Sergio Marchi

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the member was listening to the debate and I agreed with unanimous consent to afford extra time, we have been doing that. It is not only myself, but also our backbenchers and our government officials. I would also like to see him and some of the other huffy puffy Reform Party members take their responsibilities seriously.

We initiated the parliamentary dialogue. We are certainly grateful for the advice the parliamentary committee has given the government. As the member knows, being a student of parliamentary procedure, the government is given 150 days to report back to the committee. The hon. critic for the Reform Party knows that I have also made a commitment to do it before the allotted time because I can appreciate the sensitivity of some of those recommendations.

We are grateful and we are obviously studying those recommendations and will be reporting back to that committee very soon.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to the speech I gave when we talked about natural resources, the answer would be very self-evident.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I tried in my address today and a few days ago to answer the hon. member's question. I know she is serious about the cultural industry. I know that she took on the Reform Party some hours ago on it.

I said two things. First, Canada takes the position that the culture issue should not be on the MAI table. But because it operates by consensus, if one country insists on having it on the table we have said, which is our right, that we will take a country specific exemption. For the purposes of Canadian culture either of the two options is the same. The bottom line for us is that cultural is not negotiable.

Second, where culture does have an exemption is in the investment chapter under NAFTA. It will do so at bare minimum under the MAI.

If I can be up front with the hon. member, I do not think for culture the concern is either NAFTA or the MAI. The concern I have for culture and trade is at the WTO. When the application came against our Canadian magazine industry and the movie industry, it came through the WTO.

I have advocated publicly that we need to square the circle at the WTO. If we can do labour and trade, if we can do trade and the environment, if we can have the very sensitive and emotional debate on agriculture in the next round, surely we can also despite the difficulty try to square the circle with trade and culture. Culture at the end of the day comes down to self pride and identify. Every country, big or small, rich or poor, has one.

Increasingly with technology where you can download culture, countries which think that a different language or a different history can protect them in terms of culture identity are wrong. We are finding that more allies, more countries are seeing it the way Canada does. I would like to mobilize some kind of international opinion that at some point, maybe in the next round, we can have rules on trade and culture that protect and distinguish between illegitimate and legitimate practices.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I was raising my eyes is that he somehow gave the impression to the House that the Reform Party had a history rich enough to talk about the free trade agreement and NAFTA. Not only does it not have a history, it does not have a future.

In terms of parliamentary engagement, he may not like the answer but I gave it to him. He can get up and ask another question. What I was trying to say is that we are not afraid of an engagement of Parliament. It was not his party or his critic or anybody else who pressured the government into putting this issue before the parliamentary committee. It was an initiative voluntarily taken by the Government of Canada.

The reason we wanted a report by the end of December 1997 was that if there was to be a signature by the end of April we wanted the parliamentary committee to be able to offer its advise to the government in January so that when crunch time came on the negotiations we would have the advice of the Parliament of Canada. The hon. critic for the Reform Party knows this. I told him so and he agreed with it at the time. We did it at the front end and we are certainly going to consider what role, if any, Parliament can play at the back end of the process.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the first point goes, I think if the history of political parties in the country is looked at, it will be found very objectively that the Liberal Party of Canada has always been the party to try to tear down these protectionist walls and be very multilateral, very much a freer trade orientation.

The member's party certainly has a history of suggesting that those old Chinese walls need to be built bigger, better and higher. If he is a student of history he should hit those history books. I think he will be pleasantly surprised.

The second point is the whole question of parliamentary engagement. I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion of the model used by the Australians. I think he mentioned that to me in a very constructive way last year when he was still the trade critic. I appreciated that.

I certainly will give a commitment to study one of the recommendations tabled in the report of some kind of parliamentary engagement at the end of the process. Should the committee come back to the House in terms of a debate? Should there be some parliamentary motions?

I think it is also early days. I am being very up front with him. We do not know whether there will be an MAI agreement, what shape it will be, will it change any laws of the Parliament of Canada.

We are prepared to look at the question. We have mentioned that we are going to report earlier than we are allowed, so that we can provide those kinds of answers for Parliament.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the figures do not come from my department or from the Liberal Party of Canada. The figures come from Statistics Canada, which happens to be one of the best statistics gathering organizations recognized the world over.

