Debates of Feb. 15th, 2001

Supply

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will be hearing a speech from my NDP colleague and his points of view, which I know very well.

I would ask my colleague over here this question. Today's motion talks about transparency regarding the elected officials looking at international agreements. At no time have we talked about consultation with the provinces or the provinces having a right to look at international agreements and making it part of where they give their own approvals because it impacts them.

As an example, Australia has a joint session where it consults the provinces and then it puts its stamp on international agreements. I would appreciate his thoughts on that.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try and be brief to accommodate my friend from the NDP. Simply, in Canada's constitution the provinces are responsible for all kinds of things, including natural resources, which can be profoundly impacted by free trade agreements. It makes sense, it would be a courtesy and it would help unity if the federal government would come down off its high horse once in a while and honestly engage in some kind of discussion with the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not get to ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat a question but that is the way it goes.

I would like to speak on behalf of the NDP caucus to this Bloc Quebecois motion. We welcome the motion and support it. We are somewhat surprised by the apparent reluctance of the government to support the motion.

What the motion calls for is really no less and no more than what the Conservative government did in 1988 when it put before the House the elements of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement which had been negotiated. The negotiations were over. The elements of the agreement were put to the House of Commons for a vote.

Why the Liberal government at this point would refuse to indicate a willingness to do the same with any FTAA agreement is quite beyond me. It is not just a question of transparency leading up to the negotiations or how many papers are on the website. At the moment there are only four papers out of nine.

I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

In any event, it is not just a question of what happens leading up to negotiations, it is also a question of what happens, God forbid from our point of view, that these negotiations should actually ever be completed and we should have a free trade area of the Americas agreement.

Is the Liberal government really saying in its response to the Bloc motion that it would not put such an agreement to the House of Commons for debate and a vote? Is that really the position of the Liberals on this? They have not made it clear. They have done a lot of talking about what they are doing now and have tried to give an air of adequacy to what really has so far been a quite inadequate process. Perhaps we could have some clarity on that. We know the Liberals are always interested in clarity.

Perhaps we could get some clarity from the Liberals on what their position would be should there ever be an FTAA agreement and whether or not it would come before the House. If they are prepared to make that commitment, then why would they not vote for the Bloc motion and we could establish once and for all that this would be the process should there ever be an agreement?

Part of the problem is that in this country, and I think it has been pointed out by a previous speaker, the treaty making power lies with the crown rather than with parliament. We have far too many examples of Canadian governments being able to enter into treaties and to renegotiate and amend treaties without ever having to come to parliament, not just with respect to free trade, but also for instance with respect to NATO.

This is the only country of all the NATO countries that did not have a motion put in its national parliament to debate and ratify for instance the expansion of NATO. All other 14 countries of the then 15 NATO countries had a debate and a vote. Even in the U.K. where it has the same system as us and it does not actually have to have a vote and a debate, had one. It is only in Canada where the government and the Prime Minister presume make these kinds of agreements on behalf of the whole country without involving parliamentarians in any meaningful way.

I listened carefully to what the Bloc members had to say about their own motion. I must say I think this does reflect an evolution in the Bloc Quebecois' position with respect to free trade. We know for a fact that free trade was very popular in Quebec in 1988.

Even in 1992 and 1993 leading up to the NAFTA, I recall an occasion in the House where the NDP moved a motion critical of NAFTA, calling on the House not to sign a North American Free Trade Agreement and the Bloc members at that time voted with the government against the NDP. They even voted against a Liberal amendment at that time which said such an agreement might be okay if it included provisions for the protection of workers and the environment. Still the Bloc voted with the Conservative government against that amendment.

We know the position of the various leaders within the Quebec sovereignty movement. Jacques Parizeau is a very big fan of free trade and the free trade agreements. As Mr. Parizeau is want to do, sometimes he boasted about the effect free trade would have on Canada and the fact that it would break down east-west ties and erode the strength of Canada as a country and therefore make it easier for sovereignty to occur.

This is the backdrop for the Bloc motion today. I think what is happening within the Bloc, if I might be permitted this analysis, is that it is finally dawning on sovereignists in Quebec what the NDP and others outside of parliament have been saying about the effect of free trade agreements on the sovereignty of all legislatures, whether they be national parliaments or they be subnational legislatures. The insight about the effect of free trade agreements on the sovereignty of such bodies is finally beginning to get through to sovereignists in Quebec.

They see that there is not much point in debating sovereignty in a federal-provincial context if at the same time one is complacent or even complicit in the development of these supernational institutions, these free trade agreements and world trade agreements that in the end render the sovereignty of Canada or the potential sovereignty of Quebec almost meaningless.

In that respect I would call the attention of the House to a letter written only a week or two ago by the California state legislature to United States trade representative, Mr. Zoellick. It stated:

As the legislative representatives of the world's sixth largest economy, we write to express our concern about the impact of certain trade policies on the institution in which we serve and on important democratic norms. We recognize that the United States constitution grants the federal government power to conduct foreign relations. We also recognize the economic importance of trade to California and the role that trade can play in fostering positive relationships between nations.

We are concerned, however, that as presently administered the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization agreements diminish the sovereignty of states such as California, and in so doing, shift decision making power from elected officials to unelected international trade officials. In the paragraphs that follow we detail the reasons for our concern.

It seems to me that this is the critical issue with respect to these free trade agreements.

I listened to the Bloc speeches and there was appropriate criticism of free trade agreements as having created polarization between the rich and the poor, not ensuring that the so-called benefits of free trade are evenly or justly distributed.

In the final analysis that is not the main complaint against free trade. We could debate the so-called economic benefits. There are winners and losers. I happen to think that there are more losers than winners.

