Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part tonight in this important debate. The objectives of the upcoming third summit of the Americas in Quebec City include increased prosperity throughout the Americas by increased free trade and, also, most important, the spreading of democracy throughout the hemisphere and the opportunity for every person in the hemisphere to reach their full potential. When we consider the importance of the summit we must keep in mind those broad objectives and ensure that Canada as a government represents us all in pursuing them.

I will speak on a few aspects that have not been fully touched on in tonight's debate, starting with the issue of process. Having been a bit of a process and public participation junkie in a previous career, I am extremely interested by the degree of transparency and public participation in our move toward free trade of the Americas. I will give the House my observations of what has taken place to date and what I think must continue and perhaps be enhanced.

In my experience in dealing with public issues in Canada and internationally, I have never seen such a transparent and participatory process through the leadership of a government. The executive branch of Government of Canada has, and we must acknowledge it, sole responsibility to negotiate international treaties of this type.

It is for federal and provincial legislatures to debate and pass laws required to implement any treaty. That is where their obligation lies. However in spite of the lead role of the executive branch, the Government of Canada has provided unparalleled transparency and opportunities to participate in the process, including full federal, provincial and territorial ministerial meetings, consultations and public forums across the country, and the website which includes all of Canada's negotiating positions to date. The website has been up for a year and we will continue to try to post everything the Government of Canada puts forward.

We hosted, this month in Ottawa, the interparliamentary forum of the Americas with parliamentarians from throughout the hemisphere talking about issues for the upcoming summit. We are having the debate tonight. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade appeared before a standing parliamentary committee to answer questions and provide perspective on the Canadian proposals.

Even before getting to Quebec City we have had broad public participation and disclosure of negotiating positions. When we get to Quebec City we will have, and Canada has been the leader in encouraging, the full participation of a civil society committee in all the free trade of the Americas talks. That will be enhanced in Quebec City.

As we heard tonight, the second people's summit of the Americas will take place parallel to the meetings of the heads of government and heads of state in Quebec City. The Government of Canada is financially supporting that to the tune of $300,000 with a further $200,000 from the government of Quebec. These are important opportunities and are not to be made light of. In international trade agreements they are unparalleled in their scope.

Let me deal with one substantive complaint by Canadians about the process: The full negotiating positions and texts of the other countries are not yet public. Canada has taken the lead in making its positions public and has been followed by the United States, Mexico and Costa Rica. At the planning meeting in Buenos Aires in two weeks, Canada will argue that other countries should make their positions, as well as the full text of their negotiating framework, fully public. Canada will continue to be a leader and a model in that practice.

Canada is not doing this simply out of altruism and farsightedness. Modern governance goes far beyond any one government or country. It includes civil society and the market. The best information will not be accumulated and the best decisions will not be made or implemented unless we have broad participation and transparency in the development and implementation of public policy. This is a good example of such leadership by Canada.

Let me turn briefly to the question of security and freedom. Canadians cherish their political and civil rights and freedoms perhaps above anything else in our society. We take them seriously and demand they be respected. However we also enjoy, appreciate and demand that we live in a secure and protected society. For that we entrust to our police the heavy and onerous duty of ensuring that all our rights are respected, and our behaviour is appropriate to that.

I will now turn to Quebec City. Security is a challenge and a matter of complexity and concern for police authorities in Quebec City. Thirty-four heads of government and heads of state will be attending the summit. There is a topographical situation in the old town of Quebec, as was pointed out yesterday by the mayor of Quebec City. Because of the narrow streets and the hills, people gathering in large numbers could be injured.

The mayor of Quebec City stressed that security must be maintained by police so the summit does not descend into the debacle we saw in Seattle during the WTO meetings. The greatest threat to those who wished to publicly exercise their right to protest and free speech in Seattle was the few who disrupted and discredited the many. We entrust to our police the duty of maintaining order. However, that is a major challenge and we must have perimeters. I do not know whether the fences are too high or the area too large, but we must trust the police to make the difficult operational decisions given their responsibilities.

Let me turn finally to the issue of trade and democracy. We have heard a lot from both sides of the House tonight about the importance of trade to Canada and the prosperity it has brought us. The freer the trade the more prosperity we seem to enjoy. That is in context. The Government of Canada has been forthright and must be held accountable to ensure that as we engage in free trade agreements we do not sacrifice our health, our educational or social services or our cultural integrity.

It goes beyond our internal interests. Trade is about balance. It is about taking advantage of economic opportunities globally through freer trade, but it also means meeting our global responsibilities. That is why the Government of Canada has pledged to link freer trade to issues of environmental integrity, human rights, democratic development and education. The government's objective is to ensure everyone in the hemisphere has, as an example to the world, the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Let us come together, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, to make sure the Government of Canada meets its obligations to ensure that human potential is realized beyond our borders as well as inside them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and it reminded me of election night on November 27. Throughout the election campaign, I never imagined myself telling my constituents: “You know, if ever a free trade area of the Americas is established, we are going to leave everything in the hands of the government, and all Parliament will have to do is rubber stamp any decisions that are made”.

Just as the premier of Quebec undertook to do in the Quebec national assembly, before the treaty takes effect and the Government of Canada is bound by its provisions, would the member not like to see adopted in parliament an accord that would be the end result of discussions and debate among members of the House?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we must respect the opportunity we have this evening to debate these issues. We must make our views and the views of our constituents known in terms of what should be contained in the treaty. We should debate what is fundamentally important to both this treaty and any parallel treaty that may address issues linked to our relations with other countries.

As parliamentarians we have this opportunity. We have had the opportunity in standing committees to question the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade. We have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians of other countries throughout the hemisphere to discuss the issues of the upcoming summit.

As parliamentarians, let alone as general members of society, we can take advantage of the opportunities for discussion and the information that is available. This is a fulsome opportunity for engagement not only of parliamentarians but, more important perhaps, of Canadians to negotiate and provide information and advice to the executive of government which is responsible for negotiating international treaties.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has spoken about democracy, transparency and the unprecedented extent to which his government has been reaching out and consulting Canadians on the FTAA.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the issue of corporate sponsorship at the upcoming summit of the Americas? Does he not agree there is something obscene about major corporations being able to buy their way into the inner sanctum of the summit? For $500,000 they can make a speech at the opening reception. If they pony up about $75,000 they can choose which leader to sit beside at a lunch.

Is that not a perversion of democracy? How can the hon. member talk about the great triumph of transparency and democracy when wealthy corporations are able to buy their way into the summit and civil society is kept outside a perimeter four kilometres long? How can the member call that democracy?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my ears in hearing the hon. member challenge the issue of democracy in Canada in such strident terms. It is a gross overstatement. It is an insult to the House, to the freedoms we enjoy and to the democratic privileges we exercise.

