Debates of Sept. 29th, 2009

International Trade

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to chapter 11 and to NAFTA in a more generalized way.

It always amazes me how the proponents of free trade continually talk about its merits, how those who work in the economy and work across the country are the net beneficiaries of free trade and that their living conditions, their economic situation and their social well-being has been enhanced by free trade.

That mantra is bandied about from this side of the House. I heard the member for Kings—Hants say that this morning and I hear the government continually suggest that this is the case. However, no one ever suggests that they look at the statistics. Why on earth would we ever look at statistics to find out if it is true? It is much easier just to say it. It sounds good. It sounds marvellous. It makes people feel good. Then again, if we read the Statistics Canada reports for the most recent period from 1989 to 2005, we find that the opposite is true. Most Canadians did not prosper under free trade and NAFTA. They regressed economically.

Why would we tell Canadians that? Because that flies in the face of negotiating another free trade agreement. We have to tell folks the mythology that this is good for them. It is somewhat akin to telling a child, when his or her first tooth falls out, that the tooth fairy will come. Of course the tooth fairy does come, but usually in the form of a parent, in the night, because there is not a tooth fairy. In the free trade debate, the tooth fairy needs to be put to rest. Clearly what has happened is the average wealth of Canadians has declined and the average wealth of a very small percentage of Canadians has increased.

Let me read into the record the Statistics Canada reports on the four quintile of income levels across the country and what happened to them.

The percentage growth between 1989 and 2005 for those at the bottom of the income scale declined by 14%. This meant they were worse off in 2005 than they were in 1989. Yet we were told by the Liberal government, and now the Conservative government, that free trade would help folks. The numbers do not support it. I do not make up these numbers. I am not the tooth fairy. These are Statistics Canada reports, which are available to all members.

If we look at the second quintile, the second group of folks whose income is relatively low, how did they fare? They fared marginally better than the bottom quintile, but their incomes still declined by 12%. They were 12% worse off in 2005 than in 1989, yet we keep hearing the mantra from Liberals and Conservatives that free trade will be good for them, that they are better off, yet the numbers prove otherwise.

If we look to the third quintile, these folks are moving into the middle income bracket. How did they fare? They did somewhat better than the second quintile in that they only lost 6% of their earnings.

It would be pretty hard for me to convince some of my neighbours to sign on to an agreement where in 16 years they will have less than they have now. That is exactly what we have done to Canadians. Sixteen years after the fact, we have the bottom quintile at minus 14%, the second quintile at minus 12% and the third quintile at minus 6%.

Finally, when we move to the upper middle income bracket, toward the top end, their incomes grew by a paltry 2% in 16 years.

Therefore, who actually benefited from these free trade agreements, the net beneficiaries of them? Lo and behold, when we look at those at the very top of the income range, those who did not really need to improve their incomes all that much from 1989 to 2005 because they were already rich, their incomes went up plus 17%.

We can see what these free trade agreements are about. It is really about certain groups doing really well at the top and everyone else sinking to the bottom.

My colleagues across the way do not like the stats. Why on earth would we suggest to Canadians that they are better off when they are not? Why would we tell them the truth? How can we sell free trade to them if we tell them to sign up and they will be worse off, that we think it is good for the economy, but it will not be good for them personally as workers in this economy.

Is it because workers were not working? The report shows that, on average, Canadian workers whose income was sliding backwards were working more hours. While they were losing in the economy, they were working harder, working more hours and were separated from their families and sliding backwards. In an effort to try to compensate for the fact that they knew they were sliding backwards they wanted to work more and it did not help.

What do we see with their debt load? Unfortunately, as their incomes slid back, we would have expected to see their debt ratio to their household income increase, and that is exactly what happened. In preceding years of the 1980s until about 1986 the average debt load in the household declined. However, starting in 1988-89, we saw an absolute upward trend that has not stopped and continues to this day. The debt load is just shy of 130% of household income or their true assets.

When one looks at that, one has to ask were workers better off because of free trade? I would suggest that statistics are telling us that the tooth fairy really did not come to Canadian workers at all. In fact, the grim reaper came. What they have seen is a decline in their income year after year to the point where all they have done is driven themselves into debt. They have worked an excessive number of hours to try to help support their families, but have slipped behind.

We continue to hear that free trade is good for us and that chapter 11 is a necessary piece, the very piece that takes things away from workers, their rights and their abilities to do things. It allows it to be in the hands of investors at the expense of those folks, which continues to happen.

It befuddles me and really suggests to all of us, I think, that we are not speaking for the right folks. We are speaking on behalf of an investor group at the top end of the income scale that has not slipped behind. It has continually done well. We either have forgot or have never recognized that all of those whom we represent are not doing well at all. We ought to remember them when we develop free trade agreements.

