Evidence of meeting #28 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I'm prepared to follow the instructions of my government.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
As we indicated earlier in our discussion, our instructions are very clear. We are to protect the right of Canada to make its own decisions in respect of its marketing system. Gilles described our specific negotiating position with regard to sensitive products, that is to say, supply management. Those are our instructions, period.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I wondered if Mr. Cannan was taking your question for you, Mr. Julian.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'm referring to an article of January 30, 2009, in a U.S. trade magazine that refers specifically to note 5 of annex 2 of the GPA. It states it “shall not apply to restrictions attached to Federal funds for mass transit and highway projects”.
How would you interpret that, Mr. Stephenson?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It means that those projects are excluded. They are carved out of the obligations of those who sign the agreement.
October 6th, 2009 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
How would federal “buy American” provisions be considered under that wording?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
They would be excluded.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Okay.
That's a significant part of the stimulus package. So under “buy American”, the GPA agreement would not even apply to those projects.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I think that's correct, but it's also important to note that many jurisdictions, including many Canadian jurisdictions, also have restrictions in the same area.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
If we unilaterally disarm and we're willing to eliminate those restrictions, you said earlier that the process in the U.S. would require American sub-national governments to negotiate on an individual basis. So it would involve all of those sub-national governments that currently have very specific carve-outs. Would it require an act of Congress to effectively ensure that mass transit and highway projects do not come under “buy American”?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I would have to examine the two texts together. They relate to each other, but they're two different things--the text of the recovery act, and the text of the government procurement agreement and the WTO. So I am uncertain about the form of the restriction you're referring to. If it's in the GPA, presumably it doesn't directly affect the guidance they give under the ARRA. So I'd have to examine the text of ARRA before being confident about answering the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
We'll conclude with a short question from Mr. Julian, unless Mr. Cannan has asked all your questions.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have three short questions, Mr. Chair.
I must admit I'm more concerned now than I was at the beginning of this session, because it appears to me that we're more offensively and defensively inclined. So if we use the metaphor of sumo wrestling, I'm concerned that at the end of the day supply management is going to be squashed. I think it's fair to say that you have instructions from the government, but those instructions could change. If there are potentially new markets for big agriculture business, we may neglect the community-based farms that form the backbone of supply management.
So do you think it's fair to characterize our posture as more offensive than defensive? If there are some things we can gain, we may end up hurting our supply managed sector.
Secondly, the Dairy Farmers of Canada have characterized Mr. Falconer as having.... Every paper that's come out has been increasingly negative on supply management. Do you think it's a fair characterization that we're seeing an increasingly negative stance on supply management?
I have one more question when you've answered those.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Chairman, let me take the second question first.
In terms of a negative stance, the chair is producing these papers on his own authority, as chair of the negotiating group. It's not an agreed text nor a consensus text. It is what the chair believes is a possible landing zone, from his own perspective.
Has it taken a more negative stance? Well, at the very least, in the December 2008 text, there is a recognition that Canada needs a greater number of tariff lines with regard to the designation of sensitive products. This is the first time that this has been explicitly recognized. On that score, it is a positive development.
Our position remains the same. Obviously we are facing significant challenges in the negotiations, but that doesn't mean we should back away from that position at all. I think we have made it clear in every instance what our position is.
In terms of trading off among sectors, in a complex, multi-faceted negotiation such as a WTO negotiation, where you have many players involved and many interests involved, these things about trading off one sector over another really never come into play. Each country tries to advance their interests in the best way they can, both their offensive and defensive interests. That's exactly what we have been instructed to do, to try to advance our offensive interest while maintaining our hardline position on supply management. That's the instruction we've been given and that's how we have operated so far.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
If I could take back my analogy....
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I mean, perhaps it is sumo wrestling, but in sumo wrestling you win or lose depending on whether you stand your ground. Our instructions are to stand our ground. I can't really respond to any discussion of what might happen in the future, other than that.
With regard to the chairman's text, I did live the experience of a chairmanship in the WTO. I want you to know that when I put out my first text, the director general of the WTO gave me a t-shirt. The t-shirt said, “After texts, if you'd like to have a friend in Geneva, buy a dog.” The role of the chairman is to put out a text that is nobody's position but that perhaps could find consensus. His job is try to move the members towards a consensus outcome, principally by putting pressure on the extreme positions. And at least in one small area, Canada might be described as having an extreme position.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you for that.
As a final question, has there been any discussion of how to avoid the Mexican reality? The developing country, with the NAFTA provisions agriculturally, has seen in the past year massive dumping of corn exports from the U.S., which has contributed to a profound economic downturn and instability in rural Mexico. There's been the loss of a million jobs, with increased criminality and violence.
Is there, within the government's position, any consideration of how to avoid that kind of situation with developing countries if they are trying to protect farm-based, community-based agriculture?
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
In terms of developing countries, we have accepted the principle in the negotiations that developing countries should be entitled to certain protections for their agricultural sector. That recognition is certainly very much in line with what you're suggesting. It will be available for Mexico and all other developing countries.
We need to ensure, though, that any of these selections of special products for developing countries is made in a way that does not necessarily harm also our commercial interests in these markets. Again, that's part of the negotiations.
It is recognized in the current negotiating proposal that developing countries should be entitled to designate what sectors they want to protect, and for these sectors not to take any commitment on market access. That would help them develop the sectors that they feel are most important to them.
Canada has accepted that principle. Obviously we need to continue to discuss with them so that our commercial interests are not jeopardized by the designation, but the principle of designation by developing countries has been accepted by Canada.
