Debates of Nov. 4th, 1999

Supply

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the parliamentary secretary that I have consulted with the majority of these groups, perhaps more than he and his government have, because there are a number of conflicting issues and positions being taken.

Let me again speak to the $42 billion deficit. I am sure the hon. member will agree that the reason the $42 billion deficit has been retired is because of the free trade agreements and certainly the open trade that was negotiated back prior to the 1993 Liberal government taking place.

He talks about team Canada and looking at opening up trade. I am sure the member realizes that 80% of what Canadians produce right now goes to the United States. It is our major market.

If team Canada has done such a wonderful job, I would ask the parliamentary secretary why we have not received more access to the EU market right now, which is a huge market? The member and his government have certainly attempted to open up that market but have failed miserably. I put that directly on his government.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on our opposition day. I will also be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

The subject of the debate today is the World Trade Organization. I will present my views on how it affects the environment. The environment and the economy are very much tied together because without the environment there is no economy. We cannot provide all our trade on the ships of the ocean. We have to find land sometime and find our goods and services. When we come upon these goods and services we find the land has a jurisdiction. The jurisdiction that we speak of today is this country, the sovereign state of Canada.

Protecting Canadians is the driving force of being a member of parliament in the House of Commons: protecting Canadians, protecting our interests, protecting our future.

Along with the representation that we have in the House of Commons, Canadians en masse are aware that the environment has direct links to our health: the cross border air pollution that pollutes our air, our rain and inevitably contaminates our water. The international toxic fallout throughout Canada's north is destroying the traditional culture and value of hunting and gathering. The country foods, as they are termed, are all affected by this toxic fallout that is happening in the north.

People around the globe realize that our environment and the ecosystem, our biosphere that supports our lives, is under tremendous stress. Climate change and the increased storm severity and the damage that causes worldwide are a direct result of our economic activities in the world. The invisible chemicals that are throughout the entire food chain, including the human species, are changing our hormones, our basic genetic structure and threatening our children's future.

The free trade and borderless profit, this fad of making money regardless—and I want to stress regardless—is losing strength in the world.

We saw that with the whole issue of the MAI where all peoples of the world had major objections to trade negotiations being done behind closed doors. Once the negotiations were brought out to public forums the MAI was flushed down the toilet. There goes the pollution cycle once again, so be careful where it lands.

Citizens around the globe realize that there is a cost to making trade the first and foremost consideration over the protection of the environment that supports us. This cost has to be tallied in the houses of government by the democratically elected people who make these decisions. Trade is a major part of the governance of this country, but environmental responsibility and the health of our citizens are also major responsibilities. These cannot be compromised for trade reasons.

The WTO process wishes to ensure free and unfettered trade happens worldwide. This is backed up by a cesspool of rules and regulations. The cesspool has reared its head when MMT and the water issue has come up. These rules and regulations were blueprinted to support these interests of the world.

Citizens of Canada and other states of the world are naive to the small print. When these regulations are enforced through the justice system and the international trade bodies, we find out that reality has hit the ground when we start seeing decisions being made against the will of duly elected governments. The essence of our opposition day motion is that we must not sacrifice ourselves for the sake of world trade.

Canadians want a different vision of the future. The legacy for our children in the next century and future generations is foremost. Canadians can find danger where there is a lack of environmental protection in trade agreements with multinational interests.

In the recent round of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where a duly elected House of Commons selected a committee on the environment, a bill was passed to strengthen environmental protections but was then thrown into cabinet behind closed doors and the industry lobby tore it to shreds. That is a very undemocratic process but that is a reality.

Since free trade hit the country, lobbyists have made millions of dollars carrying legislation and advising on policy behind closed doors. That is our job as members of parliament who represent Canadians. This is where we must have an open public debate on where the country and the future of our children are going.

MMT is a major issue. I call on the Liberal government to be cautious. The year 2000 is coming very quickly. The whole issue of manganese and the effects it has on our health should be foremost in the review. The health department and the health minister should look directly at this issue as a number one priority because of the inhalation of fuel additives.

Manganese was basically used to replace lead as an anti-knocking agent in fuel for automobile engines. However, we have to face up to the fact that manganese does strange things. The United States has banned MMT en masse but in Canada, not only do we endorse MMT, so to speak, but we also pay and apologize to the Ethyl Corporation for stopping the interprovincial transportation of MMT. Groups all over Canada are raising this issue but the Liberals, in making its $20 million cheque, has basically endorsed this product and went against public safety and public health.

We have also heard about the issue of the precautionary principle from cabinet ministers and especially the environment minister. The precautionary principle is a major principle of environmental and health protection in the country but it was thrown right out the door just to accommodate international trade.

The wish of Canadians is not to see third world conditions exist here where corporations make decisions which challenge us at every turn to protect ourselves and have our sovereign and democratic rights bent for the sake of profit. The destruction of resources is happening on the planet as we know it. A case in point is the Amazon forests which have been experiencing deforestation for the last few decades.

