Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am very pleased to participate in the take note debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas on this early morning. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
For the benefit of those caring and dedicated Canadians who are still watching this debate on TV, on April 21 and 22 Canada will host 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas in Quebec City, 21 being new leaders. Cuba is the only country not participating in the summit. The FTAA would cover over 800 million people. The Americas have a combined GDP of over $11 trillion American.
This will be the third summit of the Americas. The first summit highlighted trade and was held in Miami in 1994. The second highlighted education and was held in Santiago, Chile in 1998. This third summit will discuss the proposal to phase out trade barriers from the Arctic to Argentina by 2005. The plan of action for the summit includes 18 different fields, including drug trafficking and money laundering.
Let me give some background facts on the free trade area of the Americas, commonly called the FTAA.
There is a political and economic transformation taking place in this trading bloc. Today there are no military dictatorships, while in 1995 there were 14. In 1950 Canada and Argentina held similar developmental levels but there is a disparity today. Canada has invested $12 billion in Chile, three times more than we have in Japan. Canada invested $42 billion in the Americas outside the U.S.A. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free these days. Canada exports about 45% of our GDP.
I will go over the enormous benefits of free trade. It will broaden our trading rights. It is mutually beneficial to participating countries. It gives consumers better choice of goods and services, and at a cheaper price too, as compared to tariff protected economies. It helps us get value added products. It brings about prosperity, development, job creation and economic developments. It enhances freedom of enterprise, democracy and good governance as well as the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money. It protects intellectual property rights.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA gives protection to Canadian investors.
The Canadian Alliance supports free trade and, in principle, we support FTAA initiatives. The liberal Prime Minister of the U.K., Tony Blair, emphasized in this House the importance of free trade. I will politely remind our NDP colleagues of that.
We must also remember that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that fought hard against free trade between Canada and the U.S. The Liberals lost the 1988 election based on that policy plank. The Right Hon. John Turner led the members opposite to a crushing defeat because he opposed expanding trade with our largest trading partner. At that time the Liberals said that Canada would cease to exist as a country and we would lose our sovereignty if the FTA was passed. Canadians did not fall for that.
The Liberals have made a 180 degree turn. We all know what we call that in politics. Today we are wary of the Liberal government's trade policy. We have seen failed team Canada missions. In the majority of them, our exports to those countries dropped significantly and our trade declined after the team Canada visit. That is a matter of record. The facts and figures speak for themselves.
There are some people who say that Canada should be investigating this kind of summit with western Europe. East-west trade may also be beneficial to Canada in the future.
It is also notable that trade barriers within Canada remain in place. There are more barriers to trade between British Columbia and New Brunswick or other provinces than there are between B.C. and Washington state. That issue is not on the thin soup agenda of the House because the Liberals are not serious about it. There has never been a serious dialogue for federal and provincial co-operation. The government has always had a confrontational approach with the provinces.
Canadians have a number of questions to which the government has failed to provide clear answers. What exactly would be Canada's role in the FTAA? How exactly does Canada benefit from the summit? I am afraid Canada will go to the summit with poorly done homework and with its usual weak position. It is difficult to debate the issue because so little has been made public by the government. What criteria should the government be using to promote trade relations in the FTAA? Will the Liberal government expand its aid for trade policy? That scenario plays out with the Liberal government using Canada's foreign aid like a carrot and then invoking trade policies with a stick on underdeveloped and disadvantaged nations.
Will the Liberals measure the benefits of the FTAA against the cost of dealing with countries that do not follow good governance practices? Will the government hold those nations accountable for their human rights records? What about democratic values and how will they be defined? What about trade sanctions? The government is all over the map when it comes to applying trade sanctions against rogue states.
We could say that there is a double standard, but it may be a triple standard or even worse. There is no method to the madness that the government uses when deciding about trade sanctions.
The government does not listen to Canadians. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended separating into two categories the sanctions we have against Iraq. The committee recommended that military and humanitarian sanctions be separated and that humanitarian sanctions be discontinued. What has happened since that unanimous 1999 committee report? Absolutely nothing has been done.
The weak, arrogant Liberal government negotiated the MAI in secrecy for over a year before Canadians found out. If the Liberal government had been listening to Canadians, there would have been no need for the people's summit that is running parallel to the Quebec summit.
What about Canada's disputes with other nations when it comes to agriculture, softwood lumber or fisheries? Are any of these issues in the briefcase that our government is bringing to the summit? Canadians do not know because the Liberals are not telling us.
What are the Liberals doing about the low Canadian dollar and high taxes? These issues are barriers to Canada's abilities to negotiate free trade agreements and attract investors. The Liberals have to drag our low value dollar with them around the world, which does not help us in negotiations with other nations. Are trade subsidies on the table? Is our dispute with Brazil on the table?
Most notably, Canadians are wondering about international crime and organized crime. Will we be expanding our trade with nations that are affecting our country as a result of the drug trade, human smuggling, money laundering or bank and computer fraud?
We must also carefully assess whether all countries participating in the summit are abiding by existing international trade agreements. Unfortunately, parliament has had no role in helping to set the parameters of Canada's negotiation position in the talks.
In conclusion, we in our party believe that it is essential to allow parliamentarians in on the process, including a full debate and a free vote on any agreement. We believe it is important to foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad. We support securing access to international markets through the negotiation of trade agreements, but we must proceed carefully.