The real loser in all these free trade agreements is democracy. That is why I would have felt better if members of the Bloc would have made it clear that they were against these agreements in principle. The real loser in these agreements is the ability of all governments, whether they be federal or provincial, to act in the public interest, whether that be acting in the public interest with respect to the environment, food safety, labour standards, protection of water exports, protection of cultural diversity, or whatever the case may be.

The real loser when it comes to these agreements is democracy and the sovereignty of democratic states and democratic subnational states such as Quebec or other Canadian provinces, as well as states in other countries. This is something that I simply cannot get through the thick, right wing skulls of my Alliance colleagues. They are concerned about the power of parliament. They are always going on and on about the power of parliament. Parliament is being gutted every day by these agreements, and no one over there seems to care.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP was calling for a little more clarity from the government, so I would like to ask him a question and seek to provide some clarity on the process as we understand it on this side of the House.

The government negotiates trade agreements to promote Canadian trade interests based on extensive consultations with Canadians, NGOs, parliamentary committee and business organizations, et cetera. Only when Canada is satisfied that the agreement is in the interests of the country would that agreement be signed.

The process in all these agreements to which the member has referred is that parliament was asked to approve the agreement after a careful review and debate of the implementing legislation. That is the normal process that has been followed in the House of Commons throughout Canadian history. It is a process that will be followed in this very important negotiation.

I do not understand the member's confusion. I hope that the reiteration of what has been our policy since Confederation clarifies matters.

I would like to ask the member a question. Does he not see the Bloc motion as written as rather vague, as wanting to create a situation that was referred to earlier by the chair of the standing committee? It would seek to change the Canadian constitution in effect and create something that has never existed in the House throughout our entire history. Does he not see that as the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not think that arguments about change were sort of prima facie inadmissible on the floor of the House of Commons. If nothing can be changed, why does anyone run for office? Why not just freeze the status quo in some kind of political suspended animation? Of course they are making an argument for change, but I also think that it is not that radical a change. It is not that different from the way I remember it in 1988, where we had an opportunity to debate and vote on the elements of the agreement.

Granted, it had been signed by Simon Reisman, but whether or not it was ratified until after parliament had its say probably bears some checking by the hon. member.

In any event, if I am wrong on the facts with respect to 1988, I do not think I am wrong, in my opinion or in the Bloc's opinion, on the principle of the matter, that before anything is finally ratified it should in fact come before the House of Commons. If that is a difference between what the Canadian practice has been and what the motion calls for, so be it. Perhaps we should change the way we do things around here.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to point out a number of facts.

First of all, the Bloc stands up for the consensus in the Quebec civil society, and among parliamentarians. I have had the opportunity to address this issue. The institutions committee of the National Assembly published a report with which we totally agree and which I commend to the hon. member.

Our position is not to be against economic integration or market openness, since developing countries in the south are as much entitled to development as developed countries in the north. However, this economic integration must follow some rules, and we want those rules to be included in the agreement and access to the benefits of the agreement to be given in the respect of those rights.

Before asking my question, I will conclude by saying that Mr. Parizeau has been one of the fiercest opponents to the multilateral investment agreement. He even wrote a small book on the subject, which I would gladly offer to the hon. member.

I would now like to return to the issue of social and labour rights. I am wondering what the position of the New Democratic Party is on the inclusion of those rights in the current negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, our position with respect to social rights is that they ought to be part and parcel of any trade agreement the government enters into. We sometimes wonder whether or not agreements which have as their basic assumption the whole notion of free trade or any such clauses, even if they are inserted into such agreements, could be effective.

I would remind the member that when the WTO implementing legislation was before the House it was the NDP in 1994, not the Bloc, that moved amendments to that legislation which called on the government to work toward a social clause in the WTO and to report progress back to the House, although I would say that the Bloc supported our motion with respect to the social clause at that time.

I think the question is still open as to whether or not simply inserting these social clauses into these agreements is enough. From the point of view of the NDP the basic philosophy of these agreements is simply wrong. They are designed by and for multinational corporations to inhibit the power of government not just with respect to social policy or labour standards.

Even if we were to adopt either the side agreements or social clauses these agreements would still be objectionable to us because the very principle of them is to enshrine the power of the marketplace over against the power of governments to act in the public interest. Creating a few exceptions and a few fancy clauses here and there will just not do the trick as far as we are concerned.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and speak today in support of this important motion. A very basic principle is being established in the motion which reads:

That this House demand that the government bring any draft agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification by the Government of Canada.

It is somewhat surprising that a motion that deals with such a fundamental principle of debate within the House of Commons is something that has to be brought forward by an opposition party. It begs the question and highlights for us the gravity of the situation we are facing as the Government of Canada enters into these agreements.

The free trade area of the Americas, or the FTAA as it is known, equals NAFTA, the WTO, GATT and the MAI all rolled into one very powerful piece of trade legislation that has nothing to do with freedom.

It has everything to do with a transfer of massive powers from democratically elected governments to transnational corporations and a globalized corporate agenda which is about the suppression of democracy. That is the fundamental point that needs to be made. That is why any document or agreement on the FTAA must be brought to the House to be debated by members of the House and by the people of Canada.

The fundamental purpose of these agreements is to constrain all levels of government. We are not just talking about a national government or provincial governments, but even at the municipal level. Their purpose is to restrain all governments in their delivery of services and to allow transnational corporations access to public services, whether it be health care, hospitals, home care, dental care, child care, elder care, education, social assistance, environmental protection programs, transportation or culture. Those are the programs very much at threat as a result of the proposed FTAA.

