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]

Wednesday, June 14, 2000

• 1535

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Pettigrew.

Mr. Pettigrew has informed us that he can stay until 5 p.m. I'd like us to begin as quickly as possible to give members, and in particular the minister, enough time.

Please proceed with your opening statement. I hope it's not too long so that we have time for questions.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Madam Chair, colleagues, thank you very much for inviting me here this afternoon to discuss with you the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Let me begin by stating that a key component to Canada's export success has been the network of international trade agreements that we have negotiated and that are largely responsible for our country's success on the export field. Trade agreements are very useful.

These agreement - NAFTA, for example - have worked extremely well. And while we face real challenges as we negotiate and define new agreements such as the FTAA, it is something to which my government is firmly committed.

Indeed, our government is committed to this process and to the Americas. As you know, we are also engaged in talks with Costa Rica.

Our recent response to this Committee's report on the FTAA, known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas: Towards a Hemispheric Agreement in the Canadian Interest, outlines what we aim to achieve in these negotiations.

[English]

The FTAA is an historic opportunity to unite 34 countries of the Americas into a free trade area of impressive proportions. The potential is considerable: it's a market with a combined population of over 800 million people and a GDP of $17 trillion.

The FTAA is also a vital part of the Summit of the Americas process, the aim of which is to promote greater economic, social, and political development in our hemisphere. Canada's leadership in this process is undeniable. Quebec City, my hometown, will host the hemisphere's leaders at the summit next April, and we hosted the meeting of the trade ministers of the free trade area of the Americas in Toronto last November, the culmination of the crucial start-up phase of the negotiations that Canada chaired.

We place a priority on these negotiations because free trade is good for Canada. Quite simply, trade is first, foremost, and always about people: people finding rewards for their efforts, markets for their products, and hope for the future. And, we believe, free trade will benefit the people of our hemisphere as well.

For those who, for whatever reasons, oppose free trade and trade agreements, let me ask this: why would we exclude others from the kind of prosperity we enjoy, which is built on trade and engagement with the global economy? Why condemn to isolation the others of this hemisphere who aspire to the same quality of life, range of choice, and opportunity as we wish for ourselves?

Who would deny that Canada's success in harnessing the benefits of globalization has produced prosperity for Canadians? Our exports increased more than 11% in 1999, reaching $410 billion. To put it into perspective, that's 43% of our entire GDP to exports. This growth has been taking place for some time. Ten years ago—not a long time in the life of a country—our exports represented 25% of our GDP. We've been increasing exports: from 25% of GDP to 43% in one decade.

• 1540

The payback of this volume of trade to Canada, where one of every three jobs depends on trade, is quite clear. The 427,000 jobs Canadians created last year is the highest number of new jobs created since 1979 and can be attributed in very large measure to our success in global markets. Our unemployment rate is now at around 6.6%, the lowest in a quarter of a century. In fact, most of the two million jobs created since 1993 are related to our growth in trade.

Trade also contributes to the more intangible aspects of our national life, such as, for example, enhancing our confidence as our companies succeed in tough international markets and contributing to a higher quality of life for Canadians and a greater range of choices for consumers.

In continued pursuit of the benefits of trade, I'm very pleased to say that my government is able to express its broad agreement with this committee's 29 recommendations on the positions and priorities Canada should take in the negotiations. Let me cover the most important points.

[Translation]

Regarding market access, we will push for accelerated reductions on exports while taking into account domestic sensitivities. We will also continue to push for liberalization on agricultural products in keeping with our World Trade Organization positions.

We also support improved rules for anti-dumping measures and disciplines on subsidies, especially agricultural export subsidies.

Other negotiating priorities include: a comprehensive government procurement agreement; an intellectual property agreement in line with international provisions; improved competition policy rules; and where possible, discussion of provisions addressing non-tariff measures.

[English]

On investment, we will explore investment rules based on our past experiences with trade negotiations and the implementation of investment rules with other countries, including those of Latin America and the Caribbean. The countries of the Americas need and want the capital and opportunity that investment brings. They have a stake in ensuring that investment flows predictably throughout the region.

Whatever we do in any future negotiations on investment in the FTAA or elsewhere, we will take into account our past experiences with investment rules, but I can assure you that as far as an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is concerned—I am sorry that our colleague Bill Blaikie of the NDP is not here, as he would be relieved—we are not advocating such a mechanism in the FTAA or at the WTO.

I'll also let you know that we are continuing to work with our NAFTA partners to clarify key elements of that agreement's investment section, chapter 11.

I would like to reaffirm our position on services,

[Translation]

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary,

[English]

of particular importance to Canadians because it affects health and education service sectors.

As I have stated before, public health and education are not on the table in any international trade negotiations. My government will maintain our right and ability to set and maintain the principles of our public health and education. It is that simple. Those who wish to pick away at issues, to find threats in every trade agreement to our values and our social system, are simply wrong.

• 1545

On the issue of culture, we will discuss how best to pursue an international agreement on cultural diversity while at the same time respecting international trade rules.

[Translation]

Beyond Canada's own objectives, an important overarching element of the FTAA negotiating process is helping the hemisphere's smaller and developing economies realize the benefits of liberalized trade. We believe that all will realize important social and economic gains through the FTAA.

Many of the benefits are derived from the social dimensions of trade, something this Committee gave considerable attention to in its report, and I congratulate you on this.

I believe that in today's globalized world, social and economic agendas are inextricably inter-connected and that Government policies and institutions must recognize and respond to this reality.

I believe that FTAA will lead to economic growth and development in the hemisphere. This growth and development will in turn support larger objectives being pursued in the larger Summit of the Americas agenda, such as improving human rights, promoting democratic development and eradicating poverty.

On issues such as the environment and labour rights, for example, it has been shown that as countries achieve greater economic growth and increased standards of living, higher environmental and labour standards are realized.

However, the breadth and scope of what can be achieved on social issues through trade negotiations is limited. The central focus of the FTAA is hemispheric economic integration, achieved through a rules-based trade and investment liberalization system.

[English]

This in no way undermines the legitimacy of the concerns of environmental, labour, and human rights groups. What it does mean is that we must tackle these issues through institutions with clear expertise and mandates in these areas. For instance, the recent Organization of American States meeting in Windsor served as a unmatched regional forum for high-level discussion on fundamental human rights and democratic development issues.

