Debates of Dec. 14th, 2010

Economic Negotiations with the European Union

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak today in support of the negotiations for a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, a CETA, between Canada and the European Union.

Dialogue on CETA began in 2009 and the fifth round of negotiations concluded recently here in Ottawa. According to all stakeholders, the meetings went very smoothly and more quickly than expected, and we hope that CETA will be complete by 2011.

Comprising 27 member states, with a total population of nearly 500 million, the European Union is the world's largest single market, foreign investor and trader. As an integrated bloc, the EU represents Canada's second largest trading partner in goods and services.

Before discussing the details of CETA, I should point out that we in the Liberal party want multilateral WTO-led trade negotiations to continue, and we want Canada to push harder in promoting multilateralism. We do, however, recognize the practical constraints and difficulties inherent in this. Therefore, if it is impossible to move ahead with multilateral agreements for the time being, we encourage Canada to focus on bilateral agreements, which will enable us to increase our trade with other countries. It is our belief that if the details of these bilateral agreements are properly worked out, that they will not be an impediment to the adoption of future multilateral agreements.

Canada is a nation that supports free trade, indeed one that was founded on trade. Our origins are those of a trading nation, starting with fur, wood and minerals. We have only moved forward from there.

Trade accounts for a significantly greater portion of our overall economic activity than many other nations. Indeed, 80% of our economy and millions of Canadian jobs depend on trade and our ability to access foreign markets.

There are always those on both sides who will advocate for the protection of certain sectors or industries. Some of that is based on some very valid concerns. However, increasingly the idea of protectionism does not recognize global realities. The Liberal Party has in fact called for Canada to embrace and build on the concept of global networks.

This CETA is indeed far more comprehensive than any traditional free trade agreement. It promises so much more. It offers a more comprehensive arrangement, even, than NAFTA. This is critical because trade as we speak of it is now so much more than just the exchange of goods.

The Conference Board of Canada refers to this as integrative trade, the combination of services trade, global and regional value chains, investment and sales by foreign affiliates, flows of people, knowledge and technologies, electronic trade in goods and services, and the linkages between goods and services.

From the Conference Board of Canada:

Instead of asking where to create an entire product or service, businesses now ask where is the best place to locate each unique activity, business function or task: design, engineering, manufacturing, marketing, after-sales service, etc.

Value can be added at each stage of the value chain, and services are integral to the effective functioning of the entire value chain itself. People and the movement of people, knowledge and ideas are in turn integral to the whole.

We Canadians are awfully proud of RIM, the makers of the BlackBerry. It is an excellent example of a globally integrated product. Its hundreds of parts come from all over the world. Again, quoting from the Conference Board of Canada:

Research in Motion's Waterloo factory specializes in new product introduction. This includes building and testing prototypes and scaling up manufacturing of new models ready for market. Then, to reduce manufacturing costs, the company outsources manufacturing to partners in Hungary and Mexico. The company's partners then sell Hungarian-made BlackBerrys to customers in Europe and Asia, and Mexican-made ones in the Americas. Along with the physical BlackBerry, consumers worldwide buy related contracts for data and voice service. As a result, RIM receives service revenues from the wireless carriers—translating into a “meaningful portion” of RIM's revenue. The company also has one physical store in the US, and it provides global after-sales technical support from Canada (Halifax).

This is an example of the foundation of the Liberal Party's emphasis on global networks, that we should increase exchange and co-operation in areas such as financial services; transportation and logistics; higher education, research and development; energy, natural resources and sustainability; health care and health promotion; innovations and best practices; food safety and security; culture, entertainment and tourism; immigration; and so importantly, labour mobility, the exchange of people, knowledge and ideas.

The future of Canada in this competitive world must embrace the new global realities. Our future is not just trade in goods. It is trade in goods, services and services linked to goods, as well as in the value chains associated with all of those together.

Our future is not just in exports across borders to end users. It is in those highly integrated value chains of exports and imports that can cross borders, sometimes many times.

Our future is not just selling products across borders to foreign markets. It lies in finding where we can best contribute in the various value chains, where we in Canada can benefit from other inputs from elsewhere and in embracing the opportunities presented by both.

CETA is good for Canada, because it will allow a much greater level of exchange not only of goods but of services, people, knowledge and ideas. It will allow Canadian enterprises to diversify beyond the United States, upon which we are much too dependent and whose long-term economic strength is questionable.

