Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg eloquently stated the fact that drug companies are asking for further protection. After their 20 year protection laws, now they are asking for 23 to 25 years, if I am not mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that since that protection law came into effect under the Conservative government, drug prices have risen almost fivefold. We now spend more on drugs in the country than we do on doctors' fees. That is an incredible problem the country has to face.

I was wondering if the member from Winnipeg could elaborate a bit more on that. If this trade deal goes ahead as it is, does she see more escalating prices on drugs and a lowering of the effect that doctors have in the country as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question and for all of the questions he has been asking throughout the debate. He has played a very important role in ensuring that we have a thorough vetting of the discussion on the free trade agreement of the Americas.

I believe that in fact one of the critical issues at stake under FTAA is Canada's public health care system. We all know we have big challenges ahead. One of those challenges is escalating drug prices. In fact, we know that drug prices are now the fastest rising element in our health care system. Costs in terms of drugs have now surpassed costs associated with physicians and services provided by doctors. That tells us a lot about the dire situation we are facing. It demands action on the part of the government.

We are hearing from the government of the day that in fact its hands are tied because of trade agreements. That has been the excuse for not following through on a promise to rescind Bill C-91, which was the patent protection legislation brought in by the Mulroney Conservatives. We are now hearing, through new legislation introduced in the Senate, that the government has to comply with more WTO rulings and in fact extend patent protection even more for drug companies.

That will mean drug prices will rise considerably. It will mean that the burden is placed on governments and on individuals to pay for drugs that are desperately needed for medical conditions. That is an untenable situation.

While there are things we can do domestically and actions the government can still take, in the end if we do not find a way on the trade front to loosen the ties that are restricting us from acting, we are going to be in very serious difficulty. That applies not only here in Canada but in countries like South Africa and Brazil, where there are huge problems and a desperate need for generic drugs and access to cheap alternatives. It is a serious situation globally. I think we have to play our role through every avenue we can, which means through FTAA, GATS, and any other trade negotiations underway.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after almost eight hours of debate and coming up to 2.20 in the morning, it is very interesting that there are still members in the House who are really interested in contributing to the debate, myself being one of them.

We may ask what new we can talk about, there having been eight hours of debate. We are debating the issue of the meeting in Quebec, the summit of the Americas. I would like to approach it from a tack that is slightly different to what I have been hearing over the last couple of hours. I will approach it from the point of view of us ensuring that we maintain a civil society, that we maintain civility within not only Canadian society but indeed within all societies of all the countries that will be represented at the conference.

Unfortunately, a couple of years ago in Seattle we saw bullies, goons and anarchists who wanted to shut down debate and discussion. They used thoughtful people. They used protesters who were sincerely and deeply concerned about the issue of free trade and related globalization issues. They used those people as shields.

Therefore we have seen elaborate arrangements for security, in Calgary recently at the petroleum conference and now again for Quebec. It is something that I personally have a lot of difficulty with. I think that in Canada we have a unique situation. For example, in the House of Commons we have one or two RCMP vehicles which are the only visible security on the Hill. We know there is more security behind the scenes, but basically we are doing everything we possibly can to maintain civility and maintain a civil society.

Let me say that I have already mentioned in the House that I have some aggressive fundamental differences of opinion with the members of the NDP who have just spoken. I do not see eye to eye with their concerns at all.

However, that is a right I have and that is a right they have within a civil society. This is what democracy is all about. We have a right to disagree. There are, within the confines of Canada, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who share their perspective, who have the right to disagree.

I would suggest, with respect, that an awful lot of the information they have is built on misunderstanding or misinformation. Certainly the kinds of things that have been talked about do unfortunately breed fear, but I believe what it really comes down to is the fact that there is a fundamental lack of faith on the part of many citizens, not only in Canada but indeed within the hemisphere and perhaps within the world, in the presidents and the prime ministers who are negotiating these agreements. There is a lack of faith in the governments that are negotiating these agreements.

We come to acronyms, which of course are simply abbreviated letters that stand for things. For example, the World Trade Organization is shortened to WTO. The International Monetary Fund is shortened to IMF. We have the FTA, NAFTA and now we have the FTAA, and of course we have the World Bank. We have many of these things, and many Canadians who are concerned about these issues are asking what all these letters stand for, what these acronyms are all about.

I would like to draw their attention, and with respect to my socialist friends at the other end of the House, I would like to draw their attention as well, to what Tony Blair, who is a leading socialist in Europe and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in the House not 25 feet away from me. I heard him say:

It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.

That does not change the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in Canada who have a deep and abiding concern about these kinds of negotiations. What is the answer? I would like to humbly propose a solution to the government through the debate today.

I suggest that one of the ways in which we could overcome this fear, this mistrust, would be to, as part of the trade negotiations, actually set up parliamentary associations that would represent parliamentarians from all parties, not only in the House but between the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States, and in all of the countries that are part of this agreement and have government and opposition. Thus, parliamentarians would have an opportunity to be part of an ongoing oversight of the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and any of these organizations about which Canadians are concerned.

Why would I be suggesting that? As parliamentarians, we are not in the security bubble that our Prime Minister finds himself in. Unfortunately, because of the malevolent forces that there are in the world, he is by necessity in a security bubble. As a parliamentarian I am in and out of coffee shops, schools and shopping centres. I conduct town hall meetings. I speak in rotary clubs. I meet people on the street. People come by my yard when I am at home on a Saturday and say hi. I am reachable, I am touchable, by the people in my constituency.

Through a parliamentary association, we would have the opportunity to have input. We would have the opportunity to have insight. I suggest we would have the opportunity to build confidence on the part of people who are concerned about these organizations because we would be there and would have part of the oversight.

