Bob Speller

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with the language which the hon. member used, I must have hit a chord with my comment.

The hon. member is quite aware that the Government of Canada, prior to taking a position on Seattle in the next round of the WTO, held wide consultations across the country. The hon. member, who was on the foreign affairs and international trade committee, knows that it was not the opinion of anyone else on that committee that we should not be at the WTO.

In fact all the other parties seemed to be quite happy that the report of the standing committee reflected very clearly what we were hearing from witnesses from coast to coast to coast. The witnesses felt it was important for a country the size of Canada that has so much at stake.

Forty-two per cent of our GDP depends on international trade. A country our size compared to the economic size of the United States, the European Union or Japan needs a rules based system under which to work. If we had to go against these countries on a one to one basis, most times we would lose out.

It is in our interests to belong to an organization of over some 132 countries where we are able to draw on the support of other countries. It is not this big giant economy of the Americans trying to beat up on Canada or other smaller countries; it is a group of countries that get together. That is why it is important to be in Seattle.

I would assume the hon. member knows, although we would not know it from his remarks, that Canada takes very seriously some of the concerns not only in agriculture, but concerns that were expressed by Canadians particularly with regard to transparency. The fact is that there has been concern out there across the country, and indeed in other countries, that the WTO is closed up and what it does always happens behind closed doors.

This has been the position of the Government of Canada. It was made very forcefully by the present Minister for International Trade, the previous minister, and in fact the Prime Minister, in talking at the free trade area of the Americas. It was said very clearly that it is in Canada's interests to make sure that international agreements, not only at the WTO but other agreements that we may sign, are open and transparent and that Canadians see what these organizations are doing. It makes sure that the hon. member's party and those other groups which seem to want to tell the whole world how bad international trade is for Canada do not have that opportunity.

Canada has nothing to hide. That is why we felt it was important to go across the country to hear from Canadians what they felt about trade. I think the hon. member would agree that most of the parties in the House, except the New Democratic Party, felt that that report reflected the views of Canadians.

For at least 50 years, one of the most important roles on the world stage for Canada in the trade area has been to make sure that we have these sorts of agreements. Our overall objective is to improve the quality of life of Canadians. It is not, as the hon. member claims, to make sure that the corporate giants have more access to some of the economies around the world and to make sure that the corporate giants in other countries can come into Canada and rape this country of our economic development. That is not the case. I do not think that any government in this country, quite seriously, would do that.

Our goal is to make sure that we have enforceable rules, that the rules are enforced and that those within Canadian society who have an interest in all of the jobs that are created through international trade get an opportunity to express their views.

I talk about jobs and international trade. Listening to the hon. member's comments and the comments of the New Democratic Party, we would not know that international trade and investment create jobs in Canada. We just have to look at the 1.7 million jobs that have been created in Canada since 1993. We just have to look at the dramatic increase in Canada's exports to see a relationship between investing and exports and the creation of Canadian jobs.

Major consultations were made prior to responding. The hon. member knows that we will be responding in the House and it will be sent to committee on November 16 to put forward our position on Seattle.

As the hon. member said, there is concern for these international agreements as precipitated by similar comments of his party and his leader. There will be some 750 groups in Seattle. The hon. member said he would be there. We want to make sure that members of the opposition are also there in order to see how these organizations work. We want to make sure that they see firsthand that Canada is not only standing up for Canadian farmers, workers and industry, but it is also making sure that the whole world engages in what is called civil society. Civil society is the groups of Canadians and all of society who are interested in these sorts of issues and international trade.

On the area of health and social services, the New Democratic Party says that all of a sudden we are going to lose our health care, or that we are going to lose our water. It throws out these wild ideas that somehow the Government of Canada is not interested in the health care of Canadians or in preserving our national health care system. How ludicrous. What government would not be interested?

We have the best health care system in the world. For that party to suggest that the Government of Canada is willing to throw it away and to give it away is utter nonsense. Certainly a member who has been in the House as long as the hon. member has been should know that. We are committed to preserving our right to regulate in the area of health care and social services. There is no question about that.

The hon. member also talked about labour and said that labour or Canadian jobs were going to be impacted by this decision and that we do not represent the interests of labour in these negotiations. The hon. member knows that the International Labour Organization looks at these issues. Canada is very active in this organization and in promoting labour rights and promoting some of the concerns people have about other countries not keeping up to the same standards as we do in Canada.

Canada is also encouraging and facilitating the development of voluntary labour codes by businesses in Canada and around the world. We feel that Canada should be proud of some of the labour rules that we have made. We want to export those around the world. We want to make sure that other countries keep up to the same standards as we do. In the area of labour, Canada is second to none in promoting it.

The hon. member also talked about culture. I want to assure the hon. member and all Canadians that we will build support in the preparatory process for the WTO for language in the declaration that would recognize the importance of promoting cultural diversity. The hon. member should know that we have the support of Quebec and all of the other provinces in this. We find this to be very important. It is important for Canadians. It is who we are.

