Debates of Nov. 24th, 1994

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act

[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. 7 negatived)

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-57, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 4, with the following:

"8.(1) Subject to this section, the Agreement is hereby approved.

(2) In subsections (2) to (6), "law of Canada" includes laws duly enacted by any province or territory in Canada.

(3) No provision of the Agreement shall apply where its application or enforcement would result in contravention of any law of Canada.

(4) Nothing in the Agreement or in this Act shall be construed

(a) to amend or modify any law of Canada, including any law relating to

(i) protection of human or animal life,

(ii) protection of the environment, or

(iii) worker safety;

or

(b) to limit any authority conferred under a law of Canada, unless specifically provided for in this Act.

(5) As may be required, the Minister shall consult with the governments of the provinces and territories for the purpose of achieving conformity with the provisions of the Agreement.

(6) No law of Canada may be declared invalid on the ground that the law or its application or enforcement in a particular circumstance is inconsistent with any provision of the Agreement."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this motion amending Bill C-57.

This amendment writes into Canadian law precisely the same measures that have been written by Congress into American law regarding the implementation of the World Trade Organization agreement in the United States. Congress has feared that the WTO will seriously compromise American sovereignty.

We have heard many of the newly elected American politicians talking about their desire to remain an independent and sovereign nation capable of making their own economic decisions for Americans. This sort of statement is something we should be hearing from the front benches of our own government and from the other members in this Chamber who wish to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their profession, vocation or status in life have an opportunity to succeed with the support of their government in their endeavours.

As I indicated, Congress fears that the WTO will seriously compromise American sovereignty, It has therefore included several clear statements in its legislation to ensure that American law will prevail over any WTO decision. In looking at the American legislation which defines the relationship of the agreement to United States law and state law, in section 102(a)(1) I read this:

United States law to prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay round agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.

Incredible. Section 102(a)(2) states:

Construction. Nothing in this act shall be construed

(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States including any law relating to:

(i) the protection of human animal plant life or health;

(ii) the protection of the environment; or

(iii) worker safety; or

(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The United States is one of the largest if not the largest trading nation in the world. Again the Americans are ensuring that the agreements they are reaching on the international stage protect the interests of the people within their borders. Surely we in Canada deserve to be negotiating and agreeing to no less.

We are familiar with the behaviour of the Americans under the North American free trade agreement especially with regard to durum wheat which I am very familiar with and softwood lumber which all members of my caucus are familiar with. We can assume that the Americans mean business when they say they will not let any international agreement stop them from harassing the trade of their trading partners if they feel it is in their interests.

It is not that I am trying to say we can learn a lesson from the Americans in this regard. The Americans will defend themselves right or wrong. We know from durum wheat, softwood lumber and other matters that even when they are wrong they will take every measure they can to ensure that their interests are protected and the people whose interests need protecting are supported.

Even in our own case where we know we are right on durum right we caved in. On the Crow benefit, transporting grain to port for sale in the international marketplace, we know we are right to maintain that benefit for our producers. Even before the agreement is signed here in Canada or the legislation implementing the agreement in Canada is concluded, the Liberal government across the way is giving away the Crow benefit.

The government is negotiating right now on the prairies how to change that benefit for Canadian producers. The people who are best served by that benefit are being let down by this government in the absence of even an agreement through this legislation to proceed, whereas our trading partner is going to every length it possibly can to protect its producers even though it is wrong. This is unbelievable.

Canadians have to take note of what is happening not only through this debate but through this whole WTO practice. As we know, in such circumstances we believe it is not only right but also proper for Canada to arm itself with the same legal weapons containing the effects of the WTO agreement until such time as the Americans will demonstrate goodwill in making a rules based trading system work.

The member for Winnipeg Transcona, our party's trade critic, has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and has carefully thought through many of the provisions. As a result he has written a letter a portion of which I would like to read into today's record of Hansard and for the benefit of all those who are watching. This letter appeared in the Washington Post on November 6. I quote the last two paragraphs of his letter:

The apparent failure of a rules-based trading regime is rich in irony. Canadians and Americans, like others around the world, have been asked by the multinationals and their allies in governments to sacrifice considerable national sovereignty over investment policy and social, labour and environmental standards in exchange for this rules-based regime. If it becomes evident that the rules do not work as a result of either American ideological arrogance or American self-interest masquerading as ideology, informed voters around the world may feel that there has been a breach of the contracts their country has entered into through the various trade liberalization agreements. Such voters may demand that their governments try to take back some of that lost sovereignty, until such times as a real global community can be established as an alternative to the moral anarchy of the current "globalization".

In this sense, any American sabotage of a rules-based regime may be the great hope for those opposed to globalization on the terms set out by the multinationals. America may yet be the undoing of free trade, either by harassing others into despair about its sincerity, or by exiting such agreements themselves if they prove to be too effective in cases where fair trade conflicts with American self-interest.

