Serge Cardin

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a possible export of water and the fact that NAFTA might permit the exporting of water.

I do not imagine that anyone would want Canada's and Quebec's water if it were completely polluted, other than to use for very rudimentary needs that would have no implications. When we are talking about the bulk removal of water, it is just as important, if not more so, to talk about water quality. The water we are conserving will have to be good quality, clean and pollution-free.

After the oxygen we breathe, which is essential to life, the second element that is essential to life is water. We must first ensure that the air is as pure as possible; and our water must then also be as pure as possible. Not only must it be pure, but it must also be protected. Water is not just a natural resource, it is a resource that is essential to life.

For example, I will cite a few situations that have occurred in the world. Let us recall the Aral Sea, which has practically dried up because of irrigation and because the water table was affected. We cannot allow this to occur. In the United States, there are developments being built in the desert, where housing complexes are being constructed and top dollar is being paid to have an oversized artificial lake. This will lead to a need for water. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. On the other hand, the American need for water will mean that the United States will one day be wanting Canada's and Quebec's water.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Friday, May 18, 2007, be concurred in.

I am very pleased to rise in this House and discuss a motion made by the Bloc Québécois and adopted by the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 15.

I should mention that the Conservatives did everything in their power to block and delay the adoption of this motion, but the opposition parties set aside partisanship to address this issue, which is crucial to the sovereignty of Canada and the Quebec of the future.

Before I go any further, I would like to read the motion, as adopted by the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and the motion adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 your Committee recommends:

Whereas Canada’s water resources must be protected;

Whereas NAFTA covers all services and all goods, except those that are expressly excluded and water is not excluded;

Whereas this situation puts the provincial and federal laws concerning the protection of water including the prohibition of bulk water exports at risk;

Whereas a simple agreement by exchange of letters among the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico specifying that water is not covered by NAFTA must be respected by international tribunals as if it were an integral part of NAFTA;

That the Standing Committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

Considering that the primary responsibility of democratically elected political parties is to represent the people and defend their interests, it is difficult to imagine that a party would refuse to support a motion intended to protect Quebec's and Canada's resources. Such a position has no basis in logic. Many people are afraid to embark on such talks, because reopening NAFTA would be like opening Pandora's box, especially since the winds of protectionism seem to be blowing south of the border.

These concerns are understandable, but it is possible to exclude water, without completely reopening the agreement. Far from being eloquent, the Conservatives' argument is mainly that there is no risk, so why talk about it?

Most of the people who appeared before the committee did not show the same gullibility or naiveté as the Conservatives. In any event, assuming that the Conservatives are right, nothing would stop them from taking a stand on this issue. This would reassure all Quebeckers and Canadians, and would firmly show our American and Mexican neighbours that Canada has a consensus.

Refusing to take a stand on this issue shows the current government's lack of goodwill. Speaking of goodwill, the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade were shocked by the attitude of the committee chair, particularly when it came to the process for discussing and adopting the water motion, which we are talking about today.

We now all understand better what happened: the chair was only doing as he was told. It was a good try, but democracy won out, which goes to show how essential the Bloc Québécois is to the current Parliament.

To get back to the water motion, the question is whether or not bulk water can be considered a good. I would like to warn you that the Conservatives will mainly refer to water in its natural state. What is water in its natural state? It is water flowing down a river, or sitting in a basin. What is water if it has been removed from a riverbed or a basin? Since it has been altered, it is no longer in its natural state.

This distinction is essential in this case. Water in its natural state is effectively protected, but as soon any type of modification is made, water is no longer in its natural state and can therefore become a commercial good.

That is precisely what is pointed out in a document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

Water does not become a good until it is removed from its natural state and enters into commerce as a saleable commodity,

That is very close to what we are saying, is it not? But let us go further. Again, according to the document from the department:

Water in its natural state can be equated with other natural resources, such as trees in the forest, fish in the sea, or minerals in the ground.

