA was signed. We do not feel enough is being done to ensure that.

Trade in softwood lumber will revert to NAFTA rules in the absence of a softwood lumber agreement. On June 7, 2000 the Canadian Alliance posted on the Internet its position to return to free trade in lumber. During the November election we could not smoke out the Liberals on their free trade position, and only in dribs and drabs since January has it been clarified somewhat.

After signing a misguided agreement in 1996 that placed all kinds of restrictions on Canadian lumber producers, Canada is now staring down the barrel of the U.S. trade gun. The Liberal government let down Canadian lumber producers by not staking out its ground a long time ago in favour of free trade in lumber. One wonders what it has been up to.

I will give some background as to why the matter is important to me and to my riding of Skeena, British Columbia. B.C. accounts for more than 50% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the U.S.A. Those exports have an approximate value of more than $5 billion annually. With the end of the Canada-U.S.A. softwood lumber agreement and no free trade agreement in place, my riding, as well as many others in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, will suffer.

In my riding the major producer, Skeena Cellulose Inc., has no U.S. quota as it has focused their exports on the Asian market. However now that those markets have gone cold, SCI is looking to the U.S. as a potential market. The problem is that the softwood lumber agreement is based on trade history. What one has shipped into the U.S. in the past determines what one is allowed to ship now. SCI, a major producer of lumber, has no history of shipping to the U.S. The potential for shutdowns and layoffs is imminent.

Over the past five years, the four provinces that signed the 1996 agreement have struggled to meet and not exceed their quota to the U.S. while the six exempt provinces have seen an increase in market share of up to 130%. B.C. alone has seen its share reduced by 20%. Quebec's share has seen a modest increase of 2.8%. The four covered provinces combined have seen a total reduction in U.S. market share of up to 14.5%.

The government needs to set things straight with the U.S.A. before the argument costs Canada billions in countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The ministers on the government benches do not even have their stories straight. The Minister of Industry has been quoted as saying that a renewal of the existing agreement will be part of the negotiations, while the Minister for International Trade said there would be no renewal at all. Which is it?

How can Canadian lumber producers have any faith in what the government is willing to do for them when it does not know what it is doing? It does not instil a great deal of faith in my heart.

Meanwhile, 50 U.S. senators from both sides of the political spectrum have sent a letter to the president saying they need action to keep Canada from flooding lumber into the United States. What course of action will they be taking? According to the letter, they are calling for Ottawa to voluntarily impose a 20% export tax on Canadian lumber. That is a measure we had in the 1980s. Are we so far advanced that we must go back in time?

The U.S. is also looking into launching an anti-dumping and subsidy investigation under a rarely used trade law to make sure Canada pays when the current agreement is over at the end of the month. The critical circumstance law is used only when a flood of cheap imports threatens to enter the country. Under normal U.S. trade laws, import duties cannot be imposed for at least 90 days from the end of a trade agreement. Should the investigation find in favour of the subsidy claim by the U.S.A., the critical circumstance law will then allow the U.S. government to impose punitive duties retroactively for those 90 days.

What does that mean? It means that even though we will have some form of free trade for three months, when that time is up Canadian producers will be hit with duties for that month as well as for the months prior that were supposed to be open to free trade.

To make matters worse, Canadian producers have no idea what the duty amount may be. It could be anywhere from 15% to 45%. That could cost Canadian producers tens of millions of dollars. According to the Byrd Amendment enacted last fall, that would be paid to United States lumber producers. Not only would Canadian producers be unable to ship lumber into the U.S. without paying heavy duties, the payments would go to their U.S. competitors.

There is a subsidy there, Mr. Speaker, but it is too bad it is the Canadian producers subsidizing the U.S. producers. The real victims are American consumers and Canadian jobs and the recipient is a noisy U.S. lumber coalition. This could turn into a national crisis, but we would never know that by the way the government is handling the situation. Is it prepared to meet with its U.S. counterparts during this summit to ensure free trade in softwood lumber? Or, when the ministers meet later on in Buenos Aires to discuss the new free trade area of the Americas, the government should be prepared to ensure free trade in softwood lumber with the U.S.

At the moment President Bush is prepared to fast track the approval of the FTAA. This is the time for the Liberal government to take control and look out for the interests of the Canadian lumber producers and their tens of thousands of employees.

If under NAFTA the Canadian government cannot guarantee that the softwood lumber industry will ever have free trade with the U.S., then how can we be certain that, with the FTAA, when a U.S. industry feels threatened by a counterpart from Canada it will not go into protectionist mode like it has done with our softwood lumber?

Canada is just one of the major industrialized countries that is dependent upon trade. The trade sector accounts for one out of every three jobs in Canada. This nation has been a strong advocate of the FTAA as an opportunity to promote regional prosperity, increased business activity and jobs in Canada. It would stand to reason that part of this opportunity would come from the lumber industry, yet it would seem that the Canadian government would rather see trade centre on what is termed the new economy, the high tech industries. Do not get me wrong. There is always a need to improve our technology. However, should it be done at the expense of the other more traditional industries? No.

