International Trade Committee on March 12th, 2021

[Steve Verheul]

Yes, that's true. The majority are.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Maybe we should all just agree to become developing countries, and then we'd all get along. I say that with tongue in cheek.

The WTO says that one of its functions is monitoring. It monitors. I'm looking at the durum wheat situation in Italy. Has the WTO monitored that? Did it let us know, “We have monitored this, and they are wrong.” That would be a basic function for the WTO.

[Steve Verheul]

When we talk about monitoring by the WTO, it's not so much a question of monitoring individual issues. It tends to monitor whether WTO members are submitting the necessary transparency with respect to everything from subsidies to export restrictions to various measures that there should be transparency about, for example, spending levels and all those kinds of things. It's more of an aggregate monitoring of what each country is doing.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Fair enough, but on the WTO website it says “periodic scrutiny of their trade policies and practices”.

Mr. Verheul, you are very well respected, obviously, and I have a great deal of respect for you. I know you're in a tough position to critique this on the record, so I'm not trying to make you do something that is going to get you offside.

It seems to me that if the WTO was monitoring trade policies and practices, it would read the news and say, “Well, it looks to me like Italy is doing something to Canada in the durum wheat. Maybe we'd better look into this, as a monitoring function.”

Does that ever happen?

[Steve Verheul]

It does happen, but in a different kind of context. In addition to the general monitoring and reporting function that every WTO member has—to report significant amounts of information to the WTO for examination by others—we also have a narrower review of each individual member under the trade policy mechanism.

When it comes to a review of the EU, which happens every couple of years, all members have the opportunity to talk about concerns they have with respect to the EU. Certainly, the COOL issue [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The role that the WTO actually plays in trade deals.... Maybe I'm naive about this whole situation, but when I look at the USMCA trade deal, does the WTO play any role in that, when we're renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA?

[Steve Verheul]

Yes. For any kind of free trade agreement that is negotiated, there is a process under the regional trade agreements at the WTO to review those trade agreements and determine if they meet the requirements that a trade agreement must meet in order to be considered a valid trade agreement by the WTO.

I will admit that this process is not necessarily as rigorous as it might be, but there is a review. Countries have an opportunity to ask questions about the free trade agreement, and it has to meet certain requirements, such as substantially covering all trade.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My time is likely up. I'd like to thank Ms. Hembroff and Mr. Verheul. It must be extremely frustrating dealing with all this stuff, and I appreciate your efforts in what seems an impossible task.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb.

Yes, the time is up. We have to do some committee business.

I want to thank Ms. Hembroff and Mr. Verheul. I am sure it won't be too long before we'll have you back before us again, sharing your knowledge and your information.

You are free to go. Thank you very much. You can disconnect, and we will move on briefly to some committee business.

On this particular issue of the WTO, the analysts will now proceed with preparing a draft report on the testimony heard and submissions received by the committee on WTO reform.

I'd like to ask any members who have special instructions for the analysts if they would please send them to our clerk by next Wednesday, March 17. If members have no objection, we can close the window for submissions of briefs on that Wednesday, March 17, as well. If that's all right with everyone, that's where we'll move on to on that.

We have two motions here. I have a motion from Mr. Blaikie, but before I deal with that, I see that Mr. Savard-Tremblay's hand is up.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I just wanted to point out that I also have two motions to introduce. I understand that I will be able to do so after we have dealt with Mr. Blaikie's.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie, do you want to speak to your motion?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We've had some discussion already today about the TRIPS waiver here in committee and also in question period. It's a topical issue that has to do with vaccine supply during the pandemic.

I think it falls well within the jurisdiction of this committee to take a look at it, given that it's at the WTO that the issue is taking place. This would be a very appropriate forum to hear from folks on various sides of the issue and to try to understand it a little better and find a good path forward. I beseech members of the committee to support the motion today so that we can undertake that study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I have Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm wondering if Mr. Blaikie would be amicable to one minor amendment—or actually an addition—to his motion, which would be to add the words “and investment”. It would read that “the committee undertake a study of Canada's trade and investment policy and trade agreements”. It fits fully within the mandate of our committee, and I'm wondering if he would approve of that amendment.

Thank you.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I certainly don't have any objections to that wording change, provided that it's not going to undercut being able to get the study under way. I don't see any problem with it and would be happy to accept that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

I also have Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

It's on the motion I talked about on Monday, which I introduced about a week and a half ago. I'll wait my turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Ms. Bendayan.

Please go ahead.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the motion Mr. Blaikie put before us, and now the amendment from Ms. Gray, it's just to advise that I am fully in support of studying this. We just heard from the witnesses earlier that it is something Canada is very much engaged on, and I think it would be interesting to look into it.

With respect to the amendment proposed by Ms. Gray, I would just ask, in what way does this change the study? As Ms. Gray knows, the focus of the TRIPS agreement is trade-related intellectual property rights. I just want to ensure that we keep a focus on IP rights. Investment brings in a whole other aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Gray, did you want to comment on Ms. Bendayan's question?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.

It's basically so it opens it up in case there are witnesses who might cross over. The focus will be as it's laid out, because the rest of the motion defines the TRIPS agreement and everything. This just broadens it slightly so that in case there are some witnesses where there is crossover, it just gives us more opportunity to hear from different people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

We heard from a witness in the last round who talked about how, because there have been so many governments investing in these vaccines, investment would trump IP rights, or has a way to trump IP rights. It's a curious idea. When does government investment take precedence as far as who actually has ownership of the intellectual property, in this case? Does anything there need to be explored?

IP is very important. I think both Ms. Bendayan and Mr. Blaikie would agree with me. We want to make sure we have these companies doing this ongoing research for the next pandemic or the next issue. I don't want to do anything that would ever dissuade or make it so that other companies just say, “No, we're not interested.”

In the same breath, if we are spending a lot of public money in the development of these, then we should talk about that too and about how it impacts intellectual property.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's a fantastic discussion. The committee may want to look at the fact that Pfizer, for example, I believe did not take any government subsidy or funding for the development of its vaccine. I think Pfizer is selling its vaccine in a for-profit business model, if you want to call it that, whereas other pharmaceuticals took government money and have made an arrangement to sell at cost, etc. The committee might find that an interesting situation.