[Translation]

But Windsor also reminds us that there are many groups who say they speak for the people of the hemisphere, who claim to articulate their concerns and their aspirations better than their own democratically elected governments. To those groups, I ask: to whom are you accountable? You have many legitimate views, but opposition for the sake of opposition is, in my view, not productive. From Seattle to Washington to Windsor, we see many views that need careful thought. But we also see elements that merely wish to oppose without careful thought for the costs that will be borne by the very people for whom these groups claim to speak.

For my part my government represents the aspirations of the Canadian people, and we strive to secure a future for them that is prosperous and full of opportunity. Trade is a key part of our strategy. The governments of the hemisphere also want the same for their people. We cannot embark on a true regional integration, economic, social and political, if we cannot accommodate their legitimate desire to share in the wealth-generating benefits of trade.

I am confident, and my government is confident, that openly debating these issues will generate more hemispheric support for the FTAA. Only by engaging our citizens can we demonstrate the legitimacy of our goals and convince the doubters. But debate is what is needed, not blind opposition.

• 1550

In fact, we have been at the forefront in promoting the value of engaging civil society in consultations at the international level, including the establishment of a hemispheric forum to gather views and submissions from civil society groups from across the Americas. This very morning, Claude Carrière, the department's Director General of Trade Policy, who is here with me today and who I should have introduced at the beginning, was in Montreal to meet with representatives of civil society to discuss the free trade area. Therefore, we are promoting the FTAA here in Canada and throughout the hemisphere. I want to thank him for engaging in an open dialogue with Canadian civil society.

[English]

The FTAA civil society committee allows for concerned individuals and groups to express their views in writing on the implications of trade, including related issues such as labour and environmental standards.

In Toronto last November we held a most successful first meeting between many of the hemisphere's trade ministers and civil society groups, an important development in an ongoing process of civil society consultations at the hemispheric level.

On the domestic front, we have made a concerted and ongoing effort to listen to and consult with Canadians through a number of avenues. I should have plugged your meeting this morning here instead of doing it earlier. But on top of Mr. Carriére's meeting this morning, these include sectoral advisory groups on international trade—the SAGITs—regular consultations with provincial representatives, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website, ongoing ad hoc meetings with senior officials and stakeholders, cross-Canada outreach tours, and of course parliamentary consultation.

I believe the consultation process is crucial to sustaining the high level of support among Canadians for our international trade initiatives. As the free trade of the Americas negotiations move forward, this government is dedicated to continuing the consultation process to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard and that our trade policy priorities and objectives reflect a careful and considered expression of the values, concerns, and interests of Canadians.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

I'm looking forward to the good dialogue I always enjoy with the members of this committee.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): We'll begin with Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Minister, it's a pleasure to welcome you here today. It's a shame that because of your busy schedule, you can't stay longer.

I'd like to comment on several statements that you made. First of all, you stated on page 7 that the central focus of the FTAA is hemispheric economic integration, Further one, you imply that while environmental and labour issues are important, they should not be dealt with within the FTAA framework.

On the other hand, you sing the praises of NAFTA which, as you well know, includes clauses on environmental rights and labour rights. For example, yesterday's edition of the Washington Post reported the following:

[English]

Unlike most trade agreements, however, NAFTA balances this constructive boost

[Translation]

namely free trade,

[English]

for business with some protections for labor and the environment.

[Translation]

Mention is made of the forum provided by the Environmental Cooperation Committee and the article concludes on the following note:

[English]

Any government that weakens this mild concession to anti-globalization feeling will be guilty of inciting more anti-trade protest.

[Translation]

I find it somewhat contradictory to champion the benefits of NAFTA, two major components of which protect labour and environmental rights which are very concrete, albeit minimal, while arguing in the same breath that these issues should not be discussed in the course of the FTAA negotiations and that progress in these areas should come naturally through trade. This seems contradictory to me and I fail to understand your reluctance to include in the FTAA environmental and social clauses that are much more stringent than the ones suggested, unfortunately, by this committee.

• 1555

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Indeed, if that's what I had wanted to say, it would have been somewhat contradictory. Let my clarify my position for you.

To begin with, labour standards and environmental agreements are not part of NAFTA as such. They are side agreements which were negotiated separately after NAFTA. We can promote separate trade agreements, which does not preclude my ministerial colleagues from discussing, as they prepare for the Summit of the Organization of American States, progress in such areas as the environment, labour standards and respect for human rights and democracy which has made great strides in America over the past 20 years. We must ensure that we continue to make progress.

We mustn't inevitably link the two. It's possible to promote trade negotiations and to hope for progress while implementing a program on other fronts. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, promoted other issues in Windsor last week. That's important, in my view. Moreover, a meeting of the ministers of the environment of the Americas...

Mr. Claude Carrière (Director General, Trade Policy Bureau I, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): No, I believe it's NAFTA.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The ministers met to discuss NAFTA yesterday and the day before that, namely June 12 and 13. Meetings are held on a regular basis. Too often, people ask the Trade Minister to hold back and sit tight while progress is made in other areas.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand, but you will agree with me that when these agreements, which I would qualify as schedules to NAFTA, were signed in 1992, Bill Clinton had campaigned on this and made the negotiation of side agreements a prerequisite to signing NAFTA.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: So too did the Chrétien government when it endorsed NAFTA in 1993.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Precisely. Therefore, I'd like you to clarify your position once again, because I'm not certain that I understand. Are you prepared to negotiate side agreements and would you promote the inclusion in the FTAA schedules of side agreements on the environment and labour rights, along the lines of the NAFTA model and agreements which you yourself say the Chrétien government supported in 1993? Are you telling me that this is Canada's position, much like it was in 1993?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We are in the early stages of the negotiation process. The NAFTA model is an interesting one and I hear what you're saying. Other models may prove to be more attractive. Therefore, let's continue the dialogue initiated with our colleagues from 33 other countries. Canada is open to all suggestions, but I'm not totally convinced that the NAFTA model is necessarily the best model for all of the Americas right now. If, during the course of the negotiations, certain countries champion this model, we will keep an open mind. As a government, we are open-minded and we appreciate that Canadians are interested in these issues.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, you're telling me that you are keeping an open mind and that you are receptive to suggestions, but right now, Canada's position is not to promote these kinds of side agreements.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It would be premature of me to say, since I still do not have a mandate to negotiate this agreement. What mandate will I receive from the government? That remains to be seen. When that happens, then we can review how we intend to proceed.