We must diversify.

There will be challenges, and Canada does need to watch for areas of particular concern to Canadians.

Canadian agriculture and agrifood enterprises, farmers and processors, stand to gain a great deal from increased access to such a large market, but there is major public opinion in Europe against genetically modified organisms, GMOs, much of which is not based in science but is nonetheless very emotional. Canada needs to work at educating the Europeans on this issue.

Public procurement may be contentious, and we must be willing to have a full debate on the pros and cons of opening or keeping closed public procurement at different levels of government. There are legitimate concerns in this area.

As far as the arts and culture are concerned, there needs to be a focus on the debate pitting protectionism against expansionism. There will be a debate on the breadth and scope of future developments in this area.

We have to be careful.

Intellectual property protection—copyright, infringements and patents, specifically in relation to medicines and the life sciences—is already a focus of debate, and Canada is being told that its credentials are not sufficiently solid in this regard.

It is a rare occasion when different parties in this House agree on something. The pursuit of a CETA with the EU is one of those.

We Liberals will continue to be vigilant to ensure that the government does not bargain away too much and that we do not sacrifice some of the things that we Canadians hold dear. We will also hold the government to account in terms of ensuring that full advantage is taken of this deal. We offer to work together to see that the agricultural sectors, SMEs in all sectors, arts and cultural sectors and other Canadian enterprises get the help they need to take full advantage of what a CETA with the EU can offer.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions.

I think the member mentioned that outsourcing can be a good thing. I wonder if she could clarify that.

Also, I will ask the hon. member the same question that I asked my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt. Has the member read this document, the legal opinion? If so, does she have any comments? If not, would she like a copy? I can give her one.

In regard to agriculture, there are a couple of concerns that some people have, and I would like her opinion on this.

We know that supply management is one of the pillars of Canadian agriculture. Supposedly it is not on the table, but it is on the table, as we were told at the agriculture committee. Everything is basically on the table.

We know that if there is any modification in the quotas, or the over-quota tariffs, each dairy farmer in Canada stands to lose around $70,000. There is some concern by the Dairy Farmers of Canada that at the last minute Europe is going to say, “Okay, everything is fine, but we will throw cheese on the table; if you accept European cheese, we are okay with it”. That, of course, would be devastating for the dairy farmers.

The other concern that some people have is in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The government's loan and initial payment guarantees for the CWB will not be permitted according to article x3 on page 267 of the agreed European text. The loss of the government's loan guarantee alone could cost farmers an estimated $107 million a year.

I wonder if the member could comment on those points.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will do my best to answer all four questions.

I would love to see a copy of the legal opinion to which he refers and I look forward to reading that.

Outsourcing is a good thing. This is an opportunity for Canadian companies to become even more globally competitive. I do not see Canada as being a destination for low cost labour. We want Canadian jobs but we want good Canadian jobs and we want to ensure those Canadian companies are able to participate in the global environment.

If there is another country that has a specific type of opportunity that Canada does not offer, then, yes, outsourcing where it makes a Canadian company with those revenues that come to Canada and which also employs other Canadians so they benefit from the success of that company. The short answer is that there are a number of cases where outsourcing is important. I understand the concern for Canadian jobs but ultimately successful Canadian businesses enhance the opportunity for Canadian jobs and, if a certain amount of outsourcing is part of that game plan, then it is a good idea.

I would also like to address the question about supply management. The position of the Liberal Party is clear. The position of the Conservative Party is clear. All parties in the House have made it very clear that they support supply management. Yes, I believe it is on the table. I was never told that it was not. We need to understand that the European Union lives in its own glass house in terms of agricultural subsidies and in terms of other support for certain agricultural sectors. We also know that it will be a little bit difficult for anyone at that table to point too many fingers. I will also say that there are a number of agricultural sectors in Canada, such as beef, pork and some of the other crops, that do not participate in supply management and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member but there are other members who would like to ask questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her intervention and for her support of this agreement, understanding that there is a way to go yet before we get to the end of the negotiations. However, the principles of the negotiations are what are important.

My question is straightforward. Before the advent of our softwood lumber agreement and before the advent of NAFTA, Nova Scotia, the part of the world in Canada that I am from, used to export $900 million worth of softwood lumber, dimensional lumber to Europe. When the EU was formed, we were shut out of Europe on a phytosanitary certificate concerning pine wood nematode. Instead of exporting to the east, we simply started exporting south. When the barriers started to be put up by the Americans, we got around those because we did not fall under countervail because much of our land is privately owned, However, we still lost our market in the EU.

