Debates of March 27th, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and it is often asked by the NDP and other members. That is why the free trade area of the agreement is going to be pursued.

We have to develop a rules base to improve the horrible situation in the maquiladoras in Mexico, where there are no labour or environmental standards whatsoever. We have the opportunity today and will have it in April to develop a rules based system to ensure that we have fair labour standards. Workers in the maquiladoras will then be able to say that the company must adhere to the standards because it was signed in the free trade agreement of the Americas.

We will have good environmental standards so that mines will not be able to dump tailings and poison the rivers in South America and Central America. We will have standards of democracy and human rights that will be respected across this hemisphere.

That is what the agreement is about. This is what the challenge is about. I am sure members from the NDP would like to ask questions along the same line. I hope they put their efforts into working toward solutions to these challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question about his comments on Colombia to try to determine what the position of the Canadian Alliance is with respect to one of the most serious issues and concerns that has been raised. That is the quite misguided proposal called Plan Colombia, in particular the military component of that plan.

I know the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was in Colombia last month. I myself was in Colombia in January and had the opportunity to meet with elected representatives, senators, members of the house of representatives, as well as many human rights defenders and others. The very strong message that I received from them was strong opposition to the military component of Plan Colombia. They pleaded that instead there be a recognition that it is social and economic concerns that must be addressed and in particular land reform.

What is the position of the Canadian Alliance? Is it like the Liberal government, which refuses to condemn the military component of Plan Colombia, or is it prepared to very clearly speak out in opposition to the military component of that plan and call for an approach that recognizes the importance of tackling poverty, land reform and dealing with the massive human rights violations in Colombia?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that Colombia needs land reform. It needs a better economy. It needs to address the human rights abuses. Plan Colombia deals with two aspects; a military component and a social development component.

The unfortunate thing in the real politik of Colombia is that the vast majority of the land area is controlled by guerrillas from the FARC and the ELN as well as paramilitaries and drug lords. Part of the problem is that, with the lack of control the government has from a military perspective, these guerrillas, paramilitaries, narcoterrorists and cartels are allowed to massacre civilian populations in the surrounding area.

Currently the Bogota government in Colombia does not have the military capability to do that. My personal view, not that of the Alliance, is to support Plan Colombia, including the military component, for the simple reason that the military component has to get control over the country. It has to defeat the paramilitaries that are basically thugs with weapons.

It is very important that national verifiers go along with the Colombian army to ensure that it is not engaging in human rights abuses and in collusion with the paramilitaries. They are doing that in some areas, which is completely unacceptable. If we verify this and allow the Colombian government to get control over its area in a multifactorial approach with other trade issues, then we will be able to ensure that Colombia secures peace.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Let me begin by thanking the Minister for International Trade, who, it will be recalled, in response to a question I asked of him in the House during question period some time ago, agreed, on behalf of the government, to hold a take note debate, the debate we are having tonight, on the question of the free trade zone of the Americas, before the Quebec summit takes place.

I am very pleased to see that, even at midnight, there are still a number of members who wish to take the floor.

I am not an expert in international trade. I am not a lawyer, and I have not had a chance to really explore the international trade aspect. Like all of us here, I have had several constituents speak to me and, in some cases, voice concerns and encouraging words. I agreed to share these comments with the House. That is why I am here tonight.

A number of people who spoke to me or wrote to me seemed to be concerned about the preponderant, or at least growing, role of the private sector in international trade. They would like to see the introduction of mechanisms to balance what some perceive to be a growing influence.

If I base myself on our Canadian economy, which is essentially a capitalist regime in which we encourage the creation of wealth, but a system that still has strong socialist leanings, which taxes this wealth and has established a mechanism to redistribute it, we end up with a country that is nonetheless very interesting and very welcoming and which, all told, is a model from several points of view.

For example, if we compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south, we see that income polarization is not increasing in Canada.

Indeed, the income gap in Canada, after taking into account redistribution, such as social programs and so on, has not grown, whereas in the United States it has. On the wealth side, unfortunately, we will have to do something because we have not measured that since 1984. Statistics Canada measured it recently and we had a report a couple of weeks ago showing that the wealth gap, as opposed to the income gap, is increasing. I think it behooves us all to find ways to make sure that gap does not widen but becomes narrower.