I should like to quote the chair of the Council of Canadians who recently produced a very excellent report consisting of 40 pages entitled “The Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Threat to Social Programs, Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice in Canada and the Americas”. Ms. Barlow is well known for her work in providing education and awareness of the threat posed by these agreements. In the section outlining what impact there will be from the FTAA on Canadians she said:

The expanded powers proposed for the FTAA in combination with Chapter 11 of NAFTA and the introduction of “universal coverage of all service sectors” pose a grave threat to Canada's social programs. Universal health care, public education, child care, pensions, social assistance and many other social services are now delivered by governments on a not-for-profit basis.

She went on to say:

Until the recent GATS negotiations, and now the FTAA negotiations, Canada has always maintained that these social programs were a fundamental right of citizenship for all Canadians, and have exempted them from trade agreements. However, with these two agreements, the Canadian government is opening up itself, and every other level of government, to trade-sanctioned threats by transnational service corporations keen to break down the existing government monopolies in the hemisphere.

That lays out very clearly what we are facing in this round of negotiations. Of particular concern to us in the NDP, outlined by my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona, are the investor state provisions that again are included in what is being proposed in this FTAA round of negotiations. This is something similar to what we have seen in NAFTA.

Indeed, in the NDP minority report produced in October 1999 we laid out very clearly what the impact is of investor state provisions and what has already happened in Canada as a result of those provisions being included in chapter 11 of NAFTA.

I will quote from my colleague's minority report in which he says:

Canadians have already seen how such a mechanism can be used by foreign investors to intimidate and sue their elected governments. Last year, U.S. based Ethyl Corporation successfully used the NAFTA investor-state procedure to extract $19 million from Canadian taxpayers, and to force the Canadian government to rescind its ban on the potentially toxic gasoline additive MMT.

That is what has already taken place under chapter 11. There are now other challenges underway, including one from Sun Belt Water Inc. in California that is looking to leave Canadians on the hook for as much as $10.5 billion U.S. That again brings us back to the issue of what is threatened under the FTAA.

One of the things I am very concerned about is the impact on municipalities. Right now in Vancouver, where I am from, a case taking place before the B.C. supreme court is a challenge by the Mexican government as a result of an earlier decision made by a NAFTA dispute panel in August 2000 in favour of the U.S. based Metalclad Corporation, which was seeking to locate a toxic waste plant in a town in Mexico. The local community and the national government opposed it. This is now again being challenged under NAFTA.

The impact of these trade agreements on local communities and their ability to control their own environment and health and the well-being of their own citizens is something that is very seriously undermined and would be completely violated if these particular agreements go ahead.

I want to spend my remaining minutes talking about the democratic process. It seems to me that one of the real signs of hope as we take on this struggle of trying to defeat these agreements has been the rise in the level of activism, particularly among young people. As we know, already there are incredible plans and campaigns underway to demonstrate, to rally, to educate and to build public awareness about just what is at stake in April in Quebec City.

The question we have is that while on the one hand we have the Prime Minister in China finally raising the issue of human rights in that country, what are the Prime Minister and the government prepared to do to defend people's human rights here in Canada? All indications are that we are now in the process of setting up a police state, a state of security around this international conference, to prevent citizens from being heard, from being seen, from being able to assemble and from having the right to free speech.

This is something we have seen before in Canada with APEC and the people's summit and the pepper spraying that took place. We are again seeing the those kinds of preparations being made to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights.

This motion is important, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. We have to stop these agreements, we have to defeat them and we have to defend the rights of citizens to organize, to mobilize and to speak out against these agreements. In supporting this motion, I hope all members of the House will go further and ensure that people who come from across Canada and want to take up this issue in Quebec City will not be denied their democratic rights to express their opinions about what these agreements are about and what kinds of threats they pose to our democratic system.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of our colleague from the New Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, like her and like most of the members here, I know very little about these negotiations. Everything is secret. The discussions are kept incommunicado and we do not know what the talks are all about.

Besides all the concerns expressed earlier by my colleagues on this side of the House, one issue worries me especially. Maybe it is no longer the case, but the member made a brief reference to that situation earlier. I wonder what a country like Canada will gain from such negotiations, when we know what is going on in some countries which, out of courtesy, I will not name.

For example, a few years ago, in the copper mines of a certain South American country, children, young girls, worked in water and mud up to their waist, carrying pails of the clay soil from which copper is extracted. These six, seven or eight year old children suffer from arthritis just like old people.

I wonder if my colleague worries about that. Why should we negotiate a free trade agreement with countries where citizens are treated that way?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's thoughtful question gets to the point of another major concern around the negotiation of these agreements, that is, they have been so often characterized as a race to the bottom. Environmental standards, labour standards, and standards that protect the health and well-being of a community and ensure that children are not exploited for their labour go out the window. All of these very important fundamental principles of human dignity and human respect are basically abandoned as a result of these agreements.

These are not empty words. There is mounting global evidence about the impact on local communities of other agreements that have been negotiated, particularly on communities in developing countries that become beholden to these multinational corporations that go in and destroy the environment and local culture and communities.

The member's question certainly highlights this very destructive aspect of these agreements and I share his concern. It is another reason why the motion should be approved: so that we can have a full debate in the House on the impact of the FTAA, not just in Canada but in all of the Americas and indeed globally.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, to the Bloc member who is saying all of this is secret, I would be happy to give him the address of the website which he obviously does not know exists.

My question to my colleague from the NDP is simply this: what is her response to the following statement?

There is now widespread acceptance that, in the long run, the expansion of international trade and integration into the world economy are necessary instruments for promoting economic growth and reducing and eradicating poverty.

