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, March 21, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Members, I'd like to call the committee to order.

We're very pleased to have the Honourable Sergio Marchi back before us. We last saw him here in another manifestation. Welcome back, Sergio, and thank you for coming before the committee.

You will recall that some of the members asked if you could come and speak in connection with your appointment as ambassador. That time has passed in terms of the immediacy of when you were appointed, but I think given the events of Seattle and the experience you've had recently at the WTO, members would be very interested in hearing what your experience has been there and how you see the future of the organization. So thank you for coming.

I gather you have an opening statement, and then we can turn it over to questions.

Mr. Sergio Marchi (Permanent Representative and Ambassador of Canada to the Office of the United Nations and to the World Trade Organization): Thank you very much, Bill, and I appreciate the welcome. Indeed, it's good to be back before this committee, a committee of friends and former colleagues.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, the purpose of today's session was in part to review my appointment to the ambassadorship in Geneva to the WTO as well as the UN agencies. But I also know, as you've pointed out, that you are also keenly interested in the prevailing mood at the WTO, particularly following the Seattle ministerial, and perhaps more importantly, what lies ahead at the WTO. So in my opening remarks, Mr. Chair, I'd like to provide an overview of what the WTO means for the vested Canadian interest as well as a few words on the job of Canadian ambassador.

[Translation]

I should first underline that I was honoured to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve our country in such an important post. Our Canadian mission in Geneva covers a wide-range of interests on both the trade and diplomatic fronts. My primary role is representing Canada's interests at the WTO. However, our mission also covers the United Nations and other international agencies that address such issues as disarmament, human rights, labour, world health and the plight of refugees.

My colleague Chris Westdal, a fellow Canadian Ambassador, is responsible for day-to-day operations on the UN front, but I also retain an interest, given my background, in such issues as migration, the plight of refugees and global environmental concerns.

[English]

In terms of the WTO as an institution, this committee is very well aware of its importance to Canada, both because of the direct impact trade and investment have on creating both Canadian jobs and economic prosperity and because of the importance trade plays in promoting a healthy global economy overall.

The WTO's role in bringing down trade barriers and in setting fair, predictable rules is crucial. I should emphasize that in our post-World War II and our now post-Cold War environment, the WTO has contributed directly to the building of closer bonds of commerce and friendship between nations and peoples. I won't say that this process has been perfect, because we all know that it hasn't, nor will I say that the WTO has been the sole player, but as an organization dedicated to promoting international trade, prosperity, and development, it has played a major and leading role.

• 1540

In regard to the Seattle ministerial meeting, here you are also very familiar with the outcome. While we were all disappointed with the results, we remain convinced that the WTO is as relevant today as it was before Seattle. Clearly all the member countries, 135 in total, will need to work more closely together to find the appropriate accommodation between the different countries on the different issues, and to open up and tell our story to the public at large.

We can't forget that the international trading system, first represented by the GATT and then by the WTO, is over 50 years old, and five bad days in Seattle should not undo the importance of its mission. In fact, as Minister Pettigrew has emphasized, there was progress made at Seattle in a number of areas, despite the failure at the end of the day to launch.

Since then, at the February 7 meeting of the WTO general council, the mandated negotiations on services and agriculture were officially launched. On agriculture, we will push to achieve meaningful reduction of trade-distorting agriculture subsidies, particularly export subsidies, and we will also look to improve access for Canadian exports to markets worldwide. These talks should directly benefit Canadian farmers. However, our challenge and the challenge for the WTO community at large will be to keep negotiations moving and to try to achieve early results.

We've also set the stage for freer trade and services. Negotiations will benefit a wide range of Canadian exporters in this, the fastest growing part of the Canadian economy. Let me assure you, as Minister Pettigrew has already said in no uncertain terms, that Canada's health and education services will not be on the table during these discussions.

I'm also pleased to report, Mr. Chair, that the general council has asked me to chair the Council on Trade in Services, the body that will carry out the service negotiations. This was an honour for me as a newly arrived ambassador, but it also clearly reflects the WTO membership's confidence in Canada as a central player in the multilateral trading system.

Of course, the WTO's agenda for the months ahead extends beyond agriculture and services. In particular we want to make progress on three issues of critical importance to strengthening the institution and helping developing countries successfully participate in the trading system. These include a special initiative for the least developed countries, including technical assistance and market access measures; a package to address the implementation issues left over from the Seattle ministerial; and reform of the decision-making process and transparency of the WTO. None of these issues is straightforward and the devil is always in the detail, but with goodwill and a spirit of compromise on all sides, we are hopeful that meaningful progress will be made.

Successfully carrying out these confidence-building measures as well as making progress on both mandated negotiations will move us closer to the launch of a new round of trade liberalization measures. We continue, Mr. Chair, to work towards that end, but it is too early to call or to tell whether such a new round will be possible this year or next.

Let me now explain a little more about the work of the ambassador at the WTO. In essence, my job is to lead a very talented team in Geneva in advancing Canada's interests and policy positions across a wide spectrum of areas. Above all, this process is one of negotiation, of accommodation, of communication, of judgment. Ultimately it comes down to working with people. Even with modern technology, fax-to-fax will never replace face-to-face engagement, just like in elected public life. And you can imagine, with 135 delegations from all over the world, the WTO can be a very reckless and political place at the best of times, almost as colourful as the House of Commons.

• 1545

In fact, like politics, the WTO has also become increasingly local, as trade has become more prominent on the domestic agenda of many countries, including Canada's. This is because the intersect between foreign and national policies is more direct than ever, and as we all know, most domestic organizations are concerning themselves with the WTO.

In this environment I believe my experience in elected public life as both a member of Parliament and a cabinet minister has proven very useful. As you know, I was a member of Parliament for fifteen years, nine of them in the opposition, so like you, I sat on many committees and participated in shaping and negotiating bills and legislation, a legal and political process where you learn the issues, develop your bottom line, promote your interests, and ultimately seek to achieve a consensus.

My cabinet experience has also been of benefit. I was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of the Environment before becoming trade minister for two years. As I did then, I will continue to approach trade from a holistic perspective where trade is but one of several ingredients, albeit a vital one, in our efforts to improve the quality of life of Canadians and increase their economic opportunities.

The issues of the WTO are not new. I've dealt with many of them before, as Minister Pettigrew is engaging in them at this current time. Whether it was launching the free trade negotiations of the Americas or tackling our disputes with our friend and neighbour, the United States, being trade minister provided a breadth of policy experience that is obviously relevant to the work in Geneva.

Through that experience you also develop a sense of what and who trade policy is for and what trade policy is about. It is not for the world of the abstract or the academic. It is for real Canadians living in real communities, based on the necessity to trade, based on the necessity to keep and produce real jobs. In this regard, I've worked hand in hand with Canadian business leaders to promote trade, using trade policy to open the doors for their goods and services across the globe.

I believe I can help translate the world of the WTO to the real world of our citizens. I would like to encourage more Canadians from different sectors, including this committee, Mr. Chair, to visit Geneva so that we can all better understand and influence the work going on there on behalf of our country.

