Debates of Nov. 5th, 2001

World Trade Organization

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the minister of agriculture and his parliamentary secretary who are in the House today, have been working very hard and well with the farming communities across the country precisely to address their preoccupations and do the very best job they can in tough circumstances. It is true that we do not have the deep pockets of Europe or the United States. This is why our top strategy is to negotiate down the domestic subsidies and to negotiate out all of the export subsidies.

The member says that nothing has happened in the last two years. That is not true. We have had mandated negotiations from the earlier rounds in agriculture. That has taken a lot of energy by our people. We understand the problems a lot better. We have spent a lot of time calculating the impact of those subsidies so that when we get a crack at the negotiations we will really know what to target and what to try to eliminate to help our farmers in Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the minister say that he would make agriculture negotiations a priority and talked about the distortion taking place in the markets. However I want to point out to him how very serious this is.

Over the past decade, the per capita support for Canadian agriculture under the agreement has declined by close to 40% below the average OECD support levels. In the U.S., our major competitor, per capita support has increased by a level of 14%. Our farmers just cannot survive those kinds of levels.

Therefore, two things can happen. Either, through tough negotiations, we can negotiate an agreement and develop allies to take on the Europeans and the Americans or the government will have to increase its support levels down the road so our farmers can stay in business.

Could the minister tell us what the strategy is in terms of developing allies to get to home base?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a very pertinent question. We have been extremely active as a member of the Cairns Group, a group of countries including Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina. We are there with countries that really want to do a lot better with the liberalization of our international trade in agriculture.

The problem is that agricultural goods have always been excluded from GATT and WTO negotiations. The problem is not that GATT has not been good to agriculture. It is that too often we have excluded it.

However we are there and are very determined, along with our allies in the Cairns Group and supported by developing countries that want aid through trade. What developing countries want is market access for what they do, which is often agriculture. That will help us crack the European Union, the Japanese and the Americans.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and comment period for a further 10 minutes. This is a very productive time, and I thank the minister for his very forthright answers.

[The Chairman]

Does the House give its consent to extend the time for questions and comments by 10 minutes?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the question of cultural issues and if it is a deal breaker. In other words, I am trying to quantify the level of commitment that the government has to its position with respect to working into every trade agreement proper protection for all countries relative to cultural issues that they consider to be important.

We all know that in a process of negotiations there is give and take and that some things will never, under any circumstances, be removed from the table.

I am trying to understand the position of the government with respect to cultural industries. Is this a deal breaker? In other words, is it the position of the Liberal government that a deal simply will not be cut if the agreement does not include protection for cultural industries?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Canada has always insisted absolutely that we maintain our sovereignty in the field of culture. It is imperative that governments can act in the field of culture and can allow, through regulation or subsidies, the element of cultural diversity for which the whole world is craving.

It is imperative in this era of globalization that we hear different messages from artistic communities around the world that express, through their sensitivity, their thoughts on world in which we live.

I want to have access to more than American culture. I want to have access, not only to my own culture to which I am very attached, but I want to know what the Danes and the Catalans feel about it. Maybe the solutions and the understanding of the world in which we are living will come from cultural diversity. In my view it is very clear.

Our government is totally committed to cultural diversity. There too we need to build alliances. It is imperative to have a strong support for it. That is why I commend the work of my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in that direction. I too am doing my best on that front.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister who is going off to negotiate on Canada's behalf, but who claims to represent the interests of Quebec, whether in his luggage he will be carrying a firm resolution to never give up supply management, especially where dairy products are concerned.

Our farmers are very concerned at seeing Canada's representatives heading off with no prior confirmation that supply management will continue.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to reassure the member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis that supply management is an integral part of Canada's objectives.

In the area of agriculture, we have so much work that the elimination of export subsidies will take us a lot of time, as will the elimination of domestic subsidies.

The subsidies that cause distortion on foreign markets have considerable priority as concerns our excellent supply management system, which benefits Canadian consumers by offering them reasonable selection in conditions we totally support.

The member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis says I claim to represent the interests of Quebecers. It is more than a claim. The member knows that my family comes from Isle Verte, very close to Rimouski and that some of my uncles are dairy farmers with close ties to this system.

As my ancestors and my own family come from Isle Verte, and largely are dairy producers, I understand the problem she is raising and will take it with me to Doha.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to give the minister credit. I was with him in Buenos Aires where he fought very hard to make sure the text was released for the FTAA. Again, it is important that we continue on that mandate. I was there when the minister worked the room to ensure that all the countries came on board, and I applaud him for that.

