John Duncan

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about Canada's position on this whole arrangement. Does he see Canada's role as one that would involve supporting this application or does he see Canada's best interests being served by actually championing this application by Taiwan?

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for the question because I know everyone wonders what motivates the government to do some of the things that it does.

I believe that this is not a question that relates so much to domestic issues as it relates to the fact that there are ties between people in the government, the business community, and the People's Republic of China. There is a concern in the government and in the business community that taking an action such as supporting Taiwan's observer bid for status at the World Health Organization would elicit a negative reaction from the People's Republic of China which would negatively impact on the business of friends of the government. That I think is the prime and root cause of this issue because the government position shows a distinct lack of imagination, a distinct adherence to the status quo, and the world has moved on.

Taiwan is now a member of the World Trade Organization and is a member of APEC. Increasingly it is a major player in the Asian region. When one looks at Canada's relations with the Pacific Rim and with Asia in particular, one can only wonder at how we treat the whole region, never mind our relationship with Taiwan. Japan is our second largest trading partner and we would never know it by the way the government prioritizes its resources. That comes as close to an answer as I can provide.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, we are debating today the official opposition's supply day motion relating to the current world health concerns over severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, and the fact that Taiwan's aspirations to be recognized as a member of the World Health Organization should be supported and championed by Canada. The motion reads:

That this House, acknowledging that health issues transcend political borders as seen with the recent outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), express its support for the admission of Taiwan as an Observer to the World Health Organization and call upon the government to actively urge other member states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East.

SARS developed in Guangdong province in southern China in November of last year. It was not until March of this year that it was reported to the World Health Organization. The People's Republic of China has been roundly condemned by the international community for trying to deny this outbreak rather than exposing it immediately, as one would assume would be its responsibility as a World Health Organization member. Essentially, the PRC broke the rules of membership and yet wants to continue to retain a veto over Taiwan membership.

It is worthwhile to remember that in the middle of March there were more reported SARS cases in Canada than there were in Taiwan. There were 11 cases in Canada and three cases in Taiwan as of March 18. It was clearly evident in the case of both Taiwan and Canada that the SARS victims were a consequence of people travelling to and returning from mainland China.

Canada has a strong vested interest in displaying leadership at the World Health Organization and in ensuring that Taiwan and mainland China are active participants in the World Health Organization because of the high number of ethnic Chinese living in Canada and the highly developed travel and trade between mainland China, Taiwan and Canada.

In fact, each year more than three million Taiwanese citizens travel to China. Over 150,000 Taiwanese travel to Canada and tens of thousands of visitors travel to or arrive from mainland China. It is no surprise to anyone to realize the health and economic consequences of the SARS epidemic in Canada and Asia.

On March 28 Canada listed Taiwan on a health advisory authority, at a time when Taiwan had less reported cases than Canada and had no deaths, with the rationale that Taiwan was geographically close to Hong Kong and mainland China with 20 flights a day between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Canada then took great exception when the World Health Organization issued a health travel advisory for Toronto on April 23.

Historically Canada has been very influential at the World Health Organization. The WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations created in 1948. The first director general was a Canadian. No country, other than permanent Security Council members of the UN, have been elected to more three year terms than Canada, a total of nine times.

Given this circumstance and our participation as a SARS infected and vulnerable jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon Canada to take the lead in bringing in the only remaining sizeable territory in the world whose people are excluded from the benefits of WHO engagement. Full membership was rejected for Palestine and Taiwan in recent years. The U.S. opposed Palestine's application and the People's Republic of China opposed Taiwan's application. Observer status was granted to Palestine in 2002 as an entity and Taiwan is applying for observer status as an entity. Taiwan's application is being supported once again by the U.S. and by Japan.

Japan and the Japanese minister of health, labour and welfare have recently once again demonstrated strong support for Taiwan's bid to join the World Health Organization as an observer. Taiwan has made annual submissions to join the World Health Organization since 1997 and the People's Republic of China has been criticized in Japan since then for annually blocking Taiwan's efforts to join the health organization. Japan has large foreign direct investment in Taiwan and China, and these countries are geographically close. Japan has a one-China policy similar to the Government of Canada, but this has in no way detracted from its position and desire to support Taiwan's World Health Organization application for observer status.

The Japanese vice-ministers decided on April 17 that in order to prevent the spread of SARS, Japan should once again actively support Taiwan's bid. This is in strong contrast to the Canadian government's position, which is not being overtly opposed to Taiwan but leaving the onus on Taiwan to deal with China in reference to its application, an impossible situation for progress on the basis of unwavering opposition to Taiwan's application emanating from the People's Republic of China. Lack of Canadian leadership on this crucial international and domestic health issue clearly is demonstrable and constitutes a public health risk.

