Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in the debate on the NDP supply motion on free trade.
I wish I had been part of the debate and the discussions in 1988-89 dealing with the Progressive Conservative position on free trade, the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement that came thereafter. I congratulate the NDP because of its consistency. It was obviously consistent in its position back in 1988-89.
NDP members were the fearmongers of the day. They were isolationist and protectionists. They wanted to build trade boundaries around the country back then. They are consistent when they stand before us today in that they still deal with protectionist and isolationist issues. They would like to see nothing better than Canada breaking all ties with trading partners, which obviously cannot happen.
The Liberals on the other hand are not quite so fortunate in being consistent. The parliamentary secretary must get whiplash in doing a 180° turn on the free trade and NAFTA issues when his party was vehemently opposed to any free trade agreements that were being negotiated back in 1988-89.
I can only say that Canadians are very fortunate that they had a government then which had vision and foresight. If it were not for that government which stood in the House and fought for open markets, the $42 billion deficit the member continually speaks of would still be a $42 billion deficit.
The 42% GDP increase of which the parliamentary secretary spoke was a result of the free trade agreements. That is what retired the deficit and not the Liberal policy which was put into place since then. Quite frankly no positive policy has come from that bench since 1993. I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving credit where credit is due to the Progressive Conservative Party and its development of free trade policies.
Let me talk a bit about free trade. I will just try to gloss over it and deal particularly with the agriculture, about which I do have a tendency of knowing a little more. I will take my own constituency as a microcosm with respect to free trade. The NDP, as I said earlier, would like to build boundaries and not see the open boundaries of the globalized market.
Let me give an example. A fertilizer manufacturer in my constituency exports the majority of its production into the United States, our major trading partner. Eighty per cent of what we produce in trade goes to the United States. Let us make no mistake about that. It is a marketplace of 300 million people and we are a marketplace of 30 million people. We depend on the United States as our market.
A pharmaceutical company in my riding produces a drug called Premarin. It is a global market but most of it is being produced in Canada and sold in the United States.
The NAFTA agreement took tariffs and barriers off hogs. Today a hog processing plant in Brandon, Manitoba, employs up to 2,000 people. The majority of its export market is in the United States and Asia. NAFTA removed the tariff barrier, and that is why jobs have been created in my constituency.
A company in my area produces steel buildings which are sold in the United States. Most of its production goes to the United States, creating jobs in my constituency and in Canada.
Another wonderful little company that works for 3M sends 90% of its product to Chicago and Los Angeles. It has created 165 jobs in my riding and its product goes to the marketplace in the United States.
A company just outside my riding produces french fries, not for our table, not for our market, but for Minneapolis. It provides all of the french fries for McDonald's in Minneapolis, an open trading partner with an open trading border.
Members of the NDP would like to stop that trade. They would like to put up barriers. We would not be in the position we are in today as Canadians with our own quality of life and standard of living if it were not for trade.
Let me talk about faith in our labour force and our economy. I do not have any fears about competing with the globe because I have faith in Canadians. I have faith in our abilities. I have faith in our ability to capitalize. I have faith in our ability to produce. That is what trade is all about.
We can compete in the global market, but in order to compete in that marketplace we need a rules based system. That is what we have with a rules based system. We have it with NAFTA and our trading partners in Mexico and the United States. We also have it with the WTO. We as Canadians require rules based trading more so than our partners. We have taken advantage of that rules based trading. We must continue to exercise our negotiating skills at the WTO table. I would suggest that not being at the WTO in Seattle at the end of this month would be the worse possible thing we could do for Canadians and for our standard of living.
This NDP motion speaks to enforcing labour standards, environmental protection, culture diversity, the preservation of health care and public education. These areas are no more threatened today than they were 10 years ago because we have rules based trade agreements in place and a dispute mechanism that goes along with them.
I would argue that trade agreements and trade liberalization do not put at risk these aspects of Canadian social fabric or the ability of government in power to exert effective diplomatic negotiations with our trade allies. Without question, Canada's diplomatic relations with our trading partners, and particularly with the U.S., have deteriorated under the Liberal government.
We would not have had the number of trade disputes we have had with the Americans had we been more effective at the diplomatic level. Once again the current Liberal government could learn a lesson from the previous Conservative government.
The notion of scrapping chapter 11 of NAFTA would only do more harm than good to Canadian foreign investment. Free trade has rules and it works both ways. We are the major benefactor of those rules.
Let me talk about agriculture. Canada continues to enjoy a multibillion dollar trade surplus in this sector, with Canada being a net exporter of more than $2.5 billion annually, which was opened up by the NAFTA and the free trade agreements. I find it baffling that the NDP is suggesting that we not pursue trade liberalization when farmers would be on Canada's list of endangered species if it were not for free trade.
Free trade is vital to both the agricultural industry and international trade. With the WTO negotiations beginning in November in Seattle, it is important for Canada as a free trading nation to set realistic goals as we go to the negotiating table. From what I have heard from the government they are not realistic. I would go as far as to say that it is being terribly naive.
The Progressive Conservative Party continues to believe in a comprehensive strategy required to ensure the Canadian interest in global agricultural trade is protected at the upcoming World Trade Organization talks. The government must continue to adopt the principles of the previous Progressive Conservative government in the pursuit of free trade in the agricultural sector. The government must push foreign governments to further reductions of export subsidies on agricultural products and the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers.
We are committed to pursuing an active and aggressive trade policy to secure new markets on behalf of Canadian agriculture. Changes in consumer preference involving the food industry and trade liberalization will affect the future of our industry. We must ensure that there is open dialogue with both industry and consumers on how we should compete in international and domestic markets.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has told people time and time again that Canada's supply managed industries and STEs will not be touched at the upcoming WTO negotiations. Yet in Washington this past year the standing committee on agriculture was told time and time again that supply management and state trading enterprises were number one and two on the American agenda. I do not believe that the minister of agriculture or our trading negotiators have taken that into consideration. They are going to the WTO in a very naive fashion.
I wish I had other opportunities to give counsel to the parliamentary secretary and the government on how to handle trade because we were the ones who put free trade into place.
