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, April 3, 2001

• 1539

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Let's get going, colleagues, because Mr. Lortie has many things to do between now and April 20. I'm going to get going here.

I want to thank very much Mr. Lortie, Mr. Brock, and Madame Bédard for coming with us today, because I know you're extraordinarily busy in the lead-up to the summit. We'll try to get you out of here as soon as we can, but we really appreciate your coming at a time when we know you have an enormous number of responsibilities, which are getting larger every day.

• 1540

So maybe, Mr. Lortie, you could start off by just bringing us up to date as to how you perceive things going in Quebec City. We'll hear any additional observations by Mr. Brock and Madame Bédard, and then we'll turn it over to questions.

Mr. Marc Lortie (Senior Coordinator for Federal-Provincial Relations, Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the Summit of the Americas; Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is an honour for me and my colleagues to appear before you today. It is always a very special event in the life of a public servant to come before a parliamentary committee. I'm very pleased and honoured to be with you this afternoon.

I will try to be as brief as possible and answer your questions about your preoccupations, if any at this moment, to the best of my knowledge.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honour for me to appear before you today to give you a progress report on the Summit of the Americas which will be held in Quebec City in less than three weeks time. All Canadians' eyes are on this summit, which will be a major international event. The Honourable John Manley, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of International Trade, have both appeared before this committee where they reported on the Canadian government's position.

My role, as the personal representative of the Prime Minister is to deal with substantive preparations, including what we are going to take to the table in Quebec City, and to liaise with my 33 hemisphere-wide counterparts. I am also responsible for logistical preparations, which are mainly being taken care of by our Quebec City secretariat. Mr. Chairman, a summit does not organize itself.

I have with me this afternoon Michael Brock, who is the Director of Hemisphere Relations at the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Ms. Sylvie Bédard, who has a specific role in Mr. Brock's division. She liaises with civil society and representatives of civil society, which is a very important factor in organizing this summit.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, preparations are on track on both scores—on the substantive side and on the logistical side.

So far, we've had five meetings of personal representatives or national coordinators to prepare for the Quebec City summit in regard to the three basic themes, as Minister Manley stated to you, which are strengthening democracy, creating prosperity, and realizing human potential. Together with our colleagues of the hemisphere we have developed a plan of action to achieve those three major objectives, a rather detailed plan of action that is not yet completed.

In addition, when we last met in Barbados, we discussed the overall parameters of the political declaration that leaders will concentrate on as they reach Quebec City.

I have to say, on that score, that one of the major signals that the whole hemisphere would like to give in Quebec City is on the question of strengthening democratic institutions. There is a consensus throughout the hemisphere that at the political level, leaders must send a very firm signal about the importance of democracy and democratic institutions.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, in our discussions with officials responsible for organizing the summit, we have focussed on reflecting this political result. A hemisphere-wide consensus is currently emerging calling for a democracy clause to be included in the Quebec City policy declaration. I believe that if heads of state choose to go forward with this clause in Quebec City, it will be a high point in the declaration.

• 1545

The democracy clause mainly draws on what the Mercosur countries, led by Brazil, did at their summit in April 1998. This summit followed an attempted coup in Paraguay in April 1997. When this attempted coup took place and there was the distinct possibility that the military might take over Paraguay, the Brazilians and the Argentineans dispatched their Foreign Affairs ministers to Asuncion. They did not send in their armies but they simply said to the Paraguayans' military forces that if they went back to their own ways, their Mercosur rights would be suspended. That was four years ago now.

In the case of Mercosur, this political declaration led to a democracy clause, and Mr. Chairman, we are drawing on this clause in drafting a new hemisphere-wide clause. We intend to be very clear that this new clause will cover the participation of nations in subsequent summits and all aspects of hemisphere-wide co- operation which is developing between the 34 countries involved. Consequently, if this clause is accepted in Quebec City, it will be an umbrella clause.

[English]

In addition to the democratic clause, we're going to have a very detailed plan of action—a detailed plan of action that you, Mr. Chairman, and some of your colleagues discussed when you hosted here the various representatives of the FIPA, parliamentarians from across the hemisphere meeting in Ottawa to discuss governance and the strengthening of democracy.

