Debates of Nov. 4th, 1999

Supply

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the rambling remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Last week, I attended the hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Two prairie premiers came to testify that they needed money and that AIDA was no longer meeting their needs. It is strange that the parliamentary secretary is telling us that everything is fine in Canada when these two premiers had quite the opposite to say.

I find it very odd. I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. How will he meet the growing expectations of Canadian taxpayers, who want the Canadian government to ensure that genetically modified foods are labelled? I would like him to answer that question.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about novels and novel foods in the same breath.

The agriculture committee had hearings into genetically modified foods two years ago, long before it became the issue of the day. The hon. member should talk to her colleague about the contributions we have made to the government's position on genetically modified foods and on labelling.

We have talked to consumers, scientists and all the partners who were involved in biotechnology. We are on a plane that will take us to either voluntary or compulsory food labelling.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate brought to us by the New Democratic Party, particularly as regards the reference to cultural diversity in the party leader's motion.

I want to reaffirm to the House that the government sees Canada as a strong player in the world. We also know that culture cannot be compromised as we work to create economic opportunities for Canadians throughout our trade policy.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister who just recently spoke about the government's commitment to the preservation of Canadian culture. He said “We must work together to protect this diversity, recognizing that cultural goods and services are much more than mere commodities for sale. They touch on something more fundamental and intangible, our identity”.

No one can question the commitment of this government to the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity both at home and abroad. As clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne, our diversity is a source of strength and creativity, making us modern and forward looking. Given the importance that the government places on cultural diversity, we also indicated in the throne speech that we will work to develop a new approach internationally to support this diversity of cultural expression in countries around the world.

Here in the House of Commons on October 20 the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledged the work of the Standing Committees on Canadian Heritage, Foreign Affairs and International Trade in developing a creative solution to preserve and promote global cultural diversity. This solution is the creation of a new international instrument on cultural diversity.

The committees developed a study based on the recommendation of the cultural industry's sectoral advisory group on international trade, better known as SAGIT. I would like once again to reiterate this government's appreciation of the work of all of those involved in this debate.

The purpose of this instrument would be to set out clear rules allowing Canada and other countries to retain policies ensuring the promotion of their culture, while respecting the rules governing world trade, and giving cultural products access to export markets. The agreement would also recognize the importance of cultural diversity in the social and economic development of a country, as well as for the whole world.

Canada will have recourse to a whole range of tribunals to which it can turn for support in enforcing this instrument, including the international network on cultural policy, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, the Francophonie, and our bilateral relations. Until these discussions have taken place, we will continue to envisage all solutions.

The new international instrument will evolve over time, building on the advice and consensus gained from ongoing dialogue, both here at home and abroad.

During the preparation for these talks on the new international instrument, Canada will continue to insist, in all related international agreements, on maximum flexibility to achieve its cultural policy objectives.

With respect to the WTO, we are working closely with members to build support for language in the declaration that will emerge from the Seattle ministerial meeting to recognize the importance of cultural diversity. The Minister for International Trade has made it quite clear that this is a priority issue for Canada. In upcoming trade negotiations we will secure our ability to design, implement and maintain policies that serve to strengthen our culture.

We are also intensifying the dialogue which the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been championing over the past several years to raise the profile of cultural diversity as an important international policy issue. Many governments have cultural policies aimed at preserving and promoting their cultural diversity. These are the building blocks for further international co-operation which will ensure that culture is a key consideration on the international agenda.

Canada has been a leader at the international level in stressing the importance of cultural diversity. We will continue, with the support of provincial governments and the public, to take part in discussions on this issue, and specifically on the best way to ensure that countries can preserve the flexibility required to pursue their cultural policy objectives.

The 1998 UNESCO intergovernmental conference on cultural policies for development held in Stockholm concluded that cultural goods and services are not like other traded goods and services. Cultural diversity is an important condition for peaceful co-existence.