I happened to be in Valparaiso, Chile in January for the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which is a forum much along the lines of what I am talking about here. There were 26 nations around Asia-Pacific involved in that meeting.

A person in the House, in Canada, who is perhaps noted as being quite outspoken, to put it mildly, would be the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He also was a member of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. He had the opportunity at that forum to go around to the various parliamentary delegations and bring forward a point of view. He received a resolution on the floor that would not have happened had he not been there. That is the kind of access I am suggesting we want to have as parliamentary associations, as ordinary parliamentarians, so parliamentarians would be able to oversee outfits like the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA and the FTAA.

We must have accountability. I believe we have to build trust. We must have the ability to afford Canadians the opportunity to make their views known. In regard to those concerns, those people who want to make those views known have a responsibility to denounce the bullies, the goons and the anarchists who take advantage of them and those demonstrations. However, I also recognize that the thoughtful Canadians who do want to go and who do want to speak out must have a feeling of comfort, therefore my recommendation for a parliamentary association that has an oversight.

I believe that all thoughtful Canadians must be confident in the process. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the idea of parliamentary associations, as part of the ongoing process, to oversee the process would go an awfully long way in taking the steam out of the fear and concern of thoughtful Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the views of the member from Kootenay when he speaks of getting together with a group of parliamentarians, not necessarily from the House but maybe from provincial legislatures and from other democracies around the world as well, to discuss these issues on a continuous basis to see where they can be changed. Nothing is written in stone. We need to alter, reflect, review and renew exactly what is going on. I respect his views and it is something I believe the House could seriously look at.

However, he discussed Mr. Blair, the prime minister of England, and his views. I remember the speech very well. Our party was the only party that did not clap when Mr. Blair spoke of the nuances in terms of free trade. Our point is that Mr. Blair had a woeful ignorance toward the NAFTA deal when he tried to portray free trade or NAFTA as being similar to the European economic union deal. That was simply nonsense. They are simply two different things.

My question for the hon. member from Kootenay and the Alliance Party is this: does he not believe that the environment, human rights, labour standards and the ability of municipal, provincial and federal governments to enact laws to protect their citizens as they see fit should be paramount in any trade deals that are discussed in the near future?

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and again, we would have a fundamental difference of opinion on this issue.

We must have trade rules because trade constitutes 50% of Canada's $900 billion a year gross domestic product. Interestingly, NAFTA covers 80% of that 50%. In other words, we are talking about almost $400 billion a year in gross domestic product which is generated by Canadian workers and industry. Therefore because we have NAFTA, we have been able, going back about five years, to dig our way out of the deep recession in which we found ourselves.

The difference of opinion that I have with my friend in the NDP is that on balance, although there are exceptions, I believe that with the trade rules we presently have, NAFTA has been a net benefit to Canada in all of the areas the hon. member is talking about. I am not inclined to believe that we are any poorer in environmental standards, labour standards or in any other area. On balance, I believe we are ahead of the game as a result of the negotiation of NAFTA.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your forbearance and that of the House officers and servants of the House in making it possible for myself and colleagues to continue this important debate on the upcoming summit on the free trade agreement of the Americas.

I point out at the outset that this is an important matter, so important that indeed the government itself placed the issue before the House in the form of a take note debate. Yet I am discouraged to report that it appears evident that far more members of the opposition parties, which represent 40% of the seats in the House, will have participated in the debate than members of the very government that brought it forward. That reflects in part, I think, the esteem in which members of the government, with the very notable exception of the member for Yukon, hold this place as a chamber of democratic deliberation.

Canadian Alliance members have been very active in articulating their views about the positive elements of free trade and the impact it has on democracy. I make special note of the very committed participation in this debate of the small but spirited and thoughtful contributions from the members of the New Democratic Party caucus, with whom I disagree for reasons of principle. However, one cannot question their willingness to use this opportunity to express their very genuine concerns about this upcoming summit and the agreement which it will conclude in.

Many members of my party have outlined our general support for the principle of free trade and the objectives of the upcoming summit. However, let me just say as a matter of first principle that we often take for granted the incredible wealth of our society. We hear Liberal politicians say, almost as a truism, that Canada is the finest country in the world in which to live and I concur.

One of the principal reasons it is such a great country in which to live is the high degree of economic development that has resulted largely from a system of free markets. As well, as a country that is an enormous exporter of goods and services, we benefit enormously and are enriched as a nation by trade across the world, particularly with nations within this hemisphere and in particular the United States of America.

We do take for granted this level of development. We ought to occasionally reflect on the fact that today an average Canadian middle class family enjoys a standard of living that is virtually inconceivable for most of the world's population, most of the population of the western hemisphere and certainly most of the people who have ever lived throughout history.

Middle class Canadians, people of relatively modest means, enjoy goods and services, comforts and security, life expectancy and health, a level of education, disposable income and political freedom which is in the long context of human history almost unparalleled.

It would be fair to say that a middle class family today enjoys greater economic benefits, in many respects more luxuries, than a Tudor king would have 500 years ago or a Roman emperor 2,000 years ago. We should think how tremendously we benefit from the advanced standards established by the free market system and the free trade system upon which it is predicated.

In the past couple of centuries the countries of the west, particularly northern Europe and North America, have seen by far the fastest rate of growth in the standard of living, increases in life expectancy, human health and wellness of any time in history. That again is because of the system of trade which has allowed for efficiencies in national economies by exchanging the value of the goods which they produce.

One of the leading contemporary political theorists, Michael Novak, wrote a brilliant book entitled The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism in which he attempted a theory to explain this tremendous political and economic freedom from which we benefit in this and other similar western societies. He said that democratic capitalism stood on a three-legged stool.