Statistics Canada has two sets of numbers. For every $1 billion in traded merchandise we sustain or create some 11,000 jobs in Canada. For every $1 billion of investment in Canada we create or sustain 45,000 jobs over the course of a five year period.

That investment may take different forms. For instance, in the province of British Columbia 30% of its GDP is made up of trade with the Asian market. Trade and investment represent an important lifeblood for our national community. They are the flip side of the same coin. One creates the other.

Second, we also have to recognize that we are not just talking about incoming investment in the order of $180 billion to Canada and that when that comes in, not only does it create job opportunities, it also imports important R and D development in our country.

We are also talking about Canadians aggressively investing abroad, $170 billion. Not only does that create more competitive companies for our firms internationally, it also creates spin-off jobs at home as well as research and development.

When we went to Latin America and made investment, it also created jobs for firms of architects in B.C., firms of lawyers, firms of engineers. The investment is the complement to trade. The two go hand in hand and Canada, without trade and investment, will not be able to create the economic wealth that both he and I want for today's generation, particularly for young Canadians.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both officials languages, a 20 page document which outlines the degree of consultations which has taken place with the Government of Canada across the country. I table this enlightening document for the benefit of my friends who seem to be resigned to having a pathetic debate.

One member was complaining about having kidney stones. Another member said “why are you bashing the Reform Party?” It was not a question of bashing the Reform Party. That comes very easily. Its members do that job best themselves. What I was trying to say was here is what the Government of Canada has done. Here is who we have consulted. These are the bottom lines of the Government of Canada.

The trade critic for the Reform Party has not given me one word on the MAI. His party has had no meetings to speak of. They have not travelled across the country to discuss this matter with the stakeholders but they say they are the responsible leaders of Her Majesty's official opposition. It is as if they are saying they do not have anything to say or to do.

Then of course they cry when we ask them why they are open to foreign culture entering our country. What is wrong with them when the entire Parliament of Canada is prepared to defend our identity? What is wrong with them when they do not want to support labour rights being defined, both the rights and obligations of the multinational companies as well as the workers? Why does the member want to sell our health care system? He pathetically stood in his place to tell us that he got better treatment in the United States of America than he could have in Canada. In the United States there are 50 million people who do not have any insurance to speak of.

Then he asked about social services. He said there was not enough competition in social services.

If the hon. member wonders why he is getting bashed, it is because he deserves it.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, in both process and substance the Reform Party is suspect. Yes, there is a lot of hot air. Yes, there is a lot of huffing and puffing. When we notice what Reformers stand for, we cannot understand their eagerness to abandon basic Canadian values.

The Reformers complain in their motion that they do not understand why Canada is participating in these negotiations. While many concepts are difficult, the answer is quite clear.

Investment flows are particularly important for Canada. We are host to $180 billion of foreign investment. And we must not forget that every billion dollars of foreign investment generates over 40,000 jobs over five years. Furthermore, Canadians have invested $170 billion abroad.

Despite the fact that trade and investment are inextricably linked there is no multilateral framework of rules for investment as there is for trade. In many countries, in particular in developing countries beyond the OECD, the treatment of foreign investment remains unpredictable.

The MAI is essentially about developing a code of conduct for countries that host and invite direct foreign investment and not as some would suggest a charter for multinational enterprises. The fact is that we already have transparent and fair rules for foreign investment in Canada.

The right kind of MAI would ensure the same kind of treatment for Canadians abroad without requiring us to substantially change what we are already doing.

We have said on many occasions that we want to eventually take the MAI to the WTO whose membership is in the area of 130 countries and develop north and south. In that forum we could negotiate a truly multilateral agreement on investment that would complement the rules on trade via the same body.

It is sad the official opposition says in its motion today that it does not understand any of this, particularly since its position in the committee report was:

The Reform Party supports Canada's participation in the OECD effort to construct an MAI that will encourage foreign investment in Canada and give protection to Canadian investment abroad.

If the Reformers do not understand our explanation for participating in the negotiations, why are they supporting that participation? They are either confused or playing at political gamesmanship or, as we correctly suspect, both.

Let me stress a crucially important point. Participating in these MAI negotiations does not mean we are hell bent on signing any resulting agreement come what may.

