Debates of April 24th, 2001

Supply

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and I thought it was very interesting that the member who just spoke on the government benches reduced the debate around the FTAA to one simple question: How much sovereignty are we willing to give up to enter into a trade deal? I think Hansard will show that is what the member said.

I have a question for the hon. member. I will take a moment to outline the flip-flops that have occurred. The trade minister created some optimism when he said that by endorsing chapter 11 of NAFTA we would give up too much sovereignty. He is on record as saying we would not sign such a provision in the FTAA agreement or in any other agreement. He said that a year ago. We have seen a flip-flop on that.

The Prime Minister has said that chapter 11 of NAFTA is working well and that we may review it, change it or even sign on to it in the year 2005. What level of sovereignty are we willing to give up to enter into a trade deal? Does he feel chapter 11 of NAFTA would give up too much sovereignty? If so, does he share the concern of growing numbers of Canadians with respect to the most recent flip-flop on the issue by his own government?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question by the hon. member is well taken. Chapter 11 has been somewhat problematic in both the FTAA and the NAFTA. Sovereign nations are starting to face the reality of the sovereignty they gave up to get that deal. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that chapter 11 is somewhat problematic for us. In the event a free trade agreement is entered into in the hemisphere, chapter 11 or the successor version of it will likely get a great deal more attention from the government.

One of the major frustrations in dealing with the Americans is that their trade rules apply for the initial period of the trade dispute and then we go to a dispute resolution mechanism, which is where we all wanted to be in the first place. However the result of that mechanism is like an interim injunction. It is all over once we have our interim injunction and the permanent injunction is somewhat useless after the fact.

I therefore agree in some respects with the hon. member that the clause must be looked at carefully and that other mechanisms can be used. I look forward to her contribution in that respect.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard government members talk about space. I think they are way up in the clouds, and so much so that they do not see things clearly. Actually, they do not see a thing. They have shown a lack of respect for the Quebec government. This is a breach of the integrity and sovereignty of Quebec's jurisdictions.

Will they allow Quebec to participate in the negotiation tables, in all the sectoral groups so that, at last, areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction can be really represented, and their interests really looked after? They are showing us that the only way for Quebec, as well as Canada, to have international negotiations is for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, Mr. Hadfield is up beyond the clouds where transparency is as good as it ever gets for any of us. I listened to the transmission this morning on the CBC and he was looking down on Earth while fixing the Canadarm. He could see an amazing distance, clouds or no clouds.

As to the issue of Quebec being at the table, Quebec is necessarily at every table because it is well represented by the federal government. We are a sovereign nation. We have 10 provinces as far as I know. Every debate about sovereignty has been lost by the side opposite. Quebec will be represented there by the federal government and seems to be doing very well, thank you very much.

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

Madam Speaker, I notice that members have been talking about Colonel Hadfield and his mission to space, although I did not really follow why.

I had the opportunity last week to be in Cape Canaveral for the launch. It was an extremely proud day for Canada. I understand Colonel Hadfield has just completed his second space walk. On behalf of all parliamentarians and people in my riding, I wish him great success. We are extremely proud of his accomplishments. I will leave my comments to that with respect to our astronaut currently looking down upon us.

Let me read the Bloc supply day motion so I can frame the debate.

That the government put in place an open and ongoing process to keep Parliament informed of negotiations to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas so as to allow parliamentarians to debate it and civil society to be consulted before Parliament approves it.

I will be recommending that my colleagues support the motion, although I believe there will probably be an amendment. In general I agree with the process. Parliament should be consulted. We should have an opportunity to debate the agreement here and strengthen it. Canadians across Canada should be consulted before it is approved.

I will talk about three or four things during my 10 minutes. I will talk about free trade agreements in general. I will talk a bit about NAFTA and transparency and I will conclude by talking about the Quebec—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the hon. member sharing his time?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe I am. I will talk a bit about the Quebec summit and the security that was there, as I had an opportunity to witness it firsthand.

Let me talk first about free trade agreements in general. I and my party believe free trade has been very good for Canada. Under NAFTA, our trade surplus with the United States has been $95 billion. Despite some problems, our trade surplus has been skyrocketing under free trade. I looked at some numbers yesterday. I do not have them in front of me, but our trade surplus has gone up from 1995 to $110 billion or $115 billion. A trade surplus of that magnitude is almost unheard of.