As to the question, the member mentions buying privileged access. We have talked in the House tonight and before about the civil society committee that will be assisting and that will have access to the negotiators in the free trade of the Americas process. We know this is a long process. It is going to unfold over the next three years. It is not a matter of simply one meeting with one access.

However, there is also an economic interest of cost recovery. It has become commonplace in international gatherings around the world for both the large public expense to be recognized and for some attempts to be made at cost recovery. Whether this crosses the line of propriety in any way, I am not sure. Perhaps the public discussion we are having and raising the issue as to whether it should be appropriate in future is a good thing. That illuminates the opportunity in this debate.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will split the time I have been allocated with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

In less than a month, from April 20 to 22 next, 34 heads of states and democratically elected governments from North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba, will meet in Quebec City for the third summit of the Americas.

In short, the themes addressed during this meeting will include, among others, the strengthening of democracy, where it will be a question of promoting peace and the protection of societies. Another theme that will be discussed is the realization of human potential. This topic will include the alleviation of poverty and the promotion of education and training; social rights will also be discussed. Another theme will be community connectivity. These discussions will involve the Internet and new technologies. Lastly, the theme that will undoubtedly be discussed at greatest length is the theme referred to as creating prosperity. This is where we will find the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas, the FTAA.

The FTAA represents an extraordinary challenge. This free trade zone will, of course, provide us with new economic opportunities; it will also provide opportunities for people. It represents an openness toward the Americas, toward new cultures; it means becoming acquainted with new peoples and new economic, social and political practices. It is a pool of 800 million people with a combined gross domestic product of some ten trillion, ten thousand billion, American dollars.

This said, the economic practice of free trade is by no means a panacea, a cure for all that ails us. Let us look back. Let us go back to the time of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which covered an economic zone including the nation of Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Although the agreement has had some positive impact, the creation of this free trade area has not prevented certain calamities, such as the collapse of the Mexican peso, a decline in living standards, the growth of social disparities, an increase in human misery, and an increase in the number of workers earning minimum wage with few if any benefits or favourable conditions. Yet NAFTA was supposed to bring about the opposite of what we are witnessing today.

Are we going to follow NAFTA's example? Do we want to expand and increase human misery? Of course not. We have to do everything we can to avoid such an outcome. If this were the case, it would be out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to support the establishment of such a free trade area.

The other question we must ask ourselves is this: is the Liberal government really and sincerely prepared to do absolutely everything—even it means leaving the negotiating table—to avoid the impoverishment brought about by NAFTA? It is highly doubtful.

It is doubtful because the federal government is concealing far too many things, in particular the working documents used to negotiate the FTAA. Let there be no mistake about it: these documents represent Canada's main negotiating position.

These texts may well change our lives, and the only thing the minister can say to us is, “Trust me, no questions asked”, as if members of parliament and civil society were incapable of judging the validity and content of these texts.

How do you expect parliamentarians and civil society to trust a government that negotiates an agreement, on our behalf and in secret, that may very well change our lives? How can we determine whether these negotiations were justified or properly carried out? The answer is simple: by being handed a done deal. That is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. The people in the Laurentides riding have a right to know what is happening behind the curtains.

It is now fair to say that the Liberal government does not want to take the initiative and show leadership, as the United States has done, by making public the FTAA negotiating texts.

On the social front, there is reason to doubt the Minister for International Trade's willingness to give priority to social issues in these negotiations. When I see the position and views of the minister on these issues, the situation is far from clear.

I want to refer to the testimony of the Minister for International Trade when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on June 14, 2000. The minister stated, and I quote:

I think it's very important to separate the progress on trade matters and not link it inextricably to all environmental and labour standard issues.

The minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. Not only does he not want to take any action regarding social and environmental rights, but he goes even further and affirms that trade does not necessarily have any connection to workers' rights and environmental issues.

This is an absolutely irresponsible statement and it reveals, beyond a doubt, the minister's intentions. I say to the people of Quebec and Canada, as well as to workers: This is the man who will be negotiating on your behalf. He is the one who will be defending your rights, who will be putting them on the negotiating table. Does this inspire confidence? Personally, I do not feel confident and my point of view is shared by all members of the general public except, obviously, the members opposite.

Not the slightest leadership is being shown by the government and its international trade minister on social and environmental issues. What he is really saying is that they will go with the crowd. The government is not demonstrating any initiative.

Here is one last quote from the same committee hearing. This one provides very clear information to the House and to the people of Quebec and Canada as to the intentions of the government and its minister in charge of negotiating the FTAA.

My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, was asking the Minister for International Trade if he was prepared to include the basic rights recognized by the International Labour Organization in the FTAA. Here are the contents of those seven conventions. It is important that I mention them to the members.

Conventions number 29 and 105 concern the abolition of forced labour. Conventions number 87 and 98 deal with union rights, collective bargaining and labour organization, including the right to elect union representatives without the interference of employers or of government authorities, as well as the right to strike. Conventions number 100 and 111 deal with equal pay for work of equal value and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Convention number 138 concerns the minimum age for admission to employment, that is the complete elimination of child labour.

This was the minister's response to my colleague, and I quote:

I believe that trade must remain as open as possible, and that for some countries to reach the point of being able to comply with some of the conventions you have mentioned, what they need is precisely more open economies than those they now have.

We believe that through involvement in a given society, particularly though trade, we ultimately have a greater influence because we allow them to become aware of our values and to experience the economic development that will allow them to achieve this. That is what we are advocating. We do not want to close the door on a country that is not following a particular course of action. We believe that by practising isolation or adopting exclusionary policies toward a particular nation, we are merely encouraging it to harden its position on the social values which we hold dear, values which we would like to see this country embrace.

It is now crystal clear, in light of the response given by the Minister for International Trade, that the federal government does not intend to defend with vigour and leadership fundamental social rights in the FTAA agreement. This is unacceptable, and even a blatant step backward.

In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, this position is inconceivable. I would like the minister to demonstrate some good faith and leadership in this matter and to put on the table for all to see those documents which will serve as a basis for negotiating the FTAA. Without these documents, how is it possible for parliamentarians like us and for members of civil society to form a real opinion and to bring some added value to this debate?

Will the Minister for International Trade undertake to defend fully and without any reservations the fundamental social rights which Quebecers and Canadians hold so dear? The start of the summit of the Americas is only a few days away and we are still awaiting an answer to this question. The public is right to be concerned.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague referred to problems. I just want to ask her a question and hear what she has to say. I want to know if she agrees that the only problem we face is the problem of isolation. Isolation is the enemy of progress.

Lastly, free trade is an irreversible phenomenon. At the end of the day, we have to open new borders to our products, whether these products are from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, or another province of Canada. We must open borders for these products.

An individual who works in Quebec City or Montreal will enjoy direct benefits once we are able to sell products from Quebec City or Montreal in Mexico or Chile.