[Translation]

In addition, the skills we learn and rely on as MPs also apply in Canada's efforts to reform the WTO. For it needs to open up, change with the times, and better engage the public in countries around the world.

As a former MP, I know what meeting these public challenges is all about. You do it everyday in the House and particularly in your constituencies, based on your people-skills to listen, to communicate ideas, and to build bridges between competing positions. I am using the experience to Canada's advantage at the WTO.

[English]

Finally, let me say that being a member of Parliament was a real privilege I will cherish for a very long time. However, representing one's country abroad is also a huge privilege. In many ways, it offers not only me but all of our Canadian officers based at the Canadian mission in Geneva a very special and unique perspective of the great country Canada is, not only for us, but certainly shared by the other countries that are members of the WTO.

In this connection, I look forward to working with all of you on this committee, as well as members of the House and of the Senate, to continue to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada for all.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much...I was about to say Minister. Ambassador.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I think I'll leave right now.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You're invited for lunch.

Mr. Obhrai, do you have any questions?

• 1550

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you. How many minutes do I have?

The Chair: Five.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Ambassador, for coming. I have three questions to ask, and because of the time limit, I would like you to answer them as quickly as possible, covering all three. I know your experience is not in answering questions, but now you're an ambassador, so hopefully you'll give some answers here.

Ambassador, Canadians are interested and would like to know whether they have lost or won ground with your appointment to the WTO. Quoting what people have said, including my party, chucking out your most experienced trade negotiator just before the launch of the WTO wasn't anybody's idea of a good move.

Mr. Weekes, when he was here in May of last year, said Canada's ambassador's position is not to determine Canada's policy but to put Canada's position in the negotiations. With your background as you have explained it here, which is a political background, I would like to know whether you feel there was a real justification in your appointment at the WTO.

My second question is, did Mr. Weekes voluntarily step down from the position, or was he pushed aside to make room for you?

Of course my third question is, is Mr. Weekes now being paid by the federal government, either directly or indirectly through his consulting or any other way, to help you learn the ropes in Geneva? If so, don't you think that appointment has cost the Canadian taxpayers extra money?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: You were hoping that for some reason my answers would be different. I was in fact dreaming that the questions would be a little different from the opposition, but I suppose some traditions die hard.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thought you said you were more in opposition than in government, so you should know.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But we are interested in your appointment, actually. That's the reason you're here.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Do you want to ask the questions or also answer them?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let's go ahead. I asked you three questions.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: With pleasure.

The three questions are premised.... You quoted some article or someone asking if Ambassador Weekes was chucked or pushed aside, or if he is on some kind of payroll. That would be a very inaccurate and unfair depiction.

First, John Weekes served this country well. He was a good ambassador. He was an experienced ambassador.

Secondly, it also needs to be said that his country and his department also served John well, that John served three terms in Geneva, that John was on the fourth year in his last term, and that his fourth year was to complete in December of last year. The Prime Minister asked me to do this job, and I landed in Geneva on September 1.

It was also not a state secret when I was minister that John, after long service in the foreign service, was contemplating moving to the private sector, a move he ended up making.

In terms of the whole issue of whether the country is better or less better off, obviously every ambassador brings a different skill set, and what I would suggest, as I tried to mention in my introductory remarks, is that particularly at this time in the WTO's history and given that the WTO and trade in general have become so interwoven with domestic issues, I certainly am not prepared to sell short individuals who come from a public office or an elected office in order to bring the WTO somewhat closer to the citizens of Canada.

The second element is that trade negotiations are very much a team sport. First, life in general is a big negotiation. When you're a trade minister, you negotiate bilaterally, whether it's with Charlene Barshefsky on magazines or with Sir Leon on other issues, or whether it's the FTA or the QUAD. So negotiation is always part of the trade minister's role.

• 1555

Second, when there are negotiations, it really is a situation where, yes, the ambassador has to take the lead in Geneva; yes, there are also trade specialists attached to the Canadian operation, as there are to the other delegations, who obviously deal with their counterparts and feed them the information, whether it's on services, agriculture, or what have you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The important question here is that we had a negotiator—

Mr. Sergio Marchi: And ultimately—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's my turn to ask questions.

The Chair: We can't all talk at once.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let's get down to the pointed questions I have—

Mr. Sergio Marchi: You asked three questions. I'm giving you at least two answers.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: —which is your appointment in reference to Mr. Weekes, who was a trade negotiator. So I'm asking, did Mr. Weekes voluntarily resign or not? From what I've read in here, you're saying you have some qualifications. Yes, you have some qualifications, but at the same time, we had a trade negotiator there who had excellent qualifications. How was Canada served better—by your appointment over there, or by his staying there?

So the question is, did he voluntarily resign or not? Secondly, is he still getting paid to advise you?

The Chair: I don't want to interfere too much with the questions, but I think we have to be a little bit careful. I don't think Mr. Marchi is in a position to answer the question around Mr. Weekes' resignation, because he wasn't the deputy minister—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: He was the Minister for International Trade.

The Chair: His answer to you was that Mr. Weekes had been there for a long time and that sort of—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But he was the Minister for International Trade. I'm just asking a plain question.

The Chair: Yes, but you're not suggesting he sort of fired Mr. Weekes one day and walked across the Atlantic the next.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm not saying he was fired. I'm just asking.

The Chair: Let's not stretch the conspiracy theory too far here. Let him answer.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I was finishing my answer to your first question. Ultimately, capital-based departmental people will also be involved in negotiations, principally because of their specialty, and secondly because they have to consult with the stakeholders domestically. Finally, the trade minister is ultimately the chief negotiator because it is the minister, through cabinet, who gives either the green light or the red light to all of the issues.

On your last question of whether Mr. Weekes is on the federal payroll to assist me or our office in Geneva, the answer is an absolute no.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Neither his consulting firm...?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Not to your knowledge.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: No.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So Mr. Weekes is absolutely not in any way connected with our negotiations.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: He is not connected with my office at all.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Did Mr. Weekes voluntarily ask to resign or—

Mr. Sergio Marchi: You'll have to ask him that.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thought you were the Minister for International Trade.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I was.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Listen, Canadians need to know. We have a political appointment here, and I think Canadians definitely have a right to know how this political appointment took place. That's the question we're asking, to try to get to the bottom of this whole thing, because the ambassador happened to be the international trade minister.

You said the international trade minister is the chief negotiator. I beg to differ with you—they're not. The chief negotiators are the ambassadors over there. The trade minister sets the policy, but who negotiates that? As you know, I was in the WTO with you and we saw where the negotiations were coming from. We have this question hanging over there. So that's what I'm trying to get at.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I don't think anything's hanging anywhere. The Prime Minister offered me this position, I considered it, and I've accepted it. Mr. Weekes is a good professional. He has served his country well. He continues to be a friend of Canada. There's no affiliation officially. I don't think anything hangs over anything, except the substance of the negotiations.

