Debates of March 27th, 2001

The Acadians

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I join with my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to speak on Motion No. 241 praying Her Excellency to intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

I want to remind the House that this is private members' business, a private member's motion, which means that normally representatives of the various parties had to sit at a table and determine unanimously if the motion would be a votable item.

If members sitting at that table had disagreed, if, for instance, some Liberal and Alliance members had decided at that meeting to say no, we would not even be able to debate this motion for three hours and then vote on it. What it means is that members agreed with this motion. So, the House has to realize that this is a private member's motion and not a Bloc Quebecois motion. I wanted to make that clear. That is the reason I support my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, who is half Acadian, wants to speak for the Acadians and is asking for an apology. Let me turn now to my speech.

As a full-blooded Acadian, I know about this historic period, as all Acadians do. What we call the deportation of the Acadians is surely the saddest period in the history of Acadia. The fact that I am sitting here, in this House, as an Acadian proves that it did not have the desired results.

They were asked to take the oath of allegiance to the British crown, in the hope that this would prevent these neutral people from taking up arms against the British.

It so happens that any self-respecting Acadian is a Catholic, and believe me, a practising Catholic. The Acadians refused to take the oath for two reasons: as Catholics, they were concerned about losing their right to practise their religion freely, and they were also concerned about being forced to take up arms against their motherland, France, or their cousins from Canada. All they wanted was to remain neutral.

Unfortunately, the authorities in London at the time, as a result of the correspondence sent by the lieutenant-governor, decided to let them go, since they refused to take the oath of allegiance, and thus acquire their lands, which were considered the best in the region.

However, a judge from Nova Scotia ruled that any Acadians refusing to take the oath of allegiance would lose their property rights.

Unfortunately Acadians were never invited to appear before the judge to plead their case, and the decision was fatal. It is following this ruling that it was decided that Acadians would be deported from the province of Nova Scotia.

Let us not forget that this was in 1755. Seasons were sometimes difficult and resources very scarce. In the summer of 1755, preparations were made for the deportation of these neutral people. After the whole issue of the oath of allegiance, several thousands Acadians had already left the area, because relations had become very tense between the two groups.

At that time, in Acadia, there were about 180,000 Acadians. Impressive, is it not? So the order to send enough ships to transport them to the chosen destinations was given.

Everything had been well organized. The plan was to arrest all the Acadians they could in the most populated areas of Acadia, to embark them on ships and to disperse them in the Anglo-American colonies along the Atlantic coast, from Massachusetts to Georgia.

An important meeting was called in every local church where the heads of families, young men 10 years old and older and old men were held prisoner. Several Acadians, sensing danger, had fled into the woods.

However, several thousand were prisoners. Entire families were separated forever. Women never saw their husband again and hundreds of children became orphans. Is was a tragedy. One can imagine the suffering and the distress of these families. The same operation was carried out in several Acadians villages in 1755.

In the words of Colonel Winslow, who was in charge of putting the Acadians from Grand-Pré and from all the area around Minas Basin on board the ships, according to Bona Arsenault, author of L'histoire de l'Acadie :

The inhabitants, wrote Winslow that very day, left their houses with sadness and regret. Women were very distressed, carrying their newborns in their arms; others brought along in carts their infirm parents and their personal effects. In short, it was a scene in which confusion was mixed with despair and desolation.

I read these words with emotion, and I am certain that all those present can understand and share the consternation experienced by my ancestors.

Once they were separated, the Acadians were crowded into ships and sent to the Anglo-American colonies. Some 7,000 Acadians were to be deported in this way to the colonies to face their fates alone, while others were enslaved. Some fled into the forest, where they met death from cold, illness or starvation.

This deportation went on for several years. The Acadians were chased mercilessly from their homeland and plunged overnight into abject poverty, separated from their loved ones.

As any one familiar with Acadians will know, an Acadian can never be kept down. Many came back to the maritimes, to restore their dear Acadia. They settled in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and even the Gaspé, never again to see their family members or the members of their former communities from whom they had been separated by deportation.

I invite Canadians to visit the maritimes some day to learn more about the events in history that left their mark on a people, but also on Canada. I am sure some of my colleagues in the House have Acadian blood in their veins, as my colleague for Verchères—les-Patriotes has just discovered. They have Acadian blood in their veins and do not know it.

[An hon. member]

I don't.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Maybe not, but one never knows. We could look into it. It would be a discovery of some significance for these individuals to find out that they have Acadian blood in their veins.

In supporting Motion No. 241, I am speaking on behalf of all the Acadians who lost their lives, their families and their children in that part of Acadian history that has shaped the history of Canada and my own history.

The Acadian people are still around and have their own distinguishing characteristics and culture. Over the years, they have never been as vibrant and proud of their identity.

Today, I was disappointed to hear the member for Madawaska—Restigouche turning the debate into a partisan issue because I believe that every member elected to this place has the right to be here and to introduce a private member's motion, regardless of his political affiliation.

I am sure that the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes was sincere in introducing his motion. I have trouble accepting that members would rise in the House and accuse another party of being at fault. We are Canadians. As a pure-blooded Acadian, all that I am asking is that, when an error has been made or atrocities committed, it is not hard to say “I am sorry”.

I too have children. If I make a mistake as a father, if I have done something wrong, I assume my responsibilities and I say “I am sorry, I made a mistake”. This is how one wins the respect of others.

