FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Good morning, Mr. Weekes. Thank you very much for joining us.

Some of us had a more romantic idea of visiting you in Geneva, but anyway, here we are. It's good of you to visit us, because I gather every time we tried to arrange to go over there, it turned out to be impossible for various reasons.

We know you're extremely busy, so thank you for coming. If you could start with a few opening comments, I know the members have some questions they would like to ask you.

You know we're doing the study on the WTO, so I don't have to explain what we're up to here.

Mr. John Weekes (Ambassador of Canada to the World Trade Organization): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's good to be here. Perhaps you should try again to come to Geneva. You wouldn't have been the only parliamentarians coming to Geneva in the last few months. We're starting to see an increase in interest at the parliamentary level from a number of countries in what is going on in Geneva. I think the representatives there are beginning to get used to the idea that part of their job is talking to legislators from countries other than their own. So perhaps I'll have the opportunity to welcome you all in Geneva at some point.

I will try this morning to give you a sense of the perspective from sitting in Geneva, including, of course, considering how developments there may be relevant to Canadian interests.

I must say, it's with some trepidation that I appear before you this morning. I know it is nearing the end of a series of hearings you've been engaged in, and I believe the committee has acquired a lot of wisdom in this process.

The main event in Geneva for which we are preparing at this stage is the third ministerial conference of the organization, which will take place in Seattle, Washington, from November 30 to December 3. I would like to look this morning at the prospects for initiating a broader set of negotiations in Seattle, what some might call a “round”. I'd like to consider the types of subjects that could be taken up in those negotiations. I'd also like to touch briefly on the implications of dispute settlement cases and accession negotiations for this process.

I thought it might be useful if I made a few observations about how new negotiations might differ from the Uruguay Round, and about the changed role of developing countries in the system, which I think is quite important in understanding what is happening in Geneva.

I should perhaps add in parentheses, before I take that on, that as I'm sure you are aware, we're actively engaged in the search for a new director general for the WTO. This process has clearly begun to detract from the other business of the organization. Hopefully we will be able to complete the selection as soon as possible.

On a personal note, I would add that it would certainly be a happy outcome if the Honourable Roy MacLaren were to become the next director general of the WTO.

• 0910

In Geneva, as I said, we're now actively engaged in preparations for the Seattle ministerial. The marching orders for these preparations were given to us by ministers at the second ministerial conference in Geneva last May.

Let me recall part of what the ministers said on that occasion in their Geneva declaration. I'm going to quote a section from a key operative portion. It's not too long. Although it's kind of dull, it's important.

It reads as follows:

...we decide that a process will be established under the direction of the General Council to ensure full and faithful implementation of existing agreements, and to prepare for the third session of the ministerial conference. This process shall enable the General Council to submit recommendations regarding the WTO's work program, including further liberalization, sufficiently broad-based to respond to the range of interests and concerns of all members within the WTO framework that will enable us to take decisions at the third session of the ministerial conference.

The reference here to the “WTO's work program” is really a reference to new negotiations, and the reference to “further liberalization sufficiently broad-based” was put in at the insistence of the European Community, which wanted a hook on which to hang their case for a millennium round of trade negotiations.

Ministers also decided on the scope of the general council's work program on which recommendations could be prepared. Clear priority was given to implementation issues, the “negotiations already mandated at Marrakesh, to ensure that such negotiations begin on schedule”—i.e., agriculture and services—and “future work already provided for” under the WTO and other decisions taken at Marrakesh, including, for instance, the review of the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and other reviews, such as that of the dispute settlement system, and the decision on trade and environment. Somewhat lesser priority was given to other matters, including investment, competition policy, and any new issues that might be brought forward.

In short, the mandate for ministers did not decide on the scope of negotiations but certainly raised the prospect of a broad new negotiating effort.

Outside Geneva, the calls at the political level for a round have now increased. Sir Leon Britton, the first to call for a millennium round, has secured the backing of his European Community member states, something that is probably quite useful given the uncertainty of his current status. President Clinton called for the launching of a new round in his State of the Union address in January. The Japanese have declared themselves in favour, and a group of smaller, mainly developing countries, calling themselves the “Friends of the New Round”, have met at the ministerial level in Hong Kong to declare their support for such a project.

Thus, the idea of a negotiation considerably bigger than the minimum requirement to negotiate on agriculture and services has gained considerable momentum. A number of developing countries, including, for instance, Egypt, Pakistan and India, have expressed reservations about a new round, but they've tended to do so in tactical terms rather than by stating outright opposition.

It's useful to note that a number of those countries supporting a new round do so out of the conviction that a broader negotiation is needed if progress is to be registered in negotiations on agriculture and services. This point is made in particular by the Japanese and also by EC representatives. Korea is a member of the Friends of the New Round. Thus, a number of the key countries from whom Canada would be seeking concessions in any new negotiations are in favour of a big negotiation.

We need to consider the various proposals being brought forward for what should be negotiated, and consider them on their merits. That is what is now going on in a series of meetings in the WTO's council in Geneva, the body to which the ministers gave the preparatory mandate.

• 0915

One issue that a number of delegations have proposed for negotiation is one on tariffs on industrial goods. They argue that it does not make much sense to be negotiating the reduction of barriers to trade and agriculture and services but not for industrial products. With these three broad themes, we already have the ingredients for a very important negotiation.

Let me outline some of the other issues on the emerging trade agenda that I think give a sense of the types of issues we will be discussing over the coming months as to what the shape of these new negotiations should look like.

More and more, trade negotiations and trade policy are about regulatory policy. The issue is very much at the heart of what has been driving the transatlantic business dialogue, and now the topic may well become important in new WTO negotiations. Regulatory issues are not entirely new to the WTO, but their importance is now of the first order.

In the Tokyo Round of GATT negotiations during the 1970s, an agreement on technical barriers to trade was negotiated to try to ensure that technical regulations and product standards would not be used as protectionist devices. Terms such as “technical barriers to trade”, or its Uruguay Round agricultural equivalent, “sanitary and phytosanitary measures”, do not really convey the idea that these trade agreements are about domestic regulatory policy. Those, however, are exactly the types of matters that are now coming to the trade table—mad cow disease, hormones in meat, genetically modified organisms, and labelling requirements for fine paper.

It should be noted that in making rules internationally, governments are not giving up their right to regulate in the public interest, but in a growing number of cases that regulation is likely to be more effective if done on an international basis rather than on a purely domestic one.

Competition policy is also increasingly on the trade agenda. The WTO agreement on basic telecommunications includes pro-competitive regulatory commitments to ensure that the market liberalization that was agreed to would actually be realized. The complaint brought by the United States against Japan on photographic film a couple of years ago shows how close the relationship is between trade liberalization and competition policy. The enhanced initiative on deregulation and competition policy has been a part of trade discussions between the United States and Japan for some time.

Increasingly, I believe, we will see a need for provisions in trade agreements, like the pro-competitive regulatory principles in the telecommunications deal, designed to strengthen trade liberalization. The European Community has taken an ambitious approach in this field. How ambitious our efforts are in this area remains to be determined, but the question, I think, is how we address competition policy, not whether we address it.

Investment policy is also increasingly a trade issue. Business leaders know that in the real world, trade and investment are virtually inseparable. UN statistics show that the sales of foreign affiliates of multinational companies now exceed the total value of world trade in goods and services. Investment rules are prominent in major regional agreements like NAFTA.

In recent years, a major focus among OECD countries has been of course the effort to negotiate a multilateral agreement. This effort, as you are well aware, has not been successful. In the WTO, investment is also increasingly present. The WTO incorporates investment provisions in the services area.

For instance, the key part of the recent negotiations on telecommunications and financial services was about how much foreign investment would be allowed in these previously restricted sectors. There are WTO provisions on trade-related investment measures. We are engaged in a work program in the WTO designed to let us decide whether to enter negotiations to establish multilateral investment rules in the WTO. Whether, and how, to treat investment in new negotiations will be one of the key questions addressed over the coming months.

• 0920

Environment is another file that is currently under study in the WTO. If not handled effectively, it could cause grave damage to international trade cooperation.

In March the WTO held a high-level meeting on trade and environment issues under the chairmanship of its then director general, Renato Ruggiero. This meeting was an important opportunity for the trade community in the WTO to engage the environmental community in a wide-ranging discussion. I think the meeting also showed the WTO to be an open organization and one very much under the direction of its members.

One point that came out clearly is that the WTO does not stand in the way of the environment. But we need to be realistic about what the WTO can or should do in this area.

Electronic commerce is part of the knowledge revolution. In the May 1998 ministerial meeting, WTO ministers declared a standstill on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions and called for a comprehensive work program. This matter was the subject of an OECD ministerial conference in Ottawa last October, as you well know.

It is important to note that the world community has concluded that this new way of communicating needs to be addressed at the international level in conjunction with the development of domestic approaches. It is bound to feature prominently at the ministerial conference later this year.

This gives a flavour of many of the new items on the trade agenda. It is one that will increasingly involve domestic measures and policies. It gives you a sense of the challenge that lies ahead as we prepare for these new negotiating activities.

In carrying out the mandate from ministers, the general council has already discussed many of these issues. The preparatory work is being done in a series of special sessions of the general council, coupled with more informal meetings designed to facilitate an exchange of views.

During the autumn, delegations were engaged in identification of possible issues for ministerial consideration. We are now engaged in tabling more specific proposals and will debate those until about July. Few actual proposals have so far been tabled, but many have been promised.

The Cairns Group has tabled its vision statement, and Australia has put forward three proposals on elements of the agriculture negotiations. From July on we will be into the business of preparing the actual draft recommendations for the ministers.

There's a lot to do in Geneva, but delegations must try to keep the task in perspective. We don't have to finish the negotiations. We just have to agree on how to get them under way.

The general council was also instructed by the ministers to prepare “recommendations for decisions concerning the future organization and management of the work program”—i.e., the new negotiations. These recommendations are to include ones concerning “the scope, structure and timeframes, that will ensure that the work program is begun and concluded expeditiously”.

Most of this organizational work will be undertaken when we have a better sense of the overall nature of what is likely to be put to ministers. However, already many delegations have said that the negotiations should not be allowed to drag on. The suggestion has been made that three years would be a reasonable timeframe and would ensure that negotiations were over before the expiry of the agriculture agreement's “peace clause” at the end of 2003. Indeed, this event could well act as a catalyst encouraging negotiators to finish by that time because of the frictions that would probably arise if arrangements were not made ahead of time for what would happen after that date.

• 0925

A number of recent disputes adjudicated before the WTO are bound to have an impact on new negotiations, including, importantly, the agriculture negotiations. It is difficult to predict exactly how panel findings or appellate body decisions will impact, but you can be sure that negotiators will be studying such outcomes as they develop their negotiating approaches. Indeed, certain disputes may have impacts that go well beyond the particular area in dispute. For instance, the banana dispute is instructive because much of it turned on an interpretation of the services agreement and the distribution issue.

The dispute involving Canada's pricing system for industrial milk and the utilization of tariff rate quotas will have a clear bearing on negotiations no matter what the outcome. It will establish the definitive interpretation of some key provisions in the WTO and the negotiations will need to take these as a starting point.

Other disputes, such as those involving sanitary embargoes on the import of fresh salmon into Australia, beef hormones—and this is very topical these days—and phytosanitary restrictions on fruit imports into Japan, have implications for the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. I suspect they greatly increase the probability of some members wanting to reopen this agreement, perhaps using this year's mandated review as a starting point.

It is a reasonable assumption that we will soon see a dispute about genetically modified organisms.

The Chairman: So that you don't leave this hanging for us, you say we would certainly want to reopen the agreement, obviously with the purpose of weakening it. Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. John Weekes: Or potentially clarifying it. I think in originally drafting it, when they put in the words about trying to base decisions on sound science—and I'm not using the exact technical words—that was seen to be sufficient. There may be some question about whether that's an adequate definition of what is needed in those circumstances.