Can the government confirm that the forests, fish or minerals are not covered by NAFTA? Obviously not or the problem goes well beyond the debate we are engaged in today.

Therefore, by comparing water to those other natural resources, the government is confirming that water could very well become a commodity regulated by NAFTA. That shows how important it is to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. The threat is very real, indeed, too real.

In simple terms, water could be a commercial product, but as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec (BAPE) has recognized it is only the lack of profit in water exports that has so far protected Quebec water from being exported in bulk.

In 2000, the BAPE noted that the commercial value of water did not make it profitable to export water in bulk. But what would happen if the commercial value of water increased to the point that it made such a project profitable?

Given the climate change that our world is facing, our neighbours to the south expect increasing drought, which will have major repercussions, especially on the American economy. It is because of that very real possibility that we must act now to specifically exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

In its report, entitled L’eau, ressource à protéger, à partager et à mettre en valeur, the Commission sur la gestion de l'eau au Québec asked the question, “Should Quebec export its fresh water in large quantities?” and answered with an emphatic “No”.

The report pointed out that maintaining the status quo would be an unwise strategy given the current state of knowledge and the uncertainty related to climate change. That uncertainty is becoming more of a certainty. Climate change is increasingly considered to be a real and significant threat.

Since the publication of the BAPE report in 2000, scientific advances, such as the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known as IPCC, have confirmed the fears raised in the BAPE report.

The report clearly indicates:

In the short term, Quebec must make the Water Resources Preservation Act permanent. On the federal side, the possibility of the renegotiation of NAFTA must be closely scrutinized.

That is what the BAPE had to say.

In other words, the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois is perfectly in line with the recommendation made in the BAPE report on water management. Given that natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government must not encroach on provincial jurisdictions; rather, it must fill in the gaps in trade agreements, such as NAFTA, which do fall under federal jurisdiction.

Water, in and of itself, is under provincial jurisdiction, but have the provinces done their homework?

Will the federal government alone protect this resource? Quebec legislation prohibits the export of water in bulk, and every Canadian province, except New Brunswick, has similar legislation.

However, there is no guarantee that this legislation will withstand a possible dispute by the Americans under NAFTA, which is the problem that this motion aims to resolve. The government says that NAFTA in no way limits our ability to protect our water resources. However, the situation is not so straightforward. Water is not specifically excluded from the scope of NAFTA. Most experts agree that water, in its natural state, is not subject to NAFTA. This protection, quite frankly, does not mean much. As already mentioned, water is in its natural state when it is not being used. The Americans would not purchase water from the Saguenay, only to leave it in the Saguenay. They would want to purchase water from the Saguenay in order to use it south of the border. Thus, it would not be in its natural state.

If a proposal to take water for export is put forward, we can no longer say that the water is not being used. If a contract is signed to that effect, a commercial transaction exists and trade agreements apply. Unless a commodity is specifically excluded from NAFTA through an exception under chapter 21 or a reservation, NAFTA applies the moment a commercial transaction is concluded.

In the absence of an exception, it is not the nature of the commodity that determines whether it is a marketable commodity. In other words, a U.S. company would simply have to put forward a proposal to export large quantities of water in order for NAFTA to apply, namely in terms of non-discrimination, national treatment or investment protection.

What about the witnesses who were kind enough to appear before the committee, that is, those who were allowed to speak? I must say that at the May 10 meeting, I was never more ashamed to be a parliamentarian. Preventing a witness from addressing the committee was not just embarrassing, but literally unbearable. Witnesses who had truly travelled from across Canada to provide us their testimony were silenced by the committee's chair. Again today, given recent revelations in the media on the Conservatives' code, we understand things better, but this is still inexcusable. Some had the chance to be heard. I should say “listened to”, but for members of the government I use that term quite loosely.

Allow me to cite Peter Fawcett, Deputy Director at the U.S. Transboundary Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who appeared before the committee on May 10. Mr. Speaker, I presume you will allow my loose translation of what he said, which was, “I just want to emphasize that this is the approach we've taken to deal with water—as a natural resource, in its basin”. What happens when water is no longer in its basin? The witness was unable to give us an answer.