I had an opportunity in Quebec to talk with trade ministers from 34 countries in the hemisphere. They are very excited about embarking upon free trade. It will open up new markets for their small economies. They will have access to the United States, Mexico, Brazil and other larger markets. That is very exciting for them.

President Bush and the Prime Minister said that free trade would bring democracy and greater human rights to these areas. I do not think free trade in itself will bring these things but it will provide us the opportunity to attain them. It will be up to us as parliamentarians to seize that opportunity. The heads of state from these 34 nations have democracy and human rights very much on their minds. As we negotiate these free trade agreements it will be incumbent upon us to ensure we seize the opportunity.

I really do believe all the players will benefit. The global economic borders are now evaporating before our eyes. We are seeing that in the European Union as their trade barriers are evaporating. It is important that we participate in this process and create a larger trading block in our hemisphere.

I cannot emphasize enough that the smaller economies, the smaller countries in the Caribbean community and Central and South America, will greatly benefit from this. In fact, they will probably benefit most.

I would argue that our experience with free trade has been very positive. I know that some of my colleagues in the NDP have raised concerns and they do not believe in free trade. Yes, there have been a few cases under chapter 11 on the investment protection measures. There need to be some measures. We can debate that. We can have that ongoing public debate. It would be very positive for Canada.

Let me talk a little about transparency. The Bloc motion is really focused on the transparency issue. I argued with the minister and I was with him in Buenos Aires when we were successful in getting the text of the FTAA released. We should be proud of what we are doing. We should not be afraid. If we do not release it then some of the anti forces we saw in Quebec will be out there spinning it, turning it and not giving out the real information.

Our job as parliamentarians is to make sure we get the text out to the public, and in regard to the parts we do not agree with, to engage in that debate and put forward constructive solutions.

It is very important that it be ongoing as negotiations progress in the next four or five years. It is very important that this transparency not be just a one-off right now. It is important that we get updates as negotiators scrap parts of the text and bring in new parts, because it will change very much as it evolves over the four or five years. It is important that we engage the civil society in that open and public debate. It would be very positive for all of the countries and would definitely result in a much more positive free trade agreement.

I want to talk a little about what I observed in Quebec. This needs to be said. I had the opportunity to be in Quebec City for the summit. I had an opportunity to speak with a lot of people. I had dinner with Don Evans, the U.S. secretary of commerce. I had some very positive discussions.

I watched the media all weekend long and all I saw were the protesters and demonstrators. I first want to say that on Saturday in Quebec City I had a meeting outside of the security area. When we came back in we were caught up in literally tens of thousands of demonstrators. They were demonstrating very peacefully. They were marching and expressing themselves in a very peaceful manner. There were masses of people.

The picture painted of the protesters was that they were violent. Some were very violent and I will get to that in a minute. However, 98% or even more were demonstrating in a very responsible and peaceful manner, as they should in Canada and as they have a right to do. We not only accept that, we encourage it, because that is how we get feedback. These people are part of civil society. We had part of the business community giving input as well as the demonstrators. That was not said at all. I was right in the middle of it. They were having parades far away, and some quite close, but in a very peaceful manner.

I will now talk about the 2%. They were absolutely crazy. I have no problem in saying that. They were insane. I watched them. These people threw bricks, bottles and everything imaginable at the police. The restraint shown by the police was phenomenal. I absolutely applaud the security.

Some are trying to turn the summit security into a political matter. My colleague for Burnaby—Douglas is calling for an inquiry. I do not support that at all and I want to be on the record as saying that. Security is not a political decision. Security is something we should leave to the experts and the police forces. The RCMP, the provincial police in Quebec, the military and the municipal police force from Quebec City were working together. They took proactive measures.

They did a very good job. We felt very safe, secure and comfortable walking around inside the perimeter. These people took abuse in a few areas from about 500 or 1,000 incredibly violent people who were absolutely crazy. That is not acceptable in our country.

Our police should have taken action. They should have taken the measures they did. I watched them from a few blocks away as we went into the convention centre. I want to be on the record as saying that they did an outstanding job. It was very impressive and I support their efforts.