It is quite the contrary. We will only accept an MAI that meets the following key Canadian requirements. The first requirement is a narrow interpretation of expropriation which makes it entirely clear that legislative or regulatory action by government in the public interest is not expropriation requiring compensation, even if it has adverse profitability consequences for both companies and investors.

The second is ironclad reservations at both national and provincial levels that completely preserve our freedom of action in key areas including health care, social programs, education, culture and programs for aboriginal peoples and minority groups.

Finally, there would be no standstill or rollback requirements in any of the areas of reservation or exception I have just mentioned.

With regard to culture we support excluding culture from the MAI altogether for all countries. If some nations insist on addressing this sector we will register, as is our legitimate right, a country's specific reservation in this area. At the end of the day for Canadian culture there would be no difference between the two options. Canadian culture is simply not negotiable.

We will also not accept an agreement that adversely affects Canada's supply management regime. We will take the necessary reservations to preserve investment measures specific to our agricultural interests and responsibilities. The same will apply to the management of our natural resources.

In addition there are important questions on how the MAI should approach labour and environmental standards and whether we should call for binding or non-binding language. Even experts in the NGO community agree that this is a complex issue where it is very important to avoid unintended consequences.

I had a very positive discussion on this and other issues with provincial trade ministers at last week's federal-provincial meeting. The NDP minister from Saskatchewan said:

Canada is taking a very strong position at the table that health, social services and education will be an unbound reservation and that those matters will not be touched or Canada will not sign the agreement. That is the position that they have taken very strongly.

He went on to add:

Many of us have been encouraged to think the fight for the MAI is very worth while.

This was from the NDP Government of Saskatchewan. Al Palladini, the minister from Ontario, said:

First of all I want to congratulate the minister for initiating this meeting. I thought the meeting was a very successful one and certainly the assurance that all the ministers from each province received today on the MAI is that the federal government is certainly going to be the driving force behind this thing, but at the same time with positive input allowed or giving opportunity to the provinces, especially in environment and in labour. So I am really confident that these things are going to materialize in getting us an agreement that is good for both Canada and the global community.

None of the provinces advocated that Canada walk away from the MAI table. In fact they were quite reassured by the direction that the Government of Canada was taking, and we agreed to work on areas that needed further work.

Given that labour is largely a provincial jurisdiction and that we share responsibility in the environment, I have asked for their views and I await their responses particularly in these two areas because the large majority of both provinces and territories have not given us their final position on these two important matters.

We are also continuing to push hard for clear provisions in the MAI against the extraterritorial application of laws on investment such as the U.S. Helms-Burton act on Cuba.

I will continue to take the time necessary—and we now have it—for full consultation with all parties. For some critics, including the NDP, our insistence on meeting key Canadians requirements is not good enough. They say we should not be at the table at all, that we should be watching from the sidelines. They said that again today, particularly the MP from Kamloops, at a time when the NDP premier is reaching out in a rather desperate way to both the business and investment communities.

I could not imagine a more self-defeating course for Canada than the one they are advocating. All we would accomplish by running away would be to forgo any chance of shaping an agreement that works to our advantage or that satisfies Canada's particular needs.

Last week the leader of the federal New Democratic Party publicly recognized that globalization brings opportunities. I congratulate her on catching up, however belatedly, to the latter part of the 20th century.

The Government of Canada believes that Canadians do not want to hide from globalization. Instead, they want to work with governments to try to shape it to our advantage, which is exactly what our participation at the MAI table is all about.

In conclusion, we will not run away and we will not hide. Above all, we will not capitulate either. We are quite prepared to take the time to get it done right. If our requirements are not met, we will not sign. We will still continue to attract investment to Canada.

I want, as I said, the right deal at the right time and not any deal at any cost or at any time. For the government, Canada's interests and values must always be and always will be paramount whether or not the Reform Party likes it. We will never settle for anything less.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I stated in this Chamber on February 12 that I would be glad to debate the government's approach to negotiations toward an MAI agreement with members of the opposition anytime, anywhere. I am pleased that the hon. members opposite have taken up my invitation so quickly. What better venue could there be for this discussion than right here in Parliament.