When we look at chapter 11, what does it actually talk to? It talks to the sense of it is going to develop rules. Earlier hon. colleague talked about the dispute resolution. It said that it was going to establish rules for investment in North America. By having rules and discipline with countries that are predictable, there would be a rules-based investment climate. That way the investors would be protected. Note that the investor would be protected. It does not talk about labour. It does not talk about the environment. It does not talk about Canadian workers being protected.

It talks about foreign investors will be assured that they will be treated no differently from domestic investors. I think that was probably the case in the majority of investments made in our country prior to NAFTA.

I learned as a child in school that we needed to get away from the branch plant mentality in our country and build our own Canadian firms because of all the foreign investment here and because this was a good place to come. It probably still is based on the fact that we have an abundant wealth of natural resources and skills and an absolutely world-class workforce that is ready to do its work. However, we still have this leaning toward one class of individuals called the investors.

The other thing that stands out and absolutely amazes me is that if we do something in the House which investors say will hurt their profits, they can decide to take it to the tribunal. It is not just about their actual losses. It says “expected profits”. I always expected that maybe I could be six feet two inches but It did not work out. Who do I sue? Should I sue my parents because I did not grow to six feet two inches?

In NAFTA, we have a provision under chapter 11 where companies can stand and say that we have created a new rule, an environmental protection for the benefit of our country, which is all well and good for us, but that it has hurt them as far as what they expect to make three, four, five years down the road. How do we know those companies will even be in a business three, four, five years down the road, never mind how much money they will make? However, under this ridiculous article, they can actually sue the Canadian government because they lost what they thought they might make. This does not discount the fact that those who run the corporations may have made bad decisions in that intervening period. They just believe they should be able to sue because they might have made a lot of money.

How would one quantify that? How do we quantify what we think we might lose? No one ever wants to lose anything in life but no one can quantify next week, next year or the year after. None of us know what will happen in the next five minutes. That is part of what we call life. It is the great unexpected.

To suggest that somehow there is a rule that allows people to decide they should receive payment for expectations is like relying on the tooth fairy. It seems to me that chapter 11 has more sense about it. It is like a myth. It is like the Aesop's fables one tells to one's children than it does about rules-based adjudication, because that is what it said it was about. In its rules it says that people can go to the tribunal and get a decision but it they lose, too bad. What if the arbitration panel has made a fundamental mistake? Too bad. There is no opportunity to say that there has been an error, a misinterpretation or actually a misreading of what it was about. There is no sense of appeal. That is supposed to be rules based.

All of the rules-based procedures that I and my colleagues in the legal profession are very familiar with understand that a decision made at one level has an appeals process to it because mistakes get made. It gives the party, which the decision went against, the opportunity in a rules-based system to ask someone at a higher level to actually take it into consideration. This one does not. It does not actually penalize those who might bring frivolous claims against us, regardless of what we think is the sense of what we will do.

My friends in the Liberal Party talked earlier about this prosperity. I want to relate what happened to the workers at John Deere in Welland under NAFTA. The corporation got up and left. Now, did the workers get to sue the corporation for leaving? No. Did the corporation close? No. Did the work it was performing in Welland cease to exist? No. It simply went away because NAFTA let it go. There was no payment to the workers or to the community. It had no sense of being sorry and made no apology. It simply left, went to Mexico and some work went to the United States. The company left those workers because the rules said it could.

Why, in this Parliament, would we write rules that do not talk about workers, our citizens, the people who live here and the people we represent? I did not get elected by major multinational corporations because they do not vote. They simply are entities. It is real life people who send us here to work for them, not the other way around. However, when we come here we seem to be working on behalf, when it comes to these trade agreements, of something other than the people.

The statistics that I quoted earlier from Statistics Canada clearly show that we are in decline when it comes to the ability of ordinary, hard-working Canadians to make a living and keep up. They are slipping behind.

The big issue being raised now by both the government and the Liberals around the buy America act is the recent pronouncements made last week. The buy America act has been in force for the best part of 40-odd years, perhaps even longer. Those of us who live close to the border knew what was transpiring because the Americans were not covered under chapter 11 and they used it exclusively to ensure they were the net beneficiaries. They continue to do it to this day.

Over the years, I have spoken with some local politicians who are friends of mine. I would defy any member in the House to ask their constituents this question: “When I collect your tax dollars, would you like me to spend it on, (a) you and your neighbours; (b) on those who live in Florida,; (c) on those who live in Germany; or (d) on those who live in Colombia?” I am absolutely certain that 99.9% of those constituents will choose (a) because it is their money.