I now raise in the House that the boreal forests in our own backyards are disappearing at a faster rate than the Brazilian forests. Why is this happening? It is to make more profit and to make more paper. The whole issue of recycling and the issue of another round of WTO talks are also opening the door for further deforestation in the trading states.

I want to tell all Canadians that we must protect our environment. Let us protect the things that create the air that we breath: the muskeg; the different trees such as the spruce, the jack pine and the poplar; these gifts that we have from our Creator that give us life. If we are conscious of the cycle of life, let us not disrupt that for the sake of profit. Let us put our health and our democracy ahead of world trade organizations that want profit, international trade and a borderless society.

I also want to say that there is a Canadian border and I am proud of the Canadian border. I think the hon. member from the Conservative Party said that we were trying to raise this border to higher standards. I welcome that view. I think Canadians should stand proud of who we are are, protect our jurisdiction, protect the resources and the gifts that we have, but let us not give it away for the sake of profit.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the House today in support of the opposition day motion from the NDP.

I will begin by quoting the first part of that motion because it really gets to the heart or the nub of the very important issue that we are debating today. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, this government has sabotaged Canadian democracy by pursuing a trade policy that gives excessive power to unelected and unaccountable international trade organizations and erodes the ability of Canada's elected representatives to act in the public interest;

I think that part of the motion really gets to the issue at hand. I wonder how many Canadians are aware that in a few weeks there will be massive negotiations taking place in Seattle at the end of this month. The Canadian government will be represented. It will be a closed door process. The issues that will be on the table are our services and the understanding of what we are as Canadians.

One of the very frightening things about the upcoming talks at the World Trade Organization is that very few people are aware of what will actually take place and what will be negotiated away by the Canadian government, allegedly on behalf of the Canadian people.

I even wonder whether Liberal members are aware of what will be negotiated. We have seen a pattern with this government, and certainly with the Progressive Conservative government before it, to deal with international trade relations, trade rules and trade liberalization in a way that is so secretive that actually citizen groups and individual Canadians have had to fight tooth and nail to even get any sense of disclosure about what is going on and to demand of the government that there be some kind of transparent process.

I would suggest that just as we have seen in the past with the negotiations that took place in secret under the multilateral agreement on investments, we should today be very concerned about what is now about to take place by the Canadian government at the WTO.

What are the issues that are before the WTO from the Canadian government's perspective? When we look at the issues that are on the table, alarm bells need to go off.

We have to understand that the WTO as an unelected, undemocratic government is putting together what is being called a new economic constitution for the planet. This economic constitution has been written by and is almost exclusively for the benefit of the world's largest corporations. That is the issue here.

Let us be very clear that the WTO aims to deregulate international trade. It is bad enough that we are moving into a global economy where rules about the environment, social equality, social conditions and social programs are completely thrown out the window. What is worse is that the upcoming talks at the WTO will further and pursue with vigour the agenda of deregulation and trade liberalization. The consequence of doing that is it will actually limit the capacity of our government and all elected governments to set public policy in the interests of citizens of whatever nation-state. That is the danger.

Is it any wonder that the Liberal government is so intent on keeping this process very secret and behind closed doors. The Liberals do not want the Canadian people to know what is unfolding, just as they did not want the Canadian people to know what was unfolding with the multilateral agreement on investment.

Let us be very clear. In today's world, multinational and transnational corporations control more than one-third of the world's productive assets. We have arrived at the point where national and regional boundaries are almost meaningless. It is an environment where the role of the government has shifted from dealing with national issues to working at an international level. The role of government has become one of serving a market ideology. That is what we have arrived at.

If we ask most Canadians what they want from their government, they would say that they want to make sure that their government is operating honestly and openly. I think most Canadians would say that they want to make sure that there is a health care system that they can use, that there are good schools that their kids can go to, that there are adequate, safe and secure places to live and that they have a society that respects the environment. That is what most Canadians see as the role of government.

In the last decade we have seen a fundamental shift in the role of government. It has gone from dealing with public policy on the basis of what is in the public interest and the public good to public policy that is devoted to serving the market ideology in the pursuit of a globalized economy where nation rights are given over to multinational corporations.

The motion speaks to the very heart of democracy and sovereignty for Canada. It is about establishing who should make the decisions about our future. Is it the people of Canada and our elected governments or is it multinational corporations?

There is no question that the Liberal government approach to the upcoming WTO meeting in Seattle shows where it is at. It appears to be wholeheartedly in favour of embracing the agenda of the multinationals. What is on the line? I think there is more and more research that would give evidence to show that what is on the line is health care and our other social programs, the survival of family farms, our right to establish strong standards of environmental protection, our cultural institutions and now for the first time, our education system.

As the education spokesperson for the NDP, I want to focus for a few minutes on education. For the first time in the history of negotiations, Canada is allowing education to be put on the table at the upcoming WTO hearings. The Liberal government has completely abandoned Canada's traditional view that there should be exemptions for education in international trade negotiations. This is a very serious and disturbing departure for Canada.

