Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's intervention. He made an impassioned plea for free trade in the course of asking his question.

He made a point about the middle class. Mexico now has a larger middle class than we have in Canada. It is a more populous country, but it started out as a country that had a lot of wealthy people and a lot of poor people. However, free trade and other economic reforms that it has undertaken have now turned that country into a real emerging nation, one that is becoming much more prosperous with each passing day.

My friend asked whether a vote in this place on the free trade agreement would quell some of the opposition we are hearing from NDP members and some of their friends. I am not convinced it would. The NDP is philosophically so opposed to this that in some cases it pays lip service to the idea of democracy and uses it as a bit of a stalking horse because it is completely opposed to this idea. We see that almost daily in this place where it offers up example after example of arguments against the concept of free trade.

We need to remember that free trade itself is a democratic principle. It is the freeing up of people to trade goods and services as they see fit. It allows people, like my leader said, who are just starting out and have an idea to produce that idea and exchange it with others around the world or across borders. It is a democratic idea. If my friends in the NDP cannot understand that and do not appreciate that, I do not believe they are truly committed to the idea of real democracy.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will share my time with the hon. member for Joliette. We will each speak for ten minutes.

First off, I want to stress the major role played by Quebecers in 1988, when they supported free trade for Canada. I remind all my fellow Quebecers and Canadians who are listening that, had it not been for Quebecers, Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime Minister at the time, would probably not have had a mandate to negotiate the free trade agreement with the United States.

This happened, however, after a debate that often generated strong opposition on the part of the labour and social movements. However, a real debate did take place and in the end a majority of Quebecers supported this initiative.

Incidentally, I would remind hon. members that, at the time, the party now in office opposed the free trade agreement. Not only were the Liberals opposed to it, they condemned it with every ounce of energy they had.

I should also point out that the free trade agreement was the result of a recommendation made by the Macdonald commission, which was set up by Prime Minister Trudeau during his last mandate.

I would like to add, for the benefit of those listening, that when the Macdonald commission recommended the adoption of a free trade agreement with the United States, it did mention that it might not be the best of worlds but that, in the North American context, with multinational companies controlling 70% of the trade between the two countries, Canada did not really have a choice, because other corporations were being penalized.

I like to recall this because, when the current government came to power in 1993, it also ran against the other free trade agreement negotiated by the previous government, the free trade agreement with Mexico. Speaking about this agreement known as NAFTA, the current Prime Minister had said he would not complete it, that he would reopen the negotiations, but he has not done so.

Since then, we have gained experience. I am sure that Quebecers are still in favour of free trade. However, it is for a reason that there is a strong movement in Quebec, in what has become known as the civil society. People are concerned that the free trade area of the Americas that we are developing will not be specific enough when it comes to social rights, the power taken away from corporations as compared to the former NAFTA, and democracy.

The civil society, to which the Bloc Quebecois subscribes, is saying yes to the free trade zone of the Americas. However, we should be cautious and use any leverage we have to make sure that the social and cultural requirements of Quebec, which is even more in a minority position, with its French language and culture, within the three Americas than within North America, and the requirements regarding the place of Quebec are met. At this point, I will deal with the first point I want to talk about, that is the transparency of these negotiations.

What do we mean by transparency? We mean the ability for parliamentarians, the civil society, citizens and organizations, and not only corporations, because they are involved and in the know, the ability for these groups and individuals to know what is at stake, and be able to monitor what is going on in order to try to influence the government.

We are not naive; we know that the Government of Canada, the provincial governments and foreign governments are subject to strong pressure on the part of corporations, especially multinationals, that, under the guise of seemingly legitimate reasons, want to have more opportunities to expand and make bigger profits.

Therefore, to be able to monitor what is at stake, transparency is required. For us, transparency starts with having access to the basic documents which will be used during the negotiations, documents which will be presented in Buenos Aires on April 6 and 7.

Transparency also means that parliament should vote on the agreement. I intend to introduce in the House, as early as tomorrow, a private member's bill, which hopefully will be supported by my opposition colleagues and by the party in power. This bill was originally introduced by my colleague Daniel Turp, who was unfortunately defeated, and had received broad support at the time.