Another witness left quite an impression on the committee: Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, who addressed the committee on May 1. Her remarks were clear, precise and easy to understand. Ms. Barlow has published a number of books specifically on water. Allow me to quote a few excerpts from Ms. Barlow's testimony in the committee:

One is that you won't see the word “water” in NAFTA. What you'll see is the reference to the definition of a “good” that was in the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. When you go to that, you will see water in all its forms, including ice and snow. NAFTA adopted the old GATT tariff notion of a good, so water absolutely, definitely, is in NAFTA, which supersedes the provincial laws; not one of the provincial bans on water exports would stand up to a NAFTA challenge. We have to remove water as a good, an investment, and a service in NAFTA. We need to do that.

Ms. Barlow went on to say that:

[The Conservatives are] wrong in saying that NAFTA does not impact on the provinces and does not take precedence. A treaty between two countries, signed by the federal government of those two countries, is the overarching legislation. It implies everything and involves everything about the provinces. Of course the provinces don't have jurisdiction higher than that treaty.

I have here in my hand all of the legislation of the different provinces. It's a mishmash. New Brunswick has nothing--and they mean nothing.

Ralph Pentland, now retired, is considered Canada's leading senior bureaucratic authority on water issues. He is very clear that water is in NAFTA, as are all the legal opinions that you will find from everybody on all sides of the border--and when I say “border” I mean the political border. We even met with lawyers from the Canadian government when the Liberals were in power, and they all said the same thing: water is in NAFTA. You don't see the word. You have to go to the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to get the definition of a good, and there it is. It is in there as an investment.

There is much to talk about. In short, for a brief period of time British Columbia exported water to the United States, specifically to a region experiencing a shortage. However, the province quickly changed its mind at the cost of a secret out-of-court settlement based on the provisions of the infamous chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

Canadian water will not be at risk so long as Americans do not challenge provincial laws, which are all different, and demand the export of water as a commercial good governed by NAFTA.

Although the issue is complex and the implications far-reaching, the solution may be simple and achievable. Excluding water from NAFTA is an obvious example that simple measures often do the trick.

When the government's argument against a motion is summed up by “it is no use”, while representatives of civil society are using every platform to make government aware of the extent of the risk, we should be asking questions.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have introduced this motion, which is a good example of how the Bloc Québécois supports democracy in this House.

In closing, I will quote a few lines from the Libre-Opinion piece that appeared in Le Devoir on May 30, 2007:

The recent adoption by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade of a motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois, and supported by the opposition parties, to exclude water from NAFTA, deserves to be applauded.

It is in this context that I ask this House and all members to support this motion calling on the Government of Canada to begin formal talks with Mexico and the United States for the purpose of excluding water from the scope of NAFTA.

The Conservatives have told us repeatedly that water is not covered by the NAFTA, that it is excluded. Then why not spell it out? If the government and the Conservative members insist on being unclear, there must be something wrong. This motion is crystal clear.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Bulk Water Removals”.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Main Estimates 2007-2008: Votes 15 and 55 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade”.

[The Environment, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, following the example of the young cyclists from Sherbrooke who braved the winter cold to send a message to the Minister of the Environment with their “Kyoto à vélo” initiative, students from the Collège Sacré-Coeur have also joined forces to send a message to the Prime Minister about environmental issues.

On the initiative of a teacher, Bryan Teasdale, the students have sent some 400 letters to the Prime Minister, calling on him to comply with the Kyoto protocol. Their aims are, first, to give a voice to future generations and, second, to obtain concrete commitments from the Prime Minister. The students want to remind him that the earth does not belong to him; rather, it is on loan from future generations.

I wish to join with these young people, a true source of inspiration, and I invite all Sherbrooke schools to take part in this act of solidarity. I invite the students to write to the Prime Minister, to share their concerns with him and let him know what action they think he, as Prime Minister, should take.

