Doug Peters

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, in any instance where there is a serious breach of human rights where Canada could take the lead, certainly the GPT would be part of the initiatives. It is not just those initiatives. One would want to do a whole lot of things and that is the question.

The GPT itself is not significant in the total sphere of items that one would use in foreign policy. That is clearly a foreign policy question. Canada would have to be taking a lead through the foreign policy sector through our Minister of Foreign Affairs and through a whole host of organizations like the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States or the United Nations to bring pressures on the country.

The GPT would be part of that and could very easily be part of a major change like that. Therefore I would think the hon. member is quite correct. It could be part of it but it would be a minor part of a major foreign policy initiative if that were needed in any particular case.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, the member is asking how effective trade sanctions are in approving human rights in developing countries. The only way that trade sanctions can be effective is when they are done generally by a massive number of countries. That will have some impact.

Canada is far too small a market for almost any country to have an impact on its own. We are really only harming ourselves if we try do that sort of thing.

Trade sanctions, where it is possible to use them, and it has been done only very seldom, are only effective if at all effective when done in conjunction with, for example, the whole United Nations, the whole Commonwealth or something like that.

It is not really possible to have any impact on these countries with our very small market here in Canada.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I take that admonishment with great sincerity. We are going to be very vigilant about our trading practices. I have written on the subject of our balance of payments deficit for 10 or 20 years and have said that we should be pursuing strong trading relationships, relationships that reduce our balance of payments deficit which is running around $25 billion a year right now. That is a high priority of this country.

I also remind the hon. member that it is two-way trade. We must remember there is only benefit to trade if it goes in both directions.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting question. If we lower the tariffs on certain goods we can make a nice estimate as to how much money we will lose. However, if we had the tariffs in place we would not make money because the goods would not come in. We say we have lost $158 million, but it is $158 million we would not have had anyway because the goods would not come in with the ordinary tariffs.

It is a very difficult estimate to make. That is part of the key. This is a good deal for both the Canadian people and for developing countries. Developing countries have said that they

want trade, not aid. That was a good way of putting it. We can put forth any number as lost revenue, but it is not lost revenue. It is revenue we would not get in any case.

Making a projection into future years means, if we have higher revenue losses, that it is revenue we would not have received anyway. If we had put on the tariffs we would not get it. However it is a real benefit to Canadians and a real benefit to developing countries.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, the level of consultation is the basis of the hon. member's question. The level of consultation is quite high on these matters at any time. We have received a number of requests from businesses to consider certain products, certain countries and things like that.

A number of parliamentarian have written to the department over the years to ask whether it would consider particular tariff items. It is quite possible. Another method would be to have the standing committee merely ask that it be considered. If the standing committee asks that question it would be considered.

The avenues of consultation are rather high on this particular item. The GPT has been in effect for 20 years, so we have had 20 years of experience with consultation and it has worked rather well over that period.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I will answer the last question first. Any parliamentary committee can ask to have the question raised and can ask the minister to do so. At any point either the Standing Committee on Finance or any other standing committee can ask to have it referred.

The first question the hon. member asked was about reassessing the granting of the GPT to South Korea and Singapore. That is not under active consideration at the moment. Should there be some change, for example if Europe and Japan moved, I think we would bring it under active consideration.

It is not under active consideration right now to change the GPT rules for South Korea or Singapore.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, every time a question is raised by a manufacturer we look at it. We rely on Canadian manufacturers of competing products to tell us that there is a problem.

As a matter of fact we search out people concerning tariff reduction. Whenever there is a particular tariff question we refer to manufacturers. A lot of them are intermediate goods, a lot of them come in at the behest of Canadian manufacturers to make their products more acceptable at a better price for production in Canada and for export abroad. There are substantial benefits to Canadian producers and manufacturers of these goods, not just at the retail level.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could ever exactly tell where the imports go. They are generally part of the accepted items found in stores. We could turn over a plastic item in a hardware store and find it was made in China. If so, it probably came in under the GPT. We have to look at the source.

There is no way we could trace it. It is not of particular interest to trace it. It is a benefit to the Canadian consumer to have access to a particular good at that particular price, and a benefit to the country exporting it.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, it would be possible to have any number of categories. We have used the United Nations classification which is generally accepted throughout the world. There is always some question as to whether we move from one category to another but clearly the United Nations categories are pretty well accepted throughout the world. That is why we use those categories.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, there are two categories actually. The least developed countries are zero rated. These are the poorest countries in the world. Then there are those in the less developed category which are subject to the general GPT. There are two categories.