Debates of Nov. 5th, 2001

World Trade Organization

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to say yes and sit down. I do not know if there is enough thread in the world to sew up all the cuts in that bleeding heart, but I will do my best.

The hon. member talks about the principles of equality and fairness. We believe in the principles of equality and fairness too, but they also extend to businesses. The idea that the World Trade Organization is somehow undemocratic because the specific delegates of every country in it are not elected by Canadians is nonsensical.

The Minister for International Trade is democratic and he is elected. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is democratic and he is elected. The standing committee is composed of people elected by Canadians and their views are put into the process. It is entirely democratic.

I never hear the member condoning or advocating the sort of civil society stuff we saw in Quebec City whereby people were breaking the law to make a political point. I found those demonstrations offensive when they got violent.

People can agree to disagree. At the same time people do not stand up and down and beat on doors and demand that negotiations between unions and management stop because they are happening behind closed doors. They do not say these things must stop because they are driving up the cost of labour, the cost of products and the cost of business. That is a valid argument but nobody does that.

We respect the principle that two institutions or groups of people have the right to get together and decide whether or not they want to have business relations. The same principle is true between countries and corporations.

The NDP and the left like to throw out the words multinational corporation. The words are focus group tested to elicit seedy responses. Canadians think multilateral corporations are a bunch of Gordon Gekko types who do not care about anyone except themselves.

That is not true. They are businesses. They are people. Talking about unplugging free trade because somehow Gordon Gekko and the Wall Street and Bay Street set will benefit from it is a total misrepresentation. It is not fair.

One in three Canadian jobs is dependent on trade. It is irresponsible for any member to start talking about taking trade apart since companies are involved that he or she may not like because they happen to be big or because they can be stigmatized with the cliché of multilateral corporation. It is doing a disservice to the thousands if not millions of Canadians who happen to work for them and thereby boost our standard of living and quality of life.

The hon. member raised the concept of Afghanistan. She said the NDP likes to promote fairness, equality and all those good principles in the arena of the war on terrorism. That is fair enough. So do we. However we want terrorism to stop.

We do not stop terrorism by handing it over to the courts. We stop terrorism by stopping the terrorists. We stop it by stopping those who want to kill innocent people. We cannot plug people into a legal process they do not respect or acknowledge or that, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said repeatedly, in this instance frankly does not exist.

Pollyanna oasis type solutions to real world problems and real world evils is not a practical common sense or responsible thing for a member of this place to be advocating.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the member raised the issue of the MMT case. The whole controversy that the NDP, the Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow and so on keep raising is perhaps one of the biggest frauds which has been perpetrated on the Canadian public and which keeps being repeated in the media.

At the time the Canadian government did not have the legal authority to regulate fuels so it had to ban the trade. It was not toxic. Health Canada said twice that it was not a harm to health.

The NDP and all those who are against trade deals use the case falsely and completely misrepresent it in books and material. We must find out the truth of these cases, read what the issues are and not allow them to be misappropriated for an argument that is hurtful to Canadian life.

We are a trading nation. We can make good deals with one another. That is the way to go about it, not through the restrictions advocated by the socialist left. We must get to the bottom of the MMT story and tell it how it really was.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. Not only has the left misrepresented the issue. It has done so in literature and books to the extent of raising money. It has been saying things that are absolutely untrue.

The government of the day said it was illegal to possess MMT that had been imported by another country. If the government of the day were wise it would have banned possession of MMT across the board regardless of where one got it.

Ethyl Corporation took the government to court and won, rightly. If the government had written the laws appropriately and made it illegal to possess MMT for the sake of all the environmental concerns on the table it would have been entirely under the auspices of a fair, appropriate and level playing field. It would have been consistent with rules based trade. Unfortunately the NDP, as with a lot of other things, saw conspiracy and black helicopters where effective rules based trade was in place.

The MMT decision proves that government decisions affect trade deals, not transnational corporations or supernational corporations. Decisions by government affect the way businesses make deals. That debunks the whole argument the NDP has been pirating.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak in the take note debate on the World Trade Organization meeting to be held in Qatar this week. The World Trade Organization is based in Geneva and came into being in 1995. It is the successor to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, GATT.

