Debates of April 24th, 2001

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of premises in the hon. member's question that I do not accept. I do not accept that the agreement was arrived at behind closed doors. It was on television. It was as open and transparent as it could possibly be when we had 34 heads of state together in one place. We could not have 5,000 people in the room. We do not have 50,000 people sitting in parliament.

Why will the member not stand here and say that this is an illegitimate organization? Everybody is not in the Chamber. Not everybody can walk in here. The hon. member cannot bring a constituent into the Chamber and neither can I. Why? It is because we need a way to exchange views with one another.

That does not make us illegitimate. We were elected to be there and the leaders of the Americas were elected to be in Quebec City. We need to give them the tools to do the job. The member's suggestion that they are illegitimately there is striking at the very fundamental roots of democracy that the member purports to be in favour of.

I also do not accept the fact that what took place was as a result of pressure from her party. The leadership came from the Minister for International Trade and from the Prime Minister to open up the process. The Prime Minister of Canada does not need the NDP to tell him how to run the country. That is very clear, as the last election pointed out.

The last point about the democracy clause is where I have a fundamental difference with the member. I listened to the speeches of the member's colleagues this morning. The New Democratic Party's position is as simple as this: the NDP says that other elected governments have entered into international agreements which have made them undemocratic. The hon. member does not believe there is a democracy clause, but what the hon. member forgets is that the people who entered into these trade agreements that have been criticized by everyone, including ourselves, were democratically elected governments.

If we choose to give up to international interests some part of our sovereignty to benefit more our citizens through a pooled sovereignty, that is our decision as a democratically elected people to make. That is what was taking place in Quebec City and that is what the member does not like. The member does not like the fact that other people have adopted a system of democracy and values that the member disapproves of.

That does not make them less democratic. It just makes them different. It is that difference in the world that we should be celebrating, not the imposition of one's values on everybody else in the world.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few very specific questions for the hon. member. I would like him to tell me why there were no Liberal members of parliament at the people's summit and at the parliamentary conference of the Americas.

Second, does he not find inappropriate that the final declaration of the 34 heads of state mentions only the inter-parliamentary forum of the Americas, the FIPA, which has been in existence for hardly a month, while there is no mention whatsoever of COPA, which has been highly respected since 1997 and whose membership is much larger and pluralistic?

What does he think about the relations between FIPA and COPA during these negotiations?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief because there are several questions here.

I will leave the debate to FIPA and COPA, because it is somewhat an internal debate, but I suggest to the hon. member that the reason why FIPA has been referred to in the final summit document is precisely because it represents national parliaments throughout the Americas. FIPA was entrusted by the governments to do certain tasks. Therefore, it is quite justified on their part to choose some instrument for doing that.

Can COPA do something else? I totally accept COPA's legitimacy in its area of influence, but I believe we should accept FIPA's legitimacy in its area of influence as well.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion. It is the first time in a long time that all responsible members of parliament can work together to make sure that the consultative process is an open approach, one which was initiated by the government and will continue in the future.

As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I have had the privilege of travelling across this country to hear representations from Canadians who belong to every sector of society. Some who take a cynical approach to the government went through this exercise merely to pay lip service. However, I can assure the members of the House that every view was represented in the completed reports.

Also, I believe it would be a fairly accurate guesstimation that at least 60% or more of the committee's time has been spent listening to the many well informed Canadians whose careers are directly linked to the study of the economic implications to business as well as labour in regard to the trade agreements into which Canada enters.

In November 1999 Canada hosted the FTAA ministerial in Toronto. Canada supported a civil society forum which was arranged by a coalition of hemispheric organizations to parallel the Americas business forum. A record 22 FTAA ministers and country representatives were there to hear civil society's views and recommendations on trade and investment, labour standards and poverty reduction.

The thing that really puzzles me about the Bloc members is that Quebec elected members from the Bloc to represent them in all international fora, so I do not really understand why the Bloc feels there should be 10 provincial negotiators at the table along with the federal negotiators. Do they also believe that the United States should have 50 negotiators along with their federal negotiators and that as well there should be additional state negotiators for every country in Central and South America?

This is a federal jurisdiction. Canada strongly believes that a more democratic, prosperous and equitable hemisphere can be achieved only if all sectors of society are involved in its construction.