That is an example of where a part of the country needed an additional marketplace but not one was available to it and we suffered directly because of that, even though we managed to settle our differences with the Americans.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, we could engage in a much longer debate about softwood lumber between Canada and the United States, but for the purposes of the discussions with the European Union, I take the point as a very valid one and it is an excellent example of our need to diversify our markets.

My colleague also mentioned phytosanitary issues. We know that is also a question for some of our Canadian agriculture and agri-food sectors as a non-tariff barrier. It is one of the examples of why the CIDA negotiations with Europe are very interesting. It is because they are not just the trade in goods. These discussions are comprehensive and they are there specifically to address some of these issues like the non-tariff barriers and these regulatory aspects that have created challenges for some of our producers. I am very pleased to see that. I know my colleague is also very pleased to see that those issues are top of mind. Among the Canadian negotiators, they know full well these are of a concern to us.

The European Union provides an extraordinary market for a large number of Canadian farmers and people involved in the agri-food business. I thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue. It is one on which we do agree.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I like the member for Willowdale but I must admit that I am very surprised that she is becoming a champion for outsourcing. That is something that even the Conservatives will not stand up and champion in the House.

We referenced earlier the loss of half a million manufacturing jobs over the last few years and lower family incomes for everyone except corporate CEOs and corporate lobbyists. There is a fundamental problem.

When we look at Maclean's, it says, “Generation Screwed. Lower incomes. Worse jobs. Bleaker futures”. It is exactly this manic support for outsourcing that contributes to it. I think we have the Liberals out-conservating the Conservatives on that issue. It is certainly not, in my opinion, in the public interest.

We now have income inequality that is as bad as it was in the 1920s. This is an economic catastrophe. Most Canadians are feeling it. I certainly hope the Liberal Party is not saying that outsourcing is just a great thing. It sounded like that was what was being said. I hope the member will correct that for the record.

The member was asked a question about the Canadian Wheat Board a few moments ago but I do not think she had a chance to answer. I hope she will answer on that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. In order to ensure that the member for Willowdale has time to answer, I need to stop the member. The hon. member for Willowdale.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that my colleague likes me. I must say that we do enjoy a very cordial relationship and one that is quite productive on the international trade committee and in our various negotiations. I hope my colleague appreciates the sentiment in return. We can accomplish much more in the House when we work together than when we engage in ultra hyper-partisan activities. Therefore, I thank him for the gesture.

I can see, however, that there is an opportunity to take my comments out of context. I will just elaborate on my concerns. We are concerned in Canada that we are seeing jobs that tend to be the lower paid and not necessarily the most effective and good strong jobs for Canadians living in Canada. That is something that we want to avoid.

My focus is on encouraging the success Canadian enterprises that have those higher paid jobs and that focus on those areas where Canada has a comparative advantage. We need to understand that in a global environment we are not all the same and we are not all going to compete for the same types of jobs and the same level of pay scale--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I need to stop the member there so we can allow for everyone who is on the Speaker's list an opportunity to talk.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak to culture related issues within the context of the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement negotiations.

Several members of our committee, who are in the House this evening, had an opportunity to travel to the EU just recently to discuss with our colleagues in the European parliament some of the opportunities and challenges from both perspectives. It was a fruitful discussion and I look forward to the discussions moving forward into 2011 and to coming to an agreement, hopefully, by the latter part of 2011 as we move forward with this economic and trade agreement.

The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the vital diversity of Canadian creation. Arts and culture improve our quality of life, strengthen our connections to one another and provide us with valuable and often unique insights into who we are as a nation.

Let us look at Canada's cultural sector and the economy. Arts and culture not only enrich us as people but also contribute directly to our collective prosperity. Each one of us has a special spot for arts and culture. We support the arts and culture in various ways. Canada's economic action plan, which was announced in 2009, is a testament to the important role arts and culture play in our country's economy.

As a trade and economic sector, it also makes important and significant contributions to Canada's gross domestic product. The arts and culture sector had an estimated direct economic impact of $46 billion on Canada's gross domestic product in 2007, or 3.8% of Canada's GDP.