We perhaps cannot forget certain disciplinary actions that were taken, but we can at least accept them. We can see the future. I am forced to make this comment because I am disappointed at the speech made by the member across the way.

I wonder whether a minister did not write his speech for him. He calls himself the Acadian MP, but I think they will always say that they are Brayons. I do not want to start another debate.

The Bloc Quebecois motion will not turn back the clock, but it will right a terrible wrong.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate.

I congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for bringing the motion forward. I believe the motives of the hon. member are genuine. This is part of his personal history of which he is very proud. From my brief conversation with the member this evening I believe it was in that spirit that he brought forth the motion.

We are talking about a people with a proud history. Anyone who has done even peripheral reading on the history of the Acadians before 1755, during their expulsion in 1755 and after their return in 1763 or 1768, depending on the situation, knows that it is almost surreal.

While the Progressive Conservative Party is indeed supportive of the principle of the motion, we are also respectful of the Acadian community's right to generate its own request for an apology based on the desires of its people.

No one should be too territorial in that regard. It would be wrong for me to say that because the province of New Brunswick, the province I come from, has the largest Acadian population it should have the largest say in the matter. We should consult all Acadian peoples whether they reside in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia. I point out that on their return from Louisiana many Acadians made their home in Quebec as well, where they have lived quite proudly for generations.

The Acadian identity is intrinsically linked to the tragic events that surrounded the deportation. The community has survived the centuries based on that common historical link. I am very proud to live in a province that is proud of its history and its origins.

We need symbols to remember our collective history, and I am proud of how we embrace our linguistic and cultural duality in New Brunswick. On the front lawn of the legislature in Fredericton, where I understand the hon. member has roots, the Acadian flag flies proud. Except for the star of Mary, it is essentially the same as the flag of France. The Acadians chose that flag because of their French roots but added the star of Mary, a symbol of the Roman Catholic Church, because they had an independent history of their own.

We have some concerns regarding a letter the Societé nationale de l'Acadie wrote to the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. The letter said:

Although, obviously I agree with the principle of the motion, I must tell you that we are indignant about the fact that it was brought forward without anyone having the courtesy to consult the Société nationale de l'Acadie beforehand.

The Societé nationale de l'Acadie is very concerned about not having proper consultation, and we should be respectful of that. We should also be respectful of the provincial legislatures that are involved. The premiers and legislatures of other provinces might want a say in the issue as well.

I have always been respectful that the province of Quebec has the right to speak for its own future. I would argue as well that the Societé nationale de l'Acadie has the responsibility and the right to present the position of Acadians in requesting an apology of this nature.

The Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of what I would say is the genuine motivation of the hon. member for putting the motion forward. We say to the hon. member that it would perhaps be best if the motion were not taken away but set aside until the member has a chance to consult Acadian groups to see if a consensus can be achieved regarding the timing of the initiative.

Is there a solution or a compromise? We live in a nation founded on compromise, and that spirit exists in all cultures in Canada. Upon further consultation with the provinces, the Societe nationale de l'Acadie and perhaps other organizations representing the francophone and Acadian communities, we should be able to determine the timing. At the end of the day, and I think the hon. member would agree, the timing of this should be decided by those collective bodies.

Perhaps there is a negative implication to the motion. Again, it is perhaps better that the motion be tabled because a vote by parliament against it may send the wrong message to the public that parliamentarians do not support the motion in principle. That is simply not the case.

It would be prudent for us at this time to set the initiative aside until a broader consensus is built and to let the Acadian community make the decision for itself.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 6.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 6.30 p.m., the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order adopted Wednesday, March 21, 2001, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 4 under the heading of government business.

Summit Of The Americas

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That the House take note of the Summit of the Americas.

Mr. Speaker, in a little over three weeks, Canada will have the honour and privilege of hosting the third summit of the Americas.

It is an event of major importance to Canada and our hemisphere. It is entirely appropriate that the House take note.

The past twenty years have seen remarkable change in the Americas. Democracy and the growth of free markets have raised new hopes and opened up new possibilities.

Dialogue and co-operation among the democratically elected governments have intensified in every field of endeavour and in every sphere of common interest.

Canada has played an active role in supporting democratic transition and bringing out beneficial economic and social change. We are engaged in the Americas because it is the right thing to do and because it is in our interest to do so. Our future prosperity and stability are linked to our ability not just to recognize opportunities, but to act as a leader in this hemisphere.

Our economic relations with the hemisphere have expressed our overall successes. They have grown faster in the past 10 years than with any other region of the world.

Over 90% of our trading is with the Americas, including the United States. Its value has increased 170% in this period. But our relations are far from limited to trade.

Last year we celebrated the 10th anniversary of our membership in the Organization of American States and hosted perhaps the most remarkable general assembly in OAS history. We are also working with other governments in the hemisphere across a range of sectoral interests that would have seemed unimaginable 20 years ago. Ministers in virtually every cabinet portfolio, not just foreign affairs and trade, meet regularly.

The government is strongly supportive of the contribution of legislators in furthering understanding and co-operation in the Americas. The inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum of the Americas, known as FIPA, was hosted by Canada's parliament earlier this month. Its recommendations across a wide range of interests and the constructive input we have received from civil society have contributed to the policy development process for the upcoming summit.

