House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mai.
Sergio Marchi Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to the speech I gave when we talked about natural resources, the answer would be very self-evident.
Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister stated just a few moments ago that he was seeking the advice of the committee as he wants its input and involvement in the parliamentary process. The committee made specific recommendations to the minister, number four, a full impact analysis and number five, that this has to be public disclosure, a transparent process with consultation with the public.
These recommendations came from the committee. They were endorsed and supported by a majority of Liberals. His own chairman has responded in the House today by saying that it is not practical to do a full impact study so early on. It is not practical, and those were his own words, for an open consultation process.
Will the minister tell this House that he is willing to go to Canadians, to go out to British Columbia and talk about this multilateral agreement on investment so that they know what the heck is going on? That is what this debate is all about.
Sergio Marchi Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the member was listening to the debate and I agreed with unanimous consent to afford extra time, we have been doing that. It is not only myself, but also our backbenchers and our government officials. I would also like to see him and some of the other huffy puffy Reform Party members take their responsibilities seriously.
We initiated the parliamentary dialogue. We are certainly grateful for the advice the parliamentary committee has given the government. As the member knows, being a student of parliamentary procedure, the government is given 150 days to report back to the committee. The hon. critic for the Reform Party knows that I have also made a commitment to do it before the allotted time because I can appreciate the sensitivity of some of those recommendations.
We are grateful and we are obviously studying those recommendations and will be reporting back to that committee very soon.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, poverty; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, employment insurance; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, Haiti; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, fisheries.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
This is an interesting discussion that we are having. I was appalled at the comments of the minister when he indicated that Reform had no history in this debate.
I inform the minister that I was involved in a debate during the 1988 election campaign when the Conservatives were talking about free trade and the Liberals were against free trade. The Liberals and the NDP argued against the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
I was also involved in the debate on NAFTA during the 1993 election campaign. I remember the Liberals and the NDP arguing against NAFTA. It is interesting how things change when one gets into the government.
The debate today is about the Reform motion which I will read again for the understanding of viewers who are just joining this debate:
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (the MAI); (2) failing to explain what benefits and costs it foresees for the Canadian people; and (3) failing to take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
The motion must sound familiar to some Liberals because it is similar to a motion they made against the Tory government in March 1992 while the Tories were negotiating the free trade agreement. The Liberal motion on NAFTA which was presented on March 24, 1992 was put forward as follows:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
Now the Liberals are saying that our motion is bad although they put a similar motion before the House in 1992. Come on.
The hon. member's comments are even more interesting. The hon. member who just gave us a 40 minute dialogue on his position said in 1992 “We had to rely this morning on the Toronto Star , as have Canadians, to try to learn what the Government of Canada has been dealing with in terms of the other two countries. It is a shame that we have to rely on one of our newspapers to begin to enlighten not only Canadians but elected Canadians who are supposed to deal with issues on behalf of 26 million shareholders of this company called Canada”.
We are talking grassroots here now “Back home on an issue that is fundamental to the livelihoods of all Canadians there is silence and ignorance. When there is silence and ignorance, whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the very least”. This is from the hon. minister who just spoke.
The NDP and its allies are out in strong force, in particular in my province of British Columbia. Whether it is the Council of Canadians or whether it is the environmental groups, they are telling Canadians one side of the issue. And where is our government in this? Nowhere. Nowhere has the other side of this issue been debated either publicly or individually with Canadians. This is the same group of people, with the exception of the Liberals who were against the free trade agreement and NAFTA. We see them once again out there campaigning very strongly against this government proposal.
The comments from the NDP are that Canada will lose its sovereignty, that we will have to give up our health care and that we will lose our Canadian culture. Those of us who do not see the boundaries and the borders can understand why somebody is not debating the other side of the issue, why somebody is not challenging those kinds of comments which are being put before Canadians.
I believe Canadians want to hear both sides. I am convinced that Canadians want to know not only what the benefits are but what the drawbacks are. I believe Canadians are sophisticated enough to know that in any international treaty Canada enters into and which Canada signs there will be some winners and some losers. Canadians want an honest evaluation of what is likely to happen. They are not getting it with a government that sits in silence and does not want to participate in this debate. That is where this government has failed. This is why Canadians across the country are very concerned.