While globalization can enrich cultural relations between countries, it may also be detrimental to creative diversity and cultural pluralism. Building on the Stockholm agenda the subsequent Ottawa international meeting on cultural policy in June 1998 established an international network of ministers of culture. It also urged countries to consider how the principles of cultural diversity could further be integrated into key aspects of international relations.

The international network on cultural policy has responded to an international need to discuss cultural diversity and address the challenges that globalization poses for culture. The network has grown from 19 initial ministers to the current membership of 37, representing a broad spectrum of countries and regions around the world. I am sure the member opposite will recall that meeting of June 1998. She was one of the participants in that meeting, which was held in Ottawa.

Among the concrete results of the second meeting of the culture ministers in Oaxaca, the ministers agreed to set up a liaison office to support the follow up and the work of the cultural diversity network. This office will be located in Canada.

Moreover, under the co-ordination of the contact group, interested countries have agreed to conduct specialized work on the theme of cultural diversity and globalization, with findings to be released at the network's next international meeting, in Greece, in September 2000.

The network that the government was key in developing will be central to the debate on the preservation of cultural diversity well into the next century. Subsequent meetings will be held in Switzerland in 2001 and in South Africa in 2002.

The government has done important work to raise the profile of culture and the need for cultural diversity on the international agenda. In fact, earlier this week the Minister of Canadian Heritage co-chaired an international meeting of ministers of culture at UNESCO with her counterpart from France. The meeting reaffirmed the willingness to defend and promote cultural diversity. Ministers recognize that promoting diversity and freedom of choice are keys to the future; elements recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is not just an issue for governments. That is why we are pleased to see this week's launching of the Coalition for Cultural Diversity, as well as the ongoing work of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. We are committed to supporting their efforts, as are other governments of this country, to engage a broad range of civil society in the promotion of cultural diversity.

We are also pleased to be working with our provinces, which recognize the importance of this challenge.

In Canada we have tried to strike a balance that allows us to participate fully in the global culture, while at the same time ensuring a space for Canadian cultural expression. This goal has not changed. We believe that the approach we have outlined will strike a balance between the benefits of international trade to Canada and the ability to pursue our cultural policy objectives and goals. We will continue to work with all interested Canadians to achieve these important goals.

As I said earlier today and yesterday, we are very proud to join the coalition for cultural diversity, which includes the vast majority of stakeholders in Canada's artistic and cultural sector.

This coalition, which was created in Quebec, will soon include most artistic groups, creators, those coming up with the vehicles we need to give voice to our history, capture the essence of who we are, our values, and so on. This is a mandate that the government readily accepts and intends to fulfil.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser.

I am pleased to join in today's debate on the future direction of our trading relations in light of the upcoming Seattle round of talks at the World Trade Organization, and continuing initiatives of the government surrounding proposals to expand the NAFTA.

I want to talk about how our culture is threatened by trade deals and how I see better ways to deal with protecting and promoting our culture in Canada and around the world.

We have seen a dangerous trend in our cultural policies as they relate to trade in the last decade. Cultural expression is not being viewed by this government, especially by the United States, in the way it should be.

I believe that culture is something to celebrate as an expression of creativity. It is something which allows us to delight in each other. It is something which helps us to understand where we come from. It is our stories, our history, our emotions, an expression of our joys and sadness. It makes us think and it makes us wonder.

New Democrats believe that promoting culture is done by supporting and celebrating artistic achievements. We know that protecting our culture is required in supporting the individual artists, in the companies which nurture them, in their struggles to show us and the world a glimpse of their special view of the world.

Sadly we have a government which deals with culture as a trade-off of film tax breaks against steel quotas, quantifying the values of having a domestic book publishing industry against the pressures of the corporate monoliths who want to sell our trees and water. Culture is seen as a piece on the giant monopoly board of world trade by this government.

Simply remember how the government failed to hold the line on culture last spring when it came to our magazine policy. The Minister of Canadian Heritage used her best speech writers to come up with the careful words reflecting great ideas to protect and promote culture. Then the deal went behind closed doors. What we saw was the sellout of culture and a trading away of principles. The Americans got what they wanted. The principle that our culture was a commodity was entrenched. The Minister of Canadian Heritage was left with a brave face and the Minister for International Trade got a promotion.

