Debates of Nov. 5th, 2001

World Trade Organization

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have my chance to speak in this take note debate. The Bloc Quebecois also has great hopes for this new start, at last we hope, on a new round of WTO negotiations.

From November 9 to 13, as hon. members are no doubt aware, 142 countries are planning to meet at Doha, Qatar, in an attempt to resume the negotiations that, hon. members will recall, were unsuccessful in Seattle. The representatives of these countries, including China for the first time, which will be an event in itself, will be trying to reach agreement on an agenda.

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased at this starting step, because it too believes that globalization may help development in the developing countries and in others as well. We know the WTO has helped create what is now known as globalization.

I said may help because on its own, with no other development assistance, it is very unlikely that globalization alone is going to make it possible to restore a degree of equity between haves and have nots. This is true in our own country and even more so in the developing countries of the world.

Since its inception in 1948 under another name, the World Trade Organization has had to face numerous challenges. It must be pointed out, however, that its accomplishments as far as the developing countries are concerned have been far from sufficient.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance repeatedly insisted earlier on the fact that opening up borders would provide developing countries with access to wealth. I answered that this was something that would have to be measured because open borders are essential, but they do not guarantee a distribution of wealth. It is nonetheless important that globalization continue.

Recently the secretary general of the WTO stated that he was concerned that negotiations had not resumed since Seattle, because he feared that regional negotiations would play against the interests of developing countries. This is a fear that we in the Bloc Quebecois share with respect to the free trade area of the Americas, for example.

When countries from the southern hemisphere desperately want access to the U.S. first, then to Canada, they are prepared to bargain away their interests, particularly with respect to investments. As a result, the only forum where multilateral negotiations can result in improved negotiations between countries from the southern hemisphere, the east, and the wealthy northern countries, is at the World Trade Organization.

For this reason, we are pleased that this meeting is taking place so that it will lead to renewed negotiations.

However everyone agrees that these negotiations cannot be held in any old manner. People realize, depending on which region they come from in the country, that borders need opening up, and in Quebec we are particularly interested in access to other markets, which implies that we also open ours.

We know, however, that these negotiations cannot take place in just any way, under just any conditions, without running the risk of heavily penalizing workers in Quebec, Canada or other countries. This is the source of the need for transparency during negotiations and before them as well.

The minister is congratulating himself on consulting the provinces and being in contact with social agencies and various NGOs. However, if borders are to be further opened up, the public and governments must first be prepared to ensure that those who might lose out would have compensation and other job and development opportunities elsewhere so that efforts to treat some fairly would not mean unfair treatment for others.

Transparency is necessary in a number of regards. We kept saying that parliamentarians had to take part. We want an organization of parliamentarians that can question the WTO like other organizations. This is important, but this transparency must extend as well to peoples, if the efforts undertaken are truly serious.

There must be formal consultations with the provinces. It is one thing to call each of them up or say “Okay, someone will come from the province to Qatar and be in another room”, but it is another thing to really have a voice in the matter.

When the Minister of International Trade said “We want to be at the table”, I say, “We in Quebec want to be at the table”. This may not happen immediately, but we want to be there, just as he wants to be there to defend his interests. Therefore, there has to be a formal consultation process with the provinces.

We should remember that Belgium, in areas of jurisdiction of its Walloon and Flemish communities, allows them to negotiate abroad and leaves the field open for them in international relations. Canada could follow its example.

Since time is flying, one question in particular must be raised at the Doha meeting, and subsequently, and that of course is intellectual property with respect to access to drugs for developing countries. On the one hand, intellectual property must be protected because we know that developing new drugs is a very expensive proposition. Naturally, pharmaceutical research companies want patents to protect their research and the products they discover. However, in the case of AIDS for instance, it is completely unacceptable that developing countries are denied access, with a price that is acceptable to them, that they can pay so that their populations have access to drugs. We know that the World Health Organization, to name names, has already made a proposal in this regard.

Other proposals are possible to ensure that a balance is struck between the two principles: the need to maintain sufficient funding for research and the need for developing countries to have access to new drugs.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate leading up to the negotiations of the WTO.

I listened carefully to all the speeches, particularly to that of the Minister for International Trade. He made the point, fairly emphatically, I thought, that the WTO has been useful in resolving bilateral disputes, disputes such as softwood lumber, one presumes, and changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, disputes that we have with our American neighbours. They have been ongoing disputes for many years.

I would say at the outset that I think there is a fundamental difference in the reaction of our country versus the United States vis-à-vis rulings on trade. For example, if there is a ruling that seems to go against Canada, we tend to comply fairly quickly and change our rules. Whereas it seems to me, and more important, I think, to a lot of Canadians, that when rulings go in the other direction the Americans, the big guys, tend to simply ignore those decisions and continue without making any significant changes.

Parenthetically, I would also observe that I do not think we as a country are very aggressive in challenging those rulings. As I say that I recognize that in the trade agreements between our countries, especially in agricultural products, a lot more of our produce is going to the American market than there is American produce coming this way. There may be a downside to that, but I often think we are far too cautious when it comes to not challenging decisions made by our neighbour to the south and indeed by other countries with which we are involved when there are inconsistencies and when there is material action being taken that is demonstrably unfair and against the rules, so to speak.