Additionally, its various industries employ more than 630,000 people, with the equivalent of 46,000 full-time jobs accounted for through volunteer labour. Many fledgling part-time musicians and artisans are not included in that but they also help contribute in a variety of ways to the quality of life within a community.

The cultural sector is one of the few industries that is found in all regions of Canada in both cities and rural communities. Talent and investment are drawn to the areas where culture flourishes.

The cultural landscape, however, is changing. With anything in the world now just a mouse click away, competition for audience attention increases exponentially. In Canada, competitive pressures are intensified by the relatively small size of our domestic market, which can make cultural production costly and complex.

Canadians value access to cultural products that reflect their own voices but we are also extremely open to what the world has to offer. For instance, in 2009, foreign productions accounted for 97% of box office revenues, 74% of music albums sold in Canada and 59% of conventional private television programming. Those examples are demonstrative of the sector as a whole and represent an unparalleled openness to foreign content.

We are proud that as a government we can help ensure that Canadians can continue to enjoy these benefits by fostering strong, vibrant and economically sustainable arts and cultural industries throughout this country.

What this means. however. is that we need to work hard to ensure Canadians have access to Canadian culture. Our government has committed more than a billion dollars over five years in new and renewed investments for arts, culture, heritage and tourism.

Culture has been strongly supported under Canada's economic action plan with investments of approximately $335 million in support of arts and culture.

I have the honour of representing the beautiful riding of Kelowna--Lake Country. Our economic action plan invested significantly in the Laurel Packinghouse, which is B.C.s oldest packing house and located in the heart of our cultural district. I know the citizens of Kelowna are very appreciative of the economic action plan and our investment in retaining and enhancing the cultural district of our community.

I would now like to look at Canada's international cultural priorities. Canada is also active internationally in the field of culture through its bilateral and multilateral cultural agreements. A clear indication of this dynamism is reflected in the fact that Canada is signatory to audiovisual co-production treaties with 53 countries and has signed memoranda of understanding that foster cultural exchanges with key trading partners, such as China, India and Colombia.

Canada has been a leader in the development and implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. My hon. Bloc colleague mentioned earlier that Canada became the first country to formally accept the UNESCO convention, which now acts as a benchmark in cultural affairs at the international level.

The preservation of policy flexibility to fulfill cultural policy objectives in the context of progressive liberalization through bilateral, regional and multilateral trade negotiations is an ongoing international challenge.

The UNESCO convention that the EU has also championed calls for countries to respect the need for policy flexibility to promote the cultural objectives. A key goal for Canada in all trade negotiations is to maintain flexibility to pursue our cultural policy objectives. This has been a long-standing and established element of Canada's trade policy.

Canada has traditionally managed requests for freer trade in the cultural sector by not listing any World Trade Organization services commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Services with respect to Canadian cultural policies or measures. In the case of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or any other bilateral free trade agreements, Canada has negotiated proper cultural exemptions.

I would now like to talk specifically about culture, Canada and the European Union.

The European Union, itself a single market with half a billion citizens across 27 countries, speaking 23 languages officially, has been a long-standing partner in recognizing culture's space and special place in the economy and society. A big part of the union is the fact of the dynamic and diverse culture.

We have worked hard together, as early as the Uruguay round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which concluded in 1989, to ensure that countries could maintain the policy space required to address their domestic cultural priorities.

As I have just mentioned, Canada and the European Union have also been leaders and worked closely together in the development and promotion of the UNESCO convention. Canada and the EU both share an ongoing commitment to the principles of the UNESCO convention, such as the need to maintain the policy space necessary to pursue cultural priorities and to foster cultural exchanges that promote the diversity of cultural expressions.

With respect to culture in the free trade negotiations with the European Union, the government remains committed to defending Canada's cultural interest and will exempt these areas from trade obligations. We believe that the EU will understand our need to take this approach as it has demonstrated a long-standing respect for the needs of countries to have the capacity to develop and implement cultural policy policies.

A number of European Union countries themselves have developed their own array of cultural support mechanisms which they value as well. The great part of visiting Europe is the history, the culture and the way of life. Although our respective approaches to culture and trade might differ somewhat, Canada and the EU share their commitment to cultural diversity. Our government remains strongly committed to protecting Canada's cultural policies during our negotiations with the European Union.

