Julian Reed

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, holding hearings through the subcommittee is precisely the way an impact analysis is determined in the parliamentary process.

I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would participate in the work of the committee he would soon find out that is exactly what we do when we meet on a regular basis.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government, through the subcommittee on foreign affairs, held hearings last fall and continues to hold hearings as long as they are in demand.

Because of those hearings the subcommittee produced a report that I wish the hon. member would read. If she would read it, she would find out exactly where Canada stands on the issue. I urge all members to do the same.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. There is nothing in the negotiations that would threaten the ability of Canada to function and operate its own house.

We have laid down a complete set of reservations that will go into the MAI and that is being negotiated right now. We will not sign a deal that is not good for Canada.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the council of Barlow cancelled a meeting with ministry officials and me last week. I am disappointed that the council of Barlow has chosen not to take advice, not to look for advice from the chief negotiator of the MAI.

I point out to the leader of the NDP that a full debate was held in this House on February 23 on this very subject. I would suggest to her that she advise the council of Barlow that all of the information and all the—

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the Minister of International Trade laid down the concerns of Canadians very clearly in a public statement. I can assure the hon. member that nothing will be negotiated that will interfere in any way with Canada's ability to run its own house.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder whether my hon. friend is aware of this document called “Revised Draft Reservations”.

The revised draft reservations are the actual guts of what is being negotiated at the present time. There is common agreement on a lot of the broad draft, but there are 52 pages of revised draft reservations.

Before these reservations are properly negotiated and so on, how is the minister expected to go out and deliver these reservations which are not yet negotiated or agreed on?

The minister has made a very public statement about the concerns. He has abbreviated the concerns I think very succinctly. A week ago last Friday he made a speech to the Centre for Trade Policy and Law in which he laid down some of the key salient points for all Canadians to hear.

This statement is on the Internet. It is available to every citizen of this country. He talks about the interpretation of expropriation where it should be narrow, the Canadian definition. He gives the ironclad reservations for health care, social programs, education, culture, programs for aboriginal people and minority groups, and finally no standstill or rollback requirements in any of these areas of reservation.

With regard to culture, he supports excluding culture from the MAI altogether.

Is the minister not communicating with Canadians by making statements such as this?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the hon. member would tell me what he calls the 35 meetings with provincial and territorial officials since 1995.

I wonder if my hon. friend has forgotten that there are consultations on an ongoing basis and have been since that time. Could he tell us whether he counts that? Maybe he does not count the ongoing meetings.

When we had the delegation from British Columbia before the committee—I believe my hon. friend was there—the official from the department acknowledged that the province had been very well informed on an ongoing basis and commended the government for that.

[Trade, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the figures are so good. I would just like to point out that in December, Canada ran a trade surplus of $1.74 billion. That is $465 million larger than it was in November. Canadian exports in 1997 reached record levels resulting in more jobs for Canadians. This is the result of the government's policy vision, jobs for Canadians.

[Canada's Asbestos Industry, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister intervened on a number of occasions on behalf of the industry at the highest levels of government in both France and Britain. We continue to believe that through continued diplomatic efforts the safe use of asbestos can be promoted.

The minister believes that the playing of politics with this issue can cause enormous damage in achieving our common objective. The best strategy, we believe, is to pursue a common front among all stakeholders.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that it has never been more important to encourage these economies to become more open and, if I may use the word proudly, liberal in their trading practices. I am pleased to say we are now getting signals from Asia that the countries are moving to further modernize their economies and overcome these effects.

The problem of the financial downturn for Asia was partly the lack of transparency in business practices and in government regulation. At a time of dynamic economic growth across Asia and in an environment of readily available loans, a pattern of imprudent borrowing and lending has developed with a concentration of investment in overheated property markets. This did nothing to contribute to the productive base of the affected countries.

A more transparent system of controls, accounting and financial statements could have alerted national authorities, overseas lenders and international financial institutions earlier to the true underlying picture and perhaps could have prevented the crisis from developing. Given the current realities of globalization, Canada can promote the return to stable economic growth, enhanced trade and future prosperity by encouraging increased transparency and liberalization. Moreover, we lessen in the future the probability of financial shocks of this nature.

By supporting trade liberalization we improve the climate for Canadian firms seeking to do business in Asia. This is what Canada, its G-7 partners, the IMF and other international financial institutions are striving to achieve—