We are going to talk about the political process, observation of elections, and how to strengthen democracy in our plan of action. It will range from avenues to include civil society in governance, avenues to strengthen local governments in the effort of modernization of the state, and it will also include training of judges. It will include seminars to train police officers and to reinforce the rule of law throughout the hemisphere.

[Translation]

In terms of the second issue we wanted to deal with—as the ministers told you about 10 days ago went they talked about developing greater hemisphere-wide prosperity—we as sherpas will have to wait to see the outcome of the trade ministers conference, which will take place later this week in Buenos Aires. The various trade ministers will look at negotiations that are currently underway, as well as those which have taken place since April 1998, on the creation of a free trade area.

The 34 ministers will meet for a second time to take stock of the various negotiations and to draft an interim report for the Quebec Summit. Consequently, an interim report will be submitted to heads of state in Quebec City. This report will be tabled by the President of the Republic of Argentina, since Argentina is currently president. This report will provide a full picture of negotiations.

• 1550

We hope that in Quebec City, there will be a strong and robust renewed commitment to negotiating a free trade agreement by 2005.

Mr. Chairman, the finance ministers from all over the hemisphere are currently meeting in Toronto. They are looking at the issue of financial markets, debt, and money laundering. Given that they hold the purse strings, they are also studying the issue of funding the various activities included in the Quebec Summit action plan.

[English]

But we're going to discuss more in Quebec City in our plan of action. We're going to also address corporate social responsibility. Does the private sector carry some responsibility when it invests in a developing country? We have to remember that in the context of the Quebec City summit and the Summit of the Americas, we have basically a north-south forum. Thirty-two countries belong to the developing world and two countries are in the developed economy world. We always have to take that into consideration in every plan of action we are designing and developing in any negotiations we have. It is absolutely crucial to keep that element in mind.

Thirty-two countries in the developing world mean 500 million people—500 million people south of the United States, 500 million people for which the average age is less than 25 years.

Central American economies, Central American leaders, Central American authorities, and Caribbean authorities wanted to put in the plan of action the question of natural disasters and how to address the question of natural disasters. Sometimes we design a grand plan of action, but suddenly, overnight, Mr. Chairman, hurricanes—Ms. Augustine, you know what I'm talking about—earthquakes in El Salvador, as was the case last January and February, shatter completely all the economic or social plans that were put together.

Do we have a collective responsibility to better prepare ourselves, to better answer these tragic events? How can we do it? How can we establish a better early warning system? It's going to be discussed by leaders in Quebec City.

Migration is also going to be discussed because it is an important item for the newly elected President of Mexico. Migration is key. A lot of his citizens are in North America—essentially in the United States—and it is also a major issue for the hemisphere.

Finally, we're going to address questions of environment and labour. In our plan of action, environment is going to be inspired by the result, Mr. Chairman, of the ministerial conference of ministers of the environment of the hemisphere, which took place in Montreal last week. In their declaration and in their plan of action they have developed together as ministers of the environment, we're going to be inspired at our last meeting of plenipotentiaries to inject the proper wording in our plan of action vis-à-vis environment. It is the same thing vis-à-vis labour issues.

• 1555

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has expressed the wish that the agenda of the Quebec Summit would follow on from the agenda of previous summits. By that, he meant that we should consider the social dimension. This is what we have called “the development of human potential”. What can we do to push this issue forward? Well, there are six sub-issues under “developing human potential”. The first of these is education. You will recall that the Santiago Summit dealt mainly with education. A lot of work remains to be done on the issue of education, but all the participating nations recognized that to create greater prosperity, future generations and young people must be given an adequate tool kit. The education system must provide equal opportunities for young people, be they girls or boys. Under the leadership of Mexico, an action plan was laid out.

In terms of Canada's input, from a practical point of view, it is developed mainly by the Council of Ministers of Education. In this case, the Council of Ministers of Education appointed the Quebec Deputy Minister of Education to represent the Council. The Quebec Deputy Minister of Education was part of the Canadian delegation drafting, polishing and supplementing the education action plan.

Mr. Chairman, as far as health issues are concerned, we are working closely with the Pan-American Health Organization, which is our authority on health issues. I would like to point out that the West Indies are very concerned at this current time, because they have the second highest incidence of AIDS infection, after Africa. This is a very worrying situation, not only for Caribbean leaders, but also for Canadians, because an increasing number of Canadians vacation in the Caribbean.