If we are concerned about defending the rights of workers, be they in Quebec or another province of Canada, we must realize that we will be able to defend them much more effectively in a North American context, where there are more than two, three or four countries, than in isolation, whether in Quebec or in Canada.

I want to hear my colleague's reply and her comments on the following: that free trade in the end means freedom for workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find nearly insolent what I have just been told by a member of the Liberal Party, the party that voted against free trade, that was against any possibility of free trade, that had no free trade vision, whereas we in Quebec pushed for free trade and ended up winning.

Free trade cannot be achieved at just any cost. Agreements like the FTAA cannot be reached in a sneaky, secretive fashion.

There is a malaise all around right now, especially in parliament, which is made up of people representing all the regions. The Bloc Quebecois are not the only unhappy ones. There are other parties and other members here in the House that are unhappy. I am sure that there are even Liberals who are unhappy because they do not have access to the documents.

This is not the way to negotiate an agreement as important as the FTAA, which may bring enormous progress throughout the Americas. It has to be done properly. It requires a concerted approach. And the provinces, which are included in this agreement, need to be consulted.

Quebec, like some other places, has clean drinking water. We have large quantities of clean water. The Government of Canada must not make decisions that go against our environmental positions in Quebec. It does not have the right to do that. It does not have the right to make decisions and then tell us: “The decision has been made and you are going to have to live with it.” That is out of the question, and we will fight it.

That is why Quebec must become a country, because Quebec is capable of taking care of its interests. Quebec should have a seat at the FTAA. What is more, the summit is happening in the very heart of Quebec. How very brazen of the federal government to come and do this here, and not even show us the documents. It is shameful.

Do not worry, we are used to that in Quebec. We can fight back and we will continue to do so. I can guarantee that, if the decisions contained in this agreement go against the laws of Quebec, things will heat up. The government will have to be much more democratic than it is at the present time, it will have to sit with all levels of government, it will have to be able to negotiate, and these decisions must not be detrimental to the environment and the social programs that we have and that we all hold dear, both in Canada and in Quebec.

I think that what is needed here is clarity; there must be a vision of the future and there must also be a lot of democracy. That is not the case at present. I hope that tonight's debate will be of use to the government, that it will listen to all of us, and that the Minister for International Trade will use the ideas we will have proposed to make a decision and open the door to democracy by tabling his documents if they contain nothing that will put anything at risk. Let him put them on the table, let us sit down, let us look at them, and let us do this with all the wisdom and knowledge we possess.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part tonight in this take note debate on the impact of the summit of the Americas.

I think that the purpose of this debate is ultimately to send a message to the international trade minister, to give him an idea of what this parliament expects from these negotiations.

I would like to point out that the reason we are here today is that we were given a mandate by the people in November of last year. These are the individuals who, regardless of whether they are listening to this debate or not, entrust us with defending their views regarding certain matters on which each party had made its position known, as well as regarding other matters which had not necessarily been discussed in detail at the time of the elections. The people placed their trust in us and, at the end of the day, we must be able to act on this trust.

As far as the FTAA negotiations are concerned, what people want is for us, as parliamentarians, to monitor the negotiations effectively, in other words, to know where they are heading, how we are progressing toward an agreement, so that we will not be hit with something unexpected, as we were in the case of the negotiations for the MIA, the multilateral investment agreement.

The agreement collapsed at the last minute because, all of a sudden, people realized that it would put states at the service of multinationals, rather than ensure the opposite, that is, allow states to exercise real control over the circumstances in which free trade will take place in the future.

This is the condition imposed by the men and women who elected us so that we would end up with agreements that provide better access to markets. That is definitely the case. With the North American Free Trade Agreement, we saw proof of the advantages of developing free trade. In my region, for example, there are interesting aspects regarding exports.

At the same time, this experience has taught us that we must ensure that the framework for the new free trade negotiations regarding working conditions and social and environmental conditions is well defined. Otherwise, we risk aggravating the situation, creating situations in which we end up making poverty worse. Even if growth increases, we must at the same time ensure—it is our duty as members of parliament—that there is an adequate distribution of wealth.

To give you an example, I say as human resources development critic that there was a reform of employment insurance approximately five years ago that was lauded by international organizations such as the OECD, but we saw the implications in real terms of the Canadian government's choosing to go along with international demands. There was some kind of tacit understanding that the unemployment insurance plans should, for example, pay out an average of 50% of the average wage in benefits. Although here in Canada the percentage is higher, we passed legislation in order to comply with this international demand.

The decisions taken in the FTAA will apply for decades to come. Our children will have to live within this framework. It is important that we be able to participate in order that there be a truly democratic debate.

What you hear everywhere today about people who want to demonstrate peacefully, or even more aggressively, is that they are determined to hang on to this train to make sure that it gets to where the people, collectively, want it to go. They do not want to end up with an agreement that will be great for, let us say, the multinationals and the big commercial interests but that will result in the general public becoming poorer down the road. That is the kind of message we want to send to the minister.

We know that free trade aims at improving commercial dealings between countries. In the past, it has been possible, and we have examples of this, to carve out exceptions. The free trade agreement needs to leave enough room for small economies as well as big ones.

Take the case of softwood lumber. Under NAFTA, it became apparent that even if there was a free trade agreement in place, the more powerful partner, the United States, forced Canada to come to an agreement, which is about to expire, that is not in the overall interests of Canadians.

Would it not be important to ensure that the upcoming FTAA agreement has a defensible balance between the strong and the weak? I believe that this is the very principle behind the desire to encumber international trade. Yes, we need to facilitate international trade and free trade. Moreover, even the smallest countries that are represented—unfortunately, Quebec will not be there—need to have the power to intervene before the decision making bodies that are created so that they can obtain rulings based on law and not just on economic strength.

What I want is an agreement that meets the expectations of the workers in my riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who depend on exports for their living. I want the employees at the Bombardier plant in La Pocatière to have a framework within the FTAA that enables them to work and to sell what they make throughout the Americas. Hopefully, these workers will not wake up one morning to discover that their factory is about to be relocated to a country in South America as a cost cutting measure and because clear game rules were not established in advance in so far as working conditions are concerned.

These workers need assurances that the development framework will respect their rights as workers. High tech firms must also be at ease with this situation. Our farmers, perhaps the group that could be placed in the most tenuous situation of all as a result of future free trade agreements, need assurances as well.

This does not mean that the discussions in Quebec City will result in any real changes. However, groups that have developed systems such as, for example, supply management for dairy products will be assured of having their say before any system changes in fact take place. They need to know that their elected representatives can express their views and intervene in the debate in a relevant way.

Earlier, I made a reference to softwood lumber. What I said holds true for all forestry companies.

I would also like to see an accord that allows the government of Quebec the opportunity to continue to intervene whenever it feels the need to do so to avoid situations where, once the accord has taken effect, the use of certain development tools such as the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Investissement Québec, and so forth, would be prohibited.

