Debates of Nov. 4th, 1999

Supply

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little confusing listening to the parliamentary secretary. He was the member that railed probably harder than any single member in the House against the free trade agreement. He spent a career from 1988 to 1993 constantly on his feet fighting that issue. He swallowed himself whole on this issue if you listen to his speech. I am wondering when this miraculous convergence took place. I have sent out for some of his exact words on and his criticism of the free trade agreement, the NAFTA agreement and any other agreement which related to world trade, free trade and Canada's trading position.

The question is when did this convergence take place? Was it immediately following the 1993 election? Was it a gradual convergence, or as I stated earlier, did he simply swallow himself whole on the whole issue of free trade?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's confusion. If the hon. member looked at exactly what I said during those times, I was against the free trade agreement that was being signed with the United States at that time.

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

It is the same one we have now.

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

I do not think anybody on this side ever came out and said that we were against freer trade. I will tell the member why.

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

It still exists.

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

Hold on. The member had his chance. The hon. member should know that the problem with that deal was that dumping and countervail was still available to the United States, which would make it more difficult for Canadian companies to get in. That is only one aspect of it.

The hon. member should know that when governments are looking at these issues they have to look at the impact they will have on Canadian jobs. Because of what we did, getting rid of the $42 billion deficit that we were left at the time, and also dealing with increasing and promoting international trade, we were able to create those jobs and make sure that Canadians were successful in the working of the agreement.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the parliamentary secretary's government that has not consulted Canadians on these trade issues. We also have a problem with not consulting the provinces. That is why we have a bulk water problem.

The consultation process the government has initiated is probably responsible for many of the myths we are hearing. Can the member talk about the consultation problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member would have been aware, had he sat in the committee, that the provinces which were there, particularly the New Democratic province of British Columbia, came forward with different views and opinions on what we said. However, they said they were consulted very well by this government.

If the member went back to the records of the committee he would find that the Government of Canada consulted very widely with all the ministers of trade of all the provinces. We find that to be a very important aspect—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to ask my hon. colleague opposite to stop saying I am new to this portfolio. I have been in this portfolio for almost eight months.

It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from the NDP. Frankly, I believe a debate on this issue is long overdue and I think Canadians feel the same way. Canadians deserve to be informed about our international agreements.

The official opposition believes strongly that all sectors of Canadian society should be encouraged to participate and present their views on trade matters in a constructive manner. That includes business representatives, labour, environmental and academic groups, as well as all other sectors of society.

We believe that domestic consultations must be encouraged within all countries that are signatories to these agreements. However, direct involvement of the so-called civil society, as encouraged by the FTAA civil society committee, is a cause for concern to us.

The official opposition feels that unelected, unaccountable organizations must channel their views through their national elected governments which are directly accountable to the voters. The provinces must be consulted where negotiations of a free trade agreement touches directly on provincial areas of jurisdiction.

We know that failure by this government to consult the provinces in a meaningful way during the negotiations of the NAFTA have resulted in a situation where bulk water that is located entirely within provincial boundaries could come under the NAFTA rules in certain circumstances. Now we have the government scrambling to create legislation that will address that issue.

Similarly, while setting national emission targets during the Kyoto protocol negotiations the federal government did not adequately consult the provinces, whose co-operation is essential in meeting Canada's commitments.

We believe that parliament must be consulted. The final version of a treaty like the NAFTA or the FTA should be tabled in parliament for at least 30 sitting days before the government or any department takes action.

We feel that a special joint committee should be established to study treaties, review agreements and hold public hearings, including the provincial legislatures. Then the treaty must be ratified by parliament in a free vote before it becomes binding on Canada.

Canada is a trading nation. Our present and future prosperity and growth are largely dependent on international trade.

Just five years ago Canada exported 25% of its gross domestic product. Today it is at 42%. The vast majority of the 1.7 million new jobs created since 1993 is the result of the increase in our exports.

Canadian exports to the United States increased 80% over the first five years of the NAFTA, rising from $151 billion in 1993 to $271 billion in 1998. It is important for us to remember that Canada is a relatively small trading nation. Consequently we must seek consensus with other trading nations to ensure that Canadian companies are able to participate in the global economy in a fair and equitable manner.