[English]

We're going to discuss gender equality. Why are we going to discuss gender equality? Because to create a prosperous society you need to ensure that young girls have the same access and the same opportunities as young boys in society. It is un fait acquis in Canada, but it is not the case throughout the hemisphere. Before any plan of action, leaders will insist on the importance of gender equality.

Finally, we're going to be innovative. We're going to address cultural diversity.

[Translation]

Cultural diversity is an important subject for the Canadian government. We included this issue on the agenda right from the start, in an attempt to take stock of and to quick-start hemisphere-wide reflection and debate on the importance of cultural diversity and our cultural policies to both develop and cement the development of our identity and our culture.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the committee that I head up has drawn on the Ibero-American Summit on children and youth issues. We intend to take stock of these issues with heads of state and individual governments, by urging some countries to ratify agreements, which they have indeed failed to do, although they should have done so some time ago. We are referring, in particular, to legal issues here.

In wrapping up this rather lengthy presentation, I would like to focus on the contemporary subject that Canada will bring to the table. This subject is of course connectivity and Minister Manley has already discussed this issue with more eloquence that I am able to do. This is a cross-cutting issue. What exactly is connectivity? Well, it all boils down to identifying how we can use new information and communication technologies in support of the various subjects included in the action plan. In particular, we want to see how we can use them to bridge the digital gap between North and South. In Quebec City, we want to establish which avenues are open to us to bridge this technology gap.

• 1600

[English]

Leaders throughout the hemisphere are very enthusiastic about the fact that Canada has put connectivity forward—very enthusiastic because they feel they have to equip the young generations properly to enter the knowledge-based economy.

We have developed ideas more toward software vis-à-vis education. With PAHO, for instance, we're going to announce a virtual library for all doctors of the Americas. We are going to give access to the same medical information to all doctors, whether you live here in Ottawa, in Montreal, or in Chaco, Paraguay. Those are the types of elements. I have to say that on that score some people would like to propose in Quebec City the possibility of linking together all parliaments of the hemisphere using this technology and giving legislators the chance to compare notes, to compare experiences, or to compare knowledge about such and such legislation that they would like to introduce.

Connectivity is going to be important in Quebec City. It will be a special feature, and it will be translated in a special declaration on connectivity that is going to be issued at the end of the summit.

Mr. Chairman, I could summarize by telling the committee what we expect in terms of documents to be issued at the end of the Quebec City summit—that will take place on Sunday in the early afternoon, at 1:30 p.m. It will be a political declaration that will be signed by the 34 leaders, accompanied by a plan of action under those three themes—a very detailed plan of action for all governments to implement in the next few years—and a special declaration on connectivity.

Once it is announced, financial institutions participating in the Quebec City summit—essentially the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, the OAS Secretariat, which is not a financial institution, ECLAC, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and PAHO—are going to follow up and announce what they're going to support financially for the plan of action at Quebec City. That will be an innovation in the context of the Summit of the Americas. We're going to have not only a plan of action but a very well-defined proposal to finance the plan of action.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I have already taken up too much of your time. Perhaps during the question period, I could answer questions on what we intend to do with civil society and what we have already done with civil society. In a nutshell, we are in contact with 126 civil society organizations throughout Canada. There is ongoing dialogue between us and representatives of civil society through these 126 organizations. This dialogue has helped the government to develop its own position in drafting the action plan.

• 1605

Of these 126 representatives, there are 26 organizations organizing the People's Summit, which will take place immediately prior to the Summit of the Americas in Quebec city. The People's Summit will take place from April 16 to 20 and the Canadian contingent is overseen by 26 civil society organizations, including unions, lobby groups, interest groups, and non-government organizations. We could look at these issues during the question period.

That is all I have to say on the substantive preparation for the summit. It goes without saying that this is an event of major importance for Canada. It is the first time that we have played host to the Americas. It represents a new dimension in Canadian diplomacy. It is the first time that we are playing host to the 33 other heads of state and government leaders of the Americas who will come to Quebec city. Personally, I have travelled throughout the Americas to hear the comments and concerns of all nations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is great enthusiasm throughout the Americas for the Quebec summit, because all the nations of the Americas feel that the Quebec city summit will be an opportunity to get hemisphere-wide co-operation back on track.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lortie. I would like to thank you once again for having taken time out of your schedule. I am aware that you are very busy at the moment with the Summit preparations.

