Len Taylor

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on third reading debate of Bill C-57, the act that implements the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization and ties Canada conclusively to the GATT agreement.

Canadians know very little about the 26,000 page agreement that their government signed on their behalf at the special GATT meeting in Marrakech on April 15, 1994. The agreement was reached after eight years of negotiations. It is a huge deal that takes Canada even beyond where the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement dared to go.

Now, with very little debate, the federal Liberal government is going to accept the new world economic order dictated by the multinational corporations and reduce Canada's ability to determine its own economic destiny even further.

After yesterday's vote in which the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois joined with the Liberals in supporting this bill at report stage, it is easy to see who Canada's real opposition is here in Parliament. Only New Democrats, who have taken the time to examine not only the previous trade deals but this one as well, are standing up for the interests of ordinary Canadians in the face of economic globalization and the dominance-no, Mr. Speaker, the tyranny of the multinational corporations.

Make no mistake, the implementation of the agreement and the establishment of the World Trade Organization is the creation of a new world government which has the power to tell countries what they can or cannot do within their own borders. This will not be a democratic government. This is a new government dominated by the unelected and self-appointed multinationals that replace the possibility of a democratic response to the problems of the world.

This was the deal that was negotiated by the Mulroney team, but it was signed and is now being implemented by the Liberal government without opposition from anyone but the New Democrats. This is quite extraordinary.

The agreement through this legislation sells out farmers and working people alike and jeopardizes the future economic prospects for all of Canada's youth and particularly the youth who live in the regions of this country.

At this time in our history and at this time in our economic development, we should be doing everything in our power to stand up for Canadians in all walks of life.

The World Trade Organization is in effect the new constitution for the globalized economy that is written by and for the multinationals. The Liberal government has rejected a policy of developing a social clause to the WTO that would ensure that multinationals recognize basic labour and environmental standards to prevent the race to the bottom. I made comments about this and about child labour at report stage the other day.

Let me take a moment to try to tie together a couple of what would appear to be unrelated events. Only a short time ago the Prime Minister and all of the provincial and territorial leaders, except the premier from Quebec, toured China on a major business trip. They talked trade and they made a lot of deals. Every one of those deals was paraded in the pages of the newspapers around this country. What the Prime Minister and the premiers were telling us is that the economy in China is booming, or is expected to boom in the very near future, and that Canada must be a part of that.

Meanwhile, back home in response to their interpretation of the GATT agreement clauses, the Ministers of Transport and Agriculture were telling Canadian farmers that our domestic transport support program known as the Crow benefit will have to be changed. It would seem that the net result will over a few years reduce the money available to the Canadian grain to port for export, reduce the dollars available to farmers at the farm gate and likely as a result reduce the grain grown for export across the prairies.

Let us go back and have a look at China again for a minute. I just finished reading an article done for the Worldwatch Institute called "Who will feed China"? I certainly recommend the article by Worldwatch president Lester R. Brown to everyone.

Mr. Brown acknowledges the growing affluence of the Chinese. He acknowledges the growing population, the growing demand for food, the growing demand for meat in particular. More important, he points out China's shrinking capacity to produce food.

We know from circumstances around the world that as incomes rise, one of the first things that low income people do with their money is diversify their diets, shifting primarily to more meat, milk and eggs. In China as in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan before it, this is beginning to happen. Of course with the rising demand for a diversified diet also comes the demand for additional grain.

China has been encouraging the production of laying hens and therefore the production of eggs. The official goal of the country for egg consumption has been set at 200 eggs per person per year by the year 2000, double the quantity consumed in 1990. By the way, that is about the equivalent of what residents of the United States consume in a year.

With the Chinese population expected to reach 1.3 billion people by the year 2000, annual egg consumption would be expected to rise to 26 billion. Interestingly enough, Chinese hens lay about 200 eggs per year each so China will require a flock of about 1.3 billion hens to meet its needs.

The point to be taken here is that to reach this goal China will require at a minimum an additional 24 million tonnes of grain to feed those birds to produce those eggs and 24 million tonnes of grain just happens to be the equivalent of the entire grain export from Canada.

If the per capita grain consumption climbs even modestly in China from under 300 kilograms per person at present to 350 kilograms in the year 2030, demand will also climb to 568 million tonnes of grain. With a total production of only 263 million tonnes by 2030, the deficit will be made up by imports which will have to rise to a staggering 305 million tonnes of grain. We must recognize that in 1993 the entire export of grain from all countries around the world was just 200 million tonnes. In other words, by the year 2030 China could eat up almost two thirds what the world is producing today for export grains.