Preparations for the Quebec City summit are nearing completion. The summit implementation review group, the intergovernmental body developing a declaration and plan of action for the summit, is setting out a coherent and balanced agenda with three main themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential.

We want to ensure that summit initiatives reflect the priorities of our hemisphere. Moreover, we are working with international and regional organizations, and with multilateral development banks, to get the necessary human and financial resources to turn our commitments into reality. This is fundamental for the credibility of the summit process.

I alluded to the major themes of the summit. I do not believe that anyone can question their importance or relevance.

The strength and unity of the hemisphere is based fundamentally on collective undertakings to consolidate democracy, protect human rights, promote the rule of law and enhance human security. A commitment to improving the quality of democracy is at the top of the summit agenda and will be further strengthened at Quebec City. The summit declaration should, and I have every confidence that it will, make democracy an explicit condition for participation in summits. Such a clear and vigorous statement would be an important outcome of the Quebec City summit.

The summit will also mandate increased hemispheric co-operation to strengthen democracy by supporting improved electoral processes and systems, an area where Canada has been making important contributions for a number of years. It will seek to rally support for international human rights instruments and for national institutions that promote and protect human rights within hemispheric countries.

Strong democracies must also be inclusive and put in place a forum for reasoned debates.

Canada has worked to ensure that the process leading to the summit in Quebec City is open and transparent. Our country has been a leader in terms of consulting with and informing its civil society, through open meetings of the OAS special committee on the management of summits, and in other circumstances.

As I said earlier, a commitment to democratic principles and institutions, and to human rights, is the main criterion to participate in the summits.

Governments in the hemisphere have expressed serious concerns about democracy in Cuba. It is this reason before any other that prevents Cuba from participating in the summits of the Americas. Let us be clear: it is the government of Cuba, not of Canada or the other summit countries, that is keeping Cuba from participating in the summit process. If Cuba wants a seat at the table, and we would hope that it would, it will need to demonstrate acceptance of democratic principles, including freedom of expression, political pluralism and international norms respecting human rights. It is Cuba's choice to make.

The issue of the criteria governing participation in the summit was raised regarding a number of other countries in the hemisphere.

The transition to democracy in the hemisphere is often a recent occurrence. Societies that are establishing or restoring democratic institutions often do so after years of authoritarian or military government.

There have been setbacks and progress has been uneven in some cases, but there has also been a continuing commitment to dialogue and to joint efforts to enhance democratic processes.

There is ample proof that the hemispheric community is actively and effectively engaged to enhance democratic processes. In particular, that engagement has been in defence of democratic institutions in Ecuador, Paraguay and Haiti. I would refer anyone with doubts on this score to the events last June in Windsor and the manner in which the OAS member states united to defend democracy in Peru. As a result, new national elections will be held there on April 8.

Commitments to democracy and prosperity go hand in hand with the determination to encourage all people to take part in the economic, political, social and cultural life of their country and their region.

Social initiatives at the summit will support education, improved health services, gender equality, participation and dialogue between governments and native peoples, as well as cultural diversity.

For example, the hemisphere will reaffirm its commitment to good health as a fundamental building block for political, economic and social stability. It will also carry forward commitments to improve access to and the quality of education. Canada has also taken the lead in promoting gender equality as part of the summit commitments.

The summit will promote partnerships between indigenous peoples and governments to advance co-operation among the hemisphere's indigenous peoples on matters of common interest, notably in education, health and economic development. I am pleased to welcome indigenous peoples from the Americas to Canada this week for the first indigenous summit of the Americas and to recognize the leadership of Canada's aboriginal communities in this important initiative.

Fundamentally, the human potential theme aims to empower individuals and provide an equal opportunity to realize their potential and contribute to and benefit from the societies in which they live and work.

The Minister for International Trade will deal with the issue of the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

The summit countries are concerned about reducing poverty, promoting equity, creating more opportunities for enterprise, sharing in the benefits of growth, managing migration and improving our collective ability to prepare for and mitigate natural disasters.

Let me conclude by describing the summit in these words.

It represents a step taken in co-operation with 34 different but equal partners to develop and implement a political, economic and social action plan that is consistent and balanced for the benefit of all residents of this hemisphere.

It is a vehicle for making this vision a reality and realizing the rich promise of the Americas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people in this place pay lip service to the idea of free trade, but sometimes we do not practise what we preach.

I specifically want to raise the issue of tariffs still in place in Canada on products like textiles. It always strikes me as odd that on the one hand we are prepared to send all kinds of aid, for instance, to Caribbean countries to help them out because in some cases they are in difficult circumstances, but on the other hand we will not open up our markets to textiles, for instance.

I wonder if the minister could explain why we have taken that position and why we will not reduce these tariffs in order to ensure that the people in the Caribbean have a chance to prosper in the way they should.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if it were question period I would refer to my colleague, the Minister for International Trade. Indeed, he will have an opportunity to speak momentarily. The member for Medicine Hat may want to put his question to the minister as well.

Let me say that in fact the objective of our negotiations toward a free trade area of the Americas is essentially to effect the very result the member is talking about. I agree with him that if we are going to create prosperity, not just in the Caribbean but in developing countries around the world, fundamental to that is providing for them access to the markets of the developed world. Otherwise how can we ever expect them to share in the prosperity?