I wish to touch on the two areas of the softwood lumber dispute and then turn to agriculture in the few minutes I have available in this take note debate. I think it is fair to say that the dispute over softwood lumber exports to the U.S. threatens to undermine and disrupt Canada's largest single source of export earnings and our largest source of employment. In fact, the lumber trade between Canada and the U.S. constitutes the largest single item of trade between any two countries in the world.

Ten thousand woodworkers, and today in question period we heard 12,000 and maybe 15,000, now have been laid off at least temporarily as a result of the 19.3% duty imposed by the United States in August. There is now an additional 12.3% in dumping that has been added to that.

The ability of the American lumber coalition to harass Canadian exporters and hold to ransom our company workers, governments and communities indicates one of the major weaknesses in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Again, I have listened about how the WTO has helped resolve bilateral disputes. We have a dandy one going on here. The U.S. has retained the right to unilaterally protect companies that lose market share to Canadian producers, as long as those American producers cry subsidy loudly enough in the hearing range of a large enough group of congressional representatives.

We are concerned about the exports of Canadian raw logs. We want to see more value added in this country and that is not what we are getting. We continue to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water in not doing that value added which would mean so much to our economy and would probably help stabilize our declining dollar.

Let me now turn to the agricultural issue. As Canadians knows and as the Chair knows, we have been bedevilled over the last several years by what has happened to our farm economy. After the GATT Uruguay round there was a bit of an agreement on farm issues for the first time ever in GATT, which was not formalized as such.

When Canadian officials returned from the GATT they said they would eliminate, not phase out, the Crow benefit immediately, and a number of other areas similarly. As a result of the changes, over the past five years our farmers in certain sectors, especially the grains and oilseeds sector, have been tremendously hurt.

The government has taken the position that our pockets are not as deep as the Americans or the Europeans so we have reduced our support payments to Canadian farmers dramatically in contrast to the European Union and the United States in particular.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Washington, D.C. and in New York City on September 11, we are hearing stories that the Americans are concerned about food security being included in that. Last month the house of representatives overwhelmingly approved a major expansion of federal farm supports of some $170 billion over the next 10 years.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has just said that it has not gone through yet. We are aware of that and know this is just a proposal on the floor but we also know it was many times larger than what was originally proposed on the books in the house of representatives. Yes, it is not law but it is of concern. This is an additional $170 billion over what the farmers in that country are already receiving.

The headline in the October issue of the Economist read “Just plant dollars”. It was referring to what it called the loonie solution that the Americans are into. The subtitle read “They grow without the farmer having to do anything”. To put it another way, they farm the mailbox just waiting for the cheque to come in.

These are the concerns that our farmers and our workers in the wood industry and in many other sectors are concerned about.

Yes, we realize we are a very small partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement but it seems to us that there is this notion, as Bruce Johnstone put it in the Regina Leader-Post on Saturday:

--“Blame Canada for everything from low grain prices to the bankruptcy of U.S. forestry companies.

Johnstone went on to say that the reality is that recurring trade actions like the softwood lumber dispute or the recent challenge of the wheat board are just a smokescreen for domestic political wrangling and lobbying by powerful industry groups.

I will conclude by pointing out that there are some significant differences on lumber in that 94% of our timberlands are publicly owned as compared to 42% in the United States.

The Canadian Wheat Board has gone before a tribunal now and Canada has won nine consecutive times. I guess we are now going for the tenth. All I point out is that one of these times we are going to lose on a technicality or something else and then we need to be terribly concerned about the wheat board and its future as well as the other support payments that we need to have for our farmers, especially in western Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the member for Palliser. In his remarks he alluded to the fact that the results of previous negotiations have not shown through in terms of the U.S. and the Europeans levelling the playing field as they were supposed to under negotiations.

He said that a member of the government said earlier that our pockets were not as deep as the Europeans. If that comment was made, could the member tell us who made it? This is not a poor country from my point of view.

If members in this Chamber are saying that our government does not have pockets as deep as the Europeans and the Americans then they are sending a message to our opponents that they can just wait us out.

Does the member know what the consequences would be of taking the position that our pockets are not deep enough? What becomes of our farmers in the meantime if that is the case?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, it was said in the House earlier today by the minister responsible for international trade, and it is a phrase I have heard repeatedly from our own minister of agriculture, that our pockets are not as deep as the Americans or the Europeans.

It is unfortunate and I am glad the member raised it because there is a certain mindset if we accept the logic of that. I could not agree with the member more. We are a rich country. We are not lacking in resources. What we often seem to be lacking is the political will to make sure we are representing our farmers, workers and companies to the very best of our abilities.

I would go one step further. It links back to an earlier question and answer exchange with the member for Brandon--Souris and the minister responsible for international trade. Even if we have an agreement next week at Qatar, it would be five or seven years before it would be implemented.

The member also wanted to know whether our farmers could withstand another five or seven years of low payments while the other countries that were heavily subsidizing their farmers were phasing them out.

I would suggest to the member for Malpeque and the other members in the House that at that point Canada will have to step back into the picture and increase support payments to our farmers to the level that farmers in other countries are receiving. Everyone could then come down together on their subsidies and support levels.

I do not think our farmers can stand another five to seven years of low payments as a result of the high subsidies being offered in other jurisdictions.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague is an excellent, hardworking member who makes a great contribution to our Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I am sure we would all agree that we should look for all resources possible to provide any help we can to our producers. Food is a commodity that many of us are interested in.