It is essential that we have a power relationship in which citizens and groups can tell as forcefully as they can that they do not want to be subjected to purely commercial imperatives.

Quebec should also be involved in this negotiation. I want to emphasize that as strongly as I can. Why should Quebec be involved and not be merely consulted? It should be involved for two main reasons.

The first one is its language and culture, which it shares completely with Haiti only. When Canada stands for that, on the one hand, but, on the other, it is one of the countries that—

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

What about the Acadians?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to complete my remarks. When his turn comes, I will listen to my colleague with great attention.

I would like Quebec to be involved because it is a French speaking nation and it has its own development model. I know the international trade minister can understand this kind of argument.

The Quebec model is found in many service sectors where private non-profit agencies are largely but not totally financed by the government. They often operate in a commercial environment. We should find a specific and sufficiently flexible solution so that the government does not have its hands tied. This model must be protected.

I should also talk about supply management in agriculture and agrifood. It may be a problem elsewhere, but it is an integral part of the structure of the Quebec society.

Quebec must be allowed to join in the negotiations. I realize that Quebec is not the only province to have made this request. It has done so along with the Canadian provinces that are specifically asking to join in the negotiations, something which, as I said, is much more than a consultation.

Because our speaking time is limited, I must unfortunately conclude. I will point out that this summit of the Americas and this free trade area of the Americas are unique. As former Quebec premier, Pierre-Marc Johnson, said in committee the day before yesterday, the United States represent 75% of the total GDP. Four other countries, namely Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Argentina, account for 20% of the total GDP, and the 29 other countries, 5%.

That is an extraordinary challenge, far greater that NAFTA, to ensure that this enrichment, which is said to flow directly from trade, although that assertion is put more and more into question, can be complemented by measures, including, why not, a structural fund like the one that Vicente Fox requested when he came to power, and from time to time—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but ten minutes go by extremely fast.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened in amazement to what my colleague said. I have heard her raise the point about transparency before as if to suggest that there has been no consultation by the government.

The hon. member should consider the following. The issue has been raised at the standing committee as recently as today. A colleague and I were at two different meetings of the standing committee on this very topic.

There have been extensive meetings with the Minister for International Trade with NGOs, including the province of Quebec. There have been ongoing consultations with the Minister for International Trade and his provincial counterparts. Our positions are on the website, the first time ever that such a thing has been done. The minister has committed to raise the need for greater transparency at the upcoming meeting in April in Buenos Aires.

I put a question in committee earlier today and I put it again on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to give the member an opportunity to respond to it. Could she give us a specific example of any trade negotiation involving Canada that has been more transparent or even as transparent as the current one?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to listen to me even more carefully.

With respect to transparency, texts are not for consultation only; they are for learning. I have taken part in negotiations for 15 years. Consultation has a specific purpose: to ask people what they want, but the negotiation process is to know what people want and eventually to come to some agreement.

Yet we know there are issues such as chapter 11 that involve corporations on one side and countries on the other side. We must know what is happening there to be able to bring some pressure to bear.

My specific answer to your question is that this little website that contains your partial positions, if you understood the first part of my speech, is not enough; it is not enough for a democratic exercise.

I am happy that the Minister for International Trade has understood this by committing to ask the other countries if they are willing to make the documents public. If not, he will consider doing the same as the United States and making them available at least to parliamentarians.

I repeat, for a democratic exercise, we must not only say what we wish for, we must know what the stakes are.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that in my own personal view this is not really a talk about free trade. It is more a talk about the protection of investor rights.

Would her party not agree that prior to any sort of profitability being discussed or the protection of investors or the movement of goods and services, that environment and human rights should be discussed? The protection of our environment is so sacred to any agreements that it must be discussed first. Agreements must also be discussed in terms of human rights throughout a country, so that a country's workers are not exploited to the advantage of another country. Would the hon. member agree with this statement?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my hon. colleague that if he had listened to the speeches of the Bloc members, he would know that they covered what he is talking about, except that we do not say no. In fact, a no would not translate into more power relationships in free trade. We say yes.