Mind you, I think from the point of view of most Canadian producers at this stage, or the sense I got from the recent agriculture conference in Ottawa, the provisions of this agreement are really quite up to the challenge. But that's perhaps because we've won two panels under these provisions.

In general, though, on the dispute settlement system, I think it's functioning well. Its capacity to deliver definitive interpretations will help negotiators by giving them a better sense of what the rules really mean. It is already clear that negotiators will have less scope this time around for bridging differences with ambiguous drafting, because if they do so, they'll simply be inviting the dispute settlement system to interpret the meaning of a provision, and it will not necessarily always be in the manner in which they had hoped it might turn out.

There are 30 countries now negotiating their accession to the WTO, including large ones like China, Taiwan, Russia, the Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia. Taken together, these negotiations are easily as significant as some past negotiating rounds. Many, if not most, of these countries will still be in the process of accession when the negotiations begin. These accession negotiations offer important opportunities to improve market access for Canadian products and to ensure that these countries accept disciplines that will restrict their capacity to unfairly threaten Canadian trade and production.

For those who have already joined the WTO by the end of this year, we will have an opportunity to negotiate further with them in the context of the new negotiations. All of this will require careful coordination inside Canada with the stakeholders and at the negotiating table.

• 0930

Let me talk a bit about how the WTO is different from the old GATT. The situation in which we approach these negotiations is very different from the one we faced in 1986 prior to the launch of the Uruguay Round.

First of all, at least for agriculture and services, we have known all along that we would enter new negotiations at the end of this year because it was so provided in the WTO itself. Second, we have a much better sense of what these negotiations will be about.

The area of services was not even part of the GATT, and developing techniques for incorporating this new area took much time and effort. The basic structure is now in place. Consequently, it should be easier to get negotiations underway.

In the area of agriculture, the starting point is much clearer. Essentially, we're enjoined to continue the reform program. As a result, we can avoid the protracted debates from the Uruguay Round about what the rules should look like, including whether or not tariffication should be agreed.

Now we know the basic structure of the rules. Of course, the negotiations will still raise many difficult issues for many governments, but at least the focus should be clearer. The issues to be decided should be easier to define.

Another difference between the WTO and the old GATT is that there are many more members. At the time of the Punta del Este meeting in 1986, which launched the Uruguay Round, there were fewer than 100 members. Today there are 134, and as I said a moment ago, 30 others are negotiating their accession. This fact needs to be considered in conjunction with the impact the Uruguay Round had on the nature of the institution.

It is worth underlining that virtually all the results of the Uruguay Round negotiations were accepted by all participants as a single undertaking. It meant all parties accepted basically all parts of the agreement, including those matters that had previously been the subject of separate codes in the Tokyo Round. In the earlier GATT system, parties joined the various codes on an à la carte basis, creating confusion and fragmentation. There is now in the WTO one class of membership.

Developing countries negotiated and accepted all the rules, and special and differential treatment has been confined to limited areas, particularly transitional measures. Their commitment to the mainstream of the new system is the result of their gradual emergence as players in the world marketplace. It also sprang from a realization by them that special treatment could not be meaningful if the main system from which it itself was derived was weak.

The reality has changed the situation dramatically from the days of the earlier GATT. Many of the countries in the vanguard of calling for new negotiations are developing countries. Developing countries see the WTO as their house. Membership has shot up, as I have noted.

It is important that we now build on this new partnership in order to strengthen the cooperation between developed and developing countries. This will help consolidate multilateral cooperation and establish a solid basis for future challenges. This task is a major one and will require fresh impetus as we approach these new negotiations. Development concerns will permeate all aspects of these negotiations.

Undoubtedly, an organization with more members will be more challenging to manage, but it does not mean negotiations should be harder. There may even be more scope for bargaining, and there will be fewer free riders outside the system. Mind you, when China joins, it will be bound to make itself felt in ways we do not yet fully understand. However, the strengthened institutional basis of the single undertaking may counteract problems arising from increased numbers. For instance, we already have a ministerial conference in the WTO to manage the negotiations.

Lastly, there's an enormous amount of regional agreement building underway, as this committee is well aware. I would just note the commitment in APEC to reach free trade in that region and the effort to build a free trade agreement in the Americas. I think the launch of what is likely to be a new round of multilateral trade negotiations later this year may prove to be the most important of these initiatives.

• 0935

A lot of this regional energy may be harvested at the multilateral level in the WTO. At the very least, ministers will need to reflect carefully in Seattle about the relationship between the new WTO negotiations and the various regional initiatives.

Finally, as you are aware, we consider it essential for governments to undertake their preparations in an open and transparent fashion. In Geneva we are arguing strongly for a lot more sunlight at the multilateral level, and we shall continue to press for it. We have nothing to fear and a lot to gain by letting stakeholders and citizens know what is going on. In fact, the WTO is a lot more open than some might think, but there is still considerable room for improvement. This is one area where we will continue to press in the run-up to Seattle.

I must say, I look forward to seeing your report, which I'm confident will make an important contribution to the process of preparing for and engaging in these new negotiations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Weekes.

You opened by saying that we've now had an opportunity to acquire a lot of wisdom about these matters since we've been conducting our studies. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that we've acquired a great deal of information. Whether we'll distill it into wisdom will depend on what we do when we sit down to try to work on the report.

Your remarks have been very helpful and very comprehensive. It was a very nice, comprehensive review of what we face. Thank you very much.

Mr. Stinson, sir.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Weekes, for coming today, and welcome to Ottawa.

Throughout the meetings we've had across Canada, the ones I've been involved in, a number of issues have come up with regard to world trade. You mentioned some of them on the environmental end of it. The one issue that comes up probably more than others is the labour standards. We hear a lot of concern about how we can be competitive, say, with countries that may be using child labour and where the standards are not the same. How can we weigh that off?

Mr. John Weekes: Thank you very much.

In looking over, yesterday afternoon, what I had prepared, I realized that I hadn't said anything about labour standards, but I felt confident it would come up.

First of all, this is one of the subjects we're now discussing in Geneva in terms of how to approach this matter at the international level. It's a subject that clearly raises a lot of concerns in developed countries, not just in Canada. It also raises a number of concerns in some of the developing countries.

They have expressed the view that putting this issue on the agenda, which could also turn into a wage rate issue of how many dollars an hour a worker makes in another country, could become a tool for protectionism. I would say that of all the issues we're now looking at in a WTO context—and this one we're looking at only in the antechamber of the WTO at this moment—this is the most politically charged one.

I recall that when I was doing the NAFTA negotiations, the Department of Finance did an analysis of labour productivity between Canada and Mexico. One of the interesting features is that it showed that whereas wage rates in Mexico were about one-seventh of what they were in Canada, labour productivity in Canada was seven times higher than it was in Mexico. So the net effect of this was that on average—and averages, of course, are dangerous—there was an equality of competitiveness in real terms.

• 0940

Of course, in terms of the core labour rights, and particularly child labour, this has been the subject of a lot of renewed activity in which the Canadian government has been very active in the International Labour Organisation. When this issue of labour standards was looked at by ministers at the Singapore ministerial conference in 1996, the ministers concluded that the ILO was the appropriate organization within which these matters should be addressed.

There's been a desire on the part of some of the developed countries to continue to have a look at labour standards from a WTO perspective as well. We have made some quite good progress on the child labour front and on other core labour standards in the ILO. We have for the first time developed a mechanism for monitoring compliance with those undertakings in the ILO, so the matter is certainly under consideration at the international level.

One of the things we need to think of when we're looking at what the WTO and other organizations should do is how much we want the WTO to try to actually negotiate or address itself.

At this recent high-level meeting on trade and environment that I mentioned in my opening remarks, for instance, Renato Ruggiero, the director general of the WTO, suggested that there should be the creation of a multilateral environment organization to allow the countries of the world to give the same profile in one central forum to environment matters that they give to trade matters in the WTO.

A number of environmental groups do not really like the idea of the WTO setting environmental rules and policies. From time to time, they envy the WTO's dispute settlement system from the point of view of the leverage it could give in terms of enforcing environmental disciplines that might be negotiated.

I realize this answer is perhaps a bit too long. It certainly wouldn't stand up in Question Period.

This is part of what is also being looked at in what's called the “coherence agenda”, which is one of the issues under consideration in the preparations for this year's G-8 economic summit in Cologne. This is really a question of how governments get a better grip on organizing the range of international activities that they think need to be addressed through better coordination among the various international organizations charged with these matters.

On that front, there's a lot of scope for looking further at how the WTO relates to, and should relate to, a number of international organizations, including the ILO.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Doesn't the WTO itself have to address these issues, though? When you look at the environmental standards from one country to another...

Let's just take China, because they're looking at coming on board here. Let's take Canada's environmental standards versus China's, and our labour standards versus China's. Unless their standards are almost on a par with ours, we're putting our own people at jeopardy here when it comes to trading on an equal basis.

How can we compete pricewise if they're not under the same scope we are here in environmental standards and labour standards?

Mr. John Weekes: This issue could probably be the subject of a separate investigation by the committee, because it gets into a lot of sub-issues. It's not the type of thing that can be addressed glibly in a quick answer.

Certainly, if you look at our overall trade performance with countries that have a lesser environmental standard or a lesser set of labour laws and regulations than Canada, you won't find much evidence, if any, of our system being undermined by trade with those countries. We're not watching a spiral to the bottom with everybody trying to copy the labour standards of Haiti, for instance, or other countries among the least developed, which have the lowest labour standards and certainly the lowest wage rates.

• 0945

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoit Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Weekes, and welcome to our committee. Thank you also for your evidence. I have a couple of questions.

The first deals with the new cultural instrument that Canada has recently promoted. At the present time, and until proof to the contrary, Canada's position includes the cultural exemption. The previous experts have not been clear on the procedure for presenting this new negotiating position in Seattle in the next round of negotiations. Also, as our ambassador in Geneva, could you tell us how many countries Canada can count upon for allies in this debate? I would also like to ask you if it will take a number of years before we can make this change, since Canada's position is the cultural exemption, until we hear otherwise. This is my first question.

Here is my question. In a statement to the General Council on May 15 and 16, you stated, and I quote you:

...I believe that it may be time, on the eve of new negotiations, to calmly rethink the WTO structure.

You say further on:

This creates an enormous burden for the members, and I sometimes wonder whether they are not somewhat lacking in consistency.

I have three series of questions related to this. You are wondering whether there is a lack of consistency, and a number of people have referred to a lack of transparency. I would like you to address the WTO members' feeling with respect to this lack of transparency. What do you think of it? In your opinion, how could the civil society participate or play a role in changing this situation with respect to consistency and transparency?

My last question deals with Mr. Stinson's comments on the integration of environmental and labour standards. You were quite vague about this. You were thinking out loud about the need to restructure the WTO. What role would you have this agency play in the context of social and environmental standards? Thank you.

Mr. John Weekes: I must point out that I am Canada's ambassador to Geneva, but that I do not determine Canada's policy with respect to our position on the WTO negotiations. The government and the ministers do this in conjunction with the contribution of this committee and other agencies that it consults. Therefore it is here, in Canada, that the policy will be fashioned on the questions that we are discussing. I can give you my perspective from Geneva, but I will not try to tell you what Canada will do on any given subject.

[English]

Let me start with the cultural point that you made, and here, of course, we're in a situation at the moment where the government has not yet formally decided what it wishes to do in this area.

From the sectoral advisory group on international trade, we have a very interesting report dealing with these issues, which comes to the conclusion that rather than seeking a total exemption of this sector, as we tried to do in the NAFTA, it would be better to try to negotiate special rules to deal with the cultural sector, in new negotiations. But the report doesn't go much beyond that in terms of the specifics of precisely what we should do in order to achieve that.

• 0950

Secondly, this is a report to the Minister for International Trade. To the best of my knowledge, the government has not yet taken a formal position on it. So what we have done so far in Geneva is relatively limited, because we wouldn't want to be ahead of cabinet in terms of what we're doing.

