Mr. Speaker, I know the member asked a question about common currency. I would simply recall for him the words said earlier today during question period, if I heard them correctly, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which were that this was not something that was of any interest to Canada now or in the foreseeable future. I think the Prime Minister made similar statements not too long ago.
I understand that the member has his own riding and indeed the province of Quebec where I suppose he is aiming message. However I have to take him up on the issue and ask him a question.
It is simply incorrect to say this deal is being negotiated in a back room. There has never been a wider consultation with Canadians on a proposed trade deal. The member knows full well that members of the Bloc had ample opportunity at SCFAIT, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to share their views, and they did so very aggressively and eloquently.
How can the member deny that input was provided? There have been wide and extensive consultations with people in Quebec, with NGOs and with ministers, including the minister of Quebec.
Does the member not understand that the process proposed in the Bloc motion is in direct contravention to the way all other trade deals between Canada and any other country have been negotiated?
The process that the government would seek to follow, in bringing a signed deal to the House of Commons for full review and possible amendment and then voting on enabling legislation, is the exact process that has been followed for NAFTA, the WTO, the Canada-Chile agreement and the Canada-Israel agreement.
Would the member comment on that? Does he not see that it is the Bloc's motion, specifically the words “draft legislation” in the motion, that seeks to make a major change in the way Canada has done trade deals in the past?