Debates of Feb. 15th, 2001

Single Currency

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think the matter of a single currency raised last summer by Mr. Fox is an issue he has considered for the past 25 years.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It is a long term vision. He mentioned other very long term aspects of North American relations.

For us, there are a number of more important things in the short term with respect to trilateral relations among the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The Environment

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment tabled the sustainable development strategies for 28 government departments and agencies.

Is the Minister of the Environment able to tell the House what these strategies will accomplish?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the 28 sustainable development strategies tabled yesterday are designed to ensure that federal departments and agencies consider the environment, the economy and society in all policy and program decisions, and do so in an integrated manner.

The strategies will greatly assist in achieving the commitments Canada made during the 1992 earth summit.

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual on Thursday the country is aflutter in anticipation of what the government House leader might have in mind for us for business for the rest of today and for the next week. Could he tell us what that would be?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the Thursday question of the hon. opposition House leader.

This afternoon we will continue with the Bloc opposition day.

On Friday, tomorrow that is, we will debate second reading of Bill C-3 respecting Petro-Canada. Should that item conclude, I do not foresee calling any other business for tomorrow.

Next Monday we will debate Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable development foundation. This will be followed by Bill C-5, the species at risk bill.

Next Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Next Wednesday we will return to the species at risk bill that is to be started on Monday, or commence it if it was not begun at the earlier session I have just described.

On Thursday of next week at 10 a.m. there will be a special joint sitting of the Senate and House of Commons in the Commons Chamber to hear an address by the prime minister of Britain, the Right Hon. Tony Blair.

My present intention for Friday of next week is to call the marine liabilities bill.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Thursday question and the government House leader's intention of calling the bill on endangered species, could he inform the House if he will be sending it to committee before second reading?

With respect to the Brazilian mad cow fiasco, the government should be willing to tell Canadians whether it will follow science or politics. The committee could only engage in the question before second reading. Is the government willing to do that?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a variety of topics in the same question. My understanding is that the issue of mad cow disease is a decision of the agriculture department, and the species at risk legislation would hardly deal with that. As far as I know, cows are not yet an endangered species in this country.

Regarding Bill C-5 and the status of it, I understand on one occasion in the past it was dealt with at committee before second reading. I am still verifying whether it should be reintroduced in that manner. The present intention, unless I get additional information, is to proceed in the usual manner with committee meetings following second reading because the other process has been utilized in reference to essentially the same bill once already.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Supply

[The Speaker]

When we interrupted debate to go on to question period, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had seven minutes left.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable albeit a bit short for such an important debate on the transparency of the negotiation and ratification process of trade deals, and in particular the upcoming agreement on the free trade area of the Americas.

Before question period I was talking about the lack of public confidence. Every time an international summit is held, there are huge demonstrations.

A lot of people take to the streets, not only professional demonstrators, but also representatives of ordinary citizens who are fed up with negotiations being carried out behind closed doors and taking the country down the wrong road without the public's knowledge.

Let me give an example. We happened to find out recently that, for the last two years, the OECD countries have been negotiating behind closed doors an agreement promoting freer investments throughout the world. We talk about the multilateral agreement on investment, but no one in this House, not to mention the public, knew that, for the last two years, the OECD countries had been negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment liberalization.

It took a leak on the Internet to find out about the content of these negotiations, to find out what was being negotiated on our behalf. What was included in the agreement was very ugly.

For the first time, an international agreement would have given transnational corporations the power to do whatever they wanted all over the world, and it would also have given them all the benefits, while all the costs would have been supported by populations all over the world. That did not make any sense.

Under such an agreement, most of Quebec's strategic crown corporations, for example, would have been deemed illegal. Governments would have had their hands tied and would not have been able to implement, in compliance with major international agreements, economic policies like they do now. Luckily, there was that leak. But is it normal to have to rely on such leaks to know what is going on in the negotiations?

I find it hard to understand the Liberals' reaction in speaking against the motion before us, considering that precedents exist regarding what we are asking.

During the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and then the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, debates took place, then the agreement or the “Act to implement” was introduced here. Debates took place in this House and amendments were proposed. Some of these amendments were even adopted by the House. I am thinking, among others, of the amendment made to NAFTA in 1993 to exclude water exports from the agreement. That amendment was proposed in the House. It was adopted and included in the act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Why this reluctance? Do they want to do what was done with the MAI? Do they want to negotiate behind closed doors, prevent us from knowing the outcome of these negotiations and then present the agreement to us as a fait accompli, without any debate, without ratification by this House? This does not make any sense.