Those three legs consist of first, a free market system predicated on private property and its entrenchment, and on the principle that people has a right to possess and retain the fruits of their labour.

Second, it is predicated on a political system which itself is based on a conception of the human person which see the human person as possessing an inviolable dignity created in the image and likeness of God and, because of this inviolable dignity, entitled to self-government and a free democratic political society.

The third basic foundation of democratic capitalism according to Michael Novak is a moral culture based on virtue where the tendency of human nature to pursue one's best interests in the marketplace or in the political sphere is tempered by the moral impulse to try to be virtuous. He said that these three things together were what have created a society with unparalleled wealth, prosperity and health.

As a matter of principle, and as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said earlier today in his remarks on the motion, it is important that we make the moral case for free trade. There are some 800 million people in this hemisphere, roughly 300 million of whom are participants in this cycle of prosperity. However the vast majority of them live beneath what we in Canada would consider the poverty line and live with limited economic opportunities.

We should be generous and bring those people into the cycle of prosperity through trade, allowing them to sell to us the goods that they produce, the services which they provide and similarly to benefit from the additional economic choices and efficiencies from goods and services which we can export to them. That is what the free trade agreement of the Americas is all about. It is about expanding the cycle of productivity and hence prosperity to all 800 million inhabitants of this hemisphere.

We know there are many hysterical voices suggesting that this represents some hidden agenda to undermine democracy. Many people with this point of view will be gathering in Quebec City engaging deliberately in campaigns of civil disobedience to disrupt the summit.

How dare these advocates of civil disobedience claim to represent the people and the civil societies of their respective countries and of Canada in particular? Canadians who will be attending the summit in protest and who have been funded, shockingly, to the tune of $300,000 by the government in the so-called people's summit, represent a point of view so marginal that it obtains virtually no meaningful political support in the democratic elections of the country.

With respect to my colleagues in the NDP, their party received 8% or 9% of the popular vote in the last general election, I believe, meaning that over 90% of Canadians rejected their message of protectionism vis-à-vis trade.

I say in closing that those opponents of the agreement have no legitimate right to claim to be the champions of democracy. Each of these national governments is accountable to its electorate. As we continue to increase economic prosperity we will create a middle class in these societies which will increase the stability of democratic institutions and democratic accountability. That is the virtuous cycle into which we should invite all of the nations in the western hemisphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the hon. member from Alberta, who I have a great respect for, mentioned the Mexican economy and the uplifting of that economy because of free trade. The reality is that post-NAFTA in Mexico free trade has created one new billionaire and 100 new millionaires, but the average Mexican income since NAFTA has declined. That is the reality. That is the truth. Also, the environmental concerns in Mexico have declined.

My question for the hon. member is similar to a question that I had for the member for Skeena about the softwood lumber agreement. The member for Skeena said, if I am not mistaken, that the Alliance Party supports equal access to the U.S. markets for our country's softwood lumber. The reality is that in the maritime region 80% of the harvested lumber comes from private lands, whereas 80% to 90% of the harvested lumber in British Columbia comes from crown land. Already there is a difference.

In order to maintain the economic well-being of those lumber industries within Atlantic Canada, would the hon. member not support the maintaining of the maritime accord, which is in place and has been very beneficial for the people of Atlantic Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will do something a politician does not often do, which is to admit my ignorance with respect to the maritime element of the softwood export industry with regard to the United States. I cannot intelligently comment or respond to his questions and I will not attempt to do so.

I will say, however, that we are four-square for free trade in lumber generally because the countervailing measures the Americans are about to impose would be very detrimental to tens of thousands of working Canadians, including many members of unions who no doubt support my hon. colleague's party.

Regarding his assertions with respect to Mexico, my understanding is that living standards and incomes have risen as a result of the free trade regime. Indeed, Mexicans recently elected, in the first really vibrant democratic election in their history at the national level, President Vicente Fox, a strong champion of free trade, who will be at the FTAA summit in Quebec City and will later travel to my own home city of Calgary.

President Fox was elected in part by the Mexican people because they saw his advocacy of freer trade, less protection, less regulation, better multilateral relations within the hemisphere and bilateral relations with the United States as an integral part of paving the way to prosperity for that country. Mexicans had a choice in their election.

The hon. member's colleagues talk a lot about democracy and suggest that the FTAA somehow undermines it. When it comes to the Mexican people making a sovereign, democratic decision, and the most significant democratic decision in their modern history, they chose a free trader. They chose an advocate of the FTAA.

I do not suggest the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is guilty of this, but I do believe there are some in this place, and in the country, who are guilty of a paternalistic attitude toward people in the developing world, that they do not know what is best for themselves.

The Mexican people spoke pretty clearly about what they thought was in their best interests in a democratic election when they endorsed President Fox's agenda for free trade and economic growth. If we are truly committed to democracy, rather than throwing Molotov cocktails at police in Quebec City, we should listen to the citizens and the electorates in the developing world who are choosing democracy, free markets, free trade and rejecting closed economic systems that have failed them for too many decades.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I rose at this time in particular because I sensed the debate is nearing an end. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about the impact that the trade agreements, NAFTA in particular, have had on the environmental position in the country.

Throughout this debate there have been various references made to some of the cases that have arisen. The one I want to mention, because I do not think it has been touched upon other than in passing, is the S.D. Myers v Canada case. The company was suing Canada, as it was allowed to do under the NAFTA agreement, because we would not export hazardous waste to the United States. We closed our borders to that.

We had the sovereign country of Canada taking a very environmentally sound position, one in fact that we were required to take under the Basel convention which deals with transboundary movement of hazardous waste. We were required under that convention to deal with our own hazardous waste. S.D. Myers wanted to treat our hazardous waste in the United States. When we closed our borders to that, the company sued us and won the decision. Canada ended up being punished for being a good international citizen, if I could put it that way. We followed the convention that we entered into in good faith with a number of other global partners but were then confronted under NAFTA to breach that convention.