I think Canadians are far more interested in the issues than some of the political baiting, which I think your questions have more to do with.

The Chair: We've run out of that period, so we'll give you time to reflect for the next round, if you get one.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I hope I do get more action.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Ambassador, it is a pleasure for me to welcome you here today. I'm a little disappointed by the reaction of some of my colleagues who seemed rather amused by the questions asked by the Reform Party member because frankly, I'd considered asking some of the very same questions myself.

• 1600

I am a rather staunch free trade advocate, but not in the same way as my colleague Mr. Bachand sees it. You and your boss, the Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pettigrew, have stressed on numerous occasions the importance of the WTO to Canada.

The WTO is in some respects Canada's main commercial treaty in view of its importance. The ministerial conference in which we participated in Seattle demanded a great deal of preparations. As you know, a conference of this magnitude requires months and even years of planning. Yet, barely three months before the Seattle conference, we found out that you were going to replace the chief negotiator, Mr. Weekes. Some experts - and I hope one day to be considered part of the group, but until then, I'm studying to become one - questioned this decision. Even London's Financial Times, which doesn't often mention Canada in its articles, reported that it couldn't understand why Canada had dropped Mr. Weekes barely a few weeks before the Seattle summit. It also pointed out that were the first politician to be appointed to this post. How do you explain the fact that barely a few weeks before what promised to be the most important ministerial conference in our trade history, Canada's chief negotiator was cast aside and a new person brought in? In your view, did Canada benefit from this decision?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: First, I'm certainly not the first ambassador with political experience, and surely I won't be the last. There are some dozen ambassadors at the WTO with a political ministerial background. In fact, as you know, the director general himself, Mike Moore, is a former trade minister from New Zealand. One of his deputy directors general was the trade minister from Burkina Faso. There are many different backgrounds. The ambassadors are not all from a trade background. Primarily they are, but they also come from a foreign service. A number of them are from the academic policy world and others are from a political world.

When you come to Geneva and visit, I think you will also see that the WTO is not only the technical world. Obviously the technical part of the WTO is a big part of it, but it's a very political place. The WTO is owned by governments, democratically elected governments that give the mandates to their ambassadors and to their missions to ultimately strike the kind of deal that is in the best interest of their country.

Secondly, you suggested that I did in fact land on September 1 or 2. That's not to say that I was not connected with the WTO mandate and the business of preparing Canada for Seattle. In fact, as you will recall, when I was minister it certainly was my decision, for instance, to ask this committee to do a reference and consult with Canadians far and wide on both the aspirations and the concerns for Canada going into the Seattle Round. This committee did a great report and allowed everybody to make their representations known. The government subsequently responded to that report.

I was also involved as the minister with the SAGITs, those organizations that we've asked for advice on sectoral-specific information. Certainly I was engaged with the SAGITs and received the reports from their chairs. So you get a sense of the individual play within the individual sectors.

I was engaged also with the Team Canada advisory board. One of the main preoccupations of that board, chaired by the chair of the BCE, Red Wilson, a former trade commissioner, was in fact the offensive and defensive posturing and stances before the WTO for Canada in Seattle. While my ambassadorship started on September 1 or 2, the work as a minister vis-à-vis the next round we were hoping to launch in Seattle started much before that. In fact, a great amount of the work and travel and meetings with other fellow ministers was indeed, in the multilateral sense, how to launch in Seattle.

• 1605

So I don't think we should mistake the start of my ambassadorial term with the start of preparing oneself for the brief of Seattle.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ambassador, you stated that the WTO operates in a very political world and indicated that because of your background in politics, you were eminently qualified for this position. Given your extensive knowledge of politics - and all of us seated at this table know about politics because that's our business - you know very well that politics is made up of weeks, months and years of contacts, interpersonal relations, handshakes, meals, drinks, coffee breaks and luncheons with all kinds of people. It takes time to develop a solid network within an organization like the WTO, particularly in Geneva where everything is centralized.

I'm not implying that you are not familiar with trade issues. You served as Minister of International Trade. I never said you weren't knowledgeable about the subject. However, since this is a highly politicized organization, where ties between the chief negotiators of the different parties are very important, given that this is essentially the role of the ambassador, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that two and a half or three months before the Seattle conference, Canada would take the chance of breaking the ties forged by Mr. Weekes over the course of three terms as ambassador? I believe that's what you said. The whole network of contacts he built up throughout the world was put in jeopardy when he was replaced by someone else, someone who may well have been familiar with the technical aspects of this job, but who had not served three successive terms as ambassador or established contacts and networked with others. It's no secret that this is a very harsh environment. It takes time to settle in. Do you not find the decision that was made somewhat unusual?

As an average ordinary person, wouldn't you think that Mr. Weekes had put in his time and perhaps they should have waited until after the Seattle summit to replace him? Wouldn't you think it ill-advised to bring in a new player in mid course?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's an opinion I entirely reject. I don't accept for one moment that Canada jeopardized its position by a change in the ambassadorial guard. I don't believe or accept for one moment that a Prime Minister, if in fact that had been the case, would have ever thought of doing that.

I tried to give you a sense of the issues at play during my time as trade minister, which certainly were profound in both interest and concern, as well as the kinds of issues that were on the table. Regrettably we were unable to close the divide on a number of different issues, and the north-south divide as well.

Secondly, like anything, it obviously does take time, whether you're a new member of Parliament or a new ambassador. But I tried to explain to your predecessor that the whole aspect of negotiations is not only the ambassador. It is the ambassador, yes. It is also your twelve trade officers at the Canadian mission or your twenty officers at the U.S. mission, your capital-based specialists as well as your stakeholders, and ultimately your minister. It obviously is very much this triangle, and you all move in concert. You never walk into a room without knowing where your Canadian interest is and where you can or cannot go.

Thirdly, if I were so unsure about my footing, I don't think the WTO would have asked me to chair one of the two mandated services. I would like to think that's a recognition of the ability and the capacity in the early going of perhaps enjoying their trust to try to manage the negotiations on their behalf.

Also, there's a value added, not only in terms of being with the issues but also in terms of bringing that wider political dimension or public dimension to the WTO at a time when the WTO was broadcast live in the living rooms. That's value added, and we should stop walking around and selling ourselves short in this political class. Everyone brings a different skill set, and the skill set you bring in addition is value added to ultimately the entire team that is occupying itself with the national bottom line. Nothing has been jeopardized, and nothing will.

• 1610

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Ambassador Marchi, it is a pleasure to see you again. You look hale and hearty. I don't know whether you noticed it or not - I was going to address you as minister - but the committee seems to be quite positive where you are concerned. Admittedly, we always had some fruitful exchanges, both here in committee and in the House of Commons. Therefore we are delighted to see you again.