We know that China is not the only country that is growing and likely to experience a grain deficit. India, Iran, Ethiopia, Nigeria and others fall into this category.

We need our federal government more than ever to stand up for strengthened orderly marketing, single desk selling and internal transportation support so that as the world needs our grain we are not only producing it but we are also able to deliver it quickly and efficiently as required.

I see that my time is running out. Although there are many more things that I would like to say to contribute to this debate, in conclusion let me say to my colleagues in the House that not only am I opposing this legislation in front of us today but I am encouraging all members to oppose it and give Canada and Canadians a fighting chance to make it in the world today.

Trade can spread wealth and knowledge or it can accelerate the destructive trends now under way. Sadly, I see this legislation and through it this government taking us down a very destructive path.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make at third reading of Bill C-55, Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

It gives me a considerable amount of pleasure to see this bill, having come through all stages, and be able to say a few words at the conclusion of the debate.

At the same time I want to congratulate the parties that were involved in the negotiation of the agreement and in the execution of the legislation that has led us to this point. A couple of very specific congratulations, one to my own leader, the member for Yukon. The member for Yukon has been actively engaged in the discussion, debate and negotiations leading up to this point today.

I commend to the House the work that she has been able to do for her constituents, members of the Council for Yukon Indians, members of the communities of Yukon, all residents of Yukon. The member for Yukon has spent a considerable amount of time relaying information in one direction, discussing with ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairpersons throughout the course of the debates on all three parts of Yukon self-government and land claims process which concludes the proclamation of this act.

I was very pleased to have been in a number of meetings that the member for Yukon initiated and attended. I am very pleased to have been able to work with her throughout this process as the New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs and northern development critic.

I also want to congratulate the people of the Council for Yukon Indians and all of the people from Yukon who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that this day would come. A lot of changes have been made in people's positions and attitudes over the years, that this idea has been in front of not only the people of Yukon but now the people of all of Canada. I congratulate all of those who over the years have been involved so diligently in this process.

I would like to now spend just a couple of minutes indicating to those who are tuning in this afternoon for the first time some idea of what is in front of us on this bill that we are concluding today and to indicate to the House that I and my party are very pleased to support the legislation in front of us, just as we were pleased to support the previous two bills that are part of this three part package.

We know that Bill C-55 is a companion piece of legislation to what was Bill C-33, Yukon First Nations final land claims settlement act and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations self-government agreement. Both acts were passed in the spring session of this Parliament but they will not come into effect until this act, Bill C-55, is concluded.

Bill C-55 establishes a process in Yukon for obtaining access to private and public lands based on models used in the western provinces. I come from Saskatchewan, a province that successfully negotiated a land entitlement agreement with a large number of the aboriginal communities in our province. I am very pleased to be able to see that models which were discussed in Saskatchewan are being useful in the negotiations of agreements in other locations.

The bill in front of us also establishes Yukon surface rights board to resolve disputes between parties guaranteeing access to vast holdings of private land.

The bill is very technical. Anything that subjects parties to an agreement has technical aspects to it. In essence Bill C-55 provides guidelines whereby land disputes will be settled by the surface rights board. Under the legislation a person may apply to the board for the arbitration of a matter only after that person has first attempted to negotiate an agreement with the other party.

The board will have jurisdiction over other matters such as the disputes between persons holding surface rights and those holding subsurface rights, the amount of compensation for the expropriation of settlement land, and the amount of compensation for pockets of government lands retained within settlement lands.

If parties cannot reach agreement in a matter relating to access to lands the board has the power to establish the terms and conditions of a right of access, award compensation for the right of access and for damage resulting from that access, and periodically review orders previously made by the board with regard to land disputes. Orders by the board are final and binding. Final decisions are enforceable through the Supreme

Court of Yukon territory. The board will not retain any permanent staff and will meet only as needed.

As well, the bill confirms the legal rights of minors and is said to address concerns raised over the need for certainty pertaining to land title in Yukon. Greater certainty pertaining to land title will facilitate exploration and resource development in Yukon, matters that we know go to the heart of the economy of the territory.

I would also like to indicate that final passage of Bill C-55 clears the way for implementation of four Yukon First Nations land claim settlements already negotiated and will trigger financial compensation agreements already signed with these four individual First Nations.