I will quote the minister's own words again from his March 1992 speech on NAFTA “When there is silence and ignorance, whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the very best”. That is so true. It is the silence and the government's reluctance or the refusal to even talk to people in Canada about what the MAI is, what does this multilateral agreement for investment mean. Who are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers? When we talk about losing our sovereignty to the large corporations of the world, is it true, is it not true? What exactly does this multilateral agreement on investment mean to Canadians?
Because I believe I have a commitment to my constituents I had a full page in my householder on this particular issue trying to bring it to their attention so that we could start this kind of debate. I must say that most of the comments I received from my constituents were negative. They felt that there was a problem with it.
I want to read the question so that the House understands what they were asked. The question was: Do you support the basic principle of the MAI which states that foreign companies shall be subject to the same regulation as domestic companies? There were almost 2,000 responses to that survey question. Of those almost 2,000 responses 1,507 or 77% of the people said yes that they supported that principle. Only 317 or 16% said no.
Again, despite that support for the principles of the multilateral agreement on investment the people who chose to comment, who actually wrote to me, had negative things to say. I want to share with the House one of the comments that I received. I quote “The citizens of Canada require an across Canada forum to be held on the MAI now. This has been negotiated in secrecy until it was leaked to the press last spring. This government was elected on promises to renegotiate NAFTA, so where is their mandate to progress with the MAI? The repercussions for Canadians and Canada could be so grievous that open and free debate across this country is needed. This government does not represent Canadians. This has become very clear in this country since 1993”.
That is a comment from a constituent of mine. There were many others who made comments which support that issue.
The MAI is a draft agreement, as I understand it, that is being negotiated by this government. It is a draft agreement that applies to 28 other countries around the world, but most Canadians do not know that. Most Canadians do not know what other countries we are talking about entering into this negotiation. That kind of debate and that kind of information should be widely known so that people can understand who it is we are talking about entering agreements with.
There is a whole list of exemptions that Canada has already placed through the NAFTA and NAFTA is the basis on which the MAI agreement is being negotiated. Canadians need to know that. They need to know what exemptions already in place in NAFTA are going to be carried over to the MAI.
Canadians need to be brought into this discussion. I and my colleagues believe that Canadians deserve to be included in the governance of their country and that Canadians deserve to have the right to have this kind of debate before that agreement is signed.
I would like to know from the minister and from his department, are they going to provide this debate before the people of Canada and before this House of Commons before the agreement is signed?
Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS
Mr. Speaker I would like the Reform Party member to answer a question I have on the Reform Party's minority report on the MAI.
As far as I can determine from the minority report, Reform says “The protection for culture, if it must exist, should be drawn as clearly and as narrowly as possible”. This seems to aid the United States position on that which is that they would oppose very broad cultural exemptions.
I would like to know from the Reform Party if they would justify promoting the interests of huge entertainment giants like Sony, Walt Disney and Blockbuster at the expense of the rights of Canadians to their own cultural expression?
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, Reformers are not afraid to say that Canadians can compete at any level, whether it is on a cultural basis, business basis, industry basis or anything else. Canadians have the potential and it has been proven. Whether it is Céline Dion or Bryan Adams in Vancouver, Canadians have proven that they can compete on an international scale. They do not need protection. They need promotion and support.
What we would like to see is a tighter concentrated framework for culture because things like the Internet and the new technologies can be easily drawn under that cultural characteristic. We feel that would be detrimental to development, investment and jobs in this country.
Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that the evolution of the MAI, as I understand it, is basically to address those areas which are not already mandated by multilateral agreements. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the United States, therefore 80% of our investment agreements are already documented in the NAFTA. The rest of that, almost 20% or at least 15%, is now mandated in bilateral agreements. In other words, 95% of our trade and investment policy is already undertaken in these agreements.
What the member is talking about and what her party is so concerned about is an agreement that cannot at maximum affect any more than 5% of foreign direct investment now occurring in Canada. Could she relate to me how important she thinks that is?
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that 65% of our investment is with the United States, not 95%. This is why we need to have this kind of debate. It is so those kinds of figures get put on the table and everybody knows what they are.
