Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will be joining in the debate discussing the wide range of important and complex issues that are involved in both the trade question and the summit of the Americas generally, ranging from means by which we ensure we are able to preserve unique Canadian systems, such as our supply management system, through to the importance of generating the growth which is the basis of any society's ability to afford social and economic programs.

One of the unique qualities of Canada is how much we are connected to all the world. One of the challenges of policy is to build on those connections. For too long as a country we did not engage enough in our hemisphere. That was due in part to earlier Liberal governments wanting to avoid conflict with the United States over issues in the Americas. That was why we waited so very long before we joined the Organization of American States.

I am proud to have been part of a government that put that fear aside and brought Canada fully into the family of the Americas. As foreign minister, I was privileged to be the first Canadian minister to occupy the seat of Canada at the Organization of American States and to participate in the meeting of heads of government in Costa Rica at which the idea of a summit of the Americas first appeared.

We have a multitude of interests in common. Many of them we have pursued through the Commonwealth and la Francophonie in the Caribbean, but there is much more to do in the Americas on issues ranging from fighting poverty, to encouraging trade, to ensuring fair labour practices, to dealing with the threat of drugs, to encouraging gender equality, to other human rights issues.

However most public attention in these next days will be on trade issues, so let me begin my intervention in this debate by expressing my very strong support and that of my party for more open, freer rules based trade in the hemisphere and in the world.

I am proud to be the leader today of the political party that had the vision and the courage to break Canada out of a protectionist mould and to prepare us to face and to lead the inevitable transformations that occur to any society in a globalizing economy.

My friends in the New Democratic Party have a different view of that decision than I do. To their credit, their view today is the same as their view was when we initiated the free trade agreement. That same honour and consistency cannot be claimed by the Liberal Party, which did everything it could to stop the changes it celebrates today.

The Minister for International Trade noted last year, and I quote, “Most of the two million new jobs created since 1993 are related to our growth in trade”, yet the Liberal Party fought that agreement, fought that growth and fought those jobs with every resource it could muster.

The word hypocritical is unparliamentary so I will not use it even though it applies precisely to the Liberal Party's position on trade.

As regards this debate, I still remember how, barely 15 years ago, the top guns of the Liberal Party argued that regional trade agreements would jeopardize the signing of broader international trade agreements. That argument was not valid back then and is still not valid today.

By continuing to push for the regulation of liberalized trade in our hemisphere, we will get closer to our objective at the world level.

It should also be mentioned that, for years, Liberal governments did not want Canada to fully participate in our hemisphere.

The symbol of these years of Liberal government remains Canada's unoccupied seat at the Organization of American States. The OAS always reserved that seat for us, in the hope of benefiting from our balanced position and our leadership. That opportunity and that responsibility were ignored until a Progressive Conservative government decided that Canada should take on its responsibilities as member of the Organization of American States. It was then that our country strengthened its reputation as a leader in the world community and in the Americas.

This is an altogether different issue, but I believe that the progress we have made toward regulating liberalized trade must absolutely be part of any serious commitment to reducing poverty, misery and despair in the world.

One of the most damning charges against the government, a government formed by the party of Lester Pearson, is how cruelly it has cut Canada's contribution to official development assistance and let languish Canada's reputation as a leader in international development.

I am proud to lead a party today which was committed to both international development and a freer trade. I hope the present government will follow both those examples.

We have learned lessons at home that we can apply internationally in these discussions and in others, lessons about the difficulties that can be created for certain members of any society by freer trade arrangements and certainly the difficulties that can be caused to sectors of our society by the forces of globalization.

It is foolish for a parliament or a government to ignore those problems. It is foolish to pretend we can turn our backs on the world. We must recognize that when we deal with globalizing forces and trends problems are created for groups of citizens within Canada and throughout the Americas that must be addressed. They must be addressed by social, educational and other policies.

In that context I will speak tonight about rules in international trade. We should seek reforms that not only bring down barriers but build up standards, practices and rules that are strong enough and respected enough to acquire authority. Obviously the question of who sets those rules is critical.

Part of the broad popular concern about globalization is the sense that powerful countries or corporations either write the rules in their own interests or have the power or skill to ignore or circumvent rules that apply to others. Those fears are real. Some are based on the hard experience of abuse of power while others are rooted in a simple fear of size and sense of powerlessness. Both can be addressed by an effective system of rules.

That, I would argue, is the only way they can be addressed because superpowers will not suddenly, magically become more sensitive to their neighbours or their competitors. The efficiencies of size and scale will not disappear in this respect. The world community is like any local community. We need rules that are fair, effective and accepted. That reality has a double meaning for Canada.

On the one hand, we are not a superpower. We cannot cast a threatening shadow like the United States or China. We are innovative, educated, enterprising and lucky. However we need rules as much as any other nation that is not a superpower. More than that, the distinguishing advantage of Canada is that we are a nation that other nations trust.

That brings me back to the question of who will write the rules. If any nation in the world has an unusual authority to set rules and standards which others will reflect and accept, that nation is Canada. That is no small distinction. It is an asset which, among other things, should make Canadians much more confident about our ability to shape the forces of a global society.

Others in the House will raise or have raised legitimate concerns about the lengths to which the Liberal government has carried the commercialization of public business. The issue is about much more than sponsorship and the names of companies on napkins, delegate bags, tea cozies or whatever is for sale. It raises a more serious issue. It is about access to public policy.

Ordinary Canadians, including members of parliament, are shut out but the rich can buy their way in. Under the Liberal government access is for sale, whether one owns the Auberge Grand-Mère or wants to make a direct commercial pitch to a visiting head of state. That is a new kind of corruption of the public policy process and it is wrong.

The controversies over sponsorship also highlight a fundamental attitude of the present government which in my judgment puts Canada's international interests at risk. I am speaking of the government's pugilistic attitude toward the provinces.

That attitude was made clear again in the deliberate double standard applied to the premier of the host province of Quebec. Any business willing to spend half a million dollars is offered an opportunity to speak to the heads of government gathering in Quebec. However the premier of that province, who represents not half a million dollars but seven million people, is not allowed a speaking opportunity in his own capital. That only makes Canada look foolish in a world that knows we are a federation and that respects us because we respect diversity and freedom of speech.

Another consequence that is just as serious is that, in practical terms, this fuels the accusatory atmosphere here in Canada and it could undermine our ability to act in the world that surrounds us.

International trade is of course a federal jurisdiction, but while the federal government can sign treaties, their implementation requires the co-operation of the provinces. This is a lesson that we learned with the free trade agreement initially signed with the United States.

I recall very well the arguments advanced by the hard line constitutionalists of Ottawa that the provinces did not have the right to negotiate in matters of international trade and thus should not be at the negotiation table. We rejected these arguments, because we rejected the vision of Canada based on confrontation.