I think it's very important to separate the progress on trade matters and not link it inextricably to all environmental and labour standard issues. I say this because it's important to remember that trade is first and foremost part of the solution, much more than it is the cause of problems in these areas.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I attended the Toronto meeting on the FTAA and engaged in conversations with officials from certain countries. Mention was made of monetary integration as a possible complement to economic integration achieved through the FTAA.

• 1600

I've written to the ministers of trade of certain countries and some have expressed an interest - I can send you their letters, if you wish - in discussing this proposal as a possible adjunct to the FTAA.

Three weeks ago, the House of Commons Finance Committee also considered the possibility of monetary integration and heard from several witnesses on the subject. Would you be receptive to the idea of including a monetary component to this free trade agreement, as we suggested in our minority report? We called for the creation of a monetary institute of the Americas, a kind of multinational organization comprised of experts who would help various countries deal with monetary problems like the ones Ecuador encountered a short while ago or the ones that threaten other countries like Salvador.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: As you know, this matter comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance. As Minister of International Trade, it's not my place to comment on the responsibilities of my colleague, but I will be happy to forward your minority report to him. I'm certain he's already read it, being the avid reader that he is.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

[English]

I'd like to go now to Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that before I came from the House the minister made reference to our previous discussions with respect to chapter 11 of NAFTA and the commitment he made at an earlier meeting that Canada would not be seeking a chapter 11 investor-state dispute mechanism in any future trade agreements. I'm very pleased to hear him reiterate that commitment. We now have to get him to see the wisdom of trying to get it out of the North American Free Trade Agreement or, failing that, get rid of the agreement altogether.

In any event, I would like to engage him on some of the ideas that I think are behind his presentation. I'll just mention a few of the things I noticed in his remarks that kind of caught my eye, if you like.

He talks about why we would exclude others and condemn them to isolation, as if the rest of North and South America is just waiting for the free trade agreement and that prior to it they exist in this horrible state. It seems to me to be quite the contrary. What we're doing is moving not to include them so much as to impose a kind of market mentality on them that will not always serve the best interests of their people.

I'm reminded of the way in which, for instance, people of various Caribbean islands have already felt the consequences of the market mentality by having their trade relationship with the European Union struck down with respect to bananas, and having various local economies ruined as a result of WTO decisions.

So I think it's hardly fair to characterize what is going to happen to the FTAA as some kind of unmitigated benefit to everyone.

You ask why we should deny to these other countries what has been our path to prosperity. Well, I would certainly want to argue with you about whether in fact free trade has been our path to prosperity. We were a prosperous country before we entered into free trade agreements and we were a more just country before we entered into these agreements. So prosperity, if you like, or export statistics, aren't the only measure of what makes a country.

Prior to entering into these free trade agreements there were fewer homeless people on the streets, there was less poverty in Canada. There's lots of other ways you might measure a society and come to an entirely different conclusion than what you've come to in your remarks.

You talk about a greater range of choices for consumers. Our concern, those of us who are opposed to these agreements, is that that may be so, but, you know, the spiritual motto of our society certainly isn't “I shop, therefore I am”. There are other things in life besides consumer choices, and one of them is citizen choices. Certainly a great many people would want to argue that even if our consumer choice is broadened—and I think that's arguable—the range of choices available to us as citizens, and collectively speaking as a democracy, is greatly decreased.

• 1605

We can produce a long list of things that Parliament, for instance, was once able to decide, whether it has to do with drug patent legislation, bulk water exports, split-run magazines, or managed trade agreements like the Auto Pact. The list is quite long of things that were once properly the object of democratic decision-making that have been taken out of that realm and given over to these free trade agreements.

So I would just ask you to consider that as well.

Finally, you talk about environmental and labour standards. According to your analysis, wherever trade increases and this economic model you're in favour of have been imposed or successful, environmental and labour standards have increased. I would disagree with you profoundly on that.

The fact of the matter is that in the last 15 or 20 years, since the neo-conservative, now neo-liberal revolution has brought deregulation and privatization of free trade agreements, environmentalists in particular have become more and more worried about the future of the planet. In fact, a lot of the progress that was being made in the 1970s toward trying to design an economy that was more environmentally friendly was dashed in the early 1980s, with the Thatcher-Reagan neo-conservative revolution. There's a very strong argument to be made that the market mentality leads to quite the opposite.

I am getting to a question, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): You're going a bit far there.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just think your analysis is riddled with holes and things I would want to take issue with.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Why are we not surprised?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'll leave you some time to take issue with me.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much.

Bill, in your absence I called attention to the top of page 6, which is the commitment I made on not implicating such a mechanism. I'm glad it was reported to you when you came.

You have raised a number of very important questions, there's no doubt about it. I am not one who believes that the market mentality should be imposed on everyone and should be the name of the game completely. Certainly not. I believe the market is a wonderful place for the self-fulfillment of individuals, and a very productive place. It's a place that is quite effective, efficient, and productive. It's certainly better than any other economic model we've had so far.

I'm one who believes in a balance between the market and the role of government. I believe we still need governments to do a number of important tasks. An individual is a citizen before being a consumer; I totally agree with you.

There are difficulties we have as governments now. You say it was much nicer in terms of social justice before free trade than after. Well, yes. When I say yes, I understand what you mean.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You got it right the first time.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, I disagree. Free trade is not the only thing that happened in the last 20 years. There have been a number of technological developments that widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots. At the time there were deficits of $42 billion a year, so when you live way above your means at the level of $42 billion a year, you end up having lots of money for all kinds of things. So don't blame free trade for a certain number of corrections our government has had to make.

If we didn't have the debt we have today, as a government we would be able to make a lot of choices we can't, because of certain decisions of the 1970s and the 1980s.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You still wouldn't be able to do things that...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...says you can't do, no matter how much money you have.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Free trade is not the only thing that has happened. The market is not the only thing that decides those things. There is progress in technology. There are the difficulties in redistributing wealth. It is a challenge for governments now because there is a lot more mobility between the countries.