In fact, the former trade minister said that Canada would seek to completely carve out health care and education under the MAI. Today apparently the position has changed. Education is now apparently being dictated directly by the WTO secretariat on educational services.

This is moving us in a direction where students and education are treated as commodities, where students are nothing more than consumers. The very core and accessibility of our educational services are being threatened. We have to be very concerned about this.

It could mean, for example, that foreign for profit educational institutions would have a guaranteed right to operate in Canada. It could mean that governments could not require them to hire local educators. It could mean that requirements of educational professionals and institutions would be subjected to WTO review. It could mean that government subsidies of any kind, including student loans and grants, would have to be given out on a non-discriminatory basis to public and private providers.

The Liberals claim that the risk to public education is very minimal and that only education supplied on a commercial basis will be impacted. The WTO secretariat itself has pointed out that commercial basis has not even been defined. What is at issue here is that the separation between what is public and what is private becomes very unclear.

Today's motion is very important. We in the NDP have brought it forward because we want to alert the Canadian public as to what is unfolding on the upcoming WTO hearings.

I am from Vancouver East in British Columbia. Massive organizing is going on among student organizations, groups like the Council of Canadians and the labour movement. They are extremely concerned about these hearings. They want to say to the government that placing the market ideology and the interests of transnational corporations above the interests of the people of Canada and what we should be doing as a democratically elected government is a very dangerous course and must be stopped.

The Conservative member said that we need rules based trade. The question is, for whom? We need rules based on public interest and a common good, not deregulation based on the super profits of multinational corporations.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, was chastising the Conservative member for misrepresenting what he said. However in the next breath, the New Democratic Party comes in and scaremongers, and brings up all these possibilities of issues that are somehow taking place at the WTO.

I would like to say to the hon. member that she misrepresents the Government of Canada in its position. I will mention two areas.

The member said that the Government of Canada was not interested in transparency, or in other words, of making sure that people know what is going on in either the MAI or the WTO negotiations. Had the hon. member been involved in the debate or the MAI study done by the trade subcommittee along with the WTO study, she would know that it was the Government of Canada that brought forward and put the MAI report on the table at the standing committee on international trade.

It was the Government of Canada that was promoting knowledge of Canadians to battle exactly that, to battle fearmongering, to battle those that would try to paint this in areas that it is quite simply not.

These are simply negotiations to get better rules of trade so that we have better access to other countries and that the agreements we already have in place work better.

I would ask the hon. member, before she rises up and fearmongers, that she get out and talk to Canadians as did the standing committee and the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada found very clearly that it was Canadians who told us that beyond all the fearmongering, they found it important that there were rules under which they could trade. They said that if we are going to create jobs, we need a rules based trading system to do that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

I can state categorically that the NDP is the only federal political party that has consistently gone out with information about the MAI and the WTO. There were some parliamentary hearings on the MAI but I have to ask the question, why was that? It was because the people of Canada and organizations who were involved in uncovering what the Liberal members were doing demanded that the Liberals actually come clean, put the issue on the table and have a public debate.

It was as a result of pressure from the Canadian public that the Liberals finally had to acquiesce and agree that they had to provide some information. Exactly the same thing is taking place now at the WTO.

For example, does the public know, because the Liberals have not disclosed it, that on the section on the importance of education even the WTO paper states that education can play a role in reducing inequality? Do Canadians know that in the Canadian government paper any reference to this role of promoting equality is actually deleted? It has actually gone further than the WTO position which is bad enough in and of itself.

When we say that there has been no disclosure and this is being done in secrecy, that is exactly the case. It is not fearmongering. It is trying to get the information out to the Canadian public that the WTO agenda and what is unfolding there, and what the position of the Canadian government is, are extremely harmful to every notion we have on what it means to be Canadians. That is not fearmongering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a case in point.

The hon. member says the Government of Canada's position on the education portion is that it has deleted that word. The hon. member should know that the Government of Canada has not put forward its position. It will be putting forward its position on November 16. I cannot understand what the hon. member could be talking about.

That is how these rumours start. That is how Canadians have been taken to the cleaners by groups that put out all this misinformation, and spread all these rumours that the Canadian government will be doing that.

I am not quite sure what the hon. member was reading from. There might have been documentation put out by the department in order to extend this debate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal Government of Canada that is taking the people of Canada to the cleaners on this and other issues.

I note with interest that the member has not denied that Canada's position will be any deletion to the reference from the WTO that education serves as an instrument of promoting equality.

Very clearly there has been an admission that not only does the Canadian government's position mirror what the WTO has put forward, and we are taking the script from the bureaucrats in Geneva, but we are going beyond that. The member has not been able to deny that.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague with whom I have worked on the committee. She talked about the broad based consultation process which has taken place, in particular with respect to the free trade area of the Americas and the WTO. She also mentioned that the FTAA report is out. I would remind her that the official opposition has released a dissenting report which dwells on one of the major points, the consultation process.

The so-called civil society now has direct access to the talks, bypassing elected officials. They should be consulting elected officials. They should not have direct input into the talks.