This year's meeting will provide an opportunity for members to take stock of evolving global trade trends and issues as well as to review and advance the work of the World Trade Organization.

The Minister for International Trade in his speech to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade stated that Canada's current and future growth and prosperity were clearly linked to trade and depended on a healthy, open, transparent, multinational, multilateral framework of rules which provided access to growing world markets and kept pace with changes in technology, business practices and public interest.

He also said that many of our exporters were small and medium size enterprises that depended on trade to grow and recognized the importance of a framework of rules to enhance transparency and predictability for opportunities abroad.

The cornerstone of the multilateral trading system, the WTO system of agreements, is the foundation of Canadian trade policy and effectively constitutes Canada's trade agreements with a host of emerging markets worldwide. It also underpins much of our trade with the United States.

Canada's overall objectives for this meeting are to improve the lives of Canadians by increasing economic growth and productivity; to create opportunities for Canadian agrifood, industrial and service exporters and investors by achieving greater access to foreign markets and ensuring fair conditions for their activities; to provide Canadian consumers with better choices and better prices in goods and services; to reflect changes in the global economy by updating WTO rules; to encourage the WTO to be more transparent and open; to address public concerns about the social and environmental implications; and to contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries.

The Minister for International Cooperation, commenting on poverty reduction, mentioned recently that the best way to reduce poverty was through the economic growth provided by trade. She said:

I believe that helping them negotiate and exercise the rights and obligations of membership in the World Trade Organization will go a long way in helping these countries achieve that objective.

Canada believes it is important to better co-ordinate the activities of the WTO with a larger cast of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure they are not giving developing countries conflicting signals.

Many developing countries believe that they did not achieve enough access to other foreign markets during the Uruguay round of negotiations, especially for agricultural goods, textiles and clothing products. Canada believes that richer countries can help poorer nations through the WTO.

International trade is important for Canada because it drives our economy. Canada is by far the most trade oriented of the G-8 countries. Trade is vital to our continued prosperity. Our exports of goods and services now represents 45.6% of our gross domestic product, up from 25% in 1991. We traded an average of $2.5 billion in business daily with the world last year, of which $1.7 billion per day was with the United States.

The payback for Canada was immediate in that one job in three depends on exports. The 427,000 new net jobs created in 1999 marked the highest total since 1979 and part of this expansion related directly to our success in global markets.

One of Canada's main objectives at the WTO meetings will be to address important trade tariff barriers and other trade restrictions such as in Canada's steel trade industry. The steel industry's financial health is particularly important for my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

Approximately 6.6 million tonnes of steel making capacity, or nearly 40% of Canada's total, is located in greater Hamilton. Approximately 16,000 people in greater Hamilton are directly employed in steel making and processing. In total, more than 500 firms are directly or indirectly involved in the industry.

On November 2 the United States international trade commission ruled that certain steel imports from 10 countries were hurting United States steel companies. The U.S. ruling may force steel imports intended for the United States to be diverted to Canada and subsequently flood Canadian markets.

The WTO ministerial conference in Qatar would be an opportune time to voice our collective concern over the possible effects of diverted steel from the United States into Canada. The WTO's overriding objective, after all, is to help trade flow smoothly, freely, fairly and predictably. The issue of Canada's jeopardized steel industry should be a high priority item which Canada should bring to the table at the WTO meeting in Qatar.

Another objective that Canada must bring to the WTO meeting in Qatar is to seek broader support for Canada's approach to cultural industries. In October 1999 the Canadian government decided to pursue a new international instrument on cultural diversity. The instrument would set out clear ground rules to enable countries to maintain policies that promote their culture while respecting trade rules and ensuring markets for exports.

Canada has stated that it will not make any commitment that restricts its ability to achieve its cultural policy objectives until the instruments can be established.

This year's WTO ministerial meeting is an important opportunity for the Canadian government to promote and reinforce the international trade agenda on a global stage. The Liberal government wants WTO negotiations that would open up markets for Canadian trade, update the multilateral system to reflect today's economic realities and help the developing world reap the benefits of liberalized trade.

A new round of international trade negotiations also holds the promise that all participating nations, developed and developing, have the opportunity to reduce poverty, enhance security and improve the quality of life for people around the world.