Does my colleague believe that these funds should just continue to go out with ad hoc payments or would he have some points to share with us as to how we might direct these funds to the great farmers and producers across the country?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question and his kind words. What he is asking is how we should pay our farmers. There have been a couple of programs, for example the AIDA program which did not seem to work very well. The Canadian farm income program, which is now underway, may be slightly better received than the AIDA program.

A farmer from my community was in my Regina office last Friday. He was beside himself because of his inability to extract anything out of the system that could help him and keep him and his elderly father on the farm that his dad started many years ago.

I do not know what the answer is. I know that in the United States it appears as if the big corporations receive the vast amount of the money that goes out. In Canada farmers are frustrated. They feel the system is heavily administrative because cheques are not being sent out to every farmer. It is on the basis of need. The government devised that system because, as it says, it comports to Canada's international trading obligations and arrangements.

I do not have the answer to the member's question per se. However I do know that the safety net agreements are up for review this year and it is extremely important that we try to get this right. It seems to me that crop insurance is not working as well as it should be. There are certain farm groups and younger farmers who are not benefiting from the NISA account. The CFIP and AIDA programs do not seem to be entirely satisfactory. We do need to have a complete review of safety nets. We need to have good input from the farm community itself on how best to develop these programs for the future.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the WTO meetings in Doha illustrate two completely different world views. One believes in protectionism, isolationism and eliminating opportunity in the name of equality. In short, it is the politics of envy.

We witnessed these forces at the WTO talks in Seattle in 2000 and again at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April of this year.

During the Seattle negotiations, I remember a news broadcast of one Belgian diplomatic bravely trying to get through the protesters to the meetings inside the convention. He made a passionate plea stating that he supported the right of protesters to make their voices heard but that he too deserved the right to speak. They would not let him pass. Rioters in both cities destroyed property and intimidated conference attendees. These are not voices of democracy and freedom.

Opponents of the WTO talks principally fall into two philosophical camps: Marxism and protectionism.

There was a time when protectionism was a popular economic model. Some have argued that protectionism was at its peak in 1828 when the United States signed the so-called tariff of abominations. Marxism has its roots in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels wrote the communist manifesto in 1848.

It is worth noting that during those times children worked in coal mines. Those too poor were locked up in so-called work houses and forced to live in horrific conditions. Women routinely sold their bodies on the street to make ends meet.

It is time to leave these outdated concepts where they belong, in the 19th century.

Fortunately there is another world view which recognizes that world peace and stability are furthered by trade between nations and that all peoples from all nations benefit from well constructed, mutually beneficial agreements on trade. Free trade has always assisted Canada.

In the decade since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement went into force, trade has increased by more than 150%, from $235 billion in 1989 to $626 billion today.

A successful free trade agreement of the Americas will show similar successes 10 years from now with the participation of 34 countries.

The potential for free trade with the WTO dwarfs both these agreements. One hundred and forty-two nations are involved in negotiations in Doha. The risks are greater but so are the rewards.

Let us consider the following. In 2000 the value of exports of goods and services equalled 46% of Canada's GDP. One in three jobs in Canada depends directly on trade. Currently Canada ranks sixth in the world in terms of world merchandise exports, exporting $276 billion every year. We are also sixth in merchandise imports, importing $244 billion. The free flow of goods is vital to our economy.

Nations that trade with one another historically avoid conflict. War is a costly affair and, for purely self-interested reasons, nations will avoid it in favour of strong trade relations.

The history of Europe is a bloody one. In the first half of the 20th century alone, Europe fought two world wars and tens of millions of people were killed. In contrast, since the formation of the European common market, later to become the European Union, no member nations have warred with one another in over 50 years and a lasting peace seems more likely than ever.

It is time to build a better world for the 21st century and in this task free trade will be key. The WTO process is a necessary part of trade liberalization. We spurn it at our peril.

Nothing permanent is likely to be decided in Doha on November 9 to 13. However we cannot overstate the importance of this meeting. It is in Doha that the framework for a more intense round of trade negotiations will be laid down. It is therefore important that Canadians have a strong voice representing their interests at the meeting. Canada must express a strong support for free trade. As I mentioned earlier, free trade is both a stabilizing influence for world peace and a long term boon to our economy.

Canada must press hard for standard competition and investment rules. These were issues which were brought forward at the failed multilateral agreement on investment which still need resolution.

Canadian support for the removal of tariffs and anti-dumping protectionism measures is vital. The United States has historically opposed these measures. As America's closest ally, we can play a key role in convincing America that these remnants of 19th century protectionism are sentiments. However we must recognize that this works both ways and we must be willing to accept that poorer nations will also gain access to our markets.

We must fight hard for fair environmental and employment standards clauses. We must also remember not to be greedy. Free trade must benefit all or it ceases to be free trade. We must raise concerns about environmental and labour standards being on the agenda when negotiations start in earnest. Just as the world's nations profit from global trade, we also benefit from a healthier environment at home and abroad. We also win when all workers around the world are treated with dignity and respect and can reasonably expect to earn an honest wage that will enable them to provide for themselves and their families in the new world economy.

Environmental, labour and health standards are all a working part of NAFTA. Exemptions modelled after NAFTA at the WTO level would serve us all well. It will be argued by some on the political left that free trade is nothing more than a way for the west to exploit the third world's resources. This is false. According to the Tinbergen Institute, the potential benefits of a new round of trade negotiations to the third world are three times what is received each year in overseas aid. Trade helps developing nations develop. It is, after all, how the west itself developed.