The provinces have not really been consulted. A meeting of the ministers does not mean consultation of the provinces.

We are suggesting that there be a committee to study treaties and that parliament be allowed to have free votes on these treaties.

I would like to have her thoughts on those points.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the official opposition for his question. He talked about broad based public consultation. This is the first time in the history of our trade negotiations that a parliamentary committee has travelled across Canada before the negotiations started to canvass Canadians on their priorities, interests and concerns for the upcoming WTO negotiations.

Let us face the fact that the WTO is a brand new organization. It only came into existence in 1995 and it may not be perfect. We listened to those concerns, because we cannot make it better if we do not understand what the problems are. That was the reason we went, and we will continue to go.

If my hon. colleague would look at the WTO report again he would see that there is a specific recommendation that there continue to be an ongoing role for parliamentarians to look at the impacts and the effects of trade agreements. The process does not stop here. It will be ongoing. I hope that the member, who is now a member of the committee, will continue to be there to canvass societal interests across Canada.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park on her excellent remarks with respect to free trade.

She said that it has been the most important vehicle for economic growth here in Canada in recent years. She also said that it has been one of the most important vehicles for economic development and job creation in Canada.

I would like to ask the member whether she thinks that, without free trade, Canada would now be looking at a budgetary surplus. Had it not been for the efforts of our government a number of years ago, would there be a budgetary surplus today?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we must remember one very important thing, and I did say this, that this government used free trade not just as an end in itself, but as a means to an end; as a way to ensuring a better quality of life for all Canadians. We do not just believe in unfettered trade and trade at any cost. That is why we sought consultations across the country.

Yes, trade is important. Forty per cent of our GDP depends on it. That is one of the factors which makes this country a great place to live. It is one of the reasons the government continues to work on job creation, ensuring that small and medium size businesses can export. Also, the government plays a very important role in ensuring that those most affected by free trade are taken care of, that adjustments are made, and that we are there to ensure that wealth is properly distributed.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and satisfaction that I rise today to speak about something that, in my view, has served the Canadian public very well.

Before going any further, I would simply like to respond to the earlier question from the Progressive Conservative member about the benefits of the free trade agreement put in place by the Progressive Conservative Party. I would merely remind him that the Liberal Party was the first party in Canada to support free trade. This goes all the way back to 1910 and 1911, to the time of Wilfrid Laurier.

Second, what the Conservatives did was mentioned. I feel we should also emphasize the nice job done by the Liberals, who then formed the official opposition. They ensured that some adjustments were made regarding certain definitions in the agreement, so that the opening of our borders did become a laudable initiative and a desirable thing for all Canadians. Again, the Liberal team, my team, deserves to be congratulated.

Today, I would like to do two things: first, put into perspective the importance of international trade for Canada and, second, stress the efforts being made by the government to provide greater access to international markets for our businesses.

I could go on all day about the government's efforts, but I will focus on specific points.

The first one is the importance of international trade. As Minister Responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec, I see on a daily basis that Canada's current economic growth is largely dependent on our businesses' ability to face foreign competition and to find a niche on international markets.

Let us take a look at some figures. Exports account for 40% of our GDP. This is the highest rate among G-7 countries. Moreover, the percentage of domestic production that relates to exports almost doubled over the past ten years. As for exports alone, in 1998, they reached a record level of $367 billion. Based on the impressive numbers for 1999, we can already anticipate that the 1998 level will be surpassed.

The trade balance is undoubtedly a good indicator. In August, we had a trade surplus of $3.6 billion. This means that, after the first eight months of 1999, we had already exceeded the total figure for 1998.

The numbers I just referred to are pretty much eloquent. They show that international commerce is vital for Canada, vital for our exports. We as a country profit from the global marketplace. We started talking about the global marketplace in theory decades ago, but we are actually facing a real situation. It is a real challenge for Canada as a country. It is also a real challenge for our economy.

As a government we want to make sure that all corporations in Canada, of which we are proud, will be given all the necessary tools to be involved in and to join with all nations in the global marketplace. At the end of the process we want to ensure that we have our share. Having our share means that we will have economic growth on a national basis and very good quality job creation in Canada.

Another very important part of international economy and the global marketplace is foreign investment. Foreign investment in our country brought us new technology, different knowledge, and the means to support the social safety net that has been in place in the country for decades.

So we can see the importance of international trade here in Canada. Given that our market is relatively small, the fact that borders are opening now, that tariff and non tariff barriers are disappearing, enormous opportunities are arising.

The Government of Canada, especially since our government took office in 1993, has understood this fact and put certain measures in place to enable our businesses to seize every opportunity.

First, one of the factors resulting in the government's support for business is, without a doubt and not often mentioned, our country's good financial health. It is a matter of ensuring economic stability, economic growth and control over public finances.

This results in a respectable and low rate of inflation for us and respectable rates of interest, as compared with all of the other G-7 members.

As a result, our businesses have a solid base nationally and a springboard for their first international venture.