Every industry in Canada should be afforded the same opportunity to grow and prosper. It would be interesting to see, for example, if there had been a five year trade agreement with the U.S. in fibre optics that was to run out in three days whether the government would be sitting around on its hands or working toward a resolution of that situation to keep the industry from losing millions of dollars at the hands of their American counterparts. Would the government not try to work out a free trade agreement in that industry? Why then does it leave the softwood lumber industry to fend for itself when it comes to trade interests?

We get the strange feeling that the government does not realize that the country, as it grows, depends on these industries as much, if not more, than it did in its fledgling days. These so-called old economy industries are what drive the high tech industry into research and development. They are one of the biggest consumers of high tech advancements. Why would the government not fight for free trade in the lumber industry?

One thing this country does need is consensus. We need to join together as a country and face the American lumber industry as a whole, with all provinces in agreement, not the west versus the east as we are seeing at the moment.

We are all in this for the same reason. We must see that we do indeed have allies in the U.S., such as the group called American Consumers for Affordable Homes, which has much in common with the Canadian Free Trade Lumber Council. This group also enjoys support from 49 members of the House of Representatives, members who introduced a resolution at the beginning of March to simply allow the softwood lumber agreement to lapse. Why would they do that? It is because the homebuilders' coalition has said that restrictions placed on Canadian lumber add approximately $1,000 U.S. to the end cost of each new home built in the United States.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter came out in support of Canadian lumber in an editorial on March 24. He calls for an end to the current softwood lumber agreement and a permanent free trade agreement to be used to give both countries equal footing in the softwood lumber market. If members of the House of Representatives, U.S. citizens and even former presidents are willing to fight their own American government for Canadian lumber, why then will our government not?

We need action on this issue now, not later. I am calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to take a stand and save the Canadian lumber industry. Do not leave Canadian lumber producers out in the cold.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Alliance Party for bringing up the issue of softwood lumber because, as he knows, in Atlantic Canada the maritime accord, which has given us an exemption over the recent agreements, has been very beneficial for us in Atlantic Canada.

Do the member and his party support Atlantic Canada being able to maintain the maritime accord when it comes to any future softwood lumber agreements?

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my party and I support equal and open access to the market for all Canadian producers. I firmly believe that the industry across Canada has the ability to compete very effectively with its U.S. counterpart. It is a matter of having free access to that market on a equal basis across the country. Until we achieve that, there will be no satisfaction or consensus from the producers across Canada. They all require equal access to the U.S. market on an equal footing and on a free and open basis.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the constituency of Skeena who has done an excellent job here in consistently defending the interests of his constituents with respect to the pending economic disaster of potential softwood lumber tariffs being imposed by our American friends.

This is a very important debate on a major trade accord. Indeed, this take note debate was brought forward to this place in the form of a motion by the government, which holds, if I am not mistaken, 172 seats in this place.

[An hon. member]

It's 171 and Lynn Myers.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That would make 171, less the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

There are about 130 opposition members. I just wondered if my colleague would care to reflect on the fact that in this very important government motion on which he just spoke at 1.20 a.m. eastern time, there are eight times more members of the opposition in this place right now than members of the government—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast knows full well that he cannot allude to the absence of any members here. I would ask him to please listen to what I have to say, at least.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague has a very valid concern. It is very obvious. I recognize the member for Yukon over in the corner there.

It is very strange that there is not more interest in this extremely important debate. Looking around the House, my colleague is quite correct. There are, I believe, nine of us here now compared to one across the floor. It is not particularly—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that at this hour of the morning we have reached a consensus about something I heard earlier from my colleagues. We seem to agree that this is indeed an important debate. This day is a happy one, because we have an opportunity to debate the issue in the House.

I must admit to the members that my happiness decreases sharply when I see what time it is: it is 1.25 a.m. It does not bother me to be debating at 1.25 a.m. The public seems to be saying to us that it is important. Yet we are having it in the evening. We are having it at night, and the impression is that we are trying to get rid of it, that it will be swept under the carpet and that what is said will not be given much weight, or something like that.

It is very sad to see the context in which this debate is taking place. It does not bother me one bit to get up in the middle of the night in order to come to debate something as important as this. I have wanted us to debate issues such as this one—economic integration—for a long time. I am not against it, far from it. However, I am suggesting that we do our job and really debate the issue.

What are we talking about today? We are talking about the summit of the Americas, the discussions on the free trade area of the Americas which will take place on April 20. For me, this is a very, very important date. In addition to being the date of the summit, it is the anniversary of a date on which I once took an enormous risk by trying to launch a public discussion of the potential impact of globalization and economic integration on society and democracy. Indeed, I took this chair that belongs to my fellow citizens of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I brought it to them and I told them, “Listen, after two years in politics, I wonder about the power of this chair to reduce the disparity between rich and poor in the context of globalization”.

