The problem is that the New Democrats are unwilling even to hear the other side of the debate. All they want to do is say “It is wrong. The sky is falling”. Let us at least get some of the comments from the other side on the table.
The fact is that a significant number of ordinary Canadians are trying to do business around the world. It is in their interest to have a legal framework which protects their interest.
It is true that any time we get into an agreement which is contractual in nature we also agree to certain things. If we are asking other people for exemptions or to change their body of law or to limit their freedom to act, we will do the same thing in a contractual manner.
It is also reasonable, when we start to negotiate any kind of agreement, that the various parties put on the table their preferred deal, their perfect world. They may differ significantly from our view of a perfect world. That is why there are negotiations.
We have discussions which go on for some period of time and we reach common positions. It is not rocket science; it is the business of negotiating an agreement.
I am a little surprised at the shallowness of the Reform Party's motion, particularly the second and third parts of it. It states that the government has failed to explain what the benefits and costs will be and that the government has failed to take part in public discussions.
I have a document, to which the minister referred, that goes back to May 24, 1995. If members check their calendars they will determine that was before the last election. On that date there was a public announcement of the launch of the negotiations.
I will not, unless called upon, take up the time of the House to go through this, but since then there have been hundreds and hundreds of meetings, discussions, phone calls and documents exchanged with everybody from business to labour. They go right across the spectrum. The people who have wanted to be involved in the process and wanted to get information have been provided with it quite extensively.
I am not certain what the Reform Party is attempting to achieve with the debate when its members stand in the House and profess they cannot get things that it seems the rest of Canada has been able to obtain quite easily.
There are some very legitimate concerns. My friends in the New Democratic Party, when they step down from their rhetoric and start to look at the issues, actually make some valid points.
I think the member for Dartmouth made a cogent and coherent argument about some legitimate concerns relative to culture. A number of concerns have to be looked at in light of what we are prepared to accept in terms of limitations on our own freedom of action.
We can say on the one hand that we are giving up our sovereignty and will no longer be able to act on behalf of the people of Canada. On the other hand we can say we are entering into an agreement where we agree to do something and the other side agrees to do something. We weigh what we are giving up against what we feel we are achieving.
The minister, contrary to the opinion expressed by the Reform Party, was not the least bit shy about being in the House and debating this point, as he has not been the least bit shy about being anywhere in Canada and discussing it. In the discussions I have had in my riding I have had the same kind of reaction.
Articles have been printed in the paper. One article was something like “if we pass this agreement life in Canada will end”. That kind of rhetoric has done two things. It has devalued the debate and made it more difficult for the New Democrats to put on the table legitimate concerns about this very complex set of negotiations. It has also raised concerns on the part of people who may not be aware, may not have the time or may not have a sense of what is happening internationally around them, particularly older people.
We set up a committee in my riding to work on this issue. People, at first blush, after reading the rhetoric were quite fearful about what may or may not be happening. However, when we sat down and looked at the questions, got the information from the minister and came back and had a discussion, it seemed that step by step people were satisfied that their concerns were being addressed and their fears were being taken into consideration in the negotiation.
It is important to make three key points. The first is that there is nothing mysterious or secretive about involvement in the MAI negotiations. This is not something that will all of a sudden be sprung on people. Goodness knows an enormous amount of information has been shared already. It is a process that began publicly over two years ago.
It is clear the minister and the government want to let Canadians know what they are doing.
Second, if it can be achieved, a good and fair set of rules for international investment would in principle be good for Canada. I do not think I need make that point in the House. If we could get a set of principles or rules in place that further international co-operation, trade and investment in a way that is of net benefit to the people of Canada and the people in the rest of the world, it would be a good thing. It is a good thing when nations come together to negotiate and build a framework of agreements rather than to fight. It is a good thing if we negotiate a solution in Iraq rather than fight to reach a solution.
It is important to underline the third one. At the end of the negotiation the government will not sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not fully support key Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian interest. I believe that is an important point to end on.
Every day people are negotiating and looking for ways to improve things in the country. Having reached an end to those negotiations, we in the Chamber and in the country will be called on to evaluate it. If it does not meet that test we will not sign it.