One of the lawyers looked at this and speaking of the S.D. Myers v Canada decision said “It offers an interpretation of NAFTA rules that is so vague and confusing that it is tantamount to saying Canada is in breach of its NAFTA obligations because we say so”. I will come back to this later because one of the points I want to make is about the impact of NAFTA and trade agreements on our sovereignty, and more important on our democracy.

The other case I want to deal with is the Metalclad case to which other speakers have referred. From the environmentalist standpoint, it shows the essential lack of integrity that is part of the whole trade arrangement. I mean integrity in terms of protecting the environment.

This case involved a relatively impoverished municipality being faced with a claim that it had to accept toxic waste. Anyone would say that a municipality could not be forced to accept the waste. There is no arrangement in the world that should make a municipality take into its relatively impoverished municipal structure, by international standards, a huge toxic waste. Lo and behold to its surprise and shock it was told that it had to accept the dump. As we all know, that case is under appeal. Given the past practises of interpretations under NAFTA, one has to wonder about the possibility or even hope of success on that appeal. There are also a number of other cases.

A resolution was passed a week or so ago in the House and was supported by all parties I believe, except the NDP. It was moved by our friends in the Bloc. We voted against it out of concern for the environment. The resolution dealt with the softwood lumber issue. If we continue to go into these types of trading arrangements, we continue to expose ourselves to the types of rulings I just mentioned.

What we are really talking about in a trading arrangement, whether it be with the United States, Mexico or the rest of the hemisphere, is one that recognizes the sovereignty of Canada, recognizes democracy and recognizes our rights as a country to protect our environment, human rights and labour standards. We hear these themes on a continuous basis.

I would like to speak briefly about democracy. I made a list of the abrogation of democracy that we see and have seen since the free trade agreement which came in in the late eighties. At the top of that list is our loss of sovereignty. Faceless bureaucrats sit someplace making decisions that affect us.

In spite of the comments from my friend from Alberta, we have a situation where our youth feel that the only way they can express their opposition to these agreements is by taking to the streets, not as he suggested with violence in mind but simply exercising their democratic right to say this is their country, they live here and they have a right in terms of freedom of expression to say what the country is doing is wrong. What will they be faced with? Barricades and what, in effect, will amount to a police state in Quebec City in the latter part of April. This is something I can attest to very strongly. We faced the same thing in my home riding last June.

There is no opportunity in effect within the existing parliamentary system for these people to be heard. We do not get to vote on it. We do not even get to see the text. We are elected officials, elected by our constituents to come here and represent them and to act in their best interest. In fact we are muzzled.

One issue we will have to debate in the coming months and years is the alternatives which are available to us in what would be a much more democratic and useful trading arrangement with the rest of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague for Windsor—St. Clair this question. The auto pact, which served Canada extremely well since 1965 if I am not mistaken, is now gone.

Could the member please tell the House exactly what fears those auto plant workers and their families have now that the auto pact is gone?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Windsor-Essex county community was a major beneficiary of the auto pact. The term we always heard about the auto pact was managed trade and fair trade. We did not hear the same for free trade. The auto pact allowed Windsor-Essex county to develop, what was in fact historically a huge development, the auto industry in our area.

As my friend pointed out, we lost that agreement last month, again because of a trading arrangement ruling. Our residents are very concerned about the consequences. We no longer have a fair trading arrangement.

Let me use one example. The Mexican jurisdiction, that economy, is building cars in significant numbers now. To compare the arrangements, on average a worker in Windsor in one of the large auto plants is earning in excess of $20 an hour. With benefits and all the rest it is roughly $30 an hour. The same auto worker in Mexico, building the same type of vehicle, is being paid on average $1 an hour. That is not fair trade. It may be, by some of the other definitions we have heard of trade, free trade. However, it is not fair trade.

The Mexican economy seriously undermines the position of labour in Canada and does little, if anything, to advance the cause of labour in Mexico.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as some people are saying, right now, at 3 a.m., it may be midnight in British Columbia, but in my riding it is 4 a.m. Miners may be getting out of bed to go to work, and they will see me just before leaving home.

First, in April, Quebec City will be welcoming the heads of state of the 34 countries of the Americas, who will be pursuing negotiations on extending North American free trade to all the nations of the Americas except Cuba.

This meeting, the summit of the Americas, follows on meetings in Prague, Seattle and Washington.

The New Democratic Party is squarely opposed to such an exercise. It believes that civil society should be able to participate in the negotiation of international trade agreements and discuss the adoption of fair trade practices.

Giving the green light to the free trade area of the Americas at this summit will seriously compromise citizen-based democracy and the principle of fair trade practices.

Canada is a country based on trade. International trade is an important part of our economy. Since Canada's approval of the free trade agreement, we have negotiated a series of trade agreements that put the interests of multinational corporations and international investors ahead of the interests of workers, the environment and democracy.

It should be noted that a number of Canada's public policies have fallen victim to international trade agreements. For example, the conservation of fish stocks, support for Canadian publishers, standards for toxic gasoline additives, generic drugs legislation, funding for research and development in Canada's high tech sectors, and the auto pact.

Not so long ago, we had the negotiations of the MAI, where we tried to reproduce the NAFTA rules for investment with industrialized countries, and use the NAFTA as a model for trade agreements with the rest of the world. The New Democratic Party has always been against the MAI negotiations.

In 1988, public protests managed to put an end to the MAI project. Even France and Australia rejected it as a threat to their democracy, whereas our government, incredibly, was in favour. We were lucky enough to get hold of the documents.

