Debates of April 24th, 2001

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point that goes to the heart of the matter in some ways.

What we are being asked to do in Canada is, in the name of protecting Canadian investors who are investing in other countries and that may run up against the very same public policy instruments that Canada has used in the past and in some sense is still using them to further the national interest or act in the public interest or in the interest of the common good, give up those public policy instruments so that Canadian companies will not run into those same instruments in other countries.

This specifically applies when it comes to GATS and health care. ln order to make it possible for multinational health care corporations, some of which may be based in Canada, to have access to what are essentially private health care systems in other countries we are being asked to give up our ability to protect our publicly owned health care system.

I say there has to be a way to have the rule of law in these countries, so that people do not get swindled and have their investments disappear overnight by virtue of some government fiat or arbitrary change in the rules or whatever. There has to be a way to do that so it does not destroy the ability of a democratic country like Canada to employ the kind of public policy instruments which we have employed in the past and which we still employ. To me that is a challenge that can be met.

Instead, under cover of protecting investors' rights in other countries we are being subjected to an ideological battle here at home whereby a lot of the things that people have always been against they are now getting to eliminate under cover of protecting investors' rights in some other country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to my NDP colleague's comments, particularly to his reservations regarding democracy. I think he has raised very relevant questions in that respect.

I will ask a question that might seem off topic, but two years ago, in August, I attended the New Democratic Party Convention. There I witnessed the adoption of a resolution about democracy, recognizing the Quebec people and their right to self-determination.

In contrast, I have also seen many of his NDP colleagues, except for two, support Bill C-20, a government bill which in fact did not recognize the right of the Quebec people to self-determination.

I would like my colleague to explain this contradiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make this short and sweet. We have a fundamental disagreement with the member with respect to Bill C-20. We did not think that Bill C-20 violated the rights of Quebec to self-determination. If we thought that we would not have voted for it.

Instead what we thought it did was set out the process by which the Quebec people could in fact separate from Canada in a way that was fair both to the people of Quebec and to the rest of the people of Canada with whom they had this relationship with for so long.

For us it is a false accusation. We alone for many years, as a political party and long before the Bloc Quebecois came along, were defending the right of Quebec to self-determination. That does not mean it happens in a vacuum. It does not mean it happens without rules. It has to happen in a certain way, and that was our understanding of what Bill C-20 set out.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin debate, I would like you to know that I am planning to share my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.

It is a pleasure to stand today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois opposition motion that the government implement a continuous and transparent process by which parliament would be informed of the negotiations taking place with respect to the creation of a free trade agreement of the Americas, the FTAA, so that parliamentarians may debate and civil society may be consulted previous to its adoption by parliament.

Certainly this is a motion the Progressive Conservative Party supports. I would expect it is a motion that all parliamentarians in the House would support. It calls for an open and transparent process in all debate going on around and about the FTAA, and it asks that we in this place, as elected members of all the regions of Canada, be able to debate this issue. We would have not just a parliamentary committee looking at it, but we would actually be able to debate it and bring all points to the table. Everyone would be represented.

There is no steel link fence several kilometres long around the Parliament of Canada yet, so surely in this place, if nowhere else in the country, we can have free and open debate. Surely in this place we should be able to do that.

As I said, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada fully supports the Bloc opposition motion. The Liberals' transparency on trade issues has been completely non-existent in the last few years. The secrecy of the government, along with its avoidance of parliament on the issue, illustrates a demoralizing trend, which aids and abets the negative view Canadians have of government in general and, I would say, aids and abets the groups opposed to the free trade of the Americas who were in Quebec City, because they do not feel they have enough information before them to speak to this issue. They do not see any format or any vehicle through which to express their thoughts, and that is the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada. It has not provided an alternative vehicle for opposition to the FTAA.

This should not be any surprise, because the government has completely avoided any controversial issue. It does not have open debate. It does not have parliamentary committees that speak to the important issues in this country and that are actually able to come up with some concrete agreement among all the parties, between the government and all the opposition parties, which actually affects the direction the government takes.

It is also very much part of another statement. Where are the new ideas from the present Government of Canada? Where are the new ventures? Where are the bold initiatives that have been taken in this country since 1993? I would challenge the government to stand up and name them.

There will be a period at the end of my 10 minutes for questions and answers, and I would be very happy to hear about the new and bold initiatives the government has taken to assure democracy in this country, to show what it has done on the trade front and to show us examples of where the government has not only shown an understanding of the issue but has taken a leadership position on the issue.

The Quebec summit ended Sunday with 34 hemispheric leaders agreeing to pursue further free trade talks while agreeing to co-operate on a host of other issues. Those are very small steps, but I and most members of the Conservative Party think those are important steps.

Yes, we need to be better briefed. Yes, we need to have this debate in parliament. Yes, there are things wrong with the free trade agreement which we can stand to take another look at. However, those issues are the responsibility of the government.

It is the responsibility of an opposition party to continue to point them out, which we do on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, but it is for the government to respond. If we cannot get the government to move, it is very difficult to formulate new positions and for the government to take on new initiatives.