I must also say that it is a great time to be talking about matters of international trade which are obviously tied to international investment. Canada has never done better than it is doing now under this Liberal administration. Figures released last week by Statics Canada show that Canadian exports last year grew to their highest level ever, $301 billion. They are continuing to grow.

What this means is jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians. This also reflects the high level of confidence and dynamism in the Canadian economy, now that we have managed to bring the deficit under control and set the stage for strong future economic growth, as the Minister of Finance will discuss tomorrow afternoon in his budget.

I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to report to Parliament on the steps I have taken to familiarize Canadians with the issues involved in the MAI negotiations, and will continue to promote a national debate on this subject.

In the first years of the MAI process in 1995 there was not a lot to talk about because the preliminary phases of all such negotiations are quite abstract. There was not very much on the table in the way of substance. However, the talks entered a more important period around the time that I became trade minister last June.

Upon assuming the MAI file, together with the ministers of finance and industry, I approached this MAI process in two phases. The first was the priority of getting more information out to the Canadian public. That is exactly what we have done. Government officials and I have made ourselves available to numerous media interviews. We have provided the media community across the country with background information. We have provided ongoing information packages to all members of Parliament. We have consulted widely with Canadians.

The government has been in regular consultations with provincial governments, through meetings, conference calls and correspondence. We have spoken with some 40 private sector organizations ranging from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Canadian Council for the Arts, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Sierra Club, and health groups.

Finally, there was a request made for the House of Commons subcommittee on international trade to hold public hearings on the MAI last year so as to give a broad range of Canadians an opportunity to express their views.

If we look at those views we will find that Elizabeth Smythe, a professor from Concordia University, said: “I want to close by noting that the hearings of this committee itself indicate a shift in the willingness of the Canadian government to seek input from Canadians on this agreement. I also want to note that I think the Canadian negotiators themselves have been very effective and extremely co-operative and forthright, as my own experience attests”.

University of Toronto Professor Robert Howse said: “Finally I would like to note the value of this kind of hearing and the hopefully enlightened focus it can put on the specifics of an issue like the MAI and grassroots attitudes toward it”.

When the committee reported Canadians noted that the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party all agreed with the government that Canada should participate in these negotiations.

The second phase, which began this year because negotiations were scheduled to intensify, was the right time to further engage Canadians on the remaining outstanding issues, whether through speeches or round tables, through members of Parliament holding their own meetings in their neighbourhoods and communities, or through the provincial governments in mandating their committees to review various aspects of the MAI.

When members of the official opposition accuse the government in the motion today of having failed to encourage public discussion on the MAI or to explain the issues involved, they simply do not know what they are talking about. That is precisely what we have been doing all of these past few months.

In fact, I will be pleased at the end of my comments to table in the House today a 20 page document which summarizes the many different extensive consultations which the government has conducted with diverse groups right across our nation. Any objective person looking at the list will have to come to the conclusion that there has been wide and serious engagement as well as outreach. When taken together these groups represent thousands of Canadian companies and millions of individual Canadians.

In contrast to this, Canadians may be right to ask what about the Reform Party, the official opposition in the House, looking at itself in the mirror. In other words, what have Reformers been doing to increase the understanding of Canadians on the MAI? What contributions have they actually made? Where are the community town hall forums that the official opposition has organized? Where are the lists of the meetings of their NGO communities? Have they outreached with the stakeholders across this country?

The government has done the responsible thing, but it seems that somehow the official opposition can be irresponsible and not do one single thing. Its members sit back and say that it is supposed to be passed on. There was not even a single letter from the official spokesperson on trade for the Reform Party making one positive, constructive suggestion on the MAI. There is further evidence of where Reform Party members are coming from when they reject in the committee report a broad exemption for Canadian culture. In that same report why do they reject the inclusion of labour guidelines for multinationals in the MAI?

Now the Reform Party wants to open up the health care system and the social services—

[Multilateral Investment Agreement, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, there is no confusion. What the Canadian position has advocated is that culture not even be on the table. A number of countries support that.

Having said that, if some countries want it on the table, those other countries including Canada have said that they will take a country specific exemption. Therefore, the exemption for culture for Canada is very much on. Given our preference that we would rather not even have it debated, for Canadian culture either position is the same. It will not be affected.