We knew moreover that if the provinces were excluded from the negotiations, they would invoke their own constitutional powers in order to prevent the agreement from taking effect. Our negotiations succeeded because we treated the provinces as partners.

Not this government: the government does not believe in much, but among its articles of faith is that on any given issue the provinces are wrong and should be resisted. That is not an antagonism it reserves for Quebec. Ask Premier Klein. Ask Premier Harris. Ask any Atlantic premier interested in changing the equalization system.

In the case of this summit the Canadian government could have found a way to give the premier of the host province a place and a voice in the program. On the contrary, the government went out of its way to be offensive to the elected government of the host province.

What is the predictable response? The government of Quebec is contemplating legislation which will make it even more difficult for Canada to honour and give effect to the FTAA agreements we might sign.

There is a fundamental conflict in the government's own purposes. While it is looking for agreement in the Americas it is looking for a fight at home. It will get that fight. That will put at risk Canada's ability to advance our interests and exercise leadership in the world.

A major factor on the trade side is that the United States of America is not coming to Quebec summit with fast track authority. That means that any agreement it might sign is subject to the nitpicking, changes and evocation of special interests that occur in its congress. As a practical matter, because the U.S. is not there with fast track authority, no other country will make significant concessions that the United States congress may pick apart and undercut.

That is particularly so for countries where there is so much distrust of the U.S.A. Issues that are boutiquish or simply of special interest to the congress are life and death to the other countries involved. That would be a problem in any event. It is aggravated by the position of Brazil, a natural leader and superpower of the south which harbours deep suspicions of the United States and, these days, deep suspicions of Canada.

Rather than build on the North American model of NAFTA, Brazil would prefer to build on Mercosur which among other things is a much less open model. Those are realities which will not dissolve in a weekend in Quebec. Canada, as host and given our traditional reputation as a trusted conciliator and innovator, can use the conference to build agreement that might find acceptance. We should have in mind a NAFTA model, but we should certainly not seek to impose a replica of NAFTA. If any hemisphere wide agreement is to be struck, it will need to reflect the concerns of the giants in Mercosur and the quite different interests of the multitude of smaller states in the hemisphere.

While we seek that consensus we should also continue our attempts to negotiate bilateral arrangements such as with Chile and Costa Rica. It is my strong view that those bilateral arrangements help the process of breaking down barriers. They can create a confidence in moving beyond the status quo, a status quo which in many countries in the hemisphere is a guarantor of poverty, abuse and reliance on harmful practices including the drug trade.

I mentioned official development assistance earlier. There is a reality to face. Trade can be at least as powerful an instrument of progress as international development policies have been. Canada's role at Quebec and beyond should be to find ways in which the wide range of countries in the Americas can feel their fundamental interests are advanced by trade agreements and not threatened by them.

In that process Canada and other North American countries must resist the temptation to impose our models on other countries. That is true with respect to instruments in NAFTA which allow companies to take states to court. It is also true in terms of environmental and other issues where common progress must be made in a common interest.

The question of human rights is in a special category, particularly for Canada. We have a reputation for respecting human rights, a reputation which must constantly be renewed. We have proven that Canada can encourage trade and respect for human rights at the same time. We are one of the few countries in the world which can do that, certainly the only country north of the Rio Grande.

On questions of human rights, we must always ask: If Canada will not step forward to defend those rights, who in the world will? There are other nations in the hemisphere who share our concerns. We have learned that even in the defence of human rights account must be taken of particular circumstances. Quite simply, we have an obligation here.

This summit represents a great opportunity for Canada to continue the leadership in the hemisphere that was pioneered by the first free trade agreement and the decision to take an active place in the Organization of American States. It will not resolve the problems or meet all the challenges of the hemisphere in one stroke, but it is an important step forward. We in this party look forward to supporting the initiatives Canada might take at the summit and to hearing responses from the government when the summit is over.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the member for Calgary Centre trying to tell the people of Canada that the premier of Quebec will not have the same access to the leaders of the countries that the business people will? That is utter and absolute nonsense. The leader of Quebec will be able to meet them at cocktail parties and dinners, as will the business people.

Is the member for Calgary Centre playing the same game Brian Mulroney played, playing to the nationalists of Quebec to get their vote? Is that what the hon. member is doing? We all know what that brought us. That brought us the Bloc Quebecois. It brought us many problems. I wonder where his head is at that he would think such things. When he was the minister responsible for trade he followed the same protocol we are following now.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the activities of the Progressive Conservative government, of which I was a part, brought us the free trade agreement which was primarily a coalition between western Canadians and Quebecers. The agreement would not have occurred had we not been able to appeal to the nationalist pride of Quebec and turn it into a pride in Canada, instead of responding so negatively and in such a critical fashion to every expression of pride by the province of Quebec.

Let me come to the direct question asked by my hon. friend. She asks if the premier of Quebec will not have the same opportunities. He will not, according to the advertising of the member's own government. The member's own government offered to business leaders who could pony up $500,000 not just an opportunity to ride in an elevator with a head of state, but a speaking opportunity. The premier of Quebec, the host province, does not have that opportunity.

The real issue here is whether it is possible in a system like ours to take account of the real interests of provincial governments. We proved in the free trade agreement that it is not only possible but essential. We do not make progress without it. Would it have been possible for the Government of Canada to find a place and a voice for the premier of the host province of Quebec if it had wanted to? Of course it would have been possible, if it had wanted to. The point is it did not.

The government seeks agreement in the hemisphere but seeks a fight at home. So long as it seeks that fight at home it puts at risk Canada's opportunity to give effect to whatever agreements it might sign exercising the undisputed federal responsibility for international trade.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one very short comment. We must give credit where it is deserved. If it had not been for the right hon. member's party when he was in government, we would not have free trade today. I applaud him for that.

Very clearly the Liberal Party campaigned vigorously against free trade and it is through the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives of the day that we have free trade.

I would like the member's comments specifically with respect to the people's summit. The minister just mentioned a good opportunity but we will not go there right now. We will save that discussion for another day.

I would like the member's comments specifically with respect to the people's summit and the $300,000 funding for it from the federal government. Of course I believe everybody should have a right to be heard as long as it is in a legal way, but I have a problem with groups that are advocating civil disobedience and being funded by the government.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that kind of support by the Government of Canada, whether the sum is right, is appropriate. There is no question that in many issues of public debate access to groups and to interests that have legitimate things to say is limited, and there have to be ways to overcome that.