We have to ask ourselves what was accomplished at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. There were some small things accomplished, but without question the debate here should centre around what was not accomplished. What were Canada's expectations going into the summit and what did we get accomplished coming out of the summit? That is a fair question. I would like to hear the government tell us what was accomplished at the summit.

What was accomplished for P.E.I. farmers? We know that P.E.I. farmers have not been able to ship table potatoes since October. This is fairly simple math. October shipments of potatoes from P.E.I. were stopped. In November there were no shipments, in December there were no shipments, in January there were no shipments, in February there were no shipments and in March there were no shipments. April will pass and there will be no shipments. It is unbelievable that we can take six or seven months out of an economy that is very dependent on the potato crop.

I am talking about the economy of P.E.I. We have four Liberal members of parliament. Where have they been and what have they done to promote the interests of P.E.I. and P.E.I. farmers on the potato issue? The minister of agriculture was not even able to get into the summit. We have asked questions and they have been real questions, unlike those of some of the members from the government side. He was not even able to get into the summit.

The Minister for International Trade had a meeting with the secretary of state responsible for agriculture in the United States, but the minister of agriculture for Canada could not get security clearance. That begs another question. A minister of the crown, a minister of the state in this country, cannot get into the summit of the Americas held in Quebec City. I am astounded and disgusted. It is absolutely not acceptable. It is not an acceptable practice on behalf of the government and it is not an acceptable practice in regard to the responsibility of the minister of agriculture who is in charge of agriculture and hopefully in touch with the export problems facing agriculture in this nation.

That was one issue. No headway was made on it. The Prime Minister's blatant and ineffectual reference to patates au gratin is an insult to P.E.I. potato farmers and to Canadians and parliamentarians in general.

Where was the issue of water? What discussion occurred on water? The Prime Minister made a reference to water and hydroelectric power and said there would be more energy available for the United States. Immediately following the Prime Minister's statement, the premier of Newfoundland said it would not be happening, that the negotiations had not reached that point yet and that there is no agreement with Quebec to transport power through Quebec. This was phenomenal.

With respect to softwood lumber, the maritime accord was not recognized by the government. It allowed a five year agreement to lapse and did not do any work to prevent the lapse of that agreement. What work the government did do was too little too late and ineffectual. Now we are facing countervail charges nationwide, excluding the maritimes. We are facing anti-dumping charges nationwide. We will see some Canadian mills facing anti-dumping charges, with the extreme risk of complete bankruptcy. This is not an issue that the government can afford to look the other way on. This is not an issue that the government can say free trade will deal with. This is an issue that we should have been talking about with the Americans two years ago.

The present government feels it does not have a government in the United States that it can deal with constructively on most issues, but that is no excuse for not dealing with the issue. One deals with whoever is in power in a democratically elected country.

Where is our agreement on energy? Where is our agreement on water? What pressure did we put on the United States to meet its commitments at Kyoto? We have a huge and complicated issue on free trade of the Americas.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's West. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member issued a challenge to our side that I would just love to take up. He asked the government side to respond with one thing that the government had done to show any leadership in trying to bring more transparency to this process.

It was the Minister for International Trade of Canada who led the way in convincing his counterpart ministers from the other countries, at Buenos Aires, to agree to release the text. That is leadership. That is the first answer to his challenge.

The Government of Canada provided $300,000 of taxpayers' money to help fund a parallel summit to involve civil society groups to create more transparency. There is more leadership.

There has never been a trade deal where there has been greater transparency. I issue a challenge to the hon. member. I would like him to stand in his place and tell us one international trade negotiation that Canada has been involved in that has been as transparent as the current one. We will be very interested in his specific answer.

There have been very wide consultations. There have been hearings with the standing committee on trade. There have been subcommittee hearings. There was a meeting in this Chamber, at which I did not see the hon. member, where the parliamentarians of the Americas were here to speak about this trade deal. I was here.

The hon. member talks about P.E.I. potatoes and softwood lumber. All of those issues were raised by the minister of trade and the Prime Minister.

Perhaps if the hon. member's leader had been there to support the minister and the Prime Minister, he would be aware. He is obviously very ill-informed.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am able to say this, but I think the hon. member gives hypocrisy a whole new meaning. We have gone beyond what debate in this place is about.

If you want to look at our leader being there, our critic for international trade could not get in. He asked long ago to be allowed into the summit in order to be an observer and to participate in the meetings that would be held around the issues. He was not allowed in.

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

Why wasn't Joe there?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

How much more petty can you guys get? You cannot get any more petty than that.

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

Answer my question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me remind hon. members on both sides of the House that, first, the question or questions have been asked and I will hear the answers, but I want the answers to be directed through the Chair, not directly across the floor.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. Through you, I will answer the hon. member's questions.

The question was about the Minister for International Trade. The only thing I have seen the Minister for International Trade do is contradict the Prime Minister. Then the Prime Minister comes back and contradicts the Minister for International Trade. We do not know if we have an agreement on water. We do not know if we are going to sign Kyoto. We do not know if we have a softwood lumber agreement. We do not know if the maritime accord will be left out. The government of this country does not know where it is headed.