Thirty years ago, there were sound reasons for wanting Quebec sovereignty, specifically a desire to better control Quebec's own universe and destiny. We felt that we were losing many of our powers because the federal government was exercising its rights in areas outside its jurisdiction. What is more, it continues to do so, regularly. Because of its vast financial power, it also proposes programs that are not necessarily in harmony with Quebec programs.

Today, when I speak to my children, especially my 17 year old daughter, what she wants to be certain of—and the reason why she is a sovereignist—is rather that Quebec will have a place in all the international agreements that will be concluded in the years to come.

In my opinion, the FTAA is teaching us a valuable lesson. We know that countries like Costa Rica and Panama will be present at the negotiating table and will make their points of view known, while Quebec—land of the only French-speaking people in North America, with a culture unique in the Americas—must beg in order to have its point of view considered by the government of Canada.

I think this is a fundamental argument we can use to tell Quebecers: “Yes, when you ultimately have to decide whether you want a sovereign Quebec in the next few years and in the next few decades, whom do you want to speak on behalf of Quebec, someone who was elected 75% by people from outside Quebec or someone who was elected 100% by Quebecers, people who have chosen to live in Quebec?”

The answer is obvious, and in the years to come, it will not be enough just to have control over domestic issues in Quebec and in Canada. We need to have some influence over the decisions made at the international level, something we do not have during the current negotiations.

As a sovereignist and an elected representative here in Ottawa, I think it is important to express our viewpoint and give Quebecers the opportunity to express their opinions.

I hope this debate will help the Minister for International Trade understand the mandate he is given and I hope that, following the various negotiations, he will assure the House that he was able to defend our positions.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly surprised by what my colleague has just said here in this House. I have to remind him that the talks currently being held do not run counter to what we have. At the present time, we are members of the World Trade Organization. The majority of countries belong to it. This agreement that the countries of the Americas, including Canada, the United States and Mexico, are in the process of negotiating, is in keeping with the World Trade Organization, in the final analysis. It is not out of line with it.

What this arrangement will in the end give workers, in Quebec and elsewhere, is the opportunity to do even better, to have a better quality of life. It has nothing to do with sovereignty. My colleague knows that full well. In Europe, we now have over 12, 14 or 15 countries with different languages, cultures and histories, that are discussing not just political union, but also economic union.

Here in the House of Commons, there is still a small minority, in Quebec and in Canada, that continues to talk about the issue of sovereignty, even though the majority of Quebecers have already said, more than once—two, three and four times—that the only things they are interested in are a good quality of life and a good justice system, as well as jobs and education for their children.

They have said this several times, but my colleague here is talking as though Quebecers had already voted for their own country. The answer is no. They have already voted no several times. They want to continue to live chez eux , in the place they call home, which is Canada. The place they call home is Quebec, it is Ontario, it is North America, it is the whole world. We are all members of the same family. I am sure that my colleague agrees.

Would he give us his opinion on that?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comment, and it makes me smile. I will ask him to consider the following: would he agree to the Americans representing him in the negotiations for the free trade agreement of the Americas? Would that be par for the course for him? Eighty-five percent of our trade is with the Americans.

When he says that the issue of sovereignty is not important, would he in fact be prepared to say “Go ahead, Americans, and represent Canadians, you would be capable of doing this for us. We will leave you to it”. I do not think this is the case. Canada aspires to having a distinct personality, and Quebec aspires to the same thing.

I reiterate that, as far as culture is concerned, we are in a unique situation in the Americas. It is the only place in America where the majority of people speak French, that has a francophone culture in America and that represents an entire people that lives a different lifestyle, a distinct society that is not Canada, that organizes itself in a particular way.

I would remind him that it is the third election in a row Quebecers have sent the federal government a message: we elect a majority of sovereignist members to parliament. This means there is a certain unease, a fundamental problem, and when the federal government wants to ignore the situation, it only confirms that something has to change.

The member said that Quebecers have refused to become a country several times. I will remind him of the facts. In 1980, we got 40% of the vote and in 1995, we got 49% of the vote. The lesson we are getting today on the FTAA negotiations will probably be the main reason that, next time, we will be over 50%. We will become a country, and we will be able to speak for Quebec throughout the world.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to participate in the debate on the summit of the Americas as a former chair on the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment in the last parliament and also as the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

I would like to use the time I have been allocated, not only to speak about the free trade area of the Americas but also to speak about the themes of the 2001 summit, the history of the summit, and what we hope as a government to accomplish at the summit, especially in the area of cultural diversity.

I also believe that it is very important to stress to the people who are listening to us this evening that the summit will not just be about the free trade area of the Americas. In fact the ministers of international trade will be meeting in Buenos Aires on April 6 and 7 to pursue the negotiations of the FTAA prior to the summit. While economic integration will be on the summit's agenda, the summit is much more than a vehicle to promote economic growth.

From April 20 to April 22, 2001, this will be the third occasion on which the presidents and the prime ministers of the hemisphere's 34 nations will come together to consider the most important issues affecting the region.

The leaders of the hemisphere's 34 democratically elected governments met for the first time in December, 1994 in Miami with the belief that strong hemispheric partnerships would encourage mutual interests which included peace, democracy, economic integration and social justice.

At the first summit the leaders released a declaration of principles which focused on four major themes: first, preserving and strengthening the community of democracy of the Americas; second, promoting prosperity through economic integration and free trade; third, eradicating poverty and discrimination in our hemisphere; and fourth, guaranteeing sustainable development and conserving our natural environment for future generations.

The summit's resulting plan of action contained 23 initiatives covering the four theme areas. Then on April 18 and 19, 1998, four years later, the leaders of the 34 countries which had participated in Miami met for a second time at the summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile to continue the dialogue and strengthen the co-operation that began in 1994.

In preparing for Santiago, Canada identified a number of priorities and carefully considered the views expressed by Canadians during civil society consultations which took place in six Canadian cities in October of 1997. The human rights and democracy theme continue to be a priority for Canada and in the summit process. Our country presented the civic proposals to improve key aspects of the administration of justice in the Americas.

I am also pleased to report it was Canada that placed indigenous issues on the agenda as a separate item and placed importance on ensuring that women and people with disabilities be given particular attention.

Canada participated actively in all areas of discussion at the summit of Americas in Santiago. Among the issues addressed was how to combat the elicit drug trade in the hemisphere.

During this second summit of the Americas, and I stress it was only the second summit, the FTAA negotiations were initiated with the understanding that they be concluded by the year 2005.

Also in Santiago, Canada's leadership role in trade liberalization was recognized when it was announced that Canada would chair negotiations for the FTAA for the first 18 months and host the fifth meeting of the hemisphere's trade ministers in 1999. It was and remains Canada's position and belief that the creation of the free trade area of the Americas is important to the economic prosperity of the hemisphere and, in turn, to the consolidation of democracy in the Americas. At the conclusion of the summit in Santiago, Canada was chosen to host the next summit of the Americas in 2001.