Initially, we had difficulty finding documentation on globalization. I do not claim to be the one who sparked the debate, but I think I became involved in a popular movement from which emerged a degree of concern that is still present and that will continue to be present on April 20 and 21. Unfortunately or fortunately, many people will descend on the streets of Quebec City.

I say unfortunately because of the potential for violence. I deplore any kind of violence that may erupt in connection with the demonstrations and other public gatherings that will be held. Violence is completely unacceptable and a threat to democracy. I will be joining the people who plan to take to the streets to voice their concerns or protest the lack of debate. I agree with them that there is a problem.

When I carried out my chair, I was hoping to generate some kind of debate. Moreover, 50,000 people signed a petition calling on members of parliament to examine these issues. It is the least we could have done, in my view. However, given the absence of debate and the presence of lack of communication, this is what happens.

Even if the proposed FTAA was a positive initiative, the average person in the street would not know if indeed it would benefit him or her because there has not been any kind of debate. Some discussions may have taken place, but there has been no societal debate. Thus it is extremely relevant that we debate this matter here this evening. As I said, I find it very regrettable that this debate must unfold in the wee hours of the morning, when the public and parliamentarians may not necessarily be listening.

I am not saying that I oppose everything that is happening. That is not at all the case. However, as I said, if we had had an opportunity to set eyes on the FTAA texts during the course of our discussions, and I am certain many people would like to get their hands on these documents, then people would have been able to give an informed opinion. This was not to be. All we have to go on are snippets of information.

During a recent visit to Chile, I had an opportunity to meet with the minister of international co-operation who informed me that he was doing a great deal of work parallel to this accord to ensure that the FTAA agreement would have positive spin-offs for the other countries of the Americas. So much the better.

As that issue is not a subject of debate, and we are not really sure what is being done around us, it is hard for me to go out and meet with the people of my riding and tell them not to worry, that everything is all right, that I think it is a good agreement. I do not know if I can go to the businesses in my riding and tell them it will be good for them. I do not know. This is what I criticize and this is why I will march peacefully in the street on April 21.

Next Sunday, there will be a teach-in on the free trade agreement of the Americas here in parliament. A people's committee is coming here, into parliament, to debate these issues. These people are so worried that they are prepared to practise civil disobedience. I do not want to say that I support them, but a member of the NDP and I opened parliament up because I believe these people deserve to be heard.

They have things to say and they are prepared to be run over in order to say what they have to say. It must be serious. There are all kinds of things we could discuss in this free trade agreement, in particular something like chapter 11. If I could see the texts I could perhaps say whether I think mistakes were made in the framework of the NAFTA text that should perhaps not be made again in the text of the FTAA, but I do not know. Therefore how can I judge? When in doubt, what is one to do? Go down and protest in the streets because we feel the process is undemocratic.

However, there are things that can be done. We, as members of parliament in this House, can act. Several people are sleeping, as it is more normal not to be in the House at this hour.

Still, as a parliamentarian, I think there are some interesting things being done. Some of the world's parliamentarians are saying: “Our role, as the people's representatives, is to do our job. We do not agree with what is happening. We have to express our views.”

Moreover, that is what led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, COPA, an inter-parliamentary association founded in Quebec City recently—one and a half years ago—when parliamentarians from throughout the Americas came together to discuss our problems, our issues and our shared concerns. It is a very good thing.

I feel that parliamentarism should go beyond borders and debate these questions more fully. It is urgent. Naturally, Canada answered the call of the COPA because, through it, it has a place among the countries that make up federations, and parliamentarians from the provinces are included. Recently, we had the inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum of the Americas here in Ottawa, which was attended by parliamentarians from every country. The provinces were excluded, but we will not dwell on that, that is not what matters.

Parliamentarians from throughout the Americas met in this House, and it was very rewarding to have the opportunity to dialogue with a parliamentarian from Honduras, with one from Chile, from Mexico, and from the United States. The participation of the United States was perhaps somewhat lacking, but after all we should focus on the end goal, not the current results. In any case, if there is one thing, I think, that must be done in the House, given the reality of continentalization and globalization, it is to leave this parliament to speak with fellow parliamentarians from the Americas and around the world.

Members of parliament will tell me, “Yes, but it is not that easy to travel, to meet, to get parliamentarians to move”. I came back from Chile last week. Travelling in the southern hemisphere requires a lot of energy.

What I proposed at the interparliamentary forum of the Americas pertained to technology, which is advancing at such a hellish pace. It is for this reason that I suggested that the technical secretariat of FIPA support the development of a virtual telecommunications mechanism that will allow parliamentarians to meet more frequently, by means of virtual meetings. I am being serious.

