Svend Robinson

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has spoken about democracy, transparency and the unprecedented extent to which his government has been reaching out and consulting Canadians on the FTAA.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the issue of corporate sponsorship at the upcoming summit of the Americas? Does he not agree there is something obscene about major corporations being able to buy their way into the inner sanctum of the summit? For $500,000 they can make a speech at the opening reception. If they pony up about $75,000 they can choose which leader to sit beside at a lunch.

Is that not a perversion of democracy? How can the hon. member talk about the great triumph of transparency and democracy when wealthy corporations are able to buy their way into the summit and civil society is kept outside a perimeter four kilometres long? How can the member call that democracy?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member questions in two areas. One of the most serious concerns that many of us who are critics of the proposed FTAA have voiced is with respect to the extension of the investor state provisions, the chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA, throughout the entire hemisphere.

We know that these provisions have been profoundly undemocratic. They have been used by corporations to attack policies which have been democratically determined by governments at the local, provincial, state or national level in areas such as the environment and health care.

I ask the member who just spoke why is it that Canada apparently has no position whatsoever before the FTAA on this fundamentally important issue of investor state provisions in chapter 11 of NAFTA? We have been told by the minister on many occasions that if we want to know Canada's position on these issues we should go to the government's website.

I have a printout of the government's website in front of me. On the issue of investment, this is what it says:

Summary of Canada's position—To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment.

If the government is so concerned about chapter 11 of the investor state provisions, why has it made no submissions on that fundamentally important issue?

I have a second very brief question. The member indicated that at the summit in 1994 the government leaders made a commitment to do whatever they could to promote biodiversity within the hemisphere. What steps have been taken to promote biodiversity in the context of the FTAA?

[Points Of Order, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the decision of the Chair to rule my supplementary question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs during question period out of order.

I want to appeal to the Chair, perhaps on reflection, to recognize that the question I was asking related specifically to the implications of three members of the House accepting a trip to Sudan paid for by a corporation which has been heavily criticized by a minister of the crown. Clearly that may have implications on Canada's foreign policy.

My question was put specifically to the foreign affairs minister. It raised serious concerns about the implications of the decision of these members to accept this payment, but more specifically it sought guidance from the minister with respect to his administrative responsibilities as minister.

In Marleau and Montpetit, at chapter 11, the relevant provisions on questions, I would draw the attention of the House and the Chair to two citations:

—Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles.

Then it goes on to refer to the specific criteria of the question, saying that members should “seek information” and of course:

—ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual Minister addressed.

With respect, one of the members who made the decision to accept this funding from Talisman is the vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee, and clearly this could have an implication with respect to Canada's role in this important issue.

I would hope the Chair would recognize that this is entirely in order. I would appeal to the Chair to acknowledge that and to permit the question to be asked at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Foreign Affairs, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister again specifically whether he will agree to toughen the Special Economic Measures Act.

While he is at it, the minister referred to a group of members of parliament that travelled to Sudan. How does the minister feel about the fact that the tickets for that trip were paid for by Talisman Energy?

Does the minister feel it is appropriate that two Liberal colleagues and one Alliance member, one of the Liberals being the vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee, should be travelling to Sudan, paid for by Talisman Energy? Is that acceptable to the minister?

[Foreign Affairs, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns the Talisman Energy complicity in the bloody civil war in Sudan.

Earlier this month the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa urged all Canadians to sell their shares in Talisman and called for a much tougher Special Economic Measures Act. Last week his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, was on a PR show for Talisman promoting the oil industry.

Will the minister accept the recommendation of his colleague, the secretary of state, to toughen the Special Economic Measures Act? Will he explain to the House who speaks for the government on Talisman in Sudan? Is it the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa who condemns it, or is it his colleague who supports it? Which is it?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a brief question. It is a complex issue, but I do want to give the member an opportunity to comment briefly on one of the most dangerous provisions in the existing NAFTA which is being proposed as quite possibly extending into the FTAA. It is chapter 11 dealing with the investor state provision.