The same dynamic is in place still around the current cabinet table. We have a Minister of Canadian Heritage touring the world to garner international support for international cultural agreements. At the same we have a new Minister for International Trade calling upon the business community to rally its support for a new FTAA, with no real protection for culture and, furthermore, a new FTAA which revives the odious concept of investor rights. We know that if the chips are down the government cares more about the corporate view of culture than about supporting our precious creators.

Let me quickly address the concept of the current so-called cultural carve-out in the NAFTA. What we have now is a sham. The NAFTA section on culture grants permission for the Americans to put any dollar value on our culture that they want and to punish us for protecting or promoting it. That is what the current agreement does. We saw that in the magazine debate. Simply put, we are allowed to protect culture as long as we remain contractually obliged to be punished for doing so.

We can pretend that culture is not a commodity, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage does that, as long as the Americans are allowed to quantify it and crush us for having it.

The government has said nothing about changing this and nothing about culture in preparation of the WTO talks. We are starting out going into Seattle and into the FTAA from a position of weakness.

I still have some hope, though, that our culture is actually quite a survivor, one which has survived almost by sheer force of will in the face of tough odds. I can see this by looking at two very special communities in my constituency, the black communities of Cherrybrooke and the Prestons. These communities have been living on the unforgiving rocky soil of Preston, dating back to the days when slaves were still sold on the Halifax piers, before most of the Scots arrived in Nova Scotia. Yet they have overcome all odds, systemic discrimination, economic deprivation and the scorn of successive governments. They have managed to maintain their unique black Canadian culture in their families, in their oral traditions and, mostly, in their churches.

Recently I attended the funeral of Rev. Donald Skier and felt the amazing music, heard the heartfelt stories and saw again how they are proud and unique, and they have survived. They are an inspiration to me of how tough a cultural people we Canadians can be.

We have an obligation as a society not only to respect cultural survival but to promote and protect our unique cultures in a real and enforceable way. As a country it is not good enough to scrape through. Our current trade policy fails to promote and protect our unique cultures.

There are voices which have been trying to address this problem and I call upon the government to listen to them. The recent report of the parliamentary committee on trade has shown that even a majority of Liberals on the committee see that the current trade regimes fail culture and we have to try another way. The recent report of the cultural industry's sectoral advisory group on international trade presented the government with options for stepping outside of the current trade agreement and developing an international trading relationship for culture, standing outside the WTO and the NAFTA. This approach has been supported by the Canadian Conference of the Arts, a leading Canadian cultural organization.

The concept of having a stand alone international trading agreement on culture has significance in Canada and I support such an approach with conditions. There is no point in our minister touring the globe and meeting with cultural policymakers unless there is an upfront commitment from Canada that we want culture to be really removed from the WTO and all regional trade agreements, not like we have now.

In closing, we need a separate international agreement on culture because the current agreements are a failure. We need a recommitment to domestic cultural policy. These things can be done by the government. The choice is there but the time is running out.

In light of the fact that we have the premier performers in the country in the House today, now is the time for the government to commit to removing culture from the WTO and regional trade agreements. Now is the time for our Prime Minister to guarantee to the artists in the country that the Canada Council and the CBC, the pillars of our cultural foundations, are not in danger of being swept away by the crush of international trade agreements. Now is the time for this to happen.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about the amazing richness of her community in presenting some of our most innovative cultural manifestations.

Last August I visited her riding when I was in Halifax for the national caucus meeting of the governing party. There is a theatre on the water shore there. My wife and I were fortunate enough to take in the last presentation of the newest Canadian opera,

Beatrice Chancy

, created by people living in Halifax. It had also been presented in Toronto. I take this opportunity to congratulate all those associated with it.

I gather that the CBC will be presenting it coast to coast at some point. I encourage Canadians who have the opportunity of seeing it on CBC to do so. It is quite dramatic and quite poignant, a very important piece of art.