Congratulations to these young people who went ahead and took action.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to this little adventure, although I do not know what there was to it, there may be some reason to be fearful and think that the entire World Bank reflects it. I hope that people will succeed in fixing this and increasing the NDP's confidence in the World Bank. It is still true, though, that 156 countries have signed this treaty.

In one way or another, people have been appealing indirectly to this tribunal. Now they will be able to do so directly. Canada will benefit in other ways as well and will be able to participate in other regards, as I mentioned before.

Technically, the only thing that Canada’s joining ICSID will change is that Canada will be able to participate in the negotiations to amend the ICSID convention or regulations and rules. In addition, Canada will be assured of being able to participate in the appointment of arbitration tribunals.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all the agreements that Canada has signed on the protection of foreign investment have major deficiencies and are based to some extent on NAFTA chapter 11. As I said in my speech, most of the agreements Canada has signed are bad. A tribunal such as ICSID, which is the subject of Bill C-53, will always judge, treat and evaluate things on the basis of the agreement that was signed between the two countries. We are talking here about Canadian foreign investment. One hundred and fifty-six countries have signed this convention and can go directly to the ICSID tribunal.

We have international relations and Canadian foreign investment. I understand that the laws of Canada and of the various provinces and Quebec take priority when we are dealing with people who are here. However, when we are dealing with foreigners, we need some basis. This basis is primarily the agreements that have been signed. Everything depends on that.

As I said and say once again, this is just a tribunal. There are also the agreements that were signed, and unfortunately, most of them are bad. They should all be renegotiated, just like chapter 11 of NAFTA.

This is the basis on which people can at least seek justice on the international scene for Canadian foreign investment. I do not think that the reverse happens very often because I hope that Canada treats foreign investors fairly. It does not allow them to do everything they want, of course, whenever they want, or to be more important and take precedence over all the laws and regulations of Canada, which must be obeyed. Justice should always be done, therefore, on the basis of the international agreements that were negotiated but are mostly bad. In the future, all these agreements should be submitted to the House so that we can evaluate them.

That being said, I would tell the NDP member that he should table the amendments to Bill C-53; that would reassure them.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to confirm that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-53 in principle. I would also like to suggest to my colleague in the NDP that he should introduce the adjustments he would like to see in committee.

The passage of this bill will enable Canada to ratify the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States and join the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

I will certainly be referring to this centre in my speech, and since it has a rather long name, I will just call it ICSID.

Bill C-53 incorporates the requirements of the convention into our domestic law, especially in regard to ensuring that arbitration awards are upheld and granting ICSID and its staff the immunities they need.

ICSID was established in 1965 by the World Bank under the Washington Treaty. One hundred and fifty-six countries are currently members. ICSID arbitrates disputes between states and foreign investors. These disputes can be of two kinds: first, disputes over compliance with bilateral foreign investment protection agreements, and second, disputes involving agreements between governments and foreign investors. The Government of Quebec regularly concludes agreements of this kind, encouraging foreign investment through promises, for example, to provide electricity at a particular price.

Canada joining ICSID will have no effect on the provinces and Quebec, except that they too will be able to provide for recourse to ICSID in the agreements they reach with investors.

The bilateral treaties binding on the federal government already provide for recourse to ICSID arbitration, although by means of a complementary arbitration system rather than the regular system, which is only available to countries that have ratified the convention.

The only thing that Canada’s joining ICSID will change is that Canada will be able to participate in the negotiations to amend the ICSID convention or regulations and rules and will be assured of being able to participate in the appointment of arbitration tribunals. Canada will therefore be able to participate directly in ICSID.

Ultimately, ICSID is only a tribunal. The problem, however, is not the tribunal but the bad treaties that Canada signs to protect investment.

The Bloc Québécois supports the negotiation of investment protection agreements provided, of course, that they are good agreements.

It is completely natural for investors, before making an investment, to try and make sure they will not be divested of their property or that they will not become victims of discrimination. This is the sort of situation that foreign investment protection agreements are meant to cover.