We have collected their money and I am sure they would tell us that when all things are equal, we should spend it on them because that is really why we collected it in the first place. It was collected for the net benefit of all who live in this land and to make this country a better place.

All we have heard with NAFTA is a big sucking sound of the wealth of the majority of Canadians being drained out of the country. Some of it has gone to the upper end but a lot of it has simply left. One need not look any further than Ontario to see the de-industrialization of southwestern Ontario under NAFTA in the last 18 years as it has slowly evaporated. The rush lately has been even larger.

I appreciate that my friends talked about rules and the hon. member talked about the precautionary principle, which in science is actually a rule. We like rules and a science-based approach to things. The precautionary principle is actually used by scientists to suggest that what we ought not to do is wait until folks become ill and perhaps die. If we have a sense that something is wrong, we should take action, and that is what the precautionary principle is about.

In the case of Quebec and 2,4-D, the precautionary principle was exercised at the provincial level. We see what happened on the American side with the buy America act and sub-national governments. State and local government have clearly said that NAFTA does not apply to them and here we have a company telling Quebec that it applies to Quebec.

We can see there is a bit of a shift in dynamics where one country that is a signatory to NAFTA has said that sub-national governments are not included and yet the Canadian government has not banned it yet. The Canadian government is working on it through Health Canada and the pesticide management groups, but it is cities like Toronto and others across this country and the province of Quebec that are really sub-national governments. I find it odd that multinationals think it is okay to sue Canada when it comes to sub-national governments but not necessarily sue sub-national governments when it comes to the Americans.

It is peculiar that happens but we can look at lots of other instances. I know the members from British Columbia are much more in tune with the softwood sellout than I am and I will leave that for them to discuss because it really pertains to them.

I find it disheartening when we see the claims against Canada by outside multinationals pertaining to substances that we consider dangerous. One of them was the exportation of PCBs. When I look at the total number of claims, six were environmental protection challenges, five about our natural resources and one about our cultural industry out of eighteen challenges. Clearly, 14 of the challenges are about things that really belong to us, not someone else and yet the challenges are about those. We need to change chapter 11 to ensure we have fair trade, not free trade.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier I listened to the speech from the Liberal member for Kings—Hants who has been around the House for a number of years. He was talking about how chapter 11 should probably be revisited and that President Obama is interested in revisiting it as far as NAFTA is concerned. I found it kind of curious that he is having second thoughts as a Liberal member on the provisions of chapter 11 and yet he and his party are supporting the Colombia free trade agreement, which we will be debating very shortly, and did support the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, both of which have the chapter 11 provisions in them.

Is that not a contradiction? I would ask the member who just spoke whether he too sees that contradiction in the speech this morning by the member for Kings—Hants.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I do. In fact, I have the great privilege of sitting as a deputy critic with my colleague from British Columbia on that committee and I watched that member discuss Peru and Colombia. He is in favour of it.

When my colleague was raising the issue of chapter 11 and increasing labour and putting environmental protections into the body of the agreement, it was that member from the Liberal Party who opposed it. He wanted it as a piece at the back and never once raised the issue of removing or changing chapter 11.

It is one thing to come to the House and say that we need to change it, but the reality is that when the Liberals are faced with the opportunity to do something, they vote in favour. That is unfortunate because this is a place where we can have reflection and debate. I am gratified to hear that my colleagues in the Liberal Party who sit on international trade are talking about our need to do that.

When the opportunity arises in committee, we will be expecting the them to pull chapter 11 out of those agreements, start to rework them and start to do the things that we as New Democrats understand are important when it comes to free trade. It is always about fair trade agreements that protect and represent workers and the environment, that talk about us as Canadians and that respect those other countries that we are trading with.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do think it is important to underline that New Westminster was the first capital of British Columbia before Victoria became the capital city.

The member for Welland is an extremely effective member of the trade committee and has brought a healthy dose of realism and main street reality to the discussions around trade.

I think most Conservatives and Liberals, not having done their homework on the issue, do not seem to understand this fundamental economic fact that since the free trade regime started back with the Canada U.S. free trade agreement, the real incomes for the vast majority of Canadian families have actually declined. That is a fundamental reality that no one on the Conservative or Liberal benches has even bothered to look into. They have this pap about free trade bringing prosperity but the reality has been fundamentally different. Statistics Canada tells every one of them that they are wrong. Real incomes have actually declined.

The member very effectively represents a riding that used to be represented by another member of the trade committee, a Liberal who always said that free trade was great, who never referenced the riding of Welland and who never went back to his constituents to find out what was going on on the ground. We know that region has been hit hard by many of the provisions of these bad trade agreements.