I will tell the hon. member about transparency. Transparency was a Government of Canada that brought in the free trade agreement and that fought an election on it. Those sitting government members fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and made a tremendous statement that they would not support free trade. They ran an election on it. They completely forgot their election promises.

Now that is about transparency. That is about going to the polls in this country. That free trade agreement the Conservative government brought in is the reason that we have the economy we have today. If we want to look at the benefits of that and at the benefits from a Conservative government that brought in free trade, let us look at what happened provincially.

We saw an increase of 65% in exports for Newfoundland. We saw an increase of 445% for P.E.I. That was before the government refused to work on P.E.I. potatoes and bring in an agreement so farmers could do the job they do best, that is grow potatoes and have a market for them. We saw an increase of 116% in exports for Nova Scotia, 149% for New Brunswick and 209% for Quebec. I could go on and on.

Those are the benefits of free trade. That is democracy in place. That was, without question, a clear and open process that we fought an election on in Canada. The guys who were lucky enough to win in that election, who deluded the Canadian public, have not kept their promises.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me on this extremely important topic.

The last Liberal member who spoke indicated his government's position on this issue. Undoubtedly those members are very much in favour of the resolution. He talked about transparency and continuous information which he feels the government has been giving. There is no doubt about the fact that the party opposite as well as a couple of other parties on this side of the House, along with ourselves, will be supporting the resolution.

If all of us think that the government has been doing such a wonderful job, why is it that the resolution was brought forth? We do have some concerns. Perhaps in its disillusionment the government has lost sight of the fact that what it thinks is clear, continuous and transparent is not clear, continuous and transparent to the public.

We just witnessed a very interesting weekend. People who watched the happenings in Quebec looked at them from two different points of view. Maybe I should say they looked at them from three different points of view.

One group looked at the deliberations that were under way among the leaders of the various democratic countries in the western hemisphere, realizing that if there is agreement in the next four to five years for free trade among all the countries all of us will benefit.

Our party is not one to decry free trade. We were the party that introduced free trade, as my colleague mentioned, much to the chagrin of the present governing party that opposed it to the point where it convinced the people of Canada to defeat the Tory government and pass the reigns of power over to it because it was against free trade.

However we all know and history will show what happened when the Liberals took over. It was the same as when they defeated the Clark government because they did not agree with the gas tax. They failed to say that they did not agree with the amount of tax placed on gas. When they got in power they tripled the amount the Tories had suggested. Consequently they again fooled the people but were in power.

It is irrelevant where they stood at the time. Right now they are supporting free trade and pushing for an agreement with more countries than we presently deal with. That is good for us and good for my province of Newfoundland. As the statistics quoted by my colleague show, we have benefited greatly from free trade.

We sometimes wonder if in pressing for free trade we overlook some of its implications. If we asked government or many of us in the House about free trade, we would say that it eliminates a lot of barriers and creates a better economy in many of the countries involved.

That is the aim of governments such as ours. The aim of politicians such as us is to try to create a better environment in which our people should live, a better environment economically but also a better environment socially, environmentally and in every other way.

Perhaps we dwell on the economic side too much because many of the people who are heavily involved in free trade are people who benefit directly, the large conglomerates, et cetera. There is nothing wrong with that because these are the people who invest and generate dollars that improve the economy generally.

It is government's role to make sure that the economic stimulations that occur from trade benefit the other sectors we talk about in society. In Canada we have done very well, even though there are pockets throughout the country that certainly need more assistance from a social perspective, our health care, education and social needs. This is not because our economy is such that we cannot address these needs. This is because the policies of the government opposite, the lack of foresight, and the lack of ability and will to address the social concerns allow these problems to exist in society.

In the countries that are less well off than we are, where we see great social needs, free trade hopefully will generate the fiscal capacity of many of these governments to address the problems that must be met. As they speak in the House these problems perhaps will be accentuated by members of the NDP who are against free trade because they think it is a negative toward helping people.

It is great to be idealistic socially. It is great to talk about all we have to do for our people, but to be able to do anything for our people we must have the fiscal ability to be able to do so. In order to spend money on health care, education and social problems, social needs, we must generate the dollars first. We must make before we spend unless we do like NDP does quite often, which is spend and then let someone else pick up the pieces afterward.

That is not the way we operate and certainly I have to say not the way the government is operating. If in their policies, if in their moves toward a free trade state in North America they would be open and transparent, all the players could be involved. We could pass along our ideas and suggestions for improvement to the government. They will be talking to the various sectors, not only the huge conglomerates, the multinational corporations, but to the average person in the country, many of whom have some tremendous ideas.

If that had happened prior to Quebec we would not have seen what we did. I said there were three different ways of looking at what happened in Quebec. One is the from the business perspective. Another is from the social perspective as the NDP and many other concerned groups across the country would look at it. I respect their right to have concerns. We also had people who just saw what nobody wanted to see: people throwing Molotov cocktails at police, throwing bricks, throwing chunks of pavement, acting disorderly, breaking windows, tearing shutters from windows and just making a nuisance of themselves.