However, if we take our approach on social programs, human rights and environmental standards, there is room for improvement in many of those fields, but as a rule we are doing very well by international comparison. If we take this and move it onto the international scene it would perhaps be Canada's greatest contribution.

I have to state my position on this international issue. I am one of those who believe in free trade. I think that history has shown that more wealth is created wherever there is free trade. If sovereign countries can then find ways to share this wealth, their people will end up better off.

I am basically in favour of free trade. However, Canada's position embraces other elements in addition to free trade; it includes considerations such as human rights, democratic principles and environmental standards. I am delighted to see that the holding of this summit in Canada is giving rise to these debates and that our government is encouraging them, because they will be feeding into the summit itself. In this sense, I believe that the trend is an encouraging one.

We receive reams of documentation from all kinds of places. Last week, I was sent a little folder from the Export Development Corporation. I would like to quote a passage from it, from a letter from the president and CEO. These are words that we would perhaps not have found in this type of literature a few years ago. It reads as follows:

At the same time, EDC operates as a successful business and an integral part of society. As such, we are working alongside other leading businesses that are increasingly committed to socially responsible corporate practices. These practices include policies and measures aimed at establishing a business code of ethics, making improvements at the social and environmental levels, public accountability and community participation.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly obvious that, by adopting these socially responsible corporate practices, corporations are achieving reciprocal successes for themselves and for their communities. According to a recent study, the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index surpassed the Dow Jones Global Index by 15% between 1994 and 1999. In other words, it pays to do good.

I do not think that this type of comment would have been found in the literature of the Export Development Corporation some ten years ago. This is encouraging.

I would like to quote another statement, which appeared in the lead editorial in La Presse yesterday. I am citing the paragraph at the end of Mario Roy's editorial:

It is not a matter of seeing nothing but the good in people, and believing that it is possible to change overnight a problem of civilization that has persisted for centuries. Nonetheless, the opportunity is there. Elected officials, whose mandate in their respective countries is not only economic but also political and social, will be sitting at the Summit of the Americas.

Canada, which, as has been said, very much enjoys giving lessons, can certainly take advantage of its role as host to place the question of human rights at the heart of this round of negotiations, which will continue until 2005. We can do it in such a way that it cannot be ignored, so that it is clearly understood that a free trade agreement will be inconceivable unless a certain level of normality is achieved in the countries that are the most negligent with respect to rights and freedoms.

This is a strict obligation for Canada's political elite.

And there is no doubt that in the public mind the Summit in general, and Canada's performance in particular, will be judged from this point of view, as much as from the point of view of the advances that will be made with respect to trade.

Again, we see reflected here in this newspaper, which is after all well regarded, the desire to emphasize these values. That is why I am encouraged by this evening's debate on the summit of the Americas.

This evening, as MPs, we have an opportunity to take a hand in the phenomenon of globalization, to be part of this trend, which one day may be reversed, but which nonetheless is currently very strong. Most countries in the world are moving toward free trade agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral in nature. The trend is toward the creation of free trade zones. This reflects clearly the will to create much greater wealth and it is on this front that we have a role to play.

In my view, it will become very important in the years ahead to create new mechanisms for sharing wealth on a global scale.

We have created a means of encouraging free trade. It behooves all of us as parliamentarians and as people who have the public good at heart, to bring forward ideas and create mechanisms that will allow us to share some of the wealth among nations that international trade and free trade helps to create.

I understand this is an extremely complex situation but the complexity of a problem does not negate the necessity to address it. The one wish I would like to leave with the government, as it is taking note tonight, is that we must put in gear efforts and thinking to create such mechanisms so that the living standards for citizens around the world will be improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member perhaps share his views with the House with respect to the importance of ensuring environmental standards within the framework of trade agreements?

I recall that at the first summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994 one of the commitments made was to strengthen the protection of biodiversity within the hemisphere. That was seven years ago and I am not aware of any steps that have been taken within the context of the summit of the Americas, free trade of the Americas negotiations or anything else.

