Pat O'Brien

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the leaders of the Americas overwhelmingly support the FTAA, as my colleague the secretary of state noted earlier. Why? It is because they understand the truth of the comments of Kofi Annan. They understand that globalized and liberalized trade is the best thing that could happen for their countries, their economies and their people.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Yes, a neo-Liberal labour leader who is out of touch. I wonder which labour party is out of touch. It might just be the NDP, and that might be reflected in the size of its caucus and the incredible soul searching it is very rightly going through.

The NDP dismissed Tony Blair very blithely. However we can refer to statements like those of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who said the best thing we could do for less developed and poorer nations was to globalize and liberalize trade. He even quantified that. He said liberalized trade would result in a direct infusion of capital to poorer nations of somewhere between $100 billion to $150 billion. That is much more than the combined foreign aid or overseas development assistance given by all the nations of the world.

When I raised the issue with a labour leader in my city of London, Ontario, I got a pathetic response. I was told Kofi Annan was a handpicked puppet of the Americans. What ideological garbage coming from the NDP and its spokespeople across the country. They are so ideologically tied down to their own little interpretation of reality that they dismiss one of the best prime ministers the U.K. has had in recent times and an outstanding leader of the United Nations because they do not agree with NDP ideology.

The leader of the NDP spoke about public opinion. I do not know what public opinion poll she has been reading but I do know one thing. The reality, and I mean reality and not the NDP version of it, is that a cross section of public opinion polls shows that Canadians overwhelmingly endorse the pursuit of globalized trade.

Between two-thirds and 70% of Canadians have repeatedly expressed support for it. One labour council poll came up with different numbers. We were not surprised at that. However a cross section of the polls shows that Canadians overwhelmingly support the globalization of trade. They understand its value and know that it has created 2.1 million new jobs in Canada since 1993. Close to 90% of those jobs are directly related to our exports of goods and services.

I do not know where these interpretations of public opinion come from, but they certainly do not reflect the public opinion I read and hear about all the time in my city of London, Ontario, and in my riding of London—Fanshawe.

Canadian investors benefit from a rules based system at the World Trade Organization, regional arrangements such as the NAFTA, and bilateral agreements such as the Canada-Israel and Canada-Chile free trade agreements to which my colleague, the secretary of state, referred earlier.

Investment rules provide for transparent, predictable and fair rules for Canadian investors, large and small. The NAFTA investment rules play an important role in protecting and facilitating foreign investment activities of Canadian firms in the United States and Mexico. Trade and investment rules give a relatively small economy like ours more leverage against the political pressure sometimes exerted by larger economies.

If there is a trading nation in the world that needs these rules it is Canada. Only the NDP fails to understand that. Its members do not understand that Canadian jobs are dependent on freer trade. They champion themselves as spokespeople for the labour movement, but they are now questioning that and rightly so. The labour movement does not reciprocate when it goes to the polls, and with very good reason. It knows who is in touch with reality and who is not.

Investment rules also attract foreign investment into Canada because they strengthen Canada's reputation as a secure base for establishing global enterprises.

We come to the matter of disputes. There have always been disputes between governments and companies and there always will be. NAFTA did not create such disputes. Chapter 11 did not create such disputes. Companies have always been unhappy with governments for various things and have taken a variety of actions.

Disputes stand out for the simple reason that they are rare, although some are admittedly dramatic. In the context of our full trading relationship we have not had many trade disputes, and Canada has done very well in some of them.

Disputes affect a small portion of the billions of dollars in investment that Canada attracts, with over $93 billion last year alone. Disputes affect a very small portion of the billions that Canadian firms invest abroad, with some $62 billion in 2000. Moreover we have means to address such disputes.

It boggles my mind that people suggest we do not need to protect either investment in Canada or Canadian investment overseas. It is incredible. I do not know if the motion is serious. It is not accurately worded. It does not reflect the repeated statements of the Minister for International Trade that we must clarify, not scrap or reopen, chapter 11 of NAFTA. He has said that repeatedly and it has been published in Hansard on many occasions. In answering questions in the House in the minister's absence I have made the same point because it is consistent with what he has said.

In conclusion, foreign direct investment in Canada and Canadian investment abroad are both vital to Canada's growth and prosperity. Investment brings knowledge, technology and new opportunities for Canadians. It enriches the range of possibilities to which Canadians can aspire while helping build the knowledge economy and prepare Canada to compete confidently on the global stage.