Canadian exporters and investors need a rules based system that will guarantee a level playing field and give Canadian companies easier access to world markets. I am pleased to note that even the NDP agrees with this point.

We cannot turn back the clock. Globalization is a reality and the impact on the Canadian way of life is real and beneficial. We cannot simply stop the process and pretend that the world is not changing.

I would argue that this is exactly what my colleagues from the NDP want to do. This is why I simply cannot agree with the motion put forward today by my colleague from the NDP.

I would like to quote the new head of the World Trade Organization, Mike Moore, who has pointed out that poverty, not trade, is the enemy. He said: “Every WTO member government supports open trade because it leads to a higher living standard for working families”.

I point to a recent study by the George Morris Centre which indicated that Canadian farmers will benefit greatly if this WTO round eliminates all tariff and non-tariff barriers in international trade.

The government's own members suggest that removing tariffs and other trade barriers could add $20 billion to $50 billion to the pockets of Canadian farmers, processors and exporters.

It is regretful that the NDP favours removing Canadians from the prosperity offered by globalization. It is regretful that members of the NDP do not believe that Canadian entrepreneurs have the capacity or the ingenuity to compete on a global scale. It is sad that the NDP continues to use the “sky is falling” type of tactic when discussing free trade with Canadians.

The official opposition believes that the WTO should concentrate on liberalizing trade around the world. That in itself is an enormous task. The WTO is simply not the appropriate forum to deal with important and complex issues like labour standards, environmental protection, culture and human rights.

The WTO is a highly specialized body with a staff of trade experts who lack social policy experience. Social activists should look at more appropriate bodies like the United Nations or the International Labour Organization to develop international rules on these types of issues, including enforcement rules.

It is certainly important to deal with issues like these. However, these important issues are not within the mandate of the WTO, nor would I argue they should be.

I would like to conclude my comments today by simply reiterating the importance of free trade and Canada's participation within a rules based trading system. Canada is a nation that depends a great deal on trade for its prosperity. Therefore, it is up to the government of the day to ensure that Canadian companies are given a level playing field upon which to compete.

The crisis on our farms is a good example of the need for a level playing field and the effect of government inaction. This is precisely what the WTO, the NAFTA and the FTAA provide. It is difficult enough to deal with complex issues regarding the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade without adding the complexity of social issues, as advocated by the NDP and our socially active international trade minister.

We must remember that in the case of the WTO there are 134 countries involved, each with its own views and priorities. Forcing our views on them would be soundly rejected. We do not want to earn the nickname of being the ugly Canadians.

Canada's participation in international agreements must be a democratic, transparent and accountable process where all Canadians have meaningful input. Working Canadians will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a strong rules based trading system.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was referring to the hon. member as being relatively new to the portfolio, I was of course comparing it to the fact that he was not around during the time when all of the large public consultations took place with Canadians at the committee level. The hon. member will know that the foreign affairs and international trade committee held a broad range of consultations across Canada to get people's views. I appreciate that his party recognizes how important it is to consult Canadians on this issue.

In these two speeches we have seen why the Government of Canada's balanced approach to this issue is so important. The New Democratic Party wants to build walls around Canada. It wants to make sure that we put up these barriers and that somehow Canada can create jobs and prosperity when we have a wall built around us. Then we have the Reform Party, which would erase the 49th parallel. It is more interested in making sure that Canada is open for sale.

The hon. member should be aware of the importance that the Government of Canada puts on consulting Canadians. He should also be aware that there is a role for the Government of Canada in making sure there is protection for certain things that Canadians see as being importantt—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am trying to allow time for two comments and I cannot allow any member to go on too long. The hon. member for Calgary East.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that I did take part in those committee hearings. I travelled to Ontario and Quebec with that committee.

The parliamentary secretary would like to simplify the situation by saying that the Reform Party would eliminate the 49th parallel. That is absolute nonsense.

Of course we know that the Liberal Party does not have a policy. It always follows public opinion. If public opinion shifts to that side, it will move to that side.

Yes, the Reform Party is in agreement and would like consultations to take place with Canadians to ensure that there is a fair rule based system in the world. However, that does not mean eliminating the 49th parallel, as the Liberals would like to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the issues of poverty and trade and the fact that the director general of the WTO said that poverty is the enemy, not trade.