Earlier in the debates on this bill when my leader, the member for Yukon, spoke she indicated a couple of things that I would like to repeat for the benefit of the House as we close the debate today.

I quote the member for Yukon representing her constituents' interests in this bill. She stated in the House of Commons on November 1, 1994: "Bill C-55 ensures that all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, have the tools to move forward with the certainty that is necessary for business with the respect and dignity accorded to First Nations in Yukon and that will lead toward self-sufficiency for Yukon territory.

"What we are showing can be done within Canada is that we can respect the languages, the cultures and the historic traditions of all peoples within a certain territory and we can do it under the flag of Canada".

These are very important words looking at a long history of negotiation of a very difficult matter that now seems to have been resolved quite peacefully and satisfactorily.

We in the New Democratic Party are proud of the work of all those who have been involved in this process and we are pleased today to commit ourselves to agreement on Bill C-55.

[Northern Tax Allowance, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this year will see the phasing out of the northern tax allowance program initiated by the previous Tory government. Residents of hundreds of northern communities will lose the benefit that recognizes their residential distance from federal government services.

Is the Minister of National Revenue or officials in his department prepared to reconsider the elimination of this valuable program to ensure that tax increases are not now going to be unnecessarily forced on northern residents?

[Child Poverty, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Campaign 2000 released its fifth annual report card on this country's progress toward the goal of eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. In this International Year of the Family, the federal government has received a failing grade. Child poverty is on the increase. In this the fifth year of the anniversary of the House of Commons' unanimous motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, there are about 331,000 more poor children today than there were five years ago.

Instead of dealing with the problem of child poverty, the Minister of Human Resources Development has set this country on a course that will leave children behind. It is time for all parliamentarians to support the recommendation of Campaign 2000, create jobs, raise corporate taxes and use social programs to redistribute the wealth. It is time for action.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a very short intervention in this regard.

For those members of the Chamber who were away on business or whatever this morning, or for those who are tuning in on their television sets to this debate for the first time this afternoon, I simply want to remind the House that earlier today the member for Regina-Lumsden on behalf of the New Democratic Party put on record the concerns of the Saskatchewan steel industry. I believe he quite nicely brought together the views of our caucus on behalf of the Saskatchewan steel industry and the steel industry in general with regard to the motion before us.

I also want to respond to comments the parliamentary secretary made on the last motion dealing with child poverty and the exploitation of child labour. I can state his words fairly closely. He said that the government was not prepared to take unilateral action in this regard.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that the government is already taking unilateral action with regard to the WTO and agreements reflecting on the GATT. The parliamentary secretary should recognize that as a government it seems prepared to take unilateral action to penalize western grain farmers but is not prepared to take unilateral action to protect children. I think that is just shameful.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motions amending Bill C-57 and in this case, Motion No. 9. We are happy to consent to the change made by the hon. member from the Bloc who spoke thoughtfully in support of not only his amendment but of the motion. I am very pleased to know of the growing support for the idea that has been put forward here.

The purpose of the motion is to ensure that as Canada joins the World Trade Organization, it creatively addresses the problem of child labour, one of the most troubling aspects of the new international trading order.

It amends the Export and Import Permits Act to allow the government to introduce regulations to restrict the importation of goods made in whole or in part by children, contrary to international guidelines.

Many observers of the trend of globalization have noted that the more we leave the multinationals to seek out the lowest labour costs in the unregulated labour markets of developing countries, the more globalization tends to become a race to the bottom. Armies of young children around the developing world already find themselves at the very bottom. They work long hours at punishing work in atrocious conditions for a pittance. They are thereby deprived of an education which is their right under the UN charter.

In many instances, such children are indentured into virtual slavery. The numbers of children involved and the conditions they face are staggering. It is estimated that 300,000 children work at hand knitting carpets in India while two-thirds of the workforce in Nepal's 600 factories producing rugs for export are children under the age of 15.

According to the International Labour Organization half the children in Pakistan's carpet industry die of malnutrition and disease before they reach the age of 12. Girls 10 years of age work in China's special export zones in toy factories for $10 a month.

In Indonesia, after relaxing its regulations on child labour in 1987, some 2.8 million children are working in factories. The most revealing fact is that child labour has been growing in tandem with the liberalization of world trade.

These children produce rugs, textiles, garments, shoes, toys and other light manufacturing products for export markets. The

multinationals that manufacture, trade and retail the products of child labour often claim that they do not hire the children directly but they never acknowledge that they knowingly subcontract out parts of the manufacturing process to employers that do.