These were far and few between but unfortunately these things make the headlines. These are the things people saw flashed around the world. Canada is known as a tremendous country where we live together in peace and harmony and show leadership. If I were outside the country looking at what we saw on television, I would be asking if this was Canada, this running from police and throwing rocks at police, et cetera. Let me say again for the record that I thought the police did a magnificent job over the weekend.

If the government had shown leadership in the beginning, had been transparent and awake enough to know that some local issues like softwood lumber and potatoes could be addressed at the conference if we had the right people there, it would not be running at the last minute to try to get the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food through security. It should have been taken care of. There was a lack of foresight and vision.

That is why we are asking that in the future everything it does be transparent and clear so that all of us will know what is going on. If all of us in the country knew what was going on, surely if it is good for the country it is good for the people and most of us would support it. We would not need to have a fence around our leader.

“Elect me so that you can fence me off because I am afraid of you”. There is something wrong with that picture. Leaders of this country or any country should be able to walk among the people they serve, and if the people knew what they stood for they would be able to do so.

My time is up. There is much more I would like to say but hopefully in the future we will have learned from the mistakes of the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member but what I want to do right now is review the facts.

In January of this year, 21,000 new jobs resulted from trade. Let us look at the emphasis we placed on team Canada missions and what that produced. We have gone from trading and exporting 30% up to 43% as a result of the good work of the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the whole caucus in terms of where we are going.

Let us look at two years ago. In 1999 there was $36 billion of direct investment into Canada as a result of trade. We are proactive and we have signed trade agreements with Pacific rim countries, with Central and Latin America, and with places in the Middle East. We are proactive and have the best interests of Canada at heart in this very important issue. This underscores the ability of the government to put the economic fundamentals in place.

I remind the hon. member opposite that while we balanced the budget the Tories left us with a legacy of a debt of $42 billion. When we had unemployment of 6.9%, they had 11.4%. The debt and deficit they left us were outrageous. There were 37 tax increases from 1985 to 1993. What have we done? We have reduced taxes.

Those tiny Tories opposite are the last to lecture us about how to put the economic fundamentals in place. They are the last to lecture us about how to create a vibrant economy.

I found it objectionable the way the hon. member talked about the leadership somehow not being there and as a result there was hooliganism and anarchy. That is a terrible tie and I will explain why. One cannot make those connections.

We had an obligation to provide peace and order. We had an obligation to protect 34 members and heads of state from around the Americas. We had an obligation to ensure that those kinds of measures were taken.

Why would the member make that kind of tie? More to the point, where was his leader when he should have been there in the forefront doing what was best for Canada? Instead, he was out gallivanting around the country.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised at the type of question from the hon. member because he is very supportive of the party in which he sits. I respect that, as he should be.

Some people go overboard and the hon. member certainly has. I agree with him that free trade has been very good for the country and the world. The government is continuously taking new initiatives, which is good. However it is so caught up in patting itself of the back that it is forgetting what to do with the benefits derived from free trade.

This concern has been expressed by all the rest of us because with leadership we could have the best of both worlds in Canada.

Let me comment on the member's statement about the budget. I remind the hon. member that when the Tories took over from the previous Liberal government they were saddled with a huge debt. They had two choices. One was to throw up their hands, ask what they could do about it and make cuts to social programs to balance the budget. That was not done. They made sure social programs were not only continued but enhanced.

However a plan needed to be put in place to address the deficit. What was the plan? The plan was the hated GST, which the hon. member's party campaigned against, won an election on and then moved in and took all the benefits.

The second thing was free trade, which we are talking about here. The member and his party were against free trade. Free trade and the GST, good Tory policies, generated the profits for the Liberal government which helped it balance its budget.

What was the other way the Liberals balanced the budget and added to the surplus? They cut the guts out of health, social and post-secondary education costs.

Two good Tory policies and one terrible Liberal policy helped the government balance its budget. It is in the black today, thanks to the foresight of the Tories.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part today in the debate on the motion moved by the Bloc and amended by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The amended motion reads as follows:

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.

While the Prime Minister would have us believe that he is a champion of democracy and transparency in America because of his democracy clause and his promise to make public the texts of the FTAA, he forgets to walk the talk. He should not be surprised then if we have serious doubts about his concern for transparency and democracy. When he has proven to us that he is a real democrat, we will consider taking seriously the transparency and democracy that he claims to promote.

Let us look at a few facts which speak for themselves. The Minister for International Trade brags about his government obtaining from the countries of the three Americas in Buenos Aires a formal commitment to share the texts of the FTAA. We have been asking him to do so since January 29, but he always answered that Canada could not make the texts public because the other countries did not want to. Now, the other countries have agreed, but we have yet to see the texts.

Of what is the minister proud? Of once again talking, but not following up with action? These people are all talk and no action. We are still waiting for the texts. Worse yet, we have absolutely no guarantee that parliamentarians will receive them or be informed of what is going on until it is too late. We have no guarantee whatsoever.