Could the hon. member indicate to us what there is within the context of the current negotiations on the FTAA that would in any way strengthen the protection of the environment throughout the hemisphere, an objective which I know he shares?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to pick up on the question asked by the member for Yukon and try to address both.

If we were able to reach an agreement on environmental standards, that might mean that a country such as ours and all of the countries participating in such an agreement would have to give up some of their sovereignty. As people live as neighbours in a society they give up some of their sovereignty by virtue of having to respect their neighbours and the environment they live in.

I cannot predict, nor would I pretend to be able to predict, the outcome of negotiations and how environmental considerations might be included in any FTAA. I would hope that we could arrive at that, just as I would hope that we would cover in any international agreement, matters of cultural diversity.

I believe that biodiversity is as important as cultural diversity. My colleague for Parkdale—High Park addressed that issue earlier this evening and I share her views.

I say to the hon. member that is not to say that things are perfect. I would hope that he would keep at it and try to improve it as he has over the years. I applaud him for that. As we do so collectively, things will improve. Unfortunately, reality being what it is, we take too long to get where we want to be but we will not get there by giving up.

The complexity of an issue does not negate l'exigence de s'y adresser. I would hope that because he is not satisfied that things are not improving fast enough that does not mean we will all give up to make it happen. On the contrary, I think probably we have to increase our efforts to make it happen.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, last week when we went past midnight there was a motion proposed and passed unanimously that we would let most of the pages leave. I would ask for unanimous consent that those who need to leave be allowed to do so. My question has been partly answered but I will pose it in case the hon. member would like to add anything.

One of my constituents believes that a free trade agreement of the Americas would affect our sovereignty and the ability of governments to maintain our social and environmental standards.

Is this true?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying earlier is that when people agree to live in a community, in the same village, on the same street, or in the same city, they have to agree to limit their own rights to make room for their neighbours' rights.

In order to live in society, we have to agree that our rights are fundamentally, basically and necessarily limited. I think it is the same thing for countries that by mutual consent enter into international agreements on behaviour, free trade, respect for the environment and certain environmental standards.

If a country wants to promote respect for the environment and it does so by becoming a signatory to international agreements, it is very likely that it will give up some portion of its sovereignty for the international common good. The same holds true for the members of the United Nations. We agree to be a member of a group like the United Nations; we accept its rules, we agree to submit to them. By doing so, we essentially limit our own sovereignty, but we do so for the common good.

Even though my time has expired, I hope this was helpful to my colleague from the Yukon.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before we go any further, I am advised by the table that there was an agreement among the House leaders that no unanimous consent would be passed during the whole length of the debate. Therefore I have to deny the hon. member's request.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk, in particular, to the service sector, but I will first highlight the fact that issues regarding trade and democracy are critical in this discussion and Canada's national interest must be the overwhelming issue for Canadians. Whether the issue is health care, the environment or culture, we must protect it.

There are potentials in terms of the free trade agreement of the Americas. However, we must move, in my view, slowly and cautiously, keeping in mind that issues are being raised and being raised in a very thoughtful and lucid manner.

The Americas is one of the most dynamic regions in the world. There are 800 million people, not even one-sixth of the world's population, and they account for more than one-third of the world's economic activity. The combined gross domestic products of the Americas, about $17 trillion, is greater than that of the European Union.

The leaders of the western hemisphere believed that the Americas had tremendous potential and that the countries of the Americas could work more effectively, particularly in areas to promote democracy, development and growth.

We have seen great changes in the Americas over the last 10 or 15 years in terms of democratic growth in the hemispheres. We have moved from military juntas to fledgling democracies, which Canada has a very important role to help promote and protect.

The leaders also committed to strengthening not only democracy but greater prosperity. They also committed themselves to practical measures to improve such things as health care, to increase access to quality education and to protection of biodiversity, to collective action against the scourge of drugs and corruption, to expanding the deepening dialogue with civil society and regional priorities.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to participate in a forum of parliamentarians from the Americas which was held here in this very Chamber. Issues such as democracy, drugs and trade were discussed. It is very important to bring parliamentarians from this hemisphere together to talk about these key issues.

