International Trade Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Don Stephenson]

Sorry, just in the jargon of the negotiations, all countries, including developed, would be able to carve out a certain number of tariff lines as sensitive. Developing countries would also be able to carve out tariff lines as special—special products in the sense of most important to them in terms of food security or rural livelihoods. Then, finally, there's something called the special safeguard mechanism that's being negotiated, and that is to protect against surges in imports for developing countries only.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay.

We're going to have one final quick round, and for that we'll go to Mr. Guimond for two minutes and Mr. Brison for two minutes, and I would like to get to Mr. Keddy too.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to make a comment. Agriculture is dying. Agricultural producers are currently dying. I'm in a very good position to be aware of that. Many people believe that the solutions will be found in the area of the right to food, and food sovereignty.

Does Canada intend to play a leadership role in the current round in order to direct policies towards food sovereignty? In this way, people could manage their agriculture themselves and perhaps improve things in this sector, to the benefit of farmers.

[Gilles Gauthier]

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the issues of interest connected to food sovereignty are certainly present in the negotiations around the position put forward by countries in order to protect their agricultural sectors.

Our very firm position on supply management reflects how it is in our particular interest to demonstrate the validity of the supply management mechanism, how it has served Canada well and how this does not affect the interest of other countries, because it does not create trade distortions. We are therefore putting forwards these kinds of arguments in order to defend our position on supply management.

Other countries with particular interests—India, for example, which has always defended the interests of its subsistence farmers—is also bringing this argument to the negotiating table. We are therefore trying to find ways to take their interests into account. That is the very principle of a negotiation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, ask your final question, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

“Buy American” provisions are a restriction attached to federal funds for mass transit and highway projects. I go back to note 5 of annex 2 of the GPA, which states that “The Agreement shall not apply to restrictions attached to Federal funds for mass transit and highway projects”.

Would you agree, based on note 5 of annex 2 of the GPA, that the “buy American” provisions would be considered one of those restrictions?

[Don Stephenson]

Well, I don't have the text before me, but I think your point might be that the protections of the Government Procurement Agreement would not be sufficient to get full access to those markets at sub-national level in the U.S., and with that I would agree.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes.

Just specifically, “buy American” would be a restriction attached to federal funds for mass transit and highway projects.

[Don Stephenson]

Yes.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thanks very much.

[Don Stephenson]

In fact, the new provisions of the “buy American” measures in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act expand the old “buy American” provisions by applying to more projects, to more products, to a higher threshold for the cost differential beyond which you're allowed to purchase foreign products. And most importantly, they are mandated to the states and municipalities. That's the important restriction that we're trying to address in our current discussions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

You have a tough job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.

To wrap it up, Mr. Keddy, you're going to demonstrate how an articulate, effective communicator can get it done in two minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Good luck, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Mr. Brison's final question, I'm thinking that for every loop there's a loophole. I think that's how that works.

I just want to say that what we have had here has been a good, candid discussion on supply management. I don't think anyone at this table can walk out of here, with our two chief negotiators in the room having both said that Canada has taken a hardline position on sensitive products and on supply management and has defended it at the WTO and at other bilateral negotiations around the world....

Mr. Chair, it's pretty straightforward and pretty simple. What everyone has been careful to say is that no one can say what will happen in the future. Quebec could have a referendum to decide to get rid of supply management in Quebec. I can't speak to that; I have no idea. We can only speak about today and what the government is doing today. What I've heard consistently is that we're protecting supply management straight across the board.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Great. Well, thank you. Life is like a box of chocolates.

Gentlemen, thank you very much. It's been very helpful in grounding the committee. We appreciate it.

Mr. Stephenson, I think you make a great diplomat.

Thank you, Mr. Gauthier, for appearing as well.

The meeting is adjourned.