As has been said time and time again in the House this evening, the document was posted on the Internet and people around the world were able to see it, and were able to talk about the changes that were to take place and that would hurt society.

The New Democratic Party is not against trade. Quite the contrary, we support fair trade, managed in a social context of respect for social development, the environment, and the rights of workers.

These negotiations are far from being rooted in this context. The federal government is constantly telling us that these negotiations are being held with all respect for Canadians and in the best interests of Canada. Then why not make the negotiating documents of these trade agreements public?

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a serious lack of transparency. If we look at the Grand-Mère issue and now the summit of the Americas, this is becoming a daily problem for the Liberal government. The New Democratic Party firmly believes that trade agreements should be tabled in the House of Commons and debated in depth by members of the House and the public before being signed by the government.

What is the government hiding in this agreement? Why hide an agreement from Canadians? Why should we trust cabinet? Why should we trust a head of state? Why should we trust heads of state who are incapable of presenting it to the public? What are they hiding?

When the word democracy is used, one very quickly realizes that in the context of the summit of the Americas this word no longer has the usual meaning. On the contrary, values and interests are reduced to commercial and economic ones, to the advantage of private, selected corporations.

The federal government has a duty to look after the interests of all its citizens, including the public services that make Canada a model country as regards its social policies: health insurance, health care, health protection regulations, public education, social service programs, water programs and environmental services.

Previous negotiations have had a direct impact here in Canada, resulting, for example, in an increase in child poverty. The number of children living in poverty in Canada has risen by 60% since 1990, even though parliament committed itself to eliminating child poverty. In our view this is unjustifiable and unacceptable.

In Quebec alone, there has been a marked increase in social assistance recipients, from 595,000 in 1991 to 793,000 in 1997. It is fine to say that the unemployment rate has fallen, but you have to remember that the welfare rolls have grown.

Moreover, Canadian are working harder to maintain the same wage levels they had 20 years ago, because they work longer hours. It is hard to imagine they will improve their lot in life this way.

Two weeks before the Seattle negotiations in 1999, the Minister for International Trade clearly confirmed that he favoured the freeing of health and education services as a priority for the discussions of WTO negotiations. The NDP believes that this approach will lead to a two tier health system, as well as an education system for the poor and another for the rich, which is unacceptable.

On April 20, the NDP and I will be there to protest against the closed negotiations. Activists from all over will state their opposition to the free trade agreement of the Americas loudly and clearly, as well as their opposition to the commercial and economic goals of big business and the attack on democracy.

As the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress said at a press conference in Ottawa on March 19, 2001:

Canadians expect their government to listen to them. When that doesn't happen, we have to find other ways to get their attention.

This is what the activists will do on April 20 in Quebec City.

Even though summit organizers have arranged for tight security, protests and shows of solidarity will be the order of the day and this will be reflected in our presence.

I will conclude by quoting the head of the CLC who spoke at a seminar on June 3, 2000 in Windsor:

Solidarity will prevail because we want to fulfil our dreams for the sake of our children: our dream of a skilled and able society; our dream of an economy in which there is full employment; our dream of a sustainable environment in which the air is pure and the water clean; our dream of communities in which people care about one another, work together and help one another out; our dream of families and children who look to the future with hope and optimism; our dream of solidarity among families in our respective countries, on this continent and around the world who share the same dreams and who are prepared to fight together to make these dreams a reality.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, since I told the member for Burnaby—Douglas about the statement of the Minister for International Trade, three members of the New Democratic Party have brought up public education. I will repeat that last week the Minister for International Trade, stated categorically when he was talking about the GATT and FTAA positions, that public education was not at risk.

People cannot really complain about not having positions if when there is a position given they complain about that position. People cannot have it both ways. The member for Burnaby—Douglas gave the weak answer that he did not believe this from something that happened quite a while ago, but governments change.

A number of NDP members talk very positively about trade now, which they did not do a few years back. I am not taking issue with that. People change as the world changes. The member's argument was a weak one. I would like to address some of their other admirable points they have on things where the position is not on the table and things might be in jeopardy, but it has been made categorically clear that this other one is not the case.

If I heard the point right, it was that we have less disposable income now than we did 20 years ago. Is not at least part of that because of the increased social programs we have now? Health care is much more efficient. More drugs have been invented and we have to pay for them. We have higher levels of international aid than we did 20 years ago. There are a lot more environmental controls than there were. All these have costs, but I think these are all things that the NDP generally agree with. Are they not part of the reason that disposable income is less?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not because of that. We agreed to fair trade not free trade. The NDP was very clear about that.

Why do we have people with less income? We have them because in 1989, 1990 and 1992, when the Conservatives were cutting the employment insurance, for example, the Liberals promoted the idea that if they were ever to come to power they would not make those cuts but would restore employment insurance.

Instead, they cut employment insurance to the point where only 35% of Canadians who pay into it can collect employment insurance. We now have poor that we have never seen before, with 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance. The Liberals did that. Approximately 1.4 million children are hungry in our country. The Liberals did that during their term from 1993 to now. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I believe the reason they made the cuts was free trade. They had to answer to the Americans and to the Mexican people. That is what they did to free trade. The free trade we were supposed to get was supposed to bring up the standard of living of those people, not bring down the standards for Canadians. That is what the Liberals have done.

That is why we do not trust what the minister says: because what the Liberals say is not what they do. We cannot trust them. If they want us to trust them, they have to give us the document to read. We are not stupid. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians and we should be able to have the document. It does not belong only to the Minister of Industry or the Minister for International Trade. It belongs not to them but to parliamentarians and Canadians.