The issue here is, yes, Canada already through NAFTA has this investment agreement with the United States and Mexico. However, what is happening here is we want to use that same framework and expand it to 28 countries, some of which we already have an investment agreement with. It is not under NAFTA but in bilateral agreements.
What we have is 28 countries agreeing to consider this option. I understand there are more undeveloped countries that are waiting for this to happen so they can come on board as well.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion before the House. The motion reads:
That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (the MAI), (2) failing to explain what benefits and costs it foresees for the Canadian people, and (3) failing to take part in public discussion on the Agreement.
At the outset I would like to say that it is really quite remarkable to hear the hon. Minister of International Trade speak on this motion. We have presented this motion in part to give this minister a platform to explain to this House and, through it, to Canadians why there is a need for the national treatment of investment as is proposed under the MAI. Why would Canada benefit from the further liberalization of trade laws?
Instead of taking the opportunity and seizing the moment, he used most of his time for partisan politics, for taking cheap shots as opposition parties.
There is a principle at the heart of parliamentary democracy which this government sometimes seems to lose sight, the principle of ministerial responsibility. We on this side of the House are merely legislators. The minister is a legislator as a member of Parliament and is a minister of the crown, a member of the executive branch of government responsible for negotiating and implementing foreign treaties. It is his responsibility, not that of opposition legislators, to explain and articulate the need or lack thereof for Canada to enter into certain foreign agreements, the MAI in this case. The government has yet once more failed in that respect.
That is not surprising coming from this minister and this government given that this is a minister and this is a party which in 1988 launched a vicious attack on the free trade agreement with the United States, which committed that it would tear up the free trade agreement, that it would retroactively veto the free trade agreement.
There are members sitting on the opposite side of this House who argued in 1988 that free trade would lead to the end of Canadian sovereignty. I remember a Liberal commercial on television with a map of North America where somehow magically the border of the 49th parallel was erased on the television screen. They said that Canada was going to become the fifty-first state, that this would lead to untold economic misery, that our universal publicly administered health care program would be doomed. That is what they said, people sitting over there right now, including the Minister of International Trade.
In 1993 they said they were going to renegotiate the NAFTA. The last time I checked, they did not change the North American Free Trade Agreement one iota. The reason why this minister has a huge credibility deficit addressing the MAI, the reason why so many Canadians are so cynical and suspicious about the real motives and outcome here is precisely because they have never admitted the kind of radical change of philosophy that they have undergone in government with respect to free trade.
I would suggest that the minister do just that, that he and his colleagues do some stock-taking and apologize for how they tried to engage in precisely the same kind of fearmongering and misrepresentation that our friends in the New Democratic Party and the party to our left are wont to do.
The Reform Party has always supported the principle of free trade. We support the principle of national treatment of investment. We support it not because we want to give more than we get, but because we realize that Canada as an enormous exporter, as a country whose economic engine is export industries and services, would benefit enormously from allowing our companies, our investors, greater freedom of trade in foreign jurisdictions.
Late last year I was invited by the hon. Minister of Finance to take part in a Canadian delegation at the American Hemispheric Free Trade Discussions in Santiago, Chile, with all of the governments of North, South and Central America. I had an opportunity at that conference to speak with Canadian companies with major investments in South America. Let me give one example in Chile.
A Canadian mining company based in British Columbia has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and training in mining operations in Chile that have generated handsome profits for this Canadian company, for its Canadian shareholders, for its Canadian employees. It has brought new wealth to this country like so many other Canadian export oriented companies.
This very same company was considering whether it would be able to continue its operations in Chile or would have to suspend its operations at some point because there is a dual tax scheme in Chile, a tax regime which imposes a much higher tax on the corporate profits of companies that are foreign owned. By allowing certain countries to discriminate against foreign-held companies, that company and its Canadian employees are not only penalized but are at risk of losing the hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars that they have invested there.
There are dozens and dozens of similar instances not only in this hemisphere but throughout the world where Canadian investments are put at peril by these kinds of discriminatory protectionist policy regimes which make everybody poor and nobody richer.