However, there is a bigger, more fundamental concern as we move into these WTO negotiations and as we look into launching a new round. That is the dispute mechanisms. This is where the WTO is failing miserably. I would like to give a few examples.

Right off the bat, we have the softwood lumber dispute and the anti-dumping rules. As the minister is fully aware, we will launch complaints with the WTO. However, with the process in place, it could go on for years and we could have no industry left.

We also are facing unfair trade practices with Bombardier and the aerospace industry. The agriculture sector is also going though this. These are all areas with respect to the dispute resolution mechanisms.

How does the minister plan to aggressively pursue that and bring forth changes so when we have trade disputes, we can get them resolved in a meaningful way and the people in Canada can get some resolution to the matter before they go bankrupt?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his kind words about the contribution Canada made at the Buenos Aires talks on the free trade area of the Americas.

The way in which the Americans are using their dumping laws is absolutely abusive. I said it last week on softwood lumber and I said it before on steel. Americans use the dumping elements of their trade laws in a very punitive and reprehensible manner.

We do not have two or three allies at the WTO. I had the honour to chair the working group on implementation in Seattle. That gave me the opportunity to meet with delegations from differing countries and 135 of them mentioned that the United States dumping rules should be on the table to be negotiated. We cannot have another round of trade negotiations without it because since Seattle many countries have also developed bad dumping practices and are applying them against the United States.

It would give us an opportunity to look at what everyone else is doing on that front. We do not wish to single out one country but wish to look at those countries that have now developed these abusive practices. We must put some order into it. I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to say that this too is an important objective for Canada.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear from the minister's words and actions that he is very optimistic as he heads to Qatar this week. Here is what he is up against.

The agriculture commissioner for the European Union, Franz Fischler, said recently that references to phasing out agricultural export subsidies in the World Trade Organization draft agenda were unacceptable. He went on to say that the union could not accept such a pre-negotiation of an outcome which was unacceptable to the union.

We are working with the Cairns Group and others but between the Americans and Europeans there are difficult problems to resolve. How does the minister intend to do that?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, what is imperative is that we engage in making structural changes to our agricultural trade. We will find the words. Europeans cannot accept when we say we need to negotiate a total elimination of export subsidies by a certain date. When they see the words total elimination, they say it is pre-negotiating and it should be part of the negotiations.

In Doha we must look at finding the words that commit the WTO to a substantial agricultural trade reform without necessarily pre-negotiating the results. We need words that reflect our objective of substantial changes in the way we trade agricultural products in the world.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the minister recently tied my comments regarding Indonesian plywood to our support for the United States. I hope the minister understands that domestically I have a very different stance than I do globally and that there is no intent to ever tie those two things together. I resent the inference.

However I have made some observations over a short period of time that we are always in a position to be reactive and not proactive whether it be on softwood lumber or agriculture.

Why do we wait for a crisis situation before we move forward? The WTO issue should be easier to resolve than it has been so far. Canada needs to take a stronger stand because this is a domestic situation. We are not talking about the global terrorism situation which I support without any reservation.

However, when it comes to what happens to Canadians in terms of agriculture or softwood lumber issues, we need to take a much stronger stand. Would the minister tell me today if that is exactly what will be done?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I will have the opportunity to do that tomorrow when I have lunch with Marc Racicot who has been appointed co-ordinator of that file by President Bush of the United States. I will give him an earful on the subject of how we feel about the softwood lumber issue and any other issue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have two short questions for the minister. First, culture or cultural products be on the list of topics considered? We had heard that they would not.

Second, it was clear during the preparations for Seattle that it would be extremely difficult to reach agreement on anything, including the agenda. How did preparations for Doha go?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member for Mercier that I have been impressed at how much better things have gone this time than before the Seattle meeting.

This time we have seen serious progress in the parallel negotiations which have been taking place over the past two years. There have been two mini ministerial meetings in the past two months. On September 1, some 20 ministers, representing a good cross-section of opinions throughout the world, met in Mexico and the second meeting took place in Singapore in mid-October.

We will be working from a text prepared for Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong, who is currently the chairman of the general and council. We will negotiate on the basis of a 45 paragraph text, we have already spent two weekends trying to narrow the gap between the sometimes divergent situations of certain countries.

I am optimistic in that we have worked much better than last time, but there is still a great deal of work to do before we can count on any positive result in this regard.

As for culture, our commitment is very clear: we will maintain the margin of manoeuvre of our government and of other governments, such as that of Quebec, which are doing vital work in the area of culture, to ensure that we hear from other points of view, other sensibilities.