Once again, Canada has proved to be in the vanguard in promoting greater inclusion and engagement. At the summit of the Americas, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Cooperation and the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa were joined by high level representatives from 20 countries and 5 international institutions to meet with more than 60 representatives of civil society networks, groups and associations. These representatives, who have been closely involved in the development of the summit's action plan, came from across Canada and across the hemisphere.

Also, in October 2000 Chile requested that Canada participate in a two day workshop in Santiago to share our experience in consultations with other countries looking to develop their own expertise in consultations via new systems, organizations and/or mechanisms.

Earlier I referred to the cynics. I must confess that at times I sound somewhat more like a cynic than a team player. The patience of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has not gone unnoticed, especially by me, but I also must confess that I am more of a believer than I have been in a long time because I have seen the result of the consultations and of the reports that come out of foreign affairs.

Not only has the government been open and transparent in preparation for all its trade debates, it has been inclusive. Every citizen has had an opportunity to participate.

There was a comment made from the member across the way that the chair was on the inside track. It would be nice if we could all be on the inside track, but it would be totally and completely unmanageable. I cannot think of anyone I know who can better represent or who should be more on the inside track than the chair of the foreign affairs committee.

I would like the member to know that neither she, her party nor anyone else has the monopoly on caring about social issues, labour conditions or environmental conditions. No one has more of a monopoly on this than our chair does. He is diversified. We cannot all be on the inside track, for a couple of reasons. Sometimes we are not all capable of comprehending it. He was elected to do that and elected to chair the committee.

Canada has set the standard for all FTAA participants. I believe that we as Canadian parliamentarians can be very proud of that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague opposite who is still wondering why Quebec wants to send its own negotiators to these major international tables.

I would like to put a question to the member. First, does the member truly believe that Quebec is a nation? If she answers yes to this question, and I would ask her colleague, the parliamentary secretary, not to slip her the answer, if she believes that Quebec is a nation, does she not think that nations should be present at international tables to defend their own interests?

I would like her to answer the first question. If her answer is yes, then, of course, she will have to say that Quebec should take part with the other nations.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I believe Canada is an inclusive nation of which Quebec is a very, very important part.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is why the Bloc Quebecois has 38 members in this House. Despite the consensus reached by everyone in Quebec, from the Quebec Liberal Party to Mario Dumont, members opposite refuse to acknowledge that Quebec is a nation.

As long as the members opposite maintain this kind of behaviour towards Quebec, there will be in this House members to defend Quebec at the international level and members to defend Quebec at the summit of the Americas.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga wish to reply?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was totally irrelevant.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today, as there is something rather interesting and symbolic in my doing so.

Three years ago, coming back from the Easter recess, I had been a parliamentarian for two years at the time, I was expressing concern, as I am today, about the widening gap between the rich and the poor. In an attempt to spark a societal debate on the impact of the globalization of the economy and on our political power, I picked up my seat and took it out of the House of Commons to give it back to my constituents. That was three years ago. In a sense, today is the anniversary of my action.

The summit held in Quebec City last weekend was also an important event. I went just about everywhere in the city, among other places to the parliamentarians' forum. I was greatly pleased to hear everyone talk about globalization or continentalization. In short, I think the debate got off to a good start. I do not mean to say that it was my doing, but anyway there is an interesting symbol in this whole issue. I am happy that we are debating it and that it was raised by the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Joliette. So there are positive aspects.

Other aspects remain disturbing however, as we saw during the weekend. I had the opportunity to participate in the forum of parliamentarians, but I also took part in Saturday's march. I spent the whole week with friends from the Lac-Saint-Jean area who have an apartment very close to the security perimeter, which enabled me to play the role of observer.

I think everyone here will agree that our role, as parliamentarians, is to observe what goes on in the field and to come back here with a good understanding of the events that are taking place in our society.

I must say that my weekend was very enlightening, although sad at times. I already said that I was pleased with certain things I saw in the media. Granted, there was way too much emphasis on vandalism, but there were reports on television, on the radio and in the newspapers on the impacts of globalization and of the huge societal changes that we are going through.