We should be able to make our decisions, not just put our faith in the Liberals, who have hurt the country very badly. They have very badly hurt the working people in Canada. That is why we do not trust the Liberals.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am very pleased to participate in the take note debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas on this early morning. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

For the benefit of those caring and dedicated Canadians who are still watching this debate on TV, on April 21 and 22 Canada will host 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas in Quebec City, 21 being new leaders. Cuba is the only country not participating in the summit. The FTAA would cover over 800 million people. The Americas have a combined GDP of over $11 trillion American.

This will be the third summit of the Americas. The first summit highlighted trade and was held in Miami in 1994. The second highlighted education and was held in Santiago, Chile in 1998. This third summit will discuss the proposal to phase out trade barriers from the Arctic to Argentina by 2005. The plan of action for the summit includes 18 different fields, including drug trafficking and money laundering.

Let me give some background facts on the free trade area of the Americas, commonly called the FTAA.

There is a political and economic transformation taking place in this trading bloc. Today there are no military dictatorships, while in 1995 there were 14. In 1950 Canada and Argentina held similar developmental levels but there is a disparity today. Canada has invested $12 billion in Chile, three times more than we have in Japan. Canada invested $42 billion in the Americas outside the U.S.A. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free these days. Canada exports about 45% of our GDP.

I will go over the enormous benefits of free trade. It will broaden our trading rights. It is mutually beneficial to participating countries. It gives consumers better choice of goods and services, and at a cheaper price too, as compared to tariff protected economies. It helps us get value added products. It brings about prosperity, development, job creation and economic developments. It enhances freedom of enterprise, democracy and good governance as well as the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money. It protects intellectual property rights.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA gives protection to Canadian investors.

The Canadian Alliance supports free trade and, in principle, we support FTAA initiatives. The liberal Prime Minister of the U.K., Tony Blair, emphasized in this House the importance of free trade. I will politely remind our NDP colleagues of that.

We must also remember that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that fought hard against free trade between Canada and the U.S. The Liberals lost the 1988 election based on that policy plank. The Right Hon. John Turner led the members opposite to a crushing defeat because he opposed expanding trade with our largest trading partner. At that time the Liberals said that Canada would cease to exist as a country and we would lose our sovereignty if the FTA was passed. Canadians did not fall for that.

The Liberals have made a 180 degree turn. We all know what we call that in politics. Today we are wary of the Liberal government's trade policy. We have seen failed team Canada missions. In the majority of them, our exports to those countries dropped significantly and our trade declined after the team Canada visit. That is a matter of record. The facts and figures speak for themselves.

There are some people who say that Canada should be investigating this kind of summit with western Europe. East-west trade may also be beneficial to Canada in the future.

It is also notable that trade barriers within Canada remain in place. There are more barriers to trade between British Columbia and New Brunswick or other provinces than there are between B.C. and Washington state. That issue is not on the thin soup agenda of the House because the Liberals are not serious about it. There has never been a serious dialogue for federal and provincial co-operation. The government has always had a confrontational approach with the provinces.

Canadians have a number of questions to which the government has failed to provide clear answers. What exactly would be Canada's role in the FTAA? How exactly does Canada benefit from the summit? I am afraid Canada will go to the summit with poorly done homework and with its usual weak position. It is difficult to debate the issue because so little has been made public by the government. What criteria should the government be using to promote trade relations in the FTAA? Will the Liberal government expand its aid for trade policy? That scenario plays out with the Liberal government using Canada's foreign aid like a carrot and then invoking trade policies with a stick on underdeveloped and disadvantaged nations.

Will the Liberals measure the benefits of the FTAA against the cost of dealing with countries that do not follow good governance practices? Will the government hold those nations accountable for their human rights records? What about democratic values and how will they be defined? What about trade sanctions? The government is all over the map when it comes to applying trade sanctions against rogue states.

We could say that there is a double standard, but it may be a triple standard or even worse. There is no method to the madness that the government uses when deciding about trade sanctions.

The government does not listen to Canadians. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended separating into two categories the sanctions we have against Iraq. The committee recommended that military and humanitarian sanctions be separated and that humanitarian sanctions be discontinued. What has happened since that unanimous 1999 committee report? Absolutely nothing has been done.

The weak, arrogant Liberal government negotiated the MAI in secrecy for over a year before Canadians found out. If the Liberal government had been listening to Canadians, there would have been no need for the people's summit that is running parallel to the Quebec summit.

What about Canada's disputes with other nations when it comes to agriculture, softwood lumber or fisheries? Are any of these issues in the briefcase that our government is bringing to the summit? Canadians do not know because the Liberals are not telling us.

What are the Liberals doing about the low Canadian dollar and high taxes? These issues are barriers to Canada's abilities to negotiate free trade agreements and attract investors. The Liberals have to drag our low value dollar with them around the world, which does not help us in negotiations with other nations. Are trade subsidies on the table? Is our dispute with Brazil on the table?

Most notably, Canadians are wondering about international crime and organized crime. Will we be expanding our trade with nations that are affecting our country as a result of the drug trade, human smuggling, money laundering or bank and computer fraud?

We must also carefully assess whether all countries participating in the summit are abiding by existing international trade agreements. Unfortunately, parliament has had no role in helping to set the parameters of Canada's negotiation position in the talks.

In conclusion, we in our party believe that it is essential to allow parliamentarians in on the process, including a full debate and a free vote on any agreement. We believe it is important to foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad. We support securing access to international markets through the negotiation of trade agreements, but we must proceed carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member from British Columbia is simply this: does he or does he not believe that subjects like health care, education, and water and sewer systems in major centres should be part of the negotiation process in the FTAA? A yes or no answer would suffice.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. In the second summit, the main theme was education. It would be very healthy to promote other social services agendas as well, for example, health care or other services that are offered to the 800 million people in this trade bloc. It would be a very good idea.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. The hon. member talked about the provinces. One of the things I could never countenance in the Alliance platform is the weakening of the federation of Canada through the powers it wants to pass on to the provinces. That would make the state very ineffective.