We have circulated the report of the SAGIT to other delegations in Geneva, and I might add that it has created a certain amount of interest among other delegations. Indeed, I think we would certainly be able to find some allies on this subject. The French, for instance, come to mind, in very strong terms, but there would certainly be others as well.

I think the problem here, though, is that there's nobody in quite exactly the same situation as Canada is in terms of cultural industries. There's no one else speaking, through a large part of its territory, the same language they speak in the United States, and there's no one else living next door to the United States, which creates a kind of cultural proximity for us that is perhaps more imposing than what others are facing. In some sense, our situation is unique.

The Chairman: Mr. Weekes, can I stop you there and ask you one question?

Isn't there a parallel, like Austria and Germany, for example? Aren't there other situations where smaller countries are beside larger neighbours and they share a common language? Austria and Germany come to mind. I'm just trying to probe this idea about whether we're in a unique situation.

Mr. John Weekes: It's a good question, but the other aspect of this is that the United States is also seen as the world's dominant cultural power—at least in terms of contemporary culture. If you're living in Austria, you might feel more dominated by American culture than you do by German culture—

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. John Weekes: —but it's less threatening, because you're actually speaking German instead of English.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Weekes: But these are only my humble perceptions.

Too, in Europe generally, you have people coming into contact every day with people who speak different languages, so you have people who are listening constantly to different languages, and you have a different impression of the cultural situation, even sitting in Austria, than you would here.

In any event, I think it is a sector in which we would be able to have some allies in a negotiation, but of course we would also need to do some work in trying to prepare the United States for such a set of negotiations. No matter how many other people we could get to agree with us, part of the negotiations would still mean having to convince the United States that it was in their interests. I don't think that would necessarily be an impossible job, depending on what it is that we are proposing. I don't think the Americans like all the uncertainty—as they would view it—that is created by our various policies in the cultural industries area, so there might be some scope for bargaining there if we wish to do that.

On the timing, on how long it would take, I've spoken of a negotiation process that might go on for three years. I think it would be probable that most—if not all—of the results of those negotiations would be realized at the end rather than in the course of the negotiations, although there is some interest this time around in trying to look at whether certain elements of the negotiations could be harvested earlier, rather than waiting for the ultimate conclusion. I would say we're thinking of a three-year timeframe; I would think that would probably be the timeframe needed for these other matters.

In terms of the continued maintenance of the cultural exemption, we have the cultural exemption in the NAFTA. That will not be affected directly by what happens in negotiations in Geneva.

• 0955

There is no similar broad-based cultural exemption in the WTO. In fact, as we've learned in the magazine panel, the key GATT clause on which our policies were caught was the national treatment principle, which has been in the GATT since 1947.

The other remarks of mine that you quoted were made in my valedictory address as the chairman of the WTO general council rather than as the Canadian ambassador. Those remarks were really made on a personal basis after a year of being the chairman of the council and were made in a rather reflective mood, as is the tradition at the end of each year for the chairman.

I think we do need to reflect on the structure of the institution. There I was thinking—in particular because you have a kind of in-house environment in front of you with all the local ambassadors—that we now have, I think, 35 standing bodies in the WTO. Frankly, when you think of each mission trying to staff all of this and trying to project a coherent policy, and the heads of mission with their responsibilities for managing this process and reporting back to their governments... I think this really does create a problem.

Exactly how we can deal with that, I'm not sure, but I do think it's more and more likely that one of the issues we will take up in these new negotiations will be a sort of institutional basket of issues that could include the structural coherence of the organization and coherence with other international organizations that deal with subject matter related to what we're dealing with in the WTO, such as: the ILO; the different environmental organizations; the World Bank; the IMF, where we already have agreements; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the International Telecommunications Union; the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; and so on.

On transparency, I think most GATT documents, most WTO documents, are derestricted within six months of the time they are tabled. A lot of them become public immediately. We're looking for further opening of this. We don't really see any basis for keeping most documents restricted. For instance, in panel dispute cases, we have a policy of making public our submissions as soon as they are presented to the panel, in addition to discussing them in advance with the stakeholders.

It's true when I spoke of... well, civil society. Obviously civil society is taking a greater interest in what's going on in the WTO, I think, but there's a bit of a vigorous debate in the organization as to how far we should be going at the multilateral level in engaging with civil society. Is the appropriate focal point for civil society really with national governments, who will then, in what is an intergovernmental organization, bring with them the different perspectives they have from their various constituencies?

Canada and most of the developed countries are generally on the side of wanting to see some process for more active interaction between civil society and what is going on in Geneva, in addition to what we have at the national level. The recent high-level meetings on trade and environment and on trade and development were occasions on which substantial elements of civil society were brought into the WTO council chamber. For two days on each subject there was an opportunity for both governments and various non-governmental organizations, academics, and others to speak and to exchange views in a completely open manner, with the world's press watching from the gallery.

• 1000

I think that was a useful step. I don't think that it will always work in terms of negotiating on delicate matters. It's not always going to be possible to have everyone in the room—and there are certain practical limitations when you get into that too. If you have 134 members, you need a pretty big room if you're going to have adequately sized negotiating teams plus representatives of civil society.

The Chairman: I'll have to stop you there, Mr. Weekes, because we're into 15 minutes now and we have other questions. We may have a chance to go back. Mr. Turp may ask it again.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Ambassador Weekes. It's nice to see you again.

I want to keep going on the same line of questioning that Mr. Sauvageau started on the SAGIT report and on your comments that in NAFTA we have the exemption. This is going to come up. Certainly as we looked at dealing with investment it came up when we looked at the MAI. At that time, we looked at how broad the definition of cultural exemption should be, and we saw that perhaps the NAFTA definition, as it was five years ago, did not compensate for all the new cultural products we have, the new technologies and new media. So how are we going to deal with it?

One of the concerns I have about the SAGIT report is that it said there should be another international agreement. How would that relate to what goes on at the WTO? Or do we, at the WTO, get an acknowledgement that cultural products are not normal goods and services—which I see as a key thing that report says—as opposed to asking for another international agreement? How does that agreement fit into the WTO? We are going to have to deal with this issue at the WTO. I know we have to get the Americans on side, but I don't think it's something we can ignore.

Mr. John Weekes: First of all, when they talk about negotiating an international agreement, I think they had in mind “in the WTO”. I think the first task we need to do as Canadians is to determine more precisely if we want to go down that road. Because, as I said at the beginning, although a number of ministers have made encouraging statements about that type of approach, there has been as yet no decision to actually proceed in that direction.

I think we first need to work out what we would do if we were to proceed in that manner. We need to think precisely about what it is that we would want to negotiate in Geneva in order to meet the requirements that the government considers to be important in terms of providing protection and encouragement for our cultural industries. I think we have to start there.

As I said, that's not really for me. I'm the guy who projects the policy in Geneva and reports on what I see in terms of what's happening there. I'd be happy to make a contribution from that perspective in terms of what might go into this type of approach, but I think this is something that really needs to be worked out in Canada with the stakeholders and the various other parties who would need to be consulted.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I noted during your presentation that you did bring up the environment. My concern is whether there is enough support to pursue this cultural exemption. That's my fear. We as well heard about the environment as we were going across the country. Environment was a concern, as were the labour standards that Mr. Stinson brought up.

But even in your presentation, you didn't say anything about culture. I'm wondering if we are flogging a dead horse here by trying to protect our cultural industries? Are we going to get consensus at the WTO or do we need to take it somewhere else?

Mr. John Weekes: I've always been surprised by what can be negotiated, and I would not recommend giving up before you start. If we feel we have a good case, which clearly we do, in terms of the reasons that special rules in this area might be necessary, then we need to put the effort into trying to develop those rules and trying to persuade others that we have an approach that merits serious consideration.

• 1005

If you go back and look at what people thought might be possible when we started the last big negotiations, the Uruguay Round in 1986, a lot of things that actually happened in the negotiations were things about which almost everybody in 1986 said, “It's impossible. You won't be able to achieve anything that ambitious.”

I would not give up before we start. We've achieved consensus on a number of things that people thought unlikely before. If you prepare your case well, if you have strong arguments, and if you persevere, you can make progress that might otherwise appear improbable.

The Chairman: I've been advised that in Calgary Ms. Bulte's committee was advised not to send a steer to do a bull's job. I don't know if that was or was not a reference to our present negotiators in Geneva, Mr. Weekes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Weekes: I'm sure it was meant with respect to thinking about future staffing considerations.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have one last question. You did make a comment about how it's important to continue the regional liberalization, and you talked about APEC. How do you see the FTAA negotiations, which are now paralleling the WTO? What can we achieve there that we can bring to the WTO? Again, I'll use culture as an example: is that where we can build our support for our cultural initiatives?

Mr. John Weekes: That's a good question. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be thinking about. Which is the best forum for pursuing what in terms of trying to make the maximum amount of progress? I would think that some of our important allies on this file are probably in Europe, including the French, which I mentioned, and that therefore it might be better to think of moving this forward in the WTO rather than in the FTAA, although it's worth trying there as well to test the water.

My own experience from being the NAFTA negotiator was that the Mexicans, at least at that time, didn't really share with us the concerns we had in terms of a cultural industries agenda with the United States. They respected our position and they never did anything during the course of the negotiations to undermine what we were trying to do with the United States, but they didn't really see it as something that was relevant to them.

Indeed, I think it's fair to say that they also had a number of outward objectives towards the United States in regard to cultural industries. They wanted to break down American barriers in that area, barriers such as the restriction on the ownership of television stations by foreigners in the United States.

I think this had to do with the fact that there were at that time about 30 million Spanish-speaking people living in the United States, which probably made the American market for Spanish products more lucrative than the Mexican market itself. This created a different perception on the matter, whereas you might originally think that the Mexicans would feel threatened by the big, bad United States, with whom they've had several wars during their history and so on. But when you got down and looked at the real issues and problems in this area, it wasn't quite the way it appeared at first blush. When I took the job on, I was told by people in Ottawa to go down and get the Mexicans, that they'd clearly be on our side. It didn't turn out to be quite like that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Assadourian, then Mr. Turp.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

You mentioned that we have 134 countries in the WTO, and 30 pending members, one of which will be China. With the bombing of the Belgrade embassy cooling down the relationship between China and the U.S. and between China and the U.K., what are the chances of China not attending or not planning to join the WTO or using this bombing as an excuse to put more demands on WTO negotiations?

Mr. John Weekes: Well, prediction is—

The Chairman: Does that violate the phyto-sanitary accord?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 1010

Mr. John Weekes: This was definitely a unilateral measure.

First of all, of course, in terms of the Chinese putting more demands on the negotiations, a negotiation for accession is essentially a negotiation in which the members of the WTO make certain demands on the acceding country. What that country gets in the end by becoming a WTO member is contractual rights to all of the concessions that have been negotiated by all of the GATT and WTO members since 1947. There is nothing new that we give to the Chinese when they join the WTO. They're only paying, in a sense, to catch up with what we've already done, to become part of that bargain.

I'm not an expert on this, but from my reading of the newspaper the other day, I thought that the areas where the Chinese were saying they were suspending co-operation with the United States did not include the trade area. I think the Chinese decision to proceed with these negotiations and make this recent major effort to bring them to a conclusion is one that relates more to their determination of their own domestic economic interests rather than to broader issues of international co-operation.

My expectation would be that their efforts to join the WTO and the efforts of WTO members to bring them into the organization will not be disrupted by what happened in Belgrade.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I ask one quick question, just for clarification? If there is a dispute between us and the Mexicans, say, in NAFTA, and the panel decides in favour of Canada or Mexico, can the dispute be taken to the WTO, or would that be the end of it?

Mr. John Weekes: We have a provision that we put into NAFTA that says you have to choose your weapons.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Before, and then—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No shopping around.

Mr. John Weekes: Yes. You had to decide to take a dispute to either the WTO or NAFTA. Once you chose that, then, that was that, and you couldn't then go on and lose in NAFTA; it would be like appealing.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What happens if we choose to go with the WTO and Mexico decides to go with NAFTA? Who decides the outcome?