A closer economic partnership agreement, such as the prospective free trade agreement with the European Union, would complement the objectives of the UNESCO convention. Canada believes that support for culture is consistent with its ongoing commitment to freer trade. Any trade agreement we conclude with the EU will therefore preserve our respective abilities to pursue domestic cultural policy objectives.

This has not deterred the usual critics of free trade from wrongly suggesting that any agreement would lead to irreparable harm to Canadian culture. That is not true. This never happened under our free trade agreements with the United States, our closest neighbour and trading partner, and it would not happen with the cultural diversity represented by the European Union.

During the course of the negotiations with the European Union, the Government of Canada will continue to work with the provincial and territorial governments toward an outcome that would ensure that Canada's and the European Union's ability to pursue domestic cultural policy objectives related to cultural industries would remain unimpaired.

I urge all members of the House to ignore the false and silly claims about the effect free trade has on Canadian culture. I encourage all members to get behind our Conservative government's ambitious free trade negotiations with the European Union and the jobs and economic benefits which will result for all Canadians.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question is for the Conservative member who just spoke to us about cultural diversity.

Canada and the European Union were the first countries to sign the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. Would it not make sense for them to start by setting an example by agreeing to completely exempt culture from the trade agreement, as is set out in the convention on cultural diversity, and to include in the agreement's preamble a reference to the fact that the UNESCO convention is a legal framework for the cultural exemption? My question is for the member who just spoke.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I said, with respect to culture in the Canada-EU free trade negotiations, the government remains committed to defending Canada's cultural interest and will exempt these areas from trade obligation. We are clear about that, respecting the fact that we have two official languages in Canada and the European Union has 27 countries with 23 different languages.

I want to share a brief comment with the members. I had the opportunity to meet with members of the European Union trade committee. One of those gentleman was a great supporter of Quebec, Peter Stastny, from the Quebec Nordiques. He was elected in 2004 and was a great ambassador for Canada at our meetings. He talked about his support for the Canada-EU trade agreement. He was supporting culture. When he was in Quebec, he learned French and English. As a rookie, he was a top scorer in the NHL, actually ahead of Wayne Gretzky, which is a little trivia.

However, we support arts, culture and sports. There are so many ways we could work together and this Canada-EU trade agreement will just enhance that 100%.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, as you probably know, my colleague's riding and my riding border on each other. We have worked together on issues, namely the passport office, which he was able to get in his community. I thank him for that. I also thank him for initially supporting my Bill C-474. I hope when it comes up for third reading, he will once again come forward and support this important bill.

I would like to ask him the same question I asked another colleague. If he is not familiar with this document prepared by Steven Shrybman and if he would like to have a copy, I am willing to give him one this evening. If he is familiar, I would like to get his comments on it.

He talked about culture, but I will zero in on agriculture. The hon. member represents a number of folks in the agriculture industry. I would like his comments on the effect that our other trade agreements have had on the fruit growers in his area. Before NAFTA, we had in-season tariffs and we were able to protect fruit growers. After NAFTA, there has been this free flow of fruit and vegetables across the border and many apple growers and other soft fruit growers have been hit, because of NAFTA, by the dumping of fruit that is being sold below the cost of production.

We were there together when the agriculture committee visited Kelowna, and he understands this. What are his comments are on that and will this transform itself? Is this something we can expect from the European trade agreement, another free flow of goods so other sectors of the agriculture community will be hit?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, my neighbour, for his support, working with numerous colleagues over the years to build a business case for our passport office, which is very welcome for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Also, my colleague from the B.C. Okanagan—Coquihalla area has worked together with the Minister of Agriculture. Just a few weeks ago, we had an agriculture round table with the provincial minister of agriculture, working on ways that we could expand the market. Folks from the cattle producers, the B.C. fruit industry and the wine industry embraced this trade agreement in the sense that we could look at opening markets for our products. The cherries have gone to Asia. They are looking at the possibility of Europe as well.

With the WTO challenge, if there is an anti-dumping situation, there is a mechanism in place. We talked about that. We are working with the industry to help them collect that information. We are always there for Joe Sardinha and BC Fruit Growers. They have worked really hard, and I appreciate their efforts.

Also within the wine industry, this agreement could provide some clarity with regard to the labelling, especially for ice wine, and removing some of the regulations and the red tape so we can increase market opportunities abroad.

