International Trade Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That's why I poorly explained the government's position on the agreement being discussed with the European Union.

The minister tells us he wants to leave supply management on the table because he wants to discuss it and prove to the European Union that it's a good thing. However, he isn't unaware that the European Union, the United States and other countries will still attack our collective marketing tools. Setting this precedent is the best way he has chosen to ensure the discussion turns around a subject we normally shouldn't even be discussing.

The European Union, knowing that supply management is on the table, will no doubt say it wants to open its market and that we should open ours as well. It's on supply management and the Canada Wheat Board that it will attack us. Those are Canada's two collective marketing tools that are constantly questioned by other countries. That's why I find it hard to understand this precedent that we're setting by setting this to one side.

Historically, in bilateral discussions on free trade agreements with other countries, we simply exclude what we don't want to talk about, in particular supply management. That's what we should have done. I'm afraid we're setting a precedent that will recur every time we discuss bilateral agreements.

Were you surprised by the minister's statement? Is it the right attitude to adopt at the start of the negotiations, which may last two years, or even more, to say that we're ready to leave the supply management system on the table?

[Stewart Wells]

I share your concerns, absolutely, and I think it should be taken off the table. The discussion is about what “no” means. Does “no” mean something different in Canada than outside of Canada, and how is that being interpreted? In this room we've heard that no means no, but internationally, no doesn't seem to mean no. No means let other countries change the text, let them take the brackets off the text. We don't complain. We don't go to those people and say no, Canada will not accept this and let's just move on.

I'm absolutely convinced, without evidence that I can provide to the table, that other countries around the world would respect Canada for that position and say they actually support our position in a lot of these cases. But they need to hear it from us. They need to hear it from Canada. They are not going to get up on their own and advocate the retention of Canadian programs, because they represent other countries. The minute Canada actually shows some forcefulness on the international scene, I'm convinced these other countries will say yes, let's move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Wells, for coming before us.

I want to come back to this issue of supply management and protection by the government. I think the minister is on the record after this committee meeting today, and we will see whether his words are taken as gospel in the negotiations. We were very disturbed earlier this week with the negotiators, because they kept saying the position right now is to defend supply management, but we don't know what the future will bring.

You've been participating in part of the consultations. Is it clear what the strategy of the government is to protect supply management, to protect the Canadian Wheat Board? Is that clear to you and the colleagues who have been consulted?

[Stewart Wells]

The short answer is no. The trade negotiators, for their part, are very skilled individuals, but they have to do what they're told. They have to take their direction from the political leadership in Canada. In a sense, it's not fair to ask them to determine the political will in Canada. They have to do what they're told.

Again, we are asking the Government of Canada to tell the negotiators to go to the WTO and say no, we will not accept changes to Canada's supply management system and we want the brackets taken off the text, or the text removed completely, on this Wheat Board change that was made at the end of the discussions in November.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

And you have no--

[Stewart Wells]

I'll carry on a little further than that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, you're losing control of your Conservative members here.

[Stewart Wells]

I phoned Canada's trade negotiator, Mr. Gauthier, a couple of weeks ago and asked him what Canada was doing on the international scene to register our disapproval of the text and the negotiations that are happening. His standard response was that other countries clearly understand our position. That didn't answer my question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

So you don't get a sense that Canada is being very clear and forthright and pushing back on what we've seen from the working group and what we have seen circulating from the WTO.

[Stewart Wells]

We have no evidence from the negotiators or the political establishment in Canada that aggressive, clear action is being taken on the international stage.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That gets us back to the whole issue around the metaphor of sumo wrestling. Right at the end is when supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board get squashed or crushed. Our role as a committee is to flag this as a serious danger, given the ambiguity between what instructions have been given to the negotiators and what the government is saying publicly.

[Stewart Wells]

Interestingly enough, the minister talked earlier about sumo wrestlers being able to step outside the ring. If you look at the discussions in November when Mr. Falconer was still the chair, at the last minute he was creating new text. He created a new text that just happened to create an exemption for a single-desk exporter from New Zealand so they could be outside the new regulations. So the new regulations are only going to apply to the Canadian Wheat Board.

On the surface, that absolutely looked like a conflict of interest, because the chair of the committee is from New Zealand. They used a sharp pencil and created some regulations that exempted their own export single-desk seller, but made sure the box that contained the Canadian Wheat Board was outside of that exemption.

Now, that was done outside the ring. That was the sumo wrestler being outside the ring making that change.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes. That's the referee letting the New Zealand sumo wrestler leave. The Canadian is still in there.

What was the reaction of the government to very clear flagging that the Wheat Board is under attack?

[Stewart Wells]

To my knowledge, there was no reaction from the government. All the news headlines said, “Doha talks collapse. No further negotiations scheduled.” That's where it ended.

We just went through the crucial piece here last month, when there were more meetings about trying to restart the talks. The question in front of all the countries and negotiators was on what text we should use to restart the talks. Some countries said we need to start all over again from scratch on a different text. Other countries, including Canada, said we should start where the text left off.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It had the Wheat Board on the table. So our own government is saying one thing here. In the negotiations, when the discussion is being held around the text, they're saying, “No, let's put the Wheat Board on the table”.

[Stewart Wells]

To the best of our knowledge, Canada supported starting up with the text that excludes the Canadian Wheat Board and takes away the marketing advantage of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is one of the places where it would have been very easy for the Canadian government to say, this is not the position of the Canadian government; we want to go back to the text that was on the table just before Falconer made his last changes and retired as chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

So you've seen no evidence of that. We'll need to have the minister back to respond to that, because it is a very flagrant contradiction between what he's said before this committee and what the government is actually doing around the negotiations.

What do you think the government should be doing between now and the opening of negotiations next week? How should they be taking that clear stand that so far they have not taken, at least outside of Parliament?

[Stewart Wells]

The government could write a letter to Canada's negotiators and table it publicly with the House of Commons, saying we will not agree to changes in the WTO text that weaken supply management or take away the marketing advantages of the Canadian Wheat Board. The negotiators could take that letter to Geneva, or wherever they hold the next round of meetings, and say this is the position of the Government of Canada.

It gets back to your question. We will not sign a deal that weakens these legislated marketing tools used by Canadian farmers.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Why do you think the government has not done that, since they're trying to say, at least in Parliament, that they are going to defend supply management? When that clear message has not been communicated, why have they not done that?

[Stewart Wells]

Well, I can't know the mind of the government. We can all speculate about it. But I would think, if the government truly believes in its own rhetoric, it should take that step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We're all dying to hear from Mr. Harris, but....

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The interesting discussion with Mr. Julian had nothing to do with reality as I know it, so I'm assuming that maybe I'm wrong.

To our witness--first, thank you for appearing--you said there's no clear evidence that aggressive action is being taken on the international stage. Have you been at the international negotiations as an intervenor?

[Stewart Wells]

No. As I said before, I participate--

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

So where are you getting your information? If you're not at the meeting--you heard what the minister said--where are you getting your information?