Debates of Nov. 24th, 1994

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon in support of this motion put forward by my New Democratic Party colleague, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

All we are asking in this motion is that the government be responsible, accountable, fair, and to introduce equity with respect to these international trade agreements. Accountability is very important to the people of this country. The government was elected on the basis of trust, on the basis that it would stand up for Canadians in Canada and stand up for Canada outside Canada.

What we see here is a government that is not being fully accountable in Bill C-57. That is why we are moving this motion to ensure there is an accountability process so the government can review this particular bill and this particular trade agreement, the WTO, and report back to us in a regular and a timely fashion.

It is a natural course of doing business. As a business person, you never undertake a business plan, or in this case a government plan, without having some mechanism from which you can assess whether the program is working or not, or whether your business plan is functioning properly and working well. There has to be a regular review process. All we are asking is for the government to be accountable to the people of Canada and to the businesses of Canada by undertaking a regular review and reporting back to Parliament; nothing more, nothing less.

The government has the responsibility to the Canadian people to be accountable for the actions it takes and to be accountable for the treaties it enters into with other countries. It has to be responsible in its actions. All we are asking is for the government to take responsibility and to account for its actions on a regular basis.

We are asking for fairness, the third point in my remarks. We are asking the government to treat its own people in a fair way. Some people may debate whether the Americans in their legislation are being fair internationally, and we believe that they are not, but they are being very fair to the people that they govern. They are being fair because they are saying if an international agreement is unfair to their working people, their industries, or their manufacturing sector, they will implement and take action to protect their people.

Some people may view this as protectionism. Some people say why should we as Canadians play the same game? It is a mugs' game when you start putting a defence of one sector over another or defending one situation with respect to international agreements when other countries are not doing that. It starts bidding up or bidding down the intricacies and the processes that are involved that have made this agreement work in the first place.

The government has to be fair to its own country, its own persons and its own industries and producers and manufacturers, by saying that in the event there is unfairness to Canadians, the government will have legislation which will protect the interests of Canadians to make it fair.

With respect to equity, we need an amendment in Bill C-57 which is equitable for everybody. We cannot insist on other countries doing what we are doing, but with respect to these amendments, we can inject some equity into the system.

I end my remarks by responding to a comment that was made by a Reform member a few moments ago. He talked about how this Bill C-57, without amendment, would ensure that we have a free trade agreement. I have a book here written by John Ralston Saul called The Doubter's Companion . It is a dictionary of aggressive common sense. It defines the word free as the most over used term in modern politics, evoked by everyone to mean anything.

Samuel Johnson once spoke of patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels. Evocations of what is free and of freedom have now overtaken patriotism. This has led to a limitless series of oxymorons which have somehow become respectable: Free air miles, free trade, the twinning of free men and free markets when history demonstrates clearly that free markets do best under sophisticated dictatorships and chafe under limitations imposed by democracy. Another oxymoron with respect to the

word free is not only free trade but free love, free glasses at gas stations, free offers, and in general a free ride.

Of course parliamentarians here may be more aware of the oxymoron that we see almost firsthand in some of the actions we are taking as a Parliament now to rebuild our country after nine years of Conservative rule. The most widely used oxymoron in the entire country is Progressive Conservative. It does not make any sense. They are two opposites.

The problem with this word free is that it has two contradictory meanings, as Mr. Saul goes on to say. One refers to political freedom, or liberty, and has an ethical value; the other refers to an imaginary state of being in which there is no effort and no cost. Freedom is thus confused with the gambler's idea that you can get something for nothing, and that is why Johnson's scoundrels are attracted to it. I maintain that Bill C-57 as proposed, without amendment, will injure Canadians and industry. That is why New Democrats are putting forward these amendments, to ensure that Canadians' interests are protected at the international level so we can continue to build a strong country from sea to sea.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the NDP sound like a broken record attacking the Americans and requesting that we do the same things the Americans are doing. It reminds me of somebody who cannot go to bed at night for worrying that someone else might be having a good time.

The bill before us deals specifically with an agreement that was reached by 123 countries around the globe, nothing more, nothing less. The provinces have been consulted on the matter throughout the debate on the agreement, for the past six and a half years.

I do not understand the NDP members. The premier of the NDP government in Ontario just came back from a trip to China. He supports the notion of the World Trade Organization and the GATT implementing legislation. The NDP premier from B.C. was on the same trip. He came back very happy and very excited about the notion of opening new markets around the globe.