However, I would tell him to lobby with us so that the negotiations do not start from chapter 11 as it is, which would lead to a double standard for investments and social rights.

The issue is extremely important, but I want to also tell him that the southern countries do want access to our markets. We must give them that access, while protecting our rights, our environment and our culture.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members to begin with that this take note debate on the summit of the Americas is in fact the consolation prize the federal government has awarded to members of the House of Commons after the defeat of my motion of February 15.

I would remind hon. members that the motion, which was supported by all opposition parties, called for the government to bring any final draft of the agreement on the free trade area of the Americas before the House so that it might be debated and put to a vote before anything whatsoever was signed.

Even if it is clear, since my colleague from Mercier has already begun to do so, we are going to take advantage of this opportunity to remind hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois position. It must also be made very clear that at no time is this exercise we are engaged in this evening to be seen as replacing a true debate and a decision by this House concerning the final free trade area of the Americas agreement, with all pertinent information.

For us, this means not only disclosure of all texts currently being worked on by the nine negotiating tables, but also regular reports on the progress of negotiations at those same tables.

As we know, one of the themes of the summit of the Americas is enhancing democratic development. We find it somewhat paradoxical, if not downright contradictory, that at the very moment the federal government is telling us proudly about this theme of the summit of the Americas, we are here in this very House in the process of watering down representative democracy by refusing to allow MPs to debate and vote on the free trade area of the Americas.

This calls to mind a proverb in French which could be paraphrased this way “Dictatorship is: shut your mouth, and democracy for the Liberals—my addition here—is: keep talking”. Not only we parliamentarians have this impression, but so does the public. We are made to talk and talk, we are informed, but what people say, be they parliamentarians or the public, is not taken into account.

In this regard, the debate we are having is not enough to really speak of true transparency. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that transparency is vital to the success of the free trade area of the Americas, which we support.

As the member for Mercier mentioned, the Minister for International Trade is also a supporter and also believes that the current process is not transparent enough, since he agrees with the fact that the basic negotiation texts should be made public. This is tantamount to admitting that the current processes is not transparent enough.

Two weeks ago as well, it was making public the supplementary proposals in order to strengthen ties with the public. Clearly this all arises from the fact that there is social mobilization across the Americas, across Canada and across Quebec, and that the Liberal government should take note of the fact.

I think we are witnessing more of a monologue by the public and parliamentarians and, at best, a dialogue of the deaf.

Bridges must be built if we are to prevent demonstrations from getting out of hand. Not simply at the Quebec summit, because we have been rightly reminded that negotiations will continue over several years, but so there will be debate throughout Quebec and Canadian society.

The sponsorship system put in place by the federal government to fund part of the summit of the Americas will certainly not send the right signals to civil society and to all Quebecers and Canadians. It is clear that the business world has privileged access to decision makers in the whole process, and this is unacceptable.

The business forum will soon meet. I believe that international trade ministers will meet almost at the same time in Buenos Aires. The business forum has access to the heads of state and ministers concerned. The Bloc Quebecois is asking that such access be made available to all segments of civil society and not just business people, as is currently the case.

The federal government should show leadership and propose, at the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City, that the continental social alliance be recognized as an essential component, as a stakeholder in the negotiation process.

The continental social alliance includes major union organizations, social groups, international co-operation bodies, women's groups and environmentalists from across the Americas. These people have made extraordinary efforts to set up a network across the Americas, and they will be in Quebec City for the people's summit. This network should have a voice, just like the business forum.

As my colleague pointed out, the provinces also have a role to play. A formal mechanism is needed, particularly for Quebec, the only truly francophone state in the Americas. Because we account for 2% of the population of the Americas, we have specific needs that must be protected and that must be taken into account in the negotiations. Therefore, officials from the Quebec government must be part of the Canadian negotiation teams and binational teams, to protect the interests of Quebec and ensure that the right decisions are made.