Our area of the world is beside a large neighbour, the United States of America. It is certainly within our interests and it is something that has been promoted not only by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but also by the Prime Minister who in the speech yesterday on the free trade area of the Americas, pointed out the importance of Canadian culture and of Canadians sustaining that culture and some of the risks in doing that.

We have gone further. We have gone to other countries. We have gone to countries in Europe and a lot of smaller countries to bring together people who believe in the same cultural ideas that we do. We have received an awful lot support. It will be high on our agenda when we go to Seattle.

I want to conclude by saying to all Canadians that this is an ongoing process. We will continue to consult with Canadians and the provinces to make sure that their views are represented not only in Seattle, but in the negotiations that will go on in two, three or four years. It is in our interests to make sure that these negotiations are wrapped up in four years. It is certainly in Canada's interests to make sure that all Canadians have a say within this system.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, and particularly his leader earlier who finally made it clear to us that the New Democratic Party was in fact in favour of a rules based system.

As I remember, after our consultations across Canada and the minority report that his party put into the report, it seemed to us that the New Democratic Party was not in favour of us at all being in Seattle. It is good to hear today that the New Democratic Party is supporting the fact that we will be in Seattle standing up for Canadians.

The hon. member's motion mentions some of the hardships Canadian farmers are experiencing, particularly farmers in western Canada. I remember going through the his party's policy during the last election and reading that it would have forced $17 billion in new spending upon Canadians if it had been elected. However, out of $17 billion in new spending only $11 million would have gone to Canadian farmers.

Can the member explain why his party's policy during the last election was to give so little to Canadian farmers and today it puts forward this motion stating its concerns for Canadians in the agricultural industry?

[Trade, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the good numbers in imports and exports month after month are really a true reflection of the importance of international trade agreements to Canada.

Our latest figures from August showed merchandise trade exports reaching $31.2 billion, up some 12.3% over the same period from last year. Exports to the U.S. were up 3.8%. Exports to Japan were up 4.6%. Our trade surplus of $22.1 billion already exceeds last year's export total of $19.4 billion.

Those numbers reflect the importance of international trade agreements and agreements with other countries.

[Trade, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as he was also part of the standing committee report, the Government of Canada, his caucus, our caucus and the House of Commons went across the country asking for Canadians' views on Seattle.

We are taking forward the views of exactly what we heard from Canadians across the country who told us that the most important thing for them was to make sure we had a rules based system, that for a country the size of Canada, and with the importance of international trade to our economy, that we had a system in place that was negotiated with the bigger countries in the world but that Canada could—

[Agriculture, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was involved in some of those consultations and he would know that the answer certainly is yes. The Government of Canada feels that these export subsidies that are being brought on by both the Americans and the Europeans are bad for the Canadian economy and are hurting Canadian farmers. We have put that at the top of our priority to get rid of.

[Agriculture, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is new to his position as trade critic, but had he been following the subject over the last couple of years, he would know that the standing committee of the House went across the country and consulted with Canadians. The Minister for International Trade consulted with the provinces. They came together with a very strong position for Seattle.

I would invite the hon. member, as he is referring to the area of agriculture, to talk to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to the different agricultural groups. They strongly support the position of the Government of Canada.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the issue. I know he is from Saskatchewan and cares deeply for the farming community there. However, I am somewhat surprised by his comments. I would hope he might pass his comments on to those in his party who developed the campaign promises. As he knows in the last election, out of the $17.6 billion in new campaign promises only $11 million went to agriculture. I might suggest that he pass that on.

I have a question for him regarding international trade. He said that one of the problems that is creating this crisis is the fact that somehow we have not stood up to the Americans or the Europeans in terms of subsidies. Is it not his party's position that we should pull out of the WTO? Is it not also his party's position that we should not be negotiating at all when it comes to Seattle?

I wonder how he expects us to put forward a strong position on these issues if we are not part of the World Trade Organization or if we were not in a position, with meetings like Seattle, where we can pull together different countries from around the world that have a similar position to ours. I would think it would be in Canada's interest, given the size of the country, to be able to draw together certain groups of countries to put forward a strong position on these very issues. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with this.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one way we can do that is by what we are doing now. We debate the issue and make it more public in a non-partisan way to show Canadians that it is important.

One of our former colleagues, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, put out a study called “Compare the Share”. He took it upon himself as a member to try and put across to the consumers that farmers were not getting a fair share of the food dollar. Things like that help. Not only Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but other government departments, including the rural secretariat and our department, are trying to make this more public. They are trying to make consumers aware that it is important to them that we have a solid agricultural industry in Canada. We will continue to do that.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have to agree that the Americans have an economy that is ten times the size of ours and the Japanese and the Europeans, all of them put together, are large players. The only way we can move some of these large players is to form with other groups. An example is the Cairns group.

In international meetings we sit down with a group like that and state our interests. It is in our interest to stop these international battles. When we go to certain meetings, whether it is the OECD, the Cairns group meetings or APEC, all the countries get together and say “Look, you have to stop this”.

That is one of the ways we can change international policy. There are not a lot of things. We cannot shoot missiles at each other, as some of the American friends have been saying. We have to sit down at those international meetings and get a coalition of countries to force the larger players to listen to what we are saying. That is one of the main things we can do.

