Raymond Chan

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to committee.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 15th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on the occasion of second reading of Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade.

The bill is another step in the process to create a new internal trade regime that has been under way in Canada for some time. Our objective is to reduce barriers to interprovincial trade and to remove restrictions on the movement of people and capital within the domestic marketplace.

Passage of Bill C-88 will be a necessary step for Parliament to take in order to implement the agreement on internal trade signed last year by all the provinces and territories along with the federal government.

At the invitation of the Prime Minister, first ministers met in Ottawa last July to formally accept and sign the agreement the committee of ministers of internal trade had finalized at the end of June. With this accord, we were committed to a target of July 1, 1995 to have the appropriate legislative and regulatory changes in place so the agreement could be legally implemented.

In this sense, in putting this legislation before the House we are meeting an obligation to provincial and territorial governments we incurred when we signed the agreement in June 1994. The agreement on internal trade was an important step in the quest to create an integrated domestic market in Canada.

In the 127 years or so since Confederation, we have seen a hodge-podge of protectionist measures and trade conventions develop, which have inhibited interprovincial trade and restricted the flow of goods and capital between provinces in Canada. These measures range from outright restrictions to bidding on government contracts to a patchwork of regulations and incompatible standards.

The government has felt strong and repeated pressure from the private sector to deal with the problems associated with internal barriers to trade and conflicting regulations on cross-border flows of people and capital. We have received representations from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Construction Association, and so on. The list is long and the problems are deeply felt and broadly experienced.

Such barriers put Canadian businesses at a comparative disadvantage by restricting the size of the available marketplace and by making the markets open to Canadian businesses even smaller than they would be on an open national basis. In a time of increasing global competition and more open markets in other parts of the world, this can have the negative result of putting Canadian businesses at a disadvantage to international competitors, even in our own markets. In addition, there is an economic cost related to marketplace inefficiency. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has estimated that barriers to trade cost Canadians about $7 billion annually in direct job and income loss.

In years past, when external trade barriers protected economies like ours from international competition the economic costs of internal trade barriers were tolerated. When Canadian industry was sheltered from international competition by tariff barriers of 10 per cent or even 20 per cent, the economic costs were not so obvious. But a marketplace sheltered from international competition is no longer the reality. International barriers and tariffs are down. The market is global and the competition is fierce.

We will not and cannot be successful in an open global market if we operate in a closed market here at home. So we need to adapt to the international reality in trade. Bill C-88 and the agreement it implements is an important aspect of this process and is part of the more open fundamental process of economic renewal that the government is following towards its strategic objectives for economic growth and job creation.

Last fall the Minister of Industry introduced in the House our government's plan to build a more innovative economy. We outlined our intentions for improving the economic climate of Canada in four ways: to build a positive entrepreneurial climate and to help small business grow; to expand markets for jobs and growth through trade; to create an efficient and modern infrastructure; and also to make technology work for Canada. These are the areas where the government can have the greatest impact on job creation.

While Bill C-88 will support all of these objectives, it has special relevance for the objective to expand markets. To grow and prosper, business needs an efficient and open marketplace, an environment that encourages innovation and expansion, free of unnecessary barriers.

With the agreement on internal trade and now with this bill we have the elements to establish a new internal trade regime in Canada, one that will allow us to make the most of our interprovincial domestic market by encouraging innovation and expansion and by removing unnecessary barriers to trade.

The Canadian economy is in a period of transition. There are fundamental changes taking place because of the globalization of trade and the rapid pace of technological change. Competitive advantage in today's world depends less on location and natural resources and more on innovation and ability to respond to changing market conditions and to achieve economies of scale.

As we continue the transition from a resource based economy to one where innovation, knowledge, and flexibility are the underpinnings of competitive advantage, we need to ensure that the domestic trading environment will accommodate and expedite the necessary changes.

Bill C-88 will provide a supportive environment for the economic transition process we are now experiencing. The legislation that is before the House now is the result of a long process of negotiations and consultation, which has involved many Canadians with many different perspectives, ministers of the federal government, ministers of all the provincial and territorial governments, officials of all these governments and representatives of the private sector. Also, it is interesting to note that political parties of all stripes have co-operated in negotiations leading to the agreement. There were different

perspectives, but a shared belief that a more open trading environment will be good for Canada.

