Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the motion for the simple reason that it actually goes to the heart of a common misconception that borders on scaremongering, that international trade agreements by their very nature are undemocratic and that somehow by entering into these international trade agreements we are giving up our sovereignty and our right to act and legislate on behalf of the Canadian people, and in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Let us set the record straight. The very fact that we enter into these agreements at all is an act of sovereignty in itself, a very important act of sovereignty. We owe much of our prosperity and quality of life to free trade; in fact, 40% of our gross domestic product depends on it. We also see free trade not just as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, an end to provide a better quality of life for all Canadians.
The government has also recognized that to reach our common goals we must engage all of society, not just the experts but also the non-governmental organizations and academics. In fact this very week the Americas business forum and also the free trade area of the Americas ministerial meeting was held in Toronto. At the same time our government supported a civil society parallel forum which was held right there in Toronto to canvass the views of non-governmental organizations, to canvass the views of academics and to canvass the views of all Canadians.
The government sees that transparency is very, very important. I would like to use the example of what the government did to ensure that we went out to speak with Canadians.
In 1998 and 1999 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and its subcommittee on international trade conducted an examination of Canada's trade objectives and the forthcoming agenda at the WTO, and also looked at Canada's priority interests in the free trade area of the Americas.
The committee held a series of public hearings, first in Ottawa and thereafter across Canada, on the key aspects of Canadian international trade policy. Why did we do so? Because these hearings were coming at a time when all countries were facing some very crucial choices and decisions in the complex negotiating process that is being conducted multilaterally, both under the auspices of the WTO and in developing regional forums, such as the proposed free trade area of the Americas.
In asking the committee to conduct public consultations, the then minister for international trade stated that there is a necessity to provide Canadians with more opportunity to have input into the position that the Government of Canada will take going into these negotiations.
Actually, at that time the minister stated in his opening presentation to the committee that international trade had become a local issue. What happens as far away as the negotiating table has consequences that reach right down to the kitchen table and other domains of daily life. As the trend deepens as a result of globalization, the making of trade policies cannot be left only to a few officials in back rooms, it needs to engage the whole of society and governments at all levels.
It was the role of the committee to encourage citizens in all parts of Canada to participate, to give us their best ideas and to follow the progress of the study in the coming weeks and months. The final report submitted by the committee represented extensive hearings across Canada, containing the views of many Canadians and interested groups on a broad range of issues that will need to be addressed in our trade negotiations. It is incumbent upon the government to respond to those views and the government will be tabling its response within the next week.
I would commend to all members of the House the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Canada at the WTO: Toward a Millennium Agenda”. It is a comprehensive and helpful contribution of a parliamentary committee in defining the national trade interest.
In addition, the committee prepared a citizens' guide to the WTO and to the committee's June 1999 report. This guide serves as a very useful tool, not just to inform and educate ourselves, but also Canadians. We are transparent. I would urge all Canadians, as well as hon. members opposite, to get a copy of the citizens' guide to the WTO.
Parliamentarians and all legislative committees are well placed to take on the responsibility of mediating and communicating between the executive branch of government and the various interest groups in an area of broad significance such as international trade policy at the WTO.
Going back again to the hearings that we undertook, these were the most comprehensive cross-country hearings ever taken: 425 committee appearances comprised of 88 industry associations, 26 governments, 61 academics, researchers and professionals, 85 civil society representatives and 64 individuals.
The committee was mindful of having the broadest possible and open public input on the main political choices that will govern the WTO millennium round.
The report is comprehensive in addressing Canada's general goals at the WTO as well as specific sectoral interests, particularly the difficult agricultural dimension where both Canadian export and supply interests are at play, and the tricky social dimension of labour and environmental standards, and the role of the WTO around those standards.
The report developed a broad degree of consensus, notwithstanding some minority dissenting opinions. We reached consensus on 39 recommendations. The recommendations related to our negotiating interests at the WTO round, the implication of the WTO agreements, as well as improving the dispute settlement mechanism to ensure that the WTO can make a contribution to global governments and stability without detracting from its primary sphere of trade responsibility. It is representative of what federal parliamentarians working together in a legislative committee can achieve in influencing the Canadian position leading into the WTO negotiations.
The report also recommends an ongoing role for parliament in examining the results of trade negotiations before entering into binding legal agreements and implementing legislation.
Last Friday in the House the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investments, tabled its report on priorities as we enter the consultations on the free trade area of the Americas. The report is entitled “Towards a Hemispheric Agreement in the Canadian Interest”; not in the multinational interest, but in the Canadian interest. This week ministers met in Toronto to discuss the roles we should have.
We must remember the importance of free trade to our economy. Every billion dollars in export amounts to 15,000 jobs. Our annual export and import growth of 8.1% and 6.4%, respectively, far outpaced our GDP growth. Canada is the most trade oriented country in the G-8.
We also have to look at investments. There are stronger increases in both inward and outward flows of direct investment. In 1998 inflows to Canada were $22.9 billion, but Canadians invested a record $39.8 billion abroad. Canada, as a medium power, benefits by a rules based world where might is not right. This is especially important to us as we live next door to the United States, our biggest trading partner.
Canadian parliamentarians at all levels can play an important role in supporting the interests of Canadians by encouraging and promoting Canadian firms and exports and by assessing broad industrial and societal interests in recommending approaches to international trade policy as a new WTO round dawns. Effective communication and co-operation on trade matters by federal and provincial parliamentarians may enhance the arrangements in place to ensure that provincial interests are fully integrated into the national trade agenda. Support in international and interparliamentary trade representations will also enhance government efforts as we strive not only to help Canadian industry, which is comprised of small and medium size business, but to benefit all Canadians.