Mr. John Weekes: Well, they would both proceed. That's a very interesting question. It hasn't happened yet, as far as I know.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So you could have two tracks of discussion. If they go one against the other, what's the outcome?

Mr. John Weekes: Yes, it's theoretically possible that on one American measure that affected both Canada and Mexico, Mexico could decide to go to NAFTA or the WTO and we could do it the other way round.

Normally, I think, we would probably sit down and have a discussion with the Mexicans and exchange views on best way of proceeding. In the cases that I'm aware of where we've had to look at the choice issue, we've looked at the provisions in the WTO and at the provisions in NAFTA, considered the way the dispute settlement system works in the two cases, and considered the question of whether this was a matter on which we wanted to have other allies as we were presenting the panel case. Because of course there's more scope for having allies in the WTO, given that there are more members than there are in NAFTA.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Weekes, for appearing before us. I have several questions related to culture.

You negotiated the NAFTA, and you are aware of the content of the cultural exemption clause. I would like to have a very frank, very sincere opinion, on the quality of this exemption. In the absence of a broader treaty on cultural diversity, would it be worthwhile repeating this in a multilateral convention to provide protection for the cultural industries of Canada, Quebec and other countries? I am putting this question to you, as a NAFTA negotiator. I would really like to know what you think of this protection that we would be provided at the international level by a clause similar to that in the NAFTA.

• 1015

My second question deals with the social dimensions of the agreement. I find it rather curious that your statement did not address labour rights and other human rights issues, since these have been constantly raised since the beginning of our hearings. Is there a problem, not only with labour rights, but also with human rights issues in general? Do you already envisage that it will be impossible to integrate this social dimension into the negotiations, even outside of workers' rights?

Thirdly, I found one thing very interesting in your presentation. In fact, it is one of the first things that you said. It is the idea that the negotiations will deal with regulatory policy, therefore with important issues, issues of standards that are usually determined by parliaments, national parliaments, the parliaments of member states, of federal states, like Canada. If it is such an important question, what role do you envisage that Parliament and parliamentarians will play in this entire debate, in the entire negotiation? Our committee has already heard that there should be a parliamentary assembly at the WTO. What do you think of this?

My last question, Mr. Chairman, is very important. There are many issues in the negotiations that concern the provinces. An increasing number of questions concern the provinces. I shall refer neither to Mr. Bouchard nor to Ms. Beaudoin, because you already know the controversy in this regard; however, a person called David Cook presented a highly interesting brief to our committee, which says that the provinces should be involved in the negotiation. As the ambassador who will participate in the negotiation, would you find it appropriate to have provincial negotiators with you in the coming negotiations? I am asking Mr. Weekes this question not about Pakistan, but about Canada.

Mr. Benoit Sauvageau: Don't worry. If we move to Pakistan, we will create a sovereigntist party.

The Chairman: The debate begins.

[English]

The Chairman: All that in about two minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, you have to be fair, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. John Weekes: First of all, in talking about parliamentary matters, I think an official would be well advised to take the cue from his minister.

Let me take them in order. On the cultural exemption, when we negotiated NAFTA, we incorporated in it exactly the same cultural exemption that we had in the FTA. We used exactly the same wording. The effect of it in NAFTA is a bit different from what it is in the FTA, however, because the subject matter of NAFTA is broader. It actually gives us, in that margin of space between the FTA and NAFTA, some scope for taking action, for instance, in the area of intellectual property. That might be in contravention of what would otherwise be the case under NAFTA, but the United States wouldn't have the power to be able to retaliate against us.

From a technical point of view, I think, even though it looks the same when you read it, the cultural exemption in terms of NAFTA is actually better than it was under the FTA. Now, if you want to follow that up, you should probably get one of the legal experts who understands all these niceties to come here and explain it in more detail.

• 1020

You asked what I think about all of it. Frankly, you know, it is very inappropriate for an official to comment on this sort of thing. I think my sentiments would be closer to where the SAGIT came out in terms of how it thinks we should proceed than what we were... In a sense, we decided in the NAFTA context that we wanted an exemption, but we recognized that the exemption, while it gave us no requirement to undertake obligations in this area, of course left the United States free to retaliate. We wound up with a situation that had a considerable degree of uncertainty in it, to be quite frank. I don't think I should say more than that.

Regarding the social clause—labour rights and human rights—this is clearly one of the big issues. I didn't comment on it extensively in my remarks because it is really at a point where it is a matter that is being thrashed out in various capitals, and I think we need to see what positions the different governments decide to adopt on these matters. I do think you have to give some consideration to how much you want the WTO to do in the scheme of the various international organizations.

Do we want to take the “T” out of the WTO, call it the World Organization, and have it gradually replace the United Nations? Is it really better to negotiate labour matters in the WTO than in the ILO, where there's already provision for representation by labour unions to be directly involved in the discussion? With the WTO's consensus principle, it's almost impossible to imagine circumstances in which the governments would ever agree to allow labour unions to participate directly in WTO meetings.

On the question of human rights more broadly, while there has been some suggestion that trade sanctions should be used as a way of enforcing human rights, there have not, to my knowledge, been any important proposals suggesting that we ought to bring human rights into the WTO context. I would think that doing these things would be extremely complicated. Even if we were to decide to try to do it, I just don't see how you would add all of these additional matters to an organization that's already dealing with increasingly complex matters.

Then there's the regulatory policy issue—and of course I make the point in my remarks that we got into this gradually in a way. We started in the Tokyo round, because as tariffs were coming down, we said, well, there are all these non-tariff barriers. But a lot of these non-tariff barriers, of course, were rooted in domestic regulatory policies. On the other hand, it was also clear that a number of them were being used more to put up barriers to foreign goods than to effect real domestic regulatory policy goals.

So this effort at looking at these issues in the WTO isn't trying to take away from the obvious requirement to have domestic regulations on a variety of matters—to protect citizens, to ensure correct operation of markets, and so on. Rather, it is trying to deal with the trade-protective and protectionist aspects of those policies. Nonetheless, it does get you into a discussion where the borderline between the right to domestic regulatory policy and other issues becomes quite narrow.

Regarding the role for parliamentarians... well, I've invited you to Geneva... In all seriousness, I think this is where I would say quite clearly that there is going to be greater and greater interest by parliaments and legislators in what is going on in Geneva. But in our system, the exact way in which that should be articulated must come about as a result of a discussion between the government and parliamentarians—and the provinces.

• 1025

The Chairman: Specifically of civil society and a potential parliamentary assembly—

Mr. John Weekes: Oh.

The Chairman: —which Mr. Turp adverted to, you could give us a perception from your point of view from Geneva as to whether or not other countries would be interested or if it's feasible. You say there are 160 countries. Would we be able to get them together? All that sort of thing...

Mr. John Weekes: Personally I rather like the idea and, frankly, I think it would be easier to carry the argument for parliamentary involvement in some kind of advisory committee or whatever it would be. You could meet and have it address certain issues once a year. I don't know how it would be structured. I think you would probably find less resistance to that than to the idea of providing for a specific, more articulated participation by civil society, because in an intergovernmental organization, a lot of the members are going to say, well, who are these people from civil society? Who do they represent?

The Chairman: NGOs specifically.

Mr. John Weekes: Right. But who elects them? And do they represent the general population or only their membership? Whereas, with parliamentarians, obviously by definition the parliamentarians are representing the entire population.

On the question of the provinces, as you're aware, I've been in this trade policy area for some time in trade negotiations, and while it's time-consuming, I've always found it a strength to be able to work together with the provinces and then sit down at the negotiating table with a better perception of where the national interest is as a result of those discussions. I don't think we should enter new negotiations—which are becoming more complex—with preconceived ideas about what we should or shouldn't do. I think we need to determine the best way of negotiating on behalf of Canadian interests, broadly writ, when we see the nature of the problems that we're confronting at the negotiating table.

Certainly I remember that at some points during the NAFTA side agreement negotiations we had representatives from the provinces with us in the hotel where we were doing the final part of the negotiations. When you talk about “being in the room”, often at that point we had two people per side in the room—two Mexicans, two Americans, and two Canadians—including one minister on each side.

When you talk about “bringing people to the table”, it's a notion that... What does that really mean? What kind of table?

In Geneva, you can have a meeting, as we do in the general council, that will take a whole day to discuss one issue, and everybody speaks once, so there's no real discussion, no real negotiation. The negotiation then goes on and takes place somewhere else in somebody's boardroom among some of the countries that have the greatest interest in the matter. Then, of course, it has to go back through the plenary process again. But it's a process... The manner of negotiating is not as straightforward as one might think in terms of sitting down at the table and undertaking the negotiations.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to follow up on a couple of the observations made by Mr. Turp. Firstly, the idea of parliamentary oversight is an issue I've raised both here and internationally at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and it might be of interest.

I hope, Ambassador Weekes, that we will have the pleasure of your company in Berlin. The major issue to be discussed will be the World Trade Organization Multilateral Round, and the third world countries, the evolving countries, have expressed serious concerns about the WTO, about its lack of transparency, their lack of effective input, and the role being played by four or five major countries in the final analysis. I look forward to some work and some help from you so that we can bring a perspective to that.

• 1030

Secondly, I think that covers the NGO and parliamentarian perspective, because you have 136 countries plus all the international NGOs present, with the right to speak and the right to debate.

The question that bothered me, frankly, was that I heard you say you had circulated the SAGIT report on cultural matters to fellow colleagues in Geneva. I happen to have been the critic for our party when we were doing cultural exemptions in NAFTA and the free trade agreement, and I recall very well it being not a very easy or pleasant task. Nor did we win very much, frankly. I don't think we protected ourselves as well as we protected beer. But that being said, I was a little concerned. Perhaps my question should go through the chair to you in this way.

Did I miss something, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, the question is being addressed to you before I redirect it to our witness. To my knowledge, I have no idea what was in the SAGIT report. Perhaps I missed something somewhere. That's very possible.

Mr. Daniel Turp: So maybe we'll give you a copy.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, just a moment please. That's something you're going to find out in about two seconds. I just checked that out.

To have an ambassador circulate that report prior to its being reviewed—either here at foreign affairs, or in the subcommittee on trade or the heritage committee—disturbs me. It has not been studied, reviewed, and we've had no input. And yet this report is being circulated internationally.

The Chairman: I think you've got a serious misunderstanding.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's why I'm asking you the question first.

The Chairman: Let me straighten it out. The SAGIT report is obviously not a report of this committee or a report of the government.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, I'm well aware of where it's from.

The Chairman: The SAGIT report is a report of that group of cultural industries that advise the minister. But it's a public document. It's a public report. We had a panel here. We had three people sit and discuss it. It was distributed to every member of the committee, and it's been discussed openly in this committee. We had a whole session.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We had one meeting.

The Chairman: So that's the SAGIT. Every public hearing... In public hearings in Toronto, for example, everybody talked about the SAGIT report. They talked about little else.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: All right.

The Chairman: You're worried there's some sort of protocol problem we've got at the moment by virtue of the fact it's—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, I'm worried that I didn't see the SAGIT report. It doesn't mean that I would have had it changed or anything else. But I don't know—

The Chairman: No, no, because you officially didn't sit on the SAGIT.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The question for me, Mr. Chairman, is that having done the cultural issues when we did NAFTA and free trade, I know there were serious concerns at that time as to what Canada was and was not able to negotiate. When you look at the changing dynamic within the telecommunications world, the change between satellites, and all those other matters, it seems to me it is the kind of report that I hope, in the best interest of Canada, is displayed. Because in a SAGIT report, you get very partisan perspectives reflected, not necessarily an overview.

My only concern was whether it was circulated without any input. Now you're telling me we've had input, we've had the opportunity to make observations, maybe make changes. Sorry, I wasn't here for that. So I'll settle for that.