In September 1998, the hon. Sergio Marchi, the former minister for international trade, asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to report to him on positions Canada should take in negotiating an agreement that would create a free trade area of the Americas. The minister's request was then referred to the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment.

From March to June 1999, the subcommittee structured its hearings in a way that would enable it to hear from as many Canadians as possible, covering a wide range of public concerns from many and diverse perspectives.

The committee also held joint meetings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade when travelling across the country in undertaking its study of the WTO in the millennium round of negotiations.

Apart from hearing from the public at large, the subcommittee organized round table meetings of experts to address and debate principal stakes of an FTAA for Canada and to comment on key issues such as its opportunities and challenges, social and economic development of smaller economies of the Americas and the preservation of Canadian culture.

In the end 48 witnesses appeared before the subcommittee and 35 briefs and submissions were received. In addition, of the 394 witnesses who appeared before the joint meetings of the standing committee, many chose to address the question of the free trade area of the Americas.

In October 1999 the subcommittee tabled its report along with 29 recommendations to assist our trade officials in achieving a result that serves Canada's best interests. The committee also specifically stated that it wished to make known that the report was not a final report. It was a first report in what was expected to be an ongoing parliamentary review on an FTAA until the final deadline for concluding such an agreement in 2005 is reached.

In March 2000 the current Minister for International Trade presented to parliament Canada's priorities and objectives for negotiating the free trade areas of the Americas.

Last Thursday, officials from the Department of International Trade and the Department of Canadian Heritage appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to address the issue of culture within the framework of the FTAA. Claude Carrière, Canada's chief negotiator for the FTAA, confirmed Canada's position that Canada would not make any commitment which would limit our cultural objective and cultural policy, while at the same time we would work with other countries to develop a new international instrument on cultural diversity.

At that time Mr. Carrière tabled a proposal for the language on cultural diversity in the preamble to the declaration of the FTAA which I would like to share with the members here in the House of Commons and with Canadians. The proposed wording is as follows:

Recognizing that countries must maintain the ability to preserve, develop and implement their cultural policies for the purpose of strengthening cultural diversity, given the essential role that cultural goods and services play in the identity and diversity of society and the lives of individuals.

The concept of a new international instrument on cultural diversity was recommended in a report by the cultural industries sectoral advisory group on international trade, known as SAGIT, in February 1999. The SAGIT report recommended the new cultural instrument on cultural diversity should: recognize the importance of cultural diversity; acknowledge that cultural goods and services are basically different from other products; acknowledge that domestic measures and policies intended to ensure access to a variety of indigenous cultural products are significantly different from other policy measures; set out rules on the kinds of domestic regulatory and other measures that countries cannot use to enhance cultural and linguistic diversity and; and establish how trade disciplines would apply or not apply to cultural measures that meet the agreed upon rules.

In 1999, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade both endorsed the SAGIT report.

In the Speech from the Throne in October 1999 the government committed to developing a new approach internationally to support the diversity of cultural expression in countries around the world.

In 1998 the Minister of Canadian Heritage invited the ministers of culture of many countries to attend an international meeting to discuss a strategic approach to the pressures of globalization on the expression of cultural and national identity. The end result was the launching of the international network for cultural policy.

When it was first established there were 19 members. Today there are 45 and even more countries want to join. Every region of the world is represented.

This international network on cultural policy has strongly endorsed the instrument approach and has mandated that the Department of Canadian Heritage chair a working group to develop the scope and framework of an instrument for the 2001 annual meeting.

The summit of the Americas is about much more than just trade. We hope this will be an opportunity for the new international instrument on cultural diversity to be taken forward. I would also like to remind everyone that there are three themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was also at the heritage meetings the member was at recently where the chief negotiator for the FTAA was present.

At that meeting I asked if he could tell me where the interconnection between culture and commerce met, given the fact that we now see Nike International, Michael Jordan, Benneton and all sorts of multinational corporations involved in what they would say are cultural enterprises, and how would they would fit into Canadian culture. The chairman also asked the same question. The negotiator said that he had to beg “incompetence” on that question. That response did not give me a very strong feeling.

The government continues to say that culture is not on the table and the idea of a stand alone international instrument is one that many groups globally support and I support as well. The coalition for cultural diversity supports that. I want to quote one comment about its concerns and I would like the member to address these concerns. It said:

—that Canada continue to resist the U.S. pressure that is certain to escalate as these negotiations unfold. What also remains is that Canada show proof of extreme vigilance in these meetings as the United States undoubtedly attempts to push through the adoption of certain general principles that apply to all sectors across the board, principles that could seriously reduce the ability of the other countries to refuse specific trade liberalization commitments in the cultural sector when the time comes.

Could the member address that because it is a major fear that I and many people in cultural communities across the country feel?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is committed to preserving cultural diversity in Canada as she knows I am as well.

Last Thursday when I was returning to my riding I ran into one of Canada's foremost actors, R. H. Thomson. He had recently been summoned to a meeting in Ottawa. There are other groups meeting on this issue besides the coalition of diversity which is headed by Robert Pilon. I asked Robert Thomson what was the purpose of his trip to Ottawa. He told me that he was part of a discussion on the new cultural instrument.

I know Robert Thomson's position and I am sure the member knows it as well. He was against the multilateral agreement on investment. However, he told me how wonderful it was that the minister was bringing together different groups to discuss this new instrument. He assured me that one of the first things we had to do as a government, as individuals, as organizations and as artists was to bring together all the different countries to encompass the whole idea of a new cultural instrument.

He felt that we were doing this little by little. We have gone from 19 countries to 45 countries. Not just governments but NGOs as well will be at the meeting and will be talking about cultural diversity. I hope the coalition will be there as well. We must get more people to buy into this idea. The more countries we can convince and bring to our side in understanding how important this is, the better.

We speak about the United States. I know that our minister, quite frankly, if I may say so, is not afraid of the roar of the United States. One of the great things I always like to use as an example is people saying “The United States said we could not do it”. Do members know what the United States said we could not do? The United States said we could not have a convention on the anti-personnel landmines because the United States was against it. The United States was against it because it was worried about North Korea and said to forget it, that we would not get consensus anywhere in the world. Not only did we get consensus to sign the Ottawa convention, but we have also since then ratified the treaty.

As we heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs say today, the Ukraine, which was not one of the original signatories, has now come together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss how it is going to destroy all the landmines it has there.

I do not think we should be afraid of the Americans. Let us take heart from what we did with the Ottawa convention and the anti-personnel landmines treaty as a way to show that we do not need the Americans to make our point known and to have other countries come onside and ratify the things that are important to all of us.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Americas to be held next month follows the first summit, held in Miami in 1994, and the second, held in Santiago, Chile in 1998.