The second factor I would like to draw to the attention of the House today is the Team Canada phenomenon. I think this is one of the finest means of international promotion any member of the G-7 has come up with in this era of globalization.

I am proud that our government is the one that developed such an initiative, whose purpose is to ensure that all departments and agencies—22 in all—work together to help businesses on the international level, and work in partnership with all provinces and territories as well, and also with the private sector. That is, of course, very important. I need not review all the success stories of Team Canada.

I would also like to draw attention to the important contribution of the Export Development Corporation in our international efforts. This is a somewhat unique financial institution which allows us to open doors to a sizeable number of Canadian businesses in more than 200 countries. This is another well-known tool and one that is doing an excellent job, providing support to businesses in very specific and specialized areas. These areas are vital to businesses.

There is also a fourth element: the changes we have made in recent years to our embassies and consulates. Canada wanted to be far more aggressive on the international scene. We wanted to really support our businesses. This is why we have expanded our commercial sections abroad and have begun a process to expand the number of trade commissioners internationally.

In conclusion, a considerable number of actions have been undertaken in order to help businesses and especially to ultimately democratize exports and ensure they are also accessible to small and medium sized businesses.

I shall close with the comment that, in partnership with a government with a great deal of vision, Canadian businesses will be able to conquer the export market and to bring to this country all the prosperity we deserve.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague talk about the government's record on free trade, but I would beg to differ. He talked about team Canada. I think team Canada's success is still under question, despite what the government says.

Let us look at the record on free trade. The Liberals opposed NAFTA and when they were elected they agreed to it. In the ITAR dispute which took place the government later recognized the impact on trade. In the WTO agriculture is not a priority. I do not even hear the government talking about agriculture. The Minister for International Trade has only been talking about culture. Perhaps the minister would like to address my comments.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the brand new economy in the global marketplace of course it has to take place within a framework. We all know that the framework set by all countries involved in the global economy is the World Trade Organization.

WTO, which was previously GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was established, as those who are very much aware of the situation know, a long time ago. It is a long process but it is a long process that shows to the population and the world as a whole that when countries are working together they can establish rules and parameters which ensure that corporations are able to compete against each other and that there are rules which have to be respected and from which every country can benefit.

As far as WTO is concerned, it is an ongoing process which will continue in Seattle shortly.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before putting my question to the Minister of National Revenue, I would like to caution members of the public and of non-governmental organizations that the NDP is using this official opposition day on the subject of free trade agreements to do a bit of grandstanding.

I would urge the public to look into the New Democratic Party's record of attendance at the many consultations that have been held and the many forums where it was given an opportunity to express its disagreement with the free trade agreements. NDP members were never there.

The Minister of National Revenue said that, in 1911, in the days of Wilfrid Laurier, the ruling Liberal Party was wonderful and supported free trade. This former prime minister must have been turning in his grave in the 1980s. It seems to me that, at the time, the Liberal Party's position on free trade was a lot less clear.

It also seems to me that, on the GST and NAFTA, the Liberals have broken two promises. With respect to environmental and social clauses, could the minister tell me whether his government maintained its 1993 position in the free trade agreements with Chile, Israel and the FTAA?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since time is short, I will say that I am sure that, even in the 1980s, when the free trade agreements were being discussed, Wilfrid Laurier could rest in peace, because my party has always been faithful to its original tenets, which were established by Wilfrid Laurier himself. This goes back to 1910, 1911.

Basically, what we did in the 1980s was to bring out various points of view in order to clarify the agreement. Further clarification would have been needed to avoid certain problems of interpretation that we have today and that would not exist if people had listened to us in the 1980s.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, who, as a general rule, is one member of the government who is rational. We cannot change history. I know very well that, in any case, excessive partisanship can become morbid and prevent us from seeing things as they are.

I was here in the 1988 campaign, when all of Quebec was mobilized to get the agreement ratified. We suffered the wrath of the Liberal Party at the time. It was extremely difficult to campaign objectively then. Despite all, the results are there.

I would like the minister to tell us the economic effects of the free trade agreement since its signing, in terms of volume of export. I would also like to know what it has meant in terms of net annual revenue for the government. I do not think we consider globalization or a free trade philosophy often enough, but it produces results.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my ten minute speech showed the benefits and the need to address globalization and the various export markets.

Obviously there were enormous positive effects, a source of particular pride to us, since we also played a lead role in some of the free trade agreements signed by our government, with which hon. members are very familiar.

What is also very important, in my opinion, is that when we took over the government in 1993, our economic sector was having a particularly hard time competing internationally, because the fiscal position of the country left something to be desired, as a result of the actions of the previous government.

We started by putting our fiscal house in order, which brought a breath of fresh air into private business, and prosperity is possible today because we have a responsible government.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity, along with my colleagues, to reply on behalf of the official opposition to the NDP supply day motion.

I am a bit surprised at the way the NDP is attacking this problem, especially after the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade held extensive hearings last year across the country to garner information about what people's positions would be. I am surprised the NDP members have taken the approach to sort of roll up the sidewalks and put fences up around Canada as if to say “Stop the world, we want to get off”.