Child labour has become an integral part of the new world order of trade liberalization and gives the lie to any glorification of unregulated world trade as a force of progress. For the pathetic armies of children in the developing world, market liberalization means a regression to the brutal exploitation that we in the developed countries have not permitted for more than a century.

Because it has become part of the fabric of the new international economy, child labour implicates all of us as consumers. On any visit to the local mall, unknowingly we are likely to buy for our own children clothes and toys made under conditions that would horrify us if we imagined our own children in their situation. Here is a case where we must let our basic human sympathy, our sense of solidarity with children around the world move us to act. Some have argued that when developed countries today restrict trade in goods made by child labour they are forgetting the role that child labour played in their own development and acting to deliberately restrict the development of new economies.

We in the developed world have indeed had our own experience with child labour, which was as much a part of European and North American industrialization as it is now in many developed societies today. We must remember that government regulations prohibiting the use of child labour were among the earliest public interventions to tame a predatory industrial capitalism. The fact that the same predatory capitalism has returned with a vengeance, its leaders boasting of their ability to operate outside the regulatory reach of individual states, does not relieve us of our duty to protect the most vulnerable members of the global village.

The multinationals like to talk about the need to establish a level playing field. Let us establish one between them and the children whom they now exploit. The elimination of child labour will be a long and arduous process that takes place on many fronts. The International Labour Organization has a program that has been in place for years to study and propose measures to address the problem. Canada should actively support this program.

The ILO secretariat has also recommended that the WTO should adopt a social clause to enforce basic labour rights on member states, a strategy that would go a long way to eliminating child labour. This is why we proposed a separate amendment earlier today that the government chose not to support, that the government commit itself to such a policy of developing a social clause for the WTO.

Some individual governments of developing countries are making efforts to introduce regulations to help children and some of these programs, such as the one in Hong Kong, have met with success. Many developing countries do not have the resources to police regulations on child labour, however well intended those regulations may be. That is why the developed countries like Canada have an obligation to help the governments of developing countries prevent multinationals from trading in goods made by children.

That is why we are proposing this amendment today to Bill C-57. It would put the burden of proof on the large importers and retailers to establish that they have not imported goods made with child labour and apply the resources of the Canadian regulatory regime to police the problem.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is as I understand it. We are changing the text of the motion in front of us today. It is with my full concurrence.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-57, in Clause 103, be amended:

(a) by replacing lines 31 to 33, on page 54, with the following:

"paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):"; and

(b) by replacing lines 41, on page 54, with the following:

"plies; or

(g) to restrict the importation of goods made, or containing components made in contravention of International Organization Conventions numbers 79, 90 and 138 regarding child labour."

[Government Appointments, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In its attempts to reduce costs the federal government has on occasion dealt with the public service job vacancies by not replacing them on the basis of attrition.

My question has to do with the recent appointments to the Senate, apparent worthy appointments. I am just wondering if the Deputy Prime Minister would suggest to the Prime Minister that in the interest of saving costs around this place, perhaps the Senate should be treated the same way as the public service and that vacancies be treated as not filled by attrition.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"12.1 The Minister shall conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay Round Agreements on the Canadian milk marketing system and shall, not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the Agreement with respect to Canada, table a report in the House of Commons on the results of the study."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-57, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"12.1 Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Minister shall table in the House of Commons a report describing, in respect of the preceding fiscal year of the World Trade Organization ("WTO"),

(a) the major activities and work programs of WTO, including the functions and activities of committees established under Article IV of the Agreement and the expenditures made by WTO in connection with those activities and programs;

(b) the percentage of budgetary assessments by WTO that were accounted for by each WTO Member including Canada;

(c) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat at WTO and the number of professional, administrative and support staff at WTO;

(d) for each personnel category described in paragraph (c), the number of citizens of each WTO Member and the average salary of the personnel in each category;

(e) any report issued by a panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement proceeding regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada and the efforts of the Minister to provide for implementation of recommendations contained in the report that are adverse to Canada or any province or territory in Canada;

(f) details on proceedings before a panel or the Appellate Body that were initiated during the fiscal year regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada, the status of the proceeding and the matters at issue in the proceeding;

(g) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a report adverse to Canada that was issued by a panel or the Appellate Body; and

(h) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council and of dispute settlement proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

12.2 The first annual report submitted to the House of Commons under section 12.1 after the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the Agreement enters into force with respect to Canada and after the end of every 5-year period thereafter shall include an analysis of the effects of the Agreement on the interests of Canada, the costs and benefits to Canada of its participation in WTO and the value of continued participation in WTO."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to these amendments before us in relation to Bill C-57, the bill under debate today.