• 1610

We have to take a lot of things, and it's very complex, but all in all... You say Canada was prosperous before free trade. Yes, but before free trade Canada was a member of GATT. Canada has been a trading country since its inception, since its very birth. We traded wood and furs. We were born that way.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I know all that crap.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You know all that.

[Translation]

That's right. Just think of Radisson and Des Groseilliers. We have always been a trading nation.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is apparently a grade three history lesson.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I want to say that our prosperity has always been built on trade. We were created on trade at first. We were a member of GATT before free trade.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: GATT was entirely different from free trade.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It was certainly trade liberalization and it certainly promoted the elimination of barriers, so I beg to differ with your analysis. You're not surprised.

I honestly believe that market mentality, in a narrow way, is not something my government or I subscribe to. When our colleague from the official opposition speaks later on, he will probably find me far too leftist for his own sake.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It will be to the left of Genghis Khan. Isn't that right?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Anyway, I think we have a balanced approach between the role of government—in which I believe because it has a lot of legitimacy—and the place of market, which is a very productive thing.

Just to conclude on the market, it's very productive and very effective. I believe in the market, but it can do a lot of bizarre things. That's why we need governments to continue to have a role to protect citizens and individuals.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have a sub-question.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): I'll get back to you. You've had your 10 minutes, so we'll go around.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister. In your opening statement, you referred to the considerable potential of the FTAA and of a market with a combined population of over 800 million and a GDP of $17 trillion. However, as you surely know, the vast majority of these countries, maybe 29 or 30 of them, have very modest economies. Did these particular countries have a choice when it came to committing to negotiating a free trade area?

At the beginning of your opening statement, you speak very positively about the fact that the FTAA will enable all countries in the region to achieve major social and economic gains. However, how long will it take these small countries to feel the effects of the FTAA on their social and economic development? At what rate will this development proceed?

My question concerns recommendation 9. Why does the Government of Canada not intend to renounce its current position whereby all parties to a future FTAA shall be subject to the same commitments and obligations?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: May I speak personally, without committing the government?

Voices: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Bernard Patry: No.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: What I mean is that...

Mr. Bernard Patry: You're the government's spokesperson.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Nevertheless, I'll risk it. When I look back at the history of trade liberalization since the creation of the GATT in 1947, I think that the countries of the South that demanded exemption after exemption basically ended up shooting themselves in the foot. Each time they asked for an exemption, the developed countries of the North countered with more exemptions. Ultimately, they were unable to participate in the growth of trade and the world economy. One exemption inevitably leads to another.

In my opinion, the best solution is to subject oneself to the rigour and discipline of competition. This is the best way to get companies to improve the way they do business. Without competition, one takes a step backward. Given that exemption are one way of avoiding competition, I feel that this is the wrong way to go. I think history, or at least the last fifty years since the end of the war, have borne out this theory.

• 1615

However, we must be realistic. At the Toronto meeting chaired by Canada, our nation actively promoted the creation of a working committee to look specifically at small economies, in particular the economies of Central American and Caribbean nations which are quite small, only marginally developed and confronted with unique challenges. A committee did in fact consider the needs of these small economies and looked at confidence building and capacity building initiatives. How would you say that in French?

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I'll let you know later. I'll have to think about it.

Voices: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It just came to me naturally. It wasn't at all a question of language preference.

Thanks to organizations like the Canadian International Development Agency and international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we have the means with which to strengthen these small economies and enable them to integrate the global economy. This represents very important work for us.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have a second question, somewhat along the same lines, regarding trade recourse and the application of countervailing duties. Canadian producers are deeply concerned about American interventions targeting our exports. I would imagine then that small countries are very worried about US actions. In what way will the current round of negotiations clarify the application of legislation respecting countervailing duties?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No doubt you're alluding to US trade laws. As many have noted, there were some lively discussions in Seattle. The US pretty much stood alone on this issue, as countries pressed the WTO to review national trade laws. The US is staunchly opposed to such a move, as you know. Each country seems to have its own sacred cow. Clearly, the US is very sensitive about such matters as dumping and anti-dumping. Canada has often called for competition policies to be examined, but not necessarily reviewed or amended. At the very least, it would like competition policies to be more transparent to ensure that no one takes advantage of these laws in order to do what the agreements do not allow them to do.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

[English]

We will now go on to Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here.

I'm looking on page five of your remarks. Certainly in bold type you say:

But I can assure you, as far as investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, we are NOT ADVOCATING and will not seek the inclusion of such a mechanism in the FTAA, at the WTO or elsewhere.

That certainly seems to be one of the things you wanted to highlight in your comments there. I just want to give you an opportunity to expand, for the record, particularly why you don't want to—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm sorry that I missed your...

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm looking at this document here.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's on page five of my statement today?

Mr. Paul Forseth: This is the English version.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes. It's on page six.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I just wanted to give you a chance, for the record, to expand on why you say that in such strong terms. Also, on the converse, agreements need to have dispute settlement mechanisms. In fact, one of the greatest advantages of making these kinds of deals is to have that to be able to deal with irritants.

I'd also like you to say why you're not going in a particular way—perhaps to avoid things like the MMT debacle of whatever—and on the positive side, why you feel the WTO model, the preferred model, is the way you want to go.

I'm asking a two-pronged question there.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: On investment and the dispute settlement body, I like the WTO very much. I have no problem with it whatsoever. It is a model that could be adopted almost anywhere.

It has learned from the NAFTA, actually. Many of the ingredients of the WTO... That's why last week in my statement in Darwin, which some reporters talked about, I said agreements had to be the WTO plus. They have to be ground-breaking.

• 1620

It's good when they report what you say. Sometimes you complain that you don't have...

Anyway, there are good arguments. As I say, some regional and bilateral agreements help at the multilateral level. That is a very good example we have learned within NAFTA. Certain things about the dispute settlement were useful for the multilateral community afterwards. That's why bilateral are not necessarily harmful for the multilateral. That's another subject anyway.

I support completely the dispute settlement body.

On investment, Canada is taking an attentive position on it for the time being. We have to move on it, and we know there is very good thinking in lots of bodies on this particular subject. It's important to understand the consequences, and when we move on it, we have to understand them very well.

What I am saying is that within NAFTA, we have learned things from chapter 11 about the investor state. That's separate from the investment thing alone. On investment, we're paying attention to everything being discussed. We will not stop progress on it. We believe very much we must make certain. But on investor state, I am saying for what we have in NAFTA, we have already said quite clearly we are seeking clarifications on certain interpretations that can be made of that chapter 11.

