Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to ask my hon. colleague opposite to stop saying I am new to this portfolio. I have been in this portfolio for almost eight months.
It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from the NDP. Frankly, I believe a debate on this issue is long overdue and I think Canadians feel the same way. Canadians deserve to be informed about our international agreements.
The official opposition believes strongly that all sectors of Canadian society should be encouraged to participate and present their views on trade matters in a constructive manner. That includes business representatives, labour, environmental and academic groups, as well as all other sectors of society.
We believe that domestic consultations must be encouraged within all countries that are signatories to these agreements. However, direct involvement of the so-called civil society, as encouraged by the FTAA civil society committee, is a cause for concern to us.
The official opposition feels that unelected, unaccountable organizations must channel their views through their national elected governments which are directly accountable to the voters. The provinces must be consulted where negotiations of a free trade agreement touches directly on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
We know that failure by this government to consult the provinces in a meaningful way during the negotiations of the NAFTA have resulted in a situation where bulk water that is located entirely within provincial boundaries could come under the NAFTA rules in certain circumstances. Now we have the government scrambling to create legislation that will address that issue.
Similarly, while setting national emission targets during the Kyoto protocol negotiations the federal government did not adequately consult the provinces, whose co-operation is essential in meeting Canada's commitments.
We believe that parliament must be consulted. The final version of a treaty like the NAFTA or the FTA should be tabled in parliament for at least 30 sitting days before the government or any department takes action.
We feel that a special joint committee should be established to study treaties, review agreements and hold public hearings, including the provincial legislatures. Then the treaty must be ratified by parliament in a free vote before it becomes binding on Canada.
Canada is a trading nation. Our present and future prosperity and growth are largely dependent on international trade.
Just five years ago Canada exported 25% of its gross domestic product. Today it is at 42%. The vast majority of the 1.7 million new jobs created since 1993 is the result of the increase in our exports.
Canadian exports to the United States increased 80% over the first five years of the NAFTA, rising from $151 billion in 1993 to $271 billion in 1998. It is important for us to remember that Canada is a relatively small trading nation. Consequently we must seek consensus with other trading nations to ensure that Canadian companies are able to participate in the global economy in a fair and equitable manner.
Canadian exporters and investors need a rules based system that will guarantee a level playing field and give Canadian companies easier access to world markets. I am pleased to note that even the NDP agrees with this point.
We cannot turn back the clock. Globalization is a reality and the impact on the Canadian way of life is real and beneficial. We cannot simply stop the process and pretend that the world is not changing.
I would argue that this is exactly what my colleagues from the NDP want to do. This is why I simply cannot agree with the motion put forward today by my colleague from the NDP.
I would like to quote the new head of the World Trade Organization, Mike Moore, who has pointed out that poverty, not trade, is the enemy. He said: “Every WTO member government supports open trade because it leads to a higher living standard for working families”.
I point to a recent study by the George Morris Centre which indicated that Canadian farmers will benefit greatly if this WTO round eliminates all tariff and non-tariff barriers in international trade.
The government's own members suggest that removing tariffs and other trade barriers could add $20 billion to $50 billion to the pockets of Canadian farmers, processors and exporters.
It is regretful that the NDP favours removing Canadians from the prosperity offered by globalization. It is regretful that members of the NDP do not believe that Canadian entrepreneurs have the capacity or the ingenuity to compete on a global scale. It is sad that the NDP continues to use the “sky is falling” type of tactic when discussing free trade with Canadians.
The official opposition believes that the WTO should concentrate on liberalizing trade around the world. That in itself is an enormous task. The WTO is simply not the appropriate forum to deal with important and complex issues like labour standards, environmental protection, culture and human rights.
The WTO is a highly specialized body with a staff of trade experts who lack social policy experience. Social activists should look at more appropriate bodies like the United Nations or the International Labour Organization to develop international rules on these types of issues, including enforcement rules.
It is certainly important to deal with issues like these. However, these important issues are not within the mandate of the WTO, nor would I argue they should be.
I would like to conclude my comments today by simply reiterating the importance of free trade and Canada's participation within a rules based trading system. Canada is a nation that depends a great deal on trade for its prosperity. Therefore, it is up to the government of the day to ensure that Canadian companies are given a level playing field upon which to compete.
The crisis on our farms is a good example of the need for a level playing field and the effect of government inaction. This is precisely what the WTO, the NAFTA and the FTAA provide. It is difficult enough to deal with complex issues regarding the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade without adding the complexity of social issues, as advocated by the NDP and our socially active international trade minister.
We must remember that in the case of the WTO there are 134 countries involved, each with its own views and priorities. Forcing our views on them would be soundly rejected. We do not want to earn the nickname of being the ugly Canadians.
Canada's participation in international agreements must be a democratic, transparent and accountable process where all Canadians have meaningful input. Working Canadians will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a strong rules based trading system.
