Debates of Feb. 23rd, 1998

Supply

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly speak to that issue. It makes my case about the arrogance of this government.

What does the government want to do? Is it going to be another Kyoto type deal where it says by the way, we were over and negotiated deal, this is what it is and here it is folks? That is not good enough. We had lots of witnesses who said that it is not necessary to carry on these discussions in private. If we do not have public support what kind of an agreement is the government signing on behalf of Canadians?

What we do have is a draft. It was a March draft, then updated to May. We know the objectives that Canada was trying to negotiate. What we did not have until November was the list of exemptions that the government was intending to table. It is not good enough to come and say we have arrived at an agreement and here it is.

The way it is going right now, if the government does sign an agreement, unless it makes some changes this could arrive on Canadians' desks. In the Canada-Chile free trade agreement we never saw the agreement. We never had a debate on it in the House of Commons. All we got was a Canada-Chile free trade agreement. The government said by the way, as a result of this we have to amend some legislation to make it work. That is the arrogant style that Mulroney had and that the Liberal government condemned. I just read the kinds of comments it made in 1992. But this government is doing it all over again. It simply is not good enough in these times. Canadians want to be consulted.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member of Peace River is wanting to, if I may use a vacuum cleaner analogy, suck and blow at the same time.

The Reform Party has said in the minority report that it has no trouble whatsoever with the MAI. It simply wants investors protected more. This is a nuisance motion.

It has been the NDP that has supported concerns about the environment, labour, people, the arts in this agreement. All Reform wants to do is get some sort of attention on this issue. In fact, it wants to get more MAI, the quicker, the better.

My question to the Reform Party is why does it not be a bit more honest with its motion and say let us ram this MAI through faster than before?

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting approach. As we said during the election campaign in June, until we see the actual agreement, how are we going to support it. We support the concept of a multilateral agreement on investment that has certain principles. That is what we said in our dissenting opinion. I just read those out for members to remind them.

We did say a lot of Canadians had apprehension and concerns about this. Their concerns need to be addressed. We also said in our dissenting opinion that we wanted to have a public debate and a vote in this House of Commons before the agreement is ratified by the Government of Canada.

It is interesting that the people who are lining up against the rules based investment agreement are the same groups that opposed the free trade agreement in 1988. I was not in government but I remember at the time that the sky was going to fall. Everything that could possible go wrong with Canada was going to go wrong. That is what we got from the NDP.

It is interesting that the member for Dartmouth raises the fact that the Reform Party is not very consistent. It seems to me that the NDP has had a few supply days that could have been dedicated to this since September. Where was it on this issue? There are a lot of mistruths being put out to the public, especially in B.C. I challenge the government to deal with those.

I do not think it is very constructive to say, as the NDP government of B.C. did when it came to committee, that Canada should walk away from this deal and not be involved in the negotiations at all. I do not think that is very constructive.

Look at what has happened to investment in the province of British Columbia in the last seven years. It has dropped every year to an all time low. The premier of B.C. is advertising in the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post “we encourage investment in the province of B.C.”. It is because they are in serious trouble there. Business is leaving in droves.

It seems to me that the NDP has had lots of opportunity. It has taken its opportunities in town hall meetings to talk about how bad this is. I has talked about getting out of the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. I do not think it would have very much support for that across Canada.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to debate this issue on the MAI. I chaired the subcommittee on international trade and trade disputes. We had the opportunity to study the MAI for three months before Christmas.

At that time the hon. member was a member of that committee. He knows we heard from some 50 witnesses in the month of November including the chief negotiator, the Minister for International Trade and a number of significantly large Canadian groups which represented concerns on this issue. We brought forward a report on the MAI which is available to all Canadians if they order it from Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Also, this report is on the Internet. It is at www.parl.gc.ca. Also the Department of Foreign Affairs has a site specific to this, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca. There is all kinds of information on the Internet from all over the world on this issue.