The day before the last meeting that my deputy minister, Rob Wright, attended with Fisher, the American, and Luis de la Calle Pardo of Mexico in Dallas, when he was preparing for that meeting, I asked him to please raise it. And I talked to Madame Barshefsky in parallel for the meeting of our deputy ministers. We have to do some kind of checking of what they do when we're not there. I had a conversation with Madame Barshefsky the week before, and I warned her that I had tasked my deputy minister with raising it with her. I've done the same thing with Herminio Blanco.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Around the whole history of the MAI process, are we going to be getting into that kind of thing again?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There's no talk about that for the time being.

Mr. Paul Forseth: There's no agenda of the government to—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No. I have no mandate from my government on that front. It was not even part of my WTO mandate in Seattle.

Mr. Paul Forseth: When critics say the environment suffers when business has its way, how do you respond to that, especially related to the current effort?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I say the environment is a very important element, and we have to look at what business does. We have to find ways of making sure they respect the environment. I believe very much we made progress with my colleague, Anderson, at the Montreal biosafety convention the other day.

I agree there is a concern. I am saying don't ask the trade ministers to do the work of everyone else. There needs to be progress on that front.

To these people who always say trade is bad for the environment, I also say trade is very good for the environment when we can export some environment technologies to countries. I visited throughout the country not too long ago during my trade outreach around Easter, and I visited companies that were exporting to China environment technological improvement that's going to improve the environment in China. So trade is also part of the solution on the environment front.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's exactly what Maurice Strong said last night at his book launch.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, very good.

Mr. Paul Forseth: He said basically it's not a matter between the environment ministers; it's ministers of trade and industry and so forth who really are the nuts and bolts of an international environment.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I agree on the environment front, and I would say the same thing on the labour standards. I am quite ready for us to have an ILO-WTO working group together to see how we could work better together on promoting labour standards. But I am saying it should not be done within the WTO framework, because the WTO is something that has been negotiated over the years under certain rules and certain conditions. If you changed the name of the game halfway, all of the concessions that have been made would have to be reviewed and revised. You have to do it at the place where it is most appropriate to see real progress without challenging everything that has been done so far.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Thank you for that.

• 1625

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

I'll go to Mrs. Bulte for five minutes, please. We're down to five minutes now.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Try to keep one for me.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I want to ask you about culture, but I also want to go to your report and ask you some other things.

On page 4 of your notes you talk about anti-dumping, and in the English version you say “We also support improved rules for anti-dumping”. You did touch on it a little bit in your response to Dr. Patry. With the mindset of the Americans and how they feel about anti-dumping, what can we do to actually improve that situation? That's question one.

On culture, you state in your remarks, “We will discuss how best to pursue an international agreement on cultural diversity, while at the same time respecting international trade rules”. Unfortunately our trade rules have not been able to protect our culture. We've been talking about how to pursue this international agreement on culture and diversity for some time.

I believe it will be two years since the SAGIT report came down. My concern is, what in fact are we doing concretely to make that happen? Is the FTAA a potential forum for this? What is concretely being done about it? We all patted ourselves on the back when the SAGIT report came out and said, “Yes, we should have a separate cultural instrument”, and everybody was very excited about it, but what's happening? It's been almost two years now.

Third is civil society and the role of civil society, from Washington to Seattle to Windsor. These are becoming topics people are talking about. You've talked about the FTAA civil society committee and also the fact that there is a website and people can dialogue. But one of the criticisms that actually came from the witnesses during the hearings was, “Well, that's all very well and good that you have this site, but what is the response? How are governments reacting to that?”

Also, do we not, as a government, have an onus to... While we sit around here at committee, we can talk about the benefits of trade and how it works into the whole social cohesion we look at. But don't we also have a role to let the public know? What are we doing to have people who go to these meetings be better informed as to what we are doing and how we are engaging in our consultation?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: To your first question, we must improve at the WTO the due process on commercial laws, trade laws, and anti-dumping measures. Canada supports it, and we're quite ready to push on the United States, like everyone else. Some of the other countries are very adamant about it. So we will continue to insist on that, but it will be part of a dialogue.

As I said, every country has its sacred cow. That happens to be a very sensitive element in the United States, but the Canadian position is that we have to put that on the table as well. These have to be transparent and used in the appropriate way. We have to reduce and even eliminate the abuse of anti-dumping.

On culture, the Canadian position to which we have come is this. Madame Copps, my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and I are working very closely together on that front, as well as Lloyd Axworthy in his international endeavours. We do promote another instrument for dealing with culture, because we don't think the WTO is the appropriate instrument for cultural goods and services. We believe it is something of another order than other goods.

Madame Copps has been very active. The Quebec government is participating actively along with her and helping very well with France. Madame Malavoy and the French government are there, with Catherine Lalumière. We're making progress and we're promoting it. We would need support from other countries. Everywhere I go—and those who travel with me know this—I raise it. In the Spanish-speaking countries, I don't understand that they don't sometimes react as strongly as we do. I do tell them, and even some other English-speaking countries.

• 1630

So we believe very much in it in our government. I understand your frustration; you say it's two years later. But our government is quite committed to it, and we have had a number of conferences in which we have promoted it. But you need to have a consensus of a vast number of countries. Two years is a very short time on this sort of thing, because it is a new concept, a new idea, and indeed you need time to persuade other people.

On civil society, what was your point exactly?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The question is, does the government not have a role to educate and inform the public and civil society, not just to say “You're wrong; your agendas are different”? What are we doing to ensure there truly is dialogue and the FTAA civil society committee is not just used as a dumping ground to dump, but there's no reaction after that?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Absolutely.

First of all, I think you will all recognize that I've always been very cautious with saying “You're wrong”. I've always said many of their concerns are quite legitimate concerns. I had representatives of civil society on my delegation.

I hate this expression, “civil society”. It's terrible. We're all civil society. Anyway, you know what I mean: the NGOs. These people were part of my delegation as well in Seattle. Monsieur Carrière was in Montreal this morning meeting representatives of a number of NGOs. So we do engage with them a great deal. I think Canada is probably the best country in terms of having established a dialogue.

