In other words, the Liberal members—each of them—who claim to represent the public, do not even want the public involved. And yet, the agreements increasingly concern, not only international trade and the economic terms of trade, but culture, services, education and even health. These are things that affect the public directly.
So, how can they have the gall to deny us the right to properly, honestly and vigorously represent the public who put us here in this House? It is disgraceful. And it is not for lack of trying to teach our Liberal colleagues the values of democracy, the fact that parliament is the ultimate symbol of these values and that parliamentarians ought to be included at all stages of negotiation.
Five times my party, and the member for Joliette specifically, introduced bills calling for the participation of the public and MPs at all stages of the negotiation process for any trade agreement. There are many. In 1998, to give an idea of what is involved, Canada signed 44 agreements with different countries. This year, some 50 agreements are expected to be signed. This is not insignificant.
When government talks of globalization and says it will increasingly determine the direction national governments take and affect our daily lives, the least if could do would be to include the public and, first and foremost, parliamentarians.
The first bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois concerned this. It asked as well that all treaties be tabled in the House for debate, prior to their ratification, specifically to avoid the government's presenting flawed agreements, as we have seen, containing things that do not suit the majority of the people and that require more work.
No one is going to convince me that the Minister for International Trade, despite what he claims, is the source of all truth. However, he, without consulting anyone, decides with a few officials what they are going to involve the Canadian and Quebec public in by signing this sort of treaty.
In the private members bills we introduced in this House, we asked that the provinces be consulted as well. Why? Because, increasingly, as I mentioned earlier, international treaties do not involve just the economy and trade. They concern education, health and all other services provided to the public. The areas of jurisdiction involved are often exclusively those of Quebec and the other provinces.
The provinces then find themselves in a bind, because a single minister along with a few public officials negotiated, on their behalf, international treaties that concern their jurisdictions. They find themselves in a bind because they have to implement these agreements, and moral pressure is exerted on them if they decide not to do so. If we find this acceptable, then it follows that anything goes in this parliament.
Whenever such bills were introduced, we always asked for transparency with a capital T. We asked for public hearings on the progress of negotiations, we asked that the public be kept informed of these negotiations and of their content, and we asked that the impact of these negotiations on the daily lives of people be explained. But the Liberals rejected all our requests for transparency, in a negotiation process that ought normally to be open and accessible to the public.
What does the government have to hide? What are the government and the pedantic minister up to, when they show us an agreement after it has been negotiated, signed and approved and tell us “Vote in favour, all you have to do is approve it. This is your only role in this parliament”? The members who sit here, who represent Quebecers and Canadians, are only here to rubber-stamp things. We are all here to approve the agreement once everything has been negotiated without our input and without knowing the terms of the agreement before it is signed by Canada and the other country. This is unacceptable. Things are worse since 1993. The process is even less transparent since the Liberals came to office in 1993.
But the number of agreements is growing; more and more of them are being signed every year. And this trend will continue, because globalization is now a given. It is in our interests to negotiate agreements with all countries of the world.
It seems to me that it would be easy to have a little more transparency, to be guided by a stronger sense of democracy than that which has guided this government in the hundreds of international agreements it has signed since 1993.
We all remember what happened with the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment. For two years, an agreement on investment was negotiated, behind closed doors, between the world's richest nations, the OECD nations. Had the principles in this agreement not been condemned by Lionel Jospin, in France, and by ordinary citizens, who mounted a campaign over the Internet, which is now a global link, no one would have known a thing about it until after it was ratified by 28 OECD nations. This multilateral agreement on investment would have been disastrous.
It would have meant that governments worldwide would have had their hands tied by transnationals, by multinationals, which have no interest in the common good. As for investments, these companies would have controlled all the countries who signed this terrible agreement.
Yet the Minister for International Trade told us that he would consult Quebecers and Canadians. As recently as last January, he said that consultation of Canadians is an ongoing process, which is an integral part of Canadian trade policy.
Where is this consultation? Where is this consultation at all stages of the process of negotiations with countries with whom Canada is signing trade agreements? Where is this consultation with parliament, whose members are democratically elected to represent the people of Quebec and of Canada?
We are used to the minister doing the opposite of what he says. At some point, he is no longer taken seriously; he no longer has any credibility. What are his statements and his promises worth when, a few months later, what happens is the complete opposite of what was said in the House? Where is his sense of dignity? Where is his conscience as a member, if he has one? So much for investments.
Since I see that my time is running out, I will resume after oral question period.