I challenge the opposition parties to show any government involved in these negotiations which has been more open on this issue. We had witnesses before the committee who stated that this is one of the most open negotiations in the history of these government led trade negotiations.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the recommendations in our report. I feel they reflect what Canadians were telling us across Canada. I agree with the hon. members who say that there is a great deal of misinformation or disagreement as to what is in the report.

I also question the hon. member especially on what he said in terms of negotiation and information being given to the provinces and the territories. There were plenty of meetings throughout the history of these negotiations with the provinces to let them know. Representatives of British Columbia appeared before the committee. The representative who was not a politician agreed that they had been informed by the government.

As the parliamentary secretary said, there were some 30 meetings with the provinces over the years, but there were also meetings with private organizations and non-government organizations such as the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, auto parts manufacturers, auto industry associations, book and periodical councils, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian book publishers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There were numerous meetings with representatives of these groups as well as correspondence. The list goes on. Clearly there has been a lot of effort made by the government to inform Canadians.

I want to take a few minutes to speak about the recommendations of the subcommittee, as they reflect what Canadians from across the country who appeared before the subcommittee wanted us to tell the government.

Our first recommendation called on the government to continue participating in the MAI negotiations but only if the final text fully protects Canadian culture, the environment, labour standards, health, education and social services, both at the federal and subnational levels; in other words, federally, provincially and municipally.

That is a very important point. There is confusion in terms of what role each level of government can play in this issue. The federal government has spent a lot of time with the provinces in bringing light to this issue.

Our second recommendation was outlined by the previous speaker. It recommends that the government continue and increase its efforts to inform Canadians. That was agreed to by all members. It was felt that the government should be informing the public. I know the government has reacted. Since the subcommittee reported the minister has spoken publicly on the issue. It is incumbent on all members to do that as well. They have received information packages from the government which they should include in their householders to let Canadians know what the issues are.

The third recommendation is to fully involve the provinces. I have already spoken about that.

With respect to the fourth recommendation, it is felt that the government should consider undertaking a full impact study to let Canadians know the impacts this will have on certain sectors of our economy. It is not practical early on in the negotiations to do this because we do not really know what will be in the final text. These issues will be negotiated, but we do not know what will be the final conclusions.

The subcommittee indicated that it wanted to look at this issue again to ensure that Canadians continue to be informed. It is important that the government let Canadians know and it is in the process of doing that with respect to the full impacts the agreement will have on certain sectors.

The fifth recommendation was that for future negotiations there should be an open and transparent process and public consultations and disclosure as much as is practical under the circumstances. I do not think hon. members expect that negotiations such as this can take place with a million groups looking over the shoulders of the negotiators. Frankly, that is not practical. However, what is practical is as these negotiations continue governments can give updates to certain sectors of the economy. They can have meetings, such as those which took place under the WTO when we had farm groups coming in to talk about agriculture. They were actually there in Geneva at the time with the government.

Governments can do these things. I know that governments have asked certain international groups to the OECD, have met with them and have brought them up to date on these issues.

The sixth recommendation was that the definition of investment in the MAI should be clarified and should reflect the approach taken in the NAFTA.

The seventh recommendation was, in the interests of certainty, that governments and investors under the MAI ensure that it reflects which international agreement takes precedence in terms of the rules. As we know, there is the WTO, there is the NAFTA and now there is the MAI. We wanted to make sure Canadians knew before they invested which international agreement took precedence.

Number eight was that we wanted the government to use this agreement to subsequently pursue an investment accord worldwide. We feel it is important for Canadian corporations. I know the opposition likes to talk about these as big international corporations but over the past number of years the smaller corporations have been engaging in the majority of world investment. Canadian small and medium size enterprises are presently the major worldwide investors.

We are not talking about big monoliths. We are talking about small businesses throughout Canada. They need certainty in some of the smaller countries that are not in the OECD to ensure their investments are safe. That investment helps with trade and it helps Canadian businesses get in there.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Why aren't you telling the public?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

We are telling the public. We sent something to the member which I hope he will put in his householder.