There are lots of issues going all over the place, so it's difficult to cover all the ground they cover. But we're doing our best, and we count on your committee. I must commend the very good work of this committee on international trade and foreign affairs—very good work. As much as you can do as well, I would be very grateful to you as a team.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

[Translation]

I will now turn the floor over to Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. I was anxious to begin.

I'd like to focus on a question that was phrased somewhat differently earlier. Yesterday, this committee heard from two panels of experts on globalization. Two witnesses in particular, Kimon Valaskakis and Dorval Brunelle, expressed some concern about the fact that trade agreements failed to take into account social dimensions in the broader sense of the word. One can argue that these are two different things, but given that competition is already widespread and adversely affects workers because they are not well remunerated and less attention is paid to occupational health and safety concerns, we have to look to the agreement, although some may say these are matters for side agreements. This is a widely held view. In your response you noted the following:

The FTAA is critical to promoting economic integration and free trade. However, the government is convinced that growth, integration and economic development resulting from a free trade agreement will make it easier to attain the other Summit objectives.

These other objectives are eradicating poverty and discrimination and promoting democratic development and education.

However, some questions do come to mind, considering that according to UNICEF's report, Canada ranks 17th in terms of child poverty, whereas the US ranks 22nd and Mexico, 23rd, out of a total of 23 countries. The FTA works remarkably well, but there's not necessarily a connection between a free trade agreement that works well and social considerations. It begs a response. You cannot say that we sovereigntists are opposed to free trade. We were free trade advocates before the Liberals, back when they were pulling their hair out like the NDP.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I was promoting free trade in Quebec as far back as 1984 when I joined the firm of Samson Bélair Deloitte & Touche.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Right.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Many Quebec businesses will tell you that I was an early advocate of free trade.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: However, you weren't a prominent Liberal at the time.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You didn't have my membership card.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Secondly...

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: —

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I was talking about the Liberals. You know who I'm talking about.

A voice: Not you, Bernard.

• 1635

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Another somewhat troubling question was raised yesterday. NAFTA provided for the negotiation of government contracts as of December 1998. We learned that some twenty groups and sub-groups are working on these issues. Yet, we have received no information about this whatsoever. It would be good to have some information because it's more than likely that the issues currently being negotiated with the US will find their way into an agreement.

For my third question... don't look at me like that, Bill.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Perhaps you should wait for the next round. I gave you five minutes, and I'd like to give the Minister the opportunity to respond.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: My third question is very brief.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): You've already had at least eight minutes. I would ask the Minister to answer your first two questions and you can wait until the next round to put your third one to him.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We can come back to the question of government contracts. I will be happy to provide you with the information you want.

Your first question is a fundamental one that calls for a serious answer. Can we deprive the countries of the South of one of their assets, namely an inexpensive labour force. I'm always unnerved to hear people say that we should impose comparable labour standards on these countries. Here in Canada even, we've had labour standards that were set by the provinces and reflected our own society. In the 1950s, when our society was lagging behind in some areas - obviously I'm talking here about Quebec - this was viewed as an asset, for a variety of reasons.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The unions might not agree with you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Maybe not, but in any event... Let's move on.

Voices: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We cannot impose our standards on developing countries. Certain social behaviours are unacceptable to us today because we have achieved a level of development that makes such conditions obsolete. I wish the same for all humanity, but we cannot dictate to these countries that they adopt our current social and behavioural standards, because the fact that they have an inexpensive work force is an asset to them. Our workers may be better paid today because they are more productive and better trained and have better equipment at their disposal. We must take into account the gap between skills levels and labour standards. I wouldn't want to deprive the countries of the South of one of their assets...

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Neither would I.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: ...namely the fact that they have an inexpensive labour force.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: However, this mustn't result in a trend toward lower standards.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I agree.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's a complex issue.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Historically, the trend has been toward improving such standards. You mentioned child poverty. One of the accomplishments that I'm most proud of since becoming a member of this government is the National Child Benefit negotiated with the provinces. The government has invested considerably in this social program to raise the standard of living of low-income families with children. The Canadian economy has benefited from the creation of two million additional jobs since 1993, largely because of the free trade agreements. This is certainly the best argument for the eradication of child poverty. The outlook is improving. There was a downturn in the early and mid 1990s, but a recovery is well under way on this front.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I don't see this happening where child poverty is concerned. The situation is growing worse. That's all I have to say, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): I can see that opinion is split on the subject.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As Chair, you're not supposed to voice an opinion.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): I'm entitled to have a personal opinion. Since no other Liberal member has asked to speak, I'll take the opportunity to ask the Minister a question.

During our hearings on globalization yesterday, some witnesses seemed to feel that we were negotiating some agreements in secret and that certain texts were making the rounds. Have the negotiations reached a stage where there might be a text circulating?

• 1640

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, we haven't yet reached that stage. As I said, when I came over to the Department of International Trade in August, I was hoping that we would reach that stage by the time the Toronto meeting rolled around. However, we weren't able to look at anything concrete in Toronto. I'm hoping that a draft text will be ready for the April 2001 meeting which will be held a few weeks before to the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. For now, we still don't have a text. As a matter of fact, I've yet to receive a mandate to negotiate from my own government. I've yet to speak to Cabinet about this.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Then you have nothing to declare publicly at this time.

[English]

We don't have anything we can make public at this time.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): There was also an idea that there were five or six negotiating tables going on at this time. There seems to be this feeling that these things are happening and no one knows about it. That's what I'm bringing back to the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There are nine working groups in all which are involved in preparing a draft text which hopefully will be ready for Buenos Aires. However, for the moment, there is no text.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): There's no text then.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: However, nine working groups are involved in negotiations. As you know, this doesn't happen overnight. It's a long, drawn-out, complicated process.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mss. Diane Marleau): We're going to go to Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the minister's response to Madame Lalonde, he talked about... again, I've heard this from several ministers of trade now. When we're talking about labour standards, they say we can't impose our standards on these developing countries.

For heaven's sake, let's make it clear once and for all that we're not asking to impose our standards. We're asking to impose core labour standards. We're not talking about the Canada Labour Code, or the provincial labour code of Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else. We're talking about the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, and freedom of association. These are not cultural, evolutionary, developmental things; these are basic human rights. To suggest that somehow we want to impose our standards on them is to misrepresent what people are advocating when they're talking about enshrining core labour standards in these agreements.