We want with this motion to focus on this government's inability or unwillingness to lodge a major national debate. The minister says that we had committee hearings on it. That is wonderful. Three weeks. I do not know how many business days the committee actually met in Ottawa, 10 or 11 business days. It stayed here in Ottawa and the only people they heard from were the usual talking heads from interest groups.
Whatever that committee did, whatever its report said, I can assure members that it did not get out to the constituents of every member of this place, some of whom are being mislead by the propaganda of radical left wing conspiracy theorists to believe that the MAI will lead to another end of Canadian sovereignty, another end to our health care programs and so on.
What does this government do? Absolutely nothing. In the red book, the MAI was not even mentioned as an election issue. We are talking about a significant international investment agreement that was not even raised as an election issue by this government. It has been under negotiation for two years. They had done virtually nothing in those two years to present it to this House or to Canadians. Then they blame the opposition for not articulating the government's policy.
I really do not understand. As one of my colleagues says, it really is audacious. We have asked one simple question of the minister who spoke not long ago, whether or not he would commit to having this House debate and perhaps ratify—imagine that—any agreement that is signed by the Canadian negotiators in Paris at the OECD.
He could not give us a straight answer on that very simple question. As somebody who is about as free trade as someone can get, even I start to wonder what is going on here, what is being hidden.
Why can the minister not just give a simple straightforward commitment that the democratically elected representatives of the people of Canada will have an opportunity to get to the bottom of the agreement, to look at the details, to see how broad or how narrow the exemptions are, to see whether or not Canada will benefit, to see what the economic costs and benefits are.
Why can he not make that commitment in this place today? It is not a big deal. It does not cost the government anything politically or financially to allow members and Canadians to debate this.
For those reasons, I really strongly believe that this minister needs to make a fundamental reassessment about how he has managed this file. There is a great deal of hysteria building up out there and he has done virtually nothing to tell Canadians the truth about this agreement and its implications.
We hope this motion tonight will be the beginning of just such a debate.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and astonishment to the comments of the Reform Party member for Calgary Southeast. Of course, it is interesting to see the born again Reform Party suddenly expressing concern about the MAI.
The member for Calgary Southeast quite rightly points out that the Liberal Party during the last federal election campaign was silent on the MAI. That silence was just as deafening from the Reform Party. I recall on many instances the leader of my party, the member for Halifax, colleagues from Winnipeg and elsewhere, alerting Canadians to the profound dangers of the MAI.
We were the only party that even touched this issue in the last federal election campaign. In fact as recently as a couple of weeks ago, Reform Party members of Parliament were vigorously defending the MAI. My colleague from Vancouver East debated the member for North Vancouver and the member for North Vancouver was extolling the virtues of the MAI.
Reform Party members of Parliament signed on to the agreement of the foreign affairs committee on the MAI. New Democrats of course have from the outset strongly opposed this agreement, this 20-year lock-in that would constitute a massive assault on Canadian social programs, environmental programs and culture.
My question for the member for Calgary Southeast is a very straightforward one. Could the member explain why the leader of the Reform Party was totally silent, not one word, not a peep, not a whisper, about the MAI during the last federal election campaign?
Why the hypocrisy today? They realize that Canadians are deeply concerned about the MAI. They suddenly woke up and said “my God, maybe we better do something about this”. They were silent and had supported the MAI from the very beginning.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record in two important respects.
First, we were not silent during the election campaign on this issue. We spoke about it in public forums. We had a clear position. We supported the negotiations, not the agreement, because there is no agreement. We do not support an agreement that does not yet exist. That is why we want to be able to debate it in this place. We do support negotiating instead of pulling out of the negotiations unilaterally and hiding our heads in the sand, as our friends from the New Democratic Party would want us to do.
We will go through the negotiations. We support the government's presence at such negotiations. Canadians will be able to debate the agreement that is finalized there.
We have been very willing to discuss the issue all along and during the election campaign. When I debated the New Democratic candidate in my constituency he never raised the matter, but I did talk about our support in principle for free trade. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe it. My colleague in the socialist movement is absolutely right. One thing about the NDP is that it was consistent in its opposition to anything having to do with a free market economy.