The Minister for International Trade said this would only occur in an environment of good governance and coherent domestic economic and social policies through new negotiations to preserve growth and development at home and around the world.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the member on her speech. The difficulty I had with it was the notion that world trade would benefit all countries. I know that was the essence of her speech.

J. S. Woodsworth said “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. Our party has a different view on this. We are more skeptical that world trade will bring the same sort of benefit for everyone.

I recently read an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of the center for international development at Harvard. He was talking about landlocked countries and the difficulty for them to further their cause and get ahead. He pointed out that Japan, coastal China and countries in North America and parts of South America really account for about 52% of the world's gross national product.

He could only identify two landlocked countries that were actual success stories. His rationale was that both those countries, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, were surrounded by well off countries of western Europe.

It is difficult to envisage how through trade we would have an economic policy for Eritrea, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is very difficult to have an economic policy if one is not close to navigable waterways or an ocean because it is so expensive to ship one's goods to other countries. Would the member have any comment about those special challenges for certain countries of the world?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if he read the article or heard the statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations. He said that the best thing that we can do for developing countries is to liberalize trade. This could inject approximately $150 billion a year into their economies, more than all foreign aid combined.

Developing countries are making it very clear to all other countries that they want liberalized trade and that they need to participate fully in the international trade and investment system to meet their own development goals.

There are three particular things in which they are interested. They want to have market access for their exports so their economies can grow. They want rules to recognize their development status but not rules that impose burdens they cannot yet support. This stems from the difficulties in implementing the results from the last round of negotiations in the Uruguay round. They need technical assistance for their governments and infrastructure so they can benefit from the rights and obligations of the WTO.

Canada has joined a widespread consensus in the need to support developing countries in their attempts to integrate further into the world trading system in these three ways. The growth and development round will further this objective. We have been working hard to demonstrate to developing countries that a new round would assist their developing efforts.

A new round of negotiations is also the best way to address the concerns of developing countries over the balance of obligations and concessions in the world trading system. Developing countries want a round that covers a limited number of areas. Many hold that they took on more than they were able to deliver and at the same time received less benefit than they were promised in the Uruguay round. They are more prudent now.

We are flexible in the scope of negotiations as we recognize that this is a major issue for developing countries. We have given careful consideration to their concerns in the three areas I mentioned, namely market access, implementation of rules, and technical assistance and capacity building.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments on the whole issue of the latest round of negotiations that will be taking place in Doha, Qatar, and particularly that it will be a growth and development round.

Members are aware that Canada is pursuing a policy of better integrating its own trade and development policies. The president of the Canadian International Development Agency will be one of the most senior people who will be attending as part of the Canadian delegation.

Comments were made regarding this round and Canada's efforts to better integrate its trade and development policies. A member of the Alliance spoke earlier about how Canada had sponsored and engaged civil society as part of the preconsultation for the Seattle round of the WTO.

Could the member indicate what efforts the government has made to consult Canadians about the position it is taking regarding its policy to better integrate trade and development on the world scene in preparation for the ministerial conference in Doha?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there were some complaints before and after the Seattle meeting that there was not enough consultation. I think this has greatly changed.

We can start with the consultations that have been going on in the House of Commons. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has had a long series of meetings about WTO. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has had long meetings. The chair was here; he just moved over there.

The government has been working closely with the provincial and territorial governments over the last few years. The minister has been working with sectoral stakeholders and interest groups across Canada. Through the section entitled “Trade Negotiations and Agreements” on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website, all Canadians have been able to participate and give their comments.

Multi-stakeholder round tables have been held across the country and the minister has been part of this process. As a matter of fact I have a list of the meetings the minister has been to in the last couple of months.

He had a teleconference with his provincial and territorial counterparts on September 25. He had another meeting with them in person just a couple of days ago, on October 26. On Thursday, September 27 the minister met with the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Council for International Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. On Monday, October 1 there was a round table for stakeholders, businesses and NGOs. On Wednesday, October 3 there was a joint trade and development round table. On Tuesday, October 16 a trade and global poverty workshop was organized by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

I could go on with this list of day after day meetings that the minister has had.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, today's take note debate seeks, among other objectives, to convey the views of parliamentarians to the leaders of the Canadian negotiating team that is headed for Doha, in Qatar.