As I said, I naturally want to hear our point of view on our own culture, but also that of other cultures in the world, which have so much to give us.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, it was illuminating to listen to the Minister for International Trade articulate his position on the forthcoming meeting in Doha. The minister worked very hard on the international trade file. We could see that the minister and his team had their chests puffed up this afternoon during question period. It is time to release some of that air and discuss the issues.

I was with the minister at the talks in Seattle in 1999. I was aware of many of the factors that led to the collapse of those talks. My colleague from Vancouver Island North and I will be with the minister in Doha as well. I would like to address the issues and what the Canadian Alliance believes should happen in Doha.

The key issue before the World Trade Organization is whether the fourth WTO ministerial conference in Doha will launch a new broad round of multilateral trade negotiations. The official opposition believes that the launch of a new round of negotiations is in the best economic and development interests of Canada and the world.

The launch of a new round at Doha is of even greater importance given the potential negative impact of an already slow global economy. A new round is the best way to encourage broad based economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries while dealing effectively with the concerns that many developing countries have with the current WTO rules and procedures.

Many developing countries are concerned about the implementation of the Uruguay round and others are calling for the launch of a narrow round. The official opposition is strongly pressing the government for a satisfactory launch of a new broad round at Doha.

If the Doha round of talks fails then there would be more bilateral trade agreements as nations would try to take advantage of globalization. The failure of a multilateral round would create a bilateral round which in the long term would not be in the interests of Canada or any developing country.

Canada and the world would benefit from the launch of a new broad round of world trade negotiations. Employment and living standards depend more than ever on how well countries perform in the global market. Canadian exports now account for close to 46% of the nation's gross domestic product making trade liberalization essential for our quality of life.

However Canada and the world need a strong, rules based multilateral trading system provided by the WTO that guarantees access to foreign markets and provides a predictable and transparent international trading environment if we are to gain the most from international trade.

The launch of a new broad round must include agriculture, services and industrial goods, as well as intellectual property, investment and a competition policy. Canadian agriculture can benefit greatly from access to global markets. An end to the discrimination against agricultural trade should be a key priority of the government in the new round.

The trade minister spoke about this and many of my colleagues on the other side of the House expressed concern about the agricultural round in Doha. The government must commit to liberalize agricultural market access, domestic support and export competition including, most important, the elimination of all forms of export subsidies.

The Canadian services sector can benefit greatly from access to global markets. The government must push for improved market access for our exports in areas such as telecommunications, finance and professional services. Negotiations must include industrial products where there are still substantial barriers in key markets for Canadian products.

The government must ensure that intellectual property negotiations carefully balance various interests. It must recognize that some issues such as access to medicines to respond to complex humanitarian crises such as the AIDS situation in Africa obligate us to address these moral questions at Doha.

The government must press for negotiations on the issues of investment and competition policy to ensure preservation of Canada's existing foreign investment screening processes and domestic policies.

Expanding trade liberalization and ensuring market access to developed Canadian and world markets is crucial for our development efforts. Open economies accompanied by domestic reforms are conducive to growth. Overall economic growth is a necessary condition for raising the living standards of the poor in developing countries.

The portion of the world population living in poverty is on a decline despite a strong population growth in the developing world. The poorest countries now account for less than 8% of the world's population compared with 45% in 1970. The developing countries that embraced globalization in the 1990s saw annual per capita growth rates of 5% annually compared with 2% for rich countries.

Various studies have pointed out that globalization, international trade and access to world trade markets by countries that have embraced liberal policies has raised the living standards of those countries.

There is no question that despite what our NDP colleagues and many of the NGOs have been saying, the fact remains that it has now been proven that globalization has raised the standard of living of many of the poor in this world. What is interesting is that over two-thirds of the countries in the WTO are developing nations. They voluntarily joined the WTO. Nobody pushed them into joining the WTO. They did so because they recognized that liberal trade policies were necessary to raise the living standards of their citizens. This is one of the important facts.

I was at the Shanghai APEC conference and I listened to members from various countries one after the other say that this was the route they wanted to follow. These countries are choosing this route, yet NGOs from developed countries with their partners in the NDP are nitpicking on small issues trying to create a broader context of the situation and saying that globalization is anti development.

Globalization is not anti development. A rules based trade system is required so that smaller economies, the same economies that the NGOs want to protect, have a rules based system in which they can put their case forward against larger economies so they do not use their muscle to take over markets. This afternoon we heard what happened with the softwood lumber issue. The U.S.A. is trying to use its muscle to push around a smaller country like ours. What is our recourse? We heard that we push the U.S. This is a rules based trading system and the U.S. and Canada both have obligations.

It is crucial that we have a rules based system. It is absolutely crucial that the WTO round in Doha be a success. If it is not a success, as I said in my speech, countries will not stand still because they are under pressure from their citizens to improve their living standards. Very soon we will have bilateral trade agreements floating all over the place and this will not help anybody.

