Art Eggleton

[International Trade, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the negotiations with Chile have not reached an impasse. The eight series of negotiations were completed last weekend and the parties have gone off for further consultations.

I am hopeful that we can bring the negotiations to a very quick conclusion and bring about this agreement in the near future. In fact, they have been going at a very strong pace. In the case of Mexico it took us some 16 months and in the case of Israel almost two years to get to the point of signing an agreement. Yet in nine short months we have come a long way and there are but very few issues for us to resolve.

When that is done I would expect that the postponed visit of President Frei will be put on again. I know that President Frei is looking forward to coming to Canada and looking forward to a free trade agreement that will help give Canadian companies access to the market in Chile.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 16th, 1996]

The Canadian Government considers the following to be State Trading Enterprises (STEs) for the purposes of the GATT 1994, and, in accordance with the requirements under GATT Article XVII, has submitted notifications on them to the World Trade Organization (WTO):

-Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; -Canadian Wheat Board; -Canadian Dairy Commission; -Provincial Liquor Boards.

The Canadian Government has not, therefore, "received" any list; rather, the Government has compiled its list of STEs as shown above, and has submitted the required notifications to the WTO.

In addition, it has been determined that, in order to complete the list, Canada should also submit a notification on the Ontario Bean Producer's Marketing Board; this will be completed in the near future.

Turning to the 1999 negotiations referred to in this Question: In the Uruguay Round, WTO Members reached an Agreement on Agriculture which establishes binding commitments in the following key areas: market access; domestic support; and export subsidies. There are no provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture relating to STEs. Members agreed to resume negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture in 1999.

Question No. 40-

[Export Development Corporation, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a summary of the report to the Treasury Board on the Canada account operations for the fiscal year 1994-95 by the Export Development Corporation.

[Nova Corporation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that people were injured in the clash between demonstrators and riot police on June 13. Although we do not have the details of the incident, we understand that the police intervened to remove demonstrators who were blocking a national highway. According to some reports, some individuals threw rocks at police, injuring some people.

NOVA corporation is a lead partner in the GasAndes consortium. This consortium has gone through every single required approval by Chilean authorities including an environmental impact study. Amendments were made. It has completely abided by the law and I am told that many of the standards are very similar to the standards that exist in this country. They are following the law completely.

The incidents that occurred in the demonstration were most unfortunate although we have very little information at this point in time.

[U.S. Helms-Burton Bill, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our intent in the amendments is to neutralize the effects of the Helms-Burton law. It is a last resort measure. It is one I hope we never have to engage in. It is a framework law which allows that if a company is sued in the United States courts, we could either block them from getting any of the assets of the Canadian company here in Canada or a court action could be instituted here in Canada to recover any funds. It is to neutralize the effect.

I hope that it acts as an effective deterrent and that companies think twice before they proceed in the U.S. courts under Helms-Burton.

The United States government's quarrel is with the Cubans. It should not be drawing the Canadians or any other country into that quarrel.

[U.S. Helms-Burton Bill, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we expect companies incorporated in Canada to follow Canadian law. That is what the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act which was brought in in 1984 is all about. The

amendments we announced yesterday that would be subsequently presented to this House deal with strengthening that act in terms of the provisions of the Helms-Burton law.

I would be pleased to look into the particular case the hon. member raises because we expect that company and all other companies to abide by Canadian law.

[Trade, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the side agreements on both labour and the environment are unprecedented, except for the case of NAFTA. They were worked out in our provisions that NAFTA has put in place. We want Chile, if it is going to become a part of NAFTA, to also abide by the same agreements. Therefore, we are negotiating an improvement in terms of an environmental agreement in our negotiations with Chile.

[Trade, June 17th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker. We assessed our chances of success under NAFTA and under the WTO. The companies did as well, the companies that create the jobs which are important for the survival of that industry.

The industry quite clearly said that it wanted us to bring about the security of access for the market in the United States. We were able to do that. We were able to get a five year secure access, something we have never had before, and it was with the very strong support of this country's lumber industry.

[U.S. Helms-Burton Bill, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Helms-Burton bill in terms of the claims that can be filed is not in effect until August 1. The President of the United States can defer that. We hope he will because we hope we are sending a strong signal by our action today and other countries in support of it as well.

Even at that, even if it goes into effect on August 1, it means that claims cannot be filed in the U.S. courts until November 1. By that point in time the details of this legislation will be in front of this House.

[Trade, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I announced today on behalf of the government our response to the Helms-Burton legislation.

We are attempting to protect Canadian sovereign interests, foreign policy, trade policy and the legal operations of Canadian businesses in Cuba. We have proposed amendments to the foreign extraterritorial measures act that would block any attempt by a company in a foreign country to carry out a court order within Canada on an objectionable piece of legislation like Helms-Burton. We have provided for a clawback provision that they can recover within Canada moneys and assets lost in the United States on such an action. Finally, the penalties have been increased for companies that follow the law of a foreign country as opposed to the law of this country.

We hope that this will act as an effective deterrent to prevent the kind of operations, the kind of court action which is envisioned by the Helms-Burton bill in the United States, a unilateral action which we believe is wrong in principle, wrong in purpose and wrong in practice.

In addition, we will be continuing with an action under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We will continue with the NAFTA commission meeting.