I encourage all Canadians to get a copy of our report. I feel it reflects what Canadians are saying. The government has indicated to all members in the House that it thinks the report is good and that it will reflect the final outcome of the negotiations.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. They were well intended and well taken.

This subject has raised a lot of concern back home. It goes back to the general election campaign. People were asking questions about the MAI then and they are still asking the same questions.

Will the government hold public hearings across Canada so that everyday Canadian citizens will have a chance to appear before a committee on all aspects of the MAI? I know the member has provided some ideas. For example people can use the Internet. Some of the people I have talked to have said that they have had trouble finding this information on the Internet. Will the government go across Canada with a full public debate?

Another question that comes up quite often is the concern about preserving our Canadian culture. The minister mentioned that he is looking for a country specific reservation on culture. However there remain issues such as standstill and rollback clauses. If it is just a country specific reservation on culture, is it still allowed to be rolled back? Should we not be looking for a general exemption on culture?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the first question, I had hoped at that time that we would have an opportunity to travel across the country. I have had a number of personal invitations to visit places across Canada to talk about the issue. I would encourage all hon. members to get out and talk about the issue. When the minister speaks, he can speak on behalf of the government.

It was the intention of our committee at that time to travel but because the negotiations were going on in January we did not have that opportunity. There are many groups that represent the different concerns of Canadians on that issue. We brought them here to make sure their points of view were expressed. I would encourage the government to put more effort into getting across the country to inform Canadians.

On the culture issue, I was disappointed in the Reform Party's recommendation not to protect the cultural industries which I feel have contributed to much job creation. There is much support in Canada on that issue. In terms of the protection, as was said earlier and as the minister stated, certainly Canada has put that on as one of the provisions it feels is a deal breaker. It feels if we do not get the protection that is needed, the Canadian government will not sign it.

The government has said on many occasions that if there is not a deal that is in the best interests of Canadians, it will not sign it. I would certainly encourage the minister not to sign any deal that does not protect Canadian culture and cultural industries.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, since time is running short I will be very direct in my question to the hon. member.

The crux of this issue seems to come down to sovereignty, who is going to control the affairs of the nation. Will it be a multinational corporation deciding the affairs of the nation from abroad or will it be the nation itself?

We are a resource rich country. We need resource management. Who is going to manage our resources? Who is going to be in charge of our fisheries? Who is going to be in charge of our mining and our forest resources? What protection is in the MAI now?

I have read the information on the MAI on the Internet. I have followed it for over a year. There is a scarcity of it. You can say there is a lot there, but there is a scarcity of it.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

I thank the hon. member's party for supporting the government on this initiative in terms of our commitment to make sure that our governments both federally and provincially still have the powers they need to make sure that Canadians are protected in all these different areas.

In terms of who is going to control it, as I said earlier, it is not a question of these big monolith companies versus the government. Most of the people that are investing abroad are small and medium size enterprises. They are the ones that need the protection certainly from the government.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Reform motion. It gives me the opportunity to make known the Bloc's position on the multilateral agreement on investment or MAI. This agreement is currently being negotiated among the member countries of the OECD.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion by the official opposition on the MAI primarily because the government failed to hold a proper public debate on this important issue.

Apart from the brief hearings hastily held by the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investment in the last Parliament, the House and therefore all members elected to represent the people were unable to debate it at length.

Furthermore, a number of groups including unions, non governmental organizations and consumer groups have unfortunately not had the opportunity to express their considerable reservations to the government on this agreement. It is of some concern, because people are unaware of the agreement's existence, its scope, its advantages, its inconveniences and its costs.

The government has failed to explain what is at stake in the MAI and yet it must do so, because, when it signs this agreement, the government is committing the people of Canada for over 15 years. The government has lacked transparency in this matter. It is saying, through its Minister for International Trade that, for the first time in Canadian history, a commercial agreement was considered by a parliamentary committee before it was signed. Care must be taken here.