I would like to ask the member what it takes for Liberals and Conservatives to understand, to do their homework and to find out what is happening to real incomes in Canada. Does it take the defeat of all of the Liberals in northern Ontario after they supported the softwood sellout to get the message across, or does he think that Canadians just need to keep telling them that they are wrong on this issue?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question about what we have seen in the riding of Welland from north to south because it is five communities. I talked about Statistics Canada, but the income level in my own riding is now one of the poorest in the province of Ontario. It used to be the highest. Before NAFTA, it had the highest per capita income in the province of Ontario as a manufacturing centre. It is now at the bottom, with increases in child poverty, family poverty and family breakup, and all of the social ills that come with that. It was because of this blind sense that somehow free trade is good for people. The government will feed it to us, so we should just eat it because it is good for us. My old gran used to say, “Just have this cod liver oil; it is good for you”. There was no proof that it was good for us; we just had to take it. Preceding that, my whole sense with the Liberals was that they wanted us to just do it because we would be better off at the end of the day.

My riding of Welland is living testimony to the failure of not only chapter 11 but NAFTA. It is quintessentially the place, ground zero, for what NAFTA has wreaked upon the Canadian economy. We have seen, as I said, the income level from the highest in the province not less than 20 years ago to one of the lowest in the province, in a matter of less than one generation. It is tantamount to the absence of any sense of leadership from either the previous Liberal government and certainly from the Conservative government about what it takes for folks to actually prosper in the economy.

Those parties have no sense of it. They talked about their management. They talked about how they were able to do things, but when it comes to helping Canadians, to help manage their economy for them, Canadians got left behind. Shame on both parties when they were in government for allowing that to happen because my constituents are saying that someone needs to help. That is why they are looking at us as parliamentarians and saying, “It is time for you to step up. It is time for you to enact trade deals that are good for us, not for multinationals”. It is about us, our neighbours, our friends, our colleagues across our constituencies, our children and our grandchildren when they come. It is ultimately about helping them. That is why I thought all of us came to this place.

The stats clearly show that what the Liberal government and the Conservative government have done to Canadians is absolutely dishonourable. We have let them slide behind because of what we have done. They did not do this. We as parliamentarians, the Liberal government, the Conservative government, did this to them. They did not ask for it. They sent folks here honestly who simply said what the member for Kings—Hants said this morning, “You are better off”. The truth is, they are not. Saying it will not make it so. To stand in the House and say they are better off is patently false. It is just false. Not only is it false, it is unfair to those out there who are listening to us say it and hoping it is true, even though their reality and their life is, “I know it is not true”, but they are hoping maybe their neighbours are experiencing something that they are not. If truth be told, their neighbours are experiencing exactly the same thing, which is that they are all sinking. We have allowed them to sink and not even bothered to give them a life vest. That is absolutely wrong.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this debate which I consider to be critical in terms of the sovereignty of our nation and the future for many public policies that are in the interests of all Canadians. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has worked very hard to ensure that this matter not only was addressed by the committee, of which he is a member and serving there as the trade critic for the New Democratic Party, but also ensured, with today's motion for concurrence, that this very important matter is addressed by all of us.

I think it was a Liberal member speaking earlier who asked what was the purpose of this debate, what are we going to achieve? This allows for an issue, often dealt with behind the scenes away from public exposure and away from parliamentary debate, to be brought out into the open, to be discussed by parliamentarians, and to serve as a way of informing Canadians across the country about a critical issue. It gives us a chance to try to convince the government of the day to take action on an important public policy issue, not to hide behind the rhetoric of free trade, because that is fundamental, but to actually take a moment and assess the implications and consequences of a policy that has been at work since 1994.

The opportunity for this debate comes in the most serious form imaginable. It is a question regarding the right of a government in this country, the province of Quebec, to legislate in terms of what it deems to be in the best interests of its citizens, to ban pesticides in terms of cosmetic use. That is a fundamental health and safety issue. It affects all of us because we know that there are governments in this country which allow for the use of 2,4-D in cosmetic spraying of lawns, knowing that there are serious health consequences, knowing that there is an impact on children's health, the health of pregnant women and many other citizens. It is fundamental that we address this issue because of health but also in terms of the right of a government to legislate what it deems to be in the best interests of its citizens.

We are dealing with this issue because we have a trade agreement that allows for a foreign company to challenge a government of this land about policies which it makes on the basis of what is in the best interests of the public and based on science. Those in the House who stand and say this is about a government making a decision willy-nilly, without cause for concern, without reflecting on the science, I say to them that they are wrong. In fact, the precautionary principle, which is at the heart of this matter, comes out of science. It says that when there is science that shows a particular product, chemical or substance has an impact based on preliminary research studies on individual health and well-being, then that is enough of a cause for concern to say that this matter should be put on hold, it should not be allowed to go forward until we have the complete science, the complete understanding.