One wonders what is going through the Liberals' minds. Do they want to ignore the precedents of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the precedents of debate and ratification by this House, and the precedents of approval, even of the amendments introduced here, which was allowed when NAFTA was signed? Do they want to change the rules? Do they want to do as the former Minister for International Trade did when he kept the negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment under wraps for two years? He kept the House in the dark.

Is that what the Liberals have in mind for the free trade area of the Americas agreement? Is that what the Liberals have in mind for the next World Trade Organization agreement? We will not stand for it. We cannot. And that is the purpose of our motion.

We want to ensure that the government respects the precedents of the FTA and NAFTA, that it allows debate on the final agreement and on the implementing legislation, and that it allows amendments to be made if there is anything amiss in these agreements. We are here to represent the public; we are not here to kowtow to the powers that be in this government, the people negotiating on our behalf behind closed doors. Those days are gone. We want transparency here.

We also want the basic texts to be made public, and we do not mean posted on the government's darn web site. Government propaganda is not what we want. We want the basic text on which the discussions are based.

If this sort of problem had not arisen in the past, the Prime Minister would not have said himself on October 11, 1999, with reference to the negotiations in Seattle:

Canada proposes that the ministers in Seattle undertake to improve the organization's transparency.

If transparency was not a problem, the Prime Minister would not have raised the issue on October 11, 1999. Again I quote:

With very limited exception, working papers, formal contribution from members, draft meeting agendas and minutes will be circulated as unrestricted documents—

That means the documents will be made available to the public.

—as soon as available in all three WTO languages.

If transparency had not been a problem, the Prime Minister would not have said that. Canadian officials would not have said that either. Why then, when we ask for more transparency, are we told that everything is hunky-dory and that we just have to go on the web site? Whom are they kidding? I hope the Liberals will support our motion.

If they do not, it will mean that, unlike the Conservatives with the FTA and NAFTA, they are going to bypass parliament with regard to the implementation act. They will say no to any sensible amendments we might introduce. It would be an extremely serious attack on democracy. This would send the message that the MAI process would apply to the FTAA. This means there is a total lack of transparency; it is hypocrisy behind closed doors.

When we look at the nine discussion tables, we see that they are dealing with issues such as culture, education, and intellectual property. In Quebec, we will not let the government pull the wool over our eyes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing to hear the degree of contradiction one is hearing today in debate from the Bloc members.

One member, on the one hand, says he cannot find the website or that there is nothing on it. However the member who just spoke makes direct reference to the website. Which is it? Is the Bloc aware there exists a website that is visited constantly by Canadians on a day to day basis? Is the Bloc aware of that? Is the member not aware that he seems to contradict himself?

One the one hand he calls for more consultation with Canadians and for transparency. On the other hand he seeks to circumvent that and wants to see the government's final positions right now. He cannot have it both ways. Which is it?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not stupid. Between what can be found on a web site, which is government propaganda on general public policies, and what is discussed at the negotiation tables based on official position statements, there is a world of difference.

We want a look at these official statements, not the government propaganda. We have always had access to government propaganda. We do not believe in it.

I know what I am talking about because I was at the eighth round of negotiations at the GATT now known as the WTO. Between what we were told by government officials and what was written in the public documents—there were no web site at the time, it happened too long ago—and what was actually negotiated and the statements that were made, there was a lot of difference and even some contradiction.

Let me point out one of them. With regard to agriculture, we were supposed to stand for supply management and the control of the volume of milk product imports at the Canadian border. At the same time, Canada was part of the group trying to eliminate the supply management system in the milk industry.

Talk about trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. What we want to know is what is really being negotiated. We do not want to see the propaganda. What we also want, and I hope the government has not changed its mind and will not act differently than the Conservatives did, is for the implementation bill to be introduced in the House before the agreement is ratified and for us to be able to amend the legislation. Mistakes are bound to happen.

They cannot claim to have a monopoly on truth. We should also have our say on this issue. We represent the civil society. We have just been elected to represent people. We are not greenery. That accounts for the erosion of trust in the population. People show up to vote, but for whom? For people who will fight for them and will inform them.

Supranational organizations account for roughly 50% of public affairs. Our future is determined by those organizations, and we do not have a say. It is determined by people like Mr. Johnston, from OECD, who is abysmally arrogant. He told us that he would force the MAI down our throats and that we would have no choice but to accept it. It was negotiated, it was a done deal.

But we have news for them. With the MAI, we have shown that the civil society and the population are able to make unacceptable agreements fail. We will do the same with the other agreements, but we must be given the opportunity to do so.