There have been numerous federal-provincial agreements this year. There was a major agreement on health care. It is not fair to say that the provinces and the federal government do not work together.

Talking about the high tax regime, the largest tax cut in Canadian history has just come into effect.

My question is related to the hon. member's comment on the level of the dollar. What would the hon. member do about that? What would he do about the jobs that would be lost in the Canadian export industries if the dollar was artificially raised?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this issue.

He talked about the provinces. The Canadian Alliance strongly believes that there should be a co-operative approach in dealing with the provinces, not the confrontational approach which his party is practising at this time.

The Liberal government has an absolutely confrontational approach with the provinces. That is why many issues are not being resolved, particularly the trade barriers which continue. That is why the confederation is not working. It could work better if the provinces and the federal government shared responsibilities and if they had dialogue and co-operation on various issues.

Regarding high taxes, he alleges that the highest tax cuts in Canadian history have recently taken place. That is nonsense. It is not true. The highest tax hike since the Liberals took power in 1993, was in the CPP. I remember it was the first bill we debated in the House. It implemented a 73% tax increase. That was the largest tax increase in Canadian history and it took place under this regime.

The member spoke about lost jobs. When the Canadian dollar is strong we do not lose jobs. It helps to restore credibility and trust in our economy. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would go over these issues in detail. I probably answered his questions contrary to his opinion.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on this particular issue. It is maybe on account of the hour of the day but there is an incredible level of peace in this place, peace that I am not used to on a normal basis. It makes it somewhat exciting to be able to speak under those conditions.

Speaking in this particular debate is like déjà vu when I reflect on the last parliament and the issue of the MAI. The official opposition, by way of a motion on opposition day, raised the issue of being able to debate what the government's position was going into the negotiations on the MAI. Here we are again having somewhat of an emergency debate to try to find out what the government's position will be in this particular round of negotiations on the FTAA.

With respect to the MAI, the official opposition put its cards on the table. We said we were in favour of free trade, as we had always been, however we wanted to know exactly what the government's position would be going into the negotiations. We did not get the type of transparency we would have liked at that point in time. Ironically enough we are not getting it now as we enter into this particular round of negotiations on the FTAA.

The other ironic thing is that this particular government, prior to 1993, was adamantly against free trade. Now it is a great defender of it. However, once again it is under the table and is not as transparent as Canadians would like.

Looking at the agenda planned for the Quebec round of meetings, the three areas of discussion are very honourable. We have strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential. All those topics are of great interest to Canadians and to the different countries involved in the negotiations.

The official opposition is, as I say, in favour of free trade, but clearly we are concerned about issues of sovereignty that pertain to all topics on the agenda. If the government were forthcoming about its negotiating position and allowed public consultation and debate, we would not have the unfortunate violent demonstrations we have seen in the past. Instead it could encourage a constructive agenda for managed globalization that is consistent with the rule of international law.

With a large part of the global economy at stake, the FTAA agenda and issues are enormous. The meetings are a tremendous opportunity to further the interests of Canadian consumers and of our agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. They are also an ideal forum for promoting human rights.

Clearly the world's political and business leaders have a responsibility to take seriously issues of democratic freedom, sustainable use and development of the environment, and the preservation of national and cultural identities within a global economy.

However as Canadians we also must take seriously the challenge to be provocative, rather than reactive, agents of change within the global economy. I am convinced that is the greatest thing we can do to protect and advance our unique national interests.

I would especially like to say a few words to younger Canadians. Young people know the forces of change at work today. We are being ushered into a revolutionary digital age. Information technology has already begun to transform the way we live, work, do business and communicate. During our lifetimes we will witness another revolution yet unknown to humankind. The challenge is to take our place within the revolution of change and globalization, not to resist it.

The future for innovators in business, job creation and policy making will be a delicate dance of balancing interests. We must seek to balance economic interests with the environment and to balance national interests, identities and cultures with international ones.

As Canadians we have much to protect but just as much, if not more, to offer the rest of the world. Not only do we have goods and services to trade, we can offer energy and hope. We are a young country brimming with potential.

We can offer a quality of leadership formed from centuries of pioneering a new frontier in the face of adversity. At meetings like the FTAA, Canada has a much better chance of creating a level trading field globally and ensuring member rights are protected and national interests are balanced.

Without such meetings there is much less hope for balance and for just societies within the emerging global economy. We should seek to use our position of influence as a world leader to set the agenda at the FTAA and future WTO meetings. We must find our voice among the nations of the world and demonstrate leadership and courage as we embrace globalization.

Global change is inevitable. We can only determine how we will respond to it and where and how, as leaders, we can make globalization something to be celebrated rather than feared.

That is why we cannot emphasize enough the importance of a transparent and open process. We need to engage Canadians and make them feel they are part of the democratic process. That is why many of my colleagues, and I think many Canadians, continue to insist we have a full and open debate on the issue and even, to some extent, public consultation. Hopefully we can move it to a free vote in the House of Commons so that Canadians truly feel the government has their interests at hand before it signs any form of international trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member for Surrey Central if he believed health, education, water and sewer and public services should be part of an FTAA agreement, and his answer was yes.

I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona would agree that health, education and public services such as water and sewer should be on the FTAA negotiating table.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that question with a yes or no. However to qualify my answer it is important to note that, yes, those things should be discussed, but only in the context of protecting our sovereignty.