It is the simple precautionary principle to do no harm. It is the role of government to ensure that the food we eat, the drugs we take, the water we drink, and the air we breathe is safe beyond a reasonable doubt. If something is developed and becomes known to us that it may have a detrimental effect on health and well-being, then it is the job of government to assess and to put on hold in order to stop the spread of that dangerous substance until such time as the producers of that chemical or that substance can prove that it is safe beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what is at the heart of this matter.

We have a trade agreement that allows for a company like Dow AgroSciences to actually challenge a government in this country because of a policy that it has adopted in the best interests of its citizens.

That is from an aspect of NAFTA, chapter 11, which allows foreign investors to challenge governments, whether it is the province of Quebec or the Government of Canada. It allows a company to challenge our right to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of every citizen of this land regardless of where they live and how much money they make.

Chapter 11 is one of those egregious aspects of NAFTA which must be revisited. If there is anything that comes out of this debate, there must at least be agreement to do that. Maybe we could convince the Conservatives, before this debate is done, that we need to rethink chapter 11.

My colleague from Welland raised the full range of issues under NAFTA. He made a very good point when he said that NAFTA as a whole may not have served this country the way others in this chamber suggest it has, and that it has not been of the great benefit to workers and to ordinary families that Liberals and Conservatives have touted for years.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that my colleague may be on the right path when he says that we should actually look at NAFTA from the point of view of fair trade and whether or not it has actually accomplished what Canadians had hoped it would.

Numerous studies have been done suggesting that there are problems with NAFTA. We should not hide those problems under a bushel just because it has suddenly become not kosher to talk about the problems with NAFTA. We should let them out in the open and talk about them to see if there is legitimacy to those concerns and whether or not we need to reconsider our approach to trade in this context.

The work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is exemplary in this regard. I do not think anyone in the House would doubt the work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives when it puts out studies authored by the likes of Carlo Salas, who holds a Ph.D in economics and currently is a professor of regional development at El Colegio Tlaxcala and who is also a member of the board of directors at the Instituto de Estudios del Trabajo in Mexico City.

I do not think we would question the credentials of Bruce Campbell, who is the executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. I do not think we would question the work of Robert Scott, who holds a Ph.D. in economics and is the director of international programs at the Economic Policy Institute.

These three individuals did an extensive study a few years back just assessing what the impact of NAFTA has been on workers. They concluded that workers have suffered more than they have gained as a result of being governed by this trade agreement.

I will not go into all the details, but I will reference what my colleague from Welland has put out in real terms as he sees and experiences these problems in his own constituency where workers have lost their jobs, have been at the whim of the marketplace, and feel little benefit from NAFTA.

The study that I have just referenced by the Centre for Policy Alternatives says the following:

NAFTA promised Canada increased economic growth, income, and employment across all sectors, regions, and income groups; closure of the longstanding productivity gap with the United States; the creation of a more diversified, efficient, and more knowledge-based economy; and, an economy that would maintain and strengthen the generous Canadian social model.

However, the authors of the study found that those promises, that golden age that would come as a result of NAFTA, have really not materialized. We have seen the whole nature of the workforce change to become one where employment is precarious, where people have to resort to many jobs in order to make a living, and where the very labour unions that try to protect the jobs and the working conditions of those workers are threatened under NAFTA.

However, enough said about NAFTA, in general, because in fact what we are really talking about today is chapter 11, the provision in NAFTA that allows for foreign companies, foreign investors, to challenge governments.

I am not saying as my Liberal colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, has suggested, that we should ignore the issue of national treatment. I do not dispute that for one moment. In fact, I think we need a mechanism that would allow us to return to the days when it was a question of government-to-government dialogue and deliberation, in terms of the issue of national treatment. I do not think there is a credible author in this country, in terms of economic and trade policy, who would suggest that having a mechanism that allows for foreign companies to challenge governments is in the best interests of any one of us, or that it in fact does anything but challenge our very ability to operate as a sovereign nation. The experts have all pointed out the problems. The research branch in the Library of Parliament has made it clear that under the national treatment provisions it must be proven that the alleged measure is less favourable to the foreign investor and that the foreign investor and domestic investor are in like circumstances.

Frances Russell, who has written about this extensively in the Winnipeg Free Press and who has incredible in-depth expertise in this area, has said very clearly in an article that she wrote on March 5, 2008:

Before NAFTA, private investors' grievances were adjudicated on a government-to-government basis. But NAFTA allows foreign capital to sue government directly.

And sue they have—for tens of millions of dollars—challenging the public's right to regulate the environment, culture, agriculture, natural resources, jobs and health and safety. As of Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 49 investor-state claims under NAFTA: 18 against Canada, 17 against Mexico and 14 against the U.S. So far, Canada has paid $27 million in damages and Mexico, $18.7 million. To date, investor claims against the U.S. have been dismissed.