We see the example of that actually happening now in Mexico. We see in the northern tier of that country increasing prosperity, falling levels of unemployment and rising wages. In effect, NAFTA has worked for Mexico the way we would have expected it to happen. It is not a transportation of jobs à la Ross Perot from the United States or Canada. In fact, what is happening is the growth of a middle class in Mexico that is a big market for U.S. and Canadian goods, which is why our trade with Mexico has increased 100% since NAFTA. Certainly the principle that the member for Medicine Hat espouses is one that I agree with.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, sometime when we talk about free trade it is as if we, in the NDP, were against free trade. We are not against free trade but in favour of fair trade. This is what we need here in Canada.

When we entered into free trade agreements such as, for instance, NAFTA, it was to increase the living standard. This is not what has happened, on the contrary. In Mexico, the standard of living has increased, but it has diminished in Canada. The idea was to increase the living standard in countries such as Mexico to bring it to the level of ours.

I will explain. Today in Canada there are more food banks than ever before. Every day new ones are being created. This is the kind of thing that is happening.

Second, let us look at what has happened in the workplace. Workers have been deprived of their rights over the last few years, which is unacceptable. Free trade agreements such as the ones we entered into have not brought us, I believe, what we, as Canadians, were expecting.

I would like to know what the minister has to say about that.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, since NAFTA came into force, the unemployment rate has gone down here in Canada. The average salary for Canadian families has gone up. The unemployment rate went from 11% to around 6.5%.

Wealth is being created here in Canada because the most important right of workers is certainly the right to work. This is what is at the heart of the negotiations.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the evening is off to a good start. We are certainly going to have some very interesting exchanges and I am very pleased that we are holding an exploratory debate on the summit of the Americas in the House this evening.

Following on the enthusiastic remarks of my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would like to focus on the trade dimension because, of course, that is the dimension which comes under my immediate authority and which has to do with negotiations for the FTAA.

I am very happy to be taking part in the exploratory debate this evening. Our country, Canada, is now resolutely committed to the Americas. Canada is now strongly rooted in the Americas and I am delighted at the leadership our country is now showing in the hemisphere.

I believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, who will host the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, is demonstrating very well how firmly our country is now committed to this hemisphere. I am very proud that the Prime Minister will be hosting his 33 counterparts, the heads of state and government leaders of 33 other countries.

Trade can help create stability and prosperity. The trade element of the summit of the Americas is a very important contribution. It is a contribution to wealth and to growth. It is also leading directly to improving the stability and prosperity of our hemisphere. Canada belongs to the Americas and to this hemisphere. It is imperative that we do whatever we can to contribute to stability and prosperity which go hand in hand.

Open economies lead to more open political systems. There is a direct immediate link between open economies and more open political systems. We see it across our hemisphere. We see the extraordinary example of Mexico which joined the United States and Canada in NAFTA. What do we see? We see a country that has achieved in five years the economic development that we thought would take twenty years. NAFTA has helped Mexico to prosper, to develop, and it has contributed substantially to making Mexico a more democratic country.

The fact that Mexico has progressed so fast within NAFTA is allowing that great country to have stronger institutions and a stronger democratic system. That is what trade can lead to and contribute to. These are the facts.

We have lived it with Chile as well. I remember how moved I was when I represented the Government of Canada in Santiago last year when Ricardo Lagos was sworn in as president of that country. What an emotion it was for the Chilean people to move in the direction of democracy. Trade is of great importance and we already have a free trade agreement with Chile as well.

There is a deep conviction on the part of the government to contribute to stronger trade links. We believe that trade leads to stability and we need that stability in our hemisphere. We believe in our hemisphere. We have seen the extraordinary progress over the last several years. The FTAA is a vote of confidence for the hemisphere's future.

We know that, after several hundred years of theory and practice, free trade raises overall incomes. That happens everywhere all the time. It is extremely important that we continue to do it. Canada has based its economy on export. We are a country that has been very successful at international trade. Only 10 years ago we exported 25% of our GDP.

We exported 25% of our gross domestic product in 1990. Now we export 45% of our GDP. This shows the progress we have made over the last ten years, from 25% of GDP to 45%.

Canada has managed to create two million more jobs in our economy since 1993. We must therefore reject the prejudices that the jobs are going elsewhere, to Mexico or Latin America, when we are negotiating free trade agreements. Free trade is good for us, good for everybody.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and leader of the Labour Party, pointed out here in this very House to what degree “free trade is for the poor”. It is absolutely obvious that we need to give the rest of our hemisphere the same opportunity we have for prosperity and development.

Canada has a lot to gain in the FTAA. Today 94% of the goods from Latin American countries can enter Canada duty free. That is not true the other way around. Canadian access to Latin American countries is not nearly as good as their access to ours. We need to negotiate better access for Canadian businesses in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean.

We need rules. The FTAA is about rules that will avoid the continuous arbitrary evolution and rule changes. It is very important that Canada continue that important trend.

The developing countries of the world also want to be part of these trade agreements so that they too, like Canada, can also benefit. They want the chance for wealth and prosperity that we enjoy and that we received largely by participating in the rules based system of GATT. We must move on.

A lot of things have been said in the House and elsewhere about the transparency of the negotiation. Tonight I will be quite clear and open. Never have I seen such an open and transparent trade negotiation. Canadian leadership has been at the forefront of that effort. Canada was the first nation to post its own negotiating position on a website a year ago. We were followed by the United States, Mexico and Chile. We now have transparent website access to the negotiating positions.