Certainly if we can charge corporations $500,000 for a speaking opportunity at a conference, it is not out of line for the Government of Canada to provide a lesser amount for groups who have things to say and would not otherwise be heard.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Conservative leader about the pride and satisfaction he has expressed in regard to the free trade agreement his government negotiated. I wonder if he would he be able to suggest whether there are any aspects of the free trade agreement, for which his government was responsible, and of its successor, NAFTA, that he would see as inadequate or in need of improvement in order to ensure that Canadian citizens' concerns are protected and, for that matter, to ensure that citizens in other countries of nations with whom we are entering into agreements have their interests and rights protected and enhanced.

Would there be changes in the FTAA based on the experience we have had under the two previous extensive trade agreements?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there would be changes in the way we should approach some of these issues and there are lessons we can learn. I agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to her concern about the application in any larger hemispheric agreement of the chapter 11 provisions in the NAFTA. Not only would it be counterproductive, but we would resist it. It would be a non-starter. It would not happen.

If I have a great regret about the free trade agreement into which we entered, it was that we did not do enough in a companion way with that agreement to deal with groups in Canada who were disadvantaged. There is no question that whenever one takes major initiatives, initiatives that literally change history, there will be people who are helped and there will be people who are hurt. There were people who were hurt by the free trade agreement. We had undertaken as a government that we would be more active in social policies and policies related to education than we were. In hindsight, that was a mistake and we have to take account of that in future agreements into which Canada might enter.

There is a very difficult question that deserves serious debate in the House and it is about the degree to which we try to impose internationally standards to which we adhere at home. My own view would be that on human rights issues we have to impose internationally the high standard we try to respect at home, partly because if we do not, no one else in the world will and those issues will fall off the table.

However, on some other questions, including some environmental issues and others, we have to recognize that countries in states of development different from ours have a set of circumstances different from ours and they must be taken into account.

If the question is whether there are there aspects of those negotiations that we might have changed with the benefit of hindsight, of course there are. If the question is whether it was right to take those initiatives, the answer is of course it was right to take those initiatives. We have to get ahead of the future, not be at its mercy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the leader of the Conservative Party. I must say I think a number of us in the House might want to reread the economic policies of the party that the hon. member leads and of the party I am a member of. I recall prime ministers by the name of Macdonald and Diefenbaker who were hardly great free traders. Even my colleague opposite in the Alliance might benefit by a little rereading of Canadian history with respect to the positions of the two parties.

My question for the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is this. When his government was in power and la Francophonie summit was held in Quebec City and then the G-7 meeting in Toronto, were the premiers of those two provinces invited to have the full blown participation he is advocating now for the separatist premier of Quebec, Mr. Landry?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I assumed the hon. member had read our economic policies since he and his government adopted so many of them.

His second question is almost too easy, but I will accept the invitation. On the question of the economic summit in Toronto, my recollection, and I stand to be corrected but I think it is correct, is that there was no interest expressed by the premier of Ontario, the host province, in being present.

I think I can fairly say on behalf of my colleagues in the then government that had there been an interest we would have found some way to reflect the presence of the host province. We are a federation. The world knows we are a federation. Let us not try to pretend that we are not. Let us reflect the reality of Canada abroad.

Let me come to la Francophonie. Let me say in passing that there would never have been an association of la Francophonie had Canada continued to follow the rigid anti-provincial policies followed by the Trudeau government. It was only because a Progressive Conservative government was able to find a way to accommodate the legitimate interests of Quebec.

It also found a way to accommodate the legitimate interests of New Brunswick and the other provinces with a francophone population so we were even more successful with the issue of the francophone community.

It was welcomed by the world because other francophone countries were very apprehensive that with the absence of Canada too much would be run by France. Under the rigid rules of the Liberal government preceding ours, that was impossible. Under our more open attitude toward Canada and its reality, we achieved la Francophonie.

Did the premier of Quebec take part? He chaired some of the sessions. Did the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs take part? He chaired some of the sessions.

Now it is not fair to compare la Francophonie with the summit of the Americas. It is a question from the hon. member and I am responding to that. However, it certainly would have been possible in this context, had the government had the will, to have found a place and a voice for the premier of Quebec. The government did not because it did not want to. The repercussions are clear.

Already in the national assembly of Quebec, legislation is being prepared to get in the way of giving effect to agreements that Canada might sign exercising our undisputed competence in international trade. It is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It is dangerous and divisive in Canada. It should stop.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening. I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

Let me begin by saying that in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore there are many who have expressed concerns about this agreement and this summit and I hope these concerns will be addressed in the discussion tonight.

As we know, the Prime Minister and other heads of state will be discussing the FTAA at this very important summit. The FTAA is indeed a good news story. I think this is a good news story that we hear tonight from the members on this side of the House and others: the expanding of trade and investment and those advantages which will allow Canadian companies to grow, to innovate and to create better jobs.

However, much has also been said about the FTAA and the knowledge that the Canadian public has about the agreement and its potential impact on communities, and especially for some of my constituents, and smaller states. The discussion this evening is one which I hope all those who have expressed their concerns to me are watching and participating in with us.

The idea of the free trade area of the Americas was brought to the fore at the first modern-day summit of the Americas, held in Miami in 1994. At that summit, all countries, including Canada, agreed to conclude an agreement by 2005. At the Quebec summit, Canada will engage in negotiations with over 30 heads of state and government to bring this to fruition. The free trade agreement of the Americas will build upon and strengthen existing bilateral and subregional free trade agreements with countries in the hemisphere.

As we know, democracy and the expansion of free markets around the world are transforming the Americas. Canada has been playing a leading role in responding to the challenges of economic and social change.

At home, the government is committed to creating opportunities for Canadians in global markets and will work to foster favourable environments in which Canadians can take advantage of opportunities. Canada has a vested interest in the economic development of the hemisphere and will demonstrate leadership where it can to strengthen and integrate relations in the Americas.

We have heard from our Minister for International Trade that the small economies will be given assistance to participate not only in the summit but in regard to further participation in the discussions, which will go on until 2005.

Canada's economy depends on trade, which constitutes 40% of our gross domestic product and creates or sustains one Canadian job in three. The people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore should know that on a daily basis more than $2.5 billion worth of business occurs in two way trade with the world.

Today over 90% of Canada's trade is with the Americas, including the United States. Canada's foreign direct investment in the Americas reached $182 billion in 1999. Over the last 10 years, the value of trade has increased more than 170%.

These are advantages for us, but again we pose the question, what about the small economies? The summit of the Americas is about more than just free trade. It will be a forum where heads of states and ministers will engage in discussions around three broad themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity, and realizing human potential. Those three broad theme areas are where the small economies can see themselves moving forward and benefiting from whatever agreements are made.

Canada's position on strengthening democracy in the hemisphere is based on the premise of consolidating democracy, protecting and promoting human rights and enhancing human security.