The quote comes from a recently released UN report. How can the member tell us that international trade is not important in addressing the problem of poverty?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to that question because I do not believe that I or any of my colleagues in the NDP have said that this debate is about stopping international trade. International trade is very important to our global community.

The issue before the House and before the government on behalf of the Canadian people is what rules will be established for that international trade. As the hon. member knows, our concern, which should be his concern as well, is that these agreements basically transfer authority and power from democratically elected governments to multinational corporations that are completely undemocratic. Therefore, the realm of trade and decisions around the programs we have are completely outside of any elected body. That is our concern, and I think the hon. member knows that.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to play a role in this debate. I must tell the House that it takes me back to 1988, when I was elected after a very controversial election that was totally based on free trade. The Progressive Conservative Party totally supported free trade. We in our party advocated it and proposed it and the Liberal candidates were all opposed to it. There were all those terrible stories about what was going to happen to our sovereignty, our water, our resources and all the gloom and doom that was going to fall on Canada because of free trade.

Here we are 12 years later and the Liberals are proposing to enhance free trade. Members will have to excuse me if I find this ironic. In December 1988 we came to the House day and night to argue the pros and cons of free trade. Into the middle of the night we argued, with the Liberals saying that free trade was going to kill Canada, that it was going to take away our sovereignty, our water, all our assets.

From that time I remember a then new member of parliament in the Liberal Party, a member who is now their federal minister of agriculture and who used to stay in the same apartment I did. We walked home at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. As we were walking home one night, I said I wondered what would happen if our parties switched positions on free trade. In a very prophetic manner, the now minister of agriculture said that they would just stand up and argue the other way.

That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. We have not changed our position but the Liberals have certainly changed theirs. I do not think these flip-flops help our case as a country but we should not be surprised, because in that campaign the Liberals also promised to do away with the GST, the horrible tax. Suddenly when they were in power they said that perhaps it was not so bad and doubled it. In Atlantic Canada the GST went from 7% to 15% and the Liberals now call it the HST. This is the tax that they were going to tear up, that they were going to do away with. However, that is a flip-flop and that is okay.

Then of course there was the flip-flop on the ethics counsellor. The Liberals promised, in writing, to make the counsellor independent, and just two days ago all but two Liberal members voted against their own motion, against their promise to Canadians to establish an independent ethics counsellor.

These amazing reversals hurt the image of parliamentarians and are part of the reason why people do not hold parliamentarians or politicians in general in high esteem. In fact, if people in the private sector made promises and commitments like this and did not honour them they would not survive. Somehow this party does.

Speaking of flip-flops, the Reform Party also made some pretty strong promises in their former campaigns. One of those promises was that Reform members were going to bring new decorum to the House of Commons. Of course we know what they brought to the House, and that was mariachi bands. They were going to do away with Stornoway and maybe turn it into a bingo hall, but I suggest that we check and see who the inhabitant is at Stornoway now.

The ultimate flip-flop is one which I felt personally in 1993. I was defeated in 1993 because the Conservative vote was split. The big argument then was the gold plated pension plan. Of course we know they have now flip-flopped on that and have adopted the gold plated pensions.

Yesterday their only appointed senator moved a motion that he take over the Senate opposition party and be the official opposition. This is from an Alliance Party that is totally opposed to the Senate and especially to appointed senators. Now their only appointed senator wants to take it over. It is incredible.

A lot of people talk about Brian Mulroney, what he did and what his track record was, but I want to point out that Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives said that if Canadians voted for them they would bring them free trade. Whether Canadians liked it or not is not the issue. He made a commitment and he followed through on the commitment. He said that if Canadians voted Conservative he would bring in free trade, and he did. He said that if people voted for the Conservatives he would change the manufacturers' sales tax, and he did that.

This was in contrast to the Liberals who said that if Canadians voted for them they would tear up free trade. They did not tear it up; they enhanced it. They also told Canadians to vote for them and they would do away with the GST. They did not do away with it; they doubled it. Those flip-flops and reversals of position are very harmful to all of us, and the government should try to be more consistent.

Let us get back to the opposition motion, which we as a party agree with. Perhaps we should not need the motion. Under normal terms and former times we would not need the motion. However this all falls into line with the many calls for parliamentary reform. If we could go back to former days when parliamentarians actually had a say on issues, when we had input in committees and in the House of Commons and a say on policy, then we would not need to have opposition days and probably would not have it.

We agree with the motion because we have no other input into bills. We are not against free trade at all. The Conservative Party brought free trade to the country and to the government. We do not want to stop it. We do not want to tie the hands of officials. However every member here has different challenges, different cultures and different situations. Every member of parliament should have a say in an agreement as important as the free trade agreement.

Part of the problem is simple things like committees. In former times committees were made of up members of parliament who actually had a say and had input. We could influence policy and direction. However, in all the committees with which I was involved in the last parliament they were totally an arm of the minister. The chair was decided by the minister. The subjects for discussion were determined by the minister. The votes were controlled by the ministers. The parliamentary secretary was always there to tell the Liberals how to vote and they always did exactly what they were told.

One of the Liberal members who was a former teacher said that the committee system reminded him of kindergarten, where teachers create busy work to keep the students busy. That was his vision of a committee: busy work, something to keep members of parliament busy. If members had the power to choose our chair, choose our own subjects and have free votes in committees, we could actually do a lot of good work and would not have to have opposition days like today.

I have no confidence in the Liberal Party to negotiate the free trade agreement of the Americas. First, the Liberal Party was totally against free trade. How can a party that is totally against free trade establish a concept that is viable and workable? If the party is against it, how can it do that? It creates all kinds of questions when members of a party, who were totally against the trade policy in a former life, turn around and say that everyone should stay out if it, that it should be left up to them because they will do it and do it right. This creates a lot of problems for me.