Canada has been an architect in the most open free trade negotiation that was ever undertaken. I have challenged the opposition to give me one single example of a more open and transparent international trade negotiation. The NDP, which keeps talking about these things, could not provide one single example. I am very proud of Canada's contribution to it.

We want even more. We hope very much that when Canada goes to Buenos Aires in a few weeks that we will be able to convince and persuade our colleagues from all countries to put their positions on the table.

In conclusion, I would like to say that in Buenos Aires we will be in mid-term negotiations. A lot of people are getting very agitated and saying that in Quebec City a radical decision will be made about our future. Let us put things into perspective. The Quebec City summit is extremely important for Canada's role and future in our hemisphere.

There will be a meeting of ministers of international trade in Buenos Aires next April 6 and 7. That will be our mid-way meeting on the negotiations, but people need to realize that there are three years of negotiations left. There is therefore all the time needed to continue to consult Canadians, this House, the standing committee on foreign affairs, the business community, the unions and the NGOs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting listening to the Minister for International Trade talk about trade. He stated that the FTAA was all about a rules based system that we needed. It was his government that unilaterally created bad relations with Brazil when it retaliated and stopped importation of meat without much evidence. We all know that it was retaliation against Brazil for not following the WTO.

Now there is a danger that countries like Brazil will ignore WTO rulings and will not follow the rules based system. What is the point of having all these things signed when there is a danger of countries not following the rules?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the member's question I would like to correct what I said earlier, that Mexico had released its negotiating position. It was Costa Rica, not Mexico. I wanted to correct that for the record.

The member's question is very surprising. We know what the situation is in Europe and in England. We know how much it has cost that country. Never has the government ever protected the safety and the public health of Canadians more than on the important issue of meat. It was Canada's duty to stop the importation of meat. We defended public health for the security of Canadians. It had absolutely nothing to do with the trade challenge that we are having with the Brazilians at the WTO.

The dispute between Canada and Brazil on the aircraft issue is to be dealt with at the WTO panel. We do not want to contaminate our relationship with Brazil. When the government made a stand for public health reasons alone, we would have liked opposition members not to have encouraged the Brazilians who may have believed some of them that it was a retaliation to trade when it was not.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to present very briefly a few figures to the Minister for International Trade and ask for his comments on this subject.

What he is saying is that opening new markets fosters economic growth and, as a result, enriches all participants.

However, let us take the world average of the per capita GDP and say it is equal to one hundred. In 1980, the United States had a per capita GDP that was equivalent to 482; in 1998, it had increased to 625. The world average was 100. As for Mexico, in 1980, its per capita GDP was 134; in 1998, it had fallen to 84. After NAFTA, the differential between the United States and Mexico grew, but during the same period, Brazil, and we have just spoken about this country's protectionist practices, showed an increase from 70 in 1980 to 96 in 1998.

Does the minister not agree that in addition to the opening of markets and the upholding of commercial rights we must include in these accords the protection of human rights and labour rights in order to ensure a real distribution of wealth?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear the hon. member for Joliette, the new critic for the Bloc, condemning free trade so vigorously when his party, as well as the party we could in a way call the mother party in Quebec City, that is to say the real Parti Quebecois, have always supported free trade.

The hon. member for Joliette rose in this House today but unfortunately ,he did not have a blackboard so we could not understand all his sophisticated arguments.

However, the wealth gap is an issue our government is dealing with. This is of concern to us. The Canadian International Development Agency is making a difference.

Here in Canada, we have social policies to compensate the wealth gap, but I can assure the House that there is absolutely no contradiction. Free trade and international trade raised the revenues of the richest and also of the poorest of Canadians. We must ensure that the latter benefit even more from free trade.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the special debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas. I think we all agree that it is an honour for Canada to be hosting this summit. I hope it will prove to be a milestone in the creation of a new free trade area of the Americas. The Canadian Alliance has consistently championed free trade as being in the best interests of Canadians and others.

It is well known that the Liberals once opposed a Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA. They promised that once they were in government they would abrogate those agreements. We are happy they did not follow through with that commitment.

However, even Liberals can learn from their mistakes. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Industry, in Davos, apologized to former Prime Minister Mulroney and acknowledged that he was right about free trade and they were wrong. We appreciate that acknowledgement. They should acknowledge that because in 1989 two way Canada-U.S. trade was $235 billion and by 1999 it had grown to $626 billion, an increase of more than 150% in 10 years.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Medicine Hat.

Far from damaging any of our identity or sovereignty, free trade helped to establish rules and procedures to clarify our trading relationship with the U.S. We would benefit from a similar approach with the rest of Latin America. Now we can build on the success of free trade and NAFTA to deepen and improve these relations with the rest of the hemisphere.

The FTAA would provide the mechanism to begin to extend some of our prosperity and the opportunity for prosperity to other countries. Therefore, we welcome these negotiations on the FTAA.

While the Liberals have learned to mouth the rhetoric of free trade, the reality is they cling to protectionism in their hearts. Some of the actions taken by the Liberals in recent months may threaten the prospect of negotiating a successful FTAA.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the foreign investment provisions, give protection to Canadian businesses abroad and also to foreign businesses in Canada. Under NAFTA, from 1998-99 U.S. investment in Canada increased by $15 billion to $168 billion, while Canadian investment in the U.S. jumped by $10 billion to $120 billion. Both countries have seen large increases in foreign investment and in both directions.

