Madam Speaker, that gives me another chance to speak. In the NDP motion, there is reference to a chapter 11-style investor-state clause as in NAFTA.
I was very clear on this. We do not want to see any possibility under the FTAA of companies being able to take direct proceedings against governments.
That said, as with the WTO and the European Union, I have no problem with the states having the responsibility to protect foreign investments and being answerable to other states within a multilateral treaty.
When the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade examined it, when the MAI was studied—and we in the House were extremely critical of that—it must be realized that the MAI was a more general application of dispute resolution mechanisms already contained in NAFTA's chapter 11, along with certain additional provisions of course.
In this context, I would say that not all of NAFTA and Chapter 11 needs to be rejected. I will not say “scrapped” because that is not a proper French word.
For me, and for the Bloc Quebecois, one thing is certain. The dispute resolution mechanism needs to be corrected so that states can deal with it.
Second, the concept of expropriation must be tightened up so as to ensure that what is protected is direct and not indirect expropriation.
That said, these are things that are accessible for the three governments, in my opinion. Moreover, the Minister for International Trade has told us that he was working along these lines with the U.S. and Mexican governments in order to tighten up these definitions.
As far as negotiation of the FTAA is concerned, therefore, it seems to me that this is not the basis on which negotiation ought to begin.