For these reasons the government believes policies which protect Canadian investment abroad and promote Canada as a location of choice for investment are critical to our economic and social well-being. We will therefore not support measures that limit the government's ability to protect Canadian investments abroad. We will not support measures that blatantly threaten jobs, jobs which are badly needed and which have been created in significant numbers since 1993 because of our success in trade.

Earlier today I had the honour to table the latest story on overseas trade for Canada in the year 2000. It was a tremendous success story and it was an honour to table it. Most Canadians and all political parties in the House seem to understand that, with the sole exception of the NDP. That is its problem.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the motion. I note that NDP members have taken some latitude in their comments. I would like to take the same latitude, address some of their comments and then debate more directly the motion that is before us today.

I challenge the leader of the NDP to give me one example of a more open and transparent trade negotiation than the one Canada has been involved in. She ducked the question.

The very same question was put to the trade critic for the NDP by the Minister for International Trade not long ago in committee. The member for Burnaby—Douglas also ducked the question. Members of the NDP are very good at ducking questions that they do not have answers for when they relate to trade or anything else.

The trade critic for the NDP who spoke before me made the point that we have not yet made our position known on investment because we do not have a position. The reality is that the Liberal Party and the government believe in consulting with Canadians on important issues before we announce our position. Unlike the NDP we are not tied to a rigid straitjacket of left wing ideology, which is the reason we see so few of them in the House of Commons following the last election.

I welcome during questions and comments somebody in the NDP telling us when there has been a more open and transparent trade negotiation. I rather doubt anyone could. The trade critic and the leader could not do it. I would like their whole caucus to reflect on it. Maybe those members could come up with something other than utter silence.

I would now like to speak about a subject which is often overlooked in the debate that refers directly to the motion. It is the vital role investment plays in the Canadian economy. There is no doubt that foreign direct investment in Canada and Canadian direct investment abroad have joined international trade in goods and services to become our principal engines of growth and job creation.

Foreign direct investment helps ensure that Canadian firms have the capital they need to succeed and grow in the highly competitive global economy. We know that investment creates jobs, spurs innovation and provides Canadians with access to the capital and expertise that make our country stronger. Canadian direct investment abroad is equally important. It helps Canadian firms establish a presence in key foreign markets, to share Canadian expertise and values, and to export goods and services to key markets.

I should like to share some recent statistics that help to paint a clear picture of the situation. In 2000 the stock of foreign direct investment in Canada reached a record $291 billion. At the same time Canadian direct investment abroad increased to an all time high of $301 billion in 2000 and exceeded foreign direct investment in Canada for the fifth year in a row.

Traditionally Canada has been viewed as a net recipient of foreign direct investment. Many people do not realize that Canada is a strong and vital net exporter of foreign direct investment.

Foreign investment in Canada has over the years been an important source for jobs, especially high skilled and high value added jobs. Foreign investment in Canada has brought with it advantages in research and development, technology and talented people, which have all made real and lasting contributions to our economic and social well-being.

An economic forecast prepared by Industry Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade estimates that each $1 billion increase in new inward investment to Canada could generated up to 45,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in GDP over a five year period. The study also postulates that one job in ten and approximately 50% of Canada's total exports are derived from foreign direct investment.

It should be noted further that a large proportion of profits from new investments is reinvested in Canada, contributing to a higher growth rate and a rise in Canadian living standards.

Canada has an affluent domestic market, a highly skilled and well educated labour force, efficient transportation systems and a telecommunications infrastructure which is the envy of the world. The Canadian private sector is competitive and knowledge intensive, whether in telecommunications, biotechnology or computer software. In encryption capabilities, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and ocean technologies Canadian firms lead the way.

Our excellent health care and education systems are cornerstones to our high quality of life. Canada remains an attractive location for foreign investment.

These Canadian advantages have not been gained by compromising our overriding economic and social values. Foreign investors in Canada are subject to the same laws and regulations as our Canadian investors, including those aimed at protecting the environment and those ensuring the highest labour, health, building and safety standards. We should not forget that creating prosperity and wealth in Canada is a necessary first step.