This is not a new idea. The first known agreement that included provisions relating to protection of foreign investments was signed between France and the United States in 1788, more than two centuries ago.

In the world today, there are more than 2,400 bilateral investment protection agreements. If we include the tax treaties that deal with the tax treatment of investments and foreign income, we find about 5,000 bilateral treaties concerning foreign investment.

The Bloc is in favour of negotiating such agreements and we recognize that they promote investment and growth. These agreements are almost all based on the same principles.

First, there is a respect for property rights regardless of the owner’s nationality. Second, there can be no nationalization without fair and prompt financial compensation. Third, there is a prohibition against treating property located within a country’s territory differently depending on the owner's origins. Finally, there is free movement of capital resulting from the operation and the disposal of investment.

In every case, when these rights are not respected, states may submit disputes over compliance with an agreement to an international arbitration tribunal. In the majority of cases, investors, themselves, may submit the dispute to an international tribunal, but only with the consent of the state. In many cases, the international arbitration provided in the agreement takes place before ICSID. By agreeing to this, as Bill C-53 provides, we are also agreeing to an international order in the field of investment.

In the investment protection agreements that they sign, only two countries, Canada and the United States, systematically grant investors the right to appeal directly to international tribunals. This is a deviation from the norm. By allowing a company to operate outside government control, it is being given the status of a subject of international law, a status that ordinarily belongs only to governments. The agreements that Canada signs contain a number of similar deviations that give multinationals rights they should not have and that limit the power of the state to legislate and take action for the common good.

The investments chapter of NAFTA, chapter 11, provides that a dispute can go to ICSID. That chapter is a bad agreement in three respects: the definition of expropriation, the definition of investor and the definition of investment.

The definition of expropriation is so vague that any government measure—except for a general tax measure—can be challenged by a foreign investor if it diminishes the profits generated by the investment. A plan to implement the Kyoto accord, which would have major polluters such as oil companies pay dearly, could be challenged under chapter 11 and result in government compensation. American companies have majority interests in Alberta oil companies. Chapter 11 opens the door to the most improper legal disputes.

The definition of investor is so broad that it includes any shareholder. Therefore anyone could take the state to court and attempt to obtain compensation for a government measure that allegedly reduced a company’s profits.

As for the definition of investment, it too is so broad that it even includes the future profits that an investor hopes to earn. In the case of expropriation, not only does the state find itself forced to pay fair market value, but it must also include revenues that the investor expects to earn in future. It would no longer be possible to nationalize electricity, as Quebec did in the 1960s.

Take the example of SunBelt, a corporation with a Canadian shareholder and a Californian shareholder. The corporation closed its doors when the Government of British Columbia withdrew the right it had granted for the bulk export of water. The Canadian shareholder, based on Canadian laws, received compensation equivalent to the value of his investment, or $300,000. The American shareholder, based on NAFTA chapter 11, included potential future revenue in its claim: $100 million. For better or for worse, the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Given the amounts of money in issue, chapter 11 is a deterrent to any government action, particularly in relation to the environment, whose effect would be to reduce the profits of a foreign-owned corporation.

As well, the dispute resolution mechanism allows corporations to apply directly to the international tribunals to seek compensation, without even getting the consent of the state. How is it conceivable that a multinational could, on its own authority, create a trade dispute between two countries? And yet this is the absurd situation that the investment chapter of NAFTA permits.

Given these flaws, chapter 11 of NAFTA reduces the state’s capacity to take action for the common good and to legislate about the environment, and is a Damocles’ sword that could come crashing down at any moment on any legislative or regulatory measures whose effect was to reduce corporations’ profits.

In 2005, the United States changed some of the provisions in their standard form investment protection agreement. In 2006, Canada followed suit. Since both countries have now acknowledged the harmful and extreme nature of chapter 11 of NAFTA, the time is ripe for the government to move quickly to enter into discussions with its American and Mexican partners to amend chapter 11 of NAFTA

We say no to bad investment protection agreements. In addition to chapter 11 of NAFTA, and although its extreme nature has been widely decried, the government has entered into 16 other bilateral foreign investment agreements, carbon copies of chapter 11. All of these foreign investment agreements are faulty and should be renegotiated.