I would appreciate the hon. member's support on this committee to get this agreement through for the betterment of our farmers, not only for British Columbia but all across Canada.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up with a question on agriculture for my good colleague from Kelowna.

People watching tonight may not know that the European Union consumes eight million tonnes of beef annually. Yet Canada and the United States together share an 11,500 tonne quota to export beef into the European Union.

Could the hon. member comment about the opportunities of Canadian beef into an eight million tonne market, particularly if we get this trade agreement done without a trade agreement between the European Union and the United States? Could the hon. member comment on the opportunities for Canadian beef, Canadian livestock in Europe and what the potential would be for Canadian livestock producers, cattlemen, ranchers, farmers?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, since my hon. colleague comes from the Prairies, he knows the value of agriculture not only for western Canada, but for all of Canada.

I recently met with the folks in the Canadian agriculture and agrifood industry. They are very excited about this agreement. The next round of talks is in January in Brussels. They will be there, working with the rest of the agriculture community, to ensure this agreement goes through.

The fact is there is the potential of half a billion new individuals. We recently announced hormone-free beef, which is a small segment. There is great potential for the cattle industry to move in that direction. Overall, there are several billions of dollars available with opportunity identified in the economic study that was recently done, for a total of $12 million of potential growth for economic development in gross domestic product with this agreement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to two aspects of culture and sovereignty. The first is our whole cultural broadcasting communication services have been put on the table, which means the Canadian content will be reduced. Surely there will be impacts on our cultural sovereignty. I do not think there is any way of denying the fact that the government has very clearly put our cultural sovereignty, as with many other aspects of what has been very clearly botched negotiations, right on the table.

The other aspect is our indigenous peoples and first nations. The investor state override has a profound impact on first nations Canadians. A number of organizations have expressed clear alarm about the CETA negotiations and the investor state override and how that will impact on aboriginal peoples in Canada.

There are two very clear examples of impacts on Canada's cultural sovereignty in the agreement. How does the member respond?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will take the second question first.

With regard to any impacts on Canada's aboriginal people, as with all international trade agreements, Canada maintains a number of reservations to preserve the government's ability to regulate in the areas of aboriginal and minority affairs. These reservations allow Canada to reserve the right to deny foreign investor or service providers any rights or preferences provided to aboriginals, as well as socially or economically disadvantaged minorities. Aboriginals are protected.

With regard to telecommunication, Canada currently limits market access to foreign providers of telecommunication. Nothing is going to change there. This chapter contains provisions to ensure the regulatory framework is supportive and there is competitive supply of telecommunications services.

Lastly, whether it is Celine Dion, Bryan Adams or Michael Bublé, we have some great Canadian talent and culture that we want to share around the world.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, on Thursday, November 10, 2005, Quebec became the first government in the world to approve UNESCO's convention to defend and promote culture. The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was adopted at the 33rd UNESCO General Conference held on October 20, 2003.

By so doing, Quebec hoped to ensure the right of governments to adopt policies and measures to promote and preserve their culture. Quebec wanted to maintain full authority to intervene to support its culture through its cultural policies.

Quebec refused to make liberalization commitments and wanted to have recourse to the reserves needed to preserve its policies any time issues were raised that could affect its ability to support its culture during trade negotiations—whether through the WTO, the FTAA, bilateral agreements or others—or during trade and investment liberalization.

Finally, Quebec made a significant contribution to the 2005 campaign in favour of adopting UNESCO's Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. In passing, I would like to congratulate three great Quebeckers, Louise Beaudoin, Pierre Curzi and Robert Pilon, for their hard work and dedication.

The Quebec Liberal minister, Claude Béchard used to say, and I quote:

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is just what we need. That is what he said in 2005. It will be a reference tool for states facing pressure to liberalize their cultural sectors and help legitimize their cultural policies on the international stage

That is the situation today. I think that it is an excellent quote in these circumstances. “It will be a reference tool for states facing pressure to liberalize their cultural sectors.” When I hear a speech like the one by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, I am not convinced that our culture is being protected in the current free trade negotiations with the European Union.

While Canada and the European Union were the first to promote and sign a treaty on cultural diversity, I find it worrying that it is not already written in the first paragraph of their negotiations so that they can move on to something else. I understood what the member for Kelowna—Lake Country said, which is that culture is currently on the table.