In this regard, there is a certain awareness on the part of the people. Close to 40,000 people marched peacefully in the streets, and I must insist on the word peacefully. Unfortunately, there was another segment of society that had chosen direct action and violence. It is totally inappropriate and it diminishes the quality of the message that those who marched peacefully wanted to send because they were critical of the way globalization and continentalization were being pursued. We must realize that a lot of things happened.

I will continue to try to understand what motivated the vandalism. Unfortunately, a number of violent protesters did not know exactly why they were doing what they were but they were doing it to confront the police. Others were there because they thought it was the only way. Again, I strongly condemn such actions.

Recently, someone said to me “Listen, Stéphan, do we not have the population, the youth that we deserve?” After thinking it over, I said to myself “Maybe. Maybe we should think about things like that”. In short, this is part of the joy of politics. The sociological aspect of such phenomena must be taken into consideration.

There was nevertheless an interesting aspect. Whether they are demonstrators in the street, rioters or people who got inside the perimeter, they all talk about the distribution of wealth. They all talk about the protection of environment, about enhanced democracy. So there seems to be a societal consensus about the goals that we must reach.

There are, however, divergences about the means to reach that end. Some people say that free trade will lead us to our ruin, while others believe it will bring prosperity.

Whatever the results, I believe that the debate is expanding. However, we, as parliamentarians, should examine the issue more thoroughly. Again, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Joliette, for having organized the forum of parliamentarians.

There is a group that has made itself visible in a special way this week. I am referring to parliamentarians, namely members of COPA, who have really indicated what was important in the whole negotiating process. I am not referring here to democracy clauses in each country as they were discussed during the weekend, but to the whole continental process, which is short on openness, consultation, debate and dialogue. I am convinced of that.

Of course, the civil society should be included, but so should the parliamentarians. If they are not, we have a serious problem. We do have a serious problem now, because they are not included at present.

Fortunately, because of this we have had new initiatives like COPA, which has been trying for three years to get parliamentarians of the various provinces and countries together to have a whole range of opinions. We can have a debate in this parliament among ourselves, but, if we are to have a complete picture of the situation, it is essential to have meetings with parliamentarians from other countries of the Americas to sketch out the kind of society we want.

We may be talking about a trade agreement, but as far as I am concerned, we should be talking more generally of the exchange area of the Americas. Exchanges are not restricted to trade, but include knowledge, culture, politics and social issues. We all stand to benefit from increased exchanges.

However, we need rules. This is why I am very uneasy with the term free trade. Does this mean we should have a free market without any rules, environmental rules or social rules? I hope not. I hope this is not what our leaders have been discussing during the weekend.

I support trade, but trade should be fair, with sustainable development, a development that is respectful of people and of the environment. To have this, we need agreements for the Americas. We have to negotiate and discuss this. It is a great proposal. In fact, it is such an ambitious project that it encompasses the richest country in the world and one of the poorest. Some people believe that it will be totally impossible to reach an agreement, but at least there is some dialogue going on.

Call me naive or utopian, but I believe that some day we might have a trade area of the Americas where there will be cohesion, wealth redistribution, greater democracy, an environment agenda and many more great things.

There appears to be agreement that parliamentarians should work together. I am the international co-operation critic for the Bloc Quebecois and I happen to believe that we need interparliamentary co-operation not only in the Americas, but throughout the world, a world of global markets.

Since we have more and more concerns that reach beyond the walls of this parliament, we need discussions and exchanges of ideas that also reach beyond this parliament, hence the emergence of parliamentary associations.

There is however a barrier to interparliamentary co-operation. The language, of course, can be a barrier and it can be quite a challenge. If fact, I have promised some of my parliamentary colleagues to try to learn Spanish during the summer, because it is a beautiful language and it could help me to better understand my Latino colleagues.

Another barrier to interparliamentary co-operation is the distance, although we probably have the technology to overcome that.

The time has come to use technology to promote democracy. The time has come for parliaments in the Americas and throughout the world to get the telecommunications tools they need to hold virtual parliamentary sittings in which some thirty people, including members of the civil society, could take part. We could also have regular sessions to examine some issues in depth, thanks to all the technology we now have. The time has come to take this step, which is why I have become an advocate of virtual parliamentarism.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me a chance before one of the hon. member's colleagues, but I am sure we will all get a chance to participate in this very interesting and worthwhile debate, which was the idea of my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette.