First, I can only deplore the minister's absence this evening. He will leave for Doha on Wednesday and it would have been important for him to be here during this whole take note debate to get to know the sensitivities and views of all the members of parliament, who took the time to prepare texts and present their views in the House.

The world is changing and getting smaller at an incredible speed. The world in 2001 is completely different from the world in 1995, if we only take one significant date in Quebec's history. Today, and this tendency will become increasingly more prevalent, the rules affecting what we eat, watch, read and consume, in other words the rules affecting all of us, are increasingly defined at international tables, whether it is at meetings such as the Quebec City summit, the Seattle ministerial conference, which I attended, or the upcoming one, which will take place in Qatar.

Contrary to what some theorists believe, and I would count Canada's Minister for International Trade among them, the nation state is becoming increasingly important in the new world order.

The nation state is the main actor in this new world order. The minister would never let another country negotiate for Canada, and with good reason. Which begs the question: Why would a country, a people, such as Quebec, let another people negotiate on its behalf?

The rules of globalization, which affect people in their everyday lives, are decided around international tables where only sovereign countries sit.

Obviously, the European Union is an exception, because the European commission negotiates on behalf of the members of the European Union, but the commission's mandate is conferred by the 15 members of the European Union. The commission is then required to report to member countries to ratify several clauses and international trade treaties.

Without this sovereignty, without independence, a people can never hope to influence in any way these rules of globalization that affect people in their everyday lives. This is one of the main reasons why I hope that Quebec will become a country as soon as possible, in order to benefit from the globalization movement, to share with the world its values of solidarity, sharing and cultural diversity.

The ministerial meeting I will be attending in Qatar is especially important. Last spring the Bloc Quebecois expressed its position on international trade on many occasions, as evidenced by the number of questions that the Bloc Quebecois raised in the House. The position that we put forward, that we explained, and I even toured all of Quebec to dialogue with Quebecers, is the same position that we held at the Quebec summit.

First, transparency must be assured. People will not agree to negotiations on subjects that will affect their everyday life being carried on behind closed doors, and rightly so.

It is true that most of the governments negotiating are elected, but no people has ever given these governments the option of deciding the rules affecting us in our everyday lives in secret. Here in parliament we vote on laws that affect Canadians and Quebecers. We do so openly. It is telecast. The public can see the various bills, appear before a committee, and discuss and meet with the various MPS and caucuses to express their viewpoint.

Unfortunately, internationally, within the framework of the WTO, individuals and various groups, rightly concerned by the various discussions, cannot express their viewpoint as clearly as they can within their country.

It is also important to establish much closer ties between parliament and the various parliaments involved in these discussions. I mentioned this at the very start of my speech. It is unfortunate that Canada's principal negotiator at the conference in Doha is not with us to discuss with the various speakers the issues that will concern us and that will be raised at the ministerial conference in Doha. It gives an idea of how little the government and the minister care about what the parliamentarians in this House think.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken or unless there is a different set of rules under committee of the whole, this is the second time my colleague has made reference to the attendance or non-attendance of hon. members.

It is inappropriate, particularly given that the Minister for International Trade led off the debate and agreed to an extra 10 minutes of questions and answers. That is how interested he was, that with a very busy schedule preparing to go to Doha, he agreed not only to the first 10 minutes of questions and answers but to a second 10 minutes of questions and answers.

It is a cheap shot and the member ought to refrain from taking it.

[The Chairman]

I am sorry if the member made a comment regarding someone's absence. We know that it is against our parliamentary rules.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, to respond to this point of order, I do not want that time to be taken away from my allotted time. In a take note debate—

[The Chairman]

To set things straight, the member's allotted time was not winding down while the parliamentary secretary was raising his point of order, but it is now.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order to indicate that I have the right to discuss the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chairman]

Order, please. If the member wants to discuss the point of order in question, I just want to inform him that it will be done on his time. He has the choice as to how he wants to use the three minutes he has remaining.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with your decision, because when a point of order is raised by a government member, like the government House leader for example, representatives from the other parties who want to speak to it must be given an opportunity to do so. If a point of order was raised by a Liberal member, I think an opposition member should have the right to respond.