The summit, which is being hosted by the Prime Minister of Canada, will bring together the heads of state of 34 democratically elected governments in the western hemisphere.

I want to repeat what the previous speaker mentioned because it is important. The summit will deal with three themes: strengthening democracy, including human rights, justice, local governments, the illegal drug trade, security and civil society; creating prosperity, including the free trade area of the Americas, infrastructure, labour, environment and the issue of inequalities; and realizing human potential, including education, health, gender equality, indigenous peoples, cultural diversity and children.

When I heard that we were going to debate the issue in the House, I wanted to try to speak on an area which I felt might be downplayed. It is an area about which I feel very strongly. It is the role that our children play in allowing us to achieve stronger democracies, to improve prosperity and to realize human potential.

I believe that the leaders coming to the summit of the Americas must advance the principles and values that underpin the essence of a democracy, such as fairness and equity, respect for human rights, caring for those unable to care for themselves, and representing the interests of those without a voice, particularly the generations of children to come.

I wanted to talk about children and about the need to strengthen the family in the context of poverty. I believe the conditions we have in Canada are somewhat reflective of the conditions we would find in other countries in the Americas. The only difference is the degree to which those conditions may present themselves.

I believe that poverty is one of the least understood issues in the Americas. Advocacy groups call it child poverty and it tugs at the heartstrings of every caring person. They have invoked the images of children starving in the streets and report that the problem has increased more than 50% over the last decade.

Who could possibly be against eliminating child poverty? The bold reality is that the poverty in Canada and in the Americas is more a matter of social poverty rather than economic poverty.

We know that in November 1989 parliament passed a resolution to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty by the year 2000. That actually was our first millennium project. Over the last 10 years, it has been the raison d'être for virtually every anti-poverty voice in Canada.

No one will dispute the nobility of the gesture, but it was hollow and without substance. I say this because if the root causes of poverty were understood, we would come to the conclusion that to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty is in fact not possible.

Anti-poverty groups are growing in size and influence. They report annually on the growing level of poverty in our country and fiercely lobby governments to act. More jobs, more social assistance, more social housing, more tax benefits for families with children, more money for health and early childhood development, more employment insurance benefits and subsidized day care are but a few of the demands of these advocates.

They universally accept the low income cutoff known as LICO as the measure of poverty, for one simple reason. It is an economic measure which calls for economic solutions. If they had to address the root causes of poverty, it would open up a Pandora's box which I believe most fear to face.

Homelessness has also become one of the latest focuses for the poverty groups. As an example, in January 1999 a task force headed up by Anne Golden issued a report on homelessness in the city of Toronto. Declaring that there were workable solutions, the task force engaged all levels of government to step up to their responsibilities.

However, if hon. members look very closely at the conclusions of the report they will find some interesting statistics. Of the homeless identified, 35% suffered from mental illness, 15% were aboriginals off reserve, 10% were abused women and, significantly, 28% were youths who had been alienated from their families, of which 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse. In addition, they found that 47% of the homeless in Toronto did not even come from Toronto. In fact they have been migrating to urban centres from all across Canada. Sadly people who live in squalor on the streets of our country represent those who no one loves.

Lone parents now represent about 15% of all families in Canada but, sadly, account for about 54% of all children or families living in poverty. The rate of family breakdown is almost 50% when we include the breakdown of common law relationships.

The incidence of domestic violence continues at record levels. Alcohol and drug abuse in our schools and our communities has escalated with tragic consequences. Unwanted teen pregnancies continue to rise. Close to 30% of students are dropping out of our high schools and are becoming Canada's poor in waiting.

Statistics Canada and Health Canada have concluded that 25% of children in Canada are entering adult life with significant mental, social or behavioural problems.

These represent the social poverty of our society and they are the root causes of the vast majority of the economic poverty in Canada.

If poverty in Canada is a horror and a national disgrace, then the breakdown of the family is the principal cause of that disgrace. Those who express outrage at poverty but who do not express the same outrage at the breakdown of the family are truly in denial.

However, in these days of political correctness, the family and its structure and condition represent a minefield through which few are prepared to tread. Anti-poverty groups have meekly sidestepped the social poverty dimension. However, if we are not prepared to address social poverty in our country, then we effectively choose to tolerate—

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member and am listening with rapt attention to his speech, but I wonder if he might in some way relate it to the subject of the FTAA, which is currently being debated.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member realizes the importance of relevance and will of course make his remarks entirely relevant.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more relevant to strengthening our democracies, to improving prosperity, which involves trade, and to realizing human potential than the health and well-being of children. It is a precondition and that is the relevance.

Let me conclude. I believe that if we could raise one healthy, well adjusted generation of children, poverty as we know it throughout the Americas would be a condition of the past. In that context, I mean that it should be physical, mental and social health that we are looking at for our children.

It also contemplates that our social, moral and family values and those of our families, educators and legislators promote, protect and defend those values. Our children are a function of the society in which they live. Those who become our future poor do so because of our failure to put their interests ahead of our own.

Collectively we are responsible for the poverty that exists in Canada today and it is therefore our collective responsibility to resolve both its social and its economic causes.

In conclusion, I quote from Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices for Children, in a perfect point of relevance, particularly with regard to the FTAA. He stated:

With one in four children entering adult life significantly handicapped, we can look forward to a society that will be less able to generate the economic base required to supply the social supports and services needed by one in four adults unable to carry their own weight.

In that context, investing in children, particularly in the early years, is an imperative, not an option. My humble message for the leaders of the democracies, the 34 countries coming to meet at the summit of the Americas, is to put the interests of our children ahead of all other interests because I truly believe that it is a precondition to strengthening our democracies, to achieving greater prosperity and to realizing human potential.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments about child poverty and ask him a question on the idea of strengthening democracy.

Last week a Quebec man went into a Quebec superior court to ask if his constitutional right to peaceful assembly is going to be denied by police security in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas. His question is a very good one. The police will be sealing off the heart of Quebec City for the summit, with a 3.8 kilometre security perimeter. Mr. Tremblay is a solid citizen. He is a 41 year old Montreal bankruptcy lawyer and he believes, as he says, that “I am no protester but I know that why this country of ours is so beautiful is because of its democracy”.

He wants to argue that the essence of democracy depends upon the free market of ideas. He will argue that his right of entrance to the marketplace is being excessively limited by the distance police are keeping him from the venue where the 34 western hemisphere heads of government will be meeting.

Does the hon. member feel that Canadians' right to democracy will be compromised by the 3.8 kilometre security perimeter and that their rights to open debate are being compromised and jeopardized?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pretty well answered her own question because she referred to constitutional rights to legal assembly. It is a constitutional right and it will be protected and defended by the laws of Canada.

The member referred to security issues with regard to the fencing and other security measures. It is about protection of large delegations of visitors to our country. We have the statistics. A great many people are going to be there and their protection is extremely important. It is a serious responsibility for Canada as the host of the summit.

