Mr. Speaker, the question surprises me somewhat, because I believe the danger to be just the opposite, that such a multilateral agreement on investment, commonly called MAI, could impact upon NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.
The rich countries club, or in other words the OECD, could then impose this agreement on a number of countries bilaterally, thus ensuring that the WTO would be governed by such an agreement and NAFTA forced to follow suit. That is where the danger lies.
I would remind my colleague that, in the debates on free trade then on NAFTA and even in the last round of WTO negotiations, it was Quebec, with the support of many of the European countries, which pushed for the necessity of cultural exemptions, of protecting cultural identity.
This inclusion in NAFTA was a gain, but still not enough of one. We need only think back to the debate, strange, paradoxical, even unfortunate for Canada I would say, around the purchase by American interests of Ginn Publishing. Not one “Canadian” party here in this House spoke out against the fact that one of Canada's major publishing houses was going into American hands.
It was the Bloc Quebecois, the sovereignist party that wants its own country, which rose in defence of Canadian interests.
This is why we want a debate. I think that it is high time those across the floor, and the Reform Party as well, quit thinking that the multinationals, the economy seen in isolation from other human values, is a kind of golden calf. That is a major mistake. Others have made that same mistake before you and I hope fewer and fewer will make it after you.