Our position is that the increasing levels of poverty in the world and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, both within countries and between countries, is a direct result of the kind of trade liberalization that we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years, and that in fact trade is the problem, or at least the current model of trade is the problem. It is not a question of not trading. Of course, we continue to be misrepresented in that respect, as if we want to build walls and all of the other things that the Conservatives used to say to the Liberals and the Liberals did not like, but now they have no qualms about saying them to other people. It is not a question of building walls; it is a question of what kind of rules we are going to have.

Finally, the member said that the WTO is not the proper venue for dealing with a lot of these questions: labour questions, environmental questions and social questions. While that may be so, it is not the NDP position, I want to inform the hon. member, that these things have to be dealt with at the WTO. What we are saying is that they have to be dealt with either at the WTO or at the ILO, or UNESCO, or whatever other international institution we might designate, but they have to be dealt with in an enforceable way before there is any further trade liberalization.

That is our position. It is not that the WTO has to do these things, but—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary East on a brief response.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member's comments and then I will talk with him later.

The hon. member pointed to the poverty issue and said, from what I understand, that trade liberalization has increased this gap. I absolutely differ with him on that point. Trade liberalization has actually helped to remove poverty.

The world has been trading for centuries. I come from a country that had a socialist system. I have seen the effects of socialism, of closing the borders to trade, on the poor. I totally disagree with him on that point of view.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate.

Let me say from the outset that we agree with some of the NDP's arguments. Like the NDP, we would like to see an environmental clause, a social clause, a labour clause and also a cultural exemption. However, we completely disagree with the motion where it says that Canada should not negotiate, that it should not be there without first securing enforceable international rules on core standards, and so on.

Unfortunately, such a proposal does not take into account past experience. I do not know if the NDP member was ever involved in a negotiation process, but I cannot figure why she would ask for the securing of enforceable international rules before negotiations are undertaken.

However, I do understand why the effects of globalization, whether financial or commercial, would be raised before that meeting. That is understandable.

My point is based on the 1997 report on human development, which states:

With 10% of the world's population, the least developed countries now account for only 0.3% of world trade, or half as much as they did 20 years ago. Over half of all developing countries are ignored when it comes to direct foreign investments, with two thirds of such investments going to only eight developing countries.

This was the situation in 1997. It states further:

In real terms, commodity prices are currently 45% lower than the average for the 1980s, and 10% lower than the lowest level ever recorded during the Great Depression of the 1930s, more precisely in 1932.

I could go on and on. I will simply add this quote from the same report:

As for the income share of the richest 20% and the poorest 20%, it has grown from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 78 to 1 in 1994.

While globalization offers major opportunities, it can also increase inequalities between rich and poor countries, and between rich and poor people within a country, including Canada.

What means are available to those wishing to change this trend? Just international negotiation, with the backing of an informed public, and of equally informed groups equipped to defend their position.

It must not be forgotten that the MAI, much criticized for having been negotiated among the rich countries only, was finally abandoned as an object of negotiation by the OECD, in response to lobbying. Some of the lobby groups were from Quebec and from Canada. Why? Because what many of them wanted was to have the negotiations take place within the World Trade Organization.

We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that there must be a negotiation session. It must encompass a cultural exemption, along with promotion of cultural diversity, and inclusion of a social clause, an environmental clause and another one on the respect of human rights.

We add, emphatically, that Quebec must speak for itself in this negotiation, in order to be in a position to staunchly defend its own interests.

This negotiation is an opportunity for 134 countries to get together, some of them poor countries, then the United States, with the European Union as a newly-formed counterbalance to them, and Canada, which is seeking to gain allies, and Japan as well. This will be an opportunity for them all to bring out their proposals.

We know right away that negotiations will require, among other things, that the U.S. modify its position somewhat.

I would hasten to add for my NDP colleagues that even the United States is beginning to take international pressures into consideration, especially since the failure of the MAI at the OECD. We learn on the Internet today that the United States made a proposal that would go even further than that of the European Union on the formation of a task force on the relationship between working conditions and trade.