The Liberals have not been very successful at trade agreements lately. I want to bring up a couple of examples. Certainly the ban on Brazilian beef and the way that was handled will turn out to be a major embarrassment to our country and our government. For two years officials at Health Canada said that they thought there might be a problem but that they could not get information. They did not do anything about it, even though for two years they thought there might be a problem with mad cow disease potentially coming to Canada through Brazilian beef.

Strangely enough, the day after the Canadian government learned that the Brazilian government was taking the issue of the aviation industry to the WTO, it imposed a ban on Brazilian beef. For two years the Liberal government did nothing about the beef issue, but when something happened at the WTO that it did not like it brought in the ban.

Again there was no consultation with the House or with the committees. The government just brought in the very significant ban on Brazilian beef which will impact on all Canadian trade to Brazil.

There are now demonstrations all through Brazil. Ships are tied up. Ships that are on the ocean cannot unload because of the Brazilian beef ban, which was not handled properly. Proper notice was not given. Parliament was not consulted. No committees were advised. The government just did it and no questions were asked.

There either was a health risk for two years that the government did nothing about, or the ban on Brazilian beef is strictly a trade issue. However, it is an example of how not to handle a trade issue.

Another example, which has not yet happened but which is in incubation, is the softwood lumber issue. This is incredibly important for Canada. There are 337 communities where 50% of the economy, the lifeblood of the community, depends on the forestry industry. It is a critical issue yet right now the government is in limbo on it.

We do not know whether it will ask the government of the United States to renew the softwood agreement, whether it will let it go to free trade or whether the memorandum of understanding for the Atlantic provinces will be renewed, continued or what. We are in total limbo. There have been no consultations and no information. We do not know which way the government is going. Again, there has been no consultation or involvement of MPs on such a critical issue.

There will be a tremendous effort by the American industry to put countervail charges and tariffs on Canadian lumber on March 31 when the softwood lumber agreement ends, yet we have no idea what will take its place.

I have a few questions on the softwood lumber issue for the parliamentary secretary if he has the opportunity to answer them. I would like to know what the government's position is on the memorandum of understanding for Atlantic Canada. I would like to know if we are as a government trying to renew the softwood lumber agreement. I would like to know if the government will include all the parties involved, like the Maritime Lumber Bureau, in every step of the negotiations.

These are just some examples of what I call failed trade negotiations. It does not give me a lot of confidence in that group over there to negotiate a new free trade agreement of the Americas.

The Conservatives are fundamentally in favour of free trade. It was our concept in the first place. We brought it to Canada, against strong opposition at the time. We are in favour of it. However we also know that every province and every industrial sector has to be involved with the negotiations all the way through.

We are, after all, a major trading nation. Forty-six per cent of our GDP comes from exports, as opposed to countries like the United States that are at 11%. Our export trade amounts to $2.2 billion every single day. Exports affect our standard of living, our culture and our position of influence in the world. It has to be done right.

World trading blocks are changing as well. We have to keep up to date with other parts of the world like the European community which is now trading as a bloc and not country to country. It does not trade as Germany, France or Italy but as a bloc, a continent, a uniform group. We must adapt to that. That is why we support the principle of the free trade agreement of the Americas but we must be consultation with MPs, and the committee has to have information available to it and be able to influence the decision and direction.

It is not only about money and it is not only about business. The free trade agreement of the Americas will be of great concern to a lot of Canadians in a lot of areas. Many Canadians are concerned about our water, about human rights in other countries, about environmental standards and rules in other countries and about health standards. All these issues can be discussed as part of the free trade of the Americas if it is done right.

We want to make sure that is part of it. We want to make sure the committee is open to these subjects and is able to bring in witnesses that have strong opinions on all aspects of the free trade agreement. We will be pushing for that in committee. We want all subjects on the table. We want all the MPs involved with the debate as well as members of the provincial legislatures and each industrial sector.

Once the agreement is signed it cannot be changed. There are 34 countries involved. We can hardly get a decision by one government here to change, much less by 34 governments. Therefore it must be done in advance. That is why the opposition day is so valuable.

We do support free trade and we support the motion to bring the debate to the House prior to ratification.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, let me take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.

I listened with some interest to my colleague's comments and, indeed, he is right. I confess to be one of those who in 1988 was extremely dubious about free trade and whether it would be good for Canada. Clearly it has been. That is very evident.

That is why the government, most Canadians and most parliamentarians support free trade, with the exception of members of the NDP whose position everybody knows before they even speak on it. They support it because they know it is good for the Canadian economy. They know it will help eradicate poverty, as the United Nations has recently pointed out.

The hon. member says that he and his party agree with the Bloc motion. However, in citing the example of 1988, how can he now support a process which is not what the Mulroney government of the day followed? Our proposed process is the same as the one used by that government of the day. It includes a full review of the enabling legislation open to debate and open to opportunities for amendment. That is how change would come.

How could the member support a process which is so radically different from that which his own government followed in 1988?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his excellent questions and for the comment that he did listen with some interest to my words. I also acknowledge that I appreciate him saying now that he agrees with Brian Mulroney's policy. It is good for Liberal members to say they agree with Brian Mulroney's policy, that they were wrong and Brian Mulroney was right.

Recently the very distinguished Minister of Industry, who is very influential, said the same. He now agrees with Brian Mulroney, that Brian Mulroney was right and they were wrong. It was refreshing to hear that.

If the parliamentary secretary listened to my speech he will know that I asked questions about the government and its support for the memorandum of understanding on the softwood lumber agreement for Atlantic Canada. I wonder if he supports that. If he gets another chance to stand I would like him to answer that and to state exactly what is the position of the government on the softwood agreement.