When I say frequently; perhaps once a week, like a national parliamentary committee of this parliament, which meets once a week in order to pursue debates, study issues and listen to the people. I think that we will now have to do this kind of work as parliamentarians.

Since the earth is a sphere and it is difficult to meet with a parliamentarian or groups on the other side of the world, I recommend that we adopt these instruments which would allow us, for example—I know that it is perhaps futuristic, but I have no trouble looking ahead to the future—to sit in a committee room here in parliament in Ottawa, where I would have the impression, not only the impression, it would be a reality, that my colleagues, parliamentarians from across the country, the continent and even the world, were present and that I could debate. We parliamentarians could work together and present a common front in the case of such matters as the Tobin tax.

I am a parliamentarian who favours a tax such as the Tobin tax. Of course, such a measure requires concerted action by all countries. Groups of parliamentarians could push for action simultaneously on the same issues, the environment, for example. In short, all cross-border issues could be debated seriously and frequently through such a process.

Do we have the technology do this now? Perhaps it is not quite perfected at this time, but I think that in five or ten years it will be there and we will be able to conduct what I call a virtual parliament that will have no borders and that will be able to meet frequently. That is something concrete for which we as parliamentarians must prepare.

We are experiencing a revolution in more ways than one. I think that the work of a parliamentarian must also go through a revolution and follow this path that opens onto the rest of the world. As I said just now, I am absolutely not against this type of globalization.

What I think we should aim for is globalization with a democratic face, in which wealth will be distributed and every human being will be able to achieve his or her potential.

Of course, if we want to set up a free trade area—and I want to stress that I do not oppose trade between countries—I have a small problem with the word free, because free trade in my opinion means a total absence of rules. If the economy is not bound by any rules, it is not, I am sorry to say, going to work. If we let the market alone dictate the political agenda of our societies, I have a problem with that. I believe that the economy should be subject to a minimum of controls—no, controls pure and simple.

We need environmental and social rules. We need to think about those who do not have ready access to the new economy. A number of challenges lie ahead. Of course, we can get discouraged and lament that the situation makes no sense. However, we can also roll up our sleeves, look for solutions and fight for a world or continent in keeping with our vision and values.

Basically, this is the message that I want to convey to you today and it comes from the heart. Over the course of the next month, things are likely to get rather intense. I am pleased that the summit is taking place in our backyard because it has generated a great deal of debate, notably among CEGEP and university students. Unfortunately, one phenomenon appears to pose a threat to democracy, namely the public's waning interest in politics. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am certain that members have observed the situation firsthand in their ridings.

Conversely, another phenomenon is emerging, namely a growing interest in all questions of this nature. We saw it in Seattle, in Prague, in Nice, in Washington and elsewhere. Concerns have been expressed and it is our job, not to reassure people, but rather to encourage and promote debate.

Increased trade and broader economic ties between nations may well result in a redistribution of wealth and I have no problem with this. If, after thoroughly analysing and debating the situation, we conclude that a particular course of action is warranted, then I do not have a problem with that either. I am quite receptive, provided of course that I am able to go to my constituents and explain to them how matters stand. However, I cannot do this now because I do not know how matters stand. Some discussion has of course been taking place here and there.

Once again, the minister for international co-operation said to me: “Stéphan, these negotiations cover more than just economic aspects; there is also the aspect of international co-operation, there are social, environmental and educational considerations.” The minister's approach is appropriate in some respects, in terms of access to education, which is the engine of development. There is worthwhile work being done.

Furthermore, she told me that the media, unfortunately, do not cover these things. Unfortunately, the media are attracted to what is sensational. This is perhaps a little sad. There is worthwhile work being done, I agree. However, if a person is not participating in the debate, or closely involved in all these things, it is difficult to be for or against. That is basically my point of view.

We recently learned that Quebec, which is hosting the summit, will not be able to address the participants unless it sponsors cocktail receptions, unless it is a summit sponsor. In that case, it is the people's elected representatives who have to pay for an admission ticket. In any event, as the Prime Minister said, this has absolutely no influence; let us hope not. However, if it does, I believe this is deplorable, especially when a nation like Quebec, which would like to be present at the negotiations, has to contemplate paying for access to all these people.

The same applies to me. I am an elected representative, and I would like to be able to tell my fellow citizens what is happening, tell them not to worry, that everything is fine, or that if something does go wrong I will be there to defend them.

My only option is to come here to express my views at 1.30 a.m. Will they be heard by the government party? Obviously, I may not allude to the number of members present in this House, and so I will not do so. Suffice it to say that I am certain my comments will not be heard by as many as I had hoped. That is all right, we will continue to do our work. We will continue to hold conferences, to encourage debate and to ensure that there is greater transparency and democracy.