Most countries in the Americas actually feel that foreign investment provisions similar to those in NAFTA would be to the mutual benefit of all countries. We believe that. However, the Government of Canada appears to be leading the charge to undermine those foreign investment rules. We should not fear including chapter 11 in the FTAA when its inclusion in NAFTA has brought benefits to Canada and the United States alike in a reciprocal way.

The Minister for International Trade, who appears at times to be unsatisfied with the decisions of NAFTA tribunals in a few selective cases, has called for new side deals. Those side deals would amend the meaning of the NAFTA chapter 11 provisions. The official opposition is concerned that retrograde stand will limit free trade and deny protection for Canadian businesses operating elsewhere in the Americas, and perhaps prevent the 34 countries of the Americas from reaching a broader trade agreement. That is our concern

Another concern we have with the government's trade policy is the centralist, father Ottawa knows best approach that the federal government takes toward consultation with the provinces.

First the provinces expect the Liberal government to include them in the context of the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.

Contrary to the federal government of the day and its openness when the free trade agreement was negotiated with the United States some fifteen years ago, and then NAFTA after it, the Liberal government is refusing to put a formal mechanism in place for co-operation with the provinces in matters involving their participation in negotiations with other governments.

Without questioning the federal government's foreign policy jurisdiction, there is a way to have the provinces participate fully in the negotiation of international agreements and to extend the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction to the international scene.

Australia should serve as an example. In recent years, it has reviewed the international treaty and agreement negotiation process. This exercise has resulted in significant reform in order to include each of the states in the process, including through the establishment of a council of treaties comprising the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers as well, along with a representation of the provincial officials on the standing committee on treaties. With a little imagination and a lot of goodwill, a consensus may be found in which all Canadians win.

Quebec, for example, has been at the forefront in having the provinces participate in international forums and organizations. This theory is known as the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, following interventions by Paul Gérin-Lajoie, a former minister of education under Jean Lesage.

Unfortunately, Ottawa's stubbornness is what catches the eye, when we should all be busy developing a strong position in support of Quebec and all the provinces in the perspective of the free trade area of the Americas.

I know there are many other citizens, especially young Canadians, who have fears about the consequences of the FTAA and other global trade deals. I know many young people are planning to protest in the streets of Quebec during the summer. I respect the protesters' right to free speech, the right to disagree and even at times to loudly disagree. That is one of the privileges we have living in a democracy. However, I hope the government will ensure that there is law and order in the streets of Quebec and that the summit itself is not disrupted. I also hope that in doing that the government will be fair toward legitimate protesters and not attempt to use police authority to prevent political embarrassment as it appeared to have done in Vancouver during the APEC summit. We hope that can be avoided.

What concerns me most about the prospect of wide scale protest in Quebec City is that it shows that perhaps we as leaders in democratic societies have in some ways failed some of our young people. We have not been able to demonstrate to at least some of these members of the next generation that democracy, freedom of trade and freedom of markets are not just about making money for multinational corporations, but also ensuring individual freedom and holding out hope for the future.

The free market system allows a university student sitting in a college dorm to dream up a computer program that will make IBM or Microsoft tremble, and says that the law will protect these innovators against large monopolies that might try to intimidate them out of business. International trade agreements protect the intellectual property rights of entrepreneurs against companies and governments that would profit from their ideas.

In trying to expand free trade, whether in the Americas or globally, we are trying to broaden the circle of productivity and exchange so that the same right to create and innovate which we uphold for our citizens will be extended to citizens of the less developed world as well.

We want the property and the commercial rights that are enjoyed by a computer science student in St. John's or a small business person in Burlington to be extended to the citizens of Santiago, San Salvador and Bogota as well. We have to demonstrate to our young people that free trade, free markets and democracy are not about favouring the rich but that it is a noble, principled cause that enables the poor to enjoy opportunity and experience progress, prosperity and peace.

Last year when the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held meetings in Prague and the Czech Republic there were protests, as there have been in other global trade and finance meetings. It was striking that most of the protesters were from western Europe and the United States. The majority were not the local Czech students. However these young people were not complacent. Hundreds of thousands of them crowded in Wenceslas Square in 1989 during the so-called velvet revolution and forced out the communist dictatorship that had ruled the country with an iron fist since the Dubcek reforms were crushed in 1968. Those young people of the Vaclav Havel generation had lived under a government that had denied free trade, free markets and free speech. The young people of Prague saw the alternative and they knew what the democratic west had to offer was a better and more principled alternative.

We as politicians and business leaders in the democratic developed countries have to learn to make not only an economic case or an intellectual case for free trade and free markets, but in fact a moral case as well that upholds the virtue of freedom. We have to show our youth that a democratic form of freedom of enterprise respects individuals, respects their individual potential and respects their freedom to grow, to achieve and to become all that they were providentially intended to be. That is why we support these initiatives and that is why we will continue to stand for these principles.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and question for the Leader of the Opposition. I as a western Canadian support trade. It is a very important part of the economy of western Canada. I support free trade and expanding trade. It is very important for jobs, productivity and so on. However, one concern I have about NAFTA, and some of the other trade deals, is the argument that it takes away some of the democratic control from local countries and communities. Decisions can be made that affect the environment, social standards and issues of that sort.