To answer his question, we had the ultimate consultation. The parliamentary secretary challenged me to suggest that we would follow the same process. I challenge him to follow the same process and hold an election entirely on free trade like we did in 1988. If he follows the process I will be right there with him and will run against him, and we will see how it works out. That was our process, the ultimate consultation. We consulted with every Canadian who could vote.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party on his re-election to the House and on his appointment as trade critic for his party.

If memory serves, on November 27 the government was resoundingly re-elected by Canadians. The Canadian public knows full well what our position is on free trade and what it has been since we have been in office. I submit to my colleague that he had his answer very clearly from the Canadian people, that they support the initiatives of the government vis-à-vis free trade and many other initiatives we have undertaken.

With respect to his question on softwood lumber, I have addressed it a couple of times in the House but am happy to reiterate it for him now. The government is very clear that nobody in Canada wants to see the current deal extended or another deal such as the current one struck again.

The ultimate goal of the Canadian government on softwood lumber is very clear: free trade in lumber with the United States. Why? It is the surest way to achieve fairness for all the provinces and for all Canadians involved in the lumber business.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. As to why the Liberals were re-elected, I cannot answer that question. I do not understand why.

He says that everyone in Canada knows our position on free trade. I do not think that is right. I do not think they know. I do not think they know the government's position on a lot of things, like the softwood lumber issue or the national missile defence system.

I do not know why they were re-elected. It is a puzzle to me and certainly I do not think Canadians know where the government stands on hardly anything.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to jump in at this point having listened to the exchange between the Conservatives and the Liberals, both of whom I think bear a great deal of culpability for the dire consequences and side effects of the free trade approach by the federal government.

Whether we are talking about the Conservatives, who really pioneered NAFTA, or the Liberals, who were quick to break their campaign promise and proceed holus-bolus with adherence to NAFTA, the fact of the matter is that we have been left with a serious threat to our sovereignty and to our ability to control our own destiny insofar as we are dealing with the critical issues of universal public health care, education and other social services.

It is well known that in all cases, whether we are talking about FTA, NAFTA or now the free trade areas of the Americas agreement, and also whether we are concluding MAI and all the discussions at the WTO level, the bottom line seems to be to open up an area that is very lucrative in terms of trade, that being the health care sector of our economy.

How can my hon. Conservative colleague continue to defend this general direction in terms of trade knowing full well that our ability to protect our public health care system is threatened and knowing full well that as we sit and talk about the FTAA there are discussions proceeding around GATS and a very deliberate effort to include all social services in the area of globalization, free trade and the trading of public health for private wealth?

I see my colleague from the Liberal Party, the parliamentary secretary, shaking his head. There is no shortage of documentation to verify this threat and certainly no shortage of legal opinion to recognize the precarious position for health care as a result of these trade deals and all of these trade discussions.

As we look at the FTAA we have to be very wary about the real agenda behind it all and address it accordingly. This is not just from people in the NDP, people on the left or people on the Council of Canadians, we are also talking about reputable journals like the The Lancet , a medical journal which came out in December with an editorial entitled “Trading public health for private wealth”. It gave a very significant analysis of discussions at the WTO level around how our ability as a country to preserve publicly administered universal accessible health care is threatened.

That is my question to the member. If I could get an answer from the parliamentary secretary I would love it, but I will wait my turn.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have better answers anyway. I appreciate the NDP member's position but I want to make it really clear that the restoration and protection of health care is the number one priority of this party. There is not one member of parliament here who does not deal with people in need every day. We understand and are concerned about the social services that are necessary to help people who really need help. Every one of us is involved in that every day and that is a very important issue for us.

However, the bottom line is that if we did not have those 46% of our gross domestic product as exports or trade agreements that allowed us to have 46% of our gross domestic product shipped and sold to other countries, we would have no health care system and no money for social services. There has to be a balance between the two. I believe that with free trade agreements around the world we can protect our health care and social services more than in any other way.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, the Bloc Quebecois put forward, for debate in the House, a motion that reads as follows:

That this House demand that the government bring any draft agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification by the Government of Canada.

We have proposed this motion for several reasons, but I believe the main one is the lack of real trust between the government and the civil society, the government and opposition parties.

Unfortunately, as I have often said in my speeches, once bitten, twice shy. We must judge this government on its behaviour. I recall that during our second mandate, only a few days before we had a situation created by the MAI, the famous multilateral agreement on investment, we were gathered in a room on the first floor, on the Senate side. There, we had the great honour of receiving the secretary general of the OECD, Mr. Johnston, a Liberal who has served the government here and who was rewarded by being appointed to the highly prestigious position of secretary general of the OECD.

He was with us to talk about this famous agreement. I recall a sentence which struck me and which most of all shocked me. He said “It is up to us, the officials, to negotiate. You do not have to negotiate. Once the agreement is completely negotiated and signed, we will come back to explain it to you. It will then be up to you to sell it”.

These may not be the exact words used by the secretary general but it is, in substance, what he told us. He said to us “Do not bother with this. It is not up to you. Your role is to sell it after”.

What became of the MAI? Without the courage of the French government, and without Internet, which the members across the aisle have been praising since this morning, the agreement would probably have been signed. Most fortunately it was not. I recall some statements, like this one from the former president of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the French National Assembly, Mr. Jack Lang, who said about the MAI negotiations “I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”. This is what he said about the MAI, which had already been under negotiation for two years.

“I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”. We are probably in the same situation at the moment. Who is negotiating what and on behalf of whom to create the free trade area of the Americas? We know nothing about it.