In fact a striking feature of the process has been the high degree of co-operation and goodwill that has been demonstrated on all sides. Those Canadians who have been involved in the process understand the compelling need to open our internal markets and ensure that the Canadian marketplace works to the advantage of all Canadians.

Over the last two years the negotiations and background work were under the guiding hand of Mr. Arthur Mauro, a well known Canadian businessman. Mr. Mauro acted as chairman of the committee of chief negotiators and worked tirelessly to keep the process moving toward its objectives and produced the agreement that the ministers signed last year.

The work leading up to this bill has been exhaustive. It has been thorough and it will be ongoing. It is our duty to keep the process moving. The process began in June 1988, when federal and provincial agriculture ministers compiled a list of barriers to internal trade in agricultural food products. A federal-provincial committee of ministers of internal trade with a commitment to open market access within Canada was formed. The focus of this group was comparatively narrow. Topics of discussion included government procurement, wine, spirits, and beer, transportation, professional mobility, and standards.

The process had begun. Governments were now dealing with the problems of internal trade barriers in an organized way. Federal-provincial discussions continued and the focus widened. Ministers also began to consider the need for a dispute resolution mechanism as part of more comprehensive trading agreements between provinces and territories.

In December 1989 a memorandum of understanding on internal trade in agricultural products was signed by seven of the provinces. The process was beginning to move. Federal-provincial negotiators continued to meet. Agreement was reached and memoranda of understanding were signed on a number of individual issues, such as transportation and government procurement.

By December 1992 the committee of ministers of internal trade recommended that the process be accelerated and that all parties commit to the goal of reaching a broad and comprehensive internal trade agreement by June 30, 1994.

By March 1993 the negotiators agreed to three specific principles as basic to an agreement. They were that governments treat people, goods, services, and capital equally, irrespective of where they originate in Canada; that government reconcile standards and regulations to provide for the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within Canada; and that governments ensure that their administrative policies operate to provide for the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within Canada.

In August 1993 Mr. Mauro took charge of the negotiations. In December 1993 our government reaffirmed its commitment to the process, and in January 1994 chief negotiators were given specific instructions to prepare a draft agreement for the consideration of the committee of ministers of internal trade. Ministers were looking for an agreement that would improve three main elements: trade rules to apply to specific sectors or issue areas; an elaboration on how the rules would apply in these specific areas; and also a dispute resolution mechanism that would encourage parties to negotiate settlements but not to involve the courts.

Now the process was in high gear. An intensive series of meetings was held during the period from January to June last year. These meetings culminated in ministers agreeing to the text of an internal trade agreement at the end of June. Following that, the Prime Minister and all other first ministers signified their acceptance of the agreement with a formal signing on July 18. The final legal text was put in place and accepted by all parties by last October.

All governments agreed to make necessary legislative and regulatory changes to bring the agreement into effect by July 1, 1995. Bill C-88 fulfils the commitment of the federal government in this regard. Last year's agreement on internal trade was a major step in a long process. It has demonstrated that all governments can work together to achieve a common objective that will benefit all Canadians.

What are we putting in place? The agreement on internal trade gives a set of general rules that prohibits any new barriers to trade and eliminates old ones in ten specific sectors or areas and establishes a formal mechanism for the resolution of disputes that may arise.

The agreement provides for the following objectives. It will open the $50 billion annual government purchasing market to competitive bidding throughout Canada. It will reduce restriction on investment, including a code of conduct to forbid incentives that lure firms to relocate from one province to another. It will improve the ability of Canadians to work anywhere they wish. It commits government to work on harmonization of environmental protection, transportation standards, and consumer protection. It will set up an impartial publicly accessible process for resolving trade disputes between governments and between individuals and governments.

The dispute settlement mechanism is based on the principle that it is preferable to solve problems informally and at an early stage. It reflects the desire of governments to cooperate rather than to confront or to litigate.