It is very clear here that the Americans in attempting to protect their own economic interests are taking steps that could, if they scuttle the agreement in the United States, benefit Canadian interests in ensuring that those engaged in our economy receive a fair shake for what they are doing.

The amendment in front of us today does nothing less than ensure that our legislation is exactly the same or carries exactly the same interests forward as what the Americans are doing in theirs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in this House and support the New Democratic Party motion on Bill C-57 to provide the businesses and people of Canada with the same rights under the WTO as the Americans have.

I want to start my remarks by sharing with the House and the people of Canada the fact that I had an opportunity to meet with a number of U.S. senators and congressmen last spring. The purpose of the meetings were to discuss certain issues relating to Canada and the U.S. with respect to steel production, steel trade, exports and imports, as well as the question of the durum wheat export problems that the Americans perceive to be having with Canada.

This is what I concluded during the course of our discussions. We met with about 16 or 17 senators and congressmen from the United States. They are not free traders. They are not people who respect international agreements if the international agreements and free trade threaten their industries or jobs in their country or threaten markets which they have captured during the course of doing business.

We should not be discarding or brushing off Americans as incompetent business people. Americans usually undertake business to make money. They undertake business around the world to make money around the world. They do not give other countries concessions such as: "We will do a little business with your country and you can do a little business with our country and make a lot of money off us at the expense of jobs in the United States, at the expense of United States industry".

Americans are not stupid people and neither are their business people. They know full well when they see a business opportunity they will take full advantage of that business opportunity to maximize their profits and returns for their people.

From this visit with these American senators and congressmen I also concluded that they view trade with Canada as important, but they view protecting their own industries and their own jobs to be of greater importance. In view of that they have laws which the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has already outlined. They have clauses in their legislation to protect their industry. Under Bill C-57 we do not have the same protection with respect to the WTO for our own industry, businesses and producers.

Earlier in the day I spoke about the importance of the steel producers in Canada and the problems they are having with the Americans. Now even under the North American free trade agreement the Americans are able to say to the steel producers in Canada: "We appreciate your competition, but you are hurting jobs in the United States. Therefore we are going to undertake to countervail and create a little bit of a problem for your industry".

There are mechanisms in the agreements, but whenever they do this it causes a great deal of expense to the steel producers in Canada because they have to comply with all the American laws that protect the American industry. It costs them money for lawyers. It costs them money for analyses. It costs them money to produce an argument in support of their position with respect to exporting steel form Canada to the United States.

By the way, Canadian producers do not dump steel in the United States; they produce steel for contracts they have received in the United States of America. They produce the steel ready made. It is already pre-sold once it is there, but the Americans still do not like this process.

Bill C-57 is about 200 pages in length and is a fairly substantial bill. I know all five members of the House who are left here right now seem to be concerned about the bill and seeing it passed in its entirety. New Democrats on the other hand are quite concerned that the bill provide the same protection to its producers and manufacturers in Canada as the American legislation provides to their producers and manufacturers. That is all New Democrats are asking for.

We are asking for fairness. We are asking for equity. We are asking that the Government of Canada stand up on behalf of Canadian manufacturers, workers and others in the international market. The international market and other countries will be standing up for themselves. Unless Canadians feel it is a priority to protect and promote our own industry we have a real serious problem.

Therefore in this motion we are asking the government to do what other countries have done for their people. We are not asking for anything more. We are not asking even to be provocative. We are just saying that we should do what others have done. Let us do what the government is obliged to do, that is to protect Canadians in the event of trade agreements.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Do the right thing.

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

As my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadowlake has said, let us do the right thing for producers, business people, farmers and the working people of Canada.

In summary, the American legislation protects its industries and its jobs. All we are asking in the amendment to Bill C-57 that we have put before the House is for the government to do the same; no more or no less but just to do the same so we can stand proudly as parliamentarians and say that we are aware of the challenges facing our producers, our workers and our industries and we are prepared to stand four-square behind them in making sure they are not at a disadvantage in the international marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleagues are so anti-American in their approach to the legislation. We are talking about the World Trade Organization implementing legislation in terms of Canada and Canada's obligation to the international community. Since they mentioned section 102(a)(1) of the American implementing legislation I should like to suggest to my colleague that this action only reflects a congressional view that necessary changes in federal statutes should be specifically enacted rather than provided for in blanket pre-emption of the federal statute by the agreement.

Canada's legal regime is similar in that respect. Actually under our Canadian domestic law Canadian legislators have precedence over our international obligation in case of conflict unless specifically provided otherwise in the legislation. This is as a result of basic Canadian constitutional law.