It could just as easily have come from the Clark Tories. We saw their main spokesman, David Orchard, taking the same kind of tack for the Conservative Party. My understanding is that at a recent convention that was held in Winnipeg, a resolution was raised that would have free trade as one of the standing principles of the Clark Tory Party. It was voted down, if members can believe that. The party that voted for free trade in 1988 is now rejecting free trade under David Orchard and the Clark led Tories. It will be interesting to hear how Tory members speak to this motion today.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake.

I want to talk about free trade and where the whole concept of trade rules came from. It is important to have a little history on this subject.

It goes back to the first world war. Shortly after the first world war in the twenties, the United States became very protectionist, much like the NDP are suggesting for Canada today. The United States introduced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Those tariffs eventually got to about 60%. Naturally, its trading partners, the other countries around the world said that if they did not have access to the U.S. market, they did not have much choice but to put up their own tariffs. That started to happen and I suggest that was a main ingredient of the massive depression that hit in 1929, protectionism. It has not served anybody very well.

We went through the thirties, the depression in Canada. We know what happens when countries withdraw. The money supply gets tight and they protect their own markets. There was basically no trade in the world. We went through a very tough time. Then we went through the second world war. There was massive upheaval.

At the end of the second world war it was recognized that we needed some international stability. A number of international institutions were put in place through agreement, such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and of course the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades in 1948.

What happened as a result of the trade agreements is that we gradually came to have a liberalized set of rules to govern world trade in a number of commodities. At the time Canada was proposing that we should also move to have agriculture included but there was not enough support around the world to let that happen. Agriculture was viewed as a special category.

We know what has happened over the years. International trade has prospered in the areas of industrial goods. Tariffs are only at about 4% or 5% around the world.

Agriculture was only brought under trade rules for the first time with the Uruguay round agreement in 1993. It took seven years for the Uruguay round agreement to be achieved. The backdrop to that Uruguay round agreement was massive trade wars in agriculture.

To go a little further down the road, the reason for the agreement was that countries like Canada, Australia and Argentina, the smaller economies, knew that they could not compete with the massive treasuries of trade blocs like the United States and the European Union. They knew that if we were going to be exporting, and Canada is very much an exporting country with 40% of our GDP coming from exports, we were going to have to have some trade rules around that. There was no agreement to make the same kinds of cuts to tariffs and subsidies that there were on industrial goods.

They knew there would have to be an adjustment period. That adjustment period was to take place in the six year time frame from 1994 to 2000 with a small adjustment, about a 15% reduction in tariffs and subsidies.

The idea was to build in another trade round in 2000. Agriculture would be a mandated negotiation. We would try to cut these massive tariffs and subsidies we have around the world.

That paints the picture of where we are at. I have talked to a lot of farmers around Canada in the last several years. They are saying that we need to have trade rules around agriculture to bring down subsidies and tariffs because we cannot compete with them.

We see the government needing to respond by putting subsidies in place because the European Union spent $70 billion on agriculture subsidies last year. Essentially they are freezing us out of our market share by dumping their excess onto the world market.

At the same time, farmers are saying to us, “We need to have these rules. Go to Seattle. Go to the next trade round and negotiate tough. We are not going to survive otherwise”. How does that compare with the NDP approach? The NDP approach is to roll up the sidewalks and say, “Stop the world and let me off”.

I wonder how that is playing in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. Agriculture is hurting very desperately in Saskatchewan. I wonder how the NDP supply day motion to take us out of trade negotiations is playing in Saskatchewan. The farmers want more trade liberalization so that we can compete on the basis of production, not on the basis of subsidies with trade blocs around the world. I would suggest that the NDP is going to find out that it is not playing very well at all.

Members of the NDP are ignoring Sask Pool. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona is here. He was part of those hearings. He sat in on some of them when Sask Pool said, “Yes, we need more trade liberalization. We need it in agriculture”. A number of farm organizations from Winnipeg, Saskatoon and different places were calling for the same thing.

Embattled farmers around western Canada in particular are looking for more trade liberalization so we can get on an equal playing field as we have with other countries in terms of industrial tariffs.

That brings into play the role of the Liberal government in the trade negotiations coming up in the next round. It has taken a position that we are going to have a so-called balanced approach in agriculture, a balanced approach meaning we want access to all of the markets of all the other countries around the world based on their subsidies and tariffs, but we do not want to do the same thing here in Canada.

I do not think that is a credible position. We still have tariffs on some commodities in the range of 300%. I suggest that those tariffs are going to be attacked in the next trade round, as they should be.

The role of the government is to take a credible position. It is to create the economic climate that lets our companies do well. We have to have some trade rules. We have to trade. We are a major exporting country and that is not going to change. We are 30 million people with all kinds of natural resources. The service sector is growing at a very high rate. We need rules to work with.