Therefore, it sets out a methodical, step by step process of information exchange followed by consultations. Questions not settled in that way may be brought to an impartial panel that would make recommendations for solving the issue. Only as a last resort, when a party has failed to change a measure found to have violated the agreement, might retaliation be acceptable. Even then, action would be limited both in effect and scope to areas especially covered by the agreement.

Also important is the fact that the agreement has the potential to grow and evolve. It deals directly with a large number of current issues and it provides the framework for negotiations to continue on others. Also, the agreement and this bill are parts of a broad set of activities now under way to create a more open trading environment throughout Canada.

The provinces and territories have obligations to implement the terms of the agreement by July 1, 1995. Work is under way on many fronts to make necessary legislative and regulatory changes at the provincial and territorial levels. At the federal level we have both an obligation to make the necessary changes, as Bill C-88 does, as well as a duty to show leadership in order to advance the process. It is fair to say this bill does not solve all the interprovincial trade problems that have built up over the last 127 years. However, it has moved us a considerable way along the track.

We see the process as one of forward movement. Some issues are dealt with. Systems and procedures are in place for dealing with others and new ones may yet come forward for our attention. For example, in the energy sector a separate set of negotiations is under way toward a similar deadline of July 1.

A process is in place to deal with the outstanding issues in the agricultural sector. Issues related to interprovincial trade in alcoholic beverages are not resolved either, but a consultative mechanism is set up and deadlines for resolutions are in place.

In summary, for the first time in our history, we will have a rules based system, a mechanism for settling disputes and a work plan for the future. In the future other issues may come up, for example, interprovincial regulations relating to financial services or standards for environmental protection. There is the further possibility of using the framework to consider streamlining and harmonizing "non-standards" regulations.

Whatever new issues come forward, we will want to deal with them in the same spirit of co-operation, shared objectives and mutual interests that has now been established within the agreement on internal free trade that this bill will implement. With this legislation we are ensuring the framework is in place and we are confirming our belief that the fundamental principles of free trade will work.

When first ministers signed the agreement last summer they committed to having the necessary legislative and regulatory changes in place by July 1, 1995. Passage of this bill by the House will ensure we meet our obligations to our provincial and territorial colleagues as discussed at the recent meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers in Calgary. It will also demonstrate our continued leadership in the move toward a more open domestic trading environment and it will reinforce our other activities to create a more innovative economy.

I want to emphasize that passing this bill is not the end of the process. It is part of a continuing one. This legislation builds the foundation and establishes the framework within which we will continue to build an effective domestic trading environment over time. Look at how the GATT and the European Union have evolved over time. The important thing is to establish the base and create the mechanism to allow for flexibility to meet changing economic conditions as they occur.

Trade agreements deepen and broaden with use and experience and this one will too. Bill C-88 will provide the foundation for moving toward a domestic trading environment that will allow for the free flow of goods, services, people and capital within Canada. The Prime Minister and other ministers, including first ministers, have been actively involved in broadening the marketplace for Canadian goods and services in export markets. The Team Canada approach has been highly successful in doing that.

Now we must bring the same spirit to improving the domestic market for our businesses and our workers. Bill C-88 is an important step in that direction and that is why we support it.

[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a few days from now representatives of 175 nations, including Canada, will gather in New York to decide the fate of the most important international arms control agreement in force today, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. Few agreements are as important to Canadian security as this key international agreement.

Today I want to outline briefly why Canada supports the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT and the reasons we will be encouraging others to do the same at this important conference.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which Canada was an original signatory, entered into force in 1970. The NPT is important to Canada for three essential reasons. First, the NPT establishes a barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the NPT's most fundamental purpose and its most outstanding success. By limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, Canada and the world are more secure as a result.

Second, the treaty provides the framework for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by establishing a system of effective international safeguards. These safeguards, implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency, ensure that nuclear material is not being diverted to weapon programs. Canada will not sell nuclear technology to any nation that does not have a safeguard agreement with IAEA and has not signed the NPT or a regional equivalent. Our exports of nuclear technology under safeguard agreements have helped to sustain an industry that employs 20,000 people directly and another 10,000 indirectly.