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[The Chairman]

I am sorry, I am not here to debate. As Chairman, I have agreed that a member may rise on a point of order. That point of order is addressed to the Chair and not to another member. I would ask the hon. member to continue debating on the matter being addressed.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the parliamentary delegation that will be going to Doha, I find it deplorable that the chief negotiator of the Canadian delegation will not listen to the arguments raised by a number of hon. members of this House, no doubt because of a supposedly overloaded agenda, whereas what we are debating is of fundamental importance for the future of Canadians.

A number of us have raised the point here in the House that there must be a human face to globalization, that is the international treaties must include social, environmental and worker protection clauses. These must have equal legal weight with the purely international trade related clauses.

Particularly since the events of September 11 in the United States, the trade objectives of Canada and of the entire need to be reviewed within a far broader perspective, taking into consideration a number of the concerns of the developing countries.

We are convinced that freer trade can lead to democratization, if the right means of attaining our objectives are selected.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of greater openness for international trade. We have said this over and over. We are, however, of the opinion that this openness must not be achieved at just any price and just any old way.

The principles that I have just outlined are the same principles that the Bloc Quebecois put forward before the Seattle conference and the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. They need to be put forward in a much clearer, stronger and more dynamic manner by the federal government, which unfortunately views these international trade negotiations as an opportunity to liberalize trade, obviously, while leaving behind the poorest of the poor, who are unfortunately forgotten on the road toward increased world wealth.

For a population that exports 44% of its gross domestic product, Canada and Quebec cannot oppose greater international trade. However, it must not be done any old way and it must take into consideration the different social aspects of globalization.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague kept saying the chief negotiator should be here. Of course one has to be a member of parliament to sit in this Chamber, and the Minister for International Trade was here earlier today to lead off this debate. The Minister for International Trade took 10 minutes of questions, the normal allotted time for questions. At the request of the House, the minister agreed to a further 10 minutes for questions and answers because he was so interested in hearing the views of members on both sides of the House.

I have to confess that when I listened to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, it sounded like a 19th century explanation of why the nation state is the wave of the future. Indeed it is not the wave of the future. We are now into a supra national world of larger groupings such as the EU. Canada is trying to become more involved in a number of fora. With his philosophy, I understand why he said that.

However my recollection is that Quebec is a very important province of this country. It willingly joined Confederation in 1867. The people of the province of Quebec understand very clearly that it benefits them greatly to remain a part of this great country.

It saddens me to hear the member's comments given that the Minister for International Trade is a proud francophone Quebecer. The Prime Minister is a proud francophone Quebecer. They are talented and dedicated enough to defend the interests both of their home province of Quebec and the greater interest of this entire country, which they are so proud to serve. I find it a bit sad to hear the member espousing 19th century philosophies but that is his prerogative.

The member says the Bloc is for free trade and the Bloc is for the poorer nations of the world. Could the member explain to the House why the Bloc Quebecois very recently voted against the latest bilateral free trade agreement on Canada-Costa Rica? This is a poor nation that needs this trade and will benefit greatly from it. It will certainly benefit Canada.

There were some concerns expressed about the potential impact on our sugar industry and those concerns were noted. However they hardly justified turning down what was a very good trade deal. Could the member enlighten the House on that because he certainly did not have much to teach us on the history of Canada?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member opposite spent half of his time describing how great the minister was for having set out Canada's position before the House. My goodness, is this not his job, as minister, to be here and to explain the government's position?

I do not understand, unless he is on the defensive and needs to justify the presence of a minister in the House. I do not understand his point of view and why he talked about it for so long.

As regards the nation state, first I would like the hon. member to tell me whether he would let another nation negotiate on behalf of Canada. If the concept of sovereignty is so “19th century”, would he let another country negotiate on behalf of Canada? Perhaps he should answer this question.

There is another issue. The Canadian federation, which is itself a product of the 19th century, is obsolete. The plan advocated by Quebec sovereignists, whether from the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois, would transform this aging 19th century federation into a new partnership between sovereign countries, based on the European Union model to which the hon. member himself referred.

We said many times, and the Premier of Quebec also said “Let us put together a Canada-Quebec agreement patterned on the European Union model, and we will sign it immediately”. This is a model agreement, a model partnership. This is a 21st century agreement compared to the Canadian federation, which dates back to the 19th century.