The Chairman: No, no, don't get me wrong. We had no opportunity to make any changes to it, because it's not our report. It's like suggesting we could have changed a report of the Australian Parliament. I mean, this is an industry report that goes to the minister totally independently of us. We have no authority, no jurisdiction, or any role in it. On the other hand, we did receive it, we've seen it, and we've discussed it.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: But there has not been a breach of parliamentary privilege, Ms. Finestone.

The Hon. Sheila Finestone: No, I didn't think that.

[English]

The Chairman: I think, Mrs. Finestone, what we'll be called upon to pronounce, in the chapter on which they're working—on culture—is whether we agree or disagree with the recommendations in the SAGIT report. In our own report, we'll have to do that. But at this point, we don't have to do anything with it. We just look at it and decide whether we agree with it or not.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you for that clarification, because I'm very concerned. I'm sure it may well be fine, but I don't like the thought that it's going to go overseas to partners and to other countries with the thought perhaps that it's got the imprimatur of the Parliament of Canada. That was my concern, frankly.

I'm sure it is understood to be an industry report. Is that right, Ambassador Weekes?

• 1035

Mr. John Weekes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We made very clear that the nature of the report was understood as we circulated it to other delegations, and we in no way tried to imply that this was government policy. But we did think it was useful against the contingency that the government decided to proceed down that road, that we begin to sensitize our partners to the idea that we might be coming forward with something in this area. So it was more to put it on their radar screen rather than to tell them that this was what we were definitely going to do.

I might note that another thing we circulated to delegations in Geneva to show them the nature of our preparatory efforts in Canada was the Federal Register notice. I mean the Canada Gazette. Please strike that from the record.

The Chairman: How long did you stay in Washington negotiating that treaty?

Mr. John Weekes: I've never lived in Washington.

It was the notice in the Canada Gazette, which the government put out soliciting views from Canadians on the various aspects of what might be negotiated under both the FTAA negotiation and the WTO to also show how we were preparing for that.

If I could offer one other comment on the point Mrs. Finestone was making about the view of a number of the members of the group that will be meeting in Berlin, when we have a discussion in the WTO, the word “transparency” is used to mean two quite different things, depending who's speaking. When a lot of developing countries are talking about transparency, they mean that they want to know about everything the major countries might be discussing among themselves beyond what is being discussed in the open rooms. On the other hand, they don't mean that normally to include civil society or public release of those documents. They want transparency among the members, but not outside the room.

We're in favour of transparency in both instances. I just mention that because when you sit in some of these discussions in Geneva, after an hour or so it becomes clear that people are talking about different things when they're supporting transparency.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It certainly was apparent in the discussions that took place among the parliamentarians that there was some discomfort with the process. In the end what they really were saying is there are four countries in the world that at the last moment make the decisions and then we have to abide by them. I think that was what they were basically saying.

You said you were of the view that the situation was far more open. Your description of “transparency” fills that bill. That's fine. Thank you very much. But I would really like to know if it is, in your view, more open. Also, what is your yardstick of measure to note whether it has been successful or not? And last but not least, what are the social standards or the human rights and workers rights and environmental standards that you need... No, that wasn't my question, because you answered that over there, thank you very much. My question is on the support measures that are being given, aid and assistance to developing and less advanced countries in implementing the WTO agreement.

You say there are programs that have been established by the WTO. You go to countries like Mozambique or Angola, or you hear about the Congo, or you go to many other countries where land mines are everywhere. This is a constraint to any kind of application of fair trade, because you can't till the fields or mine the mines or develop any kind of economic development, because there is a constraint on life. Is that ever taken into account? What type of work is the WTO doing to ensure that aid and help goes to these countries without penalty and without repayment or that kind of thing?

Mr. John Weekes: First of all, on what is being done in the way of openness, there's actually some additional information that I'm sure we could make available to the committee if that would be useful to members in terms of describing the current situation with respect to document distribution and other matters in the WTO. But the WTO does have a website, for instance, on the Internet, WTO.org, which contains a lot of documentation and from which millions and millions of pages are downloaded every month in countries all over the world.

• 1040

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can they afford the paper?

Mr. John Weekes: Well, I can tell you that this is now being done in some 80-odd countries, but we could give you the specific information. Not surprisingly, the major users of this website are still in the United States and western Europe, but the dramatic growth rates in terms of its use are in developing countries. The WTO has done quite a bit in conjunction with the World Bank to try to improve the capacity of administration in the least-developed countries to take better advantage of this.

Now, we have had a lot of discussion about the need for trade-related technical assistance in the WTO. A year and a half ago we had a conference on the least-developed countries and their requirements in this area. Certainly capacity-building, which could include what you're talking about, writ large, is one of the concerns that need to be addressed. But I think we also need to look at what can be done through the WTO, or through cooperation inspired from a WTO source, and what we need to do elsewhere.

Certainly there is now a quite active partnership among WTO, UNCTAD, the International Trade Centre in Geneva, the World Bank, IMF, and the United Nations Development Program in trying to bring coordinated trade-related technical assistance to the least-developed countries.

But quite frankly, my other answer would be that we still need to do more and we need to better coordinate it, both to allow these countries to participate more effectively in the negotiation and understand the implications of what they're negotiating, and to be able to develop the broader capacity, in terms of their economies, to be able to benefit from a system of open trade.

The Chairman: Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): My question is somewhat related to Ms. Finestone's. I merely wanted to tell him that we have heard evidence from senior departmental officials and other people, and the briefs have clearly explained the situation of the developing countries and the WTO programs that are available to help them. We know that financial and technical reasons are the main cause why the developing countries do not participate fully in the WTO activities. We have excellent documents that clearly set out the problems of the developing countries.

I would like to have your personal opinion of these programs. We know that there have been a number of them, and some of them have helped the developing countries. What is your personal assessment of these programs? How do the developing countries perceive them, and what is Canada's role in these programs?

[English]

Mr. John Weekes: I think it's difficult for me, sitting in Geneva, to judge what the real result of these programs is. Of course when you look broadly at the developing countries, there's a real range of members, some of whom are quite clearly much more advanced and much more able to look after themselves than others. But I can tell you that for a large part of them, they would say themselves that what has been done so far has not been adequate.

• 1045

I think it would be useful if we were to consider how to improve our own expertise, in terms of our presence in Geneva, in understanding the nature of the programs that are now under way and making judgments about them as to how effective they are.

I think the question you've asked is a very important one, and it's one that is going to continue to be with us. So thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Your perception of the satisfaction of the developing countries is rather negative. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. John Weekes: Yes.

Ms. Maud Debien: That's fine. In your statement, you emphasized that, during the NAFTA negotiations, the Department of Finance had conducted a study which showed that the wages of Mexican workers were one seventh of those of Canadian workers, but since Canadians' rate of productivity was seven times higher than those of the Mexican workers, in practice, there was an equivalency. I hope that you don't mean to say by that that Mexican workers' standard of living is equal to that of Canadian workers, because you know that a great many other factors must be taken into account in making such comparisons. This is an observation rather than a question.

[English]

Mr. John Weekes: I meant the example to help with thinking about the question that I think was originally asked by Mr. Stinson. I was speaking of a study that was done several years ago that I recall from when I was a negotiator.

But it really brought out the problem that when you're comparing a Canadian worker and a Mexican worker, the activity of the Mexican worker would be much less effective than the activity of a Canadian worker, even if the worker himself was doing a very good job, because he's surrounded by an infrastructure that doesn't give the possibility for his work to be as effective. The communication system isn't as good, other aspects of the infrastructure aren't as good, and so forth.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I understand that very well, but that still does not mean that the Mexican workers' standard of living is the same as Canadian workers. You are not arriving at that conclusion, are you?

[English]

Mr. John Weekes: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: That's fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Speller, sir.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ambassador Weekes, for coming before us today.

I think most of the questions have been asked, but I do have some questions regarding the ongoing negotiations to select a new secretary general and the impact that may be having on the whole mood of the WTO. These negotiations, as you know, are ongoing. I'm wondering if you could give us an update on these negotiations as to what impact they are having on the mood of the WTO, whether or not that will continue on into the next round of negotiations, and whether you think there should be a new selection process given the difficulties being faced. Is there smoke coming out of the chimney?

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Daniel Turp: ...the Director General of the OECD; now he wants the one at the WTO.

[English]

Mr. John Weekes: I should thank Mr. Speller. I was almost beginning to think I might get away without having to deal with that question.

The Chairman: And he's supposed to be on your side.

Mr. John Weekes: No, it's a fair question, and I did mention this matter in my opening remarks.

I think, quite frankly, the situation at the moment in Geneva in the selection of a new director general is that there were originally four candidates and there are now two candidates who are clearly in the lead and around whom the chairman of the general council is trying to help the members form a consensus. Earlier on in the process the chairman had decided that he did not think it was possible at least at that time to build a consensus around Mr. MacLaren, and subsequent to that, the Moroccan candidate, Hassan Abouyoub, decided to withdraw from the race.

• 1050

Now, I think part of the problem at the moment is, quite frankly, that the support for each of the two leading candidates is really very finely balanced. There's Mr. Moore, around whom the chairman has said a consensus could be built, but there were objections to that from the floor initially and continuing from the delegation of Malaysia representing the ASEAN countries, of whom Thailand, of course, is a member. Dr. Supachai, the other leading candidate, is from Thailand. Based on the criteria the chair is trying to use to facilitate a conclusion, neither of the candidates has a real lead.

So the problem with the process is that it has come out too evenly. It would have been better if the difference between them in the perception of the members had been a bit more pronounced. Then I think we wouldn't be in the situation we're in at the moment.

It is having an effect on our other work and on the preparations for Seattle. I cannot deny that. In fact, we've had to use some of the meetings of the general council that were scheduled to discuss preparations for Seattle to discuss the issue of the selection process.

There has been a certain amount of bad temper introduced into all of this as well, because it has been quite tight. People said some things they perhaps shouldn't have said. I'm sure parliamentarians would never understand how this could occur. Some other people have reacted to those things, and now we're in a situation where in addition to finding a new director general, we're going to have to sort of reconstruct the confidence a little bit among the different delegates.

But I think it was wise for the chairman to decide to have a pause this week, not only to allow me to come here to appear before you but also just to give people a bit of time to reflect.

As you're well aware, today in Tokyo the quadrilateral trade ministers are meeting, and I'm sure this is one of the issues that will be on their agenda. I don't think the quad countries can resolve the matter themselves, but I think a discussion among the quad countries, including on the question you asked me about whether or not we need a new process, is a good idea.

I don't think the process was flawed from the outset. I think it was quite a good process. It got us good candidates. It provided a good opportunity for the candidates to become known by the members. But we're now at a situation where, quite clearly, we have to decide how we move from where we are now to the final process of selection.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'm wondering also what the mood is going into the next round. We have some ongoing disputes with the Americans. The American Congress seems to be pushing the presidency in different ways on being tough not only on Canada but also on a number of other countries around the world. I've talked to other countries, and they say they're having these same difficulties. It doesn't set the stage for a very good set of negotiations when you're in the middle of a whole bunch of different disputes. Where do you see this going? Do you see the mood being positive going into the next round?

Mr. John Weekes: That's another good question. We haven't always begun trade negotiations in positive international circumstances. The 1980s was another period in which there were a lot of protectionist pressures and a lot of protectionist bills in the U.S. Congress, and yet we launched the Uruguay Round.

• 1055

I think in a way that trade negotiations are almost becoming more of a necessity in a sense than a desirability. It's the fact that 25% of global gross domestic product is now exported. For us it's 40%, as you noted earlier, but the fact of 25% on a global basis really means that the management of this volume of the global economy cannot be ignored; it just can't be put to one side. We need to keep addressing it. There are real problems that are arising, some of which are reflected in these disputes.

The Americans have their own way of trying to go about endearing themselves to the rest of the world, which may not facilitate how we begin these negotiations. On the other hand, I think most countries have such a big stake in the international trade file that they will want to become involved.

Second, I find the general atmosphere in Geneva, leaving aside the United States and the European Union and their trade spats—they're going to have to manage that relationship somehow or another anyway, and the United States and Canada... I think the attitude among developing countries toward new negotiations is much more positive than it was in the period prior to the launch of the Uruguay Round.