The U.S. congress and the European parliament have not agreed on many issues recently, however the U.S. supports observer status for Taiwan at the WHO and the EU has expressed similar support. This leadership from others in the international community is in stark contrast to Canada's position and yet Canada has been more directly impacted by SARS than any other country outside of Asia.

The U.S. administration does not support Taiwan's membership in organizations that require statehood for membership and yet clearly states that Taiwan's application at the WHO meets this test, contrary to statements made from time to time by our own Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In an increasingly smaller and globalized world, where one can fly to any region or country within 24 hours, it is increasingly unacceptable to exclude Taiwan from the benefits of WHO engagement and to exclude other WHO members from the advice which Taiwan could provide through membership.

I just returned from Asia nine days ago. Our trade committee did not go to Singapore or Beijing as originally planned because of concerns about SARS. We did travel to India, Thailand and Japan.

When one is in Asia, it further concentrates the mind as to the threat from diseases like SARS. Clearly we are not involved in an academic discussion. The posture which the parliamentary secretary and secretary of state took in today's debate were weak, defensive and poorly researched. The status quo Canadian position is bankrupt and has been exposed, warts and all, through the foreign affairs committee, the efforts of individual members of Parliament from all parties, and today's Canadian Alliance motion.

As of today, the WHO website reported that a cumulative total of 8,202 probably cases, with 725 deaths, have been reported in 29 countries. New cases in the last two days were reported from mainland China, Taiwan, Canada and Hong Kong. While we must continued to report new cases in Toronto, it is anticipated that Canada is over the worst and we are getting on top of the disease. We certainly hope this is the case and we congratulate our courageous health care workers. In China and Taiwan there is an ongoing problem which cannot with certainty be predicted as to when it will be controlled. There is a real danger that a SARS outbreak in an area of poverty in the developing world could create untold tragedy and consequences.

Taiwan's health care delivery system, research and medical schools are world class. Taiwan can contribute much to the WHO and it is time that it be given this ongoing opportunity. Let Taiwan join the community of nations, the Order of Malta, the Holy See, the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the PLO, as a participant in the World Health Organization.

[Question No. 180, May 16th, 2003]

In the last five years, what is the breakdown of Canada-Iraq trade; specifically, what Canadian companies have done and are doing business with the Iraqi government?

[Question No. 187, May 15th, 2003]

Concerning Canada-Iraq trade, what is, on an annual basis, the value of trade between Canada and Iraq for the past 20 years with a breakdown by imports/exports and type of merchandise?

Return tabled.

[Question No. 181, May 12th, 2003]

In the last five years, what lobbyists have approached the government in connection with the removing trade sanctions with Iraq?

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there were over 200 members of Parliament in this place when the interchange took place. I would like to say that the Prime Minister did respond to the question and the Prime Minister's response would be bizarre if the wording were changed to reflect the change that has been suggested from the Tory caucus. It is an inappropriate change to make.

[Foreign Affairs, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the recent appearance of SARS in China, and its rapid spread and deadly consequences remind us that the global community must deal collectively with communicable diseases.

Taiwan is closely linked to both China and Canada. Taiwan is currently excluded from the World Health Organization membership due to objections from mainland China. Membership applications will be dealt with in May in Geneva at the 2003 annual meeting. United Nations membership is not a requirement for WHO membership and the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate both support Taiwan's application.

Last week, the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons endorsed Taiwan's application for observer status to the World Health Organization. Canada should display conviction and international leadership by supporting Taiwan's application to the World Health Organization.

[Free Trade Agreements, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 391 brought forward by the member for Joliette. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, any free trade agreement entered into by Canada, whether bilateral or multilateral, must include rules for the protection of foreign investments which do not violate the ability of parliamentary and government institutions to act, particularly on behalf of the common good, and must exclude any investor-state redress provisions and consequently, the Canadian government must enter into negotiations with its American and Mexican partners with a view to bringing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in line with the aforementioned principles.

This is all about chapter 11 of NAFTA. Many Canadians have heard about chapter 11 in reference to the bankruptcy rules in the U.S. and that is a large point of confusion. What we are talking about here is chapter 11 of NAFTA, something quite separate and different.

The premise of the member's motion runs contrary to the principle of national treatment which mandates that foreign based companies should be treated the same as domestic ones unless compensated. National treatment investor rules are contained in chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.

If foreign companies believe they will not be discriminated against then more companies will compete to provide goods and services. Competition ensures that Canadians, or our trading partners, receive the highest value for their hard earned money.

The Bloc Québécois, Maude Barlow, the NDP, and environmental activists argue that chapter 11 of NAFTA would destroy the ability of Canada's three levels of government to make individual decisions and that corporations would be able to challenge Canadian sovereignty in areas such as health care, education, labour and environmental standards. They never talk about investor protection for Canadian companies in other countries.