As for the third point concerning the free trade agreement, the Bloc Quebecois voted against, we realized that NAFTA's chapter 11 had some very unfortunate effects on international trade and on various federal or provincial statutes.

Not to realize this is to stick one's head in the sand. Despite the lobbying of numerous right and left wing groups, of employer and union groups, which said that chapter 11 must not be lifted as is and inserted into free trade agreements with other countries, the fact that the federal government has not realized the dangers inherent in chapter 11 shows its lack of vision.

This is the main reason that the Bloc Quebecois voted against the free trade agreement last week.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Chairman, while the member for the Bloc and I have some disagreement over the nature of these trade deals and the way of resolving the problems that they have caused, could the member comment on this position?

If we were to stop any new negotiations and go back and put enforceable terms in the existing trade agreement so that the environment, labour standards and culture would be protected, would he agree with me that it would be a strategy that we could deploy to stop the negotiations in Qatar? Also, we would not look at the MAI again. We would simply go back and correct all the mistakes and problems that have been created by the legislation. I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer an intelligent and thoughtful question. To be honest, it makes a bit of a change from the previous one.

The objective mentioned by the member for Windsor--St. Clair is most laudable. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois agree on a number of points, but perhaps not on the route to take.

I think that an international trade agreement can be negotiated concurrently, with environmental and social protection clauses and clauses protecting workers, which he mentioned.

Instead of being scrapped, I think that these big international trade negotiations should include discussions about the clauses mentioned, which would also have force of law and be justifiable before international dispute settlement panels.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting scheduled for Qatar on November 9 to 13 is an event of great significance. In light of the current economic and security uncertainties it is vital a strong signal comes out of Qatar that the world is resuming business. The multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO has contributed significantly to economic growth, development and employment throughout the past 50 years.

We are determined, particularly in light of the global slowdown, to maintain the process of reform of trade policies to ensure that the system plays its full part in promoting recovery, growth and development. The 142 countries involved must send a signal that the failure of Seattle is behind us and we are now moving forward. It will not be easy. It will not be without its tough negotiations. It will not be without compromises.

Having said that, I note that Canada must enter these discussions with absolute resolve. Canada must insist that other countries match what we committed to and lived up to in regard to Geneva in 1993. Canada must ensure that it levels the playing field for its businesses and farmers before offering anything more on the table.

I am particularly concerned about agriculture. It is important that Canada reinstate its position in regard to global trade and demonstrate that Canada has lived up to its obligations and insist others do the same. As a major agricultural exporter-importer, Canada has a fundamental interest in further strengthening the international rules governing agricultural trade, eliminating trade subsidies and significantly improving market access opportunities. Further, agricultural trade reform will provide Canadian producers and processors with a more level international playing field and encourage a more rules based, stable, predictable and secure environment within which they can compete.

Canada needs to continue to fight for the elimination of all export subsidies as quickly as possible, for maximum possible reduction or elimination in domestic support that distorts trade or production, for real and substantial improvements in market access for all agriculture and food products and for securing new disciplines on export taxes and export restrictions. Trade distorting subsidies create difficulties for the agriculture and agrifood sector.

We need to level the playing field. However, international subsidies are preventing this from happening. There are major differences between countries and between commodities in the provision of market access opportunities, the level and type of domestic support and the use and magnitude of export assistance.

Global trade distortions have had and continue to have a major impact on Canadian farm incomes and the profitability of the food processing sector. Whereas Canada in 1993 converted its article XI protections to declining tariff rate quotas, other countries with simple quotas saw them remain the same. This must be addressed in this round. Those with simple tariffs should be required to provide the same 5% minimum access as Canadian agriculture and that access should be a zero tariff, as is ours.

Export subsidies must go. It is not good enough to agree to a formula reduction. They must disappear entirely if we are to make it a fair trading environment. For too long the EU and U.S. have bought market share with their export subsidies at the cost of Canadian producers. We can no longer afford to put our producers at risk to the benefit of their competitors.

I urge the ministers of international trade and agriculture to remain firm, to enter these negotiations with resolve and to seek and receive an advantage for Canadians from these negotiations.