The Prime Minister tends to forget that 60% of the population is not behind him. He continues to govern Canada by polls. He refuses to look at the facts.

This morning, I received an e-mail from a young CEGEP student in my riding who was quite simply fed up with the Prime Minister's refusal to listen.

He was in Quebec City on the weekend. He took part in the people's march. This was not a mock march. It was a real march. Here is what he wrote me:

Mrs. Tremblay,

As you know, the people's march against the FTAA this weekend was both a success and a failure. It was a success because between 30,000 and 60,000 marchers turned out to say no to the FTAA; it was a failure because—

Pardon me, but I am reading from the text.

Jean Chrétien once again turned a deaf ear.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I simply wish to remind members that they may not do indirectly what they would not do directly. I am certain that the member will be able to adapt what she is saying.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

I will therefore amend the text, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to amend your text, René, but the House requires it.

I will therefore continue:

—the Prime Minister of Canada once again turned a deaf ear. After several people spoke to me about this, I decided to launch a petition ... If the government of the member for Saint-Maurice—

Once again, I apologize for amending your text, René.

—is so fond of democracy, it should prove that it is; and if, as it says, 54% of Quebecers “somewhat” agree with the FTAA, then it should organise its own referendum.

This letter is from a young man who is not yet 20 years old and who is aware of the importance of the ongoing debate about the FTAA. For us from Quebec, for us sovereignists, apart from the fact that the most important thing is to attain sovereignty, the second most important thing is the debate presently going on, the negotiations concerning the free trade area, of which we would like to be an integral part.

The Prime Minister prevents Canadian members of parliament from playing a relevant role in the FTAA adoption process. He does not want to allow the members of this House to hold a debate, with the proper documents, before the agreement is ratified by Canada. Once again, the Liberal government is preparing to put us in a position where we will be wasting our time by allowing us to hold a debate about the FTAA only after ratification. Its best policy could be summed up this way “Say whatever you want, we will do whatever we want”.

The Prime Minister does not even want to hear about a referendum on the FTAA, while he is one of the least legitimate western statesmen, since he was chosen by less than one out of four eligible voters. The government has no mandate—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Usually, the truth is hard to take, Mr. Minister.

The government has no mandate whatsoever from the people of Canada to move forward with the FTAA project. In the last election, as was the case in each previous election, its platform was set out in its red book, which is getting thinner and thinner as time goes by the way. The red books have become thinner and thinner with time; there are fewer and fewer programs, less and less work in the House and more and more international meetings to negotiate a free trade area while refusing to involve us.

Why did the government not have the courage of Brian Mulroney who in 1988 called an election to ask Canadians if they wanted him to sign the free trade agreement? This government, which today is trying to negotiate a free trade area, was against Brian Mulroney's proposal. The people were for it, and thanks to the people and not to the Liberals, we were able to progress. Now, week after week, they are literally reaping the benefits of the free trade agreement. They crow over that as if it were their doing.

If the government does not have a mandate to negotiate the FTAA, it has to obtain one, either by calling an election or by organizing a referendum. There are not many ways of going about it, unless the new leader of the party could decide otherwise.

Our current Prime Minister stubbornly continues to refuse Quebec and the other provinces a formal place in the process of negotiating and adopting the FTAA, at least within the areas under their jurisdiction.

It is somewhat disturbing to learn that the Prime Minister described the march as “blah, blah, blah”. The marchers and those who held forums just involved in blah, blah, blah. It is somewhat disturbing to see these peaceful demonstrators dismissed in this way.

Another thing that is disturbing, in the government statement over his signature, is that they want to make more investments in order to have better educational policies.

This is the government that has, over thirty years, allocated the least to education and cut the most from transfer payments to the provinces, making the objective of improved educational policies difficult to achieve. It will do this without involving Quebec or the provinces, while education is a totally provincial jurisdiction, in the main.

With this experience of the summit, we have unfortunately been given a fine demonstration of the lack of democracy in our country. Where democracy is concerned, if the Prime Minister is incapable of demonstrating to us with concrete actions that he is a democrat, there being several questions still up in the air in this regard, how is he going to keep his promises?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the points made by my hon. colleague. She suggested that the government has not yet released the text. That was the subject of much discussion in the House of Commons before the recent break.

The Minister for International Trade showed great leadership. The Prime Minister was on record weeks ago in the House of Commons saying he would happily release the text but was not prepared to do so unilaterally. Through the leadership of the Minister for International Trade in Buenos Aires we were able to secure a full commitment of the 34 leaders to release the text shortly after the summit's conclusion. The summit concluded on Sunday. This is just Tuesday, so perhaps the member could show a little more patience. The text will be released in due course.

I do not know what polls the member has been looking at. The vast majority of polls in Canada suggest that two-thirds of Canadians support our efforts in negotiating the FTAA.