We must stress openness and transparency throughout this meeting and all future meetings like it. We cannot allow the secrecy that surrounded the MAI to engulf the WTO meetings. Shared information is our best weapon against the forces of fear.

The more information that is available on free trade the less sense that is made by the arguments from angry free trade activists. The withholding of information serves only to fuel the fire of the radical anti-free trade groups such as Maude Barlow's Council of Canadians. For example, the Council of Canadians claimed that NAFTA had failed us when the government was forced to pay Ethyl Corp. damages for trying to prohibit the importation of the MMT additive to gasoline. It claimed that NAFTA did not protect environmental standards in Canada.

In truth, the only reason MMT was allowed to be imported to Canada is that it had never been banned for domestic use. If the Canadian government had tested MMT and found it to be harmful either to the environment or to Canadians it never would have been permitted. Because of the Liberal government's failure to share the workings of NAFTA with the Canadian people, Canadians felt that their treaty had failed them. In fact, it was our government that failed us.

We cannot allow this lack of transparency to occur in Doha, nor at conferences to follow. Canadians must be kept apprised and parliament consulted throughout the long journey towards an open debate.

Some people might claim that the risks will outweigh the gains in Doha. Some would argue that we are better off as we are. To prove otherwise we need look no further than the softwood lumber crisis which tomorrow night will be the subject of a second emergency debate in a month.

One of the items up for discussion in Doha will be the anti-dumping and domestic subsidy rules. There is an earnest movement afoot in global trade to eliminate anti-dumping tariffs. Anti-dumping is used by some countries to prop up and protect weak industries. Ironically these so-called protections serve to drive up the price of the very domestic goods they are trying to insulate. This hurts consumers at home and unfairly penalizes producers abroad.

The United States has charged four times since 1982 that Canada has been subsidizing its softwood lumber industry. The most recent charge is still ongoing. The previous three times the claim was made Canada was proved innocent. This time we are likely to be vindicated again. However, every time this happens the duties charged while the situation is resolved do irreparable harm to the Canadian forest industry. As a result of the current countervail and anti-dumping duties, it is estimated that 50,000 Canadians will lose their jobs by the end of the year.

What is urgently needed is a global agreement to prevent this type of strong arm tactic. Doha is an opportunity to bring these concerns to the table.

In summary, let me mention my final point. People claim that the WTO only benefits the wealthy, that only big corporations win. My hon. colleagues in the NDP will be sending out this message of doom and gloom, hoping to scare Canadians back to the 19th century. I suggest that they tell that to the thousands of unemployed forest workers in Canada, workers who are out of work chiefly because of protectionist trade policies and who are victims of corporate interests that continue to use outdated domestic legislation to prevent the free flow of goods across our borders. These people do not want handouts; they want their jobs back.

Let us offer a positive change. Let us not be swayed by the politics of fear and envy. We must proceed on trade liberalization. We must do so in an open and transparent manner so that our message cannot be wrongfully subverted. Our efforts must be based on the principles that have made the west great: inclusion, equal opportunity, compassion for the less fortunate and free flow of goods between peoples.

Doha will set the standard for future negotiations. Canada has the opportunity to be a leading light in furthering the cause of international trade. Let us take on the new century.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in this very important debate to pose a question to the member from the Alliance—Conservative coalition, and I am not sure of its proper name these days, who presented a very interesting position.

We have just heard the member suggest that nothing should get in the way of trade liberalization. He chastised the New Democratic Party for standing up in the House time and time again trying to seek from the government and all members of the House a much more balanced approach that would put the needs of Canadians first and respect their interests in being a sovereign state. For the members to my right, it would seem in many ways that trade liberalization is a euphemism for support for the multinational corporate sector.

I would like to ask the member specifically about concerns raised with regard to health care and access to pharmaceuticals.

The member knows that a lively debate was held in the House recently over patent law and the issue of ensuring that cheaper generic versions of Cipro were available to Canadians in times of crisis and in view of the terrorist threat these days. I would like to know from the member how his coalition feels about drugs being denied to people in third world countries, in developing nations, in the face of such serious threats as HIV and AIDS when the government and presumably his party are supportive of multinational control over this whole area and of denial of access to cheaper generic drugs. How does he square the needs of people in those countries in very serious situations with this blinkered, adamant trade liberalization approach that does not put the needs of people first?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, quite clearly we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. The NDP is anti-free trade and has expressed that view all along. On every single free trade agreement and on the FTAA they are protesting this.

How do we get health care? How do we get access to drugs? We do it through a strong economy. Without jobs and a strong economy, we would not have a public health care system and we would not have access to drugs.

The reality is that since we have had free trade agreements, our economies with our trading partners, as in NAFTA, have more than doubled since their inception. NAFTA has created more wealth in this country and abroad. It has created more opportunities and has created an opportunity for us to have our social programs.

We should not deny this to developing nations. We should give them every opportunity by entering into trade agreements so that they too can have access to these kinds of programs, so that they too can have stronger economies and access to public health care. That is how we will achieve these goals.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, as a follow up to the previous question, I wonder if my colleague would comment on the fact that many of the world's nations that are not as well off as we are do need access to drugs. I am thinking of Africa with HIV et cetera. However, how would it be possible to deliver cheap generic drugs to any country or any individual if somebody did not invest in order to develop that drug in the first place? We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

If we take our time, make the effort and use our money to invest in drugs, surely there has to be some protection. If not, no cheap drugs will be available to give to people in need. Hopefully proper controls will make sure these drugs will be reasonably priced and well off countries will help those in need, but surely there has to be protection for the development of the process. If not, we will not have any drugs for anybody. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, obviously I concur. Without these strong economies and without trade agreements there would not have been the investment in the drugs that are available today. Money would not have been available for the research and development of these drugs, nor would we have all of these programs to create these drugs.