This subject is of course taboo for many developing countries, which see it as a barrier. This forum is where negotiations are taking place. Consultations were held in Canada, and in Quebec as well. But what we in the Bloc Quebecois are saying is that Quebec must speak for itself, parliamentarians must follow this closely, the process must be transparent, and parliamentarians must vote on this agreement.

This arises from the need to bend existing and general rules on the relationship of power among countries and within countries, between the poorest and the others. Of course, Canada's and Quebec's growth must be maximized, but in doing so, we must take account of the rules we set here, which we want followed worldwide.

This negotiation must be accompanied by transparency. Quebec must be present, and the public must be given as much information as possible so that we have agreements that give those most in need hope in the face of this accelerated globalization and its negative effects.

Globalization, however, also represents an opportunity to develop a new solidarity. It is also an opportunity, as in the case of the MIA, to use new means of communication like the Internet, which has made it possible to secure the agreement of players from all continents who would otherwise not have been able to take part.

But this forum where negotiations take place is essential. In each of these countries—and this will be done in Quebec—stakeholders will have to get going and support our demands and, at the same time, understand that, while the interdependence of countries may be vital to improving everyone's fortunes, without rules, and tribunals to apply them, it will always be the biggest and strongest countries that will carry the day.

The fledgling WTO tribunal has, however, ruled in favour of small countries, against the United States for example. And Canada and Quebec were also successful in defending cases of particular importance to us.

I would be extremely pleased if the NDP were to tell us that, although its goal was to generate a debate, it too was going to take part in examining these negotiations, in demanding that they be transparent and that the interests of the most disadvantaged be represented. But negotiations are essential, because otherwise Quebec and Canada and less developed countries may suffer. All countries that rely on external trade need these negotiations.

I would add that Lionel Jospin, France's Prime Minister and a committed socialist, summarily dismissed those who advised against taking part in the WTO negotiations.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by my colleague.

I too am an elected representative from Quebec. This country's culture is very important to me and, as a Canadian MP representing a Quebec riding, my wish is to ensure that Canada's unique culture is protected.

Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that the Government of Canada is really the one which has, on numerous occasions, demonstrated that it is in place precisely to ensure the protection of what is unique about Canada.

We are in favour of consultation, nevertheless. We have consulted with the provinces and will continue to do so. But when negotiations are involved, these are government to government.

I can assure the Canadians and Quebecers in our audience that, in connection with the points raised by the hon. member relating to environment and culture, it is our duty to ensure that the Government of Canada protects all aspects of Canada's culture, throughout Canada, for ours is a unique country.

We have a specific identity in the eyes of the world. It is truly the duty of the Canadian government, a duty we accept, to continue to consult the provinces and to ensure that we have the best negotiations, precisely in order to protect Canadian culture.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, that of cultural exemption, I would first like to say that, unfortunately, the committee report did not take up the cultural exemption again. The Bloc Quebecois pointed this out in its dissenting opinion.

We support looking for new means, for another venue to negotiate on culture. In the meantime, however, we believe strongly that the cultural exemption must be upheld.

Members will pardon me if I think that if Quebec, which is vitally concerned, is simply giving effect to the international extension of its jurisdictions, as based on the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine and accepted in other places, it is strictly entitled to do so. We would point out as well that some countries permit the presence of provinces when international negotiations are taking place and they involve the international extension of their jurisdictions. So, we say that Quebec should be there.

As for the other elements, if Quebec is involved in implementation, it must be included in the negotiations. We saw what kind of problems can arise in other respects when Canada signs agreements, treaties and conventions that the provinces are to implement, but does so in their absence.

I am not speaking on behalf of the others, but I say that Quebec must be present and speak for itself. This is the extension of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. It is the extension of our jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the role the hon. member has played in this issue, but she must be aware, in terms of whether or not Quebec should be at the table, that aside from the consultations which obviously go on before the Government of Canada puts forward a position at the WTO generally there are representatives of all provinces in Geneva or wherever the negotiations will take place to help the Government of Canada put forward that position. This time it will take place in Seattle.

The Government of Canada has always worked very well not only with the province of Quebec but with the other provinces in terms of putting forward forcefully the argument on culture and the argument on many other areas of provincial responsibility.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what I hear from the parliamentary secretary, given the arbitration to be done, we still believe that, on this particular issue of cultural exemption, Quebec should speak for itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in the debate on the NDP supply motion on free trade.