We will now move directly on to questions.

[English]

Mr. Lunn, do you have any questions?

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I won't speak for too long, Mr. Lortie. First of all, most of mine are probably more comments than anything else.

First I want to thank you. You also came to our Canadian Alliance caucus. You made yourself available, and we had a very interesting dialogue, a very good discussion. You answered a lot of our questions. I really do appreciate you making yourself available to parliamentarians.

I want to make a few comments, in which I'll probably sound like a Liberal, heaven forbid, but there are some things that are troubling me. It's not from what you guys are doing. But we saw the demonstrations over at Foreign Affairs and all this noise about the FTAA, about the police, the fence, and the protesters. I think it's very important to be said on the record that our police who are tasked with protecting 34 heads of state have a very large undertaking, and we have to give them all the respect. We have to defer to their best interests, their judgments, and make sure they have the tools. I don't think that's said enough. I just wanted to put that out there—34 heads of state is no small task for their security. They're making judgments, and I think very proactively, by putting the fence up. People will have the opportunity to protest peacefully. We have to defer to their judgment and their professionalism to do that job. I wanted to put that on the record.

The second point is that we hear a lot about the “FTAA”, the free trade area of the Americas. I support free trade, but it's also important to be said, as you pointed out, that we're going to be talking about human rights, democracy, gender equality, cultural diversity, and this connectivity, which I find quite interesting, and free trade. But free trade—I stand to be corrected, and I'd like your comments—I don't think is going to be the major part of this two days in Quebec City. I don't think we're going to be signing any free trade agreements, although it is very important. It needs to be put into perspective. There are many other issues that are very important that are going to be happening in Quebec City. Sometimes I think there are some people who are trying to hijack, if I can use that word, the agenda for their own ways and means.

I'd be interested in your comments, but at least it's my understanding that we're not going to be signing anything there.

Having said that, I would like to leave you with one last comment—and obviously, you have the Prime Minister's ear. You're much closer to him than I am, so—

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): You're only two sword lengths away.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, two sword lengths away.

• 1610

Any influence you have—because we'll continue to use our influence.

I think there are two points with respect to free trade, which is the area I'm responsible for.

First, softwood lumber is very important as we pursue another free trade agreement. Clearly we have some difficulties there. We've had them for 20 years. There are other issues, such as P.E.I. potatoes. We often face the protectionism of the United States, which is troubling.

I think the larger question that keeps coming back to me is that our enforcement mechanisms, when we have a dispute with a trading nation, whether it be under the WTO or a NAFTA bilateral panel, as we're seeing with the softwood lumber, are cumbersome and are drawn out, as we saw with the Bombardier dispute with Brazil. Again, we've had one WTO panel. The enforcement mechanisms are really...at least, there's an appearance that they don't do what they need to do.

Those concerns are something that I'm going to continue to address, but I think they need to be addressed with respect to an FTAA—that we streamline those enforcement mechanisms so that they are workable, especially for smaller countries, where they won't have the levers the larger countries have. We have to make sure, if we're going to go to free trade, that these enforcement mechanisms actually work and that they're not taking years.

I'll leave my comments there, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Lortie would like to comment on any of those subjects I have raised, I'd be glad to hear his response.

The Chair: I think it's an invitation to you, Mr. Lortie, to choose which comment you consider a question and which question you consider a comment. So you can react or not react.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Very briefly, on the question of the work of the police, I have to say, in addition to your comments, that I praise the tremendous collaboration that has existed between all the police forces. It's a major challenge not only for one police force to organize the security there, but in Quebec City we do it with four forces: the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, la Police municipale de Québec, and la Service de la protection publique de Sainte-Foy. All work in a task force, and all the security measures have been designed by them together, which is a tremendous task. They've been looking at what has happened in the last few years.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like just to mention one event. We have one great experience. A lot of people are saying, “Why are you making a wall?” One great experience is what we did last year in Windsor. Canada hosted the foreign ministers of the OAS in Windsor. Suddenly we faced the same type of threat from the anti-globalization forces throughout the hemisphere, I would say, threatening to shut down the OAS meeting. We applied a security system there that is being reapplied to the Quebec City summit. But in Windsor, of course, we had something like 800 guests; in Quebec City we have close to 9,000 guests. That's the reason it is such a deployment.