In any trade liberalization agreement, democratic development has a place. It allows economies to become more open and countries to prosper, and it compels nations to create rules and institutions needed for global governance. The small economies need help in that specific area.

Creating prosperity for Canadians and the citizens of the hemisphere entails addressing issues such as poverty and promoting equality of opportunity. This principle is emphasized in the summit plan of action on key social initiatives that would support education and the acquisition of needed skills, improve the health of people, advance gender equality, promote cultural diversity and expand access to new technologies.

I am putting emphasis on those areas because I think of the islands of the Caribbean and the other states to which some improvements and some advantages could be given.

These initiatives will help the citizens of the Americas to live with dignity, realize their full potential and contribute to the economic and social development of their communities. These three themes are juxtaposed against several issues of concerns as raised by civil society and the small nations.

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade deliberations, my colleagues and I had the opportunity to hear the sentiments of Canadians on the implications of the FTAA on such matters as environment, labour standards and income disparity. Many witnesses appeared before us and spoke to those issues. From these hearings was a growing consensus that the FTAA could not ignore environmental and labour standards.

Canadians are concerned about economic disparities and the competition will make worse already poor environmental and labour standards among smaller countries in the hemisphere. The majority of these countries are at a disadvantage since they do not have the capacity to develop sustainable development strategies on the environment or improve upon standards of labour.

I can think of instances in Mexico where the results of NAFTA have come under intense scrutiny for problems relating to the environment and declining labour standards. I know we have benefited from those experiences and it is the hope that whatever negative was done will not be repeated here. Careful consideration must be given to these issues so that we will not repeat some of the challenges that NAFTA created.

Canada and other countries in the hemisphere must work to ensure that these issues are reconciled and that they are incorporated into the FTAA. I am encouraged to hear that the summit will provide an opportunity for environment and labour ministers to address these very important issues.

I would like to turn to the issue of income disparity. There is no doubt that the FTAA will have to raise the standard of living in the hemisphere. However, large income disparities between countries will make it difficult for small ones to implement the FTAA.

We must be conscious about how the benefits will be distributed. There are over 800 million people in the hemisphere, the majority in smaller states.

The issue of tariffs is of importance when we talk about income disparities. Economies of smaller states rely on tariffs as their main source of revenue. Social programs and debts are paid from tariffs. The elimination of tariffs as proposed by the FTAA could force small nations to introduce income tax systems in order for them to participate in the agreement. Many simply do not have the technical expertise to do so.

Small countries must have some kind of assurance that they too will benefit from the elimination of trade barriers and should be provided with the necessary assistance to help them to deal with the challenges of tariff elimination. I know that technology and connectivity are very important to those states and the Canadian minister has assured us that some assistance will be given to those small states.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address a critically important theme of the upcoming summit of the Americas, namely democracy.

Democracy has been at the very core of the summit of the Americas process since the beginning. Indeed it was the transformation of our hemisphere in the 1980s and early 1990s toward democracy that in the most substantial sense made the summit of the Americas possible. The commitment of countries of the hemisphere to democracy was a major reason why Canada joined the Organization of American States in 1990. It is the reason why, as a result of a Canadian initiative, the unit for the promotion of democracy was established in the OAS to help countries strengthen their democratic institutions.

This transformation to democratic governments resulted in a generation of political leaders in the Americas ready to embrace a collective commitment to strengthening shared values and the pursuit of common goals.

We believe that the 2001 summit provides the hemisphere with an opportunity to vigorously affirm its commitment to democracy and to move forward a coherent and balanced political, economic and social action plan.

This has been a key consideration for Canada and its hemispheric partners since the preparations for the summit were launched last June in Windsor, in the form of a dialogue by foreign ministers at the OAS general assembly.

The foreign ministers agreed on a approach whose point of departure was an emphasis on populations and the need to obtain real benefits for the citizens of the Americas, through collective action structured around three major themes: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential.

This approach was also important because it was a clear and convincing demonstration of the fact that OAS member states are united in their commitment to the values and institutions underlying democracy and human rights.

The summit of the Americas in Quebec City will be the third gathering of leaders since 1994. Since we all know that commitment is one thing but taking action is quite another, what has the summit's process achieved? What tangible results can we hold up to Canadians as examples of how conciliation and consensus building have been placed ahead of confrontation and condemnation? We need look no further than the OAS general assembly last year in Windsor.

The decision to send a high level mission to Peru, led by the OAS secretary general and Canada's foreign minister, reflected a broad, open and transparent effort by the OAS to establish a clear responsibility for supporting the evolution and development of democracy in Peru. With that one act, the OAS took ownership of democracy in the hemisphere. Strengthening democracy is about more than free and fair elections. It is about addressing threats to our societies which can undermine the institutions that are fundamental to guaranteeing that democratic values remain strong.

The governments of the hemisphere have taken the lead in the area of drugs and crime. Through the summit process, countries have developed new programs to fight drug trafficking.

It has culminated in the creation of a multilateral evaluation mechanism, or MEM, the first multilateral drug initiative in the world, which was ordered by the leaders gathered at the last summit in Santiago, Chile. Reports from individual countries and an overall report for the hemisphere detailing achievements and making recommendations for the future are to be presented in Quebec City.

The establishment of the Justice Studies Centre, which was also requested in Santiago, is another example. The goal of the centre is to help modernize the justice systems and institutions through training programs and the sharing of information. The board of directors of the Centre has approved a vast working program for its first year of operation with as a top priority the reform of criminal justice.

Another example took place a few short weeks ago. At the Miami summit in 1994 leaders underscored that changes among legislators were essential to strengthen democratic traditions in our hemisphere and were fundamental as countries in this hemisphere interacted to an increasing degree in more and more sectors. As a result of the inspiration, leadership and hard work of members of this parliament, the interparliamentary forum of the Americas, FIPA, was created in Ottawa earlier this month.

The inaugural meeting, under Canada's chairmanship, focused on finding solutions to the challenges of drugs and crime, corruption, economic integration, protection of the environment, poverty alleviation and debt relief. The forum will meet once a year in different countries throughout the hemisphere.

As one final example, I point to the inclusion of Canadians and citizens throughout the hemisphere in the summit process. Ministers and officials have engaged in regular consultations with members of civil society in Canada and the hemisphere to ensure an open dialogue on the objectives of the summit and to factor their views into the planning process.

Each of these achievements has at its core a clear demonstration of the commitment by leaders to the promotion of democracy, protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law, which brings us to this year's summit of the Americas. What, in real terms, will leaders be discussing that will strengthen and consolidate democratic reform in the hemisphere?

The summit will be an opportunity for leaders to discuss ways of making democracy work better. The democratically elected leaders of the hemisphere will examine, for example, how to improve the way elections are held through improved citizen participation, media access, rules for political party registration and finance. They will look at promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, for example, and examine ways that new information and communication technologies could be harnessed to improve and strengthen human rights institutions throughout the Americas.