Now, you say don't ask the trade ministers to do everything. Fair point, but I think the point that Maurice Strong and others make is that right now the trade ministers are in charge of everything, whether they like it or not, because it's only trade law that is enforceable. It's trade law and the decisions of these trade agreements that trump everything else. It's trade law that trumps environmental law. It's trade law that trumps cultural law. It's trade law that trumps health, for instance, when it comes to drug patent legislation, or whatever.

So unless you're willing to give the same kind of power to these other institutions... You say you want to have these other institutions deal with this, but are you willing to give them the kind of teeth, the kind of enforceability, that the WTO and these trade agreements have? Because if you aren't, it's just a diversionary tactic. Send it off to the ILO, or even send it to the NAFTA Environmental Commission, where the government itself can nix what the NAFTA Environmental Commission studies, as our own government did just a couple of weeks ago.

So it's a bit of a dodge, if you don't mind my saying so, to say these other organizations should look after it if you're not willing to go on the international stage and argue that these organizations should have the same kind of clout the WTO has. They don't have it now.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You know, I am even supporting an ILO-WTO working group, where the ILO could learn from the WTO and take examples from some of its enforceability mechanisms—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They can chat to each other from now until doomsday, unless they are given the enforceability.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: But you have to begin somewhere, and the place to begin is to have a common ILO-WTO group where they can exchange and see what can be done in common.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: As a final supplementary on that, one of the other things that's concerned me is that we've talked about civil society and dialogue and everything else—I know this isn't specifically your responsibility perhaps, but it is something you should be concerned about as the trade minister—but take what happened in Windsor. Why is the Canadian government keeping Americans out? There were all kinds of Americans who wanted to come to Windsor in order to be part of the protests and they couldn't get through the border.

At least the Americans let the Canadians through in Seattle—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): That's out of order. That's not his responsibility.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Why do we have free trade in capital, and goods and services, but we don't have free trade in protesters?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Mr. Blaikie, that's totally out of order. That's not a question for the Minister of Trade.

• 1645

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: First of all, there were security reasons. People might have been bringing certain elements and certain tools that were not particularly useful, but I can tell you that in Seattle I met a couple of thousand Canadians, so there's certainly mobility—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, because the Americans let them in, but we didn't do the same for them in Windsor.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No. It was done, I understand, for security reasons.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Is it the Prime Minister's Office—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): You don't need to answer, Mr. Minister. This is not your jurisdiction. It's one thing for you to want to answer, but...

[English]

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I just wanted to pick up on a comment over here. All of these bilateral negotiations, the good neighbour agreements—all of the different names for them—are highly technical. They're way beyond the simple comprehension of the average person in the community, yet in order to do these things, governments have to build clear political mandates. They really have a responsibility to explain and to build political mandates in order to make the kinds of agreements that are contemplated.

This is related to the notes I was given by my colleague, from our perspective, about referring back to provinces and testing these things in Parliament and the variety of ways of having legitimate political mandates to do these things, but really, I suppose, having the funds to explain in very simple terms, in an understandable way, what we are doing in these situations. It's too easy for the ivory tower mentality. I think part of the reaction of the battle in Seattle was not so much one of content but of messaging. What are we doing to overcome this? It's like a media disaster in some respects. It greatly impacts on the local economies.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Indeed, trade ministers and officials have learned from what happened in Seattle.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. They built higher fences.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: For 45 years, very few people paid attention to what trade ministers were doing. How many people cared about the first eight rounds of negotiations, about the Canadian rounds of the sixties or that sort of thing?

Indeed, it's very technical. A lot of what we do is highly technical and complex. It is so complicated that it even takes lawyers to understand it.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's a joke. Lawyers...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: That's a joke. I have a sense of humour.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I agree with you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Monsieur Patry agrees. Very good.

We have to communicate at a much simpler level. I myself, around Easter, spent ten days doing some trade outreach across Canada and visited eight Canadian cities, where I met with all sorts of people, precisely in order to try to explain in simpler language what it is that we're trying to do and the benefits of it.

I was very pleased with those eight Canadian cities I visited, and I intend to do what I call “trade outreach” regularly. I've asked my officials at International Trade to make sure it becomes a permanent feature of my own schedule: not only international missions and trade, but visiting my own country to explain what it is that the Department of International Trade and our foreign service officers, 530 of them around the world, can do to help them export and sell their goods and services abroad.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just as a supplementary to that question, what about clearly identifying some of those whose stock-in-trade is to deliberately misrepresent what's going on? One individual who seems to be making a career of it is Maude Barlow. So much of what that lady says is blatantly not true. So much of it is out-and-out fraud.

But the thing is that you must have the expertise to be able to respond to those issues in a very organized and factual way, because it's hard to respond and it's easy to accuse. I'm talking about some of those organizations that really are a difficulty.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, I think it's important... I mean, we have a much better website than we used to. A lot of these organizations are using the Internet and these tools. I think we are improving daily. Our website has become very effective and very good and is heavily visited.

• 1650

We're in a democratic society. People are free to express themselves and to say all sorts of things. Some of that is legitimate. Some of it is about legitimate concerns. Some of it can be absolutely inept and unfortunate.

I know these people often have demands in regard to us that they wouldn't live with themselves. They say “Be transparent.” I look to some NGOs and I say “Be transparent too. Who finances you? Who has mandated you?” As you know, they will speak for “Canadians”. Oh yes, thank you very much... We have to be very cautious about taking at face value the representativeness of a number of...

But let's be clear here: many NGOs—most NGOs—support trade. Most of them that I engage in dialogue, in Seattle and elsewhere, engage in a healthy dialogue. They have preoccupations. They want better answers than we used to give them; they're more demanding. That's fine; I don't have any problem with that. What is important is to engage in that dialogue and make sure that... But most NGOs support trade. Let's not think they're all opponents. It's not true.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I think the minister wouldn't want to... Even the NGOs he doesn't like support trade; they just don't support free trade. So let's not accuse people of not supporting trade. No one imagines that we can—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): That's debate, Mr. Blaikie—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Was that not a point of order?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): That's debate, Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As a member of the pragmatic, less unionist wing of the Bloc Québécois, I feel rather funny about saying that on some matters, I agree with the NDP. That's a little frightening.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's scary.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes indeed. However, Bill Blaikie was right to say that simply discussing social standards or clauses doesn't necessarily mean imposing North American, Canadian or Quebec standards on developing countries, but rather including in free trade and other trade agreements provisions dealing with certain fundamental values and conventions.