I'll take your comments and transmit them to the proper authorities.

On the FTAA, you are right. Nothing is going to be signed in Quebec City on the FTAA. We are at mid-term in 2001 and we have to complete by 2005. That is the initial mandate. It's going to be reiterated in Quebec City.

Something else is going to be reaffirmed in Quebec City: 21 leaders were not in Santiago, and those new leaders are going to be in Quebec City. Therefore, it will be very important for President Bush, President Fox of Mexico, President De La Rua of Argentina, President Chavez of Venezuela, President Lagos of Chile, and those 21 new leaders to reaffirm their political will. That is going to emerge from Quebec City vis-à-vis the FTAA, and nothing more.

Ministers are doing their work this week in Buenos Aires, and the workplan is going to be established until 2005. That's my reading two and a half weeks before the event.

• 1615

On enforcement mechanisms, you have put your finger on something very crucial. It is very important that indeed those mechanisms be in force. How do you find it? It is doubly important because we may enter a world—we don't hear about protectionism these days because major economies have been growing at a very important pace. If it is not the case in the coming months or the coming years, protectionist measures are going to come back to the surface. We always have to watch for those protectionist measures. Therefore, enforcement mechanisms are absolutely crucial. It was done in the context of the FTAA and the NAFTA, it was done in the context of the agreement we have with Chile, it was started in the context of the WTO, and I hope it will be not only reiterated but reinforced in the context of an FTAA.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Lortie. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present when you came to talk to our party caucus, but this hearing should be on the record and open to the public. I think that is a very important point. In light of the fact that we are here to serve Canadians, I think that you will understand why this is important. Indeed, you mentioned this issue in your presentation.

The Free Trade Areas of the Americas, as you indeed stated, is an exceptional undertaking. Pierre Marc Johnson pointed out to us that 75% of the GDP of this area is driven by the United States. Canada, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil represent 20% of GDP, whereas the remaining 29 countries account for only 5% between them. I think that that demonstrates the exceptional nature of this agreement, which goes further than the WTO, which is supposed to be an agreement on a free trade area.

That is just the introduction to my question. Have you ever thought about looking into what Mr. Vincente Fox suggested when he came to Ottawa in September, if I am not mistaken? He said that if a free trade area is really to bolster the fight against poverty, we would need to set up a core fund. He proposed a fund of 10 billion dollars. That's my first question.

My second question deals with culture. This is an important issue for both Quebec and for Canada as a whole. Even if this sometimes seems less obvious in the case of Canada, to a certain extent it is even more self-evident because in terms of the American giant next door, it is not in a better position than Quebec culture.

The coalition came to speak to us this morning. It is as concerned as we are, that the preamble on culture which was tabled by Canada is backed up by the Quebec declaration. This preamble uses vague terms such as “cultural diversity”, or “maintaining cultural diversity” which can be interpreted in any number of ways. We are concerned, but as we know from experience, what we really have to do is to protect the ability of the country to develop cultural policies and to support these policies with the required resources. This is what we hope to see and I would like you to give us some kind of indication that this is what will happen.

Several people—representing a lot more people—from groups that might be categorized as “the civil society”, have raised another concern when they appeared before us. I consider myself as a member of civil society along with my fellow members of Parliament. However, unlike the business forum, civil society is not involved in the Summit, and they lament this fact. There are many experts from civil society who realize that they could be of some use. Of course, this whole issue has to do with a knowledge of the text. I would like to ask you once again why civil society is not involved and why are we, as parliamentarians, not more involved also?

• 1620

I am asking you this question once again because you have stated here today that the World Bank, the Interamerican Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank and the OAS financial institutions are involved in the Summit for the first time. We need people who have expertise on social issues. There are no better experts than those that Quebec often calls on. These people have shown that they were able to provide excellent advice.

The Chair: Perhaps you could stop there because you have already taken up four minutes. If you would like a reply... You will have a chance in the second round.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

The Chair: I will allow Mr. Lortie to answer your question and then we will come back to you.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lalonde. On the issue of the fund suggested by President Vincente Fox, there has been no discussion that I have been involved in on the creation of such a fund, except in the context of smaller economies. The smaller Caribbean economies have stated on several occasions that the majority of government revenue comes from the levying of tariffs. These countries have stated that if they were to sign a free trade agreement, the elimination of tariffs would create a problem for them and consequently, their specific situation would have to be factored in and the possibility of a transition fund would have to be envisaged.