I wish I had been part of the debate and the discussions in 1988-89 dealing with the Progressive Conservative position on free trade, the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement that came thereafter. I congratulate the NDP because of its consistency. It was obviously consistent in its position back in 1988-89.

NDP members were the fearmongers of the day. They were isolationist and protectionists. They wanted to build trade boundaries around the country back then. They are consistent when they stand before us today in that they still deal with protectionist and isolationist issues. They would like to see nothing better than Canada breaking all ties with trading partners, which obviously cannot happen.

The Liberals on the other hand are not quite so fortunate in being consistent. The parliamentary secretary must get whiplash in doing a 180° turn on the free trade and NAFTA issues when his party was vehemently opposed to any free trade agreements that were being negotiated back in 1988-89.

I can only say that Canadians are very fortunate that they had a government then which had vision and foresight. If it were not for that government which stood in the House and fought for open markets, the $42 billion deficit the member continually speaks of would still be a $42 billion deficit.

The 42% GDP increase of which the parliamentary secretary spoke was a result of the free trade agreements. That is what retired the deficit and not the Liberal policy which was put into place since then. Quite frankly no positive policy has come from that bench since 1993. I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving credit where credit is due to the Progressive Conservative Party and its development of free trade policies.

Let me talk a bit about free trade. I will just try to gloss over it and deal particularly with the agriculture, about which I do have a tendency of knowing a little more. I will take my own constituency as a microcosm with respect to free trade. The NDP, as I said earlier, would like to build boundaries and not see the open boundaries of the globalized market.

Let me give an example. A fertilizer manufacturer in my constituency exports the majority of its production into the United States, our major trading partner. Eighty per cent of what we produce in trade goes to the United States. Let us make no mistake about that. It is a marketplace of 300 million people and we are a marketplace of 30 million people. We depend on the United States as our market.

A pharmaceutical company in my riding produces a drug called Premarin. It is a global market but most of it is being produced in Canada and sold in the United States.

The NAFTA agreement took tariffs and barriers off hogs. Today a hog processing plant in Brandon, Manitoba, employs up to 2,000 people. The majority of its export market is in the United States and Asia. NAFTA removed the tariff barrier, and that is why jobs have been created in my constituency.

A company in my area produces steel buildings which are sold in the United States. Most of its production goes to the United States, creating jobs in my constituency and in Canada.

Another wonderful little company that works for 3M sends 90% of its product to Chicago and Los Angeles. It has created 165 jobs in my riding and its product goes to the marketplace in the United States.

A company just outside my riding produces french fries, not for our table, not for our market, but for Minneapolis. It provides all of the french fries for McDonald's in Minneapolis, an open trading partner with an open trading border.

Members of the NDP would like to stop that trade. They would like to put up barriers. We would not be in the position we are in today as Canadians with our own quality of life and standard of living if it were not for trade.

Let me talk about faith in our labour force and our economy. I do not have any fears about competing with the globe because I have faith in Canadians. I have faith in our abilities. I have faith in our ability to capitalize. I have faith in our ability to produce. That is what trade is all about.

We can compete in the global market, but in order to compete in that marketplace we need a rules based system. That is what we have with a rules based system. We have it with NAFTA and our trading partners in Mexico and the United States. We also have it with the WTO. We as Canadians require rules based trading more so than our partners. We have taken advantage of that rules based trading. We must continue to exercise our negotiating skills at the WTO table. I would suggest that not being at the WTO in Seattle at the end of this month would be the worse possible thing we could do for Canadians and for our standard of living.

This NDP motion speaks to enforcing labour standards, environmental protection, culture diversity, the preservation of health care and public education. These areas are no more threatened today than they were 10 years ago because we have rules based trade agreements in place and a dispute mechanism that goes along with them.

I would argue that trade agreements and trade liberalization do not put at risk these aspects of Canadian social fabric or the ability of government in power to exert effective diplomatic negotiations with our trade allies. Without question, Canada's diplomatic relations with our trading partners, and particularly with the U.S., have deteriorated under the Liberal government.