I also remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants to see the FTAA agreement contain references to fundamental rights such as human, labour and environmental rights. This is true and it was mentioned by many: Quebecers are already favourably predisposed toward free trade. That is understandable, given that 51% of what is produced in Quebec is exported to Canada, the United States or other countries.

Quebecers are well aware of the principle of international trade, by which one imports what one cannot produce or produce cost effectively, and exports in order to be able to pay the cost of imports, but one must not export for the sake of exporting. This is the principle of free trade which Quebecers are defending, not the principle of exporting at any cost, to the detriment of labour, human and environmental rights.

Unlike the Minister for International Trade, Quebecers learned some lessons from NAFTA and the MAI. They have a better grasp of the situation than the minister. They are only too aware that free trade did not resolve all the problems of inequality in our society, or in the NAFTA nations.

I would remind the House that even if the minister is more visual than auditory—something I learned today—the figures are there. All he has to do is refer to the World Bank figures. Canada and Mexico have lost ground compared to the United States since the early 1980s, and these are the 1998 figures. He can deny the facts all he wants, but the facts are there and they are verifiable.

I am not saying that the problem concerning what workers in Mexico are paid is to be blamed on free trade only, but the fact is that free trade is not the cure-all for all societies' problems, and that other mechanisms are needed besides merely protecting the rights of companies and investors. In Mexico, people were being paid 22% of the American wage in the early 1980s and now the figure is 10%. That is a drop by half. Those are the facts.

This is why, within the agreement on the free trade area of the Americas, the signatory states commit, in exchange for commercial and financial benefits, to respect human rights, labour rights, the basic conventions of the International Labour Organization and the environmental rights.

This does not mean that we should take a penalty based approach to protecting those rights, but there must be a political commitment on the part of all states to respect them. If working plans are necessary to ensure that these rights are respected, and a structural fund has to be put in place, as my hon. colleague suggested, to help states with such problems as child labour, then that will be done.

If one country refuses to respect fundamental rights, it will be excluded from the FTAA because it will no longer belong there.

I believe Canadians and Quebecers would never have accepted to be part of a free trade area with Pinochet's Chile. We might as well recognize that right now, instead of putting our heads in the sand like some of us are doing here in the House.

Finally, I want to say that the free trade area of the Americas could be a wonderful opportunity for additional co-operation among countries of North America, Central America and Latin America, provided we provide all the ingredients required for that FTAA to succeed. The ingredients are not there yet.

This is why, at the summit of the Americas, the Bloc Quebecois will join forces with the civil society in Quebec to prepare an alternative to the project now tabled, which we disapprove of intensely.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, in another life I too was involved in negotiations. I would like to ask my question of the Bloc Quebecois collectively, but I will direct it to the member for Joliette even though similar comments were made by his colleague, the member for Mercier.

The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister have made it clear that they are looking toward the greatest transparency possible. Is the member for Joliette suggesting that we actually release these texts unilaterally without the agreement of our trading partners? Is that what he is seriously suggesting? Would he not consider that highly irresponsible?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that since the minister has informed us that he was going to propose at the Buenos Aires meeting that the texts be made public, I think that this process can enable us to wait for the Buenos Aires meeting.

After Buenos Aires, it seems to me that we will need to ask some serious questions about the way parliamentarians and the general public can gain access to more information than at the present time.

The government of Quebec has made the texts to which access has been refused us available, and will continue to make them available to its MNAs who are members of the Commission des institutions du Québec.

I would like to hear the minister identify the countries opposed to public access to these documents, so that there can be a debate thereafter in this House on all the ins and outs of the question and a decision can be reached.

Clearly, I am not in favour of unilateral action, but I am not totally excluding it either. I am waiting to see a full report of what goes on in Buenos Aires, in order to have a better idea of the situation. If the countries opposed to making the texts public are the ones already known for their conservative, sometimes even reactionary, policies, then the situation will, in my opinion, be different than if Canada were the only one.

That said, regardless of the situation, the texts should be made available to parliamentarians, particularly if they are members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member for Medicine Hat and the member for Fraser Valley, both of the Reform Party, get very afraid when the New Democrats and their leader stand up for the environment and human rights. They get very frightened of that because they do not understand the issues.

