Art Eggleton

[International Trade, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 50 years under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade we have made substantial progress in terms of the world trading system.

We have a system that is much more open, liberalized, clearer and with fairer rules than ever before. We have had substantial leadership from the United States and we continue to need that leadership.

We do not need the Americans to pull back into a protectionist mode. That will not serve their interests or anybody's interests. We do not need bills like the Helms-Burton bill wherein they start to take action against their friends, their neighbours and their major trading partners because they are trying to get at another country such as Cuba in this case.

We continue to protest that action. That is not leadership, but we still need their leadership in terms of having liberalized and clear rules based trading system.

[International Trade, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly found in the case of Chile and our discussions there, because it has been a matter of some controversy for the Canadian labour movement, that Canadian companies were acting most responsibly. They are leading the way in terms of working conditions, wages and benefits.

I expect that Canadian companies would act responsibly abroad. We have had many occasions to encourage that and will continue to do so.

[International Trade, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about issues of labour. It has been a key part of our discussions with Chile about the free trade agreement. A concern with respect to child labour has been raised by the Prime Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on a number of occasions.

We continue to work with our trading partners, particularly through the International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization, to try to bring about a greater involvement, a greater respect for human rights and for good labour standards.

[Trade, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, any measure by the United States to unilaterally change the rules of NAFTA will be met with resistance and the appropriate response.

We have successfully negotiated through NAFTA an agreement relevant to wool suits. It is one which we paid the price for at the time. We are acting completely within our rights and obligations under NAFTA and I would expect the United States would as well.

In addition to that, even though we have been quite successful in moving wool suits from $5.6 million to $112 million in just five years, there still is a billion dollar trade surplus the United States has with us in terms of textiles and apparel. Therefore in addition to that, there is no cause for complaint.

[Trade, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The meeting of what is called the quad recently took place in Kobe, Japan. The quad is made up of four major trading entities in the world, the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada.

At that series of meetings we were able to advance the cause of world trade, greater market access and more of a rules based system in quite a number of ways. It means jobs for Canadians. It helps to provide more secure access to markets, more security for investment and that means jobs for Canadians.

[Medicare, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, indeed we have stood up for Canada's health care system. In annex 2 of the NAFTA agreement we have said that this health care system is protected.

We have looked at it carefully with our legal advisors and we believe that all the protection necessary exists.

However, if the provinces have specific programs they wish to give additional protection, these can be listed in annex l by the end of this month. They have every opportunity to do that.

We feel that the health care system should be and will be protected.

[Trade, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to our exports to Cuba, the member will be interested to know that they have actually doubled in 1995 over 1994.

We also have in excess of $200 million of investment in Cuba. We are looking after the interests of Canadians with respect to this matter on the Helms-Burton bill by making representations to the Government of the United States. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is in Washington today making those representations to his counterpart.

I have previously made representations to my counterpart in the United States and will continue to do so. We have also filed a letter with respect to a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement and will be pursuing that matter so that we can look

after the interests of Canadians and can clearly tell the United States that when it comes to the establishment of foreign policy and trade policy for Canada, we will establish it here and Canadians can lawfully engage in trade and exports and investment in Cuba.

[Trade, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with Mr. White of the Canadian Labour Congress and his officials. I indicated that what we were doing in the case of Chile was not only a bilateral free trade agreement but was also an effort to bring about its accession into NAFTA.

The NAFTA agreements and the parallel agreements with respect to the environment and labour standards would be our guide in dealing with these negotiations with Chile.

[Trade, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, until recently the parallel agreements which exist in NAFTA with respect to the environment and labour

standards were not part of the Chilean discussion because it was a blocking point for the United States. That is why the U.S. could not get it through congress. The majority in congress did not want to deal with those two issues.

In our bilateral arrangements with Chile we had put them on the table because the questions of the environment and labour standards are important and we are negotiating with them.

[Cuba, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is some latitude for the President of the United States in terms of the implementation. That is what I think Leon Brittan, the vice-president of the commission, is talking about. We have attempted to urge the administration in the United

States to use the limited discretion it has to reduce the impact of this legislation.

We will continue to pursue that in our consultations with the United States. However, we are also quite prepared to go into other forums for further discussion to try to bring about a more satisfactory resolution than presently exists with this legislation.