In 1986, several months before the Punta del Este meeting, it was not at all clear that there would be any agreement to launch any new negotiations. And this time nobody's questioning the original commitment to negotiate on services and agriculture. Frankly, more and more countries are saying privately that they're prepared to envisage quite a large agenda.

It was also interesting to note in these debates last week on the director general issue that several countries, including developing countries, specifically asked the question of how we are going to catch up with the work we needed to do in order to prepare properly for Singapore. So if they weren't interested in these negotiations, some of them might find this director general diversion as a useful way of stalling the process so that they wouldn't have to confront these issues. That is not the way it appeared in the debates in Geneva at all.

The Chairman: I wonder if I can ask a wrap-up question, and then we'll have to go on to our next panel of witnesses on Bill S-22, the Preclearance Act.

Mr. Weekes, you expressed, as a professional there looking at the resources you're familiar with in Geneva, a hesitation about seeing human rights, the environment, and labour issues loaded into the WTO. I thought it was a wonderful line that we'll end up taking the T out of the WTO and it will be the World Organization that will have to solve all problems. And many people who came before us were saying it had to, because, as everyone said, it's the most efficient organization we have, so let's use it to solve these other issues.

Assuming we don't, however, do that, then we are left with the fact that these issues are there. We're going to have to have labour in the ILO, environment in the UNEP, whatever, human rights instruments. So then we have the problem called coherence, I think, and who will ensure that the WTO enforces. Mr. White came before the committee and said we go to the ILO, and governments and everybody agree that they're going to have a certain labour standard right there in the ILO, and the same government walks down the hall in the WTO and does something totally opposite to what they said they were going to do in the ILO.

If the WTO isn't going to inherit this mess, there is going to have to be some sort of coherence or some competence body overlying that is going to decide that ILO rule applies and you can't... Somebody has to sort it out on the environment, otherwise the trade laws are going to come in conflict and there will be no sorting out. This may suit some people, but it certainly wouldn't suit the witnesses we heard. They feel that these issues have to be addressed, and if they're not going to be addressed in the WTO itself, there's going to have to be either a supranational organization to do it, of which the WTO will be one, or nation-states will have to retain their sovereignty in order to protect themselves, in which case the WTO won't be able to function, because you won't be able to do everything because the environment and labour and other standards are going to say your goods can't come in because you violate them.

We're going to have to do something here, it seems to me. At least there are demands in our population; I don't know whether there are similar demands in a lot of other countries, but I would guess that in the OECD countries you're getting similar types of demands.

What is the feeling in Geneva? I'm maybe asking you if you have a panacea for this, and it's a huge problem, I appreciate that, but the feeling must be in Geneva, yes, we have to do something about this. Where's the thinking going in Geneva?

• 1100

Mr. John Weekes: I would recommend to you the last speech that Renato Ruggiero made as director general of the WTO, which was called something like “Beyond the WTO”, because really it addresses exactly the question you have just raised. You would have thought that somebody like Ruggiero, after four really very successful years for the WTO in negotiation of new agreements and strengthening of the institution, would feel quite self-satisfied about it all, and indeed to some extent he does. But he's very conscious of the fact that civil society and others are saying there are a whole range of issues that are not being properly addressed at the international level, which are impacting on our various societies because of this process of globalization. Some of them see the WTO as part of the problem allowing this to happen, and others see it as part of a potential solution.

He really makes the point that this is an issue heads of government should be seized with and that in a sense a new mandate needs to be given by heads of government to international organizations to take up these issues and to work together. And he makes the observation in there that one place where this could perhaps be addressed initially would be at the millennium summit in the United Nations next year.

In any event, it's quite a thoughtful speech and tries to deal with this problem he's had to live through in listening to what people told him on his various visits.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could we have a copy of it?

[English]

The Chairman: That's helpful. We'll get a copy of the speech and distribute it to the members. It seems to me that's one of the big issues we have to wrestle with in our report.

[Translation]

Mr. John Weekes: The document is available in French, Spanish and English on the WTO website.

The Chairman: That's fine, so much the better.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have only one short question. Do you think that it would be worthwhile distributing this committee's report to our colleagues in Geneva, much as the SAGIT report on culture?

Mr. John Weekes: Yes, perhaps.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: —

Mr. John Weekes: Yes, I am thinking about my answers.

Mr. Daniel Turp: With whatever dissenting opinions there may be.

Mr. John Weekes: No, but I think that it is very important to...

The Chairman: We have to recall our delegation in Geneva. There may be a reluctance, but...

Mr. John Weekes: Yes. It is a public document, but I think that it would be worthwhile to show our colleagues what Canadian parliamentarians are thinking.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Weekes. We appreciate your very wise advice. We're wiser now than we were before, and we have more information too. Thank you.

Members, we're now moving into the second session. We have the Canadian Airports Council to come to speak to us about Bill S-22.

Mr. Shaw and Mr. Bruno, could you come up and join us at the table?

• 1103

• 1108

The Chairman: Members, this is the second hearing we've had in respect of Bill S-22, which is called the Preclearance Act. You will recall we had evidence the other morning from the government officials. We're now lucky enough to have with us, from the Canadian Airports Council, Mr. Steve Shaw and Mr. Gerry Bruno, who are going to give us the perspective of the airport authorities toward both the advantages and the administration of the bill.

Thank you very much for coming.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do we like this bill?

The Chairman: Absolutely. We're totally in love with this bill. This is going to make our airports competitive with foreign airports. It's going to make everything run more smoothly. You're going to be able to get to the States and back. Everybody is—

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Are they going to drop the prices? That's all I want to know.

The Chairman: Well, you'll have to ask Mr. Shaw that. He's the man who answers all these questions.

Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Steve Shaw (Co-Chair, Bilateral and Facilitation Committee, Canadian Airports Council): Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee.

My name is Steve Shaw. I'm accompanied by Mr. Gerry Bruno. I am the vice-president of corporate affairs and communications for the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which manages and operates Pearson Airport in Toronto. Gerry is the president of InterVISTAS, a consulting airport marketing company based in Vancouver. Gerry and I together chair the Bilateral and Facilitation Committee of the Canadian Airports Council, and we have been very much involved in the development of the legislation you have before you this morning.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear to before you to present the position of the Canadian Airports Council—the CAC, as we call it—regarding what we think is an important issue.

The CAC is an association of some 22 airport authorities across Canada. Together we represent over 90% of all passenger traffic in Canada.

• 1110

I would just remind you that through the national airport policy that the government introduced in July 1994, airports have been devolved to airport authorities, not-for-profit authorities, and these airport authorities have formed the Canadian Airports Council. We believe the policy itself is very successful. The actual airport authorities are all doing extremely well, and we believe the association is a strong one to advocate some of the common concerns we have.

Canada's airport authorities support the introduction of this in-transit pre-clearance, and this morning I want to outline as succinctly as possible our reasons for supporting the passage of Bill S-22.

First, it's very clear that the travelling public will benefit significantly. The new system would mean that in-transit passengers—that is, people who never really enter Canada—would not longer be required to clear both the Canadian and U.S. customs. This streamlining will improve the convenience and eliminate a major source of delay and uncertainty for passengers merely transiting through Canadian airports en route to the U.S. We are working with Canada's air carriers to improve, wherever possible, service levels and convenience to travellers—and I notice that representatives of ATAC, the airlines, are here today to make a supportive presentation as well.

Secondly, the introduction of in-transit pre-clearance will enhance the competitiveness of our airports with others. Canada has a natural geographic advantage for travel between the United States and Europe, as well as between the Americas and Asia. Almost every air route from the U.S. to Europe flies over Canada. For many U.S. cities, travelling to Europe or beyond via a Canadian airport could be an attractive option.

Canada's air carriers are known for offering a high level of service and attractive prices. For instance, the gateway at Toronto has the potential to act as a funnel for U.S. traffic to Europe, as does a new Montreal gateway as scheduled traffic consolidates at Dorval. In-transit pre-clearance would open up the U.S. to the European market for Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec City. These airports would be in a better position to build overseas air services earlier than would be the case if the local markets were relied on exclusively. The western airports are well positioned to serve the growing U.S. west coast markets, with Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton ideally positioned for the California markets.

With respect to Asia, Vancouver is roughly 1,200 kilometres closer to Asia than is Los Angeles, the main U.S. gateway. Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton provide the most attractive locations for routing much of the central and western U.S. markets. In addition, Winnipeg and Toronto are attractive Asian gateways for the heavily populated U.S. northeast. There's no question; the potential for this gateway role is well established. The elimination of the current dual inspection process—that is, going through the Canadian customs and then the U.S. customs—would remove a very competitive disadvantage currently felt at Canada's gateway airports.

In 1996, over one million international passengers passed through U.S. airports to arrive or depart from Canada; that is, they used a gateway in the United States to come into Canada. In comparison, about 285,000 international passengers arrived through Canadian gateways to and from the U.S. In-transit pre-clearance will allow Canadian gateway airports the opportunity to attract some of this traffic and to get a balance and be more competitive with our U.S. counterparts.

The potential for growth of in-transit passenger traffic is clearly evident from the pilot project conducted at Vancouver International Airport. The first year of this pilot project saw a 32% increase of international passengers to and from the U.S.

• 1115

Mr. Gerry Bruno (Co-Chair, Bilateral and Facilitation Committee, Canadian Airports Council): Good morning. I'd like to continue from where Steve left off and cover the third and probably the most important benefit of in-transit pre-clearance, and that is with respect to its economic development opportunities. There are many of these.

A study that was done by the Canadian Airports Council in 1997 estimated that a gateway in-transit program has the potential to increase passenger volumes at Canadian airports by 4% in the first few years. This is significant, because in-transit passengers are generally long-haul and therefore high-revenue passengers. Increased passenger volumes translate into increased revenues for Canada's airlines. Consequently, the higher economic output of the aviation industry will increase the tax benefits for all levels of government in Canada. Currently, Canadian airports and the activities associated with them generate about $4.5 billion per year in tax benefits. It's anticipated that in-transit pre-clearance could increase federal taxes and other fees and charges by $32 million a year. Provincial and local governments would also benefit, as they would expect up to $22 million annually in tax revenues. So together that's about $54 million per year in additional tax revenues to all levels of government in Canada.

In-transit pre-clearance could also reduce government expenditures by reducing costs associated with Canadian inspection services. It would eliminate the need to inspect those passengers who are simply transiting at Canadian airports, thus saving taxpayer dollars. An added side benefit is that it would reduce lineups at Canada Customs and Immigrations at the arrivals because some of these passengers who don't have to be processed by them would be going directly to U.S. pre-clearance.

A further economic benefit of in-transit pre-clearance is job creation. The 1997 CAC review estimated that 3,000 direct aviation jobs would be generated by the increased passenger traffic associated with in-transit pre-clearance, and we can expect another 3,800 indirect jobs on top of that.

As you can see, Bill S-22 will greatly benefit not only Canadian airports but also air carriers, travellers, governments, and the country as a whole. It will give the aviation industry a competitive edge that will extend beyond into the Canadian economy in general. The potential lucrative impact cannot be ignored.

Simply put, the Canadian Airports Council endorses Bill S-22. I thank the committee for allowing us to present our position on in-transit pre-clearance. We look forward to passage of this important initiative.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bruno.

Questions? Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. You are very supportive of this bill, if I understand you correctly, but you would like us to make some changes? Are you perfectly satisfied with the provisions of the bill, or would you have amendments to propose to these provisions?

[English]

Mr. Steve Shaw: We believe the bill as it stands will do the job and is adequate. It's certainly gone through some discussion with us and we are comfortable with the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are you aware of the American legislation? We heard about this last week. Do you believe that the American legislation has the elements that are necessary and reciprocal with respect to the Canadian legislation?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Part of the negotiations that have been going on is that this would be completely reciprocal, so that Canadian officers, for example, would have exactly the same rights and privileges at U.S. airports if we were to establish Canadian pre-clearance facilities at U.S. airports. So it's completely reciprocal.