The response from the Minister of International Trade is also worrying because she was just as vague and implied that there is a lot of room to manoeuvre and a lot of flexibility. But there should not be. The UNESCO convention on the diversity of cultural expressions signed by Canada and the European Union should have been in the first paragraph. It should have already been signed so that they could move on, but this aspect of the negotiation was left in play.

The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was passed by UNESCO in October 2003. Canada, taking its lead from Quebec, helped campaign in favour of adopting the convention. Canada and the European Union were the first to support and then ratify this UNESCO convention.

What are the objectives of this convention? Are they still up to date? The first objective is “to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions”. The second is “to create the conditions for cultures to flourish and to freely interact in a mutually beneficial manner”.

I am going to skip a few objectives and go on to objective (e): “to promote respect for the diversity of cultural expressions and raise awareness of its value at the local, national and international levels”. Objective (h) reads: “to reaffirm the sovereign rights of states to maintain, adopt and implement policies and measures that they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory”.

Canada would remain—so I thought—an ardent defender of the cultural exemption clause, which it has included in all bilateral and regional trade agreements since NAFTA, in other words, its agreements with Israel, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and Colombia. I had some concerns and after the responses I have heard this evening, not only do I have even more concerns, but they are also more serious. The responses I have heard raise many questions. The policy on culture in this agreement is one of the main points that raises some concerns.

For instance, the cultural exemption clause excludes cultural industries from the provisions of liberalization rules governing the trade agreement. This clause allows signatories to implement cultural policies and to take measures to ensure the development and enrichment of national cultural industries, such as awarding grants and imposing national content quotas for radio and television programming. Without the cultural exemption clause, these kinds of measures would violate the liberalization rules of the trade agreement and would be considered protectionism.

Traditionally, the European Union's cultural exemption clause, also known as the “cultural exception clause”, applies only to audio-visual services and does not include areas such as publishing, music and visual arts, while Canada's cultural exemption clause is broader.

I am about to recite a long list, but my hon. colleagues will understand how important this is. Indeed, I want to make sure that my hon. colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country, who said he was present at the negotiations, knows what is covered by Canada's exemption clause. So, it applies to the following:

(a) The publication, distribution, or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print or machine readable form but not including the sole activity of printing or typesetting any of the foregoing;

(b) The production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recordings;

(c) The production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings;

(d) The publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine readable form; or

(e) Radio communications in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public, and all radio, television and cable broadcasting undertakings and all satellite programming and broadcast network services.

In the case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, the production and presentation of performing arts, the production and exhibition of visual arts, and the design, production, distribution and sale of handicrafts are also exempt.

For now, there is still uncertainty about the effect the cultural exemption clause will have on the future comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. According to the chief negotiator from Quebec, Pierre-Marc Johnson, the Europeans have already made requests to liberalize the cultural sector. I gather from the responses from the minister and the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country this evening that these requests have not been turned down as they should have been.

France's Ambassador to Canada, François Delattre, has confirmed that his government would support Quebec in preserving the cultural exemption in its entirety. However, he cannot support it without Canada's support.

I have some questions for the Minister of International Trade. He has been invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He will undoubtedly be there on Monday, January 31, 2011. He will have to answer questions from the members of the committee and give them an update on the status of the free trade agreement negotiations with the European Union. I am concerned this will change by January 31, 2011. I have prepared a few questions. The minister may want to write them down. That way he will already have my questions. I have six questions for him.

First, will the Minister of International Trade ensure that the scope of the exemption clause is kept in its entirety in the text of the final agreement in order that Canada and the provincial governments may maintain their right to implement cultural policies?

Second, in his testimony before the Committee on Institutions in Quebec City last October 6, Quebec’s chief negotiator, Pierre-Marc Johnson, said he was surprised to hear the Europeans trying to edge into certain cultural areas and get them subject to the agreement. It is very surprising to see the European Union exerting this kind of pressure, which is contrary to the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, as ratified by the European Union and 26 of its 27 member states. What does Canada intend to do to get culture fully exempted and protect the integrity of the UNESCO convention recognizing that cultural goods and services are not like the others because of their dual nature, both economic and cultural?

Third, it was Quebec that promoted the idea of linking to the main trade deal side agreements to cooperate in such areas as science and technology as well as the cultural sector. What is the Canadian government’s reaction to this proposal?

Fourth, if a cultural co-operation agreement is linked to the main trade deal, might this not leave the impression that there is no cultural exemption?