We cannot always count on leaks on the Internet. The members on the other side of the House have to be transparent and honest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot resist this. Having lived through two referendums on the future of this country in the province of Quebec, to hear the member repeatedly use the word propaganda, I am sorry, but it is pretty tough for most Canadians to sit here and listen to that kind of nonsense without reacting to it.

I know exactly what the member wants. His colleagues have made it clear all day. They seek to change the constitution of Canada on the fly. They want something done which has never been done in the history of this country. That is all they want.

They want us to table the legislation in its draft form. That has never been done in the history of this country. The government will continue to follow the established process. It will continue to consult widely with Canadians in every province, including the province of Quebec, but it will not accede to this request because this request is totally out of line.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what he is saying makes no sense. It is totally stupid to claim that the constitution has to be changed if a bill is to be introduced on the implementation of a free trade agreement within the Americas. That was negotiated under the Progressive Conservatives with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and with the free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreements were debated in the House and amendments were accepted.

To quote one of these, if I may, from May 25, 1993. Mr. Barrett, seconded by Mr. Angus, proposed the following amendment: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), nothing in this Act or the Agreement applies to any water transported by a pipeline or diverted by reason of the diversion of a river”. This was moved and adopted in the House. We amended the free trade agreement Implementation Act with the United States and Mexico. We did not amend the Constitution.

They are completely off the rails. I have never seen such a thing.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion. Let me at the outset tell you that I am very strongly opposed to the motion for one fundamental, basic reason, that is, there is a hidden agenda behind it that frankly is not so hidden.

I think we all know, in fact, that the Bloc believes Quebec should in an official capacity be sitting at the table whenever Canada is negotiating international contracts of any nature. We all understand that the men and women in that party are devoted to a sovereign Quebec, devoted to separating, even though the people of the province of Quebec have clearly indicated that they do not support that view, on a number of occasions.

Also, all of the polling data that could be made available to the members opposite, which they choose to ignore, shows that the people of Quebec are much more interested in the same issues that affect the people of Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Alberta and wherever you want to go in this country. Those issues are jobs, the future of the country for their young people, education, and the number one issue of vast majority of Canadians, health care and what is happening in health care.

When we talk about these international trade negotiations it is important to understand that the motion before us today in fact refers to a draft agreement. It does not refer to a final agreement that has been hammered out and that perhaps before it is signed should come here, but to a draft agreement, which would mean that every amendment, every piece of negotiating material, every change, every bargaining chip, in fact the entire negotiation process, should be subjected to a debate and a vote in this place.

On the surface Canadians might say that I have been elected as a national politician to represent the interests of all Canadians from sea to sea to sea. If there is a negotiating committee that is meeting with Chile, for example, to negotiate some kind of a free trade agreement, or with any other country, Canadians might ask why, as a national politician elected to protect the views of all Canadians, I would not want the opportunity to vote on whether or not we should sign that document. On the surface some people might say that is a reasonable position, but in practical terms let us visit what might happen in that particular scenario.

There are 301 members in this place, 172 of which were elected to form the government. In fact the actual government is the Governor in Council. It is the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Everyone understands that. A member of the Liberal backbench is in fact a member usually in support of the government. A member from one of the other four parties in this place would be defined as a member opposed to the government.

It is the duty and obligation of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to hold the government accountable, all the opposition, even the Bloc, which might not recognize the authority that comes originally from Westminster and now from the constitution of the country. However, is it their obligation, their duty, to simply create gridlock either in the House of Commons or in the ability of our trade negotiators to negotiate when working around the world?

In fact, I think the opposite is true. It is the duty and the obligation of all elected members in this place, regardless of where they are from in the country, regardless of what political philosophy they have, to ensure that we do indeed wind up with the best possible negotiated trade agreement.

That does not mean that we can somehow, in some arrogant, flamboyant way, say to the people in the Americas that they are going to do it our way or the highway. As we can imagine, since there are 301 members in this place there could be 301 different opinions on any given day on any given subject.

The frustrating part is that much of it is driven by misinformation. Much of it is driven because the opposition indeed sees its role to be more than just opposing the government. The opposition parties see their role as that of taking any opportunity they can to embarrass the government, hence all of the personal attacks against the Prime Minister. Instead of dealing with the nation's business, what do we hear in question period? We do not hear the Leader of the Opposition standing in his place asking the government about help for farmers or about a housing policy, things that we in this caucus ask our leadership about all the time. We do not hear that.