I want to mention something to the member from the Bloc for whom I have great respect. He mentioned the growing inequality, not only around the world but in this country. Since free trade, the wage, earning and social gaps between the poor and the rich have expanded tremendously. We see it every day. This is a result of the free trade agreement which is not balanced and equitable to all people of all economic status in the country.

Could he comment on that? Would he agree that there is a growing inequality among the various levels of the economic ladder?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who blindly endorses free trade, but I will not blame free trade for all the ills we are experiencing in Canada and Quebec as well as globally.

I think one of our big problems stems from the fact that, in the last few years our governments made the wrong decisions in facing free trade issues. They all moved toward a lowering of labour and social costs instead of looking for answers on a higher level.

I hope that as a society particularly in Canada and in Quebec, we will be able to meet the free trade challenge while maintaining and raising our social standards. I think we can do it, providing the political will is there.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the take note debate this evening on the free trade of the Americas trade agreement that is under negotiation.

I want to pick on that brief exchange that took place a moment ago around the concern that we have expressed again and again, as have members of the Bloc Quebecois, about the lack of transparency of the government in making available to Canadian citizens precisely what it is negotiating on our behalf. Of all the unconvincing, disingenuous arguments that the government has put forward, the worst is that it would like to be free and would be in favour of releasing the text. However because some of the other governments are not in full agreement with that, it cannot do it.

I think the test of whether the text ought to be released or not to Canadian citizens is whether Canadian citizens are asking that it be released. I do not think there is any question that Canadians, who have concerned themselves with the corporatist agenda of the government and the fact that by and large the trade agreements that the government has signed on to or has been actively promoting in recent years that are corporate driven and corporate dominated, absolutely want to know what it is that is being negotiated on their behalf.

Who is opposed to the details and the text of the FTAA being released? It is not the citizens on whose behalf the government claims to be negotiating, it is the corporate elite who want to be sure that they have their fingers all over it. They want to have the kind of preferential access that the government seems quite prepared to give them and to heck with whether citizens are happy or not with what is being negotiated on their behalf.

I am sure some members may have heard Bruce Cockburn. He is a well known and much admired Canadian artist, singer and musician. He recently spoke at his induction to the Canadian Music Hall of Fame. On that occasion he expressed, in a way that I think was very dramatic and welcomed and which struck a really responsive chord with a lot of people, his dismay over the fact that a genuine citizens' movement around the world to build community is being effectively hijacked by the greedy movement of global commerce.

He summed up his feelings in the following way “The mercantile system sucked when they tried it in the 1700s and it sucks now. This is our community. This is our world”. I think the reason why Bruce Cockburn struck such a responsive chord is that this is exactly the way citizens are increasingly feeling about what the government claims to be doing on their behalf in negotiating the FTAA.

We welcome the debate this evening. I listened carefully to the words of the international affairs minister and the foreign affairs minister. I listened to the words of the international trade minister who basically said, and I could not believe my ears, that everything is fine and that there is nothing to worry about because the FTAA represents a vote of confidence for the hemisphere's future.

What on earth does that mean? I would say that is about as vague as most of the answers the Liberals have given to the dozens of questions that we have been posing in parliament day in and day out, week in and week out, to try to get at the substantive issues that citizens are genuinely concerned about.

We heard government members again tonight, as well as official opposition members, suggest that the New Democratic Party is somehow not in favour of trade. For the record, let me say at the outset that we unequivocally represent the importance of trade to our economy, to jobs and to future prosperity. It is precisely because we recognize the importance of trade that it is critical that we enter into proper trade deals. That is why New Democrats talk about free trade not in some absolutely open ended uncritical way, but about fair trade. That is why we insist on talking about the model for trade and about the specific principles that underlie the kinds of trade agreements that we enter into.

Let us say again very clearly for the record, and I do not know how many times we have to say it, that we are absolutely in favour of rules based trade. That is what it means to enter into trade agreements. However the rules that are contained in the trade agreements that we sign need to be rules that protect the rights and advance the interests of our citizens.

