Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the government to speak to such a delicate and important matter as the multilateral agreement on investment.
For Canada, the MAI is a fundamental agreement with regard to what we are as a society, not only in social terms but also in terms of economic development. On the subject of economic development, I would point out that Canada is a leader around the world. It is also a leader in the establishment and advancement of multilateral processes.
The vitality of our economic component speaks eloquently of our international interventions. Canada, whose foreign trade represents over 40% of GDP, is one of the biggest trading nations in the world in terms of the figures involved. This figure is the highest of that of any of the G-7 countries.
Secondly, Canada's favourable trade balance increased from $7 billion in 1991 to $41 billion in 1996. So this agreement on investment is very important for us.
I said we were and still are leaders in this area. In this regard, we could perhaps look back and consider the first free trade agreements. We could even consider the notion of free trade.
It will be recalled that the first discussions on free trade, on liberalization, date back to the turn of the century, with the first Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Wilfred Laurier. Then, in the aftermath of the second world war, there was as we know a surge in globalization. Certain structures were put into place, leading to the creation of the World Trade Organization or WTO, which started out as GATT.
We know that the purpose of the WTO is to regulate international trade, to make sure that the rules of the game, so to speak, are respected. It is increasingly evident now as we speak that economies are no longer strictly national, that they are subject to international rules.
The phenomenon of globalization is gaining strength. Obviously, even if the WTO is doing a good job with trade regulation and liberalization, through its own framework and through the various bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that may been signed, in this era of globalization there are other elements that must be taken into account.
This is why the Multilateral Agreement on Investment represents another important element. It is one we must have at any price, if Canadian companies are to enjoy more freedom on the international scene, to be able to invest more readily and more confidently, and consequently to ensure that the Canadian economy prospers and that we are able to continue to hold our own and to create quality jobs.
Those who are against this agreement decry the fact that the negotiations took place behind closed doors. I think that those who say that are trying to mislead people. As a government, we announced the start of negotiations with the other countries involved in the discussions on May 24, 1995, three years ago. Since then our government and all the other governments involved have indicated their intention to reach an agreement.
My hon. colleague responsible for International Trade has also been working extremely hard with parliamentarians in order to develop a position that is strictly Canadian and will open up markets, while respecting our strictly Canadian values.
In this connection, I must refer to the three guiding principles underlying these discussions. The first element is that this is a totally open process, not a secret one.
Second, the goal is to provide a framework for what, in this era of globalization, is termed international investment, to provide rules, standards, that will offer some security to businesses with an eye to development on the international scene.
Third, we as a government will be signing an agreement that will respect the principles of Canadian society, that will respect our society's interests, and that will have job creation as its ultimate goal.
In fact, a closer scrutiny of the MAI shows that this is, essentially, an agreement which will provide businesses with a framework and, in some cases, will create regulations such as those already in place within the G-7.
The MAI will consist of a number of elements, three of which we would classify as fundamental. First, there is the question of the rule of expropriation.
It is self-evident that this is a fundamental rule, and must not be interpreted in such a way as to end up as a kind of hobble, if I may use that word, to our role as a government to regulate and legislate in the public interest.
My colleague responsible for international trade is perfectly aware of the importance of defining the terms “expropriation”, “legislation” and “national regulation”. He is aware too, because it works both ways, of the importance of those definitions for our companies when they wish to establish an international presence and when they invest in other countries.
The second important element is the protection of our freedom of action in areas that may be found at the very heart of Canadian society. We obviously are referring to health care, social programs, education, culture and programs for native peoples and minorities.
The third element is the status quo. In other words, it means that we will not accept any restriction in the areas indicated of the freedom of action we currently enjoy.
In conclusion, we are told by our negotiators in Paris— since everything is happening in Paris under the aegis of the OECD —that negotiations are going well and we may reasonably expect to reach an agreement that honours the points I have just mentioned and the nature of Canadian society.
In other words, if we leave things in the hands of time and the fine team of negotiators we have and with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, we will reach an agreement that can only benefit Canadian society and all Canadian industries.