I wanted to discuss Mr. Weekes with you, but I think we've said just about all there is to say on the subject. You stated that there would be a new round of negotiations in a year or two. Therefore, not long after the five disastrous days in Seattle - that's five bad days out of total of six or seven - already there is talk of a new round in a year or two, while sectoral negotiations are already under way. What exactly do you mean by a new round of talks, given that negotiations are under way on the agriculture and services fronts. In fact, you chair the services committee. I don't understand where matters stand. Will another major summit be scheduled or from now on, given the outcome of the Seattle conference, will we see instead sectoral conferences spanning a two, three or four-year period? Where do matters stand?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Thank you for your welcome.

I think the end game for Canada, and dare I say for most of the WTO membership, is to launch a new round of trade liberalization measures. This is in recognition of two things: first, that the job is incomplete in terms of the new issues and the new ways of doing business around the world; and secondly, that the lowering of these trade barriers is going to increase prosperity for one and all.

There was a sense, or an attempt, following Seattle to finger-point or to assess winners or losers, and I think that's a bit of a mug's game, because as shareholders to this WTO all the 135 members lost through an inability to launch successfully. So I think there's a recognition at the WTO, as we speak today, that it is a win for both developing and developed countries and that we should be working towards those goals.

The second issue is that the launch will be brought closer, not necessarily because of some external circumstances or elections happening in one part of the world or not, or a new administration in one part of the world or not, but by the degree to which we close the divide between, I'd say, the north-south, where there was a different sense of ambition in the round. The developing countries were saying, look, the Uruguay Round has not delivered the goods that we were promised, we're still having problems with some of the commitments that we signed on, we're still trying to consolidate from the Uruguay Round, and you're now asking us to launch a new millennium round. And the north was saying, well, I think we should.

So there was a divide on north-south, but there was also a divide on issues. In agriculture you had Cairns, including Canada, the United States and many of the developing countries, wanting to make real progress on agriculture, and you had largely the European Union, backstopped by Japan, Korea, Norway, and Switzerland, wanting to go slowly. There was a huge divide and a great development issue for the developing countries.

You had the issue of implementation, which is the issues of developing countries. They were saying, in order for us to put a down payment on a new round, you have to address or redress these old outstanding issues—a big divide. There was a divide on labour, particularly I think when Mr. Clinton not only talked about labour standards but then talked about trade sanctions, and rightly or wrongly, that message to the developing countries was one of protectionism and one of taking away their comparative advantages.

So I think we're going to be closer to a launching of a round the moment we begin to bridge the gap.

Thirdly, I believe that the negotiations on services and agriculture are inextricably linked to a launch. Why do I say that? I say that because after Seattle, we want to demonstrate that the WTO is indeed in business. Despite Seattle, we've launched two important negotiations. They represent almost 35% of world trade—and growing—on services.

• 1615

We need to get progress on both of these fronts well established in order to prepare for a launch. On the other hand, there may also be a recognition that we may not be able to bring complete closure to these two issues without rounding out the agenda, so we have a varied menu for the differing economies across the world.

The betting is on whether it will be launched this year or next year. It's too early to tell, but I don't think we should be guided by time. We should be guided by how we bridge the gaps we clearly were unable to bridge in the time we had in Seattle.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I don't wish to interrupt you, but it's clear the ambassador knows full well how the committee operates. I only have a few minutes left and I have two short questions for him.

Speaking of agriculture, I would like to touch on the agreement, quote unquote, on genetically modified organisms whereby the burden of proof has now been shifted to producer countries. For example, Canada must now be able to prove to the Europeans that its beef, corn and cranberries do not contain any genetically modified organisms and pose no health risk. This is a new development. The burden of proof is now reversed. Can you tell me whether, within the framework of the negotiations on agriculture currently taking place, the agreement respecting GMOs will or will not apply at the WTO level?

I have one final question. I know I'm running short of time, but I hope you will indulge me a little, since the question concerns my home town of Asbestos. As you know, the working group report which was scheduled to be released in March has now been delayed until June. My question is quite simple: is this good news or bad news?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: On the whole issue of GMOs, from Canada's perspective it's clearly something that needs to be based on good science. It should not be a guesstimate. It should not be based on trade barriers or non-trade barriers. If we begin to take a different tack on GMOs, based not on science but on what is politically expedient or convenient for any one country, then I think it certainly risks and jeopardizes the whole basis of what part of the WTO is all about.

The WTO, in part, is about creating stable, accessible markets worldwide, where Canada would win, given that 77% of our economy is in the international area. Secondly, it's about building fair, predictable rules of the game.

I think GMOs, as we know them in Canada and a number of other countries, possess tremendous potential, in terms of not only food quality but food supply. Those who have demonstrated a problem also have the burden of proof either to demonstrate the fallacy of GMOs or to backstop their arguments. Therefore, science clearly should be the dictating evidence to make any difference. On that basis, Canada continues to feel secure about its products.

Secondly, with respect to asbestos, I'm not sure if it is prudent for me to say whether the delay means good news or bad news. As a Canadian ambassador, I am hopeful it means good news. You and I have dealt with this issue before. As a former mayor, you certainly know this issue very well. We continue to say that in the safe application of asbestos, it continues to be a viable product.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you for coming, Ambassador.

Last year when you were Minister of International Trade, you appeared before this committee in conjunction with our study leading up to the Seattle summit. You're aware of the outcome of the Seattle summit. I'd like to know if any of the lessons learned in Seattle are being applied to the negotiations now under way? That's my first question.

• 1620

On February 7 last, the WTO launched the round of negotiations on agriculture and services. In the negotiations on a free trade zone for the Americas, consideration was given to civil society. My question to you is this: in conjunction with the current round of negotiations, has the WTO changed its rules to include civil society and what is Canada's position in terms of possibly including civil society in the negotiations process?

[English]

Ms. Sergio Marchi: In terms of the lessons of Seattle, the first is that I think we need to put it in a broader context. The Seattle ministerial did not fail, but as I mentioned in my remarks, nor should we take that failure as being fatal for the WTO. The WTO—or its predecessor, the GATT—has seen and experienced other meetings that have failed, only to pick up and ultimately deliver and launch.

We need to recognize, as the first lesson, the kind of reference point the public at large see Seattle as being, perhaps not from a trade practitioner's viewpoint, but I think for many people Seattle went from being an anonymous organization called the WTO to perhaps instant celebrity status. For some people it was celebrity status for the wrong reason, or at least that's what they were led to believe. So as a committee, as an ambassador, or as governments, they need to recognize that it was a bit of a watershed for the WTO.

In addition to that, I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that the protests were aimed exclusively at the WTO. That is to say, we saw similar protests with respect to the MAI at the OECD. Last year, it seemed that Seattle was the flavour of the year. Next month, next week or next year, it could be the IMF or the World Bank.

I think it tells this ambassador that the legitimate concerns of people are broader than simply aiming at one organization. It speaks to a sense that they desire both national governments and multilateral organizations to deal with the management of the future together. That's why, for Canada, coherence is a very important agenda. That is to say, the WTO cannot solve all the problems of the world, or else it would truly become a world organization. It is not a world organization. It is the World Trade Organization. So I think it should be seen as part of the solution, but there are other multilateral organizations with chief missions—whether they are labour, human rights, or health—that are obviously the other part of the equation. So that's another lesson I think we should draw on.