Globalization has reduced the size of this planet we co-inhabit. Goods and people move more freely than ever before. Recent events such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Europe provide clear evidence that we cannot and must not let globalization be a free-for-all. We must as a nation retain the right to protect our people and our industry. We must enshrine our right to err on the side of caution in matters related to health and safety.

Certainly it will be difficult in the circumstances to even get a launch to this round. If, however, the price to pay to get a launch is too costly then it is better for our government to acknowledge this fact. From Canada's perspective relative to agriculture this round must be viewed as a catch up round for others. Canada must put first things first and ensure its market access measures up to what it has already provided before going any further.

Canada has not gained a reputation as a tough negotiator. Qatar gives us the opportunity to demonstrate that we are. It gives the government an opportunity to display its resolve, to hold firm until others match us and to demonstrate to our producers here at home that government holds their welfare paramount. Therefore it is very important to develop and implement clear enforceable trade rules applying equally to all countries, which will work toward levelling the playing field.

The current state of agriculture in Canada is dismal. Therefore Canada should maintain a strong position and not commit to any trade-offs with other countries at the WTO meeting. We need to protect our farmers and in order to do that we must ensure that rules apply to all countries equally. The beauty of rules is that all countries must follow them while guidelines, on the other hand, permit individual interpretation. This is what has happened. The creative interpretation of the guidelines by the U.S. and EU introduced a new concept now known as dirty tariffication and dirty access offers. What countries actually agreed to was what they respectively submitted in their schedules, whether or not it reflected the application of the guidelines.

The issue, therefore, is not that the countries do not meet their commitments. They do. The real issue is that the commitments of the various countries are unequal, inequitable and unfair. Therefore we must insist that rules are in place that require all countries to meet the same commitments in order to eliminate the possibility of further misinterpretation.

I will use the example of the establishment of minimum access for dairy products under the tariff rate quota system. Minimum access commitments were to be established according to the guidelines at a level representing 3% of domestic consumption based on the period from 1986 to 1988 and to grow to 5% of domestic consumption by the end of the implementation year 2000.

The United States interpreted the guidelines in a manner which resulted in a market access significantly lower than the 3% to 5% levels. The U.S. did not consider offering minimum access on a tariff line basis or product by product. Rather, it invented a mechanism to measure the butterfat and solids/not-fat components of each dairy product in order to estimate the total amount of imports necessary to fill a 3% access for component.

This methodology, which could in itself lead to years of debate on the adequacy of each conversion factor used, indicated a deficiency in butterfat which the U.S. compensated by providing increased access, mostly to frozen cream. This was only one aspect of the U.S. approach which was unique to the U.S. offer. The end result of this approach was an access commitment which was significantly lower than the 3% to 5% guideline.

The European Union took a different approach. It considered the 3% to 5% access as a commitment to allow a certain level of imports into its markets independent of tariff conditions applicable to such imports. It therefore assumed that to meet its 3% commitment it only had to offer additional access necessary to reach that level. In the case of dairy products it measured this access commitment only for butter, skim milk powder and cheese, as if all other dairy products were more or less irrelevant. What this approach did was prevent any changes in the conditions that prevailed on historical imports.

All variable levies were converted to high tariff equivalents. Therefore if a product was historically imported into the EU under a specific quota allocation and subject to a most favoured nation tariff, these conditions remained under the Uruguay round. However, if these historical imports were made subject to the variable levy system they became subject to a high tariff equivalent even though they were part of the EU minimum access offer. In the end, the EU may be the only trading partner subjecting imports within its access commitments to over quota tariffs, giving a whole new meaning to tariff rate quotas.

Roughly estimated, using the different countries' interpretations, the imports of total dairy products at the end of the implementation period represented on a butterfat basis about 2.75% for the U.S., 3% for the EU and 4% for Canada. This is not a level playing field and negatively impacts on Canadian farmers and producers.

This is a good example of why the level of commitment achieved during the Uruguay round cannot be the basis for further increases. A uniform methodology, one set of rules to be followed by all countries, is necessary for future considerations. This should be Canada's goal at this year's WTO meeting and we should not downgrade this position.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a comment and a question. First I want to say how delighted I am to see the government playing the leadership role it has played over the years in the WTO, in particular when it comes to two issues, the first one being transparency and a clear rule of law when it comes to implementing a decision made by the World Trade Organization.