I want to ask the member a very simple question. I did say on behalf of the government that we accept the SAGIT recommendation. The government has taken that position. Does the member not recognize that?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wonderful compliments on

Beatrice Chancy

which was indeed a work of art, one of the works of this century.

As long as I have the great unease that I have about what happened last May in the House surrounding Bill C-55, I have very little confidence that yes means yes, that a carve out means a carve out, and that a total cultural exemption means that. I need to have proof.

I did not get it today in the House from the Prime Minister so I remain a sceptic. I will remain such until it is proven otherwise, until he answers the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too commend the hon. member for her support of the cultural community.

She spoke about the FTAA and the fact that in the FTAA there was no guarantee of a carve out or the fact that culture would be protected. She must know that in these agreements traditionally Canada has taken a position that it will protect culture. It has done that very strongly. In these negotiations of the WTO, until such times as these issues are negotiated Canada still stands by the principle that it will maintain its right to legislate in the area of culture and it will protect its rights in culture.

Is the hon. member aware that yesterday in Toronto at the trade ministers meeting of the FTAA the Prime Minister came out very strongly in favour of Canadian culture and very strongly in support of doing something around that area in the free trade of the Americas to support our cultural industries?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the Prime Minister's speech and that was why I asked him today. I was quite excited by what he had to say.

I wanted to get clarification on whether he meant that the WTO and the NAFTA agreement would have no binding relationship to culture in the country any longer. I did not get the answer to that. I still remain unconvinced.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to pursue the fourth paragraph of the NDP opposition day motion on free trade. I will read into the record the entire paragraph because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food concerned himself with the first half of it. The entire paragraph states:

The government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers, whose domestic support payments have been slashed by 60%, three times what was actually required by Canada's international trading obligations.

I will take a moment to define what I think is intended in that paragraph and to go over what has transpired in the past six years.

In 1993 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed by Canada and by a number of other countries. For the first time ever GATT dealt with agricultural issues. I was not there but I believe I can indicate what the agreement was. We do not have time to get into all the agricultural concerns right now, but let me say as a starting point that the signatories were to reduce by 20% domestic support subsidies over the next five years. That was the arrangement made and all the signatories to the GATT Uruguay round signed on to that agreement.

In 1993, also an important year, the government opposite came to power in October of that year. As I noted earlier today in questions and comments, the Reform Party became the only opposition in English Canada with official party status in the House. It had an entirely different agenda, which was to get rid of domestic support payments as fast as possible. This fit very neatly with the decision of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to balance the books. It was a very happy marriage.

The long and short of it is that instead of Canada reducing its domestic subsidies by 20% on agriculture over the five year period it was reduced and slashed by some 60%. This has meant the elimination of the Crow benefit, the subsidy that predated Saskatchewan's entry into Confederation. It actually came into force and effect in 1897. With its elimination there was a loss each and every year on the prairies of some $600 million; $325 million in the province of Saskatchewan alone. Also freight rates for farmers shot up dramatically since the end of the Crow benefit.

The government had the option of eliminating or phasing out the Crow over a number of years, but because it had a different domestic agenda of balancing the books as quickly as possible, it did it all in one fell swoop with a very modest payment going back to farmers and producers.

It now means in my constituency of Palliser for a farmer in Rouleau or Wilcox with three hopper cars filled with grain that 33% of it goes to pay the freight alone. It is no wonder farmers are going broke so fast on the prairies.

Mike Gifford, an international trade negotiator for the Government of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that Canada could put $2 billion back into domestic support payments tomorrow without fear of raising any concerns among our trading competitors. That is how much we have reduced our domestic support payments in recent years.

What they got instead was a modest little announcement today of some welcome assistance for AIDA. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan were here a week ago today, along with the farm lobby, seeking $1.3 billion. The announcement today says there is a further $170 million available for the agriculture disaster assistance program, barely 10% of what farmers in the two prairie provinces feel they need for their provinces.