I will conclude by saying I support the Bloc motion. It is very important that parliament engage in this debate, that this is open and transparent and that we be proud of the agreement. We need to engage in a positive dialogue in regard to the parts we do not like and we need to offer constructive solutions. It is most important that the transparency and openness be ongoing. It is most important to ensure that as negotiations move forward in the next three, four and five years, leading up to 2005, we keep this engagement and engage the business community, the NGOs, the civil society, all the people involved in this, and most important, the elected representatives of the people. We need to listen to their concerns.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, so much for the official opposition. After hearing the comments of the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance in the debate today, I must say that the difference between the positions of the so-called official opposition and the government is indistinguishable.

It is very interesting and ironic to note that both the government and the opposition are now hiding behind saying “This is good for you. This is good for democracy. This is good for the environment. This is good for education, health care and our water”. In actual fact, just the opposite is true.

It is astounding to hear the line being peddled today by the government and the opposition, which is that the FTAA is so good for us. In a column that the leader of the Alliance wrote just a couple of days ago, he actually had the audacity to say that the FTAA also means good health, education, a clean environment, good working conditions, justice and human rights.

Where have these people been? What have they been reading? Any objective analysis tells us that the FTAA is about transferring rights to fewer and more powerful corporations. It is not about the distribution of wealth among people. It is not about a clean environment or labour standards or protecting our public services.

I would like to ask the member to explain to the Canadian public how his leader and his party can come to the astounding conclusion that somehow the FTAA is going to improve working conditions when there is nothing in the agreement that will actually lay out standards to ensure that workers' rights are respected in any of the countries that are now part of this agreement. It seems to me that this line being peddled is exactly the same line the government is using and that the government and the official opposition are in cahoots on this agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that we just need to look at the record of NAFTA. It has been very positive for Canada. We have a trade surplus of over $100 billion each year with the United States. Mexico's economy is growing even more rapidly than Canada's. Mexico started much further behind, but as a result of NAFTA the Mexican economy is growing incredibly rapidly. Literally tens of thousands of jobs are being created in Mexico and people's livelihoods are improving. Along with that comes health care and education.

We can talk about the rhetoric of the NDP member. We live in a democracy. We in the Canadian Alliance are very proud that we have been promoting free trade since the beginning of the Reform Party all the way through to today. We are very proud of that and people elect us on the platforms for which we stand. We stand in the House with 66 seats. I would remind the hon. member that her party has 12.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thirteen.

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

Thirteen. I apologize. She is correct.

I would also like to remind the hon. member that her NDP cousins in British Columbia are in the middle of a provincial election campaign. The election will be held on May 16. Let us see how her NDP cousins make out in British Columbia on May 16, because they are standing on these policies and the people get to decide.

I am very proud to stand up and say that I believe free trade is great for Canada. It will create meaningful, lasting jobs. I think it will help our people; I really do. I applaud the Bloc Quebecois for bringing the motion forward, because openness and transparency are needed. This has not been open and transparent up to now. I appreciate that the text is about to be released, but it is very important that openness and transparency are ongoing. We have nothing to hide. There is no veil to hide behind. I believe this is very good for Canada and Canadians. The record speaks for itself.

We hear the rhetoric that comes from the New Democratic Party. It is just fearmongering, based on no facts at all. Again, I will very proudly stand up in the next election and campaign by supporting the free trade agreement of the Americas, as the heads of state of all 34 countries are engaging in these discussions. They are all engaging in the discussions and are all very positive that this would support their countries. They have all been democratically elected. It is very encouraging to me.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member why, in their election campaign, the reformed Alliance people had absolutely zero in their platform. What they did have was in section 96 of their leaked document, the leaked document to candidates, which was a so-called secret document. They had some reference with respect to free trade in the Americas, but they had nothing, diddly-squat, in the election platform itself. I wonder why they did that. Is that typical of their modus operandi?

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

Madam Speaker, the way the question is framed and the language that is used is very indicative of how the member wants to play partisan politics. I am trying to put forward constructive solutions. Again, I emphasize that both the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance have been some of the first people out there supporting free trade. We are very proud of it. We will continue to do so for all Canadians.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this bill.

I would like to tell the member from the opposite side who just got up that if he had some intelligence he could read the blues and everything and he would probably find out what our position was, which we articulated very well in the last session.

On rising here I do not know who to take to task, the government or the NDP. However, I will make my points and try to debate this issue more intelligently than has been done here with the rhetoric that has been going on.