I do not believe that the member should ever suggest that somehow in Canada the views of Canadians from coast to coast to coast can be stifled by a fence. Our words, actions and beliefs and our accessibility, freedom and democracy in Canada allow all Canadians to express themselves in whatever ways they wish.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the hon. member for his comments with respect to the issue of child poverty.

However, to bring this debate back to the question of the upcoming summit of the Americas and in particular the proposed free trade of the Americas agreement, I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the fact that the hemisphere which is the site of the FTAA in fact has the most unequal distribution of wealth on the entire planet.

There is nothing whatsoever in the proposed FTAA that would in any way reduce the gap between rich and poor. On January 1, 1994, the date that NAFTA came into force, the indigenous people of Chiapas rose up because of their concern that this would lead to greater poverty as they were pushed off their subsistence farming lands so that cash export crops could be grown by giant corporate agribusinesses.

We know as well that as a result of social dumping the number of Canadian families who are unemployed, who are now eligible for employment insurance, has risen dramatically. It is now about 35%, which means more children living in poverty.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he can defend a proposed agreement, the FTAA, that would lead to greater poverty and even more attacks on families throughout the hemisphere.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, globalization undoubtedly is a fear. To some it represents fear of the unknown. The member is quite right when he says that we have examples of where globalization efforts can lead and have led for adverse consequences for a broad spectrum of humankind.

One of the challenges of the leaders at the summit of the Americas is to not be in denial of the realities that we have seen. However, the member asked if this would help us. It is the position of the Government of Canada, and from the last two summits, that the leaders collectively have agreed that these summits and the FTAA will provide us in part, along with other initiatives, the tools we need to deal with some of the conditions that the member just mentioned.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get up and debate this important issue. I will start by going over a little bit of how we got to this point, what this free trade area of the Americas and the summit of the Americas is proposing to do in Quebec City in April. If I have time, I would like to finish off with some of the local issues that I am concerned about that will be coming up, or already have, in this negotiation process.

The idea of a free trade area of the Americas started in 1990 with George Bush, the then president of the United States. At that time it was enterprised from the Americas initiative. It came on the heels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and in the beginning of the negotiations for what would become the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Subsequently the idea was revived as a free trade of the Americas at the first modern day summit of the Americas held in Miami in 1994. Like the upcoming summit, the heads of state and government of 34 countries of the western hemisphere discussed the advancement of economic prosperity, democracy and security of the Americas.

At the summit in 1994, all countries agreed to conclude an FTAA by 2005. This was a very ambitious schedule but it was one they agreed to try to work toward. Canada and Chile, the most enthusiastic supporters of the FTAA, later proposed that it be moved up to 2003, but there are some concerns that this deadline will not be reached.

I will now speak on the relationship to the summit of the Americas. The FTAA is only one of the items, albeit an important one, that will be on the agenda at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. The summit is organized through the Organization of American States. It was originally guided by four principles: first, preserve and strengthen the community of democracies of the Americas; second, promote prosperity through economic integration of free trade; third, eradicate poverty and discrimination in our hemisphere; and fourth, guarantee sustainable development and conserve our natural environment for future generations. I would suggest that those are four worthy goals to reach in any agreement.

At the Quebec City summit, issues have been divided into three interconnected baskets. They have described them as strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential. It is the potential of the FTAA that has gained the most attention both from people who support it and those who do not.

I would like to speak about the economic background. How big is the free trade area of the Americas that we are talking about? It would cover 800 million people in the western hemisphere. We have slightly less than 15% of the total world's population, but we produce 35% of the world's measured economic activity.

The combined gross domestic product of all the countries is $11 trillion U.S. The Americas is by far the largest and most productive economic region of the world. It surpasses even the European Union, which is the second leading region, by $3 trillion U.S.

Canada's main trading partner is the United States which takes over 86% of our exports. The countries with which Canada has a free trade agreement, the United States, Mexico and Chile, account for 97% of our hemispheric trade. Even without the FTAA, a full 94% of goods from FTAA countries already enter Canada duty free. It is no big change for Canada because we are almost already there.

What are some of the potential benefits? Canada's economy is highly trade dependent with about one in three jobs depending directly on trade. About 80% of jobs created since 1993 have come from trade. The reasons for all free trade agreements is to increase the size of our economic pie and to improve our prosperity and well-being.

Canadian priorities in the FTAA are threefold: zero tariff rates with our trading partners, the removal of wasteful custom procedures as barriers to trade, and strong investment protection measures through the Americas region. In my riding there is a big port into the U.S. To streamline the procedures to allow the trade to flow back and forth more freely is something the people who use it on a regular basis would really like to see.

A successful FTAA should not have a large structural impact on Canada's economy because we are almost already there. Canada is already a relatively open market. Some 94% of goods from FTAA countries already enter Canada duty free. The big adjustment for Canada came with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which currently covers 86% of our exports.

An important benefit of an FTAA for Canada is to open and secure market access for Canadian exporters through the elimination of tariffs. Some sectors face significant tariffs on paper products, technology products, auto parts and potash.

At a recent committee meeting on international trade one witness representing the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada said that 79% of its members favour this issue and only 6% see the FTAA as a threat to their businesses. These are the people who are in business and who are working to improve markets and market share for their products.

The parliamentary secretary earlier this evening indicated that the government would be listening to all the comments brought forward tonight by all parties. He also indicated that the government would be taking heed of some of the issues and would look into them.

One that I want to raise and I have raised before is the issue regarding sugar refining. I am speaking of raw sugar imports, exports and refined sugar. My riding has the only sugar beets grown in Canada. They are refined in the neighbouring constituency in Taber. A deal has been partially struck with Costa Rica and the concern is that the deal will be used as a pattern to extend it to other Latin American countries that have large sugar producing capacity.

The tariff in Costa Rica on refined sugar is 50% whereas Canada's is 8%. The idea is to reduce both those tariffs to zero but over the same period of time. If both tariffs are reduced to zero within a year of each other, it will place our producers and our refiners at a definite disadvantage.

This is something the government needs to be aware of. If it does offer up sugar, the government should deal with it as an individual commodity and not trade it off against other issues as has been done in the past, because there is potential for growth in this industry in Canada. If we handled this trade situation properly, particularly through the FTAA, then we will have potential to solidify the industry and maybe even grow it to some degree.

Some of the issues that have been talked about earlier have to do with the site and what is happening in Quebec City to prepare for the summit. I support the issue that the laws must be obeyed but people's right to be heard or the right to have peaceful demonstrations should not be interfered with. The full force of the law needs to be brought to bear should anybody step over that line and get out of hand because this is an important issue.

There is far more to be gained by being in on the discussions than being outside the room causing a disturbance. If people are serious about wanting change and having input, they should take part in the discussions. I am hopeful it will all go off without too much trouble.