Third, the treaty commits all states to work toward disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. This unique binding legal obligation, particularly as it falls on the nuclear weapons states, firmly establishes our long term goal: the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The decision we members of the NPT must make is whether to extend the treaty indefinitely or for a more limited duration. Our position is quite clear: we believe that Canadians and people around the world deserve an enduring commitment by their governments to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to pursue nuclear disarmament.

Those who argue that the NPT should not be made permanent keep open the possibility of its disappearance at some future point. This is not in anyone's interest. We must once and for all close the door on that possibility.

With the end of the cold war came an end to the nuclear arms race. It came to an end because of greater trust, openness, and cooperation between Russia and the west. That is the path to

disarmament: greater security. The NPT is essential to work toward greater security and cooperation between nations.

We cannot forget that 1995 also marks the tragic 50th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The great American statesman Adlai Stevenson once said that evil is not in the atom but in the souls of men. Do we need a better reason to co-operate, establish and defend international laws that curb the madness of those who would act to undermine international peace and security?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has served Canada well for 25 years. It is now time to enshrine those benefits for future generations.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 29th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, be read the third time and passed.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The issue of gun control has generated a tremendous amount of controversy over the last year. I have heard from many of my constituents expressing concerns on both sides of the debate. I would like to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing a bill that took into consideration the concerns of gun owners while at the same time acting to improve public safety.

I believe there is broad public support for the bill. I know it has responded to the concerns of my constituents by delivering stiffer penalties for the criminal use and smuggling of firearms.

At the same time, the bill provides a context in which legal gun owners can pursue their interest in a manner that is consistent with public safety. The creation of a national registration system is an essential part of the legislation. Registration of all firearms will improve public safety and help police fight the criminal misuse of firearms.

I understand that the registration of firearms is one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.

Opponents of the bill have charged registration will cost the government in excess of $1 billion. This is not true. To set up this system will cost $85 million spread over seven years. This will be recovered over time from the fees charged to gun owners.

Opponents of the bill have charged registration will not reduce the criminal use of firearms because criminals do not register their guns. They charge registration will not improve public safety. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agrees with the Minister of Justice that the registration of firearms will help control smuggling, gun theft and the misuse of legal firearms.

Registration will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire illegal firearms by helping police trace and eliminate sources of firearms entering the underground market. Registration will help ensure legal gun owners are held accountable for their firearms and do not sell them illegally or give them to individuals without appropriate authorization.

Registration will promote safe storage which will reduce gun theft as well as reducing suicides and accidents. Police and women's groups both support the bill because registration will assist the police in removing guns from volatile domestic situations. The bill will help the police in enforcing the estimated 13,000 prohibition orders issued every year, to remove guns from volatile domestic situations and from individuals considered to be a risk to society.

I will vote in favour of the bill because the registration of firearms will save lives. It is critical to controlling the illegal gun trade, to prosecuting offenders, to promoting safe storage and to removing guns from the hands of dangerous individuals.

Many opponents of the bill have told the government to deal with crime control, not gun control. The bill deals harshly with the criminal misuse of firearms. I am pleased to see the bill includes minimum sentences for violent offences using firearms, a lifetime ban on owning handguns and stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking firearms.

I have listened to the concerns of legal gun owners in my riding. I am pleased to see the bill has also taken their concerns into consideration. To avoid undue financial hardship on the owners whose guns will be prohibited, the new legislation allows them to buy and sell to individuals owning firearms in the same category. This measure addresses one of the very legitimate concerns of gun owners.

Our government is working on many fronts to reduce crime and improve public safety. Strengthening gun control is only one part of the government's strategy on crime prevention. We must also address the social roots of crime including poverty, illiteracy and family violence.

Gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. It is subject to regulation by government because firearms can be dangerous. It is in the best interest of society to have some degree of regulation.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of my colleague across the floor. He brought up quite a number of issues, but today I would like to take this opportunity to respond to his concern on the Three Gorges issue.