Fifth, before any consideration is given to a cultural co-operation agreement with the European Union, should we not ensure first that the trade deal includes a complete exemption for culture?

Finally, I want to repeat and reiterate the question I already asked of the minister and my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country. Should we not set an example by agreeing with the European Union on a complete exemption for culture in the trade agreement by including in the preamble a reference to the UNESCO convention?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her intervention this evening. This is an important debate and I appreciate her comments. I cannot say that I agree with her comments, and frankly, I am a bit surprised by them.

The purpose of including a cultural exemption, as it is in all of Canada's free trade agreements, every single one of them, is to ensure the maintenance of adequate flexibility to pursue domestic policy objectives. That is further backed up by the core objective for Canada, as it is again in all trade agreements, including and eventually the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

My question for the hon. member is, why does she not support the ability of Canadian culture to maintain, sustain and sell itself on the world stage? Why does she not believe in her own cultural identity of Quebec? It has a negotiator at the table. It has representation at the table. Why would she prevent, and why would she want to prevent, the great artists in Quebec from competing on a national and worldwide scale? Why would she want to keep Cirque du Soleil strictly in the province of Quebec, keep it cocooned and not able to travel and perform throughout the world?

I do not understand why the hon. member does not have confidence in our own culture here in Canada, when we are going to enter into a negotiation with the European Union that has 27 member states, 23 languages and a diversity of cultures, and has managed to trade and maintain its culture on the world stage.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member very much for his question, but I must say that I do not understand it. I believe that all of Quebec easily understands that our culture must be exported and we are happy to do so. We have had a great deal of success internationally. I will not even name the artists as it would insult the member's intelligence. We are all familiar with Quebec's cultural success stories. That is why the Government of Quebec provides a great deal of financial assistance—through subsidies—to the arts, the artists, groups and theatre companies so they can tour the world.

The same cannot be said for the Canadian government, especially the Minister of Canadian Heritage , who cut two excellent programs, TradeRoutes and PromArt. In doing so, he literally cut the legs out from under dozens of artists' groups, who can no longer tour internationally to promote Canadian culture.

However, Quebec culture is alive and well. Our desire to protect and promote it led Canada, and Quebec, to sign the UNESCO treaty on cultural diversity. Perhaps it is not clear to the member, but according to this international treaty signed under the aegis of UNESCO, every state and country can protect and promote its own culture, something we would no longer be able to do without such an exemption. That is the important point here. Culture would fall under the rules of free trade and a state would no longer be able to subsidize its artists, art, and culture. It is because we want to help our artists and promote our culture that we want Canada to respect the treaty it signed—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I understand now what the member just said in her speech, which was that the Conservatives do not understand a thing about Quebec culture or Canadian culture. They are saying that the only purpose of this agreement is to ensure that a few famous Canadian artists can tour the world. The Conservatives do not understand that the cultural exemption is important to the development of the artists of tomorrow. Artists such as Céline Dion and Cirque du Soleil do not start out at the international level. They get their start in local communities before achieving international fame. The Conservatives want to do away with these opportunities at the local and regional levels, cut these programs that would help the artists of tomorrow grow and develop.

I want to ask my colleague whether, like me, she gets the feeling that the Conservatives do not understand anything about culture and how to preserve culture so that in 20, 30, 40, 50 and 100 years, Quebec and the rest of Canada are still as vital as they are today.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, the NDP member who just spoke is right. I said “unfortunately” because, to this point, the Conservatives have given no indication that they like the arts, culture and artists.

On November 30, 120 of the most famous, symbolic and legendary Quebec artists came to meet with Conservative members on Parliament Hill. Luc Plamondon, Robert Charlebois, Michel Rivard, Ariane Moffatt, Louise Forestier and the members of Mes aïeux and Cowboys fringants were there. Who met with them? Not one Conservative member met with them. Zero, net, none.

These are some of our most legendary artists. Usually, someone who likes artists will meet with them, especially when they are generous enough to travel to attend a meeting. They all spoke to us; we were at the same table. We went from table to table and they talked about themselves. Meeting so many great Quebec artists, many of whom are stars on the international stage, was truly an extraordinary experience.

They spoke against Bill C-32, which runs counter to artists' interests. We cannot understand why the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages defends industry at the expense of artists, and takes away $74 million in revenue per year. That makes absolutely no sense.