Globalization is here to stay. It does not have to be a case of winners and losers. I believe it can make winners of all of us, but for that to happen, our government, all the groups and all the international agencies must recognize their responsibility to educate and inform the public.

While the motion talks about free trade of the Americas, the protests and the issues raised in Quebec City touched on the broader issue of globalization. A lot of people were protesting and, I must say, protesting peacefully. I will address my remarks to the issues of those who were protesting peacefully. They brought forth the concerns of globalization, which are part and parcel of the creation of a free trade zone. They tried to lump everything under a trade agreement. They felt all the concerns they had, created by globalization, should be addressed under a trade issue. That is where we differ and that is where we feel the approach they have taken is not the right approach.

Globalization is here to stay. Groups and governments must recognize their responsibility to educate and inform the public. This world of information left by our governments, international organizations and business leaders have given footholds to non-governmental organizations and other organizations.

These groups have banded together and have called themselves the civil society. They have gained tremendous influence in the last decade. The problem is that these are unelected, unaccountable and self-interest groups that have successfully tapped into the fields brought about by the uncertainty of global trade or globalization.

An example of the power of the so-called civil society is the government's $300,000 donation to the people's summit, the gathering of civil society to protest negotiations in Quebec City. Similarly, the publicity given to protesters in Seattle, which I witnessed firsthand, demonstrates the powers of this organization. I feel many of these organizations have legitimate concerns. I would even agree that the NDP may at times have some legitimate concerns. However, in general, where they are trying to address this issue under trade agreements is not the right approach.

I attended the WTO summit in Seattle in December and recently, with the Canadian parliamentary delegation, I spent many hours with international organizations in Geneva. I met with officials from the ILO, the WTO, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Commission for Refugees.

At this time I must say that I was a little disappointed with our representative in Geneva, Ambassador Sergio Marchi, who, in obtaining the position of ambassador, is supposed to be non-partisan. I found him to be the most partisan ambassador I have ever encountered in my meetings with officials. I feel it is disgraceful to be partisan when one is in that position.

Nevertheless, in my meetings with the United Nations' officials, and especially the international labour organizations, I came back with a very disturbing observation. These are international organizations that have been mandated to address the issues of labour, environment and human rights and, in talking with them, my conclusion was that these organizations were 10 years behind what is going on in the streets of Seattle, Quebec City and anywhere. They are not even addressing the issues of labour standards, the issues of environment or any other issues.

Because the government has failed to hold these international agencies accountable, it has led to the rise of groups, which want to address these issues, taking these issues to trade tribunals and clouding the importance of the issue of free trade. Free trade has been in the world for a long time. We have been trading with everyone and we will continue trading. Nothing will stop us.

We keep hearing our colleagues in the NDP say that they do not mind trade but then they suddenly do mind all the other issues. I say that they do not go hand in hand. The labour issue needs to be addressed but they should campaign other bodies that will address those issues. Instead they try to put the burden onto one body, which has become a successful body. If they do have questions they should hold the United Nations and those types of organizations accountable. They should ask them to address the issues that need to be addressed and that they have been talking about.

I want to talk for a second about the FTAA and the failure of the government to communicate what the FTAA is all about. The debate we have had in the House has been nothing but huffs and puffs, where we stand up, we talk about it and the parliamentary secretary listens to it but no one cares. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee, under whom I work, has held FTAA hearings and even WTO hearings. We have listened to the groups. The Minister for International Trade said that he has listened. However we know on this side who has been talking about these issues. The Liberals have not listened. They only allow others to huff and puff to let off steam. The protests we have had are a message that something is seriously wrong.

Before the government signs the FTAA agreement will it bring the agreement into the House so parliamentarians can discuss it and ratify it, and not just sign it and say that the deal is done? It should bring the agreement into parliament and let the elected officials, those who are the actual voices of Canadians, talk about it, debate the issues that are important and then say that we agree or do not agree with the agreement. That is the commitment we want from the government.

If the government believes in transparency, it will bring the agreement to parliament and allow parliamentarians to discuss it before it is ratified.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Calgary East. He of course challenged my intelligence, which I always find interesting. Those are the kinds of extremist views and mud slinging that those reformed Alliance are prepared to stoop to.