If the agreement was examined, it was as the result of a leak by the NGOs, which managed to get a copy of it and to make it available on the Internet. A number of members already had the text of the MAI and were querying the government on it. These are the real reasons the government gave the MAI to a subcommittee for examination. No credit should be given for transparency and good intentions when there were none.

Questions from the opposition and public pressure are forcing the minister to organize a public information meeting shortly.

At this point, I would like to give a brief background of the MAI, so as to explain its purpose and the Bloc Quebecois' position.

In 1995, 29 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreed to negotiate a multilateral agreement that would liberalize foreign investments and clarify the rules governing them.

The agreement was originally scheduled to be signed in May 1997, at the meeting of the OECD Ministerial Council. This was put off for a year, member countries being unable to agree on final wording because of the complexity of the procedure and, more importantly, differences of opinion.

Sources even indicate that key paragraphs of the text are covered in changes and that over 600 pages of reservations submitted by the various countries have yet to be negotiated. A new deadline has been set for April 1998 and will not be met. And we have since learned that the MAI will not be finalized before the fall. The minister is therefore able, if he really wants, to submit the text of the agreement for public discussion and to hold a real debate.

Two principles underlie the MAI: the first is non-discrimination against foreign companies. This means that countries that sign the agreement will have to treat foreign investors and their own investors without distinction and without discrimination. Eliminating protectionist barriers and opening up our borders to international competition will enable our businesses to increase their foreign business opportunities, we are told. The goal of the MAI is to create equal conditions for international investors.

The second principle is the legal protection of investors and their investments. The goal here is to ensure that investors have safe access to target markets. It is known that investments are not always safe because of a lack of precise rules with respect to investments and because of the corruption sometimes found in certain countries. The recent Asian crisis is a very good example.

The MAI provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that gives a foreign investor legal recourse if he feels he has been treated unfairly. As a result, such an investor could sue a state through a panel of referees with binding powers.

While supporting the general objectives of the MAI, the Bloc Quebecois shares some of the concerns expressed by a number of groups that testified before the sub-committee. In our view, this agreement will promote freer investments and trade in general and we cannot oppose it.

In addition, since capital mobility is increasing, we believe there should be regulations to ensure non-discrimination and protection for investments. This means being able not only to take advantage of globalization but also to manage the stress resulting from globalization while at the same time extending the investment system world-wide.

However, a number of conditions must be met before the Bloc Quebecois will be able to support the signing of the MAI. First of all, it is important that the Canadian government negotiate the inclusion of a cultural safeguard clause to protect the cultural industry in Quebec and Canada. Under no circumstances will the Bloc Quebecois be satisfied with a simple reservation. In this kind of agreement, a proviso does not sufficiently protect this industry as it only applies to those countries that requested it, while a general exemption clause would apply to all signatory countries. Also, the fewer the countries requesting a reservation, the greater the chances of it being removed in future negotiations.

The Bloc Quebecois is also concerned about statements made in this House by the Minister for International Trade, who said on February 12 that the agreement would not be signed if it did not include an exemption for culture. The minister added that he would walk away from the table if there is not a complete carve out for culture in the MAI. However, on February 13, the minister stated just the opposite in a speech, when he said he would agree to a reservation if he could not get full cultural exemption.

The essential thing regarding culture and communications is to preserve the ability of the federal and provincial governments to set up policies that promote the development of that sector. Our planet is rich because of its diversity, its cultures, its ways of life and its customs. The world would lose if we tried to standardize everything.