I do not know what the problem is with my colleagues in the NDP. Every time we use the word free, they jump.

For Canada, which has the largest and longest border of almost any country on the globe, trade is very important. Trade means jobs. For every $1 billion in trade at least 9,000 to 10,000 jobs are created. The NDP should be grateful that we have a government that cares, that we have a Prime Minister who cares. He led one of the largest business delegations in the history of Canada and came back with some good results.

I suggest that my colleagues from the NDP stand up and congratulate the Prime Minister and the government for a job well done. For the first time ever in the history of the country we had a united team that went on a mission in order to promote Canada's interest.

We would recommend the rejection of Motion No. 4 as proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party for the following reasons. The agreement does not require such a study as is proposed. The government already has such authority in any event. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary and redundant.

Furthermore a report entitled "Impact of the GATT Agreement on Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food" was released on June 22, 1994. This report prepared jointly by provincial and federal agriculture officials examined the effect of the Uruguay round on all agriculture sectors, including the Canadian milk marketing system. The report concluded that the effect of the Uruguay round on the dairy industry will be minimal. There will be no domestic price impact over the transition period on industrial milk. Production may decline 0 to 2 per cent by the year 2000 as a result of new minimum access commitment for butter.

For the same reasons we are recommending rejection of Motion No. 5. This amendment mandates a very specific and onerous reporting requirement that would have important resource implications.

The information on the activities of the World Trade Organization mandated in paragraph 12.1(a) to (d) is contained in the GATT annual report. The minister could undertake to table the World Trade Organization annual report in the House if it is necessary.

For the reasons I listed we are recommending that Motions Nos. 4 and 5 be rejected.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome this opportunity to speak on the two motions put forth by our hon. colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. On Motion No. 4, to subject the effects of the agreement on the milk marketing system to parliamentary review, I would just like to remind our colleagues from the New Democratic Party that we presented a motion this morning, Motion No. 2, in which reference was made to a report to be laid before the House of Commons each year, concerning, in a more general sense, the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement by our major partners, especially the United States.

I have the feeling that Motion No. 4 goes somewhat along the same lines, yet has a much narrower scope than Motion No. 2 that we presented this morning. Motion No. 4 stresses the importance of parliamentary review and, in that sense, I think that we can support, endorse this position, although, as I said earlier, the motion we tabled this morning, on which recorded division will be taken later on, has a much broader scope, while at the same time addressing our colleagues' concerns, concerns that are evident from Motion No. 4.

Let me remind you that-and I think it is important to mention this, for the benefit of our colleagues from the government party of course, who gave us the impression this morning of being opposed our motion to amend No. 2-it is important to bear in mind that Motion No. 2 which we presented this morning had been suggested to us by the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at one of the public hearings held by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Both organizations testified before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ask that Bill C-57 include a provision requiring that a report be tabled each year on the implementation of the agreement in Canada, of course, but also by our major trading partners. Such a provision was part of the proposal we put forth this morning.

Despite the expectations expressed by the Quebec farmers' union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the government party apparently decided to oppose this proposed amendment. I therefore urge our colleagues from the New Democratic Party to strongly support this proposed amendment, which is consistent with what they are proposing in Motion No. 4 but whose scope is much broader.

As for Motion No. 5, which is aimed at ensuring in a way that the World Trade Organization operates in an open manner and that the Canadian government publishes studies on the implementation of the agreement, we always come back to this aspect of the problem: we think that Canada does not have to conform to provisions 12.1 ( a ) through ( d ). In our opinion, Canada must insist that the World Trade Organization should produce a comprehensive and relevant annual report.

However-this is always a problem we have with the broad motions proposed by our colleagues from the New Democratic Party since this morning-we clearly are in complete agreement with some of the paragraphs, namely ( e ), ( f ) and ( g ).

These paragraphs provide for consultations with the provinces provisions, under the Agreement, that affect areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is very important to point out that the federal government, which claims to believe in co-operative federalism, must not hesitate to include in the agreement specific provisions calling for consultations with the provinces on issues of particular interest to them.

The parliamentary secretary said earlier: Yes, but we did consult with the provinces. If so, why are they so reluctant to put in the bill a provision specifically requiring such consultation with the provinces? In no way would it make the process more cumbersome. Despite what he said, it would not give the provinces a veto. It would simply give the provinces an opportunity to convey their concerns to the federal government on issues that concern them. I think that is quite legitimate.