There is an interesting sentence in the minister's release wherein he says:

We presume the provinces will maintain the 60:40 cost sharing arrangement on total safety net expenditures.

That is a rather large presumption for the minister of agriculture to make, especially for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provinces because I do not think they will decide to enter into this 40% arrangement. The AIDA program is so tainted in those two provinces that I think they will feel they can get a better return on their investment by doing something directly for their farmers themselves rather than entering into what they feel is a very flawed program.

Let me turn to our competitors, particularly those south of the border. We have some concerns. We are not only concerned about what has happened in the past, but now we need to be concerned about what will happen at the upcoming WTO in Seattle. I note what Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, has been saying within the last month. I will quote from a document where she said:

The goal of the Clinton administration is to eliminate all farm export subsidies, reducing sky high tariffs used by Canada and other countries to keep out U.S. imports and strengthen disciplines on state trading agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is the goal of the United States. I think it will find support from some other countries as well. It does not like state trading agencies or enterprises and we do not agree. The Canadian government has been very dogmatic in its comments that it will defend to the fullest the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. There is no question in my mind that the Americans have their guns trained on Canada, on the wheat board in particular, and on supply management.

My concern in this regard is that our government's response is very timid and very pale. It seems to be paralyzed with fear that anything we do in terms of trying to protect our primary producers, particularly in the prairies but elsewhere as well, will trigger retaliatory action by the Americans. They are concerned that everything is in the green box in terms of making it palatable.

For example, in 1995 Canada's total for amber support, the yellow light, was only 15% of WTO spending while in the United States it was almost 27%. In the European Union it was just in excess of 60%.

Canada must approach the next round of the WTO agricultural negotiations in a very cautious and thoughtful manner. That is what paragraph 4 is all about in the motion before us.

A new agreement which just continues the existing formula in reduction of protection and support without correcting the inequities in the current agreement will not necessarily be beneficial to Canadian farmers. In fact, such an agreement will just exacerbate current inequities.

I would make the observation that Canada is so intent on making sure that the very tiny domestic support we have is in the green box and that our farmers in western Canada are turning purple as a result of that.

I notice that you are giving me a signal, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize the time had flown by so fast. I do want to close my speech with a couple of predictions.

I have talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and I have talked about supply management. This is my prediction. The next round of the WTO which starts later this month in Seattle will see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian government will fight it to the death, but at the end of the day the Americans will win and we will lose the Canadian Wheat Board. The next round of the WTO after this round will spell the demise of supply management. I hope I am wrong but I do not think I will be.

Currently there is a movie called

Eyes Wide Shut

. That is how Canada went into the last round of agricultural trade. I hope we go to Seattle with our eyes wide open.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments. Once again, as many of the speakers from the New Democratic Party did, he came out right at the end with wild accusations of what is going to happen. All of a sudden we are going to go in there and get rid of the wheat board. Then it is supply management that is going to go.

Surely the hon. member must be aware that the Government of Canada consulted. Prior to putting forward what I and most members on this side of the House and many on the other side consider to be a very strong position on agriculture going into Seattle, the government consulted widely with those in western Canada who are most concerned, particularly on the western Canadian side of agriculture. It also met with agricultural groups throughout Canada.

The hon. member should read some of the reports of the agricultural meetings where farmers from across the country came together to talk about a position for Seattle. Then he would agree that the Government of Canada has almost mirrored what these farmers came up with. In fact, the Government of Canada, before putting forward that position on agriculture, sought the advice of not only farming groups and communities, but also the agriculture ministers of all the provinces and territories.

When the hon. member makes wild accusations of what is going to happen, he must first understand that the position we are putting forward is very strongly supported within the agricultural community.

The hon. member also talked about the hardship in western Canada and that many farmers are having a difficult time. I do want to make this one point because it is important. The hon. member should know that hardship is not totally a direct result of foreign export subsidies. Many other factors have come into play.

What we can do for Seattle is to make sure that we take a strong position and that we maintain this to get rid of foreign export subsidies and to get rid of the domestic subsidies that other countries are using that inadvertently come back and hurt Canadian farmers. Certainly the hon. member must be aware of the Canadian position.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to respond to it.