Wealthier nations have many aid programs that help developing nations as their economies become stronger. If we look back to the draconian measures of the 19th century, the standards were much lower than they are today. In every single case where we have had global free trade agreements, the standards have risen. Implementation of social programs has taken place and there has been access to drugs and health care systems. Without free trade we would not have had the opportunity to do that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the member's comments on the whole issue of health care. I would ask him how he can rationalize that argument about giving such lucrative, generous patent protection to multinational companies when their profits are among the highest of any sector in our economy today while denying access to very basic drugs to deal with the serious threat of HIV and AIDS? That is one question.

While the member is on his feet, perhaps he could explain to all members of the House and to the public how on the one hand he can rant and rail about softwood lumber, the issue of which is clearly a result of free trade as we know it today, and in the same breath stand up with self-righteous indignation about free trade and trade liberalization? How can he have it both ways? How does he square that one?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, 86% of our trade in Canada is with the United States. One in three jobs is a direct result of trade. Free trade is exactly what we are trying to achieve in softwood lumber. We are trying to iron out some of the problems. The new round of talks at the WTO will give us an opportunity to even improve on some of our previous trade agreements, to make them stronger and to deal with some of the anti-dumping situations.

With respect to the drugs issue which the hon. member keeps raising, maybe the NDP would like to plant orchards with money trees and that is how it would fund some of these things. However, the reality is that without a strong economy, without jobs and without a strong tax base, we will not have any of that. On our balance sheet we cannot provide everything, be everything and give everything away without input from the other side. We will do that through stronger free trade agreements and greater free trade. As we have seen in the past, in every single case our economies have flourished under free trade.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this take note debate and for the opportunity to talk about Canada's participation at the upcoming fourth World Trade Organization ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar and, in particular, the agricultural trade objectives Canada will be setting out to achieve.

Trade has been and continues to be vitally important to the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry. In fact trade accounts for one half of all farm sales. The Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector operates in a global context and depends heavily on exports for its growth and development. Last year alone Canada exported close to $23.5 billion in agriculture and agrifood products.

Since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the WTO Uruguay round and bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel, Canadian agriculture and agrifood exports have been expanding considerably over the past 10 years.

As the global economy becomes even more integrated, the importance of a multilaterally agreed and enforceable framework governing Canada's international trade of agricultural products becomes increasingly more apparent. As a mid-sized country with significant agricultural export interests, Canada has much to gain from further trade reform being undertaken through the WTO within a rules based system with binding dispute resolution.

In recognition of this fact the government, in consultation with Canadian agriculture and agrifood stakeholders, has been working diligently over the past two years to pursue its objectives. Since March 2000, when the current WTO round of agriculture negotiations began in Geneva, Canada has been pursuing the interests of the Canadian agriculture and agrifood industry as expressed in its initial negotiating position announced by the government back in August 1999.

That position sets out Canada's objectives to eliminate export subsidies, to reduce as much as possible or eliminate trade distorting domestic support and improve market access for all agriculture and food products. Essentially, our goal is to level the playing field to allow Canadian farmers and processors to compete successfully on an equal footing with their competitors as they have consistently proven they are more than capable of doing.

Furthermore the federal government will also ensure that decisions about the production and marketing of Canadian products will continue to be made in Canada. Excessive support levels distort production, they drive down world prices that are already low and as a result hurt farmers, farmers in Canada and in a majority of the other agricultural producing countries, in particular developing countries, that export agricultural products.

To advance the goal of levelling the international playing field, Canada has and will continue to reach out to developing country members in the WTO who share this view.

Canada has had great successes in advancing the common goal through participation in the Cairns group which is made up largely of agriculture exporting developing countries. We will continue to build upon our common interests with other members to achieve a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system.

Although global agricultural trade has been more market oriented over the past 10 years, especially since the conclusion of the WTO Uruguay round negotiations, there continues to be an urgent need for further trade liberalization. We need to continue to make markets work better by dismantling barriers to trade and significantly reducing trade distorting subsidies.

While Canadian farmers can compete head to head with anyone in the world as long as it is on an equal footing, they cannot compete with the treasuries of some of the foreign countries. There is clearly work that remains to be done.

While we are pleased with the progress being made in the current agriculture negotiations, we feel strongly that this progress cannot be lost. We view the increased focus and momentum that the launch of a broader set of multilateral trade negotiations would bring to the agriculture negotiators as being extremely beneficial to the interests of Canada.

Canada believes that the launch of expanded negotiations in Doha would significantly increase the odds of achieving a substantial and far reaching outcome in the agriculture negotiations, an outcome that would take us a long way toward further opening agriculture markets and eliminating distortions in the world trade of agricultural exports. A successful launch of a broader round of negotiations at the fourth WTO ministerial conference would indicate that other WTO members are also serious about agricultural trade reform.

In this context, the launch of a broader set of WTO negotiations in Doha is a clear objective from agricultural and wider perspectives. Agricultural trade reform is a key priority for all Canadians. We consider it extremely important that WTO members make real and meaningful progress toward achieving a fair and market oriented agricultural trading sector. We clearly want to see substantive results in the areas of market access, domestic support and export competition.