In conclusion, the summit of the Americas is the forum and the fundamental vehicle to make good on our vision of the Americas.

The development of a strong democracy must be based on the acknowledgement of the fact that we must try to be more inclusive, that the setting up of a forum for reasoned debates must and should lead to greater understanding and serve as a foundation for a constructive dialogue and fruitful co-operation.

This commitment to individual rights, transparency and openness in government and the involvement of citizens is of paramount importance if we want our democratic institutions to remain dynamic and vitally important.

Canada is honoured to have been chosen to host the 2001 summit of the Americas in Quebec City. I am convinced that our area is on the verge of an era of great achievements and that it is essential that we now make the commitment to work patiently, indefatigably and reasonably in order to assure for our hemisphere a future which has indeed always been and remains full of promises.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her remarks and her very clear enthusiasm for this upcoming summit. It is interesting to note that that same enthusiasm for trade issues and the vigour with which Liberals are promoting this particular summit is the type of vigour that we saw in opposition to free trade not that many years ago.

However more to the point, my question, with particular emphasis on trade, with this upcoming summit looming in the near future is this. Would it not have put Canada in a better position to have addressed some of the very serious trade issues that are looming as we approach this summit in Quebec City? For example, we have the expiration of the softwood lumber accord which will happen this weekend. The way Canada handled the Brazilian beef issue caused severe harm to our trade relations with that country. Of equal importance is the ongoing challenge for Prince Edward Island potato farmers because of the government's lack of leadership on that issue and its paltry attempts to compensate them for their losses.

These issues are all still outstanding. The borders for Prince Edward Island potato farmers are still closed. With the upcoming expiration of the softwood lumber accord, this is going to throw softwood lumber producers around the country into complete disarray. We have not even resolved a common position between provinces, let alone how we are going to approach this with our American trading partners.

Is it not true that we are somewhat lacking in moral credibility when we go into this summit and start to approach some of these larger equally important issues? Would it not have been in Canadians' interest for her government to try to resolve some of these issues before we went to this summit?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all agendas have to move forward. If we do not move forward on one because there might be problems on the other we would never go anywhere. We will continue to address these major challenges, the softwood lumber one being a very important case in point.

As we know, we have gone to the world court three times and won, but the United States continues to bring action against Canada. The reality is that we have a very competitive softwood industry and unfortunately some of the northern states, the northwestern states in particular, continue to want to fight us because they cannot compete with us. That will be a problem, as it has been for some time. We are very hopeful, because we do believe in free trade and we want to have free trade with the U.S., especially on softwood lumber. We will continue to fight on that one and I am convinced that once again our good industry with its good practices will prevail.

When it comes to the summit of the Americas, this is but one step. There will be many more, I am sure, before there is any kind of an agreement. We really have to start from somewhere. We are speaking of democracy. We have a number of countries in the Americas that have become much more democratic. It is important to work with them. Canada can play a major role and is expected to play that role. We have values that we want to project to other countries in the Americas. We want to be there when the rules are put together so that those countries can take our values into consideration.

It is absolutely essential for us to be at that table, to encourage the dialogue with parliamentarians, as we are doing tonight, to encourage the dialogue with civil society, and to tell the people of Canada that we are concerned in the same ways they are and that is why we are at that table. We want to protect those values that are so important to us as Canadians. If we are not there, the rules will be made without us.

We must remember that we are a large country with a small population. It is better to deal with rules. That is what this is about. It is better to deal with rules that take into consideration what we value than to have other rules imposed upon us about which we have absolutely no say.

I really believe that we must continue to work on all fronts to ensure the best deal for Canadian citizens.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the debate. I will be sharing my time with the member from Dewdney—Alouette.

I want to talk for a minute about what the debate is all about. Sometimes we get caught up in all the legalese, but basically the debate is about the Quebec summit.

There has been a lot made of the free trade area of the Americas that is coming up. In reality, that free trade agreement, of which I am very supportive, is not going to come to fruition until 2006 at the earliest. We hear about the draft text, which is really the negotiating position of the 34 member countries participating at the Quebec summit. However, there are a lot of other issues.

I do want to speak a little about free trade, about why I think it is so important and about why I think the government has put us in a somewhat compromised position.

As we go into the very preliminary stages of these discussions, with the heads of state there to discuss a free trade agreement for the hemisphere, our government, only months before with respect to Brazilian beef, took a very political position and banned beef when it had no grounds to do so. Yet we will be arguing with the Americans over the softwood lumber agreement, which could cost the Canadian softwood lumber industry $2 billion a year. We will be arguing that they should follow the rules.

Only months ago in regard to the aerospace industry, the Canadians very clearly had a right to impose trade sanctions against Brazil. The government could have imposed sanctions at that time, but then hid behind this veil of safety in regard to Brazilian beef without any scientific evidence. Of course that is arguable, but when the government sent our scientists down there they very clearly could not find any grounds for the ban.

I greatly regret that. As well, leadership has not been shown on the issue of the P.E.I. potatoes. Clearly there are some concerns.

Let us go specifically to the summit that is ahead of us. I will state a few of the concerns of the Canadian Alliance. One of them is in regard to the people's summit. There should be an opportunity for all people to put their views before the subcommittee on international trade, where some of those groups are coming forward, and they should also have an opportunity to protest very peacefully and, quote, legally at the Quebec summit.

What I find very frustrating is that the government has given funding of $300,000 to these groups that have very openly and blatantly said they will break the law. In fact, they are holding workshops right now and training people in civil disobedience. A number of groups are participating. The NDP caucus right here in the House of Commons has said it will participate. The Council of Canadians said in the media very openly that it is holding workshops in civil disobedience. As well, there are the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian auto workers and many other groups.

It is interesting that the former member from Kamloops, Nelson Riis, said yesterday that the NDP is abandoning parliament and dangerously risking its reputation by deciding to “lock arms” with protesters at the summit.

I have very grave concerns about the government choosing to fund the people's summit with $300,000. I think these people should be given an opportunity to have their voices heard, but not at the table and not at the plenary sessions because obviously that is a place for the heads of state. We are a very open, free and democratic country and I believe there are opportunities for them to have their voices heard. Again, I think there are some concerns in that area.

The flip side of it, as we heard in the debate earlier, is the corporate sponsorship. There is a cloud of uncertainty when the government allows different corporations to sponsor coffee breaks for $75,000 or to supply a vehicle for $500,000 or to have a speaking opportunity for $500,000. People who are influential in the business community should be invited, I think, but I do not believe that they should be paying for a service. As a country we are hosting the 34 heads of state. I do not think we want to turn this into a three-ring circus by having people who can afford to pay. We know who the leaders are from both sides. It is the government's responsibility to take the input from the NGOs, from the business community and from members of parliament to ensure that there is real and meaningful dialogue as we proceed in these negotiations.