The hon. member says MPs have not been able to participate. There has in fact been very wide consultation. There have been hearings at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There is a special subcommittee on trade. Three hundred thousand dollars was given to the parallel summit. There were the FIPA meetings of parliamentarians of the Americas, including Canada, right here in the Chamber.

The member says there is no mandate for the government to negotiate the FTAA. Is the member unaware that we had a federal election in November? The FTAA has been in process for several years and yet the government was overwhelmingly re-elected. It even increased its seats and support in the province of Quebec, an increase we know will continue over time.

Is the member unaware that the FTAA was not even an issue in the election? The government was re-elected with a very strong mandate even though Canadians were fully aware that the FTAA talks had been under way for years.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty discouraging to hear the hon. member say he listened to my speech. He understood nothing.

He should first work on his terminology skills. I said “We do not have the texts. We want them before, not after, before” . That is clear. We do not have the texts. He says they will be out in a few days. We have absolutely no interest in the texts that come after. We want those that come before.

We want to know what the government is negotiating on our behalf. We want to express our opinion on the content of the negotiations so parliament may give the ministers a mandate, since they have no mandate to negotiate from the public. We are the 301 representatives of the people. The only way to legitimize the FTAA negotiating process is to have parliament vote.

There are no other solutions. We want the texts ahead of time so we can tell the government that we agree with this, but we do not agree with that, so it really knows it alone cannot decide in secret on behalf of the people of Canada.

The Liberal government may well have got more seats. It did not even get 40% of the vote across Canada. It better not try to tell us it is representative. That makes no sense. The government has no mandate to negotiate that. This was never an issue during the election campaign. There is not a word about this in the red book. The government party keeps saying “I got elected on the red book. Everyone will know what it is”. We know one thing about this government and that is it has never kept its promises, never.

When negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas began in 1994 in Miami, President Clinton decided he would Americanize the governments of America. We are following his plan, and the government has no mandate for that. It is shameful to stand up and claim that we are the ones not understanding anything.

Get with it, Liberals, find out what the words mean. Consultation means consult, not inform. They simply informed the governments, they never consulted them. They have to find a way to stop saying that.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be hard for me to do better than the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, but I will certainly say what I can.

First, I wish to thank and congratulate the member for Joliette for his work and particularly for the motion he moved today, which all parties said they appreciated the opportunity to discuss, particularly just a few days after the Quebec summit was over.

I also wish to remind the House that it was the member for Joliette who, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, asked the government to hold a take note debate in the House, which we were finally granted. Because of his leadership and initiative, there was an opposition day, in the course of which we asked for the documents related to the negotiations. I also wish to congratulate the member on his involvement in the peoples' summit, particularly that portion of it having to do with the parliamentarians' summit.

Obviously, this all required teamwork. Many members of the Bloc Quebecois got together. Each week we met in committee in the morning to discuss all of this, to consider all the issues, every aspect.

Personally, I am most concerned about the human rights aspect, since I represent the Bloc Quebecois on the foreign affairs sub-committee on human rights. Because of this special interest, I took part in the people's summit and in last Saturday's march, for which between 30,000 and 60,000 people turned out, which admittedly was for those opposed to the FTAA. There were also people in favour of the FTAA, but on certain conditions. I fall into this category.

It is difficult to be against free trade, and I find somewhat simplistic the definition given by NDP members, who are completely opposed to it and who say that it means trade without any constraints. This is not what anybody wants.

In fact, the purpose of NAFTA, the agreement now in force between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is to place restrictions on free trade. The best proof of this is that not all sectors are subject to free trade. This is the case for shipbuilding and shipping. Personally, I do not agree with this. Why? Because the United States wants to maintain protectionist measures for certain sectors of activity. We are also having problems with softwood lumber.

What the Bloc Quebecois is asking as a minimum is that existing free trade provisions in NAFTA be applied to lumber. We are not asking the government to negotiate new agreements that would weaken the free trade agreement in that respect.

In the shipbuilding sector, Quebec and Canada are currently faced with an almost impossible situation. Some countries work as partners and they endorse and respect the OECD's view against subsidizing the industry. However, the United States has a somewhat different and very protectionist policy.

It must be understood that when people are opposed to a free trade area, if the existing situation is not changed, that situation will prevail. What is the current situation? When each country's trade is not free, what is it subjected to? We must ask ourselves that question, always keeping human rights in mind.

We must not exclude from the outset any possibility of negotiating a free trade area, because this is indeed an opportunity to deal with human rights, along with the 34 countries involved in this free trade area of the three Americas.

The more I read on this issue, the more I realize that a number of countries do not respect the declaration of human rights and the various conventions on human rights. However we must seize every opportunity. These issues should be included in trade negotiations with other countries.

Let us take, for instance, the democracy clause with regard to Haiti. We saw, during the weekend, that the president of Haiti had to answer some questions. He was questioned by other leaders. So this is a way to influence him.

He apparently has asked for help in order to implement some clauses because sometimes, if only in terms of the justice system, there is a need for courts. There are costs involved and some situations are not easily managed.