That being said, of course paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Motion No. 5 now before us refer to this taking into consideration of provincial jurisdiction and of particular concerns of the provinces.

If these paragraphs were separate from the rest of the amendment, we could vote for such an amendment, but given paragraphs 12.1(a) to (d), which we believe are wrong for Canada, we must oppose this amendment, again, with regret.

As for 12.1(h), we find it totally unacceptable because we do not really see how it could be applied right now.

I think that it is also important to say something about clause 12.2. Of course, we agree with the principle behind this clause, namely periodic review, but that being said, we would not want people to think that we on this side of the House have cold feet or are afraid of international trade agreements. For this reason, we could not legitimately give our full and complete support to that clause.

In view of what I just said, and although we could very well have agreed to paragraphs 12.1(e), (f) and (g) without any problem, we must oppose this amendment.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Motion No. 4.

Why single out milk marketing? Dozens if not hundreds of industry groups would like to have government fund their studies. In fact we are dealing with Motion No. 5 here as well as the two tie together.

Motion No. 5 asks for an annual report from the World Trade Organization. Those reports already exist under GATT. In a moment I want to read an article in today's Globe and Mail that deals specifically with the biannual reports from the GATT.

These reports exist. The minister can be asked to table them in the House. Why cause extra work? It is more bureaucracy. It is something that the NDP sort of like, I understand.

I want to read a quote from today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's involvement in the GATT. It states: ``Canada's trade policy and practices receive generally high marks from the members at the GATT council during a two day discussion of a biannual report but the council criticized Canada's tariff system and interprovincial trade barriers''.

The party that wants to have a review of the milk marketing board might be quite surprised with the outcome.

Members opposite would be well advised to listen. The people at the GATT meeting today are the people who are making the report reviewing Canada's interprovincial trade barriers and our present milk marketing system. They are saying that the council criticized the complexity of Canada's tariff system and questioned the exceedingly high tariff rate quotas in the agriculture sector-and they are referring specifically to supply management-with an average of 205 per cent which will only go down to 174 per cent in the year 2000.

They are critical of this. I am quite surprised they are asking for a review because a review would not be very kind to the supply management sector. It is an area that Canada is very weak in. Our position is that we have taken a minimum reduction in tariff in the supply management sector of 15 per cent. I think it is recognized worldwide that we have a problem that has to be cleaned up. If we talk about free trade, let us practise it here at home.

In addition, members talk about the need to clean up interprovincial trade barriers. The three provincial governments in the country with NDP governments are the ones that are co-operating the very least in trying to get Canada's house in order in terms of cleaning up our problems at home, the trade barriers.

We have more barriers to trade internally in Canada than in all the European Union. That is a disgrace. How can we compete internationally when we cannot even compete at home? Let them put their money where their mouths are and co-operate to try to get trade barriers reduced internally to give our businesses a chance to compete without one hand being tied behind their backs. Let us put Canada on the same level nationally as we do internationally in these trade agreements.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion No. 4 negatived.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion No. 5 negatived.)

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-57, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8, on page 25, with the following:

"(a) to fix the performer's performance in any existing or future medium by means of which sounds may be reproduced,"

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-57 amends some 30 Canadian acts, including the Copyright Act.

We must first point out the archaic character of the Copyright Act. Bill C-57, An Act to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, includes a few amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act.

Among those changes, the one in clause 58 illustrates the archaic character of this act which is meant to protect creative artists and performers.

Indeed, Clause 58(a) gives a performer the sole right "to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced".

The wording of this change takes us back to the days of mechanical pianos. How, in 1994, can the government amend the Copyright Act and completely ignore the technological progress of the last few decades? This certainly does not make the government look like it is aware of the future challenges that await us. Yet, the government received numerous reminders.

I want to quote a few paragraphs from the brief submitted by the Union des artistes to the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

For almost eight years now, the Union des artistes and the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners have been asking for the rights regarding the fixation, the reproduction and the communication to the public of their performances in musical, literary, dramatic and choreographic works, known as neighbouring rights. Meanwhile, Bill C-57 recognizes the exclusive right of our people to fix the performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced. If Canada recognizes, in 1994, our exclusive right to the fixation of a sound performance by means of a perforated roll, how long will we have to wait for the recognition of our rights on performances fixed or reproduced by using optical discs, compact discs like CD-ROMs and other modern supports?

Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is not only totally disconnected from today's reality: It also creates a great danger for the future.

This government does not seem to realize that when Canada signs a commercial treaty such as the one resulting from the Uruguay Round of negotiations, it waives part of its sovereignty. This is true not only in the case of trade agreements, but also in the defence sector. Just think of the North Atlantic Treaty or NORAD.

So, it is essential for the government to recognize that section 58 limits its own future jurisdiction and that every measure must be taken, now and in the future, to minimize any negative impact.

We fear that, as soon as it is passed, this bill could in fact limit the performers' rights to the only rights recognized in this bill. This leads one to fear that restrictions set here and there in commercial agreements could be seen as absolute restrictions when the time comes to review our own national legislation in this area. This is why our amendment is crucial.

Members will recall that the Uruguay Round Agreement only dates back to December 15, 1994. When the government introduced Bill C-57, the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister of International Trade admitted that only 13 of the hundred or so countries which signed the agreement had already introduced their implementation legislation.

Since this bill was introduced, the race has begun. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is in a hurry. The number of witnesses has been limited and committee members are rushed off their feet. We have to cut corners, because an international agreement was signed.

Let us draw a parallel between the position of the Liberal and Conservative governments concerning the protection of the creative and performing artists' rights.

I would like to quote from the brief submitted by the Union des artistes:

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was concluded in 1886. Canada's Copyright Act, which was passed in 1926, forty years later, was not reviewed by Parliament until 1988.

As for the Rome Copyright Convention on the protection of performing artists, producers of recordings and broadcasting agencies, it was concluded in 1961 and is already obsolete because it applies only to sound productions.

Thirty-three years later, Canada has yet to sign the convention and adjust its own legislation to meet the minimum provisions of the convention. As a result, Canada, which takes pride in being one of the most progressive countries in the world, lags far behind in defending and promoting the interests of its creative artists.

Germany, France and Japan all signed the Rome Convention. In addition, these fellow members of the G-7 group, realized it was important to adjust their respective legislations to the current realities of artistic creation. Germany and France have passed legislation dealing with neighbouring rights. They also recognized the need for royalties on private copies, which is the case in Japan.

Meanwhile, Canada is proceeding in a haphazard way, through its legislation to implement trade treaties, to change its own copyright legislation.

That is not the only paradox. I have another example. On November 14, Liberal majority members tabled in this House the report of the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy. Against the wishes of the Official Opposition, majority members made culture, a jurisdiction shared by the federal government and the provinces, the flagship of foreign policy. How can the government claim that culture, the result of the work of performing artists and creators, is central to its foreign policy, when it refuses to do what is necessary to promote and protect the work of those who create culture?

The cultural sector is an important one. The present government's failure to proceed with its review of the Copyright Act can only be explained by its failure to recognize a basic fact of our economic life. The government seems to be ignorant of the fact that in 1991, the cultural sector was responsible for jobs employing more than 300,000 Canadians and Quebecers, putting it ahead of the forestry, mining and insurance sectors in this respect.

It is almost miraculous that the cultural sector should play such an important role in our economy, no thanks to the federal government's reluctance to invest in this sector, which may have serious consequences. According to the Union des artistes, and I quote: "This minimalist and timid approach may jeopardize creative activity in this country. At a time when digital conversion has removed former distinctions between sound and audio-visual productions, at a time when direct broadcast satellites and the information highway are about to redefine the relationship between the consumer, the user and artistic productions, Canada still protects its creators and defends its culture by

means of incidental measures consequential on its ratification of international trade treaties".

This questionable approach on the part of the government can only be explained by the tremendous impact of lobbying by big producers and broadcasters. I would urge hon. members to vote in favour of this motion presented by the Official Opposition, whose purpose is simply to provide a minimum amount of protection for our performing artists and creators. Remember that this class of cultural workers has an average income of less than $10,000!

Remember also that our creators and performing artists need financial independence. They need freedom and pride to continue to work at their art. The dignity of work, a favourite phrase of the Prime Minister, should also apply to this class of Canadians and Quebecers. We must also protect the integrity of the work done by our creative artists. The Copyright Act must be improved, but meanwhile, we could make do with the amendment I am proposing to Bill C-57, and I would ask hon. members to support that amendment.