The hypocrisy of the party over there standing up today and suddenly pretending that it is the defender of those opposed to the multilateral agreement on investment is an ultimate insult to the people.
These people have no knowledge of what is going on around the table. They pick up their information in bits and pieces from what they receive in the mail or what they read in this paper or that paper. They never took the time to look into the agreement to see what it really meant for Canadians.
I want to close by saying that the agreement takes nothing away from Canada. There is everything to gain for us and nothing to lose. They should get their heads out of the sand and stand in support of what the government is doing rather than acting like a jacuzzi socialist without knowing the least bit about socialism.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to not knowing much about socialism, I plead guilty. I have never been in a jacuzzi but my limousine Liberal friend across the way will know that we have not engaged in the sky is falling chicken littleism of the loony left.
Let us be clear. Obviously the member came in after I was done my remarks because he did not hear what I said. The Reform Party does support and always has supported the principle of free trade. I talked about why it is necessary for our investors to get national treatment overseas.
Where is the hon. member coming from? Is he in favour? Was he in favour of the FTA in 1988?
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
He was in favour of it. I guess he did not tell Mr. Turner that. Was he in favour of NAFTA in 1993? We do not know where the Liberals are coming from. At least Reform has been consistent.
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, at least I know what a socialist is, unlike the previous member. I am sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park. I would appreciate a signal as I get to the end of my allotted time.
I am pleased to engage in the debate today. I must confess that I was a little surprised by the issue right from its inception. I am particularly surprised by the attitude taken by my friends in the New Democratic Party. The member from Burnaby stated a few minutes ago that New Democrats have been unalterably opposed to the deal from the beginning. While that is not inconsistent, it strikes me as being a little unintelligent.
We all know that Canada, as well as the rest of the world, is moving into a different kind of economic structure, one which gives a trading country like Canada enormous opportunities around the world. Our businesses are engaged in every corner of the globe and they are asking for some measure of protection.
I have been quite active with groups in Winnipeg that are looking at emerging markets in the Far East in particular. There are companies in Winnipeg that have managed to secure very substantial agreements with China. These companies are not large multinationals. They are companies that are currently doing business in Winnipeg. In fact right now there is a big delegation of people in the hog business who are looking at selling pork products abroad and making substantial investments in China, Korea and Taiwan.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
The MAI has nothing to do with those countries.
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
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.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been negotiating this agreement for at least two years.
Before the election we saw red book II, in which we did not see any mention of MAI. We heard no mention about MAI in the throne speech and I was surprised when I saw this report on multilateral agreement on investment marked confidential. This report would not be in my hands if it was not leaked to us.
Why was this government negotiating in confidence without letting Canadians know what the benefits or costs to Canadians are? Why was this government afraid to have a public discussion on this issue? Why was this government afraid of calling a public debate on this issue? Why was the government afraid of having an informed discussion on this issue?
We are asking a simple thing. We want public discussion on this issue. We want debate in the House. Can this member inform us why he is afraid of having a discussion in this House?
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, not only am I not afraid of having public discussion, I am standing and participating in the discussion taking place in this House.
The member asks why there was no mention. This was publicly announced on May 24, 1995.
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Exactly. There is no surprise here. This process has been going on for a very long time. There have been mailings, packages, information sent to members of Parliament on July 25, September 15, October 17, November 4, February 16, February 9—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
If the member will forgive me, we will go on to the next question so that we can get a couple of questions in.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg South is smarting a bit from the fact that New Democrat MPs in Winnipeg held a public meeting on the MAI just last week and at the drop of a hat over 350 people attended, a sold-out crowd of people deeply concerned about the MAI.
The member does not want rhetoric. He wants a calm debate on this issue. We have been trying to have such a debate. I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg South a question regarding a matter relating to the health committee where we actually tried to have such a debate on guaranteeing that health care, medicare, would be protected from the MAI.
All we got from their side were voices from the BCNI and the Fraser Institute saying trust the Liberal government. There were no arguments, no accountability, no answers.
If this member and this government are so committed to maintaining medicare and believe it is not a threat in the MAI, why will they not agree to a complete exemption for health care in the MAI as opposed to the NAFTA reservations which evoke all kinds of concerns?