We have progressive social policies to utilize that wealth to create a healthy and educated society. This is an element that the NDP leaves out. It wants to redistribute wealth but does not want to focus on wealth creation as a precondition. Hence the ideological straitjacket that I mentioned at the start of my remarks which is shared by few Canadians.

Investment is not a one way street. One of the most significant features of Canada's recent economic history has been the rapid growth of Canadian investment abroad. The value of this investment has increased by fivefold between 1985 and 2000 from $57.2 billion to $301 billion. In 2000 and for the fifth consecutive year direct investment abroad by Canadians overtook foreign investment in Canada. That is an outstanding performance.

Direct investment abroad by Canadian industry is part of its strategic effort to increase market share and stay competitive in foreign markets. Firms are increasingly using outward investment to strengthen their operations, penetrate new markets and acquire new technologies, resources and skills. Evidence suggests that this type of investment does not precipitate an export of jobs but rather results in increased sales and production from home facilities.

A recent study by the OECD found that on average every $1 of investment is followed by $2 of exports. It all adds up to jobs and opportunities for Canadians. The growth of Canadian foreign direct investment abroad has led to an increase in exports. This has directly affected Canada's economic health.

These investments create opportunities for Canadians by giving Canadian firms new markets to extend their businesses through exports and through local sales. Canadian direct investment abroad often secures new customers and creates sales in new markets. In addition, it provides much needed capital infusion in growing economies.

When Canadians invest abroad we also bring our values together with the products we export. Additional research has shown that the growth of productivity and profits of Canadian firms involved in global markets has been superior to the performance of domestically oriented firms. We have also seen that income from Canada's outward foreign direct investments increase during recent years helping to improve our standard of living.

The motion is not founded on fact. The Minister for International Trade has been repeatedly very clear in the House of Commons, in committee and in the media that the Government of Canada does not seek to scrap or reopen chapter 11 of NAFTA but seeks to clarify it.

It seeks to have adjudicating bodies more accurately respect the intentions of the NAFTA partners when they signed this clause. Points of clarification are very important. The minister has made that clear. However he has repeatedly said that there is no need or interest in scrapping or reopening such a clause because there has to be balance and sensible protection for investment in Canada and for Canadian investment abroad.

The motion is devious in that it seeks to contrast the NDP's interpretation of what the minister said with what the Prime Minister said. That will not hold water or bear scrutiny.

The reality is that chapter 11 of NAFTA is working reasonably well when put in the context of the enormous volume of trade that we do with our NAFTA partners, especially the United States with whom we have a two way trade daily of $1.3 billion.

In that context the clause is working relatively well. However we would like to see further clarification and tightening up of the clause in how it has been interpreted by adjudicating panels.

It is interesting to listen to the rhetoric of NDP members. They love to use the word rhetoric but do not like it applied to themselves. I eagerly await an answer to the question they have continually ducked about a more transparent trade negotiation.

It was fascinating to sit in the House a few short weeks ago and watch NDP members grind their teeth as the labour prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, said very bluntly that no matter how well intentioned critics of freer trade may be they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of logic. He said the best thing we could do for our own nations and for poorer nations was to globalize and liberalize trade.

NDP members dismiss Tony Blair as a labour leader who is out of touch.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I heard the estimate of the number of people in attendance. It seems to grow every time I hear the number quoted by the NDP. The leader of the NDP said that there was nothing for peaceful demonstrators. I should like to ask her a couple of questions.

Is she unaware of government funding to help the parallel summit take place? Is she totally and completely unaware of the extensive consultations that took place for several months by the government or of the hearings that took place by the standing committee before the election and after?

She talks about ordinary citizens having tear gas. Are they the ordinary citizens who were throwing chunks of cement and cans, which I stepped over, at the police? Are they the same ordinary citizens that she is speaking about? Does she fail to acknowledge that there was a minority of irresponsible violent people there and the police showed tremendous restraint?

Quite frankly we have had a lot of rhetoric from the leader. I should just ask her another question, very pointedly. I challenge her to tell me one trade negotiation that Canada has ever been involved in that has been more open and transparent than this one.

Her trade critic and repeated witnesses have failed to ever answer that question. Maybe the leader could tell us just one trade negotiation that has been as transparent, let alone more transparent, than this one.

[Trade, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for International Trade, I am pleased to table in the House today under Standing Order 32(2), in both official languages, the second annual report of Canada's state of trade.