I will continue to do my research on how we can adopt telecommunications instruments because I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a job to do. Despite my criticism of this socioeconomic and political reality, I find it exciting to be involved in politics because of these challenges. It is very exciting: we are facing major challenges and it happens that we are among the parliamentarians of this era who will have to adapt to this new reality and play a greater role in these matters.

Unless the leaders of government continue to sweep us under the rug and tell us, “Get yourselves elected and come make nice little 1.30 speeches in the morning. You will be able to let off some steam and you will feel better”. But no, this does not help me to unwind; I will be going back to bed. Nonetheless, I will tell my fellow citizens, “We were able to debate the FTAA, but we debated it at 1.30 a.m.”

I don't want to seem disdainful of those who work nights; I raise my hat to them. I think we all need people who work at night. However, I do not think it will have the same impact at this time of night. Fortunately, there will be Hansard .

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the House, who always work at this time.

This basically concludes my comments. I would be pleased to answer any questions from colleagues who are still present and feel strongly about this issue.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick comments. First, the hon. member mentioned many times that people were not here. All people in Canada are distinct. There are distinct time lines in the west. It is only 10.45 p.m. in British Columbia and Yukon, and people are still awake. We have another Yukoner in the House, which is great.

My second point is about Quebec not being there. All Quebecers who are part of the Canadian delegation will have as much access as anyone from the other provinces. In fact I think the leader of the Canadian delegation happens to be a Quebecer, so Quebec is going to have more access than any other Canadian.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a time difference. I would like to send greetings to the people of British Columbia and the Yukon who may be getting ready for bed. However, the residents of the maritimes probably went to bed a long time ago.

As for Quebec's role, the Prime Minister is of course a Quebecer, as is the Minister for International Trade. However, their perspective on things is totally Canadian, and while I am not saying that this is a bad thing, it seems to me that when you pay a visit to someone, it is normal that that they be allowed to greet their guests.

In my opinion, the premier of Quebec and leader of all Quebecers—and I am not indulging in partisan politics, in fact I am making a real effort not to during this debate—could have been invited to address some welcoming remarks to the delegates. At the very least, he should have been extended this courtesy.

Even though we are part of a federation—one that is becoming increasingly centralized perhaps—under the constitution, Quebec has jurisdiction over such areas as health and education. Therefore, if issues that concern Quebec arise, then I feel it should, at the very least, be more involved in the discussions.

We could debate this issue at some length, but I am convinced that where Quebec's role is concerned, there has been negligence.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. He is still a very young member of the House but was able to claim a third term as a member of parliament. That is quite a record to achieve. He obviously has great respect from his constituents. I wish that he would speak more often in the House as it would be very enlightening for us.

One thing I have noticed in his speeches throughout the years is his approach toward young people in universities. Could he elaborate more on his perspective about university students in Quebec and what their approach or attitude is toward the FTAA and the upcoming talks in Quebec City?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question.

I spoke earlier about young people's involvement in politics. When I refer to young people, I include those at university who are more and more overwhelmed by their studies and work. I think there is a lack of involvement.

At my college in Alma, I try to hold mini-debates. I meet with students. I tell them that what is going on concerns us all and that there will be consequences of this for the rest of their lives, so it is important to deal with it now.

It is the foundation of my political commitment. When I was first elected, I was 22 years old. I told myself that the decisions taken today would have consequences throughout our lives. That is why it is important to have a balance between youth and experience in the House. I think that unfortunately, whether it is through lack of time or because they have too many responsibilities, young people do not participate enough in the debate. That is what I think: they are not sufficiently involved.

If you tell me that they participate as much as they did 20 years ago, it is not enough. We are facing challenges on a scale never seen before. We need creativity and imagination in order to face up to these challenges; we need everyone.

At one university I was told “Look, Stéphan, university is no place for politics”. If university is no place for politics, where can we be political other than in the House of Commons?

I think there is a serious problem, perhaps because the media do a poor job of covering politics, or because they only cover the bickering that goes on during question period; whatever the reason, there is a malaise in the democratic process. I feel that this issue is highly pertinent.

I would also like to tell you what is happening in Quebec. Surveys conducted during the Quebec youth summit revealed that globalization issues are of the highest priority for young people 19 to 24 years of age. This is something new. The day before yesterday I celebrated my fifth anniversary in politics, and I know that when I started there was not this degree of interest. Interest in such issues has therefore grown, and I think this is a very good thing.

In my opinion, our role as parliamentarians is to see the students and listen to their points of view. When I refer to chapter 11 of NAFTA, who knows what I am talking about? I can tell the public that, under chapter 11 of NAFTA and perhaps even under the free trade agreement of the Americas, a corporation unhappy with the legislation passed by a government will be able to take legal action against that government. This has already happened and is still happening. I believe one of the most recent cases involved a municipality in Mexico taken to court because it was establishing environmental rules. When I see that companies can now take legal action against countries, I have to ask myself some serious questions. It is my role to meet with students and the general public and to explain to them what is going on.