The Bloc Quebecois also supports the subcommittee's first recommendation that Canada should sign the MAI provided the final text protects Canadian culture, the environment, work standards, health and education services, and social security, at the federal and provincial levels. We should prohibit states from lowering their national standards to attract foreign investments. The Bloc Quebecois will never let the MAI give precedence to the rights of investors and businesses over those of the citizens, the workers and the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois also believes that consultations must continue to take place on a regular basis with the provinces, before the Canadian government ratifies the agreement. There are currently many preliminary lists of reservations and it would appear that coverage of federal states remains a problem. Therefore, there is a need for proper and ongoing consultations between the provinces and the federal government.

An editorial writer was right in expressing concern about the MAI's scope. He wondered whether we would witness the setting up of a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Some groups expressed the same concerns when they appeared before the committee. The MAI includes a number of important and far-reaching rules that will restrict governments' ability to regulate foreign investments, because it gives—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member is requesting unanimous consent to finish her speech. She would need no more than a few moments. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

The MAI includes a number of far-reaching rules that will restrict governments' ability to regulate foreign investments, because we must not forget that it gives businesses the new right to challenge government decisions. “In short, the MAI would give government and private enterprise the same status in law”, the writer commented.

Finally, and in the interests of transparency, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the Canadian government to refer the text of the agreement back to the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade before it is signed. Once again, it is absolutely essential that the Minister of International Trade meet this requirement for transparency.

In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the Reform motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the final use of the word “Agreement”: “, in particular by refusing to make a commitment to submit the text of the MAI to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and more specifically to its Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, before signing the Agreement.”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will reserve a decision and take a few moments to examine the motion to see whether it is in order, and get back to you as quickly as possible.

We are studying the amendment right now to ensure that it is receivable. As soon as a decision has been made, the amendment will be read.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by suggesting that this is the first time we have had a chance to debate this issue in the House of Commons.

After more than a year of negotiations on a deal that will profoundly impact on the lives of every Canadian citizen, this is the first chance we have had to say anything other than raise the issue in question period from time to time.

As someone indicated, the MAI is about who will make decisions for the future generations of Canadians. Will it be duly elected governments at the local, regional, provincial and federal levels, or will it be large corporations?

I remind the House that Mitsubishi is bigger than the country of Indonesia in terms of size. Philip Morris is bigger than New Zealand. Wal-Mart is bigger than Poland, Israel and Greece. In my judgment and in the judgment of my party, if the MAI is passed and accepted by the government, it will mean that we will be turning over the sovereignty of our country to the whims of large multinational corporations.

When the question was put to my friends in the Reform Party about whether they thought it was a good idea, the spokesperson from Peace River said he thought it was. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we think this is bad. For that reason it is fair to say we are the only political party in the House of Commons that is clearly on record as opposing the MAI.

The Liberal Party supports it. It has been the enthusiastic cheerleader since day one. Some people would say that Canada actually initiated the original discussions in the OECD to begin the MAI process.

The Conservatives have been enthusiastic NAFTA supports and FTA supporters. They support the MAI. Bloc members support the MAI. They are enthusiastic NAFTA supporters. My friends in the Reform Party have indicated that they enthusiastically support the MAI.

We do not support it and I will say why. Fundamentally we do not want to throw away our sovereignty, but it has almost become a mantra in the country—and we heard it again today—that $1 billion in foreign direct investment will create 45,000 jobs. All cabinet ministers have this text in their hip pockets which they pull out and read during every speech.

That may be true, but when they look at what happens to foreign investment in Canada a very interesting picture unfolds. In 1997 the total of new foreign investment in Canada was $21.2 billion. If this is true, at first glance we ought to have no unemployment at all. The reality, however, is quite different.

What percentage of $21.2 billion of foreign investment in Canada in 1997 was for new business investment and what percentage was for the takeover of existing Canadian companies?

In 1997, 97.5% of the $21.2 billion went for acquisitions and a meagre 2.5% went to new foreign investment. For all intents and purposes we can say that virtually all foreign investment in 1997 was not to open up a new mine, a new business, a new mill or a new manufacturing plant. It was to buy up an existing one with no net gain in jobs, no net gain in R and D, and no net gain in community benefits. Virtually 100% of the foreign investment last year was simply foreign companies coming in and buying existing ones. The notion that foreign investment will create jobs is an absolute mythology.