The report details Canada's outstanding success in international trade and investment and it gives the evidence that international trade is indeed the engine of the Canadian economy at this time.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me a chance before one of the hon. member's colleagues, but I am sure we will all get a chance to participate in this very interesting and worthwhile debate, which was the idea of my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette.

Of course we do support the main motion, because we feel that what the main motion calls for we have been doing for some months, are doing now and will continue to do. The government will support the main motion, but it will not support the amendment, for some important reasons.

The member who just spoke said some argue that free trade will bring prosperity while others argue that it will bring the opposite, poverty. I would like to give him the thoughts of two world leaders and ask him to react.

First, I agree with those who feel that it will bring prosperity. I feel that is the proper conclusion. What the president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, said to the protesters in Quebec City who were there to speak on behalf of the less developed countries of the Americas, was this: let us choose. He said “we are the democratically elected leaders of those countries so let us choose what is right for our people, and we are accountable to those people”.

I wonder what my colleague thinks of the remarks of Mr. Fox and also of the remarks of Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, who said recently in his report that the best thing we can do to help the less developed countries of the world is to globalize and liberalize trade. He even quantified that and said that would ensure $100 billion in aid to those countries.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could react to the comments of Secretary General Annan and President Fox.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is aware of the extensive consultations between the federal government and all the provinces, including la belle province de Quebec.

Surely the hon. member is aware that in one of the latter meetings between the Quebec minister and the Minister for International Trade the full time that had been set aside by the international trade minister was not even needed, as the Quebec minister had raised his points.

Surely the hon. member is aware that in the EU, which his party likes to quote as an example, those nations in the EU are willingly sacrificing considerable sovereignty to be part of the EU.

I understand that the member is a separatist and that his goal is a separate Quebec. I disagree with him, quite frankly, that it will ever happen, but let us be candid here. He cannot have it both ways. Either he wants sovereignty for Quebec or he understands that in the EU he quotes those nations are giving up sovereignty. Which is it?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague opposite is really suggesting that the federal government enter into major negotiations on a trade treaty with 10 provincial partners sitting at the same table. What about the three territories of Canada? Should they be there? Would it be undemocratic to leave them out?

Is the hon. member really suggesting that all of the countries proceed like that? We would need an awfully huge negotiating table. Is he serious? Does he believe such a process would be practical? Does he not understand that Canadians have elected the federal government from coast to coast to coast to speak for them and their interests? That includes, of course, the province of Quebec, where the government was re-elected with a higher number of seats. Is the member serious about his suggestion that we take such a large delegation? What is his real problem with understanding that the federal government is the legitimate authority to negotiate on behalf of all Canadians?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going to make personal comments and give me gratuitous advice about where I should go, he ought to do some research and know that I do not come from a business background. The hon. member again shows quite clearly that he is weak in his research.

The fact is, as I, the Prime Minister and the minister have said, the chapter has worked relatively well in a trade agreement with $1.3 billion daily trade. Yes, there are bound to be problems and there have been problems but not that many. The government has won several of the disputes that have been launched.

Does the hon. member somehow think that companies, whether or not there is a NAFTA chapter 11, cannot sue if they feel their interests have been unfairly prejudiced? What world is he coming from? We cannot stop individuals or corporations from launching lawsuits. They do not even need chapter 11. They have that right under the rule of law in Canada.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague opposite. Unfortunately, I am not sure he listened very carefully to the Prime Minister.

The hon. member has mistakenly quoted the Prime Minister as saying that there are no problems with chapter 11. The Prime Minister did not say that. The Prime Minister said that the chapter has worked relatively well but that in a trade relationship with the U.S., which totals $1.3 billion daily, there are bound to be irritants and rough spots. The Prime Minister did not say there were no problems. He said that the chapter was working relatively well given the size of the relationship.

What the Minister for International Trade has said repeatedly, and he has been crystal clear on this, is that we need to protect investment. He said that was very important but that some rulings by dispute panels had gone beyond the scope of the original signers of the NAFTA. He said that we needed a chapter like chapter 11 but that it needed clarification and tightening up.

Does the hon. member believe in the necessity of protecting investment? Does he not see that without some protection for investment such a treaty will likely bring very few benefits to any of the participating countries?