That brings me to the process. If there is one very legitimate group of people that has an absolute right to have meaningful dialogue it is members of parliament. Yes, we can do it through committees, but the government will argue that it is not allowed to release the text of the document. I am not saying it has to release the absolute text, but let us face it, there are 34 member states and their negotiators and they know exactly what the other countries' positions are. There are no secrets. The government's suggestion that it cannot reveal exactly what is on the table and what is being discussed is not right. The other countries Canada is negotiating with know our position, as we know theirs. That is what is done in negotiations.

Michael Hart from Carleton University talked about openness and transparency. I am paraphrasing, but he said that we do not need to be under any illusions, that all the countries know the positions, so we should make this information available. Members of parliament should have full participation and access. We can speculate as to what is in there. We can go back to the Uruguay rounds or we can go back to the NAFTA agreements. There are texts out there.

However, it is speculation on our part about what there is in the text. The government could provide more information without releasing the text. It could say “Here are the issues on the table, this is exactly what is being discussed and this is what needs to happen”. Most important is that absolutely nothing be ratified or signed on to until there is an opportunity for a full and open public debate in the House of Commons and a vote by members of parliament. Members of parliament are the ones who are democratically elected and they should have the final say.

I want to say again that the Canadian Alliance is very supportive of free trade. We believe that free trade will benefit all Canadians. As well, it will benefit people from some of the poorer countries who want access to these larger markets in the United States and Canada. The poorer countries want to see free trade opened up.

However, in the same breath, we are about to embark on a very difficult time. I will summarize this with respect to the softwood lumber agreement. The agreement will expire this Sunday. I have to admit that we are trying to stay united. The government is stating its position. The government wants the agreement to expire and wants free trade, which we in the Canadian Alliance do as well.

The biggest argument of the Americans has been that they allege we subsidize our stumpage, which is absolutely false. In fact, stumpage in British Columbia has gone up significantly. It was the government's responsibility to make sure that the American administration and the American industry were fully aware of that. The government has failed. The Americans have made it very clear that the American industry will be launching a countervail duty case and possibly an anti-dumping case, which will cost our industry billions of dollars.

It was the responsibility of the government to ensure that the Americans knew the facts. The government has had almost five years to do that and has failed miserably. The Americans just believe that we are providing all these subsidies, which is absolutely false. Now, at the 24th hour as the agreement is about to expire, the government is scrambling. It will have to deal with this. The government is looking at how it will deal with the CVDs, the countervail duty cases, that will be brought forward. That could be very damaging. It would be very damaging for our industry. I believe the government has failed the industry in preparing as we come to the expiration. Some would argue that the softwood lumber agreement was in fact the bridging agreement to reach free trade. Now that we are in the 24th hour, very clearly the Americans would seem to be back at ground zero after over $100 million in legal fees in the last 20 years.

The Canadian Alliance supports the free trade agreement of the Americas. We hope the government shows leadership and makes wiser decisions than it has in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the official opposition, for the most part, is supportive of our efforts in the FTAA.

However, I want to take up my colleague's last point about softwood lumber. The hon. member says the government has not done enough to make the Americans aware. With all due respect, I think that is wrong. Surely my colleague is aware that the Prime Minister of Canada raised this personally with the President of the United States. It was one of the first issues they discussed. Surely my colleague is aware that the Minister for International Trade raised this issue with U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick at their very first meeting. Surely my colleague is aware that American consumer groups, American senators and American congressmen are calling on their government not to do what it has done three times and launch a countervail action against Canada.

Canada simply does not control what the Americans do. With all due respect to my colleague, it is incorrect to say that the Americans are not aware of the facts. The Americans know the facts. Some choose to ignore those facts even when the courts rule them to be offside on the issue. Frankly, I do not know what else the government could have done to make Americans aware.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that. I was with the minister in Washington and I met privately with the chairman of the industry, trade and commerce committee and a number of U.S. officials.

The point I am making is that this has only happened within the last four to six weeks, after the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade went to the United States to present their case, when they have had five years to do so. They should have informed the industry in the United States that we do not subsidize our lumber and that we are competitive. The United States wants free trade and it is advocating for free trade. We should be telling the Americans that if they want free trade they should honour previous rulings. We want to and should provide co-operation in other sectors but we should tell them that we will take them to the wall if they start imposing $1 billion to $2 billion in duties against the Canadian softwood lumber industry of which 45% is from my home province of British Columbia. This would cripple the economies of the many one industry towns. That is just not acceptable.

The parliamentary secretary was absolutely right when he said that the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president and that the international trade minister has been in Washington. However it has only been in the last four to six weeks that we have seen any activity at all. We have had five years of stability with the softwood lumber agreement. During that time we could have been raising this issue because of its importance.

We all want to see free trade. We will work with the government and do everything in our power to ensure that we have free trade. We will use all the powers within our means to go after the United States administration if it brings in a countervail duty or an anti-dumping case. The Americans must respect the decisions of the world court.

We will work with the government but the government needs to provide stronger leadership. What we have seen with the Brazilian beef and P.E.I. potatoes has given us cause for concern. The government did not provided the leadership that was required on those files.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate tonight on a very important issue. I commend my colleagues for bringing the issue forward. I hope we can work together in a reasoned way to talk about the free trade agreement of the Americas.

Let me state unequivocally that the Alliance is in support of free trade. We have heard that throughout this evening and we are four square behind the principle of free trade.

I want to focus my comments on a few areas. I want to speak first to the way free trade agreements are arrived at and how the process has at times given rise to some of the current concerns that individuals have had with regard to free trade, such as the groups my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned which are going to protest. All citizens have the right to do so and should do so in a peaceful way. Many people are concerned about this issue, as are many of my own constituents who have consulted me on this topic. They are concerned about the environment, health care, natural resources, water and culture.

When free trade agreements are entered into, people become concerned when information on very important topics is not forthcoming. The government should be providing Canadians as much information as possible on these kinds of agreements. It should communicate to Canadians that they will have the opportunity to voice their concerns on important issues like this. If the government would, through reasoned debate, explain why free trade would be good, it could then win the hearts and minds of Canadians.

We know that the Liberal government many years ago fought an election against free trade. Things can change. I know most of my colleagues on the Liberal side would support notions such as free trade, although there are ministers of the crown who we have questions about in terms of their sincere commitment to the principle of free trade.