If we had debates, we could talk about these issues. We are having a debate now, but with all due respect to my colleagues who are here tonight it is really only a semblance of a debate. In any event, there is an enormous amount of work to do.

Let us hope that young people show an interest in these issues. Moreover, there was a reason why I carried my chair out of the House. I was trying to make a point in a way people would remember. I was trying to tell young people that here was an issue that threatened democracy.

If in fact parliamentarians have fewer powers in an era of globalization, then should we address this problem? All of democracy is threatened in the process. I am not saying that democracy has disappeared. We need only travel to certain Latin American nations where democracy is seriously undermined to see that our problems are quite different. However, does this mean that I should disregard what is happening here at home and pretend that everything is fine? No.

I wonder about the kind of society I will be living in twenty years from now. When I look at what is going on, I am concerned and I have a duty to convey my concerns to the public.

That is why I felt it was important to launch a debate involving the whole society. Three years later, I find myself again at 1.30 in the morning demanding greater transparency and democracy.

We still have quite a way to go. That is why I will continue to make the rounds of CEGEPs and universities and to debate these issues. I encourage young people to follow the debate, to become politicized and to criticize the system in a constructive way.

Next April 20, there will be protesters in the streets. I have talked to people my own age who have told me “Listen, Stéphan, if these kinds of things are going to happen, then I prefer to be run over”. This is what informed young people have been telling me. I have talked with them and they are well informed. They are prepared to get arrested.

The fact remains that there is a problem. Either they are wrong, or there is a communications problem, with the public not understanding the government's decisions. Unquestionably, there is a problem.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is almost 2 a.m. and we do not need the pages in the House. They have to go to study. I ask for unanimous consent to allow the pages to go home.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am made aware that in the debate at this time there is no unanimous consent, but we can look after that matter in another fashion. I will intervene on everyone's behalf.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank many of the other speakers we heard tonight for some very interesting debate and points of view. I also wish to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

I begin my remarks by restating something that was said by the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He started his speech with a quote from the head of the former head of the WTO, Renato Ruggiero, who said that these trade agreements were necessary because:

There is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital and investment.

That more than anything, perhaps, sums up the NDP's objections and apprehension about trade agreements like those we are entering into. There is a significant group of people in the world today who honestly believe that there is a surplus of democracy in the world that is interfering with the movement of capital.

Those same people would have us believe that the globalization of capital is a fait accompli, just a matter of fact that cannot be changed. Yet when we come to them with the question of why we cannot have the globalization of human rights, labour standards and environmental standards, suddenly these are impossible. They cannot even be debated. There is no room for them at the negotiating table. Those issues are not issues of any substance.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, in one of the most visionary things I heard tonight, asked if it would not be wonderful if the world's leaders would come together in some kind of virtual global assembly and actually talk about those issues.

We would not be as apprehensive about these international agreements if we were comfortable that those things were being dealt with.

The reason it took the European Union 20 years to negotiate the EU agreement was that it dealt with those substantive issues. It dealt with the issue of raising up the lowest common denominators to a harmonious average instead of gravitating to the lowest common denominator, as is contemplated in the virtually unchecked free trade agreements that we have now.

That is why I am proud to say the NDP caucus will be in Quebec City. We will be there in solidarity with those who have similar fears and apprehensions. We will be involved in peaceful protest. We were at APEC in Vancouver. I was there, along with the members for Burnaby—Douglas, Yukon, and Vancouver East. We were also in Windsor and Seattle. We have been a part of this growing movement around the apprehension that more and more young Canadians feel about our democracy being diminished and that these trade agreements do constitute a legitimate threat to democracy.

We need no further evidence than the quote I gave, but another world leader, a former member of parliament, Donald Johnston, said “Free trade agreements by their very nature are designed to force adjustments on our societies”. In other words, they dismantle the public policy instruments that we have laboriously put in place in the post-war era to take care of our personal needs and to grow independently with some autonomy. Now we are told we must harmonize, at least when it comes to those public policy instruments, and dismantle them so that we do not interfere with the movement of capital by corporations.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona made a brilliant point. He pointed out the bizarre spectacle of watching us willingly dismantle the nation state of Canada and our own economic sovereignty in order to accommodate a foreign corporate interest. Why would we do that? When somebody does write the history of this era they are going to look at it as if we were crazy. We are taking something as precious as true free democracy and we are knowingly and willingly weakening our ability to have our own domestic economic sovereignty.

If we need a graphic example, these spiralling out of control energy costs that most Canadians have been reeling with all winter are a good example. Natural gas is a resource that we all own which is part of our birthright and part of our common wealth. Yet we are not allowed any preferential pricing to Canadians because of NAFTA. When we ask why it costs so much for something that we have in abundance underneath our own feet, the answer is that we cannot sell our natural gas any cheaper than we sell it to our export customers because of NAFTA. We traded that away.