For the past three years, at the urging of its corporate backers, the Liberal government has been negotiating a deal to secure a brand new charter of rights for investors behind the closed doors of the OECD in Paris.

Until very recently Canadians could not find out what this negotiated deal was all about. They could not find out what our negotiators were negotiating. They could not get a text. It was only when the Council of Canadians leaked a text that it became a quasi-public document. Later the government was embarrassed enough to have to generate a copy that it was working on in its negotiations.

If the government really believed its rhetoric and that the MAI was a good deal for Canada, would it not want to be telling Canadians what it was doing? Would it not want to inform Canadians about the deal? Would it not want to tell Canadians the main essence of the negotiated deal in the best interest of Canada?

If the government wanted to do that it could send an abbreviated copy or an executive copy of the entire copy to virtually every household in Canada. The government has the ability to do that at the snap of a finger.

My feeling is that the government does not want Canadians to know what it is negotiating. Let us be reminded that whenever Canadians had a chance to vote on NAFTA they voted against NAFTA. They voted against free trade with the United States and Mexico. The government imposed it anyway, but that is another story.

The government knows that if Canadians knew the essence of the agreement they would vote against it. To this day I have not heard a single Canadian stand to say they think the MAI is a great deal. I have heard hundreds of people say it is a bad deal.

I recognize the incredible work of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party over the last few months, criss-crossing the country, holding public meetings and speaking wherever they could to try to inform people about the MAI because the government refused to do so. Somebody had to tell the country about the MAI and we have taken that up.

I am surprised that my friends in the Reform Party are even mentioning the whole issue today. Back in April of last year it started to be raised in the House of Commons by the New Democrats. I was one of the questioners. A number of my colleagues were asking questions about the MAI. They asked about the implications for Canadian sovereignty, Canadian culture, Canadian labour standards, environmental standards and working conditions. We raised these questions day after day.

Along comes the election and my leader tried time and time again to get it on the political agenda of that campaign. Many of our candidates tried to get it on the political agenda, but the Liberals did not even want to talk about it. The Reform Party candidate in Kamloops said that he had never heard of the MAI. He thought is was something like missing in action, something to do with Vietnam. The Tories did not dare say anything about it.

The most critical deal that will influence the lives of generations of Canadian was not even mentioned by Liberal candidates or the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That is shocking.

As soon as we got back here, what political party was up in the House of Commons asking to hear more about the MAI, asking for public hearings and an emergency debate in the House of Commons? Every time we were turned down, not only by the government but by the other political parties. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the Reform Party did not want a debate on the issue in the House of Commons. They voted it down. I could go on.

In 1997 the MAI was mentioned on 20 days in the House of Commons. It was raised in question period because the government did not permit any debate on it. There was a debate in the British Columbia legislature on the MAI. I think it was the only province to do that. As a matter of fact it is clearly on record as opposing the MAI.

The NDP in the Yukon Territory as well passed a resolution in the legislature against the MAI. The NDP representative in Prince Edward Island put a motion on the floor of the legislature to oppose the MAI at least until public hearings across Canada were held, and it passed unanimously.

[An hon. member]

They are Tories.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

And yes they are Tories, but it was the NDP member of the legislature who raised the issue.

In 1997 it was raised 20 times in this House of Commons, 11 times by New Democrats. To be fair, two Liberal backbenchers mentioned it and one member of the Bloc. There were no Tories and no Reform members.

We do not have much time to get into the details of the MAI. But it is fair to say it is now obligatory because of the impact on Canadian culture, because of the impact on the ability of elected governments to manage the economy in the best interest of the citizens they represent, because of the implications of the MAI against the Canadian environment and against Canadian labour standards, that Canadians be informed.