We have to recognize that the decision by the Chinese government on the Three Gorges dam project is not based on the support of Canada. The hon. member spoke about quite a number of reasons on the negative side, but I would also like to bring the attention of the House to the positive aspects of that project.

The Chinese have begun work on that based on several reasons, one of which is the urgent need to protect some 10 million people from flooding below the dam site and also China currently uses coal based energy sources, which we all agree have a large negative impact on the environment. Hydro electricity is a cleaner source of energy. China faces critical shortfalls in electric power which hamper the creation of jobs in a disadvantaged region of China. There is a need to improve navigation on the Yangtze River so as to allow shipping to reach Chongoing, one of China's largest cities.

In a Chinese context, the Chinese government, faced with the urgency of the region's requirements, considered the solution to be both viable and optimum. It is implementing the project. That decision is not based on what Canada has decided to do.

On balance we see the contribution of Canadian companies as positive. Canada is a world leader in the environmental technologies and services sector. Canadian companies, therefore, have an important and significant contribution to make to China as it

addresses the environmental aspects of this project. Their participation could introduce management and technical features that would reduce the project's negative impact. That is why the government will support Canadian firms. Their environmental practices and expertise could positively influence the project.

Also it is important to note that the Canadian power sector has identified China as a key market to bridge flagging domestic demand and to ensure its survival over the next decade. They are using a Team Canada approach to China. Their participation in the Three Gorges project could create some 35,000 jobs in Canada, many of which would be in the troubled high value added electrical industry and SME suppliers.

Canadian hydroelectric and environmental firms are among the best in the world and are therefore well placed to win contracts. However international competition will be intense. Business and the attendant jobs in Canada will only be won with strong government support.

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Canadian sovereignty over water.

More than any other country Canada is blessed with an abundance of fresh water. Water is a fundamental part of our heritage. It provides the basis for much of our industrial activities. Our lakes and rivers along with the snow and ice of winter provide recreational opportunities for Canadians and support a thriving tourism industry.

The preservation and protection of our water resources is a matter of vital concern to all Canadians. The issue of large scale exports of fresh water has been the subject of public debate at various times over the last three decades within Canada.

Concern has focused on proposals such as the grand canal and proposals to divert water from British Columbia to California. However, no scheme for the large scale diversion of Canadian fresh water across the border has won the support of any level of government within Canada.

More recently concern has been expressed that first the free trade agreement and then NAFTA diminish Canada's sovereignty over its water by obliging us to sell water to the United States.

I would like to make it clear that the Government of Canada considers sovereignty over our valuable water resources a fundamental principle that must and will continue to be upheld.

The Canadian government will not support any plans for the export of water through independent transfer or diversion from the Great Lakes or from any other water body.

Small scale exports such as bottled water must meet the environmental requirements of both the federal and provincial governments. Steps have been taken to ensure that Canada retains full control over the use of water in all its forms.

For example, the federal water policy approved by cabinet in 1987 provides a strong expression of Canada's intention to maintain sovereignty over its water. The federal water policy states that the government will permit no large scale water exports. It also provides for the federal and provincial governments to work together to develop a licensing return for small scale water exports.

To ensure federal responsibilities for environmental protection and international trade are taken into account, regarding the NAFTA it is the position of the Government of Canada that Canada's sovereignty over its water resources is in no way diminished.

Under the NAFTA Canada maintains complete discretion over the exploitation and use of its water. The NAFTA does not oblige any partners to exploit its water for commercial use, sell it to other countries or export water from its lakes or rivers. Thus Canada has no obligation to export water under the NAFTA agreement.

The NAFTA applies only to water that has entered into commerce and has become a good or a product such as bottled water or water in tanker trucks. Water packaged as beverage or in tanks is the reference in section 7 of the Canadian implementing legislation for the NAFTA.

On December 2, 1993 the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States as parties to the NAFTA issued a statement confirming that NAFTA does not oblige any of the parties to export water. Here is what the trilateral statement has to say about water:

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement.

