Mr. Speaker, after almost eight hours of debate and coming up to 2.20 in the morning, it is very interesting that there are still members in the House who are really interested in contributing to the debate, myself being one of them.
We may ask what new we can talk about, there having been eight hours of debate. We are debating the issue of the meeting in Quebec, the summit of the Americas. I would like to approach it from a tack that is slightly different to what I have been hearing over the last couple of hours. I will approach it from the point of view of us ensuring that we maintain a civil society, that we maintain civility within not only Canadian society but indeed within all societies of all the countries that will be represented at the conference.
Unfortunately, a couple of years ago in Seattle we saw bullies, goons and anarchists who wanted to shut down debate and discussion. They used thoughtful people. They used protesters who were sincerely and deeply concerned about the issue of free trade and related globalization issues. They used those people as shields.
Therefore we have seen elaborate arrangements for security, in Calgary recently at the petroleum conference and now again for Quebec. It is something that I personally have a lot of difficulty with. I think that in Canada we have a unique situation. For example, in the House of Commons we have one or two RCMP vehicles which are the only visible security on the Hill. We know there is more security behind the scenes, but basically we are doing everything we possibly can to maintain civility and maintain a civil society.
Let me say that I have already mentioned in the House that I have some aggressive fundamental differences of opinion with the members of the NDP who have just spoken. I do not see eye to eye with their concerns at all.
However, that is a right I have and that is a right they have within a civil society. This is what democracy is all about. We have a right to disagree. There are, within the confines of Canada, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who share their perspective, who have the right to disagree.
I would suggest, with respect, that an awful lot of the information they have is built on misunderstanding or misinformation. Certainly the kinds of things that have been talked about do unfortunately breed fear, but I believe what it really comes down to is the fact that there is a fundamental lack of faith on the part of many citizens, not only in Canada but indeed within the hemisphere and perhaps within the world, in the presidents and the prime ministers who are negotiating these agreements. There is a lack of faith in the governments that are negotiating these agreements.
We come to acronyms, which of course are simply abbreviated letters that stand for things. For example, the World Trade Organization is shortened to WTO. The International Monetary Fund is shortened to IMF. We have the FTA, NAFTA and now we have the FTAA, and of course we have the World Bank. We have many of these things, and many Canadians who are concerned about these issues are asking what all these letters stand for, what these acronyms are all about.
I would like to draw their attention, and with respect to my socialist friends at the other end of the House, I would like to draw their attention as well, to what Tony Blair, who is a leading socialist in Europe and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in the House not 25 feet away from me. I heard him say:
It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.
That does not change the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in Canada who have a deep and abiding concern about these kinds of negotiations. What is the answer? I would like to humbly propose a solution to the government through the debate today.
I suggest that one of the ways in which we could overcome this fear, this mistrust, would be to, as part of the trade negotiations, actually set up parliamentary associations that would represent parliamentarians from all parties, not only in the House but between the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States, and in all of the countries that are part of this agreement and have government and opposition. Thus, parliamentarians would have an opportunity to be part of an ongoing oversight of the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and any of these organizations about which Canadians are concerned.
Why would I be suggesting that? As parliamentarians, we are not in the security bubble that our Prime Minister finds himself in. Unfortunately, because of the malevolent forces that there are in the world, he is by necessity in a security bubble. As a parliamentarian I am in and out of coffee shops, schools and shopping centres. I conduct town hall meetings. I speak in rotary clubs. I meet people on the street. People come by my yard when I am at home on a Saturday and say hi. I am reachable, I am touchable, by the people in my constituency.
Through a parliamentary association, we would have the opportunity to have input. We would have the opportunity to have insight. I suggest we would have the opportunity to build confidence on the part of people who are concerned about these organizations because we would be there and would have part of the oversight.
I happened to be in Valparaiso, Chile in January for the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which is a forum much along the lines of what I am talking about here. There were 26 nations around Asia-Pacific involved in that meeting.
A person in the House, in Canada, who is perhaps noted as being quite outspoken, to put it mildly, would be the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He also was a member of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. He had the opportunity at that forum to go around to the various parliamentary delegations and bring forward a point of view. He received a resolution on the floor that would not have happened had he not been there. That is the kind of access I am suggesting we want to have as parliamentary associations, as ordinary parliamentarians, so parliamentarians would be able to oversee outfits like the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA and the FTAA.
We must have accountability. I believe we have to build trust. We must have the ability to afford Canadians the opportunity to make their views known. In regard to those concerns, those people who want to make those views known have a responsibility to denounce the bullies, the goons and the anarchists who take advantage of them and those demonstrations. However, I also recognize that the thoughtful Canadians who do want to go and who do want to speak out must have a feeling of comfort, therefore my recommendation for a parliamentary association that has an oversight.
I believe that all thoughtful Canadians must be confident in the process. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the idea of parliamentary associations, as part of the ongoing process, to oversee the process would go an awfully long way in taking the steam out of the fear and concern of thoughtful Canadians.