As I said in my speech, it is important that we not cover our eyes on issues that I think are of great concern to Canadians. I think many countries have an interest in what we have to offer on these issues. However we need to put it in the context of the negotiations. We need to have the attitude that we can protect those things Canadians feel are so important. In the process of trying to make them better we need to make sure that we do not lose the balance we have been able to create in protecting those public institutions that are so sacred.

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

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient with me so far today and I appreciate it. I will say, as probably the last speaker in the House today, that we in the NDP and many others throughout the country and around the world, believe democracy itself is threatened by the FTAA. We need go no further than the Metalclad decision, the one that should be coming up in the appeals, or the UPS decision.

UPS is now suing Canada Post because Canada Post had the audacity to have a courier system, which, by the way, supplements other postal services in the country. UPS, an American firm, is saying Canada Post cannot do that and that it will sue.

The government of British Columbia is being sued because it had the audacity to try to protect its bulk water. Across the country, we believe, environmental concerns such as water, lumber and everything else are at stake.

It was absolutely shocking in the House to hear, once and for all, a member of the Alliance Party tell it like it is and say that, yes indeed, health, education and other public services should be on the table when we negotiate the FTAA.

We knew all along that was the Alliance's position. We knew all along it was the Conservative position. We had a sneaking suspicion all along that it was the government's position. It is amazing what happens at this hour of the morning. The truth eventually does come out. It is shocking.

I wonder if the hon. member for Surrey Central has told the people in his riding that health, education and other public services should be on the table. I do not think he would represent the riding for long if he were forthright enough to tell them that.

When the Conservatives negotiated free trade they forgot to include a shipbuilding policy. The United States protected itself with what is called the Jones Act, which says a ship carrying freight between New York and Miami must be American built, American crewed, American registered, everything American. Canada forgot to protect its own shipbuilding industry, and it will now be virtually impossible to institute a shipbuilding policy in this country.

We would encourage the Minister of Industry to include one and to do everything in his power to rebuild the industry so that thousands of people can go back to work in shipyards in Saint John, Marystown or Halifax. However, I suspect that with talks continuing the way they are it will be virtually impossible for him to do so unless he takes a stand and says no.

We have heard the member from Calgary say in the House that there will be Molotov cocktails, violence and everything else like that. No one in the NDP has said that. We have said only that we have the democratic right to attend a people's conference, a citizens' initiative from a broad section of society in Canada and around the world, to register our protest to people on the other side of the fence.

To suggest we would disrupt the proceedings in the buildings behind the fence is to suggest we would be going over the fence. That is simple nonsense. More than 5,000 police officers will be there to make sure we do not. I was planning to wear a scarf in case it got cold, but I understand there will be a bylaw in Quebec that if people wear scarves they could be arrested. Imagine that. The member wants to know why we are nervous about the talks going on behind the fence when the municipal government enacts a bylaw to prevent people from wearing scarves. It is simply incredible.

The Alliance, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc are concerned about the NDP attending the people's conference. I attended a civil disobedience event in my own riding. A few years ago the Volvo plant was to leave Halifax and move to Mexico. It was to leave without looking after the workers. What did the workers do? They occupied the plant, but in a very peaceful way. That was civil disobedience. They occupied a private piece of property and just sat there.

Who attended the rally to support them? That great dissident of all time, the current premier of Nova Scotia, John Hamm, was there to support the workers of the Volvo plant. Guess who else was there? Another great dissident of democracy, former Halifax mayor Walter Fitzgerald, was there to support the workers.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Anarchists, that is what they are.

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

Yes, anarchists. How dare they, a Conservative premier of Nova Scotia and a self-professed Liberal mayor of Halifax, support working people in the country?

Guess who else was there? Lo and behold, yours truly. Imagine that. We had a Conservative, a Liberal and a New Democrat standing together outside the plant to listen to speeches in support of the workers and to support their quest for fair compensation for the years of service they had dedicated to Volvo.

Guess what? Not one light bulb was broken. The plant was cleaner after the protest than when we went in. The workers got what they deserved. They did not maintain their jobs, but they kept their dignity and respect and received better pensions. That is civil disobedience 101. That is how it is done.

Lo and behold, the premier of Nova Scotia was there, the mayor of Halifax was there, and I was there: the great anarchists of our society. Imagine a member of parliament, the premier of Nova Scotia and the mayor of Halifax, great dissidents of democracy. It is absolutely incredible that those three anarchists could be there supporting working people.

Why would the Alliance, the Liberals, the Bloc and the Conservatives be so nervous about the NDP going there? I think there is an underlying tone to what they are saying. I believe that in their heart of hearts they know the FTAA will be a very frightening proposition for Canada. Municipal, provincial and federal governments in the future will lose the ability to enact laws or bylaws to protect the citizens of Canada.

What will happen? All of a sudden we will hear that they cannot do something because of the trade agreements, or that they cannot enact protective laws because of the trade agreements.

Since NAFTA and free trade have come in never in the history of this country have seniors found life harder. If we really want to see the inadequacies of this trade deal, we can look at what it has done to our seniors, one of the most vulnerable groups of people in the country. Ask the seniors in my riding and across the country. The choices they have to make now are among food, home heating fuel and prescription drugs.

We put them in that position. These people worked hard their entire lives, but because of these trade deals we cannot do anything about energy prices. Because of these trade deals we cannot do anything about drug prices. Because of these trade deals we cannot support and protect our farmers. Our seniors are saying that they elected us to do something about it and are asking us why we have not done anything. However, we hide behind the cloak of the trade deals.

We in the NDP have never been against trade. We are a trading nation. All we are asking for is fair trade, fair trade that benefits all working people and the environment of this planet.