Foreign subsidies which distort production, as we have seen in our grain and oilseed sector, are something that we need to be aware of. Such things do exist. If the trade agreements can reduce those subsidies to get everybody on a level playing field we would be far better off.

Another issue that is very important is water. We want to make sure that Canada retains sovereignty over its water. I want the government to hear that. We have to make sure that absolute control of that precious resource is maintained.

The other day one witness in committee said that a free trade agreement would bring absolute free and fair trade on all commodities. Then we would have 3,000 pages of exemptions. I am hopeful that this agreement will not go that way and that we will be able to come to a solid agreement.

We support free trade and the process that it is going through. However we would like to see any agreement that is reached come back to the House for debate, for Canadians to have a look at and for parliament to ultimately have a say in.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the free trade area of the Americas. Canada has an absolutely unique opportunity next month to deal with a number of challenges to our hemisphere. Being the host, we have the opportunity to introduce and put forth creative solutions to deal with a number of the challenges. I will get to them a little later on in my speech.

Why pursue the free trade agreement? It is because free trade is good for everybody if it is fair trade. The challenge of this meeting is to ensure and convince the Canadian public, and indeed people throughout our hemisphere, that we are pursuing a fair and transparent free trade agreement: one that considers all parties and one that is prepared to work with members from across society so that we will have a trade agreement that will benefit absolutely everybody.

I want to talk about a couple of the challenges in our hemisphere. One of those is the issue of illicit drugs and the war on drugs. President Vicente Fox recently said that the war on drugs had been lost. We are losing it across our hemisphere and the countries that are really paying a price are those that are producing them.

The president of Colombia, Andres Pastrana, whom I met with last month, as well as the heads of state of Mexico, Uruguay and many others, is giving the same message: the war on drugs hurts everyone, but it hurts them more, not only the drugs but the ways to combat them.

We must decrease consumption if we are to deal with the war. We must look at our own homes if we are to deal with the problem. We could try to do what we have done before when we took the war to Colombia, buttressed up the armaments, supported the army, built up the forces and tried to cut the head off the cartels.

We did that successfully but all that happened was like a hydra: they came up in other areas. That is indeed what is happening now in Colombia where 140,000 hectares of land has been destroyed. FARC guerrillas, the ELN, the paramilitary and other drugs lords have come into the picture to produce these drugs.

They are producing them cheaper and better, such as heroin which costs $2 a gram. The war on drugs is being lost. It is almost universally accepted that we are not going to win it unless we decrease consumption at home. For the first time the Americans have admitted to this.

How do we do that? First, we have to decrease consumption by dealing with new European models that focus not only on detox and treatment but also use new medical models in ensuring that people who are drug addicted develop skills training, have jobs and live in a secure environment away from their drug environments.

Speaking personally from my professional experience, we cannot get people off drugs if they are living in an environment where drugs are abundant. We have to take them out of that. We have to give them the skills training so they will be employable in the future.

Second, we have to talk about prevention. The headstart program that was passed in the House in 1998 deals with children in the first six to eight years of life to ensure they live in a secure environment and strengthens the parent-child bond. It has been proven to decrease consumption and drug use later on in life.

On the trade issue, we have to remove both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade as well as double taxation regimes. One of the things that Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN, has said, as well as countries in South and Central America where the drugs are being produced, is that these poor people who are forced to produce the drugs need something else to grow if we are going to remove the poppies and the coca. The only way to do that is to give them a chance to compete with other countries.

The House may be interested to know that the major obstacle to removing tariff barriers to enable the poor and developing countries to progress is the west. We are the ones who obstruct the ability of these developing countries to get their houses in order and improve their economies. In short, these countries do not need aid, they primarily need trade.

Under the judicial issue, we need to implement RICO amendments as they have done in the United States. Seventy-five per cent of revenues from organized bike gangs come from drugs. The way to hit them is to go after the money by implementing the RICO amendments. If the government does that, we will be able to hit them where it counts.

We need heavier and stronger penalties for those individuals who are trafficking in drugs, but we need to treat the users from a medical model. We need to hit the producers and the organized crime gangs hard, use the RICO amendments and chase after the money. Then we will go a long way toward addressing the organized crime epidemic that the Canadian Police Association said we are losing.

We also need to deal with import and export controls over chemicals used in the precursors for drugs. We were nailed by the United Nations, as were other western countries, for allowing chemicals used in the development of illicit drugs to be freely sent in amounts far in excess of what these countries could possibly use. We are allowing that and we turn a blind eye. We pretend we are lily white but we are not.

Import and export controls over the chemicals used in the production and removal of coca paste, cocaine and the production of other illicit drugs would prevent these companies and countries from using them illegally.

The third issue is environmental protection. Acid raid, air pollution and water pollution know no boundaries. We have to take a collective view and collective action against these challenges.

Regarding environmental security, in 1998 hurricane Mitch devastated Central America. There were 19,000 people killed and there was $5 billion in damage. The world has been unable to deal with the humanitarian and natural disasters.

What I propose is to build a rapid response centre somewhere, preferably in the Central America region. The centre would have non-perishable food, tenting, blankets and heavy lift capabilities as well as DART response teams and medical teams. They could be rapidly accessed using a rapid response model and brought to an area where there is a natural disaster. Time is of the essence in these disasters. If we constructed one of these areas somewhere in the Central American region, we would be able to save a lot of lives and a lot of money when these natural disasters occur.

On the issue of human security, in issues of conflict the international community has been absolutely unable to deal with conflict in a preventive way. In order to do this it requires a multilateral effort. I suggest using the international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and the IMF as well as the Inter-American Development Bank, to press economic levers to the precursors of conflict.

This is cutting edge foreign policy. I believe our country, and indeed the House, could take a leadership role on this issue. If we present this policy on the floor of the free trade of the Americas at the end of April in Quebec City, we will start the ball rolling. We will be able to address conflict before it happens, instead of expensively trying to patch up the problems after the fact.

To my colleague from the NDP I would say this. The member's efforts to try to destroy and obstruct the meeting are nothing but destructive. The member should use the ideas and questions which are very legitimate and for which all people want answers. The member's efforts should be put toward building constructive solutions to address them. The member should talk about transparency and work with us to make sure that all agreements be brought to the House to be debated on the floor before they are passed.

On the issue of trade liberalization make sure it is fair trade, not only free trade. On the issue of transparency let us work towards that.

The issue of globalization is a way for all of us to work on good labour and environmental laws. Collectively we can work together to elevate the standard of living for all people. Surely the NDP and others will listen to the secretary general of the U.N. who said that developing countries and the poorest of the poor need free and fair trade.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to ask this question of one of the next speakers, but sometimes I have a hard time being recognized. Perhaps the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, from the Canadian Alliance, could answer the question for me.

In my riding there is a constituent who believes the FTAA would impact on our sovereignty and the legal ability of governments to maintain environmental and social standards. Does the hon. member believe this is true?