We were told to look on the Internet, where we would find everything. I went on the Internet. I found all sorts of things on NAFTA, but nothing about what is going on at the moment.

And yet, when the Minister for International Trade, our government's homing pigeon, attended the October 1, 1999 meeting of the WTO, he said:

Canada proposes that ministers, in Seattle, commit themselves to enhancing the transparency of the WTO, so that secretariat working papers, formal contributions from members, draft meeting agendas and minutes will be circulated, with very limited exceptions, as unrestricted documents as soon as available in all three WTO languages.

A government minister said greater transparency was required. We have been calling for this since this morning. We want more transparency from this government. We want to be able to debate the agreement in this House, before it is ratified.

We do not want to be informed about all sorts of details that will be discussed at every meeting, subgroup, committee or subcommittee. We are asking the government to do its job. It has a mandate. We support the creation of the free trade area of the Americas, but the government has to do its job properly. At one point, it will have to report to us and to explain what it has done, before it is too late.

The Mulroney government, as was pointed out several times this morning, showed much courage when it had to face the stubbornness of the opposition of the day, which is now the government. It called a general election, even though, at that point, it only had the support of 19% of the voters, according to the polls. Everyone predicted that the Mulroney government would be soundly defeated.

Then they began talking about free trade. They organized forums. They held real debates. We had a taste of what democracy was like in Canada, instead of having to face the hypocrisy and the pretence of democracy that have existed since 1993. The government does everything behind our backs and always presents us with a fait accompli. We never get an answer to any question asked in the House. The government always evades the issue. It always says that the opposition does not understand, or know anything or know how to read.

The government, all of a sudden, has all the brains. It refuses to answer. Democracy is not doing well in this country. It is very important that we all agree on this issue.

We all know what happened with MAI. We must look at another point—raised by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party—the events relating to mad cow disease and Brazil.

If we pay close attention to what the minister is saying, one would be tempted to stand up and say “Excuse us, Mr. Minister, we should congratulate you on the fine job you are doing”. That is not the reality, however. If the situation is looked at more closely, we see that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has just been given a “blast”, forgive my English, by the auditor general, which is a clear illustration of the terrible mess that agency is in.

The agency has received a knockout blow. The auditor general has said it is incompetent, is understaffed, is not doing its work. He also said it was in league with the industry. The industry had reached the stage of checking its own food production. Not the agency, which lacked both funds and staff.

The minister was not too pleased at this situation. He wondered what he could do to improve the image of the agency. So he calls them up to inquire “Could you maybe turn up a mad cow or two somewhere?” He is told “Well yes, one in Brazil. Maybe”. Brazil is a long way from here and is the only country in America in which Portuguese is spoken.

The languages of the WTO are French, English and Spanish, whereas the language of Brazil is Portuguese. They refused to reply to our questionnaire. We have no information. Brazil, poor Brazil, has a population of 160 million. It is the second largest country in America in terms of population, and third largest in terms of area.

As far as our economy is concerned, Brazil is an important trading partner. So what do they do? We announced that Brazilian beef was banned. Finally the agency has an improved image, it is doing its job at last. I could continue for a very long time, but you have just indicated to me that I have only seconds left. I must state in closing that we have grounds for concern about the lack of transparency of this government.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, “I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”, said Mr. Lang when the MAI was discussed; that is a good quote. Does it apply to the present situation?

I know, so to speak, the answer to the question. This is the responsibility of the government, which was recently elected by a vast majority of Canadians and which is negotiating on the basis of the principles circulated on the Internet for everyone to see. It is negotiating with the help of the civil society here in Canada and elsewhere.

It is negotiating on behalf of all the people of Canada, who will benefit from an extension of markets and the creation of prosperity throughout all the Americas.

Could the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis tell me whether Quebecers agree with her and whether they are against free trade? Or am I wrong when I say to her that, in my opinion, the people of Quebec favour free trade, profit from it, and want to participate and not be hemmed in by an attitude like the hon. member's?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I did not say that I was opposed to free trade. In fact, if Mr. Mulroney won the election in 1988 it is thanks, among others, to Quebecers, because we supported free trade.

We were not like the Liberals who said “We are opposed to free trade”. They said it again in 1993. I clearly remember the Prime Minister saying “I will never sign this agreement unless major changes are made”. The Prime Minister later took off, almost in secret, and travelled to western Canada, thought things over and said “Perhaps I should sign that agreement. It will cause a lot less problems”.

So, all of a sudden, he called back the same negotiator and told him “Explain the agreement to me again. I did not clearly understand what you meant the first time”. Once the Prime Minister clearly understood the agreement, he signed it with very minor changes. I am not even sure those changes made the headlines, because the changes requested by the Prime Minister were so minor.

We support free trade. But who is negotiating right now? Members should not come and tell me it is the Minister for International Trade who is at the table negotiating. There are people negotiating. Where is the list of negotiators? What issues is the government negotiating? Where is the agenda? Where are the documents used as a basis for negotiating? What is Canada's position in these negotiations?

We do not know the government's position and it is not true that it can be found on the Internet. This morning, my assistant surfed the net and we could not find anything on Canada's position. If a negotiation session were to take place here right now, what would the government say? The government is keeping its position secret and wants to put before members of parliament a fait accompli.

Why is civil society complaining about the fact that it was not consulted? Once again, the government consulted its own groups, namely those who contributed to its campaign coffers. They will say what it wants to hear. We are fed up with the government's lack of democracy and lack of transparency.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, considering the importance of the issue, could we ask ourselves certain questions without being labelled anti-free trade?