Unless water, in any form, has entered in the commerce and become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including the NAFTA. And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, waterbasins and the like is not a good or product, is not traded, and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

Clearly the Government of Canada has been vigilant in protecting our precious supply of water in all its forms. I can assure the House that Canada will continue to preserve and protect its sovereignty over water resources.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that some industries in Canada are less competitive and some are more competitive.

The most important part of this agreement is that it establishes a level playing field for all countries. There is a well-defined dispute settlement process. No longer can the unilateral actions of strong economies interfere with the exports of medium sized powers in the world. It is a great step forward.

As Canadians we have to be very competitive in using this opportunity before we can benefit from this agreement. There is no other way out. In order to remain economically strong and in order to keep all of our integrity and all the values we need to be able to compete in the global market. If we can have a free hand to compete in the world, if subsidies are eliminated from most of the other countries, even in the farming industry we should be able to compete proudly and freely.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the impact on the sugar industry.

If we look at the overall impact of the bill on Canada there is no doubt in my mind the Uruguay round and the establishment of the world trade organization is a step forward to allow freer access to markets around the world.

I would like to take the question under advisement and ask the trade minister and the department to look at the complaint and arrange for a proper reply for the hon. member.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's role in the world can be strengthened by developing a secure multilateral context for countries like ours within a framework of international law and the forum of the United Nations.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, for his work in promoting the implementation of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization through Bill C-57.

The creation of the WTO is largely the result of a joint initiative by Canada and the European Union. The WTO is a means of securing a common institutional framework for the conduct of international trade relations.

The Uruguay round signed in April is the largest, most comprehensive trade negotiation ever undertaken. Under the Uruguay round agreement, the impact on the world economy is dramatic.

The final package contains over 30 agreements, capped by agreements to create the world trade organization, featuring a much strengthened framework for the settlement of trade disputes.

The Uruguay round will ease bilateral trade tensions and strengthen GATT rules to make the playing field more level, transparent and predictable. The round will pave the way to integrating developing and centrally planned economies such as China, our sixth largest trading partner.

Under the Uruguay round agreement, access to markets for industrial products will be substantially improved, with most tariffs being cut by at least one third. Overall, Canadian gains from trade by the year 2002 are estimated at about $2.5 billion U.S. The gain in net income directly and indirectly from the round is about $4 billion U.S.

Canada will benefit enormously from ratification of the Uruguay round deal and by our participation in the World Trade Organization through the passage of Bill C-57.

The WTO provides a trading environment that is more free and more fair. It will benefit our traditional agricultural and

resource sectors and provide more open markets for value added and high technology manufactured goods.

This will not only help Canada adapt to the forces of globalization but will enable us to seize its advantages through the development of a dynamic industrial structure. The Uruguay round will enhance very significantly our export prospects in the Asia Pacific, my area of responsibility and the most dynamic in the world economy.

The round will provide a tremendous boost to Canadian exports to the Pacific in agricultural and resource products. It will also reinforce new opportunities in telecommunications and other major infrastructure areas where the needs in Asia are massive and Canadian ability to compete is strong.

Through its supervision of the agreements made and its management, the WTO will be a great equalizer in international trade for smaller, medium sized and developing countries. Countries like Canada will be less vulnerable to the efforts of more powerful economies to interfere with Canadian exports.

Of special interest to Canada in light of recent experience is the speeding up of the process and establishment of time limits, the effort to make it more difficult to block implementation of a panel report and the commitment to avoid unilateral retaliation.

Bill C-57 will increase clarity and discipline in the use of multilateral trade rules. For the first time there will be an appeal process and binding effect which is an improvement over the current GATT system. It is important that Bill C-57 be enacted as soon as possible so as to give full legislative power to the minister as he pursues his important initiatives in the international arena for the benefit of all Canadians.

Canada's economic strength now and in the future will depend on our willingness to stay on the leading edge of freer trade, taking an active role in forging new relationships and building new structures to extend the reach of a rules-based international order.

The Prime Minister said in Hong Kong on our recent very successful trip to Asia: "We will be examples for the world and we will move into the 21st century, proud, competitive and generous". This legislation will ensure the success of the World Trade Organization and will allow Canada to remain one of the best countries in the world.