We can also make sure that when we are giving these arguments we are not breaking international rules ourselves. That is one thing we also try to do.

Some may say that we are being Boy Scouts, that the other guys are cheating and that we should be cheating too. But we are trying to stop those people from cheating. Sometimes what is said to be cheating really is not. What a lot of Europeans and Americans are doing is well within the confines of what they have been able to do.

Unfortunately for us we are small and the Americans are fairly large. Many times they will take over at these meetings and set the agenda. One way to change that is to get out front first. That is what we have tried to do. That is why having a united front, having all the agriculture groups in Canada and the provinces all onside with a united position is the best way to make a difference internationally.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the debate this afternoon, although I am somewhat reluctant to get involved in it. From what I heard in the House today it has unfortunately turned into a partisan debate. Members on all sides seem to be saying that those on the other side do not understand the debate or do not care, that somehow it is just a western problem, or that the government is only looking at the problems of farmers in central Canada.

I come from an agricultural area, one of the richest and most diverse agricultural areas in Canada. It is in southwestern Ontario and I represent about 90% of tobacco farmers in the country. A number of my farm families and communities have been hurt because of the downturn in a certain commodity so I know somewhat from where I speak.

I say that also knowing there is a major problem in terms of this issue. Farm families across the west, also somewhat in central Canada and the east, are really feeling the pinch of some of the international problems in agriculture. I am not sure that I buy the argument totally that it is somehow all the government's fault or somehow the government is not standing up internationally at the trade table to protect Canadian farmers.

I recognize that some of the actions of countries around the world, in particular the Europe and United States to the south, with the use of exports subsidies have had a major impact on the prices of commodities. As a result they have had a major impact on what farm families are receiving for their products. That is only one of the problems.

There is also a problem of overproduction. It has always seemed funny to me that there can be overproduction in a world where people are starving, but it is said that there is overproduction of the products that people are willing to buy. There has been a problem over the last couple of years. It may seem funny to say this is a problem, but there has not been a major drought throughout the world and as a result there is overproduction. There is too much product on the market which has had an influence on the price.

We all know the impact the Asian financial crisis has had on different commodities. It certainly has also had a major impact on the price. The bottom line is that farmers across the country are not getting the amount of income from their products that they received in the past.

The government has responded in a number of ways. As was said earlier we have responded by sitting down with the provinces and the farm organizations and working out a package of aid for farmers. That was a year ago and I think there is some debate as to why more money has not actually gotten into the hands of farmers. That is a legitimate debate. Certainly people on all sides should sit down to figure out why it is that those farmers who have needed that money have not gotten the full amount of money they need.

It is not only a problem of getting the funds to the family farms at this time. There is an overall problem that the government, I agree, needs to resolve. We need to do it by sitting down with the affected parties and the provinces. It is not just a federal government problem. The federal government sat down with the provinces concerned and worked out AIDA. I would argue that maybe some of the provinces should have put in more money. That is a legitimate argument. I do not think it is totally the federal government's responsibility to do that. That is something which is being worked on. It is hoped that when the premiers come from western Canada in the next week to sit down and talk to the government, they will come up with more money and try to figure out a better way to get it into the hands of farmers immediately.

On the trade side, over the last couple of years we have sat down with the provinces, with the industry, with groups in western Canada and all throughout Canada to work out a trade position. We hope it will help address some of these concerns of export subsidies, particularly with the Europeans and the Americans.

We have a strong position which we will be taking to Seattle. We will sit down with other countries from around the world and try to get them to stop subsidizing their products so that Canadians can get better prices for their products. That is the right approach. We have pulled the agricultural commodity groups and the provinces together to put forward a strong and united front. I think that will work.

However, that will not solve a problem in the short term. Within the next few weeks the provinces and the federal government need to figure out how to get more money into the hands of farmers immediately.

What was said earlier mostly by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, is that we should not have these trade organizations, that we should not have the WTO. I would argue frankly that this is a good example of why we need it.

Canada is a relatively small country in terms of our international trade. We face groups like the Japanese, the Europeans and the Americans who have large economies. It is difficult for us in these circumstances to sit down on a one to one basis and try to get them to stop their subsidies.

We can do that at international meetings, for example at the WTO around the table when we have like-minded countries that will stand up with Canada and tell the other countries that what they are doing is hurting our economies. We have had success in the past. We hope that over the next two or three years at the next round of negotiations we will get these countries to stop their direct subsidies which are hurting not only our grains and oilseeds farmers but farmers in other commodities as well.

I say sincerely to all Canadians who are listening that this is a problem for farm families. This is not a cyclical problem although as members have said, it always seems to come and go. It is more than that. All Canadians, particularly those who shop every day at the supermarket, need to know that Canadian farmers are not getting their fair share of the food dollar. Canadian farmers over the past number of years as a result of some international practices and other issues have been getting less and less for what they actually produce.

It is incumbent upon consumers in this country to get involved in this debate. If they want a Canadian agricultural system, if they want food that is safe and which is grown in Canada, they will have to get involved and know what the issues are. They should also be part of the solution.