That aside, he admonished me for not checking the blues with respect to what the reformed Alliance people have been talking about on international trade. I would like to inform him that I have in fact checked the blues. In the recent history of this parliament, the only reference to international trade came from the trade critic, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, on April 2 of this year. He said:

Is the government prepared to tell the Americans that our co-operation with respect to energy and on a pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48th state depends on a positive resolution of the softwood lumber issue?

My question to the hon. member for Calgary East is simple. Is he, along with his colleague, prepared to gamble away oil in this country and tie it strictly and solely to softwood lumber? He represents Alberta. More to the point, he represents Calgary East. Is he prepared to stand today and say that he is in agreement with the trade critic in linking those two issues in that kind of fashion?

I would like to hear his response because these reformed Alliance people always go on about how they think they know what negotiations are all about, how they think they know what trade is all about and how they think they know what is good for business. Let us see whether or not they have the kind of acumen that justifies that kind of statement.

The only reference in the last little while was on April 2 of this year, and he says, “Oh, we have been on record for quite a while saying all kinds of things”. I would like to ask him and challenge him, does he, representing Calgary East, agree with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that softwood lumber and oil should be intricately linked in that kind of fashion?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I said was that the hon. member should be listening at what has been said. It would be my pleasure to say to the hon. member what I said publicly about trade when I was the international trade critic. It would be a nice debate over here.

What the hon. member said shows his ignorance. We have discussed and talked about trade in the House. He finds it difficult to even know what the Alliance has said. We know from the past how partisan he is. I do not think I want to debate with this fellow.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I noted with interest that the hon. member for Calgary East, who represents the Alliance Party, referred to and visited the WTO, and in fact talked with Sergio Marchi at the WTO, who is Canada's representative and the former trade minister for the Liberal government. Mr. Marchi, interestingly I think in the context of this debate around FTAA, said that we should forget any opposition to MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, which had Draconian measures in it, because “the train has already left the station”. In other words, he said that it is too late, that the MAI was going through no matter what and that we should just forget it.

It of course did not. I suppose the view of the four other political parties in this House is that the FTAA is a fait accompli, the train has already left the station. We cannot do anything about it anyway so why are we so concerned.

I would like to ask the member for Calgary East whether he had a chance to ask Sergio Marchi whether the statement made by the former director general of the WTO, which has sent shock waves through the veins of all people in this world that care about democracy, remains the kind of watchword and the driving force of the WTO.

Here of course is that infamous quote “There is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital investment.”

Could the member for Calgary East indicate whether he had a chance to discuss that with Sergio Marchi and whether he is concerned about the fact that these trade deals are being negotiated under that kind of thinking?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the NDP for asking that question.

As I alluded to in my statement, our ambassador at the WTO, who was a former international trade minister, is absolutely partisan. Therefore, he will be holding the views of the government and is not over there as an ambassador listening to everyone else's views, including the NDP.

We must understand that the members of the NDP are elected. They are in the House and are representing some portion of Canadian views that the ambassador should as well be addressing.

With reference to what the leader has said about the statement made by the WTO regarding the democracy issue out there, I would say that there are many issues, such as democracy and health care issues, that have been brought to the table. I agree that those issues should be discussed and addressed but I disagree with the NDP's approach that this should be addressed through the WTO and trade tribunals. That is not where it should be addressed. There are other international organizations, such as the ILO and UNEP, that should be held accountable to address them.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona.

I congratulate the Bloc on bringing forward, in its first opposition day, a motion concerning the Quebec summit so that we can deal further with the issues that are very much on the table with respect to the FTAA.

I have read the motion very carefully and have listened to the comments made by members of the Bloc. I have to say that I think the motion is eminently supportable. It probably reflects the absolute bare minimum of the notion of what a democracy should be and why it is so reasonable for there to be a responsibility on the part of the government to bring it to parliament for full and open debate, what its position is on behalf of Canada, to share that with Canadians widely and for there to be no possibility of signing on to any such deal until there has been that kind of input.

The one thing that causes some concern but also tells us something about where the Bloc really is on the issues of free trade and fair trade, is that the final four words of that opposition motion, which calls for openness and keeping parliamentarians and civil society informed, goes on to say in its conclusion “before parliament approves it”, that is, before parliament approves the free trade area of the Americas agreement. I believe that is probably an honest expression of where the Bloc stands.