At the second summit, held in Santiago in 1998, issues were talked about and moved forward. Once again leaders endorsed action to support the development of democratic institutions, to protect human rights, to enhance transparency and to respect the rule of law. I believe these are critical issues for all Canadians. The leaders gave specific instructions to begin the process of negotiating the free trade agreement of the Americas. If the free trade agreement of the Americas is eventually signed, it will create the largest free trade area in the world.

In short, the summit of the Americas process may offer numerous opportunities to further enhance Canadian openness to the western hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the most tangible opportunities on the economic front. It certainly does have potential for enhanced market access for Canadian exports.

If there is one sector where new access could lead to significant benefits for Canada, and particularly for Canadian business, it is obviously the service sector. This is a key sector. It is the engine of the Canadian economy. It is responsible for more than two-thirds of Canada's gross domestic product, almost three-quarters of employment with 10.5 million jobs, and nearly 90% of new job creation in the country. It is leading the transformation of the Canadian economy into a knowledge based economy. Many employees in the service sector are highly educated and enjoy earnings well above average. Services are the heart of Canada's innovative society. For example, telecommunications, financial services and technical business services are among the most innovative industries in the country.

Canada is a trading nation and it counts on its service exports to strengthen its prosperity. Not counting Canada's direct investments abroad in the service companies, Canada is the 12th largest exporter of services in the world, exporting $51.8 billion worth of services in 1998 alone. Canadian companies such as SNC-Lavalin, Teleglobe, Enbridge and Hydro-Québec are among the world leaders in their fields and their expertise is sought across the hemisphere.

Though service exports account for only 12% of Canadian exports, Canadian trade in services is increasing at a much faster pace than our trade in goods. Given the importance of trade in our economy, we can say without fear or exaggeration that improving market access abroad for our services provides an opportunity for sustaining our prosperity.

The argument for supporting Canada's service exports is particularly strong when it comes to the Americas. In Canada's commercial services, exports to FTAA countries, excluding the United States and Mexico, were worth about $1.9 billion in 1998 and $787 million in 1993. Clearly this is a growing market, with an annual rate of approximately 19% growth during that period.

Countries such as Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil are all existing or potential export markets for Canadian service providers. There are three sectors of particular note: telecommunications, financial services and engineering services. Many of these are in my own community.

The Canadian telecommunications sector is enjoying tremendous success, exporting services valued at over $2 billion a year and employing over 104,000 people. As a consequence, since 1993 the sector has been growing by an average of 9%.

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

In recent years Canadian financial institutions have been very active in Central and Latin America. One leading example is Scotiabank, which is active in Argentina and in Chile, where its subsidiary is the seventh largest bank in that country, as well as in Brazil, Costa Rica, Belize, El Salvador, where it has 33 branches in that country alone, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Another example is the National Bank, which recently teamed up with three U.S. venture capital companies and a local Chilean partner to form Corp Banca Consortium in order to purchase banking institutions in South American countries.

I had an opportunity, along with other colleagues in the House, to be in Chile for the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum in January. I had an opportunity to talk to representatives of Chilean congress with regard to not only the FTAA issues but issues in the financial services sector.

Another sector where Canadian expertise is renowned around the world is the engineering sector. Canada is currently the world's third largest exporter of engineering services and the high calibre of Canadian engineers is internationally recognized. Business opportunities are significant, especially in Central and Latin America where Canadian engineering expertise in resource based energy related infrastructure projects is in high demand. I would refer hon. members to such companies as Hydro-Québec and its recent acquisition of Chile's Transelec, which owns 50% of Chilean power transmission lines. This is a good example of the type of business opportunities the countries in the western hemisphere have to offer. That is why Canada is actively participating in the service negotiations under FTAA.

Canada has much to gain from the establishment of a comprehensive set of rules on trade services in the FTAA. However, again I caution members that we must proceed cautiously. We have to make sure the interests of this country are protected. As we know, sometimes some of the biggest free traders are the Americans but often in name only. We have to be careful and we have to be aware that the negotiations are going to be difficult, but I certainly support a transparent and open process.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the upcoming agreement of the Americas.