That is just a sample of the expertise and the research out there, in terms of the effect of chapter 11 on this country and our ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of the greater good or the public as a whole.

Nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to health care. And this is what I want to insert into this debate. If we allow Dow Agro to proceed with its claim for damages in the province of Quebec, and if the Government of Canada sits back, does nothing and ends up paying damages, we create an open door for similar corporate interests. This is not just about a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. It in fact has implications for the entire health care system.

Let us just stop for a minute, in terms of pesticides. I think the question was raised earlier, what about all those other jurisdictions, the City of Toronto and other municipalities, that have moved to ban the use of 2,4-D for cosmetic care of one's lawn? The question was, why was Quebec picked on and not the rest?

I think the answer is clear. The industry picked the most advanced state to make its case with the hope that once it wins, it will then have the wherewithal to pursue similar actions against other municipalities. So, the door is in fact open to the challenge of wise decisions made by local governments in the best interests of the citizens they serve.

Now, if we look at the broader issue of health care, I think it is probably fair to say that if NAFTA had been in place 25 years ago and if chapter 11 had been around when medicare was formed, I do not think we would have seen medicare reach fruition.

That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of many experts in this country. I want to read from a chapter of a book entitled Medicare: Facts, Myths, Problems, Promise, edited by Bruce Campbell and Greg Marchildon from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

This particular chapter is by Scott Sinclair and is entitled “Protecting Medicare from Foreign Commercial Interests”. He says the following:

Underlining this concern, Jon Johnson, one of Canada's leading trade lawyers, bluntly informed the Romanow Commission that, if the NAFTA expropriation provisions “and the accompanying investor-state dispute settlement mechanism procedures had existed in the 1960s, the public health system in its present form would never have come into existence”.

He goes on to say:

This sobering reflection stands as a warning that the power of modern trade treaties—whose scope has expanded well beyond traditional trade matters to interfere with the ability of governments to limit and regulate commercial interests—must be contained in order to safeguard the future of...medicare.

The experts in the field say that if chapter 11 had existed back in the 1960s when Tommy Douglas and others with him struggled to bring us medicare, we probably would not have been able to achieve it.

Let us just go back 25 years, since this is the anniversary of the Canada Health Act, and consider the fact that we may never have actually accomplished such innovative legislation if such a trade treaty, with chapter 11 provisions, had been in existence.

Scott Sinclair goes on to say:

The principles that underlie Canada's medicare system are at odds with the thrust of modern trade treaties. By establishing a public-sector health insurance monopoly, and by regulating who can provide health care services and on what terms, the Canada Health Act and the medicare system cut against the grain of trade and investment liberalization treaties.

We can see that on a regular basis. I do not know how many people in this place will remember the very vigorous debate we had in this place about six or seven years ago when the Alberta government threatened to bring forward a private hospital, under what was known as Bill 11. We stood in this House every chance we could get to try to convince the Liberal government at the time that in fact the acquiescence to the development of a private hospital in Alberta would open up the doors to private investors right across the board, in the same way that they have stood in the House today and agreed with us that in fact these provisions threaten the right of a government in this land to ban the use of 2,4-D for health reasons.

If only we could have gotten the Liberals back then to understand this, we might not be in such bad shape today, but the fact of the matter is that it is not too late. We still have what some would consider to be one of the best health care systems in the world, which is largely publicly administered on a not-for-profit basis. There is some encroaching privatization, that is true, but it is the opening of that door in any significant way that in fact hampers our ability to maintain a public, not-for-profit system.

As living proof of this, and just to bring us to a current attack on our system as a result of chapter 11, I want to refer to a situation in British Columbia where an Arizona health care entrepreneur is challenging the Canadian government because he believes his plans to build a private surgical centre in British Columbia are being thwarted, and he is seeking $155 million in redress from the Canadian government.

I have just begun with the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to be said in terms of chapter 11 and its impact upon health care, upon our model of medicare system. We have to be vigilant every step of the way.

I want to conclude by saying that every government should have the right to make decisions that are in the best interests of citizens, and when foreign investors, for reasons of profit, interfere with that right and suggest that we are impeding their right to make profits, and we thereby in the process put the public interest at risk, we are doing no one any favours.

We must stand firm against chapter 11 and we must find a way to ensure that this current situation in Quebec is dealt with immediately.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech being delivered by my good friend from Winnipeg. I have a great deal of respect for her.

However, on this subject we will disagree, and I will rebut her closing statements by saying that this House and Canadians should stand firmly in favour of chapter 11, should stand firmly in favour of NAFTA for simple reasons.