We heard with my own ears last week in Quebec City the leader of the Bloc saying quite proudly that nobody should question where the Bloc stood on NAFTA or the FTAA because if it were not for the Bloc we would not have NAFTA in the first place.

The Liberals were opposed to it, at least they said they were until they had the reins of power and then they reversed themselves. And, as the leader of the Bloc said in Quebec last week, it was basically the provincial governments of Quebec and Alberta that made it possible for the NAFTA to go ahead. One would have to say that they made it possible for the Liberals to flipflop on their previous anti-free trade position. I guess that is an honest admission.

What I find distressing and puzzling is how members of the Bloc, who, to their credit, took a major initiative, for which I congratulate them, and brought parliamentarians together from throughout the Americas on the eve of the Quebec summit, could not understand how flawed the trade agreements are? How could they have met and talked with those parliamentarians from many of those other countries in the Americas, go to sessions of the people's summit and not understand how fundamentally flawed NAFTA and the FTAA are?

We have now lived with NAFTA for seven years. What we know for a fact from NAFTA is that we cannot take a leap of faith and say that it is hoped that people will be better off if they go with this trade model. We know the outcome. Despite the sort of vague notion that the people of Mexico would be better off under NAFTA and the FTAA, the reality is that seven years after NAFTA three-quarters of the people of Mexico continue to live in poverty. The real wages of workers in that country are lower than they ever were. Unemployment is rising and environmental degradation is totally horrifying.

Given all of those conditions, instead of NAFTA doing something to assist in raising standards, it has actually had the effect of lowering the standards to the absolute bottom of the barrel.

I congratulate the Bloc for giving members the opportunity to put their positions forward. I want to say that the New Democratic Party takes seriously the commitment that we made when we went to the people's summit as a full caucus, all 13 of us, to participate in the people's march. That commitment was that we would take the concerns that were expressed in Quebec City at the forums and on the streets, and that we would bring them back to parliament. We would continue to push, not for unfettered free trade, which is what these trade deals are based on, but for fair trade. We ran our campaign against the FTAA on that very concept, fair trade not free trade. There is a world of difference.

We need to put forward very clearly that the our position is not one that is anti-trade and pro-protectionism. It is not a position that is anti-internationalism and somehow pro-isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why we welcome the opportunity to put our own position forward, not to have it distorted and represented by others as being somehow anti-trade. That is ridiculous. We know that trade is a critical part of our economy and that trade is a reality.

Our position is one that rejects fundamentally the economic model under which these trade deals are being negotiated. It rejects fundamentally the notion that we should make subservient to trade deals the democratic powers that we need to address the fundamental problems, the biggest problems that we face as a society and that every nation faces, and that is how to develop economies that are based on the notion of sustainability and how to develop economies that put trade, commerce and economic development at the service of people and that recognizes that trade is an instrument to achieve genuine human progress and social development.

We are absolutely unapologetic and resolute in continuing to represent the widely shared concerns that growing numbers of people throughout Canada and the hemisphere have about the model for trade deals that is being embraced so uncritically by the government.

The estimate of the numbers of people who made it to Quebec City, and many more would have been there had the opportunity been available to them, is 68,000 people. The overwhelming majority of those people recognize the importance of trade but want to see a fundamentally different approach. They do not want to see a model that says, based on the astounding description by one of the government members earlier, it is just a deal, that we give up a bunch of sovereignty and then hope that things will be better. That is not the price we should pay to enter into a trade deal.

Our party is categorically opposed to what is now contained in chapter 11 of NAFTA although it seems to be quite all right with the government. The Prime Minister said earlier this week that chapter 11 is working well and that maybe the government would look at it and maybe it would not. It may be in the final FTAA agreement as far as the government is concerned.

This represents an unprecedented transfer of power to multinational corporations that already have astounding power and particularly worrisome astounding amounts of power in developing countries. The poorer countries of America need to be able to use democratic instruments to make progress and to raise their standards.

That is why this has become a discussion about democracy itself. One does not give up democratic powers that one needs to deal with things as fundamental as acting in the public interest when it comes to the environment, health, education and so on. Our party will continue to represent those concerns.