The nation's business is taking a back seat in the House of Commons in this particular session. It is being replaced by mudslinging and the lowest form of politics that exists in this great democracy, which is personality attacks and personal attempts to assassinate a member of the House who happens to be the Prime Minister.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

It is true. Members can disagree, but that is the strategy. I do not necessarily include the Bloc in that strategy because it seems to be an unholy alliance between the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It is interesting to hear their comments when they say that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done, and not only must a government be above the law, it must be seen to be above the law.

What does that mean? That means they have no proof there is anything going on here that is against the law, so what they want to do is create some kind of an atmosphere, some kind of an insinuation, some kind of an attack. It is a fishing expedition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to tell my colleague on the other side, but he is totally off track on what the subject is of today's debate over here. He is not discussing the motion. I wish to bring that to your attention.

[The Speaker]

My recollection is that the hon. member is talking about something to do with bringing bills before the House which deal with international trade matters. It seems to me that has some relevance to the issue before the House, perhaps not as direct as some might like, but it has something to do with the issue before the House. I know the hon. member for Mississauga West always like to tie his remarks together and I am sure he will do that.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling. What is interesting is that the relevance to using the example of what the opposition is doing—at least the official opposition—is that they are distracting from the issues we should be dealing with. In fact, I will say that at least the Bloc has put on the table today an issue that deals with some free trade negotiations and agreements and that is not necessarily the mudslinging we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party.

The relevance is about one simple fact, the point that I made earlier, that is, it is the duty and the obligation of the opposition to hold the government accountable, not to climb into the gutter, not to wallow in the political malaise that we see in this place, but rather to put forward ideas that can be debated, even though I believe the Bloc has a hidden agenda, which is always tied around the sovereignty of Quebec. It always comes back to its ability to somehow control the agenda on behalf of one province. Instead of dealing with nationhood, instead of dealing with nation building, instead of dealing with international responsibilities, it is always and only their focus to bring it right back to la belle province. Frankly, I think that in regard to the people of the province of Quebec the Bloc misreads what those people want.

The motion that is before us is more constructive, at least, than the nonsense we have been hearing from the official opposition and others in this place, but it is terribly misguided.

Let us just think about trade. In my riding of Mississauga West I cannot imagine what would happen in our economy if we did not have a free trade agreement and an ability to do business with the United States, with Mexico and with all parts of the world. My riding is the head office capital for Japanese head offices in Canada. I think we have over 85 of them in the city of Mississauga, not just in my riding, but in the entire city.

Should we have some kind of a trade relationship and, if so, are we then going to bring it into this place instead of allowing the professional negotiators to do the job? There are 34 countries negotiating an international trade agreement involving Canada and the Americas. There are 34 countries. Imagine the meeting. There would already be two or three negotiators from each country, I am sure, perhaps more. There would be a bevy of staff and advisers sitting behind them trying to help them on various points.

They have obligations. This is not just about Canada. Certainly our role is to defend the interests of this country, but is it not in the interests of Canadians and everyone in this country to ensure that prosperity, good quality education, good quality health care and a good standard of living are made available to these other countries? I think it is a benefit to us.

If they will not accept that it may be a global social responsibility to share our tremendous wealth, ideas and capabilities, then they should look at it from a purely selfish point of view, a business point of view.

Our Prime Minister, as we all know, is in China. The headlines indicate he is talking pretty tough about human rights violations. However there are people who would say, particularly on the left of the political spectrum, that he is not tough enough and that he should stand up and tell the 1.2 billion Chinese they had better do it our way.

Instead there have been constructive attempts to share some of the benefits that have come out of what is frankly the greatest democracy in the world: Canada. Let us think about how tolerant we are. Let us think about the Council of Canadians and Maude Barlow, who once unsuccessfully ran for a Liberal nomination and who might have wound up in this place. I am sure she is a talented individual.

Somehow that group has deemed to take it upon itself to tear down every trade agreement and to march in the streets arm in arm with the New Democrats to say that it is awful. That group says we are giving away our water, giving away our culture and giving away our sovereignty. It says we are giving and giving and giving.

We are not doing any of that. In fact we are sharing our technology. We are sharing our abilities. Yes, we will share from time to time some of our resources in return for sharing some of theirs. It is quid pro quo. It is not rocket science. If we negotiate trade agreements with countries in the Americas that can improve their standard of living, then we should just follow that bouncing ball.

If we improve the standard of living in Guatemala, for example, what are we doing? We wind up putting more money in the pockets of people in that nation. We wind up creating jobs in that nation. Then what happens? They buy Canadian products. They buy Canadian technology. They buy Canadian expertise.