I found it very interesting in the remarks just preceding the reading of the motion that we are debating now concerning the previous amendments that have been dealt with by the House that both speakers from the Reform Party and from the government indicated the inability to support a motion protecting the interests of Canadian producers by saying that the agreement has been signed and we cannot go back and renegotiate.

The amendments that have been brought forward were identical to what the United States Congress is implementing today. The Americans are not asking that we go back to the table and renegotiate the entire Uruguay round. They are just acting in the interests of the people they represent.

For this government and the Reform Party to side by each against the interests of Canadian producers, manufacturers, ordinary working people, people who care about the environment, people who care about whether or not children work or go to school is unbelievable. I find it completely unbelievable.

The government has an opportunity with the two amendments in front of us now grouped for debate to redeem itself somewhat. The motions in front of us once again point to the need to ensure that Canadian legislation represents the same type of interest that the American legislation is representing.

First, we have Motion No. 4 implementing in Canadian legislation section 425 of the American legislation dealing with the study of the milk marketing order system. Mr. Speaker, you have read into the record the motion that is in front of us calling on the minister to conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay round on the milk marketing system.

We could probably choose to do a study on a number of matters within the Uruguay round agreement but certainly the milk study is one that is very important to our producers. We have not yet seen the interpretive papers that this government examined during the negotiations which tell us how the milk marketing changes will affect producers throughout Canada.

In order to be fair to this system, to the agreement and to the government that has accepted the changes at GATT, we are simply asking that in six months time this government in fairness to the milk producers of Canada go back over the previous six months, take a look at what has happened since the implementation of the agreement and find out if the interpretive papers it looked at previously are in line with what was supposed to be happening in the industry.

I said: "Mr. Speaker, you read the motion out in front of us today". Let me read to members section 425 of the American legislation and they can tell me if it is at all similar to the amendment in front of us:

1. The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study to determine the effects of the Uruguay round agreements on the federal milk marketing order system. Not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the WTO agreement with respect to the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to the Congress on the results of the study.

The government should not tell us that we have to renegotiate the entire Uruguay round in order to protect the interests of our milk producers in this country.

Second, let us take a look at Motion No. 5 in front of us grouped for debate today. Mr. Speaker, you spent some time reading that motion into the record.

Let us take a look at section 124 of the American legislation that instructs the United States trade representative to present an annual report on the WTO to Congress. Let me read for the record the American legislation that is in front of us, section 124.

Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Trade Representative shall submit to the Congress a report describing for the preceding financial year of the WTO

(1) the major activities and work programs of the WTO, including the functions and the activities of the committees established under article IV of the WTO Agreement, and the expenditures made by the WTO in connection with these activities and programs;

(2) the percentage of budgetary assessments by the WTO that were accounted for by each WTO member country, including the United States;

(3) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat of the WTO and the number of professional administrative and support staff of the WTO;

(4) for each personnel category described in paragraph (3), the number of citizens of each country, and the average salary of the personnel, in that category;

(5) each report-

I cannot read the word there. I will have to look at what we are presenting to Canadians.

-issued by the panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement proceeding regarding Federal or State law, and any efforts by the Trade Representative to provide for implementation of the recommendation contained in a report that is adverse to the United States;

(6) each proceeding before the panel or the Appellate Body that was initiated during the fiscal year regarding Federal or State law, the status of the proceeding, and the matter at issue;

(7) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a report adverse to the United States and was issued by a panel or the Appellant Body; and,

(8) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, and of dispute settlement proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

Sound familiar? The Canadian bill, C-57, contains no such provision. We are asking today that Canada ensure that we have a report on the activities of the WTO in front of us just as the Americans will have by legislative authority. It is the only fair and equitable way to deal with this international crisis confronting us in trade.

I would, even if the Americans had not put this legislation in front of them asking for an annual report, be asking that the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament receive no less. We are entering into an agreement on a world stage. We then just allow that agreement to carry on without any kind of responsive action to the people of Canada and to this Parliament. It would be most unfortunate if we allowed it to happen.

Let us ensure that we the Canadian people, producers, and parliamentarians have an understanding every year of what is happening on our behalf in the global marketplace and that we are with that information able to respond in appropriate manner.