In conclusion, it is absolutely imperative that this round in Doha be successful. We understand the labour and environmental standards and the concerns that many have raised on these issues, but we feel there are bodies that can address these issues. We support the government's position in having the ILO and the UNEP be included in the WTO talks so that there is a broader picture and they can effectively address their concerns.

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

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciated the comments and the speech by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, particularly his point that globalization is not an obstacle to the development of developing countries, particularly when one looks at relative factors such as people's living conditions and the reduction of poverty.

In this connection, it is the developing countries themselves that have asked to be admitted to the WTO. Because the negotiations in fact address issues of sustainable development in this category of countries, I would like to know whether the hon. member sees the role of Canada as follows: first, a defender of international trade and, second, as a defender of the role to be played by the developing countries, so that they may participate fully and completely as members, ensuring that this is supported by regulations and legislation, and helping these countries to integrate within a framework that is termed “rules based”.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the member raised some very good points.

As I said in my speech, I was at the WTO talks in Seattle. We could see the resistance coming from the developing countries because at that time they had not fully integrated into the global market. They form the majority in the WTO and as such they are very important players. It is absolutely crucial that all these countries are able to join the WTO and have equal access.

I was in Brussels for the least developed countries conference. I listened to most of them and they wanted access. On giving aid, my colleague across the way is the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for CIDA. One of the things I have been advocating about CIDA, is that giving them money is not going to be the issue. Give them access to the market so they can move ahead. Having market access will enable them to spread wealth more evenly among their populace which will bring up the living standard of the population.

I agree it is critically important that we do not ignore that aspect. Ignoring it is what cost us at WTO in Seattle. We cannot afford to do that in Doha. So yes, that is one of the key elements.

It is important for us to protect Canadian interests as well. We are going to open up and we need a rules based system where Canadian companies and others have equal market access to other economies of the world. It is on both sides.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the member from the Alliance mentioned CIDA and that it is not just a question of giving money. I am sure he understands that part of CIDA's vocation is not just about giving money; it is about assisting developing countries to actually develop and build their infrastructure so that they can take part in the global economy or have better access to the global economy so that they can take part in a rules based system.

I will use the example of a country which is a member of the WTO and feels that the rules and regulations are being violated by a developed country. It may not have the resources, and when I say resources I am not just talking about financial resources, I am also talking about specialized knowledge, that kind of capacity, to take the developed country, the industrialized country, before the tribunal. Part of what CIDA does is it helps countries build their own infrastructure.

I believe that Canada does have a role. Part of that role is to assist developing countries that wish to take part in the global economy, that which are members of WTO, to have the infrastructure and the capacity to exercise their full rights, not just in the liberalization of markets but also when they feel that their rights have been violated, to have the capacity to work within the rules and make those challenges if necessary.

Does the member see that as being important?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, while I share the member's concern, I would slightly differ from that point of view.

I grew up in Africa before I came to Canada. I have seen CIDA pour assistance money in there with good intentions at times, but I have seen that it has taken them nowhere. Right now we need this capacity building we are talking about, which CIDA is giving and what the member is alluding to, so that these people can be part of the global economy and can actively take part in dispute resolution. My problem is this is just a stop-gap measure right now.

Where we really need to spend our time is with the WTO. The dispute settlement mechanism must be made easier and simpler so that we do not need so much money in infrastructure to go over there. If we make it simpler and easier and these countries can sustain it for a longer period of time, they will be able to take it.

The focus should change to put pressure on WTO so that dispute resolution is a simpler system. The aim is the same, that they can access the same thing, but our giving and trying to build that thing in the longer term will be less effective than reforming the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there is no contradiction in what I have said and what my dear colleague on the other side has said.

I believe that Canadians are also in agreement that Canada does have a role in assisting developing countries through CIDA in order to help them build their capacities. This does not preclude the WTO developing a rules based system which is more easily accessible to these countries.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that the overwhelming majority of the poorest countries simply do not have the capacity to take part in the global economy. The hon. member himself made note of the fact that poverty has been reduced. I do not believe that one needs to bash CIDA in order to support free trade and the globalization of the marketplace through the WTO.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, this is not bashing CIDA. This is trying to look for lasting solutions and not the stop-gap measures that CIDA usually applies.

In answer to the hon. member's question, we still have the same goal that they will be able to access us but I feel that the WTO needs to be reformed so that these people do not have to rely on CIDA money to create their infrastructure but can rely upon their own resources. Until such time that they have their own resources I do not see why we would agree with capacity building.