The third lesson, as I think I mentioned earlier, is that it wasn't the protest on the street that dictated the outcome of Seattle. What dictated the outcome of Seattle was the inability in the conference room itself to have the time to close gaps that were quite significant between countries on some very specific issues. We need to busy ourselves, as we are, step by step, incrementally, in trying to solidify the launching pad that will ultimately sustain a launch. If the launching pad is weak, you will never launch.

That's why I think this is a year when the WTO can build its incremental approach and ready the ground so that when the ministers get together for the next ministerial, there will be realistic time to overcome some of these issues that are not easy to solve.

The second issue is on civil society and negotiations. The chair of the WTO council has called a meeting for March 28 to discuss both internal and external transparency. This should also be a year when we determine, while we are incrementalizing the substantive side of the agenda, what we can, in practical terms, change or reform for the better. From an internal transparency perspective, how do all the organizations belonging to the WTO participate fully? Secondly, how do we engage our public better, as both national governments and the WTO institution?

The transparency changes haven't been decided, but that meeting will ultimately start the discussion. Hopefully, we will be in a position to try, as a community that deals with consensus, to move the WTO into better dealing with the realities within the world it operates in.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have another question. You mentioned agriculture and the negotiations that were launched on February 7. However, as you well know, when a study was done last year in advance of the Seattle summit, many Canadian farmers complained to the committee that subsidies to Canadian agriculture were well below the level of subsidies enjoyed by farmers in the European Union and the United States.

• 1625

Now you're saying that efforts will be made to lower subsidies considerably. I'm a little confused. Why even bother to negotiate if Europe and the United States will simply disregard the outcome, just as they disregarded previous recommendations? Canadians don't stand to benefit.

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: That's precisely why I said it is important to make progress on agriculture and services if we're going to be in a position to launch, because agriculture is an issue that Canada and the other members of the Cairns Group and others take very, very seriously. That's precisely why our farmers are, in part, under the pressure they are under, and that's why the government feels the pressure. They get caught in the bidding war between incredible subsidies being offered by the Europeans on one side of the Atlantic, and the Americans with deep pockets on the other, and ultimately that not only creates hardship for Canadian farmers across the country, but it distorts the playing field internationally.

That's why we come back to the WTO table with three essential priorities.

First, we have to eliminate these unsustainable subsidies. Not even Europe can sustain them. Can you imagine, if they're expanding the European Community...? They're considering taking in Poland, a country with 10 million farmers. So it is clearly unsustainable, and the sooner we eliminate them, the better for our farmers and farmers across the world.

Secondly, we have to address the domestic distortions and support systems that are taking place.

Thirdly, we have to open up markets to agricultural products and not keep them closed.

So going into Seattle, both from Minister Pettigrew's perspective and from Minister Vanclief's, who was there and played a leading role, agriculture was clearly a top priority of ours, and it continues to be. But the difficulty is that the WTO, as a family of 135 countries, moves as fast as its slowest member, so we continue to obviously make agriculture front row centre. It's going to take a village.... But I believe that ultimately the Europeans and the Japanese will see that position as unsustainable, particularly in the face of their wanting an ambitious round.

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai, for five minutes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Ambassador, you said that Mr. Moore, the former New Zealand trade minister, leads the WTO, and you used his example in regard to your own political appointment.

I was in Seattle, and I would venture to say that to some degree the collapse of the WTO was also Mr. Moore's doing. He was a political appointee there, and I would probably venture to say a lot of the blame lies on his own doorstep.

I, as an opposition member, and my colleagues on this side would like to have confidence in you, to say that you would be representing Canada's interest, not the Liberal government's interest. Every time I look at your appointment, it somehow, even for me, as an international trade critic, puts a screen in front of me to say, can I trust my ambassador? As you know, ambassadors are public servants. Can I trust my ambassador over here? This whole cloud of suspicion hangs in.

Perhaps, as you are here in front of the committee today, you can tell us, the opposition—we don't have to worry about the government, since as we know, your ties with them are pretty strong—that we can actually put faith in you, in understanding the issues, in understanding the information that we, the opposition, would like over here to do our job as well. Although everybody else will see it as partisan, from our aspect, we would expect your appointment to be a non-partisan, ambassadorial position. Perhaps you can give us that confidence.

• 1630

Mr. Sergio Marchi: On the first question, I think it would be very unfair—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's a matter of opinion.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: —to try to pin the blame, or the collapse, as you said, on Mike Moore.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: To a degree. I was there, so I do understand that.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Another divide was the long time the WTO took to select its director general. I was Minister for International Trade during that whole marathon campaign, where we had Roy MacLaren, a former trade minister who was also in the competition, and I think, regrettably, the WTO squandered a lot of time and good energy that could have been better utilized and dedicated to the preparation of the WTO ministerial.

I think the WTO also put a Herculean request and task on Mike Moore, so when he showed up on September 1, what did he face? He faced the WTO family of about 135 countries, half of whom had voted for him, half of whom had an alternate candidate, Mr. Supachai. It wasn't an easy situation, and it was faced with a December deadline.

Secondly, we were all good at putting forward our national positions. That's why the text going to Seattle was large, that's why the Seattle text was so bracketed, because we weren't able to nail down a WTO position rather than a series and a collection of national positions. Then I think we got too detailed. We forgot that it was a launching document, not necessarily a negotiating document to negotiate every “t” and dot every “i”.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Ambassador, with all due respect, I was there. Give me the assurances that I'm looking for.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: That's the answer to your first question.

The second is, when you talk about a “cloud”, you remind me of...I think it was the Charlie Brown cartoon strip. There's one character who walks around constantly with a cloud over his head. Perhaps you're beyond help. I'm not sure I can help you with your cloud.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Give me an assurance here.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I can say that your comportment at this committee is very different from the one that you demonstrated to me personally and individually, be it in Seattle or anywhere else, where you have never raised such a doubt, such a suspicion, never took me aside to say you had a concern, never questioned. It's been very respectful, very supportive, and very jovial. And I would suggest that if that's good enough for you and me individually, as members of the Canadian delegation, I would hope you would be able to park that cloud when you come to this committee as well.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We were aware of the fact that you were coming here, hence I didn't bring that question over there. Nevertheless, my opinion is that when we do go overseas, we do not fight or take our partisan politics there. We can fight them at home, which we are doing right here. That's why I'm asking you all these questions.

Nevertheless, I hope I have that assurance from you now that your appointment is there, and we hope the working relationship will carry on.

Now, the question will be in regard to your talking about a launching pad. It is my understanding, Ambassador, that in the United States, President Clinton is desperately trying to relaunch the WTO talks prior to his term in the office expiring, and I understand that the Americans are canvassing out there to have this thing started before he goes. I guess he doesn't want to go with a cloud saying that under his rule the WTO didn't move ahead. That's my understanding.