For instance, during the people's summit, representations were made to me by the Dominican Republic and Haiti regarding 500,000 Haitians who presently work in the Dominican Republic but have no legal status there. Because these people have no passport nor any official document, they have no rights. The only right they have is the right to live, but they live in utterly deplorable conditions.

Of course, the two countries agree that they must address these problems, but there are often economic issues involved. They need the financial support of developed countries. We should never forget this.

The Canadian government often champions democracy and the implementation of international charters. In this regard, I wish to mention a meeting between senators and members of parliament, which was organized by a committee only five or six weeks ago. They discussed the refugees now living in Canada, ten years after having obtained their citizenship or having been accepted in Canada. Those people have met all the formalities, except the requirement for documentation.

Of course, when people leave their country because of violence, massacres or other emergency situations, it is understandable that they do not always have the time to bring along a passport. This is presently the case for some Canadians.

This issue will possibly lead to amendments to the Immigration Act. Some people live in Canada as refugees but have no Canadian passport. Therefore, they do not dare leave the country.

We must see to it that this country, namely Canada, does correctly what it is asking of other countries. This motion is about democracy.

Why did so many people take part in the march on Saturday? Because they wanted to know more. They wanted their parliamentarians to be informed of the issues.

However, as we are debating this motion today, we still do not have the texts used in the negotiations. We have absolutely no guarantee that any agreement will be submitted to parliamentarians, before it is ratified. However, in other countries, including our neighbour, the United States, things are quite different. The U.S. president may not have mentioned it in Quebec City, but he said on other occasions that he was not be allowed to fast track the process, meaning that he did not have the mandate to negotiate as freely as he would have wanted.

However, if we compare that mandate to the one the Prime Minister of Canada says he has, the Prime Minister seems to have a lot more latitude than the president of the United States. People do not realize that. Moreover, the Prime Minister is not elected directly by the people, like the president in the United States. Despite the shortcomings of the American electoral system, which we had the opportunity to see in the last election, the U.S. president has a mandate that was given to him directly by the people. This is not the case in Canada.

Therefore, I enthusiastically support this motion and I urge the Minister for International Trade, who I think is an intelligent man to make the texts available to us and to give us the assurance that any future agreement will be submitted to the Parliament of Canada before it is ratified. He knows the value of words and understands what this means.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Bloc members have talked about the number of votes the Liberal Party has earned in being re-elected federally. I did not hear the same kind of logic from the Bloc Quebecois members when Mr. Charest earned more votes in the province of Quebec than the péquistes. However, that is a problem they can face with their lack of consistency.

I want to ask the member the following questions. Does he not recognize the unbelievable progress that has been made in the Americas over the past few years? Does he not understand that had such a meeting been convened of the leaders of the Americas some 10 or 15 years ago, we would have had at least half or more of the leaders wearing army uniforms with jackboots? Does he not understand the great progress that has been made toward democracy in the Americas? Does he not understand the support the Canadian government and the Canadian people are giving toward encouraging those fledgling democracies? Does he not see the great value in the democracy clause that all the leaders signed onto in Quebec City?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to acknowledge that. However I am having a bit of trouble with the hon. member's question, because I think he is confusing me with a previous speaker, since I did not talk about the number of votes any party got. It was the previous speaker who did.

That however makes me wonder about the capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade to really listen, since he is confusing what I have just said in my speech with what a previous speaker had mentioned earlier on. It is doubly troubling since the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis was talking about the lack of attention and the lack of understanding shown by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade.

I do hope the minister will have a better understanding of what we are saying. It is simple, we want it to be submitted to parliament before it is ratified. It cannot be that hard since the Americans have found a way to do it. U.S. parliamentarians were able to get the texts and the positions of all the parties. However in Canada it is not possible.

I find it incredible that Canada is refusing, for instance, to sign or to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Why? Because it is following the example of the U.S. government, which has refused to do so. I find it strange that the Canadian government follows in the steps of the United States when it is wrong, but not when it is since U.S. parliamentarians have access to these documents, but not us. This is an odd situation.

Yes, I am all for progress. I wish that, as far as possible, progress be everywhere in the world and that people enjoy equal quality of life.

The charter of human rights says that it is important to strive to have a better redistribution of wealth and access to education. However, if words really mean something, once their meaning is well understood they have to be acted upon.

I understand those who demonstrated in the streets and said that everybody was talking about democracy. All the heads of state talked about democracy, and I think they talked about it more strongly because of the peaceful mobilization of a very large number of people calling for more openness. These people wish that the civil society and all citizens be as well informed as possible. In the age of Internet, let us make all the documents available, and not just some of them. Let there be real consultation.

To consult does not mean only to inform, as the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis said, it also means to receive advice, to listen and try to implement what is suggested when it makes good sense.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Joliette for having used one of opposition days to speak about one aspect of international trade. I am very happy to see that the Bloc is interested in foreign policy, particularly as far as international trade is concerned.

I want also to thank the hon. member for Joliette for having written his motion in such a way that, and I can see it clearly, it shows he is supporting the policy of the Canadian government.