Of course we do support the main motion, because we feel that what the main motion calls for we have been doing for some months, are doing now and will continue to do. The government will support the main motion, but it will not support the amendment, for some important reasons.

The member who just spoke said some argue that free trade will bring prosperity while others argue that it will bring the opposite, poverty. I would like to give him the thoughts of two world leaders and ask him to react.

First, I agree with those who feel that it will bring prosperity. I feel that is the proper conclusion. What the president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, said to the protesters in Quebec City who were there to speak on behalf of the less developed countries of the Americas, was this: let us choose. He said “we are the democratically elected leaders of those countries so let us choose what is right for our people, and we are accountable to those people”.

I wonder what my colleague thinks of the remarks of Mr. Fox and also of the remarks of Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, who said recently in his report that the best thing we can do to help the less developed countries of the world is to globalize and liberalize trade. He even quantified that and said that would ensure $100 billion in aid to those countries.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could react to the comments of Secretary General Annan and President Fox.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not said that I was opposed to free trade. I only said earlier that some people had concerns regarding free trade.

It is obvious that the globalization or continentalization of the economy has the effect of increasing competitiveness, for example. This has consequences attached to it. When competitiveness is pushed to the limit, companies, which are profit driven, are sometimes compelled to reduce wages and to operate from countries where the environment is not respected. This will also create a tax competition between states. To attract investors, companies do not want to pay any taxes or very little. However it is with tax money that health care and education are financed.

I think that this type of pressure exists. I am not saying that this is exactly what will be happening, but the tendency is there. This is why I say that governments and parliamentarians must remain strong to ensure that the rules of the game are set out.

I agree with the member, and probably with Kofi Annan, when he says that trade brings prosperity. I recently travelled to Chile with the Minister for International Cooperation. It is true that Chile is one of the most economically integrated countries in the world. There is a middle class in Chile. I admit it. I do not believe that everything should be either black or white in politics or in the economy.

Right now, there are signs of concern. Some say that investments from the north will bring prosperity to the south, and that is possible, but there are other elements that have to be taken into consideration such as education, for example.

One of the objectives that northern countries must set themselves is to ensure that the countries we deal with provide access to education. It is absolutely essential. To become a developed and democratic society, education is absolutely necessary. We cannot have globalization with countries that are not even able to provide education to their young people, the new generation.

It might not be in the text of the agreement itself, but this absolutely must be taken into consideration.

We must pay attention to what people say in the street. We cannot say that they are anti-globalization, a word I dislike. It is not true that people are against globalization. They are against the way it is happening. We must be careful with the words we use.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the speech made by my colleague, who said that language, whether we want it or not, can be somewhat of an obstacle to negotiations and trade.

Again, I see the parliamentary secretary saying no. He pointed to the interpreter a few moments ago. If that is not an obstacle, how can he explain the fact that his government mentioned translation problems as a reason not to release the documents to be used in the negotiation of a free trade area of the Americas on the eve of the summit? Is this not real proof that it can be an obstacle?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, the government insulted our excellent translators and interpreters. They are able to translate the debates simultaneously, but we were told that it was impossible to translate a 900 page text in more than a week. Come on. The people from Ottawa smiled when they said that.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly having a great debate here this afternoon.

The Bloc supply day motion is that we put in place an ongoing and transparent process by which parliament is informed of the negotiations concerning the establishment of a free trade zone of the Americas, whereby parliament can debate and society can be consulted.

I am not quite sure exactly what they mean by consultation of society. I certainly agree with the reference to parliament. Parliament has to be involved. We, the elected members of parliament, are the representatives of the people. We get a lot of feedback. As a result, parliament should definitely be consulted in this process.

It is certainly my understanding that the text of the agreement is to be released once the translation is complete and the release of information or any changes certainly should be made public. We stand for that four-square. There also has to be input by parliamentarians, which I have referred to and which the motion of course is asking for.

It is Canadian Alliance policy that treaties like the free trade agreement of the Americas be brought before the House of Commons for a vote. Deciding on proceeding with trade agreements should be decisions made by parliament and not by the personal prerogative of the Prime Minister.

We should have increased openness. It would help the negotiation of free trade agreements by decreasing public suspicion and increasing public awareness and knowledge.