At the same time, our Minister for International Trade is promoting the idea of a kind of United Nations set-up for WTO. Considering that we have—

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but your time is now up. If you want, get the question in quickly so we can get an answer. I'm nervous about the question going on any longer, because you won't have any time for an answer.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So give us your thoughts, Ambassador. Make it short.

The Chair: All I can say is make it shorter than the question, anyway.

• 1635

Mr. Sergio Marchi: It's true that I think the United States continues to support a relaunching. I think we're certainly working with the U.S. and our other partners in Geneva at the WTO for that ultimate launch.

It's also equal that President Clinton and the American administration have other trade priorities in Washington, including the accession of China to the WTO; the congressional debate on whether the United States should stay in the WTO, which is going to be put to a vote; and the African trade bill, which is important for Mr. Clinton vis-à-vis developing.

So the issue is not only the priority on launching but also the other trade priorities. It would be our hope that we would be in a position to successfully launch sometime soon. As I mentioned, it's tough to predict how quickly we will be able to narrow the gaps between countries and among ministers.

Secondly, on the issue of Minister Pettigrew, he has put forward a number of ideas, which we will then, at this meeting of March 28, be elaborating on in terms of transparency. I think Minister Pettigrew asks a very fundamental and key question. If you have a WTO of 135 members, and if you recognize that you certainly can't put everything at one time to 135, or you can divide negotiation matters from administration matters of the WTO, what he was asking was whether there would be the possibility of a board of directors concept that would render the institution not less democratic but much more efficient. I think it's a fair question to be asking, because I think it's recognized that the membership of the WTO has grown dramatically.

When Uruguay was launched there were 90 members. We now have 135, with 30 other countries requesting accession. Obviously, the more the merrier from a world trade perspective, but it also makes it more challenging for our decision-making process to be expeditious, particularly given the speed of business and the speed that business changes.

So I think it was a fair question he raised. Ultimately, we will find some kind of consensus with which to enhance the efficiency as well as the democratic, consensual basis that remains fundamental to the WTO.

The Chair: Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Ambassador. I'm delighted to see you here in your new role as ambassador. I'd like to congratulate you on your other appointment as chair of the Council on Trade in Services.

I have just one quick comment. I noticed during your opening remarks you did invite Canadians and the committee to come and join you in Geneva. Just for a point of clarification, I wanted to make sure that also includes the subcommittee, which is, as you know, currently studying Canada-Europe relations. I just wanted to get clarification there.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Are you looking for an invitation?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, no. I wanted to make sure it included the subcommittee. I'm speaking on behalf of the subcommittee.

During your opening remarks, you also stated that in your work as ambassador you're there to advance Canada's interests in policy positions. When you replied to Monsieur Marceau, you spoke of your experience of also dealing with the different SAGITs in your role as Minister for International Trade.

Perhaps one of the more important SAGIT documents released during your time as minister was a cultural SAGIT, which spoke about a separate instrument for culture. It was also one of the recommendations of the WTO report. Our report, as the standing committee, talked about trying to work out the cultural instrument if possible within the framework of the WTO.

As Minister for International Trade, you absolutely clearly and unequivocally stated that Canada's culture would not be on the table during these talks, yet I noticed that when you spoke about what would not be on the table—health and education services—culture was not mentioned. Culture was not mentioned once in your report. I'd ask that you comment on that.

I also would like to know, if possible, with regard to your role as chair of the Council on Trade in Services, to what extent, if any, you can influence the agenda there and promote Canada's interests in policy positions.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: On your first subject, travel to Geneva, I meant what I said, and not only in terms of this committee. In places like Geneva for the WTO or Paris for the OECD, I believe, given the global marketplace, it's absolutely important that our political community, represented by you, as well as our business community and NGOs take stock of what is happening in those capitals. Those decisions and those capitals ultimately affect, because of the global connect, companies and practices here in this country.

• 1640

So I would hope we would be able to create a regular presence. For instance, if the business community travels annually to Davos, Switzerland, I don't see why there should be any problems in also modestly putting a day's program together so that they can be exposed to our Canadian mission and to all of our officers; be exposed to Mike Moore, the director general; be exposed to the ambassadors from developing and developed countries; and get to know the people at the secretariat of the WTO who make key decisions.

So I think it's a serious invitation to try to understand that town and ultimately continue to create a good and growing presence for Canada at the WTO, where there is a very positive track record.

Secondly, the cultural SAGIT indeed made a very, I think, landmark decision, because for the past 20 years it's been the position of the cultural SAGITs to recommend to their government to take an exception on culture. Changing that position from one of a cultural exemption to creating an international instrument is very timely. I believe, as I said before, at the WTO, that's where the Americans went in order to make their case on magazines. It wasn't through NAFTA.

There is an absence at the WTO in terms of any semblance of rules with respect to culture. We are sensitive to culture because we want to promote and maintain who we are as distinct from our friends and neighbours to the south. Any other country who would have occupied this great piece of real estate would have been in the same position, but other countries around the world are also taking similar positions. I believe culture will continue to grow as an interest and an aspiration as well as a concern that ultimately the WTO, in the wisdom of our cultural SAGIT, will have to approach.

I didn't include it in health and social services because I think those are two different issues. On culture we do want rules eventually developed at the WTO. In saying what I said on health and social services, I was trying to echo the words of our minister, who clearly said that in the GATS system of services, it's a bottoms-up approach. We take commitments that we feel comfortable in taking. We don't take commitments that anyone else forces us to take.

The message has been loud and clear from our minister. We didn't give up health and social services at the Uruguay Round, we didn't give up health and social services in Seattle, and we won't give up health and social services in any foreseeable launching of a new round. That's not the way GATS works. Each country is allowed their own commitments.

Most of the developed world, I believe, will not be making any commitments on health and social services. So it is not only a Canadian position; I think you will see that reflected in many other countries as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, followed by Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Richard Marceau: First of all, Ambassador, I'm rather disheartened by the personal tone of some of the previous exchanges. Appointing an ambassador to the WTO is an important initiative, one that warrants our full attention. However, I don't think it's a reason for attacking someone personally.

This being said, I wasn't a member of the committee when it drafted its report on the WTO. However, one point on which there was general agreement was the creation of an assembly of parliamentarians. I believe this idea garnered the support of all parties here present, even those who presented a dissenting report. It was even discussed at a Seattle meeting of parliamentarians from all countries. A vote was taken and only one parliamentarian, someone who wasn't even entitled to be there, a member of the Front national français, an extreme right-wing racist and antisemitic party in France, opposed the idea. Therefore, delegates from all countries unanimously supported the idea of creating a forum of parliamentarians.

• 1645

As Canada's ambassador to the WTO, what have you done to promote this initiative which has the support of all parties represented in Canada's Parliament?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: As Minister Pettigrew has certainly said, and as I experienced the role of parliamentarians, not only in the preparation of an important document going into Seattle but in fact in the engagement of parliamentarians as part of the Canadian delegation in Seattle, I thought it was extremely useful.