We would not have had the number of trade disputes we have had with the Americans had we been more effective at the diplomatic level. Once again the current Liberal government could learn a lesson from the previous Conservative government.

The notion of scrapping chapter 11 of NAFTA would only do more harm than good to Canadian foreign investment. Free trade has rules and it works both ways. We are the major benefactor of those rules.

Let me talk about agriculture. Canada continues to enjoy a multibillion dollar trade surplus in this sector, with Canada being a net exporter of more than $2.5 billion annually, which was opened up by the NAFTA and the free trade agreements. I find it baffling that the NDP is suggesting that we not pursue trade liberalization when farmers would be on Canada's list of endangered species if it were not for free trade.

Free trade is vital to both the agricultural industry and international trade. With the WTO negotiations beginning in November in Seattle, it is important for Canada as a free trading nation to set realistic goals as we go to the negotiating table. From what I have heard from the government they are not realistic. I would go as far as to say that it is being terribly naive.

The Progressive Conservative Party continues to believe in a comprehensive strategy required to ensure the Canadian interest in global agricultural trade is protected at the upcoming World Trade Organization talks. The government must continue to adopt the principles of the previous Progressive Conservative government in the pursuit of free trade in the agricultural sector. The government must push foreign governments to further reductions of export subsidies on agricultural products and the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers.

We are committed to pursuing an active and aggressive trade policy to secure new markets on behalf of Canadian agriculture. Changes in consumer preference involving the food industry and trade liberalization will affect the future of our industry. We must ensure that there is open dialogue with both industry and consumers on how we should compete in international and domestic markets.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has told people time and time again that Canada's supply managed industries and STEs will not be touched at the upcoming WTO negotiations. Yet in Washington this past year the standing committee on agriculture was told time and time again that supply management and state trading enterprises were number one and two on the American agenda. I do not believe that the minister of agriculture or our trading negotiators have taken that into consideration. They are going to the WTO in a very naive fashion.

I wish I had other opportunities to give counsel to the parliamentary secretary and the government on how to handle trade because we were the ones who put free trade into place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. While I listened to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris I had a horrible flashback to the kind of comprehensive intellectual dishonesty that we saw during the time of the free trade debate in the House when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power.

Why can we not relate in the House to what people actually say? There is enough to debate and enough to disagree about in terms of what we actually say. We say that we should get rid of the chapter 11 investor state dispute mechanism. That is something to debate. The member says he is for it and we are against it. We could debate it.

Did I ever say that NDP wants Canada to sever all its relations with its trading partners? I talked about a rules based trading regime. I talked about what rules we did not like, what rules we liked, and what rules we would like to see in place. Did I ever say that it was NDP position to sever our relationships with all our trade partners? This is the kind of garbage that is not worthy of this place. Let us at least debate what each other said, instead of just making up stuff.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact members of the NDP said that getting rid of chapter 11 would make our trade ability with our trade partners impossible. That means that we would no longer be in an open globalized trading market. That is not what Canadians want.

For every $1 billion in trade in this country 15,000 jobs are created. Most of the jobs I spoke of in my dissertation are unionized jobs. They are jobs I am sure the member would love to see more of, but they come about because of open trade. To get rid of chapter 11 would be to stop that and close the doors on that type of trade. I am sure the member would agree that 15,000 jobs for every $1 billion of trade is very important not only for him and his members but also for other Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that somehow the Liberal government, the Government of Canada just picked up where the Tories left off on this issue. In fact we did not just pick up. We had to deal first with a $42 billion deficit. We then had to set out a situation in trade, make new trading agreements and take the focus really away from just a focus on the United States that the previous government had with trade and take that focus around the world.

That is why the Prime Minister, through his team Canada exercises, has been promoting international trade and Canada's interests around the world. We felt it was important to get away from just focusing on the United States.

We also had to deal with an economy at a time when jobs were being lost. That is why we had to focus on not only the deficit and the debt but also on job creation.

The hon. member also stated that the government has not consulted with Canadians. He should talk to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all the different groups across Canada. The Government of Canada did travel across the country and talked to many agricultural groups to make sure that the position we put forward in Seattle was a position that reflected the views of these groups.

I would encourage the hon. member to talk to these groups because they are well aware of this.