Bill Graham

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

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

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

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

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

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

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages as well as in Spanish and in Portuguese, the report of the inaugural meeting of the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, held here in Ottawa, March 7 to 9, 2001.

You were good enough to preside over the opening of the session, Mr. Speaker, which brought some 100 parliamentarians from the Americas together from 28 countries to form an interparliamentary forum which will allow us to communicate with one another throughout this hemisphere.

Parliament had the opportunity to serve as the historic place for this extraordinarily important meeting. At that time we were also able to provide information and guidance to the leaders of the Americas who will be meeting in Quebec City.

[French Language Services, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has just introduced a bill to cut the delivery of services in French on the grounds that doing so is a waste of money.

In my opinion, this bill is a clear illustration of just how far the Canadian Alliance is out of touch with the concerns of Canadians living in a minority situation in one of Canada's regions.

There is the francophone community of Toronto and its cultural survival.

There are the French legal services currently being offered in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario.

There is the work done by the Regroupement des jeunes filles francophones in my riding to provide social and medical services to young people in their language.

There are the needs of French speaking immigrants requiring services in their mother tongue in order to be able to contribute to their new country.

There is the issue of national unity. I must conclude that this bill flies in the face of what underlies our spirit of bilingualism in Canada, and I am surprised at the lack of understanding it represents.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas. It was as usual a very thoughtful speech on this issue.

However, I am kind of curious about the fact that the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who marshalls his facts so well and understands the legal niceties so well, seems to be able to distort the facts in a way that is quite astonishing and to come to conclusions that are so inconsistent with his own party's position.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas knows very well that the minister and the government have been consulting on this issue for the last couple of years. He started his speech by saying there has been no consultation and asking why this is so last minute. The minister has travelled across the country. He has met with stakeholders from every group. He has met with all provincial governments. The government has initialled two WTO challenges to U.S. legislation. In the WTO we are consulting on dumping duties. We have actually challenged their legislation on log exports. The minister has met with the predecessor of Mr. Zoellick and is meeting now with Mr. Zoellick. The Prime Minister is now discussing this issue with Vice-President Cheney.

We have organized a coalition of consumers groups in the United States that support the Canadian position because they understand the need to have lumber at a price that is reasonable and they understand that their own logging industry is driving up prices, which will suppress building in the United States.

All of this work did not happen in the last 20 minutes. This has been happening for a long time, so why is the member taking that position when he knows it is not true? Second, why is he so opposed, then, to the summit of the Americas?

If the hon. member believes in a fair trade agreement, if he believes in an opportunity to get these issues of environment, human rights and all the issues he is talking about on the table, why is he going to protest the summit of the Americas? That is exactly what we will be discussing there. Those are exactly the issues we will have an opportunity to discuss, but the hon. member wants to stymie that negotiation. He wants to kill it before it starts. Where is the consistency in his position?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if I understood them correctly, these are two excellent questions.

I agree with the member that the text of the MAI was made public, which is why the civil society got involved. But the civil society is also involved in the debate on free trade in the Americas without having seen the texts beforehand.

The problem with the MAI is that the text that was made public was not the official text. It was a series of proposals put forward by a number of governments. It is always the same problem with this kind of negotiations. There is always someone who says “Here is the text”, but it is not the real text. It is only a proposal brought forward by a government. It is better to see the text before we get involved. That is my answer to the first question.

To answer the second question, I think we should address the issues of the environment, human rights and the protection of workers as part of our negotiations with all the Americas. These issues are not addressed only in the free trade agreement, but in all our negotiations with the Americas.

This is why the summit of the Americas is so important. It deals not only with international trade, but also with integration and the welfare of all the citizens of our hemisphere.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because that is the part of my speech I did not actually get to.

I raised earlier with one of our colleagues in the Bloc that I respect the ongoing debate.

The way the system works in our country at this time is that the government negotiates and ratifies international agreements, and when they require implementation in the House, they are brought to the House for the legislation to be passed. At that time we have an opportunity to discuss it, as we did with the WTO and with all other international agreements.

What is being asked here is that before ratification the government should involve the House or have a debate in the House. This suggests, if I may, with all humility and respect for the opposition member's position, that we are, as the U.S. congress is, directing the government as to how to conduct international affairs, which does represent a substantial change in our practice today.

It is a change that is happening. As I said, in the case of the MAI we had a committee that examined the MAI before it had even been negotiated. There are opportunities for the members to be engaged. I do not think that this resolution is necessary to do that.