We have been living under NAFTA and the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement for over decade now. These have been years during which we have been forced to give up access to affordable generic drugs, to support for Canadian magazine publishing, to standards for toxic fuel additives and to the right to ban bulk water and PCB exports.

In return for giving up democratic sovereignty, those deals were supposed to give us free access to the American market for our goods. However, as recent disputes over P.E.I. potatoes and softwood lumber demonstrate, things have not worked out that way. When their economic interests are threatened, the Americans ignore trade deals or insist on exemptions to protect their own producers.

Instead of dealing with these problems, our federal government is taking the lead in promoting, through the FTAA, the expansion of a trade deal that further weakens democratically elected governments while strengthening the power of global corporations.

Since the hon. member seems to be promoting the fact that this is a good deal for Canadians and Canadian industries, I would ask him this: with the examples I have just given, how is this deal going to strengthen our position as a country and our position as a trading partner?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite was not listening quite as attentively as she could have been.

First of all, I said that we have to move cautiously. I talked about a particular sector, the service sector. In looking at the service sector, I said there were opportunities. We are looking at opportunities. I made the comment that the Americans are often the biggest free traders, but when it comes to having their own interests at heart they often put up barriers. The member mentioned P.E.I. potatoes as an example.

I am not suggesting and have never suggested in my comments this evening that we simply go straight ahead without being cautious and without making sure that our interests are protected. I presume the member understands the fact that the national interest is paramount. Therefore, if in fact under free trade or under NAFTA there are issues we feel are not serving our interests, there are, as there have been, mechanisms to address those issues.

However, I would think that under the FTAA we have to make sure that the right mechanisms are there, whether they are tribunals or whatever they happen to be, in order to make sure we are protected. Not to do so would not be in the national interest. Therefore I have highlighted only one area in which I feel that there may be enhanced opportunity for Canadian companies. However, I did say as well that we have to make sure we protect and have control of our health care, culture and environment. If in fact at the end of the day we are not able to do that, then I would not support it.

When members are listening to what I am saying, they have to be very careful. I am looking at one area in which I do see an opportunity, but again we must go slowly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The hon. member is a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I wonder if he would like to comment on a motion adopted by the city council of Vancouver expressing very grave concern about the implications of the FTAA for the rights of cities to make decisions about their own future, about their environment and about the health care of their citizens.

The city of Vancouver unanimously passed a motion urging the federal government not to sign any trade deal, such as the proposed expansion of NAFTA being negotiated in the FTAA, which includes investor state provisions similar to those included in NAFTA. Does the hon. member agree with the motion that has been passed by the city of Vancouver?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion of the city of Vancouver. I have not read it. However, again, clearly anything that does not protect interests, whether they are of cities or Canada as a whole, obviously I could not support. Again, I believe that any treaty that would be proposed should come back to the House for full and honest debate.

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

It is a done deal by then.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

You do exactly what you're told. You might as well be unconscious.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this take note debate with some sense of sadness and almost despair about what the ultimate outcome of this debate will be.

I have participated in many debates in the House. We have debated motions and we have debated bills, but let us be clear about what is being debated here today. We, as members of parliament, are being told that we have to debate, in a take note debate, a fundamentally important subject about the future of this country and the future of this hemisphere and this planet. Yet we are being denied the very essence of what it is that we are supposed to be debating.

[An hon. member]

Where's the text?

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

We are being denied the text that is being negotiated by the 34 countries involved in this hemispheric deal, the free trade of the Americas agreement.

It makes a mockery of democracy when we are being told that we are able to pronounce ourselves on the implications of the FTAA, the summit of the Americas, and yet we do not have the text itself. That is the first point I want to make.

It is a perversion of democracy to suggest that somehow we could have a serious debate or a serious dialogue on the issue when in fact we have no opportunity to view the text itself.

I might just add that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I should have mentioned that at the outset of my comments.