Let me sum up by quoting the Canadian Council for International Cooperation:

The world needs new rules to trade by, rules that reflect common concerns for the welfare of all the people and the sustainability of development and the environment. We are all impoverished if many of us are hungrier and poorer after trade liberalization than we were beforehand.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax for her interesting comments. We are here today discussing the issue of our role as parliamentarians in the trade process and I would like to ask the member a question, given the fact that she is aware of the work that the foreign affairs and international trade standing committee has done in this area.

We have been working on exactly what she says, putting trade in the service of people. Our reports speak of the need to relate trade to the environment, to human rights, and to building democracy. All of us in the House are seeking the best way to achieve those goals. It may be that we differ in our direction in terms of the specifics but the goals remain the same.

Instead of criticizing the summit process she should be saying that the Quebec summit was the first time that we had an opportunity in the Americas to address the very issues that she is raising here. We got a declaration out of there that talks about a democracy clause. We have a plan of action that talks about building health in the Americas and of financing it. Finally we have concrete proposals that look at issues of labour and the environment, and we are getting some real concrete action in this regard.

Why does the member not come forward and say that there is good being done? Why does the member not admit that the government has done great things here? More needs to be done. It always does. Why do we not get some recognition for the positive steps being made?

Most of the members sitting on this side of the House say that the government did a remarkable job of bringing together NGOs, civil society and parliamentarians to come up with an excellent result this time. Why can we not work together to make that result better rather than being critical all the time?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, we accept that challenge. That is why we are working with progressive parliamentarians and progressive representatives from civil society in Canada and across the hemisphere to look for a better approach, to search for a better model and to work together to try to achieve it.

I wish to be very clear regarding some of the things that were announced. Perhaps it was to provide sugar coating, to engage in PR, or to pave the way for the FTAA come hell or high water. I did not hear much at the summit about the actual instruments to do something about addressing the issues affecting the environment or the problems of the growing gap between the rich and poor. I heard a lot of lofty objectives and that is fine. However we cannot allow for the provisions of a trade deal to strip away the ability of democratic governments to raise standards to deal with these things.

It is not about lofty objectives and it is not about giving corporations rights. It is clear that is part of the deal. It also has to be about enforceable provisions to deal with the things that matter to people most in their daily lives. People sit around the kitchen table and talk about real concerns such as their standard of living, their wage levels, their working conditions and whether they have clean air and safe water to drink. People are concerned about whether they have education and health care for their families.

Nothing in the model of free trade being pursued does anything to address the issue of ensuring that existing standards remain, and that those standards would be raised. That is why we keep looking to the European example and we wish the government would pay attention to it. It is based on a democratic process, through a parliament, that sets standards and ensures that trade deals do not erode those standards but in fact are based on the opposite concept.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, a quick answer is that the goal of this proposal is to create a democratic forum for all our discussions. This is quite acceptable.

To be frank, the NPD position seems to be overly simplistic to me. It is the very opposite of the position held by those who think free trade will solve all our problems. Not all the problems we have in our society are caused by the opening up of markets, something that is happening anyway.

Let me conclude by asking a question of the NPD leader. Did she not also conclude from the COPA meeting that parliamentarians, while extremely critical of the current process, should co-operate with governments in order to influence the choices that will be made? Does she agree with such a co-operative approach, even if she is extremely critical of the current process?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, once again I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for facilitating the debate and the discussions among the parliamentarians of the Americas. I think it is a very good idea, as well as an important concept of co-operation.

However, we have to recognize that many of these parliamentarians have raised numerous problems with the free trade model put forward by the Liberals and by the other governments of the Americas. To me, a very important co-operation is the one we have embraced, that is the co-operation between the progressive forces in the Americas.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate today, because as some members will know I was up earlier asking questions of members of the Bloc.

I want to explore the theme of democracy which we find in the motion in terms of trying to set out appropriate process and which we find in the ongoing nature of the debate. The member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale just mentioned the democracy clause.

The debate today is all about democracy. The democracy clause that was adopted in Quebec City, and which has been put forward as such a great accomplishment, is at a certain conceptual level a genuine accomplishment.

There is nothing wrong with the United States of America and for all the countries of the FTAA area to say that they want all the countries who come to the table to be democratically elected. But the absence of military dictatorships is not a guarantee in itself of authentic democracy. It is a bit simplistic, while at the same time being important, to say if they are not a democracy they cannot be at the table.