The NDP has also said that it does not want any further negotiations on investment. It makes me wonder. Since the NDP provincial government went into power in B.C. in 1991, every subsequent year the amount of foreign and direct investment in British Columbia has dropped. B.C. is now a basket case province. I think the NDP is going to be thrown out of power there at the earliest opportunity.

It is no wonder that people do not want to invest in B.C. It is no wonder our mining companies are leaving that province in droves to go to places like Chile. The investment climate is not as it should be to create the proper environment for people to invest. It is as simple as that.

The NDP also says that we should not talk about investment rules. I know the NDP was very much against the MAI. I would suggest there needs to be some rules around investment.

The amount of direct foreign investment by Canadian companies and Canadians in general is now in excess of all the direct foreign investment in Canada. There is something like $240 billion of Canadian investment outside of Canada. I suggest some of that is because of the poor economic climate in Canada in places like British Columbia, but there are other reasons. Companies also want to take advantage of opportunities in places like Chile and many other spots. They are looking for some rules regarding expropriation to protect them in those kinds of investments.

I am really surprised with the NDP's approach. I know that we and the NDP have a major difference in policy, but I am surprised that it would be so regressive in its approach, especially when farmers in a province like Saskatchewan are asking for trade liberalization. Companies are asking for investment rules that would govern investment around the world. It is a very strange approach, one that we will definitely not be supporting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a wrong impression that the hon. member has.

If he had listened to my remarks earlier, I made a distinction between agriculture and the whole question of investment and services. I said that investment and services were new things that were being put on the WTO table in a way that they never have been before, but that agriculture has always been on the table at the GATT, as the member rightly recognized, and now at the WTO and that there was work to do with respect to agriculture. I wish he would not say things about us that are not true.

What we point out in the motion is that the government has gone a lot further than what the WTO actually requires and has put Canadian farmers in a very vulnerable position. I wonder if he agrees with that analysis or not. Perhaps he could address himself to something that the motion actually says, or that some New Democrat actually said as opposed to what he likes to imagine New Democrats have said. We have never said that there is not more negotiation to go on with respect to agriculture. We agree that there are problems that have to be addressed.

What we are unequivocally stating, and what he can disagree with properly and honestly because we have said it, is that there should be no further trade liberalization of investment and services until such time as there are enforceable mechanisms with respect to core labour standards, environmental regulations, et cetera. If he wants to disagree with that and attribute that position to us, fine. But let us not have attributed to us things that we are not actually saying. That is all I ask.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can only go by the actual motion that is before the House today. The NDP opposition motion in paragraph 2 calls for the government not to negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization. It could not be any clearer than that.

It seems to me that the NDP's approach is a little bit like the Liberal approach, that we can have our cake and eat too. It simply is not the case.

I gather the NDP member would want us to go there on a very narrow agenda and negotiate on certain sections of agriculture, although that is not how it reads in the supply day motion. After what the member said, I do not think that is a very practical solution.

We know that other countries, like the trading blocs of Europe, have a vested interest in keeping their subsidies and tariffs in place. If they were to come to those negotiations and they were only on agriculture, although I recognize that this is an approach that we could take, it would not be very helpful. We are all politicians. We know that it would be very tough for the European Union politicians to go home and say, “We negotiated on agriculture, but we are sorry, we lost”. They have to have more on the table than just agriculture to satisfy their public.

Some $70 billion in subsidies went into farmers' pockets in Europe last year, subsidies that are destroying our Canadian farmers. Basically the whole European Union trade bloc is off limits to our exports. Even worse than that, they overproduce as a result of these large subsidies. They dump that 10% or 15% overproduction on the world markets and it kills our agricultural prices.

We have a difference in points of view on how that can be achieved. I suggest it is through a larger trade round than the member suggested.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the NDP member who has just spoken correctly, there is a wide gap between what they think and what they write, and another equally wide between what they write and what they say.

This may explain our difficulty in understanding what they are getting at.

A Canada-wide consultation was carried out, in which the hon. member for Peace River was involved. We heard hundreds of representatives of NGOs, who were in favour of or opposed to free trade agreements and represented tens of thousands of Canadians.

I would like to hear what he thinks about the NDP's lack of participation in that consultative process.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the records will stand for themselves. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona was at some of those meetings. That is why I am surprised they would take this approach.

I thank my colleague for this intervention because we were part of that same committee travelling across the country. I was at all the hearings that were mandated and I heard farmers and farm groups say that they desperately needed trade liberalization in agriculture. They could not go on. When we do not have it we see what happens, that we have to get back into the subsidy business. I think most farmers believe that is not the best approach.

There were views pro and con at all those hearings on whether or not we should proceed, but I believe Canada has benefited greatly. That can be demonstrated by the amount of trade that has taken place between ourselves and the United States, the enhanced trade since the free trade agreement of 1988.

I notice the Liberal Party finally did an about-face on free trade. It has become newly converted supporters of it, which I welcome. I would only ask that the NDP follows suit.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought before the House by the NDP caucus. I will take its details on trade and various other issues and put them into the context of history so that New Democrats understood why the motion cannot be supported by virtually anyone in the House except dyed-in-the-wool socialists.