Not only are we denied access to the text that is being negotiated behind closed doors, but the government says that it has been totally transparent and that all we have to do is go to its website to see its position on the key issues that are being negotiated in the framework of the FTAA.

Some of us have actually gone to that website. What are some of the most critical issues? They include things like the dispute settlement mechanism, intellectual property, investment and services. Here is what the Government of Canada has to say on its official website about its position on investment:

To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment. Any submission made by Canada will be made available on the website.

So much for transparency: it has nothing to say about investment. In response to a question from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, this same government said that it was very concerned about the implications of chapter 11 of NAFTA. It was to make sure that no similar provision was being negotiated in the FTAA. What a fraud when, by its own admission, it has not bothered to make any submissions at all on the issue of investment.

That means quite clearly that the government does not care. It certainly does not care enough to make submissions about what this investor state provision might mean for Canada's sovereignty, for our ability at all levels of government to make decisions in the best interest of the citizens that we have the honour of representing.

When we look at what the FTAA is really about, or what NAFTA and the WTO are really about, more and more they are about taking power away from democratically elected governments and putting it in the hands of corporate elites that are unaccountable to anybody but their shareholders.

The House does not have to take my word for it. I will quote from a couple of people who have made very clear that this is the agenda. One is Renato Ruggiero, former director general of the World Trade Organization. Here is what he had to say:

—there is a surplus of democracy in the world that is interfering with the free movement of investment and capital.

God forbid, a surplus of democracy. We have to build up trade deals like the free trade of the Americas and NAFTA which will prevent democracy from actually influencing corporate power at all. Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute said:

A trade deal simply limits the ability to which any statutory government may respond to pressure from its citizens.

Ain't that the truth? God forbid that citizens should be in a position to actually influence their government over things like the future of health care, education, culture, social programs or the environment. We know that all these areas are at grave risk in the so-called trade negotiations.

Just yesterday, for example, the common front on the World Trade Organization released a document voicing its deep concern about the implications of the current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the so-called GATS. It has made very clear that the sole purpose of the current GATS negotiations is to open up public services to privatization and international competition. In other words, it would replace services which are now delivered in the public interest through the public sector with private for profit companies. That would destroy many of the social programs we have come to take for granted.

This is a totally undemocratic process. I want to point out as well with respect to the process that we are witnessing in the context of the summit of the Americas an increasing criminalization of dissent.

We know that Quebec City itself is being turned into an armed fortress and that any dissent, and I am speaking of non-violent, peaceful protest, people marching in the streets voicing their concerns about what these deals will mean not only for the people of Canada but for the people of the hemisphere, is being criminalized in many areas.

We have the obscene spectacle of the corporate elite buying its way into the corridors of power. Half a million dollars gets the opportunity to say a few words at the opening reception. If they can only afford $75,000, all they can do is decide which of the leaders they want to cozy up to and lobby in the context of the free trade of the Americas agreement. What a contempt for civil society.

Civil society outside that four kilometre parameter, with the friends of the government and the corporate elite inside wining and dining, having paid the necessary fees to have access to the process, is an appalling spectacle.

I want to say a word about another element that troubles us as New Democrats. This is not a process that includes all 35 countries in the hemisphere. Indeed one country has been left out because the United States made very clear that it is its rule about the summit. That is Cuba. It is totally unacceptable that Cuba should be isolated because of American pressure.

It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister said Cuba should be a member of la grande famille, should be invited to be at the table, but now we have seen in a profound reversal of Canada's policy the new foreign affairs minister saying no, Canada does not support Cuba's presence at the table. It is clearly unacceptable.

It is a process that is totally undemocratic: denial of access to the documents being negotiated and criminalization of dissent by people who object not only to the process but to the substance. There are concerns around the participation at the table and about corporate influence in the whole process, but the substance of the WTO, NAFTA and now the FTAA is of deep concern to us as New Democrats.

I know the member for Winnipeg—Transcona will elaborate on some of these concerns, particularly around the impact of chapter 11, the so-called investor state provisions. We have seen the impact of corporate power in the so-called intellectual property area with pharmaceutical companies trying to stop Brazil and South Africa under the WTO from making cheap generic drugs available to aid in the fight against AIDS and HIV. That is what we have seen as a direct result of the so-called trade deals.