It was refreshing in the debate earlier tonight to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade speak in a sincere way from their hearts as to why they believe free trade is a good thing. That was encouraging. I think those two ministers will have to contend with their colleagues in cabinet who in many ways have demonstrated in the past that they do not believe in the principles of free trade as strongly as they do. I think of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Industry, and several other members of cabinet.

We hope that voices, words and beliefs uttered by those ministers carry the day in the cabinet because this is a very important issue.

I want to touch on some of the words said earlier in debate about how trade can help to develop economic prosperity and how it can be a key to helping people, not only here in our country but in other nations where we enter into these kinds of trade agreements. It can be the engine of prosperity. It can help to develop better economies in countries where there is not a strong, stable economy through the free trade of goods and services, and even ideas and intellectual property, where individuals can be rewarded for ideas and initiatives.

We believe that is a good thing. We believe that is a way for individuals to grow in their prosperity, to get ahead and to have better lives for themselves and their families no matter what nation they are in.

I believe we need to clearly establish our sovereignty in any deals in areas such as health and culture. We need to make sure that natural resources are taken care of. Water is a big issue that we need to be very clear on in any agreement we enter into.

I want to quote a world leader who was visiting here in our Chamber in February. Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain said:

Finally on trade I just want to say this last point. 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.

We certainly agree with the prime minister. We would hope that our colleagues from all parties would look seriously at the implications of arguing against freer trade and what the end result of that would be, because for the people who we say we want to help who are at the lower end of the economic scale, when we take free trade out of the equation, what is the alternative answer by those who would advocate for a tariff based economy or a protectionist approach to our economy and our trading relationship? What is the answer?

The answers I have heard coming back are ones that are not strong. They are not steeped in logic. In many ways they have become red herring arguments, such as the argument that we cannot enter into free trade agreements because it will attack our own sovereignty, our own democracy.

I believe that by informing people on the topic, we can build in to that process answers to the concerns that individuals would have in a particular area. We can do that when we work together and when we give people information and the opportunity to openly look at all the possible solutions. We believe that is the best way to go when there are concerns.

It is like having a vision. If we know there is a better place to go and that where we end up will be a better place for our citizens, our trading partners and the citizens of other nations with which we deal, will it be worth it to get there? Will it be worth it to put in the work? Will it be worth it to negotiate and spend hours putting together a rules based method of trade or will it not? Those are fundamental questions that our citizens need to debate. In the past the majority have accepted moving forward on those issues but they have also wanted other solutions.

Free trade has been a positive economic reality for our country and for our trading partners. It has provided an opportunity for people who need help. If we demonstrate and lead through our actions on these issues, taking into consideration the concerns of the people and move forward, we will end up going to a better place. It will lead to prosperity for many people.

A worthwhile goal is for us to work together and to put aside our differences. Obviously we will not agree on everything but we can move together toward a bigger vision and because where we end will be a better place than we were when we started.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's well stated comments in this debate.

It is interesting that members of the New Democratic Party have talked about winners and loser in these trade deals. They fear that Canada will be the loser and have sided with the protesters, which is a sad commentary.

If we think back to the pre-1988 years, we remember that several members of this government opposed the free trade agreement that the Conservatives brought forth. Members, including the Prime Minister, the industry minister and the heritage minister, sided with the protesters against that agreement. They protested against a free trade agreement that has brought much wealth and prosperity to our country. It is an agreement that has allowed our cattle industry to more than double in Alberta, the high tech industry to develop in Ottawa and the financial and service industries to develop in Toronto and Vancouver.

All those things brought prosperity right across the country. However, many members of the government spoke out against that agreement and protested side by side with protesters in 1988. Is it not funny what a few years have done?

Why does my colleague think there has apparently been a change in heart from those cabinet ministers and other members of the government on this fundamental and very important issue of free trade?

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that there are probably many cabinet ministers who are still not wholeheartedly behind the notion of free trade.

It would seem that within cabinet, within the leadership of the governing party, that at this particular point those who are committed to the principle of free trade, must be outweighing, within the internal divisions that are a part of any group, those who are not free traders at heart.

I would balance those comments by saying that when we have a group like that moving forward on this kind of issue, there is always a possibility, if changes occur within the party, that the balance could be tipped in favour of going back to a protectionist type of attitude when it comes to the economy, and that would be a negative.

Canadians are innovative, creative, flexible, intelligent and can compete in any field not only within our nation but globally because we have as our most tremendous resource skilled individuals who have a big picture in mind. With that we have the world in our hands and we need an environment that will be able to foster it.

That is why the Alliance has supported the notion of free trade for so long. We can do even better with government policy that encourages freer trade in all sectors of the economy, taking into consideration the concerns which I mentioned earlier. I would hope that the current governing group for the short period of time it will have left in its mandate before we become the government will stay committed to the principles of free trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this important debate where elected members of parliament from all parties have the opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns about this important process and to reflect the concerns and feelings of their constituents. This is the place for elected members of parliament to make their views known, and I am pleased to do so.

The Americas is one of the world's most dynamic regions. Though its 800 million people are not even one-sixth of the world's population, they account for more than one-third of the world's economic activity. At about $17 trillion dollars, the combined gross domestic product of the Americas is greater than that of the European Union. It is no wonder then that the leaders of the western hemisphere believe in the potential of the Americas. They knew that their countries could work together more efficiently on every front, social, political and economic, to promote democracy, development and growth.

At the Miami summit of the Americas in 1994 leaders endorsed a declaration and plan of action that expressed their common commitment to strengthening democracy and creating greater prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures to improve health care, to increase access to quality education, to protect biodiversity, to take collective action against the scourge of drugs and corruption, and to expand and deepen the dialogue with civil society on regional priorities.

At the second summit in Santiago in 1998 this co-operation was carried forward and deepened. Once again leaders endorsed action to support the development of democratic institutions, protect human rights, and enhance transparency and respect for the rule of law. They gave specific instructions to begin the process of negotiating the free trade area of the Americas. Once it is complete the FTAA will be the world's largest free trade area.

The summit of the Americas process offers numerous opportunities to further enhance Canada's openness to the western hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the most tangible opportunities on the economic front with its potential for enhanced market access for Canadian exports.

If there is one sector where new access could lead to significant benefits for Canada and Canadian business, it is services. The services sector is a key engine of Canada's economy. It is responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's GDP, almost three-quarters of employment, 10.5 million jobs and nearly 90% of new job creation in Canada. It is leading the transformation of the Canadian economy into a knowledge based economy.

Many employees in the services sector are highly educated and enjoy weekly earnings well above average. Services are at the heart of Canada's innovative society. For example, telecommunications, financial services and technical business services are among the most innovative industries in Canada.

As a leading trading nation Canada counts on its services exports to strengthen its prosperity. Not counting Canada's direct investments abroad in services companies, Canada is the 12th largest exporter of services in the world, exporting some $51.8 billion worth of services in 1999 alone.