In 2006, the government recognized to some degree that these agreements were bad. Copying the amendments made by the Bush administration the previous year, the Conservative government made changes to its FIPA program to correct the most obvious shortcomings.

It clarified the concept of expropriation by specifying that a non-discriminatory government measure that is intended to protect health and the environment or to promote a legitimate government objective should not be considered as expropriation and should not automatically generate compensation. It is too soon to evaluate the real impact of that clarification, but at first glance, it looks like an improvement.

it restricted the concept of investment by specifying that the value of property is equal to its fair market value. That put an end to the folly of adding together all the potential profits that an investor might hope to earn from an investment. As for the rest, the standard investment protection agreement continues to be based on chapter 11 of NAFTA.

The government must continue to improve this standard agreement, particularly in terms of dispute settlement mechanisms. Multinational corporations must be brought under the authority of the state, like any other citizen.

Also, the government should submit international treaties and agreements to the House of Commons before ratifying them. At the start of the year, the government sent out a news release to announce that it had just ratified a new foreign investment protection agreement with Peru. It was only by reading that news release that parliamentarians and the public became aware of this agreement. Parliament was never informed and never approved it. That is completely anti-democratic.

Yet, the Conservative platform in the last election was clear: the Conservatives made a commitment to submit all international treaties and agreements for approval before ratifying them.

Since the Conservatives took office, Canada has signed 24 international treaties.

With the exception of the amendment to the NATO treaty, for which a mini-debate and a vote took place at the last minute, none of these international treaties were presented to the House.

Today, the consequences of international agreements on our lives are comparable to those that legislation may have. Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies the government quietly signing such agreements unilaterally, by going over the heads of people's representatives.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced bills in the past to restore democracy and ensure the respect of Quebec and provincial jurisdictions in the conclusion of international treaties. Since the government promised to do this, we did not bring the issue up again at the time.

We are now seeing that the word of the Conservatives is not worth very much. The Bloc Québécois will raise this issue again and will bring forward proposals to restore democracy in the conclusion of international treaties. Such proposals will include requiring the government to present to the House all international treaties and agreements it has signed before ratifying them, requiring the government to publish all international agreements by which it is bound, requiring the vote and approval of the House following an analysis by a special committee tasked with examining international agreements and major treaties before the government may ratify them, and calling on the government to respect Quebec and provincial jurisdictions in the entire process of concluding treaties, that is, all stages of negotiation, signing and ratification.

In conclusion, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is indeed necessary to ensure that the states are treated fairly by multinational corporations. We must also ensure that the agreements signed by Canada are good agreements that respect all the stakeholders.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member told us he would vote against Bill C-53 concerning the ICSID. In the end, it is just a tribunal. In my opinion, it is not necessarily the tribunal that presents a problem, but the poor investment protection treaties Canada negotiates and signs without the House's approval.

Consequently, does he not believe that this convention, which could be signed with the adoption of Bill C-53, could protect Canadian investments abroad and also protect Canada and other countries against investments? As I said, the centre is just a tribunal. The treaties Canada signs are not necessarily the best and should have tougher conditions with more bite. Because if necessary, the tribunal could put things right again.

[Agriculture and Agri-food, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Aucoin, Chief Registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the organization responsible for this reform, thinks that this is a normal harmonization process being carried out under NAFTA.

Does the minister really think that lowering Canada's requirements is part of a normal and desirable harmonization process?

[Agriculture and Agri-food, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Secretary of State for Agriculture made a speech to members of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, while, paradoxically, the federal government is considering raising the acceptable chemical residue limit on hundreds of fruits and vegetables sold in Canada, in response to pressure from the Americans.

Can the Minister of International Trade promise that from now on the standards for both countries will be the highest possible standards?