The reason there is a growing mobilization of civil society in this country, and in many other countries around the world against the model of free trade that is being advanced by the Government of Canada and many other governments, is that the principles underlying those trade deals and the details contained in them are not about advancing and strengthening the rights and improving the prospects of citizens. They are about responding to the dictates and the demands of corporations in our society.

The concern that is growing goes beyond that. It is a struggle to get our governments to address the genuine and legitimate concerns that exist regarding the trade deals to which we are now a party, concerns that have been documented and that have arisen out of decisions that were made out of the implications which have flowed directly from trade deals. The government is completely ignoring these concerns. In a very real sense, a lot of our citizens see that it is more than a struggle for a particular kind of trade agreement. It has become a struggle for democracy itself.

One thing under negotiation regarding the trade agreement, which is of enormous concern, is the extraordinary powers that will be awarded to corporations. It is absolutely unprecedented. It is literally true that the FTAA will be the most extensive trade deal negotiated in the history of the world. It is not an exaggeration to say that.

What would the trade deal do? We would be very happy to hear that we are dead wrong about this, but that trade deal would take some of the elements of NAFTA that already are a concern and clearly need to be addressed and remedied. It rolls them together with some of the very elements of the MAI, that undemocratic multilateral agreement on investment that caused people to mobilize around the globe. It wraps them in a bow and says that this trade deal will literally reinforce the right of corporations to sue democratically elected governments that dare or have the audacity to stand in the way of their maximizing profits.

That is why it has taken on the aura of a struggle for democracy itself. It is not just because of what is in the proposed NAFTA. It is also because of how the government refuses to react, to respond, to engage with civil society in any meaningful way, and to allow for citizens to have some real input into the FTAA agreement which is so extensive in its scope and in its detail.

We have heard the minister ask what we are talking about. He said that the government is letting citizens have a say, but we should look at what is shaping up with respect to the Quebec summit scheduled for mid-April. People are genuinely dismayed at the extent to which the government is preoccupied with the protection of visiting politicians, decision makers and bureaucrats who will be coming together in Quebec. They are being protected from having to even know about, let alone take into account, the genuine concerns of citizens who will be there to protest.

It is a fundamental democratic right of citizens to have the opportunity to engage in meaningful peaceful protest. It is a right that has been practised with important effect in the world. Democracy itself depends upon it. It has been through meaningful peaceful protest that some of the most important progressive gains around the world have been made.

One of the reasons the New Democratic Party caucus has made a decision to be in Quebec during the FTAA summit is that we intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with citizens who are coming together by the tens of thousands to say that we do not want to have our world transformed in the image of corporate demand and dictates. We want to ensure that we have a say in what is happening.

A lot of people are very concerned, as we are, at the extraordinary attempts that have gone into trying to discredit and dismiss the concerns of protesters. That is why my colleagues and I have been participating in community meetings across the country. There is an unprecedented mobilization of citizens who are saying they want to inform themselves. The government is not interested in informing them so they are informing themselves. They are coming together in teach-ins, forums, debates and discussions to talk about what a citizen based, citizen centred free trade deal would look like.

What would a fair trade deal be? How could we ensure that we do not embrace a corporate model of trade that drives a race to the bottom, a model that says we would do nothing to protect labour standards that have been hard fought and won, nothing to protect environmental standards and nothing to protect cultural diversity? How could we ensure that human rights are absolutely at the centre of trade deals and do not get sacrificed?

That is why a people's summit is taking place. I heard a member of the Alliance somewhat dismiss the notion of the importance of a people's summit. A people's summit is a coming together of people who say that they understand the importance of trade but insist that trade deals should address the real needs of people and are not just crafted to respond to the dictates of corporations.

We will be at that people's summit. We will have the opportunity to hear what the people who come to Quebec have to say. I hope government members will take the opportunity to be there to listen to those people.

I have had the opportunity in the last week to be at two major mobilizations with a lot of young people coming together, but not exclusively young people. I was in Halifax last week and in Fredericton last night, where literally over 150 people came together to say that they want to talk about what kind of trade deals they want the government to negotiate on their behalf.