In closing, I again say that these trade deals are not about trade. They are about corporate power. We as New Democrats say that it is time we had a government that negotiated a fair trade deal. We believe in a rules based economy and rules based trade, but rules that put ecological sustainability, worker rights, human rights and the environment ahead of corporate profit and the bottom line.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He speaks passionately against the concept of free trade but speaks in favour of fair trade.

There was some talk a while ago, and Canadians might want some clarification, of the federal NDP perhaps changing its opinion on free trade and becoming more proactive in terms of free trade, actually believing that the concept of competitive and comparative advantage is good and should be embraced.

The NDP premiers of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba were all part of the most recent team Canada trade mission to the Asia-Pacific region. Has the member for Burnaby—Douglas informed the three premiers of those provinces of his distaste for the concept of free trade? Has he brought as much scorn on them as he has brought on the government for its pursuit of free trade?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly as New Democrats we have said, as I indicated in my closing comments, that we reject the model in NAFTA. We reject the model in the proposed free trade of the Americas agreement. We have certainly voiced deep concerns about the model in APEC.

I spoke out strongly, as did my colleagues, on that model. We voiced those concerns in the context of APEC. We have certainly raised serious concerns about human rights and respect for the environment, issues like the sale of Candu reactors to China, concerns around the Three Gorges Dam and a number of other similar grave concerns about human rights violations in the context of religious freedom, whether it be Falun Dafa or other serious abuses of human rights. Certainly we have spoken out on those issues.

I might say that we are waiting for members of the Canadian Alliance to take a strong and forceful stand with respect to grave human rights violations in this hemisphere. I was astonished to hear the member for the riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca speaking of Colombia and defending the United States Plan Colombia, saying that as a member of parliament he supports the military component of Plan Colombia.

If we want to talk about human rights, I suggest to the hon. member from Coquitlam that he speak with his colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and remind him of the concern about respect for human rights in this hemisphere, which is what is being debated in this take note debate this evening.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. Maybe it was the phrasing of the member's words when he was talking about the private sector doing some things the government is doing, but to me it seemed to cast aspersion on business workers. I think all workers in both business and government in Canada by and large work very hard for whoever is providing a particular service.

My question is related to services. The hon. member was suggesting that health, public education and social services might be at risk. Last week the Minister for International Trade made his announcement of Canada's position on the GATT. He made quite clear that those things would not be at risk in the GATT or in the free trade agreement of the Americas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why we should believe anything the minister says in light of the track record of the Liberal Party on trade issues. I remember the 1993 election when the Liberals campaigned vigorously against NAFTA. They were to have nothing whatsoever to do with NAFTA.

I remember the previous parliament when the now industry minister campaigned strongly with all his colleagues against the pharmaceutical drug legislation, that gift to multinational drug corporations. In the interim we have seen one of the most disgraceful flip-flops. In fact the Minister of Industry gave a grovelling apology to Brian Mulroney at Davos, Switzerland: “You were right, Brian. We were wrong in the Liberal Party”.

Just last week in front of the Senate committee the minister apologized for the Liberal position on pharmaceutical drugs when he said in 1987 that the pharmaceutical drug bill would suck the lifeblood out of Canada's poorest citizens. That is what he said then. He has said the opposite now. Why should we believe anything that the trade minister tells parliament or the country?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, in putting on the record the very real concerns of the NDP about the FTAA. We have concerns not just about the FTAA but also about various other trade agreements which contain the same elements as the government would like to see included in the FTAA.

Our opposition to the free trade of the Americas is consistent with our opposition to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the multilateral agreement on investment and the World Trade Organization. All these agreements, some in place like NAFTA, some historical like the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, some defeated like the multilateral agreement on investment and some in process, like the WTO, all these agreements have in common the fact that they are agreements which were conceived in the first place to restrict the ability of democratically elected governments to act in the public interest, to act on behalf of the common good.