Earlier you mentioned the International Labour Organization that has done a lot of work in certain areas and negotiated several important conventions. I'll name some of them for you and you can tell me whether you think these conventions should be incorporated in some way into the FTAA.

I'm thinking about Convention 29 on Forced Labour, Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, Convention 98 on the Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively, Convention 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, Convention 111 on Employment (Discrimination and Occupation) and Convention 138 on Minimum Age. These conventions which normally should be accepted around the world, not imposed by western nations on other countries, are fundamental conventions that embrace basic human rights. That's my opinion, one that you probably share with me.

Accordingly, would you be willing to incorporate the work done by the ILO? By this, I don't mean renegotiating all of these conventions, but rather incorporating these agreements which have already been recognized by many countries, including Canada, into the FTAA? It would be a matter of ensuring that minimum provisions, not Canadian or western ones, are included in a trade agreement which has the potential to be extremely important.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I think trade should remain as unrestricted as possible. In order to comply with some of the conventions that you just listed, some countries would need to have more open economies.

You're familiar with Canada's position on Cuba and China. We believe that by engaging in trade activities in certain societies, we can ultimately have a greater influence on that country by allowing it to become knowledgeable about our values and to achieve the level of economic development required to achieve these values. We support this course of action. We don't want to shut out a country that does not behave in a particular way. When we isolate or turn our backs on a country, we encourage it to harden its position on those social values which we hold dear and which we want it to embrace.

• 1655

Therefore, we don't believe in isolationist policies. Canada is a nation that through active commitment, seeks to promote the development of its values, both at home and around the world.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I take for granted that your answer is no.

One last question, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I was with you in Toronto, when Canada chaired the FTAA negotiations. I was at the meeting with what is horribly called the “civil society”. Some ministers met with some NGOs for an hour, an hour and a half approximately.

This being the case, my FTAA pass gave me access to the Americas Business Forum where ministers, businessmen and businesswomen were meeting. One could move freely from one to the other without problems.

It seemed a bit peculiar that business people had such easy access to ministers, including you, and to officials, for instance Mr. Carrière who was there. We were all staying at the same hotel. Everyone moved freely. The fact that the “civil society” was staying at a different hotel from that of the Government of Canada representatives, who were chairing the meeting, did not allow it as much access to officials such as Mr. Carrière whom I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time over there, you and other ministers. There was some kind of imbalance between access given to business people and that given to NGOs.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The way everything was set up... I can assure you that business people had no more access to ministers during our work sessions and during the days when we met in Toronto.

We will come back to this, but first, I would like to remind you that, during the meeting with civil society representatives, as you no doubt noticed, I was accompanied by 22 colleagues. Twenty two of the 34 countries agreed to take part in this meeting.

Mr. Richard Marceau: For a meeting of an hour or an hour and a half.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: An hour and a half.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It was still a remarkable show of Canadian leadership. I can tell you that, at the start, there weren't four or five countries willing to take part. We therefore made considerable progress in Toronto, where 22 countries agreed to follow me. I must say that the Canadian leadership was very important in convincing some of these countries to agree to this first meeting. It was therefore an extremely important first step. I would not want to minimize the importance of the fact that 22 out of 34 countries accepted to take part in this meeting.

However, as to business people's access to our work sessions, to our negotiations or to anything else, it was definitely not better. In the Canadian delegation, there were incidentally labour representatives, several NGO representatives...

Mr. Claude Carrière: This was the WTO meeting.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You're right. In fact, in Toronto, I didn't have a delegation.

Mr. Claude Carrière: That is correct.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I had no delegation in Toronto. If you will all excuse me, I changed subject. This was three weeks later.

However, the access was the same.

Mr. Richard Marceau: There was a dinner during which an American, the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, gave a conference attended by many members of the Canadian delegation, by many officials. This gave them the opportunity to meet for much longer than an hour and a half.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: At any rate...

Mr. Richard Marceau: They had better access.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: At any rate, Mr. Carrière wasn't there, I wasn't there and Kathryn, who was directing operations at the time, was no longer there. I honestly cannot subscribed to your point of view.

Despite this difference of opinion, we can still have a meaningful discussion. In Toronto, I met some Canadian NGO representatives who told me that they wished they had as much access to me as the business people, that this was important to them.

Let me remind you of my title. When I was named to this portfolio, in August, I thought a grammatical mistake had been made. When I speak in English, everyone realizes that I am French- speaking. I was sworn in, on August 3, as Minister for International Trade of Canada, not as Minister of International Trade of Canada. I certainly spend more time with people who are “for” trade than “against”, because my title is Minister for International Trade.

People served by our Department are potential exporters, and we sign agreements to this effect. But I want to say that I take great pleasure in meeting all Canadian citizens and that they are entitled to the same respect I give others.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Minister, you did not strike me as a merely technical issues type of minister. It is clear, for example, from the book you have written. Behind all the free trade, you see a philosophy, a better governance. Therefore, I find strange today that you attempt to hide behind the fact that you are Minister for International Trade to justify meeting more business people than others who also wish for freer trade or globalization, but in a form perhaps slightly different from the one that is—you'll pass me the expression—exclusively business-driven.

• 1700

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Let's be clear on this. As Minister for International Trade, I am invited much more often to speak to chambers of commerce, to that type of public, which is a bit normal. When I get invitations to take part in NGO forums for example, I also accept. It just happens that, in my case, such invitations are less frequent. My colleagues, Minister Maria Minna and Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw, are no doubt invited more often. Others are invited.

You have mentioned my book which, you will understand, is always flattering. Clearly, in addition to being Minister for International Trade, I have pondered extensively on issues related to globalization. This movement is extremely important to me which explains why I am very interested in meeting often with NGO people. However, I will have you note that, in every day life, I am invited more often by chambers of commerce and by boards of trade, which is understandable when you are Minister of Trade.

A voice: For Trade.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Minister for Trade.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): I thank you for spending an hour and a half here with us. As always, you have done excellent work. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you, Madam Chair. You are most kind.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Fine. Until next time.

The meeting is adjourned.