We insist on registering our protest over the extent to which the government seems intent on walling off democracy by putting up a three metre fence and cordoning off where the discussions will be taking place so that the leaders who are coming together do not even have to be aware of the kind of protest that will be expressed in Quebec. People are concerned about what it means when there is a kind of criminalization of dissent taking place.

It is so ironic to have heard the trade minister and the foreign affairs minister say that the FTAA was about enhancing democracy. This is being said while the government virtually ignores the democratic demands of citizens to have their concerns addressed in Canada, in many other parts of the world and throughout the Americas with respect to this hemispheric agreement.

I am proud of the fact that I represent a political party which when it met in early February talked about the issue of the FTAA being one of the top priorities for the parliamentary agenda. I wish to make reference to the resolution that was adopted by the New Democratic Party federal council. I will not read it in its entirety, but the resolution reiterated its support for an alternative approach to globalization to achieve a stable rules based global economy which promotes and protects the rights of workers and the environment, provides for cultural diversity and ensures the ability of government to act in the public interest.

Of all the concerns that are widely shared by citizens who have informed themselves, and they are doing so in increasing numbers, the concern that is most profound is that it appears the government is intent on entering into another trade agreement which basically erodes the capability and the powers of government itself to serve the public interest.

The government seems absolutely intent on the notion that we should commercialize, commodify or treat as a commodity to be traded, bought and sold everything that is important to people in their daily lives. This is a concern with respect to the FTAA despite the government's insistence that our concerns are not well founded. It is also a major concern with the GATS round of negotiations that are under discussion. It is the notion that things as fundamental and valued by citizens as our health care, education, environmental apparatus, and other things as basic as our water and sewer services should be treated as commodities, not understood to be part of the public good, to be traded, bought and sold.

The government cannot pretend it does not understand that chapter 11 of NAFTA is a very major concern. It has placed Canada in the position that when it acts in the public interest, when it insists upon protecting our environment or health care, it could be sued by corporations which demand compensation because it interfered with their profits.

I am pleased that we have had the opportunity this evening for all members to participate in this important debate. I look forward to the government beginning to address some of these questions now that it has engaged in the usual rhetoric about how all of society's ills will be solved by the trade deal that it is intent on signing on to in the form of the FTAA.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to rhetoric from the government side. That is interesting, given her speech.

I would like to hear her thoughts on the fact that a former colleague of hers, Nelson Riis, is saying that the NDP has no place being in the streets in Quebec City as an elected party, that it has a duty to participate in the democratic process.

I would also like her views on the speech that Mr. Tony Blair made in the House when he said:

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 leader of the UN, Kofi Annan, made similar comments recently where he put a figure of $100 billion that could go to the poorer nations of the world through a liberalized globalized trade.

Could the hon. member drop her comments about government rhetoric and address the comments of her former colleague, Mr. Riis; the labour prime minister of the U.K., Mr. Blair; and the secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Annan?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of the comments made by my former colleague from Kamloops. It is not just the right of elected officials, parliamentarians, to participate in extra-parliamentary activity in solidarity with ordinary citizens. It is an absolute responsibility.

Furthermore, most of the major struggles that have taken place in our lifetime which resulted in important human progress came about in exactly that way: through an active, creative partnership between progressive parliamentarians or legislators together with citizens engaging in direct political action. That is how we brought an end to the apartheid system. Universal suffrage is another example. I could go on and on.

I was profoundly disappointed with respect to the comments made a few weeks ago by Prime Minister Tony Blair. I guess out of ignorance or out of an agenda that had to do with the fact that he was making this a stop on the way to meet George Bush, he absolutely and erroneously talked of the FTAA as if it were the same as the European model for free trade.

I had the opportunity to say to Mr. Blair very directly that I was very disappointed about that, and that it was very important that he keep in mind there was no way in the world that he or any other European leader would get away with signing on to an agreement like the FTAA. The European model is based on a fundamentally different concept. It is based on raising standards, not lowering them. It is based on improving, not eroding, working conditions, environmental protections or human rights.