In fact, we are very conscious of the importance of openness, of the consultation of parliament and the provincial governments, of industry and, obviously, of the interest and lobby groups, those which are called, wrongly I think, the civil society. It is extremely important to go in this direction.

I am all the happier that the Bloc has proposed this motion because it allows us, once again, to show clearly that Canada is the champion of openness. We were the first country to disclose the preliminary negotiating position of our government.

One year ago, we put on the website our position in the negotiations. This was a first in the history of international trade negotiations.

This Canadian position has been the subject of close consultation with this parliament, and particularly with members of the standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade, which I have had the opportunity to meet several times and which I greatly appreciate working with very closely.

I must tell the House that we have the opportunity today to recognize the originality of the Canadian voice in the community of nations. We have just lived a Quebec summit where the Canadian voice has once again demonstrated its leadership by obtaining the democracy clause. Thus, we are making a remarkable progress towards openness, transparency and consultation, and this is thanks mostly to Canada's leadership and diplomacy.

In the last year, thousands of Canadians have been visiting the Web site to verify the Canadian government's position. Some countries have followed the way of transparency that we have opened.

For months, the opposition has been blaming me for not releasing public texts that belonged to all the ministers of the hemisphere. We went to Buenos Aires and Canadian diplomacy, thanks to the credibility of our foreign policy and to Canada's credibility in the hemispheres, has made a historical breakthrough.

We have been able to convince our colleagues that the draft free trade agreement should be made public. The opposition cannot believe that we would succeed in making those texts public. I am extremely proud that we have succeeded in what I consider to be an historical breakthrough.

This historical breakthrough should have an influence on all other trade negotiations.

However another historical breakthrough took place in Buenos Aires. We have institutionalized a dialogue with hemispheric interest groups and pressure groups.

As we know several countries of our hemisphere were saying “Each country will take care of its consultations with its own civil society”. Canada said “No, on the contrary, we will choose an approach focused on the hemisphere, the civil society”. As I was saying, I think this expression is false since we are the civil society. There is no better representation of the civil society than all of us here in the parliament of Canada.

They speak about interest groups and lobbies. We have chosen this consultation and we also obtained the consent of our colleagues to institutionalize this dialogue with interest groups and lobby groups and we are proud of that. No other country was taking the leadership Canada did within the hemisphere.

Someone said earlier that the provinces were not consulted. It is totally unbelievable. Every week, every day almost, officials of my department or my negotiators communicate with provincial officials.

On February 5th, before the Buenos Aires meeting, I brought together all the provincial ministers of trade. Quebec was represented.

At the very beginning of the meeting, the Quebec minister told me that Quebec considered the gathering to be an information briefing and not a consultation. I replied that the minister could be assured that the meeting was meant to be a consultation and that any difference of opinion, any perspective on any subject he would want to bring to our attention would be most welcome.

We established our agenda and we talked about all the elements of the Canadian trade policy and there were very few disagreements.

The Quebec government agreed so completely with Canadian trade policy that the meeting was concluded one hour early. Basically, the Quebec government supported Canadian policy on every point, on softwood lumber or our current process on the FTAA, so much so that they want to take some of the credit for having the agreement documents made public. They are trying to say that the Canadian government succeeded in Buenos Aires because the Quebec government wanted the documents made public.

How can one say that one is not being consulted and, at the same time, take credit for some of the success of the Canadian government at the ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires and of the Prime Minister at the Quebec summit? We have held and are holding real consultations at the negotiators level and the ministerial level. I am always available to meet with ministers who want to draw my attention to particular points.

I am very happy to stand here today and say that the FTAA has been subjected to the most comprehensive and extensive consultation process ever in free trade negotiations. We are very happy with the progress being made.

Obviously, we realize that citizens are increasingly interested in international trade. I see it as an opportunity, not as a threat.

We have nothing to hide. On the contrary, we wish to have in depth debates and discussions because, in the end, they will contribute to improving the agreements we reach.

The Canadian leadership, both in Quebec City and in Buenos Aires, was wonderful. I do not know how many ministers, heads of governments and heads of state told me how pleased they were to see Canada as part of the Americas. They said that it has been far too long since Canada was involved in the Americas. Now they were hearing the Canadian voice and they were respecting it. It was because of the Canadian leadership toward transparency that they were trusting our instincts and they would consent to what Canada was proposing regarding transparency.

That is what Canada is all about. That is why I am so pleased with the motion that the hon. member for Joliette has tabled in the House.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Joliette assured us today that he too holds openness and transparency very dear. These are already values of the Canadian government.

I am pleased to inform the House that we are pleased to support the motion, although we cannot support the amendment. The government will not abandon its responsibility to negotiate and conclude treaties in the best interest of all Canadians.

We will support the main motion because we are profoundly committed to consultation, we respect parliament and we are interested in knowing what parliament and the parliamentary committee want, which is close consultations on an extremely important subject.

I honestly think that the motion by the hon. member for Joliette is an opportunity to celebrate the great progress the American hemisphere has made under Canadian leadership, progress that will also impact on the other trade negotiations at the WTO.