A case in point was the Metalclad Corporation in Mexico. In 1996 it wanted to establish a waste disposal plant in one of the Mexican states. The governor of the state and the local community said they did not want it in their state. Metalclad sued that particular state of Mexico and was awarded some $17 million U.S. That is now being appealed to a higher court.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he has some concerns about the lack of democracy in the trade deals. It is not a question of trade, or more trade in the world or free trade. In many cases there is a lack of democracy for countries to make decisions that affect them.

Does he share some of those concerns in terms of trying to build in some of these safeguards in the trade agreements? Democracy is a very important thing. People elect parliaments and those parliaments should be sovereign over those communities. In some cases these trade deals are just a charter for investors and, in my opinion, run roughshod over democratic rights.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that concern which is an important one. The point the member made was that it was in a process of appeal. As in any agreement there will always be those who will try to move a particular agreement to benefit them.

I remind the member that when NAFTA was being constructed, it was recognized by the provinces of Alberta and Quebec that in some nations different areas fell under provincial jurisdiction and others under federal jurisdiction. Two areas which were identified as falling under provincial jurisdiction in Canada were labour and the environment. Therefore side accords were constructed to acknowledge that. With those side accords came the process of developing regulations and a dispute process so that when these came into conflict they could be attended to.

I appreciate the democratic concerns. With foresight in the negotiations, these types of things can be put in place to prevent somebody from trying to take over and suppress democratic rights. In this case we will hope that when the appeal is heard there will be a proper reflecting back to those side accords.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I must say that I really appreciated the reference to the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine made by the leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois also shares the idea that, as long as Quebec remains within the Canadian federation, its jurisdiction should extend to international issues, and if other provinces want that too, it would be good for them also.

My question deals with cultural diversity. I would like to know if, with the opening of markets within the free trade area of the Americas, the Canadian Alliance has included in its policy a provision for the development of cultural diversity, for the maintenance and development of all the different cultures of which the Americas are made up.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can say tonight that the Canadian Alliance will support the provinces' jurisdictions, particularly with regard to culture, as the member described.

It is important to recognize that these are very important things for a province or a state. I can say tonight that the Canadian Alliance will continue to support a province or a state on this issue because, if it is important to them, it is important to us also.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise and debate the issue today, the summit of the Americas. While I was not going to just at this point, I do want to pick up on the theme at the point where my leader left off because I think it is very important. That is the idea that we as leaders in this place need to make the moral argument, along with the economic argument, for the idea of free trade.

For too long I think a lot of us in this place and outside of it have been cowed by people who make the argument, sometimes by a protest, that we will lose our democracy if we give into the idea of a radical notion like free trade. I want to dispel that.

First, it is simply not true historically, ever since Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and David Hume sat around and talked about these ideas in Scotland 250 years ago and ultimately brought them about and made Scotland a leading country at that time. At the time they were first debating this, Scotland was a poor second cousin to its friends below in England. They embraced the idea of free trade and actually exceeded what was being done in England.

The idea spread and ultimately became the new orthodoxy, to the point where we of course have it all across North America and in the European Union, but also to the point where we have Labour Party prime ministers like Tony Blair coming into this place saying that we must have free trade, that free trade is the answer for people who are on the low end of the economic scale and that if we really want to help people who have been poor throughout their lives then we need to embrace ideas like free trade.

I make that point especially to my friends in the New Democratic Party, who I think sometimes have resisted this idea far too much, to the point where I think they are hurting the very people they would help.

It is time for us in this place to stand up and make the argument, without fear, for free trade. There is no question that not only does it affirm the principle of freedom that the people in this party, at least, believe in so strongly, but it also does leave people better off economically.

I have to congratulate the foreign affairs minister, who made a very good point and presented a good argument about how the North American Free Trade Agreement has benefited the poorest people in Mexico. He pointed to northern Mexico, particularly around Monterrey, where people have prospered to the point where their unemployment rate has dropped quite dramatically. People who have been unemployed or certainly underemployed now have well paid jobs because of NAFTA, because of free trade.

I think we need to extend it and try to help people in other parts of the Americas as well. I talked during my question period about free trade for the people in the Caribbean. Those are economies that are completely underdeveloped. Canada to some degree stood in the way of that, because we have tariffs in place on things like textiles, a value added product that they could be sending here.

Now we want reciprocity. We want to be able to get into their markets as well, but we must remember that when we lower our trade barriers and they lower theirs, efficiencies are created. Productivity increases. Jobs are created. Wages go up. Everybody is better off. That is why we must have free trade. It helps people.

It is not a question of undermining democracy. In fact, it is the most pro-democracy idea around, because what we have when we have free trade is people who vote with their dollars. They say they do not only want to have the choice of buying the high tariff product that their country has protected from competition. They want to be able to choose from all those products out there, products that in some cases are much less costly for them than those that have been protected by tariffs in their country for a long time. They want that option.

People who can scarcely afford a tariff economy are the ones who benefit the most when they have free trade. They can use those dollars to purchase the things that are important to them. There is a real democracy that occurs when we finally allow people to choose the goods and services they want, with their own money. We need to recognize that idea of voluntary exchange. We get away from the idea of forcing people to choose from a very limited scope of products and allow people to voluntarily exchange goods and services across borders as well as within their country. That is a very democratic idea, this idea of freedom and voluntary exchange. We should embrace those things if we believe in democracy.