As a result, Canada does not view the launch of a broader round as entirely sufficient for meeting our agriculture policy objectives. That is why Canada is also seeking a strong and clear statement at Doha on the need to make real and far-reaching progress in liberalizing agricultural trade.

Further, Canada will also be pursuing the establishment, on the part of the WTO ministers, of clear and realistic timelines and a framework for conducting the agriculture negotiations and bringing them to a conclusion as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Canada is committed to seeking a successful conclusion to the WTO agriculture negotiations to continue the liberalization of global agricultural trade, which in turn would provide Canadian producers and processors with a more level international playing field and would extend a rules based, predictable and secure trading environment.

Seeking a successful conclusion will mean that Canada's participation in negotiations will continue to benefit from the valuable input of all Canadians. The federal government remains fully committed to keeping agriculture and agrifood stakeholders fully informed. We will continue to consult closely with Canadians as the WTO agriculture negotiations progress.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his comments.

It came to my attention he mentioned free trade between Canada and Israel. He forgot to mention free trade between Canada and the Palestinian authority. Could he clarify that because I think we signed that treaty with the authority, keeping in mind to help that economy survive and revive?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we certainly do have free trade agreements with many countries. I realize that Palestine is very important. I know my colleague has worked a lot with governments in the Middle East, bringing together these trading partners.

As I mentioned, 80% of everything we produce is sent off the shores of this great country, and we do appreciate all of our partners.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks made earlier by the parliamentary secretary and the Minister for International Trade. I am concerned about what the parliamentary secretary said because, when the member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis asked a question about maintaining the supply management system in the dairy industry, the minister said clearly that the system would be maintained.

Now the member is talking about agricultural trade reform that would be based on liberalization, and it worries me. That is why I want to give him the opportunity to set things straight, if possible, given the position that the Minister for International Trade seemed to favour earlier.

I would remind him that this issue is extremely important to Quebecers. Our province has about 2,200 dairy farms that produce 3 billion litres of milk a year. The supply management system has worked well. If we compare it to the free market system in place in the United States, we can see that the latter causes prices to increase. Some producers are smothered by certain situations. That is when integrators come into play and, ultimately, it is the consumer who pays the price.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to indicate whether he agrees with what the Minister for International Trade said earlier about maintaining the supply management system for dairy producers in Quebec and Canada.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to work with my hon. colleague as much in the last couple of years. We certainly toured Canada a few years ago on the HRDC committee where we had hearings in 26 cities in 35 days in the 10 provinces, 2 territories and the eastern Arctic as it was known at the time.

I appreciate the question because any time I get the opportunity to talk about our government's commitment to supply management, I welcome it. I noted that the Prime Minister spoke in favour of our commitment to supply management. The Minister for International Trade spoke today to the fact that agriculture is number one on the list of where we have to work on the negotiations.

However, to my colleague, supply management is a domestic marketing situation. I live within an hour's drive of the United States. Once or twice a year I travel across the border. Whether I buy or just look at the prices, each time for the last eights I have come back knowing that butter, as an example, costs the consumer less in Canada than it does in the States.

Supply management is working for our producers. I can say that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has spoken out 100% in favour of protecting our supply management sector. I know we can count on my colleagues in this party, but I am not sure about some of my other colleagues. I would like to hear some of the other parties' commitments.

It is very important that we continue to work for the great agriculture producers of Quebec and across Canada, especially in the supply management sector.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary remarked that we expanded to $23 billion worth of trade and that is true. The government set the target and farmers met it. However, in a brief to the Prime Minister's task force on September 11, the National Farmers Union said:

Over the past 25 years, Canadian agri-food exports have increased six-fold—from $4 billion in 1975 to approximately $25 billion today. As Figure 1 demonstrates, however, farmers’ net incomes have fallen over the same period. The current farm income crisis comes in spite of Canada’s tremendous success in winning market access and finding foreign customers.

The farmers have done their part. They have produced the products and the trade for which the government asked. We know that the U.S. and European Community are basically saying that they will continue to increase their subsidies.

I hope our negotiators are successful, but sometimes I feel they would make better diplomats than negotiators. I hope they prove me wrong this time. However if they are not successful, does the member believe that as a government we now have to send the message to other countries that this government will stand by the farm community and ensure that our levels—

[The Chairman]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to applaud every part of the question because it is so very important for our farmers. Perhaps my colleague for Malpeque could have opened it up with the title of challenges and opportunities.

Our farmers have had an unfair amount of challenges, yet I believe there are great opportunities in the future any time we work to eliminate distorted foreign subsidies that exist across the border and the waters.

My colleague was president of the National Farmers Union for about 14 year. He has given his life for farmers of this country. He agrees with me that our farmers would like to concentrate on farming and being producers of fine food. Our farmers do not want to farm the mailbox like some of our neighbours.

We have an opportunity. We built up a list of countries, especially developing countries, and I hope the good work of the government will make a difference.

We came along in 1993. I know the previous government meant well, but when it came down to the final moment of decision there were no other countries with us. Canada stood alone and we cannot stand alone. We have to build allies and we are doing that.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like more reassurances from the parliamentary secretary, because I clearly remember that, during the election campaign, the party currently in office was opposed to signing the free trade agreement. However, one of the first things it did upon taking office was to sign that agreement.