Do we think that in the year 2001 we could somehow build a wall? In Alberta they call it a firewall. Alberta would like to put up a firewall, whatever that means, so it can somehow stop the chuckwagons from coming from eastern Canada and ramming things. It is ridiculous.

We saw members of the official opposition attending the founding meeting of some western separation party. I forget their ridings, but to see Bert and Ernie, or Homer and Bart Simpson, or whoever they were, going to that meeting was absolutely shameful. They should have gone to the meeting and said that it was silly, that they were Canadians first, because that is what Albertans believe.

We have all seen the latest polling data. Some of the separatists involved continue to flex their muscles in spite of the fact that Albertans have ranked the Leader of the Opposition lower than just about anyone else in the country last, in fact, in approval ratings. They cannot take western Canada cannot of the country.

[The Speaker]

I know the hon. member for Mississauga West is doing his best, but the motion does deal with NAFTA and trade. I think perhaps he is straying just a little far off topic. I invite him to return to the subject of his remarks that he was giving earlier.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I liked your former ruling better than that one. I appreciate your direction. I get a little excited from time to time when I go down the path of some of the irresponsible behaviour I have seen in this place. I am pleased to come back.

With due respect, Sir, I do not think I strayed too far. The issue is how we negotiate agreements with other countries and put the best interests of Canadians forward. We have heard from members of the Bloc today that it is some secretive process that never sees the light of day. I guess they do not have computers. I am sure that as members of parliament they have a budget, as we do, which would allow them to have computers. They could probably afford, in their members' operating budget, to tap into that new scary thing called the web.

If they want to know what is going on, all the data is on the web for all to see. It is there for all Canadians and not just for members of parliament. If the members want to create gridlock they can ignore that. If they want to know what is happening with questions they have in the House, they have an opportunity in question period to stand and ask the Minister for International Trade what is going on with the negotiations.

Opposition members of parliament have opportunities to seek out meetings with members of the government. I am quite sure government members would be more than prepared to meet with the critic or a group from the opposition side.

We have a parliamentary secretary who is second to none in this place. He is the member for London—Fanshawe, and he would be more than delighted to sit and explain what is going on in relation to the negotiations. All they have to do is ask.

The hon. members do not have to put forward a motion stating that somehow, sitting at the centre table in here, we will do all the negotiating in this place. We all know what would happen. Everything would be blown out of proportion. There would be grandstanding beyond belief. People would play to the cameras instead of trying to resolve a deal that would be best for all Canadians.

It is almost trite, inconsequential and unbelievable to have to say that we live in a global economy, but obviously we do. We must be prepared to trade in the world, to trade aggressively and to put our best foot forward. We must give our negotiating team the ability to do that. We must not create gridlock by suggesting that somehow we will magically become experts in the areas of free trade and in negotiating international trade agreements.

Some people perhaps have a swollen opinion of themselves when it comes to their understanding and their capabilities. I trust the negotiators to come forward with a plan that will be in the best interests of the country. Our government has a very solid track record in that regard.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to try to polish our image. That is very clear. We are here to have intelligent debates in which we must respect other people's intelligence. It is very important to do that, because we are here to represent people who are also intelligent.

We should not be seen as stupid nor, indirectly, should those we represent be seen as stupid.

Our motion does not require any change to the constitution nor any major upheaval. We want a debate like the ones we had under the Conservative government on the free trade agreement with the United States and under the Liberals on the ratification of NAFTA. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the agreement, but it was the Liberals who, after spending years tearing their hair out and opposing free trade, ratified that agreement. They swallowed their pride and they passed the act implementing the agreement.

Under that process, implementation bills were introduced in both cases and were debated. Could someone tell us whether a parliament is still a place to hold debates and not a place to have spineless members who say “We are backbenchers, we cannot say anything”? It is unbelievable to hear such things.

Perhaps the member has no talent in international trade, as he has said himself, but he has a responsibility of properly representing those who elected him.

Could we just ask him whether he would agree, as happened with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, to a debate here, so amendments could be tabled and we could debate them in order to improve the agreement, if need be, before ratification?

They did it in the case of NAFTA. Why do things differently with the free trade area of the Americas? Why do things differently with the upcoming WTO agreement?

We have no pretensions. We just want to honour our responsibilities, to not have any tricks played on us, like the people of the industrialized world could have been with the multilateral agreement on investment, with their great friend Mr. Johnston, a man of incredible arrogance. He, with his nose in the air, almost right to the ceiling, said that it was already a fait accompli, that the people had simply to note the great negotiations held in order to look after the interests of the world's multinational companies.

Things do not work like that in real world. We are here to represent and defend the interests of people and to ensure that everything that is negotiated is good for them.