Sergio Marchi

[Multilateral Agreement On Trade, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what the supplementary question has to do with the first question beats me and everybody else.

We have said very clearly that Canada will only sign the right deal when it comes along. Six months ago we agreed as a member of the OECD to a six month reflection or a six month pause.

We also agreed that we would rejoin in October to have a take note and a take stock debate. We think that is appropriate. We will be there.

If it is the end of the road, Canada will not loose any sleep over it. If we can continue to put in place a regime of investment rules, that is also good for Canadian companies.

[Aerospace Industry, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for her question because it is an important one.

Over 60,000 Canadians are employed by the national aerospace industry in all regions of the country. That is why the Prime Minister with the president of Brazil tried to negotiate this dispute with Proex. Regrettably that was not possible and so the Canadian government took the action this summer to bring Brazil before the World Trade Organization. We are not shy about defending or promoting aerospace industries in this country.

[Steel Industry, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question as well as for his leadership vis-à-vis Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie.

I am certainly aware of the difficulties faced by our steel producers given the excess capacity in the world market. I recently met with the Canadian Steel Association, which is working on joint proposals with other industries in the NAFTA partners.

I assure the member and the House that the Canadian government will continue to work with the association as well as with our NAFTA partners to come up with the right remedies.

[Trade, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's earlier question, I mentioned very clearly that going to NAFTA and WTO is but a first step. Clearly we will be seeing the American response and acting accordingly.

To the specifics of the hon. member's question, within NAFTA the first meeting must be held within 15 days. At the WTO it is within 10.

[Agriculture, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the secretary of agriculture for the United States debriefed our ambassador on last evening's special cabinet session in Washington. Regrettably the response was simply not good enough.

As a result, in consultation with the minister of agriculture as well as the minister responsible for the wheat board, and effective at 2 p.m., Canada has given official notice to both the United States and to the WTO that we will be seeking remedy as a first step through NAFTA and the WTO, and that we have every expectation to resolve this issue once and for all.

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture has stated today and yesterday, the actions of the U.S. governors are both wrong and irresponsible. As a result, the Government of Canada, at all levels, has been active and aggressive in trying to convince the federal government in the United States to intervene and stop this unilateral action.

Our patience is not unlimited. That is why we will not be shy to look at the NAFTA and the WTO which offer provisions.

We would rather have it settled between reasonable people, but two can play at this game.

[Trade, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no lesson because the MMT situation never went to a NAFTA panel.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

The right of corporations to sue governments is not unprecedented. Under Canadian law, both domestic and foreign owned companies have the right to file claims in Canadian courts if they believe that they have been treated unfairly by the government. Investor-state arbitration ensures that Canadian investors abroad have recourse to fair and transparent dispute settlement, especially in countries which may not provide the same legal and judicial protection that is guaranteed in Canada. Recourse to investor-state arbitration is an important feature of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and of bilateral investment treaties that Canada and many other countries have concluded.

The government works continually to ensure that its measures conform to its international legal obligations. Indeed, the government consults broadly and assesses a variety of implications in the development of policies and initiatives. The government's potential financial liability pursuant to challenges by foreign investors against allegedly non-conforming measures under the investor-state dispute settlement procedures of the NAFTA and a potential Multilateral Agreement on Investment, MAI, would depend upon the number and nature of the disputes in question.

Respecting subnational measures, Canada secured a grandfathering of all existing non-conforming subnational measures in the NAFTA. In the MAI negotiations, Canada has indicated clearly that the application of the MAI to measures under the jurisdiction of Canadian provinces cannot be assumed and would depend upon the content of any potential deal. Should the negotiations result in a satisfactory agreement for Canada, the coverage of provincial investment measures would not exceed the NAFTA. Canada would ensure that all existing non-conforming measures maintained by provincial and local governments would be excluded from the coverage of any agreement. As well, Canada would fully safeguard our freedom of action at both the federal and provincial levels in key areas, including health care, social programs, culture, education, programs for aboriginal peoples and programs for minorities.

Since the outset of the MAI negotiations in 1995, the government has consulted the provinces on a frequent and consistent basis. The provinces are debriefed after every negotiating session, copied on all reports and have access to all negotiating document. Numerous meetings between federal and provincial trade officials have taken place over the past three years to address issues related to the negotiations. The federal-provincial trade ministerial meeting of February 19, 1998 allowed for a thorough discussion of Canada's objectives and bottom lines.

The governement will continue to consult closely with Canadians respecting the MAI negotiations. Consultations with provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, business and individual Canadians are vital to ensuring that all our interests are properly reflected in Canada's negotiating position.

Question No. 96—

[Foreign Affairs, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the only member who is changing his mind is the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. The fact of the matter is that on Monday he alleged that there was no financial review, that there was no process. We said then and we repeat again that that is wrong.

He said it should have been the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or the Department of Finance. They do not do that particular specific due diligence. That is the job of the two crown corporations. No one had ever alleged that the Government of Canada at the end of the day did not go forward with that project. So the hon. member cannot have it both ways.

[Candu Reactors, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that our trade critic does not understand the process. The fact is that no one on this side has ever said that the Government of Canada was not involved.

What we said to the allegations was that financial due diligence was done. It was done by EDC on financing and the contract specifics were done by AECL. Then, after their work, of course the cabinet made the final determination, as it did in terms of giving a broad spectrum.

I do not know why the members are surprised. That is the way things have always been done.