The European model may not be an approach that is perfect, but if the government wants to bring forward a fair trade agreement based on the principles of the European Union, it will have our support for doing so. However until it does that, we will stand up and put forward an alternate model and try to persuade the government that a citizens based model and one not based on the corporate demands for how trade should take place, is the model we will be advancing and the one which increasing numbers of Canadians are willing to stand up and be counted on to fight for.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest as the hon. member mentioned that her party supports engaging society and that citizens should have real input into this issue, but that it reserved the right to protest in a meaningful and peaceful manner. This is in direct contrast to her colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who in the foreign affairs committee the other day was advocating and outlining a plan to participate in civil disobedience.

The witness at the time was Warren Allmand. The hon. member was even trying to get the former member of parliament to support him in advocating civil disobedience during the summit of the Americas.

I would ask the hon. member if she could clarify this contradiction. Does her party advocate civil disobedience in any way, shape or form?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I already said. I said that it was absolutely fundamental for citizens to have the right in a free and democratic society to engage in peaceful, meaningful, legitimate protest.

I have said before and I will say again that it is my view that the overwhelming majority of citizens who will be going to demonstrate in Quebec, including the NDP caucus, will be there to engage in peaceful, meaningful protest.

I had the opportunity to be in Windsor and that was the case in Windsor. My colleague for Winnipeg—Transcona was in Seattle. In a phone conversation I had with him he told me about the tragedy in Seattle of 30,000 to 40,000 citizens who came together in an earnest search for an alternative, progressive, global vision, a progressive model for international fair trade deals, and that the world was not even hearing about it because a tiny group of people had a different agenda and were prepared to use violent tactics to put forward their point of view.

Let me make it clear that the New Democratic Party caucus in its entirety will be in Quebec to participate in peaceful protest. Let me also say that peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience has also been a time honoured tactic that has often been an element of winning important struggles for justice and democracy in the world. The NDP caucus is not going to Quebec to engage in civil disobedience or to break the law, but let us not try to mobilize public opinion against the thousands and thousands of—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Do you remember South Moresby National Park? We would not have that forestry today if it were not for us. We protected that park. You would have had every tree cut down in that park if you had your way.

[An hon. member]

Nonsense.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I hope the Chair and others will have an opportunity to hear the debates, the questions, the answers and not get lost in these shouting matches across the floor when colleagues do not have the floor.

I will give the opportunity to the hon. member for Halifax to give her closing remarks, if she has any. I did not hear the wrap up. If she is finished I will go to another question.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to go to another question.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of the substantive issues that the leader of the New Democratic Party raised in the debate tonight, which seems to have been lost in the paranoia of the parliamentary secretary and even the Conservatives, about the New Democratic Party engaging in peaceful protest in Quebec City around the FTAA.

Let me focus in on a couple of issues that are critical to the debate at hand in one minute or less. They have to do with the very future of our public health care system.

I think the parliamentary secretary is fully aware of the number of learned articles and academic publications that have pointed directly to the problems that we face in terms of preserving medicare if we proceed down this path of NAFTA, followed by FTAA, followed by GATS, followed by even further liberalization on the trade front.

When we asked the question in the House before, the minister responsible for international trade said that we should not worry. He said that everything was protected and that everything was okay, but he had no specifics. All the academics and all the people who are well versed in this issue suggest otherwise.

What is my caucus leader's understanding of the minister's words in giving those assurances? Furthermore, would she have any idea what the minister means when he said that Canada will protect the margin of manoeuvre of our government?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concerns expressed by my colleague. I think there is a concern. I do not know whether they are weasel words or a way of evading the topic altogether when the minister says that we are not putting public health or education on the table.

The fact is that they are all on the table. The fact is that all these matters are on the table for commercial trade purposes. We need to hear from the minister and from the government that they are not prepared under any circumstances to sign on to a trade deal, for example, that has, in any way, shape or form, a clause or a chapter comparable to chapter 11 in the NAFTA agreement. That would deal a death blow to our system of public health and public education. We need to hear from the minister and the government tonight that under no circumstances will they enter into any such trade deal.