Chapter 11 allows private companies to sue federal governments covered under NAFTA over policies that expropriate their profits. Chapter 11 was designed to help reduce the risk of investing in foreign countries. It embodies the strongest rights and remedies ever granted to foreign investors in an international agreement. The process allows foreign investors to utilize a country's domestic court system or alternatively to use independent arbitrators instead. This is only fair. This gives foreign investors remedies available beyond the domestic courts which may be stacked completely against them.

Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement sets down the rules protecting foreign investors in the three countries bound by NAFTA: Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

There are two sections of the chapter, the first being substantive and the second outlining procedures for dispute resolution. The second section is where the tribunals under the authority of supranational bodies and agreements are set up, namely, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in the World Bank and the United Nations International Convent on International Trade Law.

Despite all of the international agreements that we have seen proliferate in the world, chapter 11 in NAFTA is unique. It is the first comprehensive, international trade treaty to provide to private parties direct access to dispute settlement as a right.

Chapter 11, by all accounts, has been controversial largely because of various high profile environmental organizations that dominated much of the debate. The national treatment and most favoured nation status requirements are modeled on the similar provision in the World Trade Organization where they apply to trade in goods and services. A decision on whether to negotiate similar provisions in the WTO will be taken later this year at the ministerial meetings in Mexico.

There are reservations and exceptions to chapter 11. Various activities are excluded for all parties, including: education, health and welfare, procurement, subsidies, grants and foreign aid. Local government measures are not subject to direct claims, although non-conforming measures of local governments have been seen as indirectly the responsibility of national governments. We can talk about that when we talk about the Metalclad case which is one of the three cases trotted out as being the rationale for saying that chapter 11 should not be in NAFTA.

There are strict rules regarding expropriation and restrictions on the ability of the state to expropriate and a subsequent obligation to compensate. This section was designed primarily to protect investments from Canada and the U.S. from arbitrary government action, such as nationalization in Mexico, where the legal system was much less developed and private property rights less regularly protected.

What purpose does chapter 11 serve? At its most basic level, the theoretical economic and political basis for the provisions of the chapter lie in the principles of the sanctity of private property against random or unaccountable government action, and that of well-regulated market forces being most able to allocate private investment efficiently, thereby increasing productivity and general welfare.

High levels of investment are important for developing productivity and so we do not want to see discrimination between investment on the basis of origin, foreign or domestic, as it is counterproductive. Furthermore, the importance of transparency and codified regulatory frameworks are essential for attracting foreign investment. That is what chapter 11 is all about.

In a sense the chapter actually enhances national sovereignty insofar as measures which respect sovereignty are those which do not mandate unilateral sanctions or justify extraterritorial reach of national measures. I would argue that this chapter is a codified multilateral agreement entered into and maintained freely by sovereign governments who enter into it.

There have been three successful cases that are often talked about. One of the most prominent is the MMT case. In that case the Canadian government was found to have banned MMT without scientific evidence. We ended up paying a $20 million out of court settlement to Ethyl Corporation. I was in the House of Commons when that happened. I can say with certainty that we warned the government not to expropriate MMT's profits by the actions it subsequently took and it ended up paying for them.

In the case of Metalclad, it only had a case because the Mexican government had assured them they had all the necessary permits, environmental and otherwise, to build an industrial waste facility. Then the city of Guadalcazar refused to issue a building permit and the state government subsequently declared the site a nature reserve. This had nothing to do with environmental protection. It had everything to do with protection against unilateral action.

In summary, I oppose the bill.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians who are embarrassed by the Canadian position on this issue are asking themselves, what can we do to turn this thing around? That is why we saw some very spontaneous rallies in Canada this past weekend and why there are more planned. This is an important question also for members of Parliament.

I went to the U.S. this past weekend for an engagement I had committed to long ago. For the first time ever I was actually embarrassed to display my Canadian identity publicly. It was the first time I had crossed the border into the U.S. and felt anything but proud. That is a great difficulty.

We are family, as the U.S. ambassador described. The Americans would be the first ones to come to our aid. There needs to be a very strong signal, a way at least to engage Canadians in recognizing our relationship. I go back to what I was promoting some time ago, and that is to recognize that on September 11, 2001, a lot more than the U.S. was attacked. Canada and all western nations were attacked.

I have asked for and received very short responses from the government. I have asked for a Canadian memorial to be built for the 26 Canadian victims. There is only one government memorial in this country. It was done by the province of Manitoba. Last September 11 I went to that memorial because it is the only one we have. Canadians who are not from Manitoba should not have to travel that far. We should have one national monument.

That is the start of the process from my perspective. There are obviously dozens of other things including a top-down revamp of the foreign policy posture of the government.