Part of my background is in labour management negotiations. I have seen folks on both sides of the table come in with very strong, hard negotiating positions and then I have seen those positions collapse.

The concern I have is how strong will the government be in defence of the Canadian Wheat Board given the political realities in western Canada. There are precious few members from the government benches who will be out there vociferously saying to the trade negotiators and others that we have to hold fast and tight on the Canadian Wheat Board. I am concerned.

The member opposite referred to it as a wild accusation but I called it a prediction. What I am saying is that when push comes to shove, we will see how strong the resolve of the Canadian delegation is to preserve and protect the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope I am wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting point. He tries to suggest that because we do not have a number of seats in western Canada that we are not going to stand up for the interests of western farmers. That is totally ludicrous.

We are elected not only as members of parliament representing our constituents here but we are nation builders. We are people who represent all of Canada. As a person from a rural riding in southwestern Ontario that has a number of farmers, I can assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House speak for all Canadians.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if they were the nation builders the hon. member suggested they are, then they would surely come up with a program that would assist the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba rather than the pathetic performance on AIDA that even as it has been announced today falls a day late and a dollar short.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, Homelessness; the hon. member for Joliette, Employment Insurance.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this motion. This motion really sets apart the ideology of the socialists and shows Canadians that they are living in the past. They do not understand the importance of international trade and the relationships and hard work that our minister, our parliamentary secretary and our entire team will be undertaking when they attend the meeting in Seattle.

I will point out some of the anomalies, to be kind, that exist in the motion. It states that we should not negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment at the Seattle meeting of the WTO or the free trade area of the Americas without first securing enforceable international rules on core labour standards, environmental protection, cultural diversity, the preservation of public health care and public education. Are those not the issues among others that we are going to Seattle to discuss? Of course they are. I almost find the motion contradictory. It is saying not to negotiate any further trade deals until we get all of this in place.

Do NDP members think that Canada can simply walk into a world trading organization and simply demand that it do this and to do that or we are going to take our ball and go home? They shake their heads but that is clearly how they think negotiations should take place.

The language is quite interesting. The motion states that the government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization. What do they think?

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

They don't think.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

They don't think. In all honesty, what do they think has contributed to the dynamic growth in this country since the early 1990s, specifically since 1993? Globalization and—

[An hon. member]

Free trade.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I hear the Tories chirping over there. I remember Brian Mulroney standing arm in arm with the president of the United States signing “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”. With a name like Mahoney far be it from me to take on an Irishman, but I should add that we were not prepared and will never be prepared to simply climb into bed with an elephant like the United States. That is why we need the Seattle negotiations.

That is what the Tories did under the former prime minister and it led to a $42 billion deficit. What happened then?

We came into office in 1993. I was not here. I was elsewhere. But the government changed hands. The Liberals came in and we negotiated a trade deal in Chile. We negotiated trade deals in other parts of the Americas. We negotiated trade deals in Asia. We sent team Canada to Japan and all over the world. We showed Canadians and more important we showed the world that we are a nation of traders, going right back to the roots of aboriginal Canadians who were the first traders.

Port Credit is at the foot of Highway 10 in my constituency. It is named that because the aboriginals used to trade, and nobody had any money in those days, so they would simply trade back and forth and barter for credit, for goods or that type of thing. We are carrying on the tradition of the founders of this nation, the aboriginal Canadians, who were the first entrepreneurs and the first free traders in North America.

Members opposite say that with the policies the government has put in place with regard to international trade, globalization, world trade organizations, FTA, Chile and all of the agreements, we are being overzealous. I understand where they are coming from. It is a lack of self-confidence.

It is a problem that has been in the rank and file of the New Democratic Party since the days when my father was trying to get them to have a little more common sense about their policies and what they should be doing. He understood. I can remember Bill Mahoney saying to me that we have no problem with the NDP as long as it is not in government. This was the leader of the United Steelworkers of America. He said to leave them in opposition because they are not bad if they stand up and just chirp a bit and effect some social policy. Give them credit where credit is due, but for goodness sake do not give them the reins of power.