As my colleague referred to earlier when he was quoting Renato Ruggiero, the former director of the WTO, it has been the view of the corporate elite both nationally and globally for some time basically since the early mid-seventies that there has been a surplus of democracy in the western world. Things were getting out of hand. The economy was regulated in a way that did not permit the maximization of profit in the way that corporations would like.

There began a corporate backlash in the 1970s, which by the late 1980s took the form of free trade agreements. It took the old concept of free trade and protectionism, which sometimes had been supported by various elements of the political spectrum and which basically had to do with the elimination of tariffs, et cetera, and applied it toward an entirely new phenomenon that included not just what free trade used to include but entirely new sectors with respect to energy, investment and now services, the latter being the latest addition to what the corporate elite would like to see brought under the authority of these agreements.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas said that he was sad to see that we were debating the free trade agreement of the Americas without the text. It is not a coincidence that we do not have the text. The one time that we did have the text before there was an agreement it was defeated. Somehow the text of the MAI, multilateral agreement on investment, was put on the Internet and everybody had a copy of it. That agreement did not survive because people could actually point to what it was that their governments were planning to do to them.

I do not believe the minister of trade when he says that he would really love to release the text of the draft agreement but he cannot get the other countries to agree. It is clear to me that there is an agreement among all the countries not to release the text. If they release the text they know there would be a lot more people protesting in Quebec City, more than those already planning to protest what it is that their governments are planning to do to them.

It is not just what the governments are planning to do to their citizens in terms of taking away their rights and their ability through their governments to act in the public interest. The real question is: Why do governments want to do this to themselves? It is the most pathetic element of what we have seen in the last decade of the 20th century and what we are seeing more of in the beginning of the 21st century.

When the history of western liberal democracy is written 100 years from now, it will be about the decline of liberal democracy. It will be similar to the books we now read about the decline of Athenian democracy, the decline of the ideals of the Roman republic, or various other historical epochs that started out with an idea which flourished, reached its zenith at some point and then for some reason began to deteriorate.

Since the late 1980s we have seen through the free trade agreements the relentless but willing advocation of power by elected representatives, both by parliamentarians individually and collectively, by democratically elected governments with power vested in them by their citizenry and electorate, to corporations, either to corporations directly or to international or regional trade agreements which embody the values and the interests of those corporations.

The really interesting point for historians 100 years from now will be to try to understand what went on in the 1990s and in the early part of the 21st century, if we survive, if we can breathe the air and drink the water that a deregulated global market economy will bring us. However, if we survive, somebody will be asking what possessed these people to surrender the control of the economy, the trust that had been placed in them by the citizens who voted them into power. What possessed them to give up that power?

That is what people in Quebec City will be protesting. That is what they protested in Seattle and Windsor. They will be protesting at the next meeting of the WTO in Qatar, those who can get there. I will put on the record now that the next summit of the Americas will probably be in the Falkland Islands. These things will have to go beyond being held in artificially created gated compounds. They will have to be held on islands that can be defended by various navies because more and more people are seeing that this is an attack on democracy.

The real shame is that the people who should be in the forefront of defending democracy, the people who are actually elected, are the ones who are being sucked in royally by it. We have heard a lot of that tonight, people getting up and singing the praises of free trade without seeing that they are singing the praises of their own continuing demise as parliamentarians both individually and collectively.

What is this all done in the name of? As I said before, it is done in the name of constraining the power of government. However it is also done from a Canadian perspective, as a Liberal member said earlier, in the name of enhanced market access. The Liberal member who was talking about enhanced market access was talking about enhanced market access for Canadian service corporations.

We are being asked to trade away the mechanisms and the public policy instruments through which we have built up a different kind of society and through which we have regulated the economy in a way that accrued to the public interest rather than the private interest and corporations. We are being asked to give all that up so that our Canadian corporations will not run into similar public policy instruments in other countries.

In the interest of their corporate profits and their profit strategies we are being asked to give up our way of life. That is what it amounts to. We are told that this leads to jobs. It may well do so. If at the same time we have to give up our way of life and give up the possibility of being a distinct country having distinct social and economic values, it will be a classic case of having sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. It will not be worth it.