The section which was quoted, section 102(a)(1), does not reflect U.S. intentions to apply domestic law in contravention to its World Trade Organization obligations or have recourse to its domestic legislation to unilaterally enforce World Trade Organization obligations against other countries.

Irrespective of this section the U.S. will be bound by its World Trade Organization obligations under international law. Those obligations could be enforced under the dispute settlement mechanism if need be. This provision of the U.S. implementing legislation does not represent any threat to Canada.

We are recommending rejection of the motion as proposed. Subparagraph 8.2, depending upon its interpretation, could have important constitutional implications. The bill does not intend in any way to introduce legislation which would impact on provincial legislation. The paragraph could be seen as an intrusion by Parliament into provincial jurisdiction. In subparagraphs 8.3 and 8.6 there is no need for these proposals.

Under Canadian constitutional law our international obligations become part of Canadian law only to the extent of their implementation by Parliament. No international agreement can prevail over Canadian law unless Parliament specifically legislates to that effect. There is nothing in the bill that gives precedence to the agreement. Therefore our basic constitutional law will continue to apply.

Subparagraph 8.4 is contrary to our international obligations. The sole purpose of the bill is to approve the World Trade Organization agreement and to implement obligations under the agreement. It is necessary to amend and modify existing Canadian statutes to implement those obligations and to allow Canada to become a full member of the World Trade Organization.

Subparagraph 8.5 proposes to introduce a federal-provincial consultative mechanism for the purpose of implementing the agreement. This mechanism is already in place and is very efficient. Therefore we see no need to legislate on the matter.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak on motion No. 3 and point out that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion presented by our colleague from the New Democratic Party, not because we are opposed to its subject matter, on the contrary. A number of principles contained in the motion are quite laudable and we are in total agreement with them.

Obviously, it goes without saying that we support the protection of human or animal life, the protection of the environment and worker safety.

We are also in total agreement with clause 8(2) which deals with the application of the agreement to the laws of the provinces and territories in Canada.

We are opposed to this proposed amendment, and regrettably so, because we in the Bloc Quebecois have also been faced with having a similar amendment rejected by the government. During the clause by clause study of the bill, we attempted to present two amendment proposals to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but we eventually withdrew them. With our proposed amendments, we wanted to make the implementation of the agreement conditional on a number of points. There were a few problems, consequently we withdrew our proposals and worded the amendments differently so as not to make the approval of the agreement conditional.

The amendment presented by the New Democratic Party makes the approval of the agreement conditional on a number of things. Obviously, for our part, we would see no problem in making it conditional on the protection of human or animal life, the protection of the environment or worker safety.

Rather, the problem is that the approval of the agreement is made conditional. It means that we are willing to renege on the word given on the international scene, which will not necessarily endear us to our trading partners. On the other hand, clause 8(6) states: "No law of Canada may be declared invalid on the ground that the law or its application or enforcement in a particular circumstance is inconsistent with any provision of the Agreement".

The effect of this provision of the proposed amendment is to render Bill C-57 completely null and void. This is basically why we are opposed to this amendment.

I say it again, we are doing so with great regret since the underlying principles are laudable and we are in total agreement with them. We will have to vote against this amendment and we most sincerely regret it.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Motion No. 3. I believe the trade agreement must be allowed to overrule protectionist domestic laws both here and in the United States. We must act within the spirit of the agreement that was signed by the 120 member countries after seven long years of negotiations in the GATT Uruguay round.

If we adopted the amendment proposed by the NDP we would not be achieving the move to free trade which benefits a lot of us, and particularly those in agriculture who did not have rules regarding trade in agriculture under the GATT. They are now being brought under it for the first time. I believe protectionist laws may be developed in some provinces that would handcuff the ability of the federal government to work within the World Trade Organization and the GATT.

I believe it should be defeated and therefore oppose the motion.

[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. 3. 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. 3 negatived.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 4 and 5 which will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"12.1 The Minister shall conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay Round Agreements on the Canadian milk marketing system and shall, not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the Agreement with respect to Canada, table a report in the House of Commons on the results of the study."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-57, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"12.1 Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Minister shall table in the House of Commons a report describing, in respect of the preceding fiscal year of the World Trade Organization ("WTO"),

(a) the major activities and work programs of WTO, including the functions and activities of committees established under Article IV of the Agreement and the expenditures made by WTO in connection with those activities and programs;

(b) the percentage of budgetary assessments by WTO that were accounted for by each WTO Member including Canada;

(c) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat at WTO and the number of professional, administrative and support staff at WTO;

(d) for each personnel category described in paragraph (c), the number of citizens of each WTO Member and the average salary of the personnel in each category;

(e) any report issued by a panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement proceeding regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada and the efforts of the Minister to provide for implementation of recommendations contained in the report that are adverse to Canada or any province or territory in Canada;

(f) details on proceedings before a panel or the Appellate Body that were initiated during the fiscal year regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada, the status of the proceeding and the matters at issue in the proceeding;

(g) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a report adverse to Canada that was issued by a panel or the Appellate Body; and

(h) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council and of dispute settlement proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

12.2 The first annual report submitted to the House of Commons under section 12.1 after the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the Agreement enters into force with respect to Canada and after the end of every 5-year period thereafter shall include an analysis of the effects of the Agreement on the interests of Canada, the costs and benefits to Canada of its participation in WTO and the value of continued participation in WTO."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to these amendments before us in relation to Bill C-57, the bill under debate today.