We have seen challenges by UPS of our public postal service, by S.D. Myers on banning PCB exports and by Sun Belt Water regarding bulkwater exports. Could the hon. member comment briefly on his concerns with respect to this very dangerous provision?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why we should believe anything the minister says in light of the track record of the Liberal Party on trade issues. I remember the 1993 election when the Liberals campaigned vigorously against NAFTA. They were to have nothing whatsoever to do with NAFTA.

I remember the previous parliament when the now industry minister campaigned strongly with all his colleagues against the pharmaceutical drug legislation, that gift to multinational drug corporations. In the interim we have seen one of the most disgraceful flip-flops. In fact the Minister of Industry gave a grovelling apology to Brian Mulroney at Davos, Switzerland: “You were right, Brian. We were wrong in the Liberal Party”.

Just last week in front of the Senate committee the minister apologized for the Liberal position on pharmaceutical drugs when he said in 1987 that the pharmaceutical drug bill would suck the lifeblood out of Canada's poorest citizens. That is what he said then. He has said the opposite now. Why should we believe anything that the trade minister tells parliament or the country?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly as New Democrats we have said, as I indicated in my closing comments, that we reject the model in NAFTA. We reject the model in the proposed free trade of the Americas agreement. We have certainly voiced deep concerns about the model in APEC.

I spoke out strongly, as did my colleagues, on that model. We voiced those concerns in the context of APEC. We have certainly raised serious concerns about human rights and respect for the environment, issues like the sale of Candu reactors to China, concerns around the Three Gorges Dam and a number of other similar grave concerns about human rights violations in the context of religious freedom, whether it be Falun Dafa or other serious abuses of human rights. Certainly we have spoken out on those issues.

I might say that we are waiting for members of the Canadian Alliance to take a strong and forceful stand with respect to grave human rights violations in this hemisphere. I was astonished to hear the member for the riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca speaking of Colombia and defending the United States Plan Colombia, saying that as a member of parliament he supports the military component of Plan Colombia.

If we want to talk about human rights, I suggest to the hon. member from Coquitlam that he speak with his colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and remind him of the concern about respect for human rights in this hemisphere, which is what is being debated in this take note debate this evening.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

We are being denied the text that is being negotiated by the 34 countries involved in this hemispheric deal, the free trade of the Americas agreement.

It makes a mockery of democracy when we are being told that we are able to pronounce ourselves on the implications of the FTAA, the summit of the Americas, and yet we do not have the text itself. That is the first point I want to make.

It is a perversion of democracy to suggest that somehow we could have a serious debate or a serious dialogue on the issue when in fact we have no opportunity to view the text itself.

I might just add that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I should have mentioned that at the outset of my comments.

Not only are we denied access to the text that is being negotiated behind closed doors, but the government says that it has been totally transparent and that all we have to do is go to its website to see its position on the key issues that are being negotiated in the framework of the FTAA.

Some of us have actually gone to that website. What are some of the most critical issues? They include things like the dispute settlement mechanism, intellectual property, investment and services. Here is what the Government of Canada has to say on its official website about its position on investment:

To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group on Investment. Any submission made by Canada will be made available on the website.

So much for transparency: it has nothing to say about investment. In response to a question from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, this same government said that it was very concerned about the implications of chapter 11 of NAFTA. It was to make sure that no similar provision was being negotiated in the FTAA. What a fraud when, by its own admission, it has not bothered to make any submissions at all on the issue of investment.

That means quite clearly that the government does not care. It certainly does not care enough to make submissions about what this investor state provision might mean for Canada's sovereignty, for our ability at all levels of government to make decisions in the best interest of the citizens that we have the honour of representing.

When we look at what the FTAA is really about, or what NAFTA and the WTO are really about, more and more they are about taking power away from democratically elected governments and putting it in the hands of corporate elites that are unaccountable to anybody but their shareholders.

