Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
The World Trade Organization which Canada is joining will only work if there is a political will on the part of every nation to make it work. The Americans complain about loss of sovereignty through the GATT-tough bananas. We talked about that in this House during the free trade agreement and we did not get very much sympathy for Canada.
Whenever you join a world organization there are certain things to which you have to agree and as a responsible nation you are expected to fulfil. Therefore, every nation that joins the World Trade Organization had better know where it is going.
Just because we are having a debate in this House, just because we pass this bill does not mean that there are not going to be problems. There are also going to be many positive sides to the agreement.
The hon. member for Malpeque delivered an excellent speech on this a few days ago. He talked about the business pressures that are being brought to bear on the American Congress. Today where there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic president, it probably becomes even more underlined than it was a few months ago.
A business paper presented to the American Congress simply stated: "The only way that international bodies such as the World Trade Organization gain strength is to take power from their member countries. This is precisely what the World Trade Organization does. The World Trade Organization is a stealth-like power grab by international bureaucrats of unprecedented proportions. It diminishes U.S. sovereignty. It shifts control to a world trade system from developed nations to small and undeveloped countries. Most significant, it creates an international autocracy that overlaps United States democratic institutions". That is the kind of pressure that is being brought to bear on the American Congress by its business community.
Let us turn for a moment to what the Senate bill and the House of Representatives bill actually says to implement this legislation on the World Trade Organization.
Section 102(a)(1) states the following: "United States law to prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay round agreements nor the application of any provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect". How can the United States under that condition sign the World Trade Organization agreement? It is saying it is not going to abide by it before it even accepts it.
Going on to Mickey Kantor who is the trade representative for the United States on the World Trade Organization, he said: "Our sovereignty is more protected under this new agreement than it has been in the 47 years of the old GATT.
Section 102 of the implementing legislation is clear that when there is any conflict between either the Uruguay round agreement or any regulation thereunder and U.S. law, the U.S. law applies in every case".
Those words are very familiar. I remember very clearly, as other members will, having heard those same comments in this same House of Commons when we were debating the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, that U.S. law would prevail.
Those are some of the concerns that we must have in discussing this legislation. I want to come back to my initial statement that the World Trade Organization will not work unless there is a political will on the part of every nation that signs that agreement to make it work.
I have here an example of an American law that was passed in 1930 right after the great recession started. It dealt with products going to the United States. As an example, I will cite Eddy Match Co. If the match pack had the name of a restaurant on it, the made in Canada logo had to come right underneath the restaurant name. If it had the name of another restaurant, suppose it was a chain of restaurants, the made in Canada logo had to come immediately after that in the same size lettering. Everything had to be in the same size lettering.
When this did not happen, the trucks were stopped at the American border. The trucks were stopped at the American border 62 years later in 1992 because the made in Canada logo was not in the proper place on the package of matches to suit American customs. They were looking for irritants, for ways to keep Canadian products out of the United States. If this is the way they are going to operate, then how can the world receive fair treatment under these kinds of policies?
One of the ways for Canada to go in the World Trade Organization is to follow up on the excellent example set by the Prime Minister, by nine premiers and by about 375 business people, to bombard China in a very friendly way based on our relations over many decades. The visit to Hong Kong and to other Asian countries was a phenomenal success. The same process can be used in other areas of the world. We should be targeting those countries that are developing a large middle class. That is what there is in many Asian countries today.
There is a large middle class developing there that is going to be able to do business with other countries of the world. Business people could go there and talk to them and make
agreements. Selling our technology is a big route. Canada has laid some excellent bases on R and D and technology over the years.
Private industry in Canada has one of the poorest records of the big seven nations in the areas of participating in research and development. In order to make this World Trade Organization a success Canadian businesses are going to have to set more aside for R and D.
If they do not, we will be in trouble in competition down the road. If they do, we will be able to compete with anybody at the industrial level. The sale of two Candu reactors to China is one great example of what can be done.
Here is a developing middle class. Here is a country that is moving ahead very rapidly. It is going to need all kinds of energy. There is an opportunity there for us in the future for more sales. Radioisotopes for medical purposes, there is a whole market opening up around the world, particularly in Asian countries.
There will have to be a lot of emphasis put on eastern Europe. The economies there are in very bad shape. It is to the benefit of the rest of the world to try to help those countries get back on their feet so that they too become very worthwhile trading partners.
I want to conclude by repeating an article from the Globe and Mail dated January 9, 1992. I quote:
As tariffs continue to fall under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, Canadian exporters complain that the United States is increasingly turning to the marking rules as a trade barrier to Canadian goods.
"It's a significant irritant", said Jim Moore, vice-president for policy at the Canadian Exporters' Association. "The U.S. is the only country with comprehensive country-of-origin markings."
Those things have to go if we are going to deal with one another on a fair basis. The supply management system, which is very important to Canadian agriculture, will have to be protected in some way by this government. We have high tariffs now. We had better be ready for some strong negotiations down the road because we want those things to remain in place.
Farming is an industry in this country the same as any other. It has to be managed properly and it has to have the support of the Government of Canada.