Before this deal is signed, I would at least hope that the government would seek the input of Canadians as it did on NAFTA. We will do whatever we can as New Democrats from coast to coast to coast to oppose this deal. We do not think multinationals should be making decisions about our children's future. We do not think multinational corporations should be deciding what comes first.

In closing I will simply say let us be reminded that as we speak today, Ethyl Corporation has sued the federal government for trying to protect the health of Canadian citizens because it says it takes away from its profit to do away with additives to gasoline. That is what we are getting into, a trade deal that will impact on the lives of every Canadian. We are locking ourselves for 20 years into the future. Even future Parliaments will not have a chance to deal with this issue.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member. It intrigues me that he made the statement that this is the first opportunity he has had in the House to talk about the MAI. Then he went on to criticize everyone else for being supportive of the concept.

One question I would like to ask him is why the NDP did not bring this issue before the House itself. The NDP has had supply days. What did it do? It used up its supply days on other situations that were not nearly as important as this. The first thing I would like the hon. member to do is to explain to the people of Canada why he did not bring forth this issue right away.

The second thing I would like him to explain to me is this 20 year rule he mentioned toward the end of his speech. The government has said that it is actually not 20 years, that it is five years. The 20 years only apply to companies that have invested during the five year period if a country then opts out.

For example if McCain Foods were to invest $300 million in a canning plant in Malaysia and Malaysia then opted out, McCain Foods would be protected for a further 15 years. That is the government's explanation. Does the hon. member have some other version of that explanation?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my friend asked this question.

The first day back after the 1997 general election we felt that we ought to raise the most important question facing the future of Canada, which we did. We asked for a special debate on the MAI. We asked for cross-country hearings on the MAI. We asked the government to inform Canadians about the details of the MAI. That was our first item of business.

We called for cross-country hearings and so on but we did not get the support from our friends in the other political parties. I do not know whether that was because they did not want to tour or they did not know anything about the deal. But we will set that aside.

Then along came our first opposition day and we had a choice to make. We acknowledged that there were 1.5 million children living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world. We acknowledged that there were 400,000 young Canadians looking for work and could not find a job. We acknowledged that there was only one other country that has a worse record when it comes to child poverty and that is the United States of America.

We felt that it was appropriate to speak out on behalf of those young children who cannot pay for a lobbyist. They do not participate in election campaigns. They do not give contributions to political parties. We felt it was appropriate that they have a voice. Because the children of Canada are our future we have put them first in terms of our opposition day motions.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Kamloops' intervention about how the MAI was going to completely destroy our country. The reality is that 80% of our trade is with the United States, all of which is already encompassed under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

He goes on to say how it is solely the New Democratic Party that is concerned about this issue. I wonder if the member could explain this comment in Friday's Globe and Mail : “Many of us have been encouraged to think that the fight for the MAI is very worthwhile, said the Saskatchewan minister responsible for trade, Mr. Wiens”. It would appear that his own provincial government does not back his understanding.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, not that my friend would attempt to distort the facts or anything that was said, let me first say what Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan had to say about the MAI. He declared that Saskatchewan will never be part of any global trade agreement that was essentially a race to the bottom in terms of conditions and standards for people. He said that any international trade agreement would have to recognize trade union rights, the preservation of the environment and human rights before Saskatchewan would even consider signing it.

Those are all absent from the MAI. My friend said there is no such thing as the MAI yet. We should send him over a copy so he can have a look at it. He would notice that those are all exempt from the MAI.

I just want to reiterate for the record that whenever there is a New Democrat government in this country, be it in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon or New Democrats in legislatures across the country, we are all unanimous in saying the same thing. The MAI ought not to be signed. The MAI is against Canada. The MAI is really a special constitution of rights and freedoms essentially designed for the multinational corporations.

We believe that the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada and not the multinational corporations ought to make decisions about the future of our citizens.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The amendment moved by the member for Laval East to the Reform Party's opposition motion is in order.