The proof of the wisdom of those words came through in 1990 when the people of Ontario decided through a mistake of some kind to elect Bob Rae. We all remember what happened. A province that was firing on all engines went into the worst recession since the Great Depression. A New Democratic Party premier intentionally decided to run $10 billion overdrafts. Imagine. It was almost as bad as Mulroney and the Tories. Actually, they were a little worse. Let me give the numbers.

The way government financing works is that deficits get piled on top of the debt at the end of the fiscal year. It is the same as a family that uses an overdraft to buy food and then piles the overdraft on top of the mortgage. Eventually the mortgage outstrips the value of the home.

Mr. Rae and the New Democrats had a great celebration. Remember the fanfare when they came in? Boy, they opened the doors to the world and it was going to be so wonderful. They took the debt of the province in five years from $39 billion to well over $100 billion. That province is choked with the burden that was put on it with the myopic, single minded, narrow lack of vision led and funnelled by the New Democratic Party policies that are developed at their conferences.

Members of the NDP get together, slap each other on the back and say “We are the social conscience of the world. We know what is best for Canadians. We should never trust the people in the streets to actually do things on their own. We have to do it all for them”.

That is the New Democrat policy. That is where the genesis of this resolution before us today comes from. The members of the New Democratic Party do not trust Canadians to be able to compete in the international global marketplace.

[An hon. member]

We do not trust Liberals.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

They do not trust Liberals because they have no confidence in themselves. Before we can trust anyone, we have to be able to look in the mirror and say “I trust that person in the mirror is going to do the right thing”. We have to be able to look at our children and say “I trust my sons and daughters to succeed in the world. I trust them to work hard. I trust Canadians”. That is not what I hear those members saying. They are so myopic. They are living in the 1950s.

The Berlin Wall has already fallen, but the NDP members want to build another one. They want to build some kind of a socialist wall around this great country and tell Canadians that they know best what the rules are. They are just going to walk into Seattle and say “You guys listen up. We are from Canada and you are going to do it our way”.

This is a sophisticated world we live in. I think everyone will agree that the socialists have fallen all over the world. There are the remnants, those who call themselves socialists or labour politicians like the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, who we can hardly call a socialist. I believe he has cut welfare rates faster than Mike the knife in Ontario.

The premier of Saskatchewan was in this place last week. I am not so sure that purebred New Democrats, if there is such a thing, would really call him a socialist. He is a little more to the right of where some of them find themselves on a daily basis.

Let me speak to the issue of the World Trade Organization and why we are going to Seattle. Unlike the NDP members who simply say that we should shut down any opportunities in the agricultural sector, we want to expand agricultural opportunities in export. Why not find them other markets? What a unique idea.

Do not worry, I am getting the Reform members. I know they are feeling left out. The members of the Reform Party are the extreme of this issue. We have the closed-minded, myopic people on the left and then we have the Reform members who would take out some white-out or a big eraser and eliminate the 49th parallel. They would say that the best way to deal with free trade is to become Americans. That is their basic policy.

I find it fascinating that we saw the Reform Party leader stand in this place over the last couple of days in some kind of a tirade about defending agriculture. Let me share a couple of things that particular gentleman said. I do not want them to get too upset, but this is right out of

Hansard . This is not me interpreting something that the Leader of the Reform Party said. I assume we all accept the validity of Hansard

Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any industry's problem. In contrast, Reformers continue to call for reduced federal expenditures. Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear-cut reduction in the dependence of the agricultural sector on both levels of government.

This was said by the Leader of the Reform on May 10, 1994.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

What is his name?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The member knows I cannot name him. The Speaker will rise and make me be quiet. I am not finished yet, but I may come over and talk about those fellows in a moment.