First, I was disappointed that she kept bridging back to using the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as her source of data. That is a rather shaky foundation given that everything the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives does and everything they write has already been written before they have begun. All of their suppositions are cemented in. There is no imagination. There is absolutely nothing that the centre does.

That is the counterpoint. If I stood up and used them as the only source, I think some members would have the same point of view.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is not a serious organization to be basing serious public policy on.

That said, chapter 11 of NAFTA extends an existing Canadian principle to our trading partners. The idea of national treatment existed before NAFTA. There would be no difference in the way that Canadian law would treat foreign companies doing business in Canada if chapter 11 were not in place. National treatment existed before NAFTA.

What NAFTA and chapter 11 do is extend to our trading partners the legal protection and the legal requirement that businesses cannot be discriminated against because of where they are from. It changes nothing in Canada. It changes everything for our trading partners.

Chapter 11 protects Canadian companies so that when they are doing business in the United States or Mexico, they cannot be discriminated against because they happen to be Canadian-owned or Canadian-based. Chapter 11 protects Canadians. It extends a Canadian principle. This is an important value.

The member is saying that we need to get rid of chapter 11. It is the very essence of NAFTA. It is the very essence of equal treatment. To say that somehow Canadian businesses are being discriminated against because of chapter 11 is mind-blowing to me, because to say that gets it exactly backwards.

National treatment for foreign companies operating in Canada existed before chapter 11. Chapter 11 protects Canadian companies so that the principle on which we treat foreign companies operating in Canada is extended to Canadian companies operating in the United States and Mexico. To get rid of chapter 11 would handicap Canadian companies and allow them to be discriminated against when operating in the United States and Mexico.

My question is, does the member not understand that?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages should explain why Canadians are getting their pants sued off by private investors who are challenging decisions made by governments in the best interests of Canadians. That is number one.

Number two, as minister he should understand more than anyone just how free trade, so-called fair trade, is actually discouraging Canadian artists and indigenous cultural industries in this country. I would say to him that culture is just as alive in terms of the ramifications of chapter 11 as health care is. The minister is probably going to stand up in this House and say “Oh, don't worry, health care is protected.”

Why are we faced with the prospect of paying millions of dollars in damages to foreign companies that want a piece of this $90 billion golden egg that is our health care system?

I want to say to the member that I was the minister of culture back in 1986 in Manitoba. One of the reasons that I got involved in federal politics was that I saw the free trade agreement and the consequences it had for culture in our work in Manitoba, as we were trying to build a Canadian, a Manitoba-based arts and cultural community that we could all be proud of. We are still paying for the decisions made by the likes of that member and the Liberals before them about the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

I want to answer the question about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In fact he should understand that it is that organization that predicted the budget surpluses that he said were a shock and a crying shame when he was in opposition, and he agreed that in fact the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' predictions were absolutely accurate and therefore were the basis for acting and setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office.

I do not think the member can have it both ways, one minute suggesting that CCPA does not know what they are doing and then in the next minute accepting the fact that they are the only organization of economists in this country that got it right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, as much as I hesitate to cut into the questioning by my friend from across the way, because I know it will be insightful, if not inflammatory, for my colleague from Winnipeg, the fundamental question we are dealing with today is the effect of chapter 11 on Canadian policy and policy-makers.

It seems to me that when a principle is broken whereby a foreign firm can challenge a sovereign provincial and federal government in their enactment of a health policy, which is to suggest that Canadians should be exposed to less commercial use of cosmetic pesticides than they were, a foreign firm, not even a foreign government, at this moment can sue a provincial government within Canada or the federal government and thereby expose Canadians to a known carcinogen and health risk. We saw this on the export of fruit and vegetables from the U.S., in which Canada relented on its own standards.

Therefore, I would ask my colleague, who deals with the consequences of health and health effects, what chilling, crippling effect it has when a foreign firm with no interest in Canadian health whatsoever can insert itself into the policy debate and break the sacred bond between voters and those they elect to protect them and their families.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the question and for showing that he gets it. That is something the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages does not get, which is that under chapter 11 Canadian programs and policies that protect and that are done in the best interests of its citizens are under threat, including health care.

The member will yell across the way that health care is exempted from chapter 11. Well, the safeguards he talks about, and that others have talked about, do not fully exclude the Canadian health care system. In fact he should know of the challenge in B.C. by an investor who is seeking something like $155 million in damages from his government to get a foothold into the B.C. health care system to then begin to broaden and expand private health care clinics. That is just one example.