Canadian companies like SNC Lavalin, Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro-Québec are among the world's leaders in their fields. Their expertise is sought across the hemisphere.

Those services exports only account for 12% of total Canadian exports. Canada's trade in services is increasing at a much faster pace than our trade in goods. Given the importance of trade for our economy we can say without fear of exaggeration that improving market access abroad for our services providers is vital to sustaining our prosperity.

The argument for supporting Canada's services exports is particularly strong when it comes to the Americas. Canada's commercial services exports to FTAA countries, excluding the United States and Mexico, were worth $1.9 billion in 1998, up from $787 million in 1993 and growing at an average annual rate of 19% during that time. Countries such as Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil are all key existing or potential export markets for Canadian services providers.

Three sectors are particularly noteworthy: telecommunications, financial services and engineering services. The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous success, exporting services valued at over $2 billion per year and employing some 104,000 people. As a consequence, since 1993 the sector has been growing by over 9% per year.

Canadian exporters of telecommunications services face market access and regulatory restrictions in some countries of the hemisphere in part due to the presence of telecommunications monopolies in addition to a lack of transparency, predictability and timeliness in the process for awarding operating permits and licences or prohibitive fees for licensing or interconnections. Reducing such barriers would significantly increase export opportunities for Canada's telecommunications companies.

In recent years Canada's financial institutions have been very active in Central and Latin America. One leading example is Scotiabank which is active in Argentina; Chile, where its subsidiary is the seventh largest bank in the country; Brazil; Costa Rica; Belize; El Salvador, with 33 branches in that country alone; Guyana; Panama; Peru; Uruguay; and Venezuela.

Another good example is the National Bank which recently teamed up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean partner to form the Corp Banca Consortium to purchase banking institutions in South American countries. The same is true for the insurance sector. Our insurance companies have in fact identified Latin America as a growth market for the future.

Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the world is engineering and other related services. Canada is currently the world's third largest exporter of engineering services. The very high calibre of Canadian engineers is internationally recognized. Business opportunities are significant, especially in Central and Latin America where Canadian engineer expertise in resource based, energy related and infrastructure projects is in high demand.

In this regard Hydro-Québec's recent acquisition of Chile's Transelect, which owns 50% of Chilean power transmission lines, is a good example of the type of business opportunities the countries of the western hemisphere have to offer. This is why Canada is actively participating in services negotiations under the free trade area of the Americas.

Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a comprehensive set of rules on trade and services under the FTAA. Canada's general objective in the services negotiations is to seek improved market access for Canadian services providers under a transparent and predictable rules based system. In the elaboration of FTAA rules on services Canada will be guided by its existing rights and obligations in the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services, more commonly known as GATS.

These objectives can be achieved without putting at risk the values all Canadians cherish. The FTAA services chapter will allow countries to file exceptions for those measures they wish to maintain. In addition, and I wish this to be very clear, nothing in these negotiations will jeopardize our health and public education systems. They are not negotiable.

We have heard fearmongering as late as today at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is absolutely ill-founded, incorrect scaremongering to suggest that our public health system and our education system are on the table. They are not negotiable.

I have shown how much services and service exports contribute to the dynamism of the Canadian economy. I have shown how world competitive Canadian telecommunications, financial services and engineering services, to name only three sectors, look to the Americas for their market growth. I have tried to show how we will shape the rules of the game to achieve our objectives without imperilling the things we hold dear.

Let us join the hemisphere's leaders in having confidence in ourselves and in our region. We now have the stability, the transparency and the economic growth record that allows trade to increase and thrive. The countries of the region are good economic partners for Canada and for each other. For all of us, the FTAA is a vote of confidence in our common future.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I can tell the House that the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are taking very careful note of what hon. colleagues raise this evening.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about cultural diversity and the safeguarding of Canadian culture within the FTAA and also within the larger WTO agreement.

We know that the Americans have put their negotiating position forward and it includes putting culture on the table. It also includes full coverage of the cultural sector and the extensive application of the most favoured nation status and the national treatment.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm right now amongst cultural coalitions in Canada and around the world for a new international cultural instrument which is separate all together from the trade agreements. We also know that any separate cultural agreement would mean nothing if the government locks itself into certain clauses in the FTAA, such as the most favoured nation status and national treatment. Our ability to subsidize our cultural industries, to safeguard Canadian content, to protect our public broadcaster, all of those things would be in jeopardy.

Will the government guarantee that our negotiators will not sell Canadian culture down the drain by allowing the most favoured nation rule to be applied across the board in all services?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the member with whom I served for a time on the Canadian heritage committee. With all due respect to her question, I think she knows full well that the government has stood up for Canadian cultural industries time and again.

Important institutions, such as the CBC, the magazine industry, and many of the examples where we have stood up for the cultural industries of the country, answer very eloquently the member's question.

There is an important discussion about an international cultural instrument and the government is fully participating in that. The government will stand very strongly for the preservation of our culture. It understands very clearly just how threatened our culture can be living beside the behemoth that we live beside. We cannot change that. The government has always stood for Canadian culture and it will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member questions in two areas. One of the most serious concerns that many of us who are critics of the proposed FTAA have voiced is with respect to the extension of the investor state provisions, the chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA, throughout the entire hemisphere.

We know that these provisions have been profoundly undemocratic. They have been used by corporations to attack policies which have been democratically determined by governments at the local, provincial, state or national level in areas such as the environment and health care.

I ask the member who just spoke why is it that Canada apparently has no position whatsoever before the FTAA on this fundamentally important issue of investor state provisions in chapter 11 of NAFTA? We have been told by the minister on many occasions that if we want to know Canada's position on these issues we should go to the government's website.

I have a printout of the government's website in front of me. On the issue of investment, this is what it says:

Summary of Canada's position—To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment.

If the government is so concerned about chapter 11 of the investor state provisions, why has it made no submissions on that fundamentally important issue?

I have a second very brief question. The member indicated that at the summit in 1994 the government leaders made a commitment to do whatever they could to promote biodiversity within the hemisphere. What steps have been taken to promote biodiversity in the context of the FTAA?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the member's first question on chapter 11 of NAFTA, the member has been in the House on several occasions, as I have, when the Minister for International Trade expressed the same reservations and concerns about chapter 11, though certainly not to the degree of those who do not think we even need to be involved in this international trade discussion.

The minister has expressed reservations about the way the chapter 11 clause under NAFTA has been expanded by some of the rulings that have come out of that dispute. The minister has expressed serious reservations about signing any deal which would include a chapter 11-like NAFTA clause. He has made that clear. I am not sure if the member was present for those comments but they are very easy to see and I can make sure he gets—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt, but a large number of colleagues still want to participate in the debate.