Bob Speller

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, was chastising the Conservative member for misrepresenting what he said. However in the next breath, the New Democratic Party comes in and scaremongers, and brings up all these possibilities of issues that are somehow taking place at the WTO.

I would like to say to the hon. member that she misrepresents the Government of Canada in its position. I will mention two areas.

The member said that the Government of Canada was not interested in transparency, or in other words, of making sure that people know what is going on in either the MAI or the WTO negotiations. Had the hon. member been involved in the debate or the MAI study done by the trade subcommittee along with the WTO study, she would know that it was the Government of Canada that brought forward and put the MAI report on the table at the standing committee on international trade.

It was the Government of Canada that was promoting knowledge of Canadians to battle exactly that, to battle fearmongering, to battle those that would try to paint this in areas that it is quite simply not.

These are simply negotiations to get better rules of trade so that we have better access to other countries and that the agreements we already have in place work better.

I would ask the hon. member, before she rises up and fearmongers, that she get out and talk to Canadians as did the standing committee and the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada found very clearly that it was Canadians who told us that beyond all the fearmongering, they found it important that there were rules under which they could trade. They said that if we are going to create jobs, we need a rules based trading system to do that.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that somehow the Liberal government, the Government of Canada just picked up where the Tories left off on this issue. In fact we did not just pick up. We had to deal first with a $42 billion deficit. We then had to set out a situation in trade, make new trading agreements and take the focus really away from just a focus on the United States that the previous government had with trade and take that focus around the world.

That is why the Prime Minister, through his team Canada exercises, has been promoting international trade and Canada's interests around the world. We felt it was important to get away from just focusing on the United States.

We also had to deal with an economy at a time when jobs were being lost. That is why we had to focus on not only the deficit and the debt but also on job creation.

The hon. member also stated that the government has not consulted with Canadians. He should talk to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all the different groups across Canada. The Government of Canada did travel across the country and talked to many agricultural groups to make sure that the position we put forward in Seattle was a position that reflected the views of these groups.

I would encourage the hon. member to talk to these groups because they are well aware of this.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the role the hon. member has played in this issue, but she must be aware, in terms of whether or not Quebec should be at the table, that aside from the consultations which obviously go on before the Government of Canada puts forward a position at the WTO generally there are representatives of all provinces in Geneva or wherever the negotiations will take place to help the Government of Canada put forward that position. This time it will take place in Seattle.

The Government of Canada has always worked very well not only with the province of Quebec but with the other provinces in terms of putting forward forcefully the argument on culture and the argument on many other areas of provincial responsibility.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when I was referring to the hon. member as being relatively new to the portfolio, I was of course comparing it to the fact that he was not around during the time when all of the large public consultations took place with Canadians at the committee level. The hon. member will know that the foreign affairs and international trade committee held a broad range of consultations across Canada to get people's views. I appreciate that his party recognizes how important it is to consult Canadians on this issue.

In these two speeches we have seen why the Government of Canada's balanced approach to this issue is so important. The New Democratic Party wants to build walls around Canada. It wants to make sure that we put up these barriers and that somehow Canada can create jobs and prosperity when we have a wall built around us. Then we have the Reform Party, which would erase the 49th parallel. It is more interested in making sure that Canada is open for sale.

The hon. member should be aware of the importance that the Government of Canada puts on consulting Canadians. He should also be aware that there is a role for the Government of Canada in making sure there is protection for certain things that Canadians see as being importantt—

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have been aware, had he sat in the committee, that the provinces which were there, particularly the New Democratic province of British Columbia, came forward with different views and opinions on what we said. However, they said they were consulted very well by this government.

If the member went back to the records of the committee he would find that the Government of Canada consulted very widely with all the ministers of trade of all the provinces. We find that to be a very important aspect—

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Hold on. The member had his chance. The hon. member should know that the problem with that deal was that dumping and countervail was still available to the United States, which would make it more difficult for Canadian companies to get in. That is only one aspect of it.

The hon. member should know that when governments are looking at these issues they have to look at the impact they will have on Canadian jobs. Because of what we did, getting rid of the $42 billion deficit that we were left at the time, and also dealing with increasing and promoting international trade, we were able to create those jobs and make sure that Canadians were successful in the working of the agreement.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

I do not think anybody on this side ever came out and said that we were against freer trade. I will tell the member why.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's confusion. If the hon. member looked at exactly what I said during those times, I was against the free trade agreement that was being signed with the United States at that time.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, if he has been following these issues, that it is in the interests of all Canadians to make sure that international labour rules are followed. It is in the interests of all Canadians to make sure there is more co-operation between the World Trade Organization and the ILO. That is something the Government of Canada has been promoting very strongly.

In fact, the Government of Canada at the ILO has also been making sure, particularly in issues such as child labour, that there are international rules, that there are ways in which we can prevent that sort of action from happening.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that Canada does put a priority on international labour. The hon. member is right when he says that. In fact, he should know that the Government of Canada is—