The Chairman: Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It sounds wonderful on paper. I'd like to ask you how it works for handicapped people, and how it works for the amount of walking between one station to the other station for retired and older people. As you well know, not only do business people travel, but seniors travel more and more. You can decide which one of you will answer or you can both take a crack at the bat.

• 1120

I want to tell you that because of other things all of us do around here, we do quite a bit of international travel. My observations are that it's a pain; it's uncomfortable; it's unpleasant; it's not enjoyable; baggage check is awful; waits are impossible. And I would say to you that if there is to be some improvement, hurray! But I don't see any improvement in this other than the fact that someone's going to have to walk the same distance but not stop at a certain point to say “hello, goodbye” and present my passport.

The same kind of money is going to be taken in. I don't see where you're improving the amount of money intake. You come in and you have to stop as you're running to the plane and pay $10 to get through a gate somewhere or $15 somewhere else, or else you use your thumbprint to let you have access because you're a frequent flyer and frequent user.

I'd like to know what improvements you would be prepared to think about. If you're going to have all this increased income, very good, what are you doing to make my life more pleasant when I go to go on a plane somewhere in this world?

The Chairman: Mr. Shaw, how's that?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: I think we'd both like to answer the question, but maybe I could say a few words first of all.

The in-transit pre-clearance will actually eliminate a whole level of processing for passengers.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Does that mean walking?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Exactly, right.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Right. Vancouver is a good example of what happens. We've actually had an in-transit pre-clearance pilot project for about a year and a half now. What used to happen before is any passengers arriving internationally and going to the U.S. would have to go down two levels, line up and walk through the Canada customs, pick up their bag and then they'd have to take the escalator or elevator, go up another level, line up again and go through the whole process. So we've eliminated that whole stage of processing so that a passenger can get off a plane and go directly into U.S. pre-clearance at an intermediate level. So it has eliminated a lot of walking distance and it makes the whole processing time much shorter for passengers.

To answer your question more broadly in terms of what Canadian airports are doing—and I can speak for Vancouver, and Steve will certainly speak to Toronto's case—we are putting a lot of effort today, and not only as individual airports but collectively through the Canadian Airports Council, to try to improve all the facilitation processes to eliminate what we consider may be unnecessary steps along the way so that passengers can be processed more efficiently, so that baggage can be transferred more efficiently without having to have all your bags inspected, for example.

The expansions that are going on at Canadian airports is where the money is going. All airport authorities are not-for-profit, so that any increased revenues have to be reinvested in airport facilities. That means in things like moving sidewalks. I think we're all very conscious that we're all getting older and we're all facing that situation. We are trying to improve all of our airports so that it makes it easier for people to get through our facilities.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Are you going to find some porters who are going to carry and lift bags off turnstiles?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: That's certainly part of the service.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes? Okay. I could give you a long list, having just arrived and having been aggravated from one end of the country to the other. So it would be very interesting to hear that the improvements will go into the airport.

Could you tell me why we have to pay a $10 or a $15 fee, depending on which airport you're going into, and why can't this be included when you buy your ticket so that you don't have to stop on the way? It's not that I don't think the tickets are not too high. They are. But that's another matter.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: That is starting to happen at some airports. Calgary, for example, has negotiated an agreement with the airlines to collect it on the ticket. Vancouver and Edmonton and Montreal are still collecting it at the airport. There are discussions under way to convert collection of that to the ticket to make it easier.

• 1125

Mr. Steve Shaw: First of all, just to remind you, the national airport policy set up the authorities so that they would be economic generators for our region. The benefits that come from increased traffic flow directly to the region. At Pearson, for instance, we have seen something like a 15% increase over the last two years in terms of revenue generated per year. The number of direct and indirect jobs related to Pearson has gone from about 100,000 to 115,000 and the revenues from about $10 billion to almost $12 billion a year. This is part of that economic engine for the region.

Secondly, as Gerry said, the in-transit pre-clearance will actually speed things up and facilitate movement through the airport. In our case we will build in-transit facilities for terminals 2 and 3, which will cut down a lot of the walking time. They will have elevators, of course, and they will be fully accessible.

But I would point out to you that we're building a new terminal that will set a standard for terminals.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Are we going to get there by bus?

Mr. Steve Shaw: No, you'll be able to drive into it and sort of walk very quickly through it.

In our design we are incorporating facilities for in-transit pre-clearance, which will be very consumer friendly. We have gone out of our way to identify the fact that it's the convenience to the passenger that's important in the design of our terminal. I'd certainly love to take you through our designs and show you how we have implemented them.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There is one last convenience to the customer that I think would be marvellous, that is, try to be on time and try to take off when you're supposed to take off and not wait because there is too much traffic waiting to take off.

Mr. Steve Shaw: Madam member, that's certainly one you can address to the airlines. The airport is always there. We're always on time.

Can I make just one other comment that goes back to what you suggested. As Gerry said, there is an airport tax in certain airports. But the move is to incorporate any such airport improvement fees into the ticket, and certainly if there ever were an airport improvement fee in Toronto, it would be in the ticket.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I wouldn't dare ask about smoking, would I?

The Chairman: No.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: All right. I won't dare ask about it, but I wish you'd make better facilities available.

Mr. Steve Shaw: I can answer that one too, if you wish.

The Chairman: I hope you're not the one who went into the washroom on the plane and got into trouble.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No.

The Chairman: Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As far as I understand, American customs officers are armed, whereas the Canadians are not. You can correct me if I am wrong—I haven't read the whole bill—but would all of the customs officers subject to this bill have to be armed? I would like to have your opinion on this, as well as the situation in the context of the Vancouver pilot project.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Bruno: I can certainly answer that. In Vancouver and elsewhere U.S. customs officers are not allowed to carry arms. It's true that in the United States they do, but they do not do that at Canadian airports. We usually provide a police presence to support them. The police are armed and security is armed but they are Canadian officers, not U.S. officers. That has been the case in Vancouver in the pilot program. We have had an RCMP officer present in the U.S. pre-clearance area to assist U.S. customs officers if they need it. But U.S. customs officers are not allowed to carry arms.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: But we don't see that in the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: What I don't understand is if you've had this pilot project going for a year and a half and it seems to be working, why do we need a whole law to do what you're already doing in Vancouver? This is bizarre. We were told that the law was necessary because we're going to give to American customs officers all sorts of authority to do things in Canada, and, reciprocally, we're going to give Canadian customs officers authority to do things in the United States they otherwise wouldn't have the authority to do. But you've been doing it for a year and a half totally illegally, as far as I can ascertain. But you're in Vancouver, so I understand. The rules don't apply in Vancouver. That has always been true. I know that. I grew up there. It's true.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I'm perfectly aware of the fact that you're in Cascadia, and therefore Canadian law doesn't apply. But how have you been getting away with it? Why do we need this law if you've been doing it?

• 1130

Mr. Gerry Bruno: I'd like to answer that. The pilot project was set up as an agreement between Canada and the United States, and the idea was to test it to see whether or not it would work. During the pilot project U.S. customs officers did not have that authority.

The Chairman: Oh, okay.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: We had to assign some Canadian customs officers to the area in order to be able to exercise some of the customs regulations because U.S. officers didn't have that authority. This law—when it's passed, hopefully—will give them that authority so that we do not have to have Canadian customs officers assigned to the area as well.

The Chairman: There's the right fouiller par palpation, par exemple. There's a vocabulary in this law that has caused a great deal of interest—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: This clause is in there.

Ms. Maud Debien: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that only the men are speaking of that.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm learning. My French is improving.

That's interesting. So in Vancouver you tried out the techniques, but they didn't actually have the authority, so you always had a Canadian beside them all the time. So now you'll be able to take away the Canadian.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Exactly.

The Chairman: We understood from the officials who spoke to us the other day that they won't be carrying arms. So if there's any need for police intervention or enforcement at some point, you'll have to call in a Canadian authority.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Exactly.

The Chairman: Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Steve Shaw: This, to our mind, regularizes and facilitates pre-clearance and in-transit pre-clearance.

The Chairman: Next is Madam Augustine, followed by Mr. Turp.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it seems as though I'm missing something. How would this attract new routes?

Mr. Steve Shaw: If I can answer that, at the moment airline schedules and the alliances look at the way they can facilitate movement from Asia into the States. At present, because of having to go through Canada Customs first and then U.S. Customs, it's seen as a deterrent and a limitation on the gateway concept for Canadian airports. In Toronto, once we have this one-stop procedure whereby you come through and clear through U.S. Customs, we believe we will see some growth in travel, and Toronto will become a gateway of choice into the northeast United States. For instance, already from Hong Kong to Toronto and then through to Washington is by far the quickest route from Hong Kong to Washington, and this will facilitate that movement. So we anticipate seeing quite significant growth.

The Chairman: Aren't there a lot of Americans, for example, who like to travel Air Canada from Toronto, but they don't want to go through customs twice? They don't see why they have to land here, go through Canadian Customs, and then go upstairs and go through their own American Customs. This way they'll be able to do the whole thing in one step.

Mr. Steve Shaw: That's right.

Ms. Jean Augustine: But that's not a new route. That would be a choice...

The Chairman: It gives consumers the opportunity to use the present route, but it takes out an inconvenience in the route.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: You are raising a point. Is it a new route or not?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll let them answer the question.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: If we look at what has happened during the pilot project in Vancouver in little less than a year, the number of passengers that now transit through Vancouver has increased by 60,000 to 70,000. That's equivalent to—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do you mean instead of Seattle?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: I mean instead of Seattle or San Francisco, exactly.

So what that means is that airlines are now adding additional flights to pick up those passengers in Vancouver. Those numbers translate roughly to at least two flights per day more than we would have otherwise out of Vancouver to the U.S. in order to handle this additional traffic. As that grows we will be able to see additional flights added. Once airports such as Toronto and Montreal get in-transit pre-clearance, they also will be able to increase the frequencies of existing routes and add new routes. Maybe they don't have enough traffic out of their city to those destinations, but by adding the additional traffic that's flowing across the Atlantic or Asia, you're able to fill up an aircraft and thereby establish a new route.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Would we see some relationship with airfares?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's a great idea.

• 1135

The Chairman: They run the airports.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Right now, for what I spend on one return fare to go from Ottawa to Toronto on a weekly basis, I can get myself to Europe, the Caribbean, and to places—

The Chairman: You can get to Moscow.

Ms. Jean Augustine: To Moscow, someone said.

The Chairman: Actually, we'll have the air transport people here on Thursday. Maybe they're the ones to ask that question to, because they set the prices. These people just run the airports.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Oh, really. You mean they're the gougers.

The Chairman: Yes, they're the ones. They set those prices.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp, do you have another question?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I have two.

I would like you to comment on the specific situation at Dorval Airport, and its impact on Dorval.

My second question is not linked to the bill, since you agree with its contents; it deals with a quite technical aspect of airports. Would there not be a way, as is done in European airports, to distinguish between passengers who are of the nationality of the place where the airport is located, and those who have European Union or other citizenship? Is this being considered? As far as I know, we do not make this distinction in Canadian airports. We could at least make a distinction between passengers from NAFTA countries and others. Has your Council considered this?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Bruno: Dorval as well?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: On your question with respect to Dorval, in-transit pre-clearance is something that fits right into what has happened there with the consolidation. Now that you have both domestic and international passengers going through one airport, it will facilitate the development of Dorval as a gateway. And in-transit pre-clearance is just another part of that whole package of services that Dorval will now have to make it more competitive with U.S. airports as gateways. So it will definitely be an advantage for Dorval.

On your other question, customs and immigration handle the processing of passengers in the arrivals hall, and we at the Canadian Airports Council are working very closely with them. At some airports they do assign some lines, for example, for Canadian passport-holders only. So it is done at some airports. We are looking at possibly doing the same for, say, North American travellers, so that Canada and the U.S. can be in a separate line from other nationals who perhaps require visas and therefore may take a little bit longer in processing.

