Sergio Marchi

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has been. He must have been sleeping. We make no apologies for the team Canada trip.

It was the largest team Canada trip, over 524 business people from Canada making record sales which create jobs and economic activity.

Since assuming this portfolio I have been more than open and public with the Canadian people on the MAI to the point where we invited the committee to study this report. I am happy that it was obviously an overwhelming endorsement.

[Investment, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this act keeps getting worse on the far end. Whether or not we sign the MAI in April and whether or not it goes to the WTO does not mean the Government of Canada or any other participant will stop regulating and legislating on behalf of their interests and the values that gives rise to and define Canada.

We have given every assurance that we will only sign an MAI that is right for Canada and the global community. Nothing less is good enough.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there are concerns about any deal any government thinks of getting into, but licence should not be given irresponsibly to manipulate those concerns, to manipulate those anxieties and somehow to say that the MAI will to result in the sale of Canada. That is exactly the kinds of things that have been coming from the member's party.

The replication of the investment chapter in NAFTA is essentially the guiding principles. Since we have signed NAFTA the health care system has not—

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been advocating.

The hon. member's party is against the bilateral route. It was against the FTA. It was against NAFTA. It said that we had to negotiate multilaterally. Now we have a multilateral deal on investment and the hon. member says that is not good enough either.

What is left for the NDP except building walls and barriers? Clearly that is not in the interests of Canada.

We also said that it properly belongs eventually at the WTO where we have rich and poor, north and south, black and white. We have said that and we continue to say that.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when I said on Friday that there was an overwhelming endorsation on the part of the parliamentary committee, that is absolutely correct.

The general tenor of the committee was to continue our negotiations at the table to obviously push, protect and promote Canadian values and interests, which we are about to do.

I said many times we would sign the right deal at the right time and not any deal any time. The Reform Party was on side. The Conservative Party was on side. The Bloc Party was on side. The only party that said cut and run was the NDP. That is not how we build countries.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first, as the member mentioned there was a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. It should be noted that there was overwhelming endorsation representing the parliamentary consensus for Canada to continue to be at the table and to participate in negotiations.

Second, we have always said that we will do the right deal at the right time and not any deal any time.

Last, we also have said, and I believe very strongly, that this matter at the MAI must be transferred to the WTO. If we truly want an international agreement on investment it needs to find a home at the WTO.

[Bank Merger, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there were many consultations in terms of the financial services agreement. It has been around a number of years. We had our APEC conference in Vancouver. Given the Asian crisis and the currency situation there was solidarity in saying that the crisis is not going to go away by blocking or building walls. It is by being more transparent, and that is exactly the basis of the financial services package. It is a win for the global community, as it is for the Canadian community.

[Spirit Of Columbus Platform, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Landry some months ago. I directed the EDC to speak with the Quebec SDI. Meetings were held. I have spoken with the MIL-Davie union president.

The federal government feels this is a very important undertaking. I respect the recommendations made by the EDC and the SDI on behalf of the governments of Quebec and of Canada.

[Dairy Industry, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the member's colleague last week, obviously our department is working very closely with the stakeholders, the industries and clearly the industry knows the care and the priority that the government attaches to the issue.

[Sugar Exports, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, are you saying that it takes three to tango?

I certainly welcome the passion that the member brings to the House and to defend a very important national constituency.

As the member will know, there was a lot of discussion between the sugar industry and the federal government vis-à-vis the whole question of the agreement with the United States.

It was the feeling of the industry in recommending to the Government of Canada to enter into this agreement as opposed to continuing the kind of harassment that has been experienced in the past, but we will continue to work.