I found it very interesting in the remarks just preceding the reading of the motion that we are debating now concerning the previous amendments that have been dealt with by the House that both speakers from the Reform Party and from the government indicated the inability to support a motion protecting the interests of Canadian producers by saying that the agreement has been signed and we cannot go back and renegotiate.

The amendments that have been brought forward were identical to what the United States Congress is implementing today. The Americans are not asking that we go back to the table and renegotiate the entire Uruguay round. They are just acting in the interests of the people they represent.

For this government and the Reform Party to side by each against the interests of Canadian producers, manufacturers, ordinary working people, people who care about the environment, people who care about whether or not children work or go to school is unbelievable. I find it completely unbelievable.

The government has an opportunity with the two amendments in front of us now grouped for debate to redeem itself somewhat. The motions in front of us once again point to the need to ensure that Canadian legislation represents the same type of interest that the American legislation is representing.

First, we have Motion No. 4 implementing in Canadian legislation section 425 of the American legislation dealing with the study of the milk marketing order system. Mr. Speaker, you have read into the record the motion that is in front of us calling on the minister to conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay round on the milk marketing system.

We could probably choose to do a study on a number of matters within the Uruguay round agreement but certainly the milk study is one that is very important to our producers. We have not yet seen the interpretive papers that this government examined during the negotiations which tell us how the milk marketing changes will affect producers throughout Canada.

In order to be fair to this system, to the agreement and to the government that has accepted the changes at GATT, we are simply asking that in six months time this government in fairness to the milk producers of Canada go back over the previous six months, take a look at what has happened since the implementation of the agreement and find out if the interpretive papers it looked at previously are in line with what was supposed to be happening in the industry.

I said: "Mr. Speaker, you read the motion out in front of us today". Let me read to members section 425 of the American legislation and they can tell me if it is at all similar to the amendment in front of us:

1. The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay round agreements on the federal milk marketing order system. Not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the WTO agreement with respect to the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to the Congress on the results of the study.

The government should not tell us that we have to renegotiate the entire Uruguay round in order to protect the interests of our milk producers in this country.

Second, let us take a look at Motion No. 5 in front of us grouped for debate today. Mr. Speaker, you spent some time reading that motion into the record.

Let us take a look at section 124 of the American legislation that instructs the United States trade representative to present an annual report on the WTO to Congress. Let me read for the record the American legislation that is in front of us, section 124.

Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Trade Representative shall submit to the Congress a report describing for the preceding financial year of the WTO

(1) the major activities and work programs of the WTO, including the functions and the activities of the committees established under article IV of the WTO Agreement, and the expenditures made by the WTO in connection with these activities and programs;

(2) the percentage of budgetary assessments by the WTO that were accounted for by each WTO member country, including the United States;

(3) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat of the WTO and the number of professional administrative and support staff of the WTO;

(4) for each personnel category described in paragraph (3), the number of citizens of each country, and the average salary of the personnel, in that category;

(5) each report-

I cannot read the word there. I will have to look at what we are presenting to Canadians.

-issued by the panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement proceeding regarding Federal or State law, and any efforts by the Trade Representative to provide for implementation of the recommendation contained in a report that is adverse to the United States;

(6) each proceeding before the panel or the Appellate Body that was initiated during the fiscal year regarding Federal or State law, the status of the proceeding, and the matter at issue;

(7) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a report adverse to the United States and was issued by a panel or the Appellant Body; and,

(8) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, and of dispute settlement proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

Sound familiar? The Canadian bill, C-57, contains no such provision. We are asking today that Canada ensure that we have a report on the activities of the WTO in front of us just as the Americans will have by legislative authority. It is the only fair and equitable way to deal with this international crisis confronting us in trade.

I would, even if the Americans had not put this legislation in front of them asking for an annual report, be asking that the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament receive no less. We are entering into an agreement on a world stage. We then just allow that agreement to carry on without any kind of responsive action to the people of Canada and to this Parliament. It would be most unfortunate if we allowed it to happen.

Let us ensure that we the Canadian people, producers, and parliamentarians have an understanding every year of what is happening on our behalf in the global marketplace and that we are with that information able to respond in appropriate manner.