One would only have to look at what is happening across the border as well as at what is happening with some of our trading partners in some of the disputes we have with them to quickly come to the conclusion that we need a system in regard to trade disputes that is sane, a system, frankly, that responds to the needs of the business community, the needs of the community in general and the needs of nations respectively. We have only to look at the problem of softwood lumber as well as the dispute with Brazil involving the aerospace industry.

For example, it makes no sense at all to see a corporation, whether it is in British Columbia, Quebec or Newfoundland, wait up to five years not only for its case to be heard but to be decided. At the end of the day when a decision is rendered, it may then have to go through perhaps two, three, four or five years of different mechanisms of appeal. Before the end of it, some of those corporations may not exist at all.

Simply put, it is absolutely imperative for us as a government to be at the WTO table in order to ensure that not only do we have transparent rules but we have effective rules. It is important to have rules that bring some sanity to the system so that when a decision is made by the WTO against a particular country, that country would have to obey and implement the WTO decision. We must have a mechanism available whereby that particular country would be penalized if it failed to do so, not only in regard to the ability of the complaining party but also by the WTO itself.

Mr. Chairman, you know from your past experience about penalty boxes. A complaining country could have the option to put a specific country in the penalty box for two or three years, during which time that particular country could not launch any complaints under WTO rules or, at the option of that complainant, that country would have to cough up in terms of resources, financial or otherwise, to compensate the complainant.

Otherwise, as in the past, we would have a dispute with a specific country, take that dispute to the WTO and win at the WTO level. When it came time for retaliation, we would find ourselves not importing a heck of a lot from that country, certainly not enough to make a lot of difference, so what would we do? In that case my opinion is that we should have the option of putting that offending country in a penalty box. Once the time comes they would be out of the penalty box, but if they were to do the same thing two or three times the penalty should be increased.

There is another issue. I know that the government and the Prime Minister are exceptionally interested in the issue of access. We must have pretty clear rules when it comes to access. Canada wants to have access to other markets and vice versa. Access is a two way street. We cannot make the rules as we go along. When it comes to one of our largest trading partners aside from the U.S., and that is the European Union, some countries decide at a whim to enact what they call a precautionary clause just because they think there might be a problem, so they penalize others and impose duty on imported goods.

We need to have clear rules of law which means that science prevails, which means when we agree that this particular person is the arbitrator and a decision is rendered we need to listen, obey and comply. We cannot continue turning in circles and penalizing legitimate products coming into our country just because we think there might be a problem but we are really not sure.

Would my colleague agree with me that it is absolutely imperative for Canada and this minister, who is a great minister by the way, to be at the table in order to continue to defend not only the interests of Canadians but the interests of the free world when it comes to transparency, clear rules of law and fairness when it comes to trading?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleague for his eloquent statement and his question. Not to agree with him would be wrong. What he has indicated in his remarks was exactly what I had stated in my speech.

When we have 142 countries at the table and 142 guidelines, it is pretty hard to get 2 or 3 countries to have a consensus, let alone 142.

As the hon. member has said, it is very important to have a set of rules in place that all 142 countries live by, not 142 guidelines. I think that is where our weaknesses have been in the past when we have gone to negotiations and such, that each country has its own principles and its own guidelines but when push comes to shove at the end there has to be a basic set of rules that each country has to adhere to so that we can come to a consensus using a set of rules.

My hon. colleague insisted on transparency. I guess that was very well illustrated after the Seattle conference where the Maude Barlows of the world were saying that there was not a transparency and enough input. I know for sure that the agriculture committee met with several groups that were well received. I was also privilege to some information about it being vital that transparency be a part of these negotiations.

What came out of those discussions was the de-restricting and public release of working papers and agendas, the public release of submissions in dispute settlement cases, an increase in WTO consultation with NGOs, regular meetings of WTO member parliamentarians and the creation of ad hoc expert advisory boards.

With all those things being incorporated, I think it perhaps will dispel any myths that this is all done in seclusion. Everyone does have a way of participating. I think it will be a benefit in the end.