We should also have increased public debate facilitated through the House of Commons. That would offer practical improvements to Canada's negotiating position, which might not have been thought of if the negotiations are done in secret.

The whole issue of trade is that countries that do a lot of trading with their neighbours and friends around the world are those countries that increase the wealth for all of their citizens. We have seen that here in Canada. One of the best examples I can think of that relates exactly to central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, was the 1960s auto pact agreement whereby there was free trade between central Canada, Ontario and Quebec especially, and the United States. For many years Ontario has seen the highest incomes in the country. That is due to the trading relationship Ontario was able to enjoy. All Canadians should be able to enjoy that kind of free trade.

On the basic concept of free trade not only am I personally in support of it, but free and increased trade is what the Canadian Alliance stands for. We see that need for open and freer trade also applying to agriculture.

We have seen quite an improvement with the cattle agreement we have with the U.S. Last year over 200,000 head of feeder cattle came up from the northwest corner of the United States to be fed in Canada. That created wealth for the Americans. We outbid their ranchers on the price of the cattle. We brought them here, fed them and added value. Some of the beef was shipped back to the States and some was shipped overseas as finished beef. It is a good example of how trade benefits all of us.

One of the biggest problems with trade is high foreign subsidies for agriculture. High tariffs restrict imports into countries and, in their case, restrict exports as well.

One of the great advantages of freer trade around the world, not only the WTO but in this case the free trade of the Americas, is that countries considered second and third world countries, whose economies have not yet fully developed and which have not been in a good trading relationship with the rest of the world, will find their citizens on the whole are much better off and enjoy a higher standard of living. Not everyone will drive a car or have a yearly income of $50,000, but the situation in many of these countries, where some people live in slums and garbage dumps, will come to an end if their economies grow. Part of that can be achieved through free trade.

We will accept some of these countries' agricultural products. I bring up agriculture because I am the chief agriculture critic for my party. Importing agricultural products is good. Some countries do not have a lot of high technology exports to send us but they do have agricultural and low end commodities. In return, as their wealth increases, we can sell more to them and thereby create wealth.

The NDP like to think of wealth as a static kind of thing. There is a big ball of wealth and it is all about fighting for a piece of that ball. The Canadian Alliance clearly believes and understands that the ball of wealth can grow and grow until all people around the world have a decent standard of living with health services. That is why we so strongly advocate trade.

Canada has a few problems with its trade position. I use the example again of P.E.I. potatoes. The rules based trading that should be in place is not working to its full extent. We must recognize that any trade agreement must include dispute settlement mechanisms and that the parties must live up to their trade agreements. The Americans are artificially using a disease problem as an excuse to bar imports of P.E.I. potatoes into the U.S. That is wrong.

The way to deal with that is to use the dispute settlement mechanisms we have under the agreements. The government should establish a good working relationship with our trading partners but we instead see the government fighting with our trading partners. Brazil is a good example. The United States is another. These issues should not be escalating into trade actions. They should be worked out on a bilateral basis between neighbours and friends before they become bigger problems.

The issue of state trading enterprises will be coming up in the free trade of the Americas. Canada's FTAA position regarding this will probably be identical to its WTO position. The big example in Canada is the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the monopoly buyer of grain in Canada. However, when it markets our farmers' grain around the world it is no longer a monopoly but just one of many sellers.

The questions then become: How much of a price can the wheat board get? Can it get a better price or do a better job of marketing than a grain company or other grain broker? A situation may develop where the board and its directors, except for two of them, may say that the monopoly must be maintained because it is the only thing.

We see in the WTO talks that trading monopolies or state trading enterprises are not conducive to freer trade around the world. The wheat board is wrong on that basis but it is also wrong in that many farmers do not want its monopoly to continue. The Canadian Wheat Board artificially distorts trade because the government is imposing its agenda on it.

I will touch on one last thing. The organic growers are represented by Carol and John Husband, Arnold Schmidt and Ron Tetoff. These people have developed overseas markets for their organic grain. They are being forced to go through the wheat board to get a buy back on it, and that is dead wrong. We have many farmers, including Art Mainil in Weyburn and Barry Farr, who want the voluntary wheat board brought into play. We will see that negotiated in the upcoming free trade of the Americas agreement.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member across the way who talked about the Canadian Wheat Board.