Another initiative we're working on with the Canadian Airports Council is a new system for automated border passage. We have a pilot, again in Vancouver, called airports CANPASS, where a passenger with a card can identify themselves with their hand geometry and their card and be admitted without having to go through the full process. These passengers are pre-screened by customs and immigration. They do a complete security check. So low-risk passengers are allowed to use this faster processing, and the plan is to—

The Chairman: Would they fingerprint you?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: It's both.

The Chairman: They fingerprint you before they give you the card. I have one.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: You have a CANPASS one, right.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: They also take a DNA sample.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Bruno: We haven't gone that far yet.

[Translation]

The Hon. Sheila Finestone: But it's there.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Bruno: But the plan is to introduce this new system at Montreal, Toronto, and other airports across Canada next year.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I have a quick question from Mrs. Finestone, then another one from Ms. Augustine. We're getting ideas here.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes. There were two things.

On the CANPASS, which we looked at when we studied the issue of privacy and human rights law, the potential infringement and the protection of the DNA was an important factor, number one.

Number two, that CANPASS experience in Vancouver, as well as the ones on the eastern coast of Canada and the two other spots you placed it, was unsuccessful. So I would like to know on what grounds you feel you can use the CANPASS, and what protection you would afford each client who would be forced to give fingerprints and allow for either the thumb or a finger to be used as the identifying factor.

• 1140

The second question I'd like to ask you relates to refugees and immigrants. How are you going to handle Canada being the supposed, according to some of our Canadian experts, refuge of the terrorists? I don't consider Canada any worse than any other country in the world, frankly. However, that being said, what is the system you have set up with this pass-through system to make sure that a legitimate landed immigrant or a legitimate refugee is on board that aircraft and is being landed in the appropriate city? I think that would be very important.

And last but not least, what is the protection system you have in place for children who are in transit, given the level of divorce and the level of child kidnapping by parents or surrogates? What is the preparation and protection you have in the transfer of these children from one aircraft to another through an in-transit system like this?

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's a good question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's three questions.

The Chairman: All those questions relate to CANPASS and how it works.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No. CANPASS is different from the trials that were done by CANPASS and were ineffective, the protection of DNA, the children, and the refugees. Gee, it turned out to be five.

The Chairman: No, no I appreciate that. They don't have anything to do with this bill though. This bill doesn't deal with any of that stuff, except for... I might tell you that when we had the officials before the committee the other day, the issue of refugees was covered extensively with the government officials—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Oh good, thank you. Don't bother answering, then.

The Chairman: —and the lawyers who acted for the department, and who were in a position to answer. I don't know whether these gentlemen, who after all are airport administrators, can answer that type of legal question as to what you do with refugees. But if you can, go ahead. You might have a practical answer.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here for that meeting. So if you feel it was adequately answered to the committee's satisfaction, then they don't need to answer it.

[Inaudible—Editor]

Ms. Jean Augustine: —

The Chairman: Well I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the problem, if I can put it in a nutshell, doesn't arise so much in Canada, because this process wouldn't interfere with that. If someone arrives and says they want to become a refugee in Toronto, whether they've got transit or pre-clearance doesn't matter. They go to a Canadian official and that's it.

Where it might become an interesting issue is when we do this reciprocally with the United States. So they land in Miami and they go to the Canadian official and say “I want to become a refugee in Canada”, and the Americans say “Oh no you don't. We're going to shove you on a plane and send you away again.” That's an issue you might want to raise. That is the problem for us—it may be a legal problem. But we understood from the officials that this particular system doesn't cause a problem.

I don't know whether you have any observations on that from your experience running the airports or not. Mr. Shaw or Mr. Bruno?

Mr. Gerry Bruno: I can certainly answer the question on CANPASS, and I think Steve might have a few words on the in-transit situation with refugees.

The CANPASS pilot project at Vancouver is actually the only airport CANPASS in Canada. The other CANPASS pilots I think are surface border crossings.

The airport one has been very successful, and Revenue Canada would like to expand it across the country. Part of the issue there is that they're having a hard time coming up with the money to establish it. What we're doing is working in partnership with Revenue Canada, whereby the airports will actually fund the cost of the system.

The privacy is ensured, because any biometric identification, whether it's fingerprints or hand geometry, remains the property of the government. It goes into a separate database and all it is used for is as a key to identify the individual. We would not, as airports, have any access to that information and be able to use it ourselves. So their privacy is—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So the firewalls are secure.

Mr. Gerry Bruno: The firewalls are secure, absolutely.

Mr. Steve Shaw: If I could just reinforce that, we have put a lot of time into ensuring these passes will protect privacy and yet provide the appropriate identification—in other words, be free from any counterfeiting.

I'll just make two other comments. As Gerry indicated, there are many initiatives ongoing to improve the way we handle our cross-border traffic. In all of these, it's my experience that the improvement is upward in terms of security, but it's broad in terms of passenger convenience. So if you're a regular traveller between the States and Canada, the EPPS, which is now the name for CANPASS, will help you. It will facilitate you. It will also facilitate us by the fact that we don't have to be too concerned about you because you're a regular and you come through the airport. It enables the resources to be applied to those areas where there might be more security issues.

• 1145

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Quite frankly, I stand in the line like everybody else, even if I have a green passport. It doesn't make any difference. There are no special lines for parliamentarians. In fact I think they harass us a little bit, but that's beside the point.

The Chairman: Particularly if it's your constituent, which it often is in my case, going through Toronto—“Yeah, I know you”.

Mr. Steve Shaw: All passengers have to have adequate documentation. That would be true for any children, accompanied or unaccompanied. This bill will not change that situation. It's still there, if it is there. But it certainly will not reduce in any way the security options available.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: When you send a child under six or five years of age, you assign a person... Perhaps the airlines are in a better position than you to answer this, but there's an assignment and a responsibility for that child that's undertaken by the airlines.

Mr. Steve Shaw: Yes. It is an airline thing, an airline problem. That's true.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Would you hold that question for the airline people who are coming, because I have to go to another meeting now. Please forgive me. Would you ask that question when the airlines... Are we having an airline group appear before us now?

The Chairman: No, they're on Thursday. You can get another crack, another bite at the cherry, as it were.

Did you want to ask another question, Jean?

Ms. Jean Augustine: In your package of services that you offer as an airport authority, is ground transportation, the taxis and limos, part of these?

Mr. Steve Shaw: We are responsible under our ground lease for the appropriate administration of the regulations for taxis and limos, yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So maybe I should—

The Chairman: Get Colleen on the phone and get her over here, is that what you're—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Well, I live within what is a $19-zone from the airport, and the drivers really do not appreciate my business.

Mr. Steve Shaw: Yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: They drive at speeds that are incredible so they can get back within a certain time to be back in line. They're grumpy. They throw my case when they get in my driveway. It's just horrendous. I come off a plane in the best of moods, and when I face the taxis... If I could walk, I would.

I just wondered if we could look at the short run and long run in a different way than we do at the Toronto airport.

The Chairman: They do it in lots of places, in London, in all sorts of places. There are different lineups for—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You have a short-run line.

Mr. Steve Shaw: If I can just respond, you're quite right, it is a problem, and there are several issues around the taxis and limos at Toronto we are working at. We've had the benefit of Colleen Beaumier and other MPs who have come and talked to us, so we're very familiar with the issues. We hope in the next few months to begin an initiative to implement a comprehensive policy that we hope will address not only that issue, but some other issues in terms of licensing.

The Chairman: I think it would be helpful, Mr. Shaw, if there were a different place for short runs. I know, for example, at the Montreal airport and at Dorval you do it, and it makes sense. There's no doubt about it. Even in a downtown situation, if you get a taxi driver who thinks he's going to drive you to the airport and you ask him to take you around the block, they just about have a fit. It's hard, you know, at the airport... I mean, have you ever tried to get a limousine there at one o'clock on a snowy morning in February or something?

Since everybody else is using this to talk about things other than the bill, let me ask you one question actually about the bill. Will the pre-clearance in the U.S., which of course will be reciprocal... I assume this will start in the major airports here—Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. I don't know where else you'll do it. Will you do it in Halifax as well, or will it be largely those three?

Mr. Steve Shaw: It certainly can be applied to Halifax and other airports.

The Chairman: But it's only going to be the major places, obviously.

Mr. Steve Shaw: It's initially... There's a phase-in.

The Chairman: So assuming we have four or five reciprocal places going in the States—I don't know which they would be, but presumably they would be places like Chicago, New York, Washington, whatever—will that in turn help the business at your airports, or is that going to drain business away from your airports? What is the impact of that on...

• 1150

Mr. Steve Shaw: First, a flight that's pre-cleared coming in from the States obviously doesn't have to go through customs, so it does save and it does reduce the demand for customs and immigration and it will facilitate travel between the States and ourselves.

We don't see that as a negative. We see it as part of the overall improvement of traffic that was initiated with the open skies agreement.

The Chairman: If 50% of the flights coming from the States, say going into Pearson, were pre-cleared and you didn't have to go down to that basement room and line up with everybody else coming in from all over the place, it would be a hell of an advantage.

Mr. Steve Shaw: It does reinforce the fact that it means that customs can concentrate on those flights and those persons who are more suspect.

The Chairman: That's helpful.

Then let me ask something that has nothing to do with the bills, but airport administration.

It seems bizarre to me that in a world where airlines are the most efficient things to get you speedily from one place to another, airports seem to be the most inefficient things on the face of the planet. Do you think you could operate a grocery store successfully if when you went into it you had to line up and get checked in, and then when you went through the thing you had to line up at different times, and then you had to line up three times to pay on your way out?

When I go into the airport, I line up to check in my ticket. Then, if it's foreign travel, I line up to go through the customs things. If I'm going through Dorval, I line up to pay for my airport ticket, then I go and line up to get through the security clearance, and then I go and line up to get on the plane. They tell me you have to be there an hour and a half beforehand. Why? Because there's all this goofy lining up. It's sort of like the army: run to line up.

It has to be one of the craziest systems in the world, but it seems to operate everywhere. I'm not blaming you. London, New York, or wherever, it's all the same. Isn't there some sort of effort on behalf of the airlines themselves to try to reduce the on-ground aspect of the business?

Mr. Steve Shaw: I can't speak for the airlines, but we do work closely with them to improve the effectiveness of how people come and check their bags and move through the process. It's in our interest to facilitate that. We don't like long queues, the same as people who are in them.

I think it's issues such as the in-transit pre-clearance, the CANPASS, the transit without visa, and a lot of these other initiatives that will facilitate that movement through. But you're right. There are a series of checks that are important. One obviously you start when you begin; you engage the airport in terms of your parking and then your ticketing, and so on. Each of these is seen as an area in which... For instance, if I can talk from Toronto's point of view, we have put a lot of energy into looking at the way people will come through our new terminal, how best to facilitate the check-in, and how to provide the most effective common-use terminals for the airlines. Then, of course, with regard to the queuing, we're trying to minimize that in terms of moving into customs. We are going with the comingled area to try to facilitate that.

The Chairman: Well, you know, for example, with London airport now, you can check in at Paddington Station. You just check into the airline with your bag and get on your train, and you just go right through the—

Mr. Steve Shaw: That has a certain attraction for Toronto.

The Chairman: You must be looking at all those sorts of things as well.

Mr. Steve Shaw: Yes.

The Chairman: And I suppose we're going to be looking at a possible rail link to the Toronto airport at some point.

Mr. Steve Shaw: I understand that may be a government initiative, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate that.

I don't see that there are any other questions. It's too bad; this is a great chance for us to get all our frustrations out about air travel. But wait until you get the air transport people here next time, Mrs. Finestone. These guys are innocent of all this. We can get the guilty parties here later this week.

Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate that.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Just fix the taxes.

The Chairman: Members, we have the 3.15 Kosovo briefing. Also, Ms. Beaumier's human rights subcommittee will be hearing about Sierra Leone, which could be quite interesting.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I know, but I won't be here for either of them.

The Chairman: We're adjourned.