We have to wonder when we see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and demand more money for farmers. Our Deputy Prime Minister stood up, I think last Friday, and responded to a question from the agricultural critic. He said that he was astounded to hear the critic demanding more help for farmers. By the way, today this government's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced additional funding of $200 million. We are not ignoring the plight of the farmers in Saskatchewan or anywhere else in the country.

They seem to be doing a complete about-face. All of a sudden, they are pretending that somehow they are the champions of the farmers, that they are going to beat the government up and force it to give money out to subsidize farmers even though that was not what their policy stated. However, that does not surprise me because quite often they will do and say things that do not fit within their policies.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Selective amnesia.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

“Selective amnesia” my little short friend says. I like that.

We are going to Seattle in the hopes that we can negotiate liberalization in trade and protect the things that are important to Canadians. We believe we have an opportunity in Seattle to expand marketplaces for the agricultural sector.

We are already leaders, and members opposite know this. The NDP members may not be willing to admit it, but they know for a fact that we are already leaders in fields such as telemedicine and education services. Our ability to expand clearly depends on our ability to negotiate in these marketplaces. We want to use these negotiations and we are not afraid to do that. That is the fundamental difference. We go in with some confidence.

I want to tell members a story about a trip I took with the former minister for international trade, the hon. Sergio Marchi. He led a team Canada trade mission to San Francisco and I was honoured to be able to go. It was with young entrepreneurs. We saw some things.

I do not know how many members get the opportunity to go to a movie but I certainly do not often get a chance. However, I did see the IMAX technology when I was in San Francisco. The IMAX technology, which is a theatre in the round, is Canadian. It is spectacular technology.

We were in Silicon Valley in a complex in San Jose where there were thousands of people coming and going and looking at all the exhibits. Many of them were going in to watch the movie,

The Story of Everest

, about a group climbing Mount Everest. It was the most incredible sensation I have ever experienced in a movie theatre. It was in the round. The thing that was wrong with it was that it should have had a little Canadian flag on the bottom. IMAX is one of the most successful technologies and it is Canadian. It was invented by Canadians in Canada and is exported around the world.

Is that a bad thing? Is that not what our future depends on?

We were then taken to a site visit of the Alameda Naval Air Base, which is right on the bay in the San Francisco Bay area. There is a huge area right at the edge of the ocean that was a landfill site. It was far from sanitary. It was a place where we had to sign a waver because there was live ammunition around. I said, “You mean we are really going there? I am not sure I like this idea.”

They took us out and showed us the technology being employed in San Francisco to clean up this toxic and extremely dangerous naval dump site. Guess what? The technology was from Waterloo, Ontario. A Canadian company was the lead winner on the bid. We are talking about a contract that was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up and stop all of the leachate going into the ocean and to eventually make the naval base into a park. There were seven companies involved in this environmental clean up project and six of them were Canadian. The main one was a Canadian firm that had invented the technology. The seventh one was a U.S. firm and its job was to truck things away. What we are talking about is the ingenuity of Canadian firms in developing environmental technologies that can clean up some of the dirtiest messes and the biggest problems in all of the world and it is Canadian.

Why not have a resolution on the floor today to say how proud we are of those Canadian industries that have invented new technologies, that have found ways to help internationally around the world and that are generating jobs. All of the money comes back to Canada on that project and the men and women who are working on that project are Canadian men and women working with Canadian technology.

I do not understand. Instead of saying “Oh, goodness, do not go to Seattle because they are going to beat you up, or if you are going to go here is the set of rules we want”, why not celebrate the success of Canadians around the world?

I have a couple of facts for the New Democratic Party. Two out of every three jobs in the country depend on trade. Exports are more than 40% of our GDP, more than any other G-7 country. Imports give consumers a wider choice and access to the best products in the world. In 1998, Canada exported $367 billion in goods and services and each billion dollar export sustains 11,000 jobs. Those are outstanding numbers.

This is a nation of traders who can and will compete internationally around the world. We will successfully negotiate and improve our position at the WTO talks in Seattle led by our minister and our team of professionals. I have confidence in them and I have confidence in Canadians.