I fully agree with the hon. member, with whom I have the pleasure of working at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am very concerned about these negotiations. I am very concerned because we are always losing. Canada took advantage of the fact that it had to make cuts to do away with all farm subsidies.

Meanwhile, the Americans and the European Community are continuing to give subsidies to their farmers, but this government has withdrawn from everything. Our farmers are making demands, and I can understand why.

It is very worrisome to let our negotiators go if they do not intend to hold their ground once and for all.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my very passionate and hardworking colleague to recall that a very short time ago in the House we all heard the Minister for International Trade say that agriculture would be number one in the negotiations at the WTO. I am sure that we will all join together in the House to ensure that will happen.

Of course subsidies are unfair around the world but I would not want my colleague to mislead Canadians by saying that on this side of the House the government has done nothing for our farmers. There is always a need for more but this year Canadian farmers will be at the receiving end of almost $4 billion. In fact $3.8 billion will be given to our Canadian farmers. I know there is a need for more and we should work together to provide more for the great people who till the soil and provide food for us all.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise in the debate on the World Trade Organization.

I want to comment on the last presentation that was made. The member should have taken the opportunity to plug his own government in the passage of Bill C-32, the Costa Rican free trade bill. I know that it will bring great benefit to the member from P.E.I. in the expansion of potato trading down to Central America. In that approach I think the entire House can take credit because I believe that all the pro free trade parties, pro growth parties supported that and it is something for which we should all be proud.

Let me begin by saying few activities are as worthwhile as Canada's participation in the World Trade Organization. Just as most members of the House see the United Nations as having a role in maintaining and promoting world peace, it is certain that the agreements concluded under the framework of the World Trade Organization have helped to promote a stable trading regime and the prosperity which that brings.

Just as it would be unthinkable for Canada not to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly, it should be inconceivable for us not to attend a WTO ministerial conference. Quite simply, our attendance at the upcoming WTO talks in Doha is vital. It is vital to Canada to defend and promote our interests at the table. It is vital that Canada be present so as to be able to participate and partake in all discussions which may occur.

The NDP and its supporters remain adamantly opposed to the World Trade Organization. The NDP's parliamentary website has a page called “NDP on Trade” and it features the following quote which is attributed to the party leader:

The WTO has been called “the mother of all backroom deals”—the greatest transfer of economic and political power in history...from communities and nation states into the hands of a small number of global corporations.

The same page alleges as fact that:

The WTO and related trade agreements are intended to be an economic constitution for the planet, yet they are written by, and almost entirely for, the world's largest corporations.

At the very same time as the NDP staunchly denounces the World Trade Organization, it calls on the United Nations to solve the world's problems including dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

On September 17 in the first question period after those horrific attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and the skies over Pennsylvania, the NDP leader rose in question period to say:

The Statute of Rome must be amended to ensure that terrorism is defined as a specific crime against humanity and that terrorists are tried before the International Criminal Court.

She then called upon the Prime Minister to:

—assure the House that Canada will lead the way in fighting terrorism through multilateral democratic institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

Later that same day in her first speech she made in the House after the attacks, the NDP leader said:

This response must be carried out in accordance with the principle of the rule of law...This is a crime against humanity and an international court should mete out the punishment. No country should be called upon to be the judge, the jury and the executioner, least of all the country that has suffered the greatest loss.

The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. There are 189 members of the general assembly. Canada currently is not a member of the security council.

Our permanent representative at the United Nations is Mr. Paul Heinbecker. I have never met Mr. Heinbecker but I am sure that he is an honourable man. I presume that he represents Canada well and that he follows the instructions given to him by the government.

I must say that Mr. Heinbecker's name is perhaps less well known to most Canadians than that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, than that of the Minister for International Trade, than that of the Prime Minister, and that of the Minister of Finance. There is a very simple reason for this. Cabinet ministers are directly accountable to parliament. They are elected members of the House. They attend our debates and question period. They testify before standing committees. Even more important, they are responsible for implementing reports of standing committees.

Before Canada sent a ministerial delegation to the last WTO round in Seattle in 1999, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade travelled across Canada hearing from hundreds of witnesses. Various parties made submissions. Then in June 1999 the standing committee tabled both majority and minority reports. Truly every point of view was heard. Those views were reported to the minister and the government. I have every reason to believe that those views influenced the government's position.

Let me put it another way. The government listened to Canadians when devising its position before the Seattle WTO round in 1999. However the government went further. It also invited a whole bunch of non-elected civil society types to go along.

Not only did the Council of Canadians get to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at various sessions across Canada and similar sessions held by the Senate committee advising the government, it also sent delegates as part of our government's delegation to Seattle.

The delegates had their say. Their point of view was heard and considered countless times. However, when a majority of Canadians did not agree with their position, they called the WTO anti-democratic and the mother of all backroom deals. I must admit that the NDP's opposition to the WTO baffles me and the official opposition.

At all WTO ministerial rounds, including the 1999 session in Seattle and the current session in Doha, Canada is represented by the minister of trade who, as I said earlier, is an elected member of the House and a member of the cabinet. The minister goes to these ministerial sessions armed with government positions that have been devised through broad, inclusive, nationwide consultations. This process is then described by the NDP and its supporters as “backroom” and “written entirely for the benefit of the world's largest corporations”.

Yet the NDP supports the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. I do not know who Canada supported as a nominee in the International Court of Justice or even when that nomination battle was. I do not recall any broad national consultation or report prepared by a standing committee of either the House or the Senate with a view to guiding the government's position.