When we look at the history of trade around the world since recorded times, we see that the most prosperous countries ever to exist had gigantic trading patterns with their neighbours and countries other than themselves. They did not only trade internally, hoping to become more prosperous and have better lives for their citizens as we see in this motion. The Greeks and the Phoenicians relied on trade as do Japan, the U.S. and even Canada today. The motion before us would in effect slam our borders shut until such time as we could dictate to the world what the trading patterns and the details of them should be.

I refer directly to the motion which starts off by saying in the first paragraph that this government has sabotaged Canadian democracy. Does that make everyone feel good when trying to deal with trade issues and negotiate with partners?

The second paragraph says that the government should not negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment, and it goes on to talk about the WTO and the FTA. If that does not apply to agriculture, which is trade, I do not know what does. Probably the biggest complaint I have about the motion is that we should stop where we are, not move forward and not improve matters for farmers.

As the chief agriculture critic I will make a few more comments about agriculture than other trade issues. As I have pointed out, New Democrats say to the world that either it does as they say on trade agreements or they will not help improve conditions for Canadian farmers or third world farmers through greater trade liberalization and negotiations.

The last paragraph of the motion says:

That the government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers—

When we look at the benefits of trade liberalization for Canadian farmers we know they are better off because of the greater number of exports. Cattle is a great example, as are grains such as canola. Everything is just that much better by having liberalized free trade.

In the last paragraph of the motion the New Democrats are trying to say that Canadian farmers have hit upon a hard time. They had better not be blaming trade liberalization for that. They had better be blaming this government and the previous Conservative government and the signing of the trade treaty in 1993.

It was a start, but when they came home they totally destroyed domestic support programs for agriculture which farmers needed to compete on a level playing field with our neighbours to the south and Europeans. They maintained their domestic support and we slashed ours and put our farmers into bankruptcy. That can only rest on the heads of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

However, the solution according to NDP members would be to stop everything and seal the border. I am paraphrasing a bit because trade would continue, but in essence they want to stop everything and start to talk about getting their way and dictating to the world how things should be before Canada continues with the negotiations.

Reform has been taking good actions and doing what it can in Ottawa. We certainly have solutions to the farm crisis to which the NDP alludes. In the short term domestic support has to be raised with the idea of keeping our farmers competitive with our trading partners who are distorting the market through their domestic subsidy practices.

Also the safety net programs have to be repaired or made current to meet today's conditions. We have seen the failure of AIDA to address the primary needs of many full time producers on average farms. The AIDA program has not served them. This is not a fault of trade. It is a fault of the current government which is more worried about the budget and what the voters think in non-farming areas than it is about farmers who are trying to feed the nation.

One pillar of the Reform Party is that we must have free and fair trade abroad. It is time, as I said, for the government to launch a concerted action to reduce and eventually eliminate foreign subsidies. I know our negotiators will talk about it in the trade negotiations, but what would be the matter with the Prime Minister getting on plane, taking probably the agriculture and trade ministers with him, going to Europe to meet with the Europeans and telling them point blank that enough is enough and they will fight them to the end in this regard? That never happens.

The government, as part of the solution to the hardship experienced by the farmers, could reduce the costs it imposes on farmers out west, in Ontario, in the maritimes and in B.C. For instance, the four cent federal excise tax on every litre of fuel adds up to a lot of money. Many of us still tend to think in terms of gallons. If we multiply that by five it amounts to 20 to 30 cents cents a gallon which farmers are paying. A tractor running in a field burning up 20 gallons an hour soon runs up to a lot of money. Our government could be taking action in that area.

We could help farmers if we would look at letting them do more value added. We have the case of prairie pasta producers who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by further processing their durum wheat into pasta flour and products.

What happens is that the Canadian Wheat Board says that it is the controller on behalf of the federal Government of Canada of the wheat trade in the country and that farmers will either deal with the board or be thrown in jail, unless it happens to be Frank Hurley who gets a slap on the wrist.

The average farmer in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will go to jail under this government for selling his own wheat. If it is the last thing I do before I leave this parliament, I guarantee that it will be a voluntary wheat board where a farmer has a choice as to whether or not he is in there participating and sharing in pooling the money he receives for his grain.

I will talk for a minute about the movers of the motion, members of the NDP who aspire to be in government. Certainly the Canadian public and voters do not intend to give them that opportunity. To compare what the NDP has done in parliament with what the Reform Party has done, we only need to look at the Address in Reply to the Speech for the Throne. The leader of the NDP said three little sentences on agriculture. The leader of the opposition from the Reform Party said approximately five or six paragraphs with some real meat and some real understanding of agriculture in Canada. That is the importance we place on it.

In the Standing Committee on Agriculture members of the Reform caucus presented motion after motion which initiated action and got inquiries going into the income crisis. We have had supply day after supply day on agriculture, not on some phony trumped up motion on trade that sets out a manifesto for the NDP with which nobody else agrees. I invite any questions that anyone might like to ask of me.