We must first understand that the Canadian Wheat Board is not the same as it was in the past. It is not only a crown corporation that has five members appointed by the government, it now also has 10 members who are elected by the farmers.

Canada has a reputation for selling food products, and in this case grain products, that are second to none. The Canadian Wheat Board has done an admirable job in the past, is doing so in the present and will continue to do so in the future.

The member across the way seems to think that all farmers out west want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. I have had the opportunity as vice-chair of the standing committee on agriculture, along with the member opposite, to hear farmers out west. That is where the debate is going on right now.

The member across the way should give the wheat board a chance now that its officials are elected by grassroots farmers. He should give it a chance to change itself from what it has been as a crown entity.

The United States has consistently gone after the Canadian Wheat Board. Why has it done so? Does the U.S. really think our wheat board is a bad thing or does it want it abolished because it does a good job for farmers out west?

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance and I are not advocating doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a co-operative agency through which farmers can voluntarily market their grain.

The Canadian Wheat Board had 55 years to show its worth. We have seen that the wheat board no longer sells many of the grains and commodities it once did because there is a better way to market those commodities. Oats are a good example. We will not see anyone fighting to have those grains marketed again by the Canadian Wheat Board.

The federal government, for whatever reason, thinks it must retain control of wheat and barley so it can sell wheat to foreign countries like North Korea for $1.50 a bushel and make western Canadian farmers pay for it. That is what is wrong.

Of the 10 elected members of the Canadian Wheat Board, two have been elected to represent the thousands of farmers who want choice in marketing. It has nothing to do with ideology. It should have nothing to do with the government forcing a marketing agency onto farmers. It should be about an individual farmer who has $1 million or thereabouts in assets being able to do the best for his farm economically. The university educated farmers we have today are far better at marketing their products than some colossal monopoly that says one size fits all.

The Canadian Wheat Board must become voluntary. If it does not happen today, I will keep working tomorrow and the day after that until it does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on behalf of the people of Surrey Central on the timely motion by the third party:

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.

The Bloc is using the summit of the Americas as a catalyst to put the spotlight on parliamentary reform. The Canadian Alliance, along with other parties, has been pushing the government to change the way we govern ourselves in this place.

The motion today is very much in sync with our agenda. The Canadian Alliance wants three things from the government as a result of the successful summit of the Americas. First, we want the text of the proposed free trade agreement of the Americas released once its translation is complete. Second, we want information regarding changes to the agreement to be made public. Third, we want input by parliamentarians. We understand it has not been easy to translate parts of the agreement, but this is a requirement of the motion and the government must comply.

Finally, in the spirit of democratic parliamentary reform we think it is time to force the government to include the House of Commons in the negotiation of these types of treaties. A take note debate is simply not enough. When the government makes the decision and then asks the House to debate, that is not democratic.

The summit of the Americas is particularly important to Canadians because Canada has $42 million invested in the Americas outside the U.S. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free. Canada exports 45% of the GDP, so it is very important that we discuss the issue in parliament.

The Canadian Alliance recognizes the enormous benefit of free trade to our country. It will broaden our trading rights. It is mutually beneficial to participating countries. It gives consumers a better choice of goods and services at cheaper prices compared to tariff protected economies. It helps us get value added products. It helps bring about prosperity and development in Canada. It enhances freedom of enterprise, democracy and good governance. It enhances the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money. It protects intellectual property rights. The discussion of free trade in the House is therefore very important.

Parliamentary debate is also important because a number of questions remain unanswered. Questions about trade disputes, softwood lumber, agriculture and fisheries have not been addressed at all.

Also, what is Canada's role in the FTAA? We do not yet know. What are the benefits versus the costs of dealing with those countries?

It is difficult to debate that because so little has been made public by the government. We also need to know what criteria the government is using to promote trade relations in the FTAA. How about our trade policy?

We need to debate these things. We need to know how we will be dealing with or holding those nations accountable for their human rights record, as well as good government practices. How about trade sanctions against any rogue nation?

These things are important, particularly with the increase in organized crime and international crime. We need to know these things, but this weak Liberal government has not given parliament a chance to deal with them.

[The Speaker]

It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.