In fact, even if this had occurred, Canada would have been just one of 189 member countries voting in the process. Yet when one considers that a justice of the court sits for nine years and might influence all kinds of cases, it is conceivable that the election of such individuals might rightly draw some scrutiny.

I have never heard members of the NDP decry the lack of scrutiny of the appointment of judges to the international court. Instead, they will applaud the United Nations and the International Court of Justice as allies in promoting the “principle of the rule of law”.

All Canadians believe in the rule of law. All Canadians also want fair, rules based trade. That is precisely what the WTO is all about. It is a forum in which elected Canadian cabinet ministers, after consulting Canadians, get to influence the rules which affect world trade. If every other nation had a similar process, it would be the most democratic setting of rules that is possible to imagine.

Because we are talking about ground rules rather than UN General Assembly resolutions, our participation in setting those rules gets a much higher level of scrutiny than might otherwise be possible. In spite of this, the NDP says:

The WTO operates behind closed doors, and has the power to strike down national laws, and enforce its decisions or impose sanctions.

Presumably then the NDP is opposed to collective bargaining. After all, it usually occurs behind closed doors and once a collective agreement has been agreed to, it does limit the rights of both parties. The employer cannot pay less than the agreed to wage and the employee cannot refuse to work without a valid reason.

Yet most Canadians, including myself, are in favour of collective bargaining, even though it happens behind closed doors. That is because the union and management generally go into these meetings after having consulted with various stakeholders. Collective bargaining may be behind closed doors, but very few people would describe it as anti-democratic in the way that the NDP describes the WTO.

It is shrill that members of the NDP continue to cite the now famous Ethyl Corporation case and yet they fail to point out that Canada's supreme court probably would have reached the same decision. Consider point 13 from the Ethyl Corporation's statement of claim:

The MMT Act does not prohibit the manufacture or use of MMT in Canada, it only requires that all MMT sold in Canadian unleaded gasoline be 100% Canadian. A domestic manufacturer of MMT can manufacture and distribute MMT for use in unleaded gasoline entirely within a province and not violate the MMT Act. If Ethyl wanted to maintain its presence in the Canadian octane enhancement market, it would be required to build a MMT manufacturing, blending and storage facility in each Canadian province.

The left would have us believe that the Ethyl case proves that chapter 11 prevents us from protecting the environment. Not true. If the federal government had outright banned the use of MMT in Canada regardless of where it was made, Ethyl would not have been able to prove the discrimination which was the centre point of winning its case.

If anyone is in doubt of this, just read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in T1T2 Limited Partnership v Canada. That case was where the government, acting on an election promise, cancelled a questionable deal in which the Mulroney government had sold Pearson Airport terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium. When the government cancelled the deal, the investor sued for breach of contract and lost profits. The investor won and that is the Canadian way.

For Canadians, the WTO is not an imposition of foreign rules; it is a chance for us to influence the rules by which the world will trade. It will trade. It is a chance for us to export our standards of democracy, political accountability and integrity. It is an opportunity for us to use our considerable legal and technical expertise and not inconsiderable political sway to help deal with complex matters like the definition of subsidy in agriculture.

We owe it to the world to be there and to participate fully and with vigour. Much more important, given the power of trade to boost our standard of living, we owe it to all Canadians to participate and to be there with bells on.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member of the Alliance Party for the speech. I feel we are getting somewhere and making a difference. The Alliance Party devoted the entire 10 minutes allotted to it for this portion of the debate to attacking the NDP.

I take that as a compliment. It means we are making a difference. It means the Alliance Party is feeling threatened by our position and our policies which have always advanced the ideas of justice, equality and human dignity for all.

I suggest to the member that when he critiques the NDP he should understand that we apply those principles to our decisions and policies whether we are talking about the WTO or an appropriate Canadian response to the U.S. led military strikes in Afghanistan.

The member should focus for a minute on the key issues the House is trying to deal with today. First, we are dealing with the notion that government should hand over decisions that affect the quality of life and community in the country to corporations, to the multinational trade community, to unelected and unaccountable bodies.

That is the first question. It is not necessarily about which trade deal is better or which pact has negative or positive ramifications for the citizenry. The first question is whether we should allow for that kind of unaccountable and undemocratic decision making.

Second, should we condone a system that allows the strong to get stronger and the weak to get weaker? Whatever happened, I might ask members of the Alliance Party, to the notion that the meek shall inherit the earth?

I will ask the Alliance member a couple of questions pertaining to the WTO. As we go into these discussions there are some pretty important decisions on the table. Canada is making some harsh decisions when it comes to Canadians and people around the world.

I will come back to the issue of drug patent protection since it symbolizes what we are dealing with. The Canadian government is going to the WTO discussions hand in hand with the United States with a proposal to deny third world countries and developing nations the right to access cheaper generic drugs to deal with the spread of HIV-AIDS. That is one example.

If I had time I might go on to talk about food safety and the fact that the government is siding with the United States at the WTO level in refusing to prohibit terminator technology. I might refer to the government' s disregard about issues of food safety and genetic modification. I might refer to the whole question of the health system in general.

Are the member and his party prepared to stand up for the interests of the Canadian people and citizens around the world in terms of decency, quality of life and sustainability of our planet, or is he prepared to be a cheerleader for the government and hand over decision making to an unelected body and the multinational corporate sector?