Secondly, Minister Pettigrew certainly has said that he envisions greater engagement by parliamentarians in the business of world trade, including the WTO, and I certainly support that position, not only as the ambassador but also as a former minister who shares that view.

Thirdly, we will be seeing at this meeting of March 28 the kind of consensus on this or other issues that is or is not there around the WTO table, because ultimately it's going to be a give-and-take.

Lastly, I believe in what Minister Pettigrew says, by and large for two reasons. The first is that the WTO is owned by governments. The mission of Canada—or the mission of the United States or the mission of any other member—is to be there as an extension of the government and the people they represent, and obviously it is the government's ultimate decision to take positions at the WTO. So it is entirely legitimate, given that relationship, that the political class of Canada or any other country be engaged, not disengaged.

Secondly, I also feel very strongly that when we talk about civil society, it also entails an engagement by the political class, because ultimately it is the duty of the political class to engage civil society on the multiplicity of issues facing our country, including trade. So I think it's entirely logical for the WTO to consider the issue of the role parliamentarians can play. At the end of the day, it is the governments and parliaments, which are democratically elected, that give voice to the WTO and therefore address the concerns of the civil society.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Maybe the wording presents a problem. You stated that the WTO belonged to governments. I'm not a member of the government. You were a member at one time, but I'm not, and neither are 30 million Canadians. When the idea of creating a parliamentary assembly was first floated, the idea was to open the door to people other than government members. Without wanting to make any political hay out of this, I remind you that the current Liberal government was elected with 38 per cent of the popular vote. Therefore, 62 per cent of the electorate do not identify with this government. The idea behind this initiative was to give this 62 per cent of the voters an opportunity to feel involved in the WTO and to try and do away with the organization's black image. The WTO is not the bad guy, despite what some would have us believe. The objective was to get people other than government members involved. Perhaps my question isn't specific enough.

When you get together next time on the 28th, will you take steps to ensure that the creation of a parliamentary assembly - an initiative that has the unanimous backing of all political parties represented here today, which is a rarity indeed because there are not many issues on which there is unanimity in Canada - will be a priority for Canada? Will you follow up on a unanimous decision reached by parliamentarians attending the Seattle summit? Will you make this a priority at your next meeting?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Marchi: When I said it's owned by the governments, I certainly didn't intend to mean that only government MPs or government senators had the ownership or were able to go to the WTO. When I said that the WTO was owned by the government, what I meant to say was, where is the reporting and what is the relationship?

• 1650

Clearly when I said “governments”, I meant, in Canada's sense, the parliamentary government. There's never been a delegation to, for instance, a launching of a round where we haven't included opposition members, of course. Our delegations impart strength. In fact, we do it as well as, if not better than, many other countries, not only in sending a parliamentary delegation but also in including non-trade interests in that group, and that will continue. So I meant, obviously, for governments to engage, and in our sense it means not only members on the government benches but also members of the opposition.

In terms of the meeting of the 28th, we're certainly going to reflect in our approach the desire of our minister that.... Certainly he has discussed this, not only with the chair of this committee, who was in Seattle, but also with many of you who are present and with those who are in the House: he wants the WTO family to consider this.

Now, can I deliver the other 134 countries that may be coming at internal or external transparency in different ways? I can't give that guarantee. There are some countries, for example, that want to do only internal transparency. They feel that external transparency is not the business necessarily of the WTO as an institution, but of domestic government. We instead feel that we can do both, that it's not a competition with but a complement to the domestic governments.

So I can't give you an undertaking on where the other 134 countries will be. That's the purpose of the meeting: for everyone to put their internal and external transparency cards on the table, to discuss them, and to see after that meeting where we agree and disagree and how we can close the gap. At the end of the day, one would hope that we will make progress in making the kinds of changes that will make the institution better and bring it closer to governments—plural—as well as peoples around the globe.

The Chair: I think it's fair to say, Ambassador, that certainly Mr. Moore, when he came to the meeting that Mr. Marceau and I were at in Seattle, engaged himself that a parliamentary assembly was necessary to deal with the democratic deficit of the WTO. So I think we're kind of looking at some action. My understanding from Minister Pettigrew and you is that at least Canada would be pushing this. I had hoped that Senator Roth from the United States would have enough clout, that he'd get the U.S. government pushing it—and a few others as well—but it's certainly on the table for discussion, I take it.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: It's certainly on our table—

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Sergio Marchi: —and we will be raising that. We hope it's going to be on enough people's tables to make it a going concern.

The Chair: I think that's what we want to get assurance about.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador, and congratulations. I think that oftentimes as Canadians we underestimate our own—that you would be the new boy on the block. You're chosen to be the chair of the Council on Trade in Services, and then you come to this committee and the opposition says, assure me or give me the confidence.... When we see the confidence given to you in an arena where there are people with the expertise to make their judgments, I would imagine that in a private conversation Mr. Deepak would take that back.

We've been dealing with what I consider to be the major aspect of your job, which is the WTO. It seems to me that you also have responsibility for the United Nations agencies—disarmament, human rights, labour, world health, refugees, etc. How do you bring coherence to this and how does your responsibility area affect those different agencies?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Thanks, Jean.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that I have the overall responsibility of the WTO side as well as the UN agencies, but I also mentioned that my primary task is on the WTO side. I have a colleague, as you know—in fact he came before this committee not too long ago on disarmament—Chris Westdal. It's Mr. Westdal, in his capacity as Canadian ambassador, who does the day-to-day management of the UN files such as the ones you have mentioned.

• 1655

I believe that my role, given that the principal role is the WTO, is twofold. One is to bring exactly that coherence with Mr. Westdal and with our trade and UN officers. Our mission is one of roughly 50 people in Geneva, roughly split evenly between the trade and the UN fronts. We meet regularly with all of our officers on both fronts to get a sense of what the priorities are, what the concerns are, and what issues are at stake for Canada on any given day at any one of these bodies. Obviously there's a need to oversee, both administratively but also from a policy perspective, the different files as they move through.

Secondly, I see that my task also is to ensure that I have good working relationships with the heads of these organizations. When I need to complement Mr. Westdal's effort, I certainly can bring some value or some assistance to that task at hand. That's why I've met all the heads of the agencies you have met, so that in addition to Mr. Westdal, they know there is also another ambassador who is interested in those files.

Thirdly, I also mentioned that because of my environment and immigration background, I come to this job with those past interests. I certainly got to know some of those issues as well as one can, as well as some of the personalities—Madam Ogata from the UNHCR, for instance; the whole question of Juan Somavía from the International Labour Organisation; and Madam Brundtland, with whom I had worked before in her previous political capacity and who is now the head of the World Health Organization. So Mr. Westdal has the day-to-day leadership. I certainly have the overall responsibility. Thus far, the two are working hand in glove, and I feel we're on top of those files.