I do want to switch gears now, if I may. Just a couple of minutes ago, my friend the foreign affairs minister said that Canada, as part of the agreement, would spread the news about democracy and make the case that other countries should become more democratic.

I want to argue that it is precisely because this place has fallen into disrepair that in some cases we have undermined our own argument for democracy. We have to resort now to holding parallel summits at the summit of the Americas, in part, I would argue, because a lot of people today can argue that this place no longer represents their point of view. Therefore, they try to do an end run around what is supposed to be the most democratic institution in the country. The result is that the government caves in and says it will set up the people's summit as well.

We would not have to resort to that if this place were reformed along the lines that many of my colleagues have argued. I think of the House leader for the Canadian Alliance who has made a powerful case that we could do a lot in this place to give confidence to people that their views will be represented in the House of Commons.

If people across the country felt that way, then they would not be doing the end run around parliament. There would not have to be a people's summit. They would come to committee and make their case for free trade or against free trade. The people on that committee would take their views seriously and would make recommendations that would have weight in this place. People would know that this democratic institution counted for something.

However, they do not have that confidence today. As a result, we have people who in many cases, I would argue, do not represent very many people, but who can make the plausible case that parliament is no longer representative so they want to have this parallel summit.

I want to make the point that I do not agree with those groups. I do not even necessarily agree with the people's summit, but I do think this place should represent the views of those people who are going to that people's summit. There should be room for those people to come before whatever committee, make their case and have representatives in parliament carry their case forward.

For reasons that are not clear to me, the NDP in particular has not been successful in carrying the case for some of those people who are opposed to the free trade agreement, but that is the NDP's problem. I simply want to say that parliament could be a lot more effective than it has been in reflecting the views of people who feel strongly about free trade.

Finally I want to make the point that several years ago the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, was being discussed by the government, along with many other countries. I think they had a good end in mind. They basically wanted to encourage rules based trade in investment, but unfortunately because they conducted everything in secrecy the whole deal was ultimately torpedoed.

It was the Reform Party at the time that sponsored the only debate on that issue. We in the Reform Party were the only ones who brought that issue forward. We said that the best way to ensure that there was not all kinds of conjecture and speculation about the MAI, which in some cases was unwarranted, was to sponsor debate, get the information out there and allow people to find out what was really going on. Ultimately that deal collapsed because there was not enough scrutiny of what was going on. People did not have confidence in it.

However, let that be a lesson. This place could stand more debates like that one we sponsored several years ago. We are happy about this debate tonight, but it should go beyond that. When this free trade agreement is ultimately consummated, as we hope it will be, and comes to this place, as we hope it will, we would like to have a debate. We would like to have a vote in this place on the free trade agreement of the Americas. It should not be something the government just signs and then that is all there is. We want to have a debate here and we want to have a vote on that agreement, yes or no.

I will conclude by again affirming what my leader has said, which is that we need to have free trade. It is the morally correct thing to do for the people of the western hemisphere because it leaves those people better off no matter what income group they are in. Second, we need to reform this place so that we do not need to have these parallel summits, so that people can have confidence in what should be highest democratic forum in the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to comment on this debate. I do hope that perhaps somewhere a bureaucrat is taking notes of the debate tonight, because there is not a whole lot else.

The member for Medicine Hat has made a strong case, as has the leader of the Canadian Alliance, about the morality, if we will, of the free trade movement that is going on around the world. I think the free trade agreement of the Americas has the potential to create a strong middle class in parts of the world that have not experienced it. They have very poor populations with a wealthy group at the top, but no strong middle class.

It is the creation of a strong middle class that should be the aim of any international trade agreements we have with other countries. A strong middle class is the best guarantor of a good clean environment. A strong middle class is the best guarantor of human rights and democratic reform. A strong middle class is the best assurance of strong labour laws, because a strong middle class will be working in a society and will want to have rules. A strong middle class is the best assurance of the creation of wealth, and the creation of wealth is what the free trade agreement could bring to parts of the Americas that have not experienced wealth in any meaningful way in their entire existence.

However, I agree with the member about the danger we are facing. I fear we are going to see it. The NDP has encouraged some rather scurrilous behaviour, I think, in Quebec. I do fear for the free trade movement, because the government refuses to accept parliament's role in approving, debating and ratifying any future free trade agreements. It is done in Australia, which has a system of approving in parliament. It is done in New Zealand.

In the United States the president can try to fast track it, but he knows that he has to have the senate on board. If it is Switzerland there would have to be a referendum on it. In most jurisdictions of the world all the power is not with the executive. It is spread out among parliament, as it should be, which creates a sense of confidence in the agreements that are being signed.

I plead with the government in its negotiations and in negotiations to come on the free trade agreement of the Americas and other free trade agreements to bring those agreements to the House of Commons for ratification. By doing so, by opening up the debate, it can get all Canadians on side. These debates and these arguments could be made in a free way in the House and in committee by bringing in witnesses and so on.

I have a question for the member for Medicine Hat. Does he believe that bringing agreements like the free trade agreement of the Americas to the House of Commons would make any difference? Would it satisfy those people who will go to Quebec City, bound and determined to shut down the free trade agreement? Would it help them to understand and to give us an opportunity to carry the argument, as Tony Blair said, in a passionate way about the value and the importance of free trade agreements?