Our claim is a much different and deeper claim about democracy. This is what I would like to try to explain and which other New Democrats have tried to explain over and over again. It is not enough to just have elected democratic governments. Those democratic governments must have a full range of choices available to them in terms of how they organize their own national economies, how they provide services to their citizens and what kind of demands they can put on foreign investors who are investing in their countries in terms of job performance or environmental regulations.

There is a variety of things that democracies have had at their disposal traditionally, which if these free trade agreements are adopted, as some have already been, this range of options will not be available to these democracies. We say that is not democracy.

One of the reasons there is this tolerance for democracy by the Americans in Central America and South America now is because they have the prospect of free trade agreements and because the free trade ideology has been generally accepted.

When they used to have to have an authoritarian right wing government in order to achieve, they can now do through a free trade agreement. The world is now not safe for democracy, the world is now safe from democracy.

We can have all the elected democracies we like because these free trade agreements have drawn an ideological perimeter around what these governments are able to do. What can they not do? They cannot get in the way of the patent rights of giant multinational drug manufacturers. They cannot get in the way of the producers of various toxic additives to gasoline.

They cannot get in the way of American media interests that do not like the way Canada has subsidized its cultural industries, in particular its magazines.

They cannot get in the way of the freedom of multinational courier companies to make profits. In other words, they cannot do what Canada has done for years, which is to have a public monopoly of the post office and have that public monopoly subsidize other activities of that same post office.

They cannot get in the way of the ability of multinational corporations and others to exploit certain resources, whether they be energy or water.

It is all fine and dandy to have democracies, but if these democracies have to behave in a certain way, and in a certain way only, and if they do not behave in that way they come up against sanctions built into the agreements either by virtue of chapter 11 mechanisms whereby the democracies that do not want to behave in an ideologically correct way are sued or they are challenged in some other way by the agreements, then what is the point of democracy? What is the point of democracy if the only thing we can do is what the corporations want us to do anyway?

I suppose it is better on some level than not having a democracy but it is a pretty limited democracy. That is our point and I think the point of so many demonstrators who were in Quebec City last weekend.

It is not enough just to have elected democracies. If those elected democracies are generally bought and paid for by big corporate donors in their respective countries, as is the case in this country and so many other places, and if even then they have to live by a certain set of rules set down by the corporations that are on the inside of the negotiations and have a very powerful say in what the trade agreements look like, then what kind of democracy is that?

It is almost a ruse. It becomes a kind of sham democracy because so many of the public policy options which were available to governments in the past, and which Canadian governments used in the past to build what most Canadians consider very important to the country, will not be available to the new democracies.

The public policy options that have been established, which are contrary to the ideological correctness built into the agreements, subsequently will be whittled away. They will be challenged through chapter 11. They will be eaten away at through various other forms of harmonization.

That is our contention. I would challenge Liberals to get up and say that they think that is okay. Do they think that the threat to these public policy instruments that Liberal governments used in the past to regulate foreign investment, media and culture and now the emerging threat to our publicly owned health care system and our publicly funded education system, are acceptable?

Is this really what they call democracy, or does democracy really mean having a much greater range of choice when it comes to policies than what the free trade agreements will permit when they are entrenched and what the ones that are already entrenched permit at the moment?

We hear a lot of talk about choice. My Alliance colleagues are always going on about choice, yet they are willing to support free trade agreements which almost eliminate choice; choice for everyone else except government and choice for everyone else except democracies.

Democratically elected governments will have about this much room to operate because everything else will be prohibited by the free trade agreements. I do not call that a democracy.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not take issue with the hon. member's speech in some respects. I appreciate that he has identified some of the frustrations around chapter 11 and around recognition of the devolution of sovereignty in terms of going to free trade panels or some other dispute resolution mechanisms.

What he has not addressed is the central issue of large multinational corporations investing in nations and then having the rules, laws and regulations changed after the fact. This could be any corporation or business, large or small, that has invested in a nation be it Canada or any other nation in the hemisphere. They recognize there is some vulnerability in this investment and some form of legal regime, rules, laws and regulations.

Could the hon. member address the issue of how a capital investment, large or small, could be brought into one of these agreements whereby there would be some comfort to the investor, yet still address some of the issues that he has legitimately raised?