The debate will go on. It will be in our committees. We will have an opportunity to discuss this on all sides of the House. When the time comes and the agreement has been put in place, the government will bring it forward to the House with the necessary implementing legislation and we will then have an opportunity to deal with it. That is my position and has always been the position of the government. I think the way in which we have done it in the House is the way in which it is in the best interests of the Canadian public.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am a little nervous to rise because I may find out I have made some appointment in my riding that the member opposite will choose to attack me on. I lack such power so I am sure I will be safe from any slings and arrows from the opposite side. I admit that I am culpable. I too have done things in life which I ought not to have done. There is no helping me, just like in the Anglican prayer book.

While we are passing to the subject matter of debate which I think members are interested in, I should like to address four issues we have been talking about in the House today.

The first is the consultation issue. The second is the merits of the FTAA. The third is one raised by the NDP regularly, which is the loss of sovereignty, and then I should like to talk about the merits of the particular motion.

On the consultation issue, we have heard a great deal this morning about the problems of consultation and the lack of it. Other members have addressed it, but I should like to speak to it from a different dimension. I should like to speak to it as someone who has sat on the foreign affairs committee and has been involved in international trade matters now for seven years of my parliamentary career. I frankly could say to the House, and I think most open-minded members would agree with me, that never before has there been a history of open consultation as much as there has been with the government on all these issues.

Let us cast our minds back to the time when the MAI was a hot debate. What did we do? The government asked the international trade committee of the House to examine it, to report back to the House and to discuss it before the negotiations.

On this issue we hear: we do not know what we are seeing; this is all opaque; it is a big secret; and nobody knows what is going on. What did we have in the WTO report that the committee worked on last year? We had discussions about FTAA. Witnesses came from all over the country and discussed it with us. Members of the House discussed it. The subcommittee prepared a report on the FTAA, discussed it with members of the opposition and heard the public. The public has been engaged in consultations with the department for several years.

As has been pointed out, the negotiating positions are on the website. People can exchange points of view. There will be a parallel summit. I suggest to members in all honesty that there has never been as open a process. Members opposite that they be given the text of the agreement. They know that is not possible. They are experienced people. They have all been in business. They have all been in labour negotiations. They are all intelligent people.

They know and the public of Canada knows that when we go into a negotiation with 30 other countries, the 30 other countries have something to say as well. If they say that the agreement should not be released, we cannot release it against the will of our trading partners.

The Canadian government has shown a willingness to share the text of the agreement, but other governments have said no. Until the agreement is final we are not in a position to do so. I am confident that once the agreement is final, it will be open in Canada and open for discussion and review by members and others in the normal way.

The consultation process domestically has been extraordinary. In addition, internationally the Government of Canada has been at the forefront of bringing together an interparliamentary forum of the Americas. I am proud to say that it will be sitting in this Chamber when we break in the month of March.

In this very room we will have representatives, not governmental representatives but parliamentarians from all across the Americas: South America, Central America and the Caribbean countries. They will be sitting in this room discussing the issues we are discussing today: Will free trade in the Americas contribute to our prosperity; how do we preserve our environment, how do we preserve the diversity of our culture?

I hope all members of the House and all parties will be participating in this important debate launched by the Government of Canada as a recognition that these issues touch deeply our social programs. The issues of free trade and economic integration touch us. They touch our daily lives and they touch the daily lives of other citizens throughout the Americas.

Do we wish to run away from them, as would be suggested by the NDP? Or, do we wish to embrace them in a positive way which will bring prosperity for all of the Americas, not just for ourselves but for everyone, and in a way which allows us to consult with everyone? That is what is happening in the area of consultation.

I urge members opposite who are interested in this issue to speak to their whips and get involved. They should find out about the interparliamentary forum which will sit here and participate in these discussions, not just with us but with democratically elected representatives from all of the Americas, all of whom share our preoccupations and our concerns about this agreement.

The minister's point is excellent. The agreement is bringing prosperity. If we did not have international trade, we would not have the city of Toronto of today. It is entirely dependent upon it. It is dependent upon it in the financial services sector, in the mining industry and in practically every area of economic life of the city I am very proud to represent in a riding I treasure.

Members know that 40% of our GDP is dependent on exports. Some 25% or 30% is dependent on imports. I can say to every one of my citizens, as I walk down the streets of my riding, that about 60 cents of every dollar in their pockets are somehow related to the trade in which the country is engaged. They know that.

We are trying to craft the best agreement we can. We are doing that and we are trying to bring in other foreign countries to enable them to share in our prosperity. I suggest that is a generous thing we ought to be doing.

We could focus on other issues. Our colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc and the Alliance are no different from the colleagues on our side of the House. We are all concerned about the environment, human rights, labour standards, diversity of culture, the distribution of wealth and equity.

That is what we do. We are politicians. We are in the business of trying to make sure that society is an harmonious operating system. That is what will be done at the level of the Americas. That is what this engagement is all about. It is an exciting, dynamic and wonderful opportunity. One of the great opportunities is the free trade area of the Americas.