No wonder Canadians are apprehensive about what is in the actual text of the FTAA. Every time we raise it we are assured that the government would not do anything foolish to jeopardize our health care system or our education system. When NAFTA was negotiated, it was like Jack and the Beanstalk taking his cow and trading it for three beans with no guarantee that any of them would sprout.

The government will not tell us what it will be talking about or what it will be negotiating at the FTAA. Members of parliament in the federal House of Commons do not have a right to know what the government is negotiating on our behalf around the table. It is absolutely scandalous.

I know why we are not allowed to see that text. It was pointed out in earlier speeches. We found out the text of the MAI because somebody posted it on the Internet. Within days every college kid in the country was reading this negotiated MAI text. They saw what was being given away. They also saw a charter of rights for corporations at the expense of freely elected governments. They recoiled with horror, took to the streets and they stopped it. When we see the text we have a fighting chance to put an end to it or at least have our opinion known and be part of that debate.

That is why I think it is an international conspiracy to keep this text secret. If the government were serious about how it would never do anything to jeopardize the legitimate right of nations to dictate their own social policy instruments and that nothing it would do would interfere with social policy, then let us see the text. We could put this whole thing to bed. We would be in bed instead of being up in the middle of the night right now.

There are other graphic illustrations. How do we know that we are not going to get sucked into the worst properties of NAFTA with this FTAA. It really is a super NAFTA that we are witnessing being created here.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was raised earlier, gives the investor state status whereby a foreign corporation can sue the Government of Canada if the government interferes with what the corporation perceives to be its right to make a living, and suffers some lost opportunity by something the government did.

A recent example of this was when Canada wanted to ban MMT as a gasoline additive because it did not think it was healthy. In fact, we think it is poisonous. Ethyl Corporation that made MMT said that we could not interfere with its right to sell its product in our country and successfully sued us for many millions of dollars because of lost opportunity.

This is what I mean about how we are losing our ability to take care of our own domestic interests because of trade agreements we have signed. It is not just radicalism. It is not anti-anything to be apprehensive about the free trade agreement. If anything, the NDP caucus is for free trade. We are free traders. We agree we are a trading nation and that it is absolutely necessary.

The old definition of free trade used to be eliminating tariffs and barriers so that we could trade openly with other countries without barriers being imposed. The new definition of free trade agreements goes very far beyond anything that was ever contemplated before.

Now we have a good reason to believe that even the services that we offer, because some of those services have been privatized or commercialized per se, are now subject to challenge under free trade agreements, things like education. The more we flirt with the privatization of our public school system or our health care system, it could be that we will be subject to challenge by some American or international corporation that feels that they should be able to make a profit on offering that service in the country.

These are our fears, which we believe are legitimate. We are proud to go to Quebec City and make those fears known. We condemn the government for doing everything it can to stifle legitimate peaceful protest.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the rest of the country had just listened to my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre, they would truly understand the apprehension that we in this party have toward the upcoming trade talks.

Foreign corporations can sue Canadian crown corporations for legitimate services, as in the case of UPS suing Canada Post. Could the member elaborate a bit on what exactly happens when a foreign corporation sues a Canadian crown corporation?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on that particular case.

UPS is the largest postal courier service in the world today. Canada Post offers a very good service to its customers with its Priority Post courier service. Since that goes beyond basic ground letter mail service, UPS felt that it should be allowed to bid on that work. In fact, UPS is suing the Government of Canada for $160 million U.S. in lost opportunities because it believes it could do the job better. It believes it has a right to bid on that work. It does not believe that the Government of Canada has a right to withhold that.

Imagine the impact of this. It is not just somebody else providing that service. Canada Post offsets the cost of providing regular ground and household mail through the profits it makes in its courier service. If somebody picks the low hanging fruit as we say, or in other words cherry picks the most profitable part of the corporation and takes that away from Canada Post, it will seriously impact its ability to offer ground mail service at the 46 cents or 47 cents that we enjoy today.

It has real, meaningful pocketbook implications for Canadians when we are faced with these kind of challenges by foreign corporations.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity, however late the hour, to participate in this debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City where, as we have all noted tonight, 34 heads of state will gather to discuss creating the free trade agreement of the Americas and where thousands of concerned Canadians will gather to express their dreams and aspirations about the country and about our responsibility as a nation on the global front.

It is very fitting that we are having this parliamentary debate at the same time and in the same week an extra-parliamentary organization came together to press for a moratorium on expanding worldwide talks to liberalize trade. I am referring to a coalition of non-government organizations that believes, quite legitimately so, that the expansion of trade talks opens the door to the privatization of essential public services and, as many of my colleagues have said tonight, erodes the authority of democracies over such vital programs as health care, education and a vast array of public service sectors.