Consequently, it is in this context that my immediate peers have discussed the issue of a fund. However, when Mr. Fox tabled this idea, he envisaged something completely different. He was talking about a major transfer of resources based more on the European model. This type of idea has been laid out in certain political discussions that have taken place. In the context of preparation for the Summit, the Mexicans have not done any more work on this issue. Do I think that this issue will be re-tabled by President Fox in Quebec city? That I don't know.

Since President Fox talked about this notion here in Ottawa, on August 22, 2000, very little has been said about it, but the various leaders have not forgotten it. If we do indeed embark on building a hemisphere-wide block, will the Americans follow specific aspects of the European model, such as regional funds, assistance funds and financial resource transfer funds?

It should be pointed out that we already have the Interamerican Development Bank, with a budget of 8 billion dollars per year. The bank's 8-billion-dollar budget is injected into the Americas. The injection of capital into the Americas by the Interamerican Development Bank, of which Canada is a member, should not be underestimated.

On the issue of culture, I think that all the Canadian stakeholders agree that the issue of cultural diversity and of including culture on the Summit agenda are important. Culture was omitted from the Santiago Summit agenda. Canada has included this issue on the Quebec Summit agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain the difference between including this issue on the agenda of the Summit of the Americas and the current cultural negotiations. There are two coinciding tracks, but I should point out that there are two tracks. When you mentioned the wording of the preamble, you were talking about the free trade agreement.

On the issue of cultural diversity, we have to remember the Americans will be present, because we talk a lot about cultural diversity on the international scene but the Americans are only very rarely present at the table. Given this fact, including this issue on the agenda in Quebec City, we are being very innovative. When we discuss cultural diversity at UNESCO or in the context of the Francophonie, the Americans are not present. However, they will be present at Quebec City.

• 1625

Therefore, we have included cultural diversity on the agenda, and I must admit that the Americans did put up some resistance. They wondered what this issue was doing on the agenda all of a sudden. They said that when we wanted to talk about cultural diversity that we were thinking about protectionist measures. Not only did we decide to put this issue on the agenda, but we also took the decision to include it in the action plan and to attempt to get some hemisphere-wide momentum going on this issue. This is quite new. Because even if the Americans will be at the table, our Latin-American friends are lot less aware of the issue of cultural diversity than we are. We have a lot of basic work to do in that area. They are lot less aware of this issue than we are in Canada. Over the next few years, we are going to push the importance of maintaining our cultural policies within the context of the creation of a hemisphere-wide free trade area. That is why we included it on the agenda of the Summit.

Now, in terms of the negotiating agenda itself, by that I mean positions on cultural exemption and the language of the preamble, I believe that Minister Pettigrew was clear and provided you with assurances on this issue. We have to ensure that these negotiations strengthen the position of the Canadian government and in no way weaken its stance in ongoing trade negotiations.

In terms of the civil society and the texts...

The Chair: I am sorry?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Civil society.

The Chair: Very quickly.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Well, there are the texts which will emerge from the Summit and which will be published on Sunday morning. I think that you were referring perhaps more to the texts under negotiation. Minister Pettigrew assured you that he was leaving for Buenos Aires with the intention of bringing the texts back to Ottawa so that they could be circulated. However, he also told you that that would be a decision that would have to be taken by all 34 countries.

In terms of civil society, you are right in saying that we should pay attention to civil society and also look at social issues. It was for that reason that in drafting our agenda, we consulted the representatives of the 126 civil society organizations.

I would just like to mention one thing in passing here. You stated that you belong to civil society, that is true, but civil society representatives say that you belong to the governing body.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We know that that's not true.

Mr. Marc Lortie: There is a dispute on this issue... [Editor's Note: inaudible]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Even if the Liberals can't claim as much.

The Chair: You represent the government. We represent the enemy.

[English]

Mr. Harvard, sir.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lortie, I'd like you to comment on the following observation. It may well be that the summit will come down to a struggle over whose voice is going to be heard, the voice of free traders—liberalization—or the voice of anti-liberalization. In fact, it's possible, Mr. Lortie, that we're already there. Testimony of yours, which I find very assuring, very enlightening, probably will not make the front pages of the papers tomorrow. Unfortunately, I say that. But we already know that stories from the other side have made the front pages. Yesterday we certainly heard about demonstrators here on Parliament Hill, we heard about their training sessions over the weekend, and we heard about concrete barricades being erected in the city of Quebec.