As members will recall we did a study of the WTO, a great institution, in committee on it last year before going into the famous negotiations in Seattle and found that it is grappling with these problems on a global scale.

The FTAA allows us to grapple with these problems on the scale of the Americas. We will be able to deal with human rights, for example, with our colleagues in the Americas because the FTAA is only one part of the negotiations that will take place at the summit of the Americas.

The Prime Minister will not only be speaking to trade agreements with the other leaders of the Americas. He will be speaking to strengthening democracy and to good governance in all our countries. He will be speaking to issues of social justice and equity in our countries. He will be speaking to issues of human rights.

Let us not pretend that because the FTAA is there we do not have a framework for human rights in the Americas. In this hemisphere there are dozens of forums for discussing human rights. There is the OAS general assembly, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, the inter-American court, and working groups on human rights. Canada is engaged in all of these groups. We actively participate in them. The FTAA will enable us to get a better handle on these groups and to work with our trading partners in the Americas to advance those causes. Why would we stand in its way if we believe in that?

This morning I had the opportunity to meet with a very interesting group called the sustainable cities initiative. This group of Canadians is bringing cities together with private industry to go to developing countries and work with them on environmental concerns in their cities.

Where are the contracts they are doing at the moment? They are in Salvador, Brazil; San José, Costa Rica; Cordoba, Argentina; and Valparaiso, Chile. Why? It is because these are countries of the Americas. They are logical places that small and medium size businesses can work with and link with, as we create a matrix throughout the Americas that deals with human rights, culture and economics on a mutually advantageous system. That is what this is all about. That is what the debate should be about, instead of what I hear from the NDP over and over again about our loss of sovereignty.

How have we lost our sovereignty? These agreements are entered into by freely elected democratic governments. The sovereign will of the Government of Canada, elected by the people of Canada, chooses to go into the agreement.

For example, would members of the NDP rip up the Kyoto agreement because we lost our sovereignty by entering into it? No. They like the Kyoto agreement. We must do that if it is something they are in favour of. Would they rip up the ILO? I have heard from Bob White and the NDP over and over again that the ILO is a wonderful and important institution. The ILO interferes with sovereignty. It tells states what do. It says that there must be certain labour standards and that they cannot do this or that.

Every country that enters into any international agreement loses some degree of its sovereignty, but it pools its sovereignty in an international way to benefit overall. That is what free trade of the Americas is about. That is what the summit of the Americas is about. That is why I think the resolution at this time is misinformed and ill-advised.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, “I do not know who is negotiating what and on whose behalf”, said Mr. Lang when the MAI was discussed; that is a good quote. Does it apply to the present situation?

I know, so to speak, the answer to the question. This is the responsibility of the government, which was recently elected by a vast majority of Canadians and which is negotiating on the basis of the principles circulated on the Internet for everyone to see. It is negotiating with the help of the civil society here in Canada and elsewhere.

It is negotiating on behalf of all the people of Canada, who will benefit from an extension of markets and the creation of prosperity throughout all the Americas.

Could the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis tell me whether Quebecers agree with her and whether they are against free trade? Or am I wrong when I say to her that, in my opinion, the people of Quebec favour free trade, profit from it, and want to participate and not be hemmed in by an attitude like the hon. member's?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

I withdraw my words. I used the word strictly in a straightforward manner.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Mercier, whom I respect a great deal as an active member in the area of foreign affairs. I think, however, that she is misleading the House and the motion misleads the House, or at least the discussion so far is misleading.

There are two issues with which we have to concern ourselves. The first one is the issue to which she and the previous speaker referred, transparency in the negotiations. The House must bear in mind that there is not one text available. There are 42 texts. There are as many texts as there are governments sitting around the table. many of the governments do not intend to share those texts until the negotiations are complete. That is the way international negotiations are completed.

Our government has been unlike any government before in history in terms of its open consultation, open discussion, and the availability of our negotiating positions on the Internet where they have been fixed. There is recognition that areas such as services and investment, to which the member referred, are not available, but they will be available when they are ready. There are open discussions. Our committees are consulted and there is broad consultation.

The member's motion does not direct itself to the issue she has been discussing today. Her motion is in fact a constitutional amendment. The motion that the Bloc proposes today is that the House be required to debate an international agreement before it is ratified by the Government of Canada. This has never been the practice. It is not the practice of the country and it should not be introduced.

I suggest to the member that she respond to my question. Why would we introduce a profound constitutional change and an amendment in the way in which we proceed in international affairs under the guise of the transparency of this negotiation? We all agree on all the issues and that it is most important for all of us. We all intend to be engaged and have been engaged in a meaningful way.