Let us also consider the fact that under NAFTA, the minute our Canadian government might decide to embrace an expansion of our health care system--I am wishing and praying that this will happen, but I do not see it under the Conservatives--to expand the medicare concept to include pharmacare, home care and dental care, it is possible that our entire health care system can be challenged under chapter 11 of NAFTA, because it opens the door in a new area for which foreign investors can claim they want fair advantage and national treatment.

That is the danger. If we are serious about protecting medicare and growing it so that it meets the needs of all Canadians, then chapter 11 has to be reconsidered.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, culture is not included in NAFTA, so the fearmongering of the member is exactly the opposite.

Again, I will underline it, and maybe it will penetrate this time. What the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said is exactly wrong. Chapter 11 extends the protection and the rights of Canadian companies to sue American and Mexican companies who discriminate against Canadians. The rights of foreign companies to sue and to take legal action in Canada existed before chapter 11.

It is amazing that somebody can stand up in the House and for over 20 minutes speak so passionately and forcefully on a subject she clearly knows nothing about.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why Conservatives feel that in order to make their point they have to insult other members and diminish the wisdom of others involved in this debate.

I have heard this for many years. The Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, said, “Don't worry. Culture is not affected. Health care is not affected. We're okay.”

Here we are dealing with a health care issue in the province of Quebec about pesticides. That is living proof, first of all, that we have a problem. Second, I want to conclude by saying that under NAFTA there are provisions where expropriation without consequences applies with full force on the health care sector. The government measures affecting private health insurance also fall under the financial rules of GATT, where safeguards apply to existing health services. Increasing the commercial and competitive element in the financing or delivery of that service narrows the scope of the safeguards and it consequently increases the exposure of the health service to trade law restrictions. That should say it all.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. I would just like to inform the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that he has only four minutes.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, four minutes is not a lot of time for such a substantial issue.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who introduced this motion in committee. It gives us the opportunity to have this debate in the House of Commons today and its aim is to protect Quebec’s pesticide management code against certain multinationals that would like to challenge it under chapter 11 of NAFTA.

We on this side of the House are here to defend Quebec’s prerogatives and Quebec's regulations. The motion introduced by my colleague bears witness to the fact that the Bloc is here to defend Quebec’s laws, while those on the other side of the House are still wondering whether we should be protecting laws passed by the provinces when there are potential challenges to those laws under chapter 11.

This is important for Quebec. The pesticide management code stands as an example in Canada, and to date it has been used as a model by Ontario. When it was adopted in Quebec in 2003, it regulated and banned a number of pesticides based on the precautionary principle. That is the principle Quebec applied in banning 2,4-D, for example, a pesticide that is currently marketed and sold by Dow AgroSciences. That pesticide can have consequences for human health. For that reason, Quebec decided to ban it. Unfortunately, certain multinationals are using the provisions of chapter 11 to challenge Quebec’s regulations, when those regulations have been approved and adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec.

What do we expect of this government? We expect the Minister of International Trade to stand up on the international scene, to defend Quebec’s prerogatives and to defend public health in Quebec by protecting this law, on which there was consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec. The consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec, echoed by environmental groups in Quebec and Canada, could create a precedent if the government continues on the path of declining to defend Quebec’s legislation.

The government has to stand up on the international scene and defend Quebec’s prerogatives. Unfortunately, we have questioned the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of International Trade several times, and they have refused to tell us anything more.

There are facts that show that this pesticide can have health consequences. In fact, this is inconsistent for a government that several years ago tabled a bill about pesticides. Our government says it wants to protect public health, but at the same time it is trying to stick a spoke in the wheels of Quebec, for example, which has adopted this code.

To conclude, and this is what the motion introduced by the member for Sherbrooke means, we expect that the Minister of International Trade will stand up and defend Quebec’s legislation against multinationals that refuse to apply the precautionary principle.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until after government orders today.

Employment Insurance

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today, signed by, I dare say, thousands of constituents in my riding.

The first one deals with employment insurance. It calls on the government to confirm its commitment to the social safety net and to help regular Canadians through these tough times; to bring forward reform to employment insurance; to expand the eligibility and improve benefits, including eliminating the two-week waiting period; reducing the qualifying period; allowing self-employed workers to participate; raising the rate of benefits to 60% and basing benefits on the best 12 weeks in a qualifying period; and to encourage training and retraining.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to mention to the hon. member that the petition should not be read textually, but a summary of the petition should be given.

Forestry Industry

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I will certainly do that, Madam Speaker.

The second petition is a forestry petition, again signed by thousands of constituents in my riding, calling on the government to ensure that it convenes a national forestry summit.

Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one is on public safety officers. These petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to bring to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis. They also want to point out that when this occurs the employee benefit plan often does not provide sufficient compensation for the family. Also, the public mourns the loss when one of our police officers or firefighters loses their life in the line of duty.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.