The House does not have to take my word for it. I will quote from a couple of people who have made very clear that this is the agenda. One is Renato Ruggiero, former director general of the World Trade Organization. Here is what he had to say:

—there is a surplus of democracy in the world that is interfering with the free movement of investment and capital.

God forbid, a surplus of democracy. We have to build up trade deals like the free trade of the Americas and NAFTA which will prevent democracy from actually influencing corporate power at all. Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute said:

A trade deal simply limits the ability to which any statutory government may respond to pressure from its citizens.

Ain't that the truth? God forbid that citizens should be in a position to actually influence their government over things like the future of health care, education, culture, social programs or the environment. We know that all these areas are at grave risk in the so-called trade negotiations.

Just yesterday, for example, the common front on the World Trade Organization released a document voicing its deep concern about the implications of the current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the so-called GATS. It has made very clear that the sole purpose of the current GATS negotiations is to open up public services to privatization and international competition. In other words, it would replace services which are now delivered in the public interest through the public sector with private for profit companies. That would destroy many of the social programs we have come to take for granted.

This is a totally undemocratic process. I want to point out as well with respect to the process that we are witnessing in the context of the summit of the Americas an increasing criminalization of dissent.

We know that Quebec City itself is being turned into an armed fortress and that any dissent, and I am speaking of non-violent, peaceful protest, people marching in the streets voicing their concerns about what these deals will mean not only for the people of Canada but for the people of the hemisphere, is being criminalized in many areas.

We have the obscene spectacle of the corporate elite buying its way into the corridors of power. Half a million dollars gets the opportunity to say a few words at the opening reception. If they can only afford $75,000, all they can do is decide which of the leaders they want to cozy up to and lobby in the context of the free trade of the Americas agreement. What a contempt for civil society.

Civil society outside that four kilometre parameter, with the friends of the government and the corporate elite inside wining and dining, having paid the necessary fees to have access to the process, is an appalling spectacle.

I want to say a word about another element that troubles us as New Democrats. This is not a process that includes all 35 countries in the hemisphere. Indeed one country has been left out because the United States made very clear that it is its rule about the summit. That is Cuba. It is totally unacceptable that Cuba should be isolated because of American pressure.

It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister said Cuba should be a member of la grande famille, should be invited to be at the table, but now we have seen in a profound reversal of Canada's policy the new foreign affairs minister saying no, Canada does not support Cuba's presence at the table. It is clearly unacceptable.

It is a process that is totally undemocratic: denial of access to the documents being negotiated and criminalization of dissent by people who object not only to the process but to the substance. There are concerns around the participation at the table and about corporate influence in the whole process, but the substance of the WTO, NAFTA and now the FTAA is of deep concern to us as New Democrats.

I know the member for Winnipeg—Transcona will elaborate on some of these concerns, particularly around the impact of chapter 11, the so-called investor state provisions. We have seen the impact of corporate power in the so-called intellectual property area with pharmaceutical companies trying to stop Brazil and South Africa under the WTO from making cheap generic drugs available to aid in the fight against AIDS and HIV. That is what we have seen as a direct result of the so-called trade deals.

In closing, I again say that these trade deals are not about trade. They are about corporate power. We as New Democrats say that it is time we had a government that negotiated a fair trade deal. We believe in a rules based economy and rules based trade, but rules that put ecological sustainability, worker rights, human rights and the environment ahead of corporate profit and the bottom line.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this take note debate with some sense of sadness and almost despair about what the ultimate outcome of this debate will be.

I have participated in many debates in the House. We have debated motions and we have debated bills, but let us be clear about what is being debated here today. We, as members of parliament, are being told that we have to debate, in a take note debate, a fundamentally important subject about the future of this country and the future of this hemisphere and this planet. Yet we are being denied the very essence of what it is that we are supposed to be debating.