That is really the issue of the hour. That is at the heart of the concerns being raised by my colleagues in the NDP. Certainly it is at the heart of the matter being addressed by concerned Canadians everywhere. After all, what we are talking about is our identity as a nation, our sense of who we are as Canadians, the ties that bind and the values that we bring to the world.

Clearly, we are talking about our ability as a nation to control our own destiny and the ability of our own government to shape the future, to set the agenda, not to leave it to multinational corporations that these days seem to be determining every aspect of our day to day living. We are talking about national programs that serve the public good, as my leader the member for Halifax said, now being reduced to commodities to be bought, sold and traded on the market for private gain. This possibility is really at the heart of this debate, and I think it is that which motivates so many Canadians to get involved, to rise up and to speak out about the FTAA.

One of the questions for us today is this. Are health, education and other public services actually protected under FTAA? I do not think we can answer that because there is so much secrecy, such lack of transparency and so many barricades around this issue that it is impossible to really know. Just as the government refuses to share the draft agreement with all Canadians, it has not released its proposals for services being negotiated under FTAA.

However, I think it is probably reasonable, based on past practice of the government, to assume that the approach by the government will be consistent with its approach to the WTO negotiations on GATS, or the General Agreement on Trades in Services.

The whole point of those talks is increased liberalization of trade in services. That is the essence of the whole exercise. So it is reasonable to assume that we are talking about opening up trade opportunities in such lucrative areas as health, education, energy, water and the list goes on and on.

It would seem to us that the Canadian government has actually taken no steps in those negotiations and has made no commitment to fix the flaws in the proposed the GATS and in the wording of the GATS that make all public services, including Canadian medicare, vulnerable to a challenge. Any exclusion being contemplated is being done on the most narrow of terms, only covering services and sectors which are completely within the public sector.

Given the degree to which privatization is occurring all around us and given the government's passive response to such developments as Alberta's private for profit hospital legislation, the situation really does look bleak. It is really a double whammy of trade liberalization and passive privatization which is so deathly and so worrisome.

It is a threat. It exists now under NAFTA. We have heard all kinds of opinion on that. It looms even larger under GATS and is no doubt perpetuated, based on everything we know about the government, under FTAA. It flows from the notion of equal access, and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre referenced it, to foreign opportunity and treatment that is no less favourable than that given to domestic interests. It means allowing international trade tribunals to intrude into our own domestic health policies and other domestic policies.

As I referenced in a question last week in the House, the Canadian Medical Association journal had an article that stated “There is reasonable certainty that a trade tribunal will be asked to rule on issues that are germane to the Canadian hospital sector”. In other words, the exclusion of health services totally within the public domain no longer applies. Hospitals become fair game for foreign investment and private competition.

The same opinion was given in another reputable medical journal, The Lancet which said last December that public health is being traded for private wealth. It referenced Canada's predicament because of bill 11 and how it will have an impact on all of this country's ability to govern our health care sector.

It is the same conclusion we heard from a major study done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, authored by Matt Sanger, whose report was entitled, “Reckless Abandon: Canada, the GATS and the Future of Health Care”. It concluded that whenever any part of health care is operated by a mix of government and private organizations, foreign corporations are thus entitled to join the competition on an equal footing with local ones. It means that any new programs or any innovative health care reforms would be restricted. We would lose control over the cost drivers while maintaining responsibility for paying the cost. That is ridiculous. Non-profit endeavours slip away, we are left to pay and foreign corporations are laughing all the way to the banks.

While talking about cost drivers, I want to look very briefly at drug prices because that gives us a good insight into how much we have already catered to multinational corporations. Look at the fact that we are dealing with enormously escalating drug prices and yet the government feels compelled to cave in to multinational drug companies to protect their patent protection. It broke its promise to rescind Bill C-91. Now it has slipped through the back door Bill S-17 which would extend patent protection even more for brand name drug companies.

If anything points to how captive we have become to this global international corporate agenda, this is probably the best example. We can apply this as well to the situation we have all been hearing about in terms of South Africa. It is being sued by some 40 pharmaceutical companies because it is trying to provide cheaper generic drugs to deal with the millions of people who are infected with HIV and AIDS. I think that shows just how much of a problem this whole free trade agenda has become. I could go on with many other examples.

I will conclude by saying that we are not opposed to global actions and treaties. We know that there are discussions going on with respect to a global treaty on tobacco control. That could be a good thing. It might be one way we can stop the kind of massive control that tobacco companies have over the world, never mind just in this country.

We would certainly support global solidarity in terms of elimination of child labour, protection of refugees and dealing with environmental degradation. That is all desperately needed, and what we are saying is that it is where we must be: pursuing justice locally and globally, never forsaking our nation's sovereignty and our Canadian values.