Ultimately, I said we're promoting Canadian interests, and those interests are varied. It goes from being able to negotiate a certain piece of paper in terms of the declaration for Seattle or a particular aspect of it. It means being on top of these issues. It means meeting some hundred people who come through our office every month, whether they are representatives of the federal, provincial or municipal governments; whether they're with NGOs; whether they are business delegations; whether they're making a program for Minister Axworthy when he comes for the human rights' 56th opening next month at the commission; or whether it was when Mr. Manley or Mr. Pettigrew came.

The interests are varied in terms of the work and the role of the ambassador, but I think we're very fortunate as well that sometimes we have too much attention on the ambassadors. That nullifies to a certain degree the incredible talents of men and women from Canada who are sent to this post in Geneva—as well as to our other posts—who are really top notch, and who do yeoman's service. Quite frankly, in a lot of those specialized areas, they do a lot of the preparatory work as it moves up.

From a policy level, we have a fine tradition. I think we lead and influence on the policy side much more than our economic size or licence would have us do. I think we should therefore pay a tribute to those men and women who do work sometimes behind the headlines in order to create the headlines.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I have a final question: What is your relationship with the groups at the UN? There are equivalent agencies at the UN, so how do you work together with the groups at the UN in New York?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Westdal spends four weeks there in the winter, and will be spending another five weeks in the spring with respect to the work on both the human rights front and disarmament. There's a constant attempt to have a coherent agenda working between the two capitals, but he is the one who will have the lead in order to go to New York, rather than me. But that is also something that is calibrated with Mr. Fowler, who is our permanent representative to the United Nations. Between Mr. Fowler, us in Geneva and, quite frankly, with our officers on the Foreign Affairs side as well as the trade frontier, at the end of the day the job gets done.

The job also gets done with a sense that if Canada is a success at trade, it also leads with respect to areas of human rights. It leads with respect to the area of refugees. It does so not only because we talk about it, but because our country actually does something about it and we reflect it. I think we speak from a track record of action and not only words, and I think that puts us in good stead. As we are in that position, though, it also obligates us to do more, and that is also sometimes a challenge given some of the restrictions in terms of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, both in resources and human resources.

• 1700

The Chair: Thank you.

We're over the time, Mr. Ambassador, but I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind staying. I know Mr. Bachand has to leave, but I don't know if anyone else has to leave. Mr. Casson had a question, and I also had two questions that I wanted to ask you myself, if I could.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for taking this time, Mr. Ambassador.

I want to get back to agriculture if I can, and some of your comments on GMOs, in that we must base our decisions and our actions on sound science. That's encouraging. You did get into a little bit about the division between some of the countries in the world that want to move forward quickly on reducing trade-distorting subsidies, and the European Union, which does not.

The low commodity prices for the products that our farmers produce in this country, particularly in the grain and oilseed sector, has us in crisis mode. Our guys are in trouble and the industry is in trouble. We've been trying to throw money here and throw money there, but we don't have any real long-term plan to help us get out of this. The fact is that at the farm trade discussions that were supposed to start...they can't agree on a chairman. This seems to be a problem no matter what group it is that gets together.

We need some pretty quick action on these subsidies in the European Union that are driving production up and commodity prices down. Some estimates are that it will take ten years from any negotiations that happen now. It will take ten years for any results to get to the farm gate. What can we do as a country? I believe our producers are the ones being hurt the most because of this, so it must be our country that carries the biggest lever and pushes hardest to get these negotiations underway and to get this changed.

Do you have some comments on that? How far down the line are we on any positive results?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I certainly can assure you that the Canadian position at Geneva and the Canadian government position is one of the highest priorities.

As you know, we are a member of the Cairns Group. The Cairns Group, not only in the pre-Seattle preparations and at Seattle, but certainly post-Seattle, has certainly tried to keep the feet to the fire with respect to the urgency and importance of the distortions that are taking place with these commodities in agriculture. We have done everything possible within a consensus-based organization.

Secondly, we feel it is incredibly regrettable that by and large we're still at a stage where the Europeans can't agree with virtually the entire WTO community on the chair. I suppose everyone has the right to render an opinion on the chair, but it is our view that we can't afford to squander good faith and time on process questions that ultimately can trump substance. We clearly are of the view that we have to keep our eye on the ball. Obviously, let's pick a chair that we can agree with. Let's not drag this out any longer than we have to. The meetings are going to be taking place soon, and substance is clearly more important than any procedural games.

Thirdly, in terms of a timeframe, there was consensus and convergence on a three-year negotiation timeframe when we went into Seattle. It was felt that the Uruguay Round, which took nearly eight years, was simply too long for the membership in order to sustain and to see the fruits of that laborious trade negotiation. Secondly, if you take the WTO and engage it in eight years, during that time the world will have changed 88 times, so there was a sense that you also had to do it in manageable bites in order to keep up with the flow of business around the world.

It would be our view that clearly we can make progress on agriculture and subsequently in a round bring justice, quite frankly, to an issue that needs it as urgently as possible. It would be my hope, as well as that of our government, that it certainly will not be ten years by the time farmers certainly get the kind of relief that is required by other countries' ceasing the kinds of distorting practices that we have regrettably seen.

• 1705

I would be very hopeful that it would be much more expedient than the figure you put out, but obviously it's going to take the community to move on this issue. But I am hopeful that they will move at the end of the day, because ultimately it's not sustainable to the European treasury to continue the way they are practising their cap at the current moment.

Mr. Rick Casson: Well, I wish you well, because the situation is grim and there has to be movement in order for our agriculture industry to stay sustainable.

The Chair: As a wrap-up, without getting into the intricacies of the U.S. Congress, could you just give us your guess as to when China will get admitted to the WTO and we can move that one behind us?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: Certainly it's the hope of Canada, and I think it would be fair to say it's the hope of many members, that we can see China in the WTO family this year. I think one of the major bilaterals outstanding is still the European Union. Commissioner Lamy is to go to Beijing next week. It is felt that he would not be going unless they were close to a deal. That's not the only bilateral remaining to do, but without a doubt it's the major one. I think we will then have to have the multilateral negotiations on the terms of reference.

I am hopeful that we will see China in the WTO, and I think that would also be a confidence-building measure in and of itself. As well, it makes the statement that 29 other developing countries want to get into the WTO. If it is an organization without its benefits, then we need to ask ourselves why all of these countries still want to get in. Clearly there are obligations, but there are also benefits to be accrued by being a member of the WTO.

Quite frankly, the WTO family will be incomplete until China, given its economic size, is a full member. I think subscribing to a system of rules will certainly assist us far beyond trade.

The Chair: The China-Taiwan thing is kind of linked. Has everybody understood that they'll come in together, with one immediately following the other, or something like that? That is resolved now, is it? You don't see that as an impediment?

Mr. Sergio Marchi: I don't think there will be a problem with that.

The Chair: Okay, great.

Thank you very much for coming, Ambassador. We appreciate your time here and we wish you all the best. We know you'll represent all Canadians to the best of your ability at Geneva, and we'll be over to take advantage of your offers of hospitality.

We're adjourned until Thursday.