Personally, I am for free trade but, as a citizen and consumer, I have the right to ask questions and to get answers. In what kind of system are we living? Is it a democracy or not? Why is it that every time we stand up to ask questions, the people across the way say that we are against whatever the subject of the debate is, when all we want is some clarification? We want to know what is going on. These are questions that our fellow citizens ask us in our riding.

Since my distinguished colleague has some experience in the House of Commons, I would ask her what we can do to get the answers to the questions and concerns our constituents raise? It is healthy to have concerns. It is not that these people are against free trade, but they want to know what we are getting into. With her experience, could my colleague tell me how we could get the answers we need?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be short. We could follow the example of the government and go get these answers on the Internet. The problem is that three quarters of the population do not have access to Internet at the moment.

The Internet is not readily accessible in rural areas and there are many rural areas in Canada. We even have a secretary of state in charge of this famous issue.

I agree with my colleague from Champlain. We must be concerned with the lack of democracy, the lack of access to information and the absence of answers to our questions.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Joliette on his very timely motion in the House today calling for debate and a vote before any agreement on the free trade area of the Americas is ratified. The riding of Québec will be hosting the summit of the Americas.

I would like to remind members that politicians in Quebec, sovereignist and federalist alike, have always supported free trade, unlike the Liberal Party of Canada, which earlier opposed it.

The 148.6% increase in Quebec's exports to the United States between 1991 and 1998 are testimony to the wisdom of opening up trade. But we must look beyond the apparent success of these figures, and take the time to analyse the real impact these agreements will have on workers, and particularly on their quality of life.

These gains must be kept in perspective. Some workers continue to lose ground. More and more people are earning the minimum wage, without benefits. There is also an increase in the number of jobs without security and atypical jobs.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is calling for some form of social protection, and is concerned about what is being negotiated behind the scenes. It wants the gulf between rich and poor to stop growing, and it wants to see the growth in exports accompanied by a decrease in poverty and benefits for all classes of society.

We are particularly concerned when we know that the minister who will be at the negotiating table, the current Minister for International Trade, once said that social rights have nothing to do with trade. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is worried. It cannot do the work of all the ministers. We have reason to be worried.

Although the Bloc Quebecois is keenly interested in globalization and is in fact favourable to a liberalization of trade, it also shares the worries and the hopes of the public. The Bloc Quebecois considers that this liberalization must not come at the expense of cultural diversity or social rights, whether through the WTO or the free trade area of the Americas.

My colleagues have talked and will talk abundantly about the importance of addressing social rights and other concerns with respect to the FTAA negotiations. Those are legitimate concerns that are very important to me, but in the few minutes I have I will stick to one aspect, which relates specifically to my responsibilities as heritage critic, and that is how culture ought to be treated.

No one can talk about international trade agreements without thinking about cultural issues. The recent defeat of Canada on the magazine issue is a harsh reminder in that regard. We have great confidence in the ability of our cultural artisans to carve for themselves a place in Quebec as well as in the whole world.

We hope that the conclusion of a trade agreement for the Americas will result in even more extensive cultural exchanges between Quebec and Latin American countries.

So, why worry, some would say. Because Quebec culture did not develop all on its own. The Government of Quebec used its response authority to support its development and growth. That approach was taken by every Quebec government regardless of its political stripe.

It must be recalled that Quebec interventions have been conceived and implemented in order to offset deficiencies in the market environment and to allow for the development of a domestic culture.

That is why we are recommending that any trade agreement preserve any present or future response capability of the Quebec government. The right of governments to adopt policies of support for creators, creation and also distribution must be recognized.

Even more important, cultural diversity is an international asset that should be recognized and protected by an international charter.

Our culture is not totally isolated. The summary report on multi-stakeholder consultations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, released last week by the Minister for International Trade, provides, under the heading “Autonomy for Self-Governing Bodies”:

Participants feared that policies favouring local hiring, or encouraging cultural sensitivity in the delivery of services, might be compromised.

This fear is all the more justified since, despite the fact that the federal government is stating loud and clear that it supports cultural protection, Cabinet cannot agree on the stand to take.

The Prime Minister of Canada is saying that the question of cultural diversity is a matter for the WTO, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would prefer that the matter be debated at UNESCO.

In an article in the National Post on November 20 entitled “The Conversion of Sergio Marchi”, journalist Murray Dobbie passes on the disturbing words of Canada's representative to the WTO. According to this journalist, the former minister said that education and teaching could be covered by the next agreements.

However, another summary report on multi-stakeholder consultations with respect to the General Agreement on Trade in Services provides that:

The Government of Canada will not make any commitment that restricts our ability to achieve our cultural policy objectives until a new international instrument can be established designed specifically to safeguard the right of countries to promote and preserve their cultural diversity.

And so, what is this government's true position on culture? Is it that of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage? What is the real intent of the government? The words reported by Mr. Marchi or the summary report released last week by the Minister for International Trade? Could someone in government set the record straight?

Culture means words. It involves the choices we make to express who we are, what we experience, how we feel and what we want to become. These words are conveyed by language, painting, song, film, radio, television, clay modelling and marble polishing. They are conveyed by pictures, etchings, theatre, in a word, by the passion and genius of our artisans, who sketch in broad strokes our daily lives, as witnesses to and tireless participants in our history.

This is why it is so important for us to jealously protect and parsimoniously share the culture of a people.

As Gilles Vigneault put it in his song:

With our words, our games, our work and our dance, our joys and our sorrows too, four hundred years of faith, love and hope with those who lived here, our mirrors and our differences, we have become this people and this country.

It is because of all these emotions and this wealth of day to day experience that we do not want culture reduced to a consumer good like the others. We must not forget that it gives life to a people as they are and that we are here to speak in our own way, in the manner of each people.