Evidence of meeting #37 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was zealand.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We only have about a minute for an answer on that, so perhaps you can give a really quick answer. Ms. Guergis has a question as well.
Go ahead, please. I think that was directed to Mr. Wild. A very brief answer, please.
Minister-Counsellor & Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Switzerland
Indeed, agriculture is not exactly a service like the others, nor should it be. Your country is fighting to have its agricultural surpluses enter other markets. Thus, Canada is perceived as a country that wants to open the markets, but at the same time, Canada protects some of its own sectors. It is completely understandable, and we all do it, but it is a paradox, nonetheless.
When Canada asks one of its partners to open a market—and this is where the argument of the Canadian Wheat Board comes into play, although it poses no problem—it will come back to Canada to see what you are doing and to challenge Canada.
As a final point, I would say that fairness is the biggest challenge. I see no alternative to the WTO. Everyone here today can dream of a perfect future, but the WTO, where developing nations are the majority, is the tool that can help us find solutions. It is not a perfect system, but it is the only one we have. It is up to us to work to make it as fair as possible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Wild.
Ms. Guergis, one short question with a short answer.
I would like to, right now, thank you all. It's been fascinating. I wish we had more time. We have people waiting for the room, so we simply have to finish on time. Would you be prepared to answer some questions if they were sent to you in writing? I'd appreciate that very much. I know we did need more time for this meeting.
Ms. Guergis, short question, and short answer.
November 21st, 2006 / 10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the interest of time, I will limit it to the one question. I want to thank all the presenters for the excellent information you have provided today.
Mr. Wild, I can appreciate your comments and that the decisions with respect to trade negotiations and deals are not made by cabinet alone. You said today you are very inclusive of industry and stakeholders, and that is absolutely important. That is the approach we take here in Canada. Some examples are some of the FTAs that we're negotiating with our automotive industry. We have separate working groups for the automotive industry that travel alongside our negotiators to ensure all their interests are heard, and they're at the table so we can get the best possible deal that includes them. We also consult our provinces very regularly to ensure they are part of the process.
Does your process include debate in your House? I'm going to sound a little bit political in this question, but some people around the table suggest Canada and our government should be disclosing all our draft texts when we're negotiating. I have some problems with that. Do you yourselves open up and put all your cards on the table? Surely this must not be the case. It probably would prevent you from receiving the best possible deal.
Can you clarify for us how far you do go?
Minister-Counsellor & Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Switzerland
Thank you for the question.
I myself lived through it when we were negotiating with the European Union. The relation with Parliament is such that when we negotiate we consult and inform the Parliament, not in the plenum but in the committee that is relevant to the agreement. We submit to them the mandate of negotiation we receive from government before the government approves. Then the committee has all the documents except the things we really want to keep secret, that are not to be released to the other side, because there is always a risk of leakage in an open society, and that can really pose a problem when you negotiate with a partner.
So they will get approximately 80% of our negotiating mandates. They will see them and they will make a recommendation. They will even vote in committee on what they think about it. And then the government is not obliged if they reject it, because it's the competence of the government, foreign affairs. But of course, it would be foolish for the government, when they get a signal from the committee that it has major problems, not to take that into account.
Yes, they are taken along, they are informed. They get 80% of the mandate, and we take their advice. But then we decide, as a government, and go on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much.
We have to end our meeting now. We do have another committee starting right now, so perhaps we can clear the table as quickly as possible.
Again, thank you all very much for coming today. We do appreciate your input.
This meeting is adjourned.