It makes one wonder, Mr. Lortie, whether these summits—and you've already mentioned that this particular summit will draw 9,000 people—have become passé, that they should somehow be reconsidered, because, it might be argued, they fall into the hands of those who are really the avowed detractors or enemies of such exercises. I don't know what the answer is. This is why I'm raising this with you. You're an insider, you know the processes, you know the subjects discussed, you know the potential, and yet I would suspect, certainly right now, most Canadians have absolutely no idea what the Quebec City summit is about. Chances are, if those who are the enemies of the summit get their way, Canadians will never find out. All it will be is plumes of smoke and yelling and shouting on our television screens.

• 1630

You're an expert on this and I'm not. I don't know if there is another way of carrying out an exercise like this. We're talking about 34 countries. We're talking about 34 leaders who naturally have to be protected. For the last few weeks all we've heard about is security. I'm a great supporter of security. I don't want to see any of those people harmed, not for one second. The poor police forces—actually, it's the political leaders—are on the horns of a dilemma. If we were to relax our security measures and if one person were harmed, can you imagine the foofaraw that would result from that? Where would that ruckus emanate from? Probably from those who were complaining about security in the first place.

I guess as politicians we accept that kind of a situation. But I'm just wondering, you being so close to the situation, whether there is perhaps a better way to deal with these matters.

I was at Seattle a year ago, or whenever it was, and it was a debacle. We know who won that struggle.

So I just throw that out to you. I'd like to hear your comment.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Mr. Harvard, it is not an easy one to answer, but let me give you my views about summitry.

True, we're facing a very major challenge of communications. How do we ensure that the viewpoint we are defending is being carried to Canadians? It's not easy. It's a tough one, because the media are sometimes looking for an easy story to cover. It's easier to cover the length of the security zone than to discuss a democratic clause and what that means for the citizens and so on.

At the end of the exercise...there is a tremendous need at this moment expressed by Canadians to know more about the Americas and the Summit of the Americas. I'm invited on a regular basis to go on television shows, on radio shows, to talk to reporters, to editorial round tables. I can say that the story emerging at this very moment is not the one we would like to see because it's too much security oriented. But look at the types of stories that appear in the special issues of various magazines and various newspapers in the last few weeks, and suddenly new information is emerging about the Americas.

Why is it important for Canadians? I say this very often: our current prosperity is connected to the international world. Forty-five percent of our GDP is generated from international trade. Is it going to be less or more in five years? It's going to be more, and young Canadians have to know more about international affairs. They have to be involved in international issues. Sometimes the way to provide that information may be in a chaotic way, but young people are going to read a special issue in Macleans, or the National Post, or La Presse, or the Globe and Mail, because they are all going to have special supplements on the Quebec City summit. At the end of the exercise, because we're going to be on television, I believe Canadians will know more.

• 1635

But are free traders or anti-free traders going to win the battle? Well, on April 23, when the Quebec City summit is over—and that's in less than three weeks—I think Canadians will know more about who they are. Are the leaders of the Americas our future partners? We realize we're going to build our prosperity with them. They have 500 million young people south of the United States and they want to do business with us. We need to know them, and a summit is always a great occasion to do it.

Are we going to enter into a virtual summit if we are successful with connectivity? I don't know. Do we need to find new ways? Maybe. But the impact we're going to have at the time of the summit I suspect is going to be very positive, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I hope you're right. It may be a difficult filter to get through.

The Chair: If they would take 10% of the interest in the work of this committee that they do in building a barricade, maybe they would be more understanding of parliamentarians.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): There's no NDP here today—a party that is worried about transparency and wants to have more information about the summit. We have the chief spokesman and no NDP here.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a couple more questions.

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde is always true to form. She's always present at our meetings and she always has questions to ask. I am sure she does have questions to ask.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, Ms. Lalonde is here, but the NDP isn't.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am basically a history teacher and those last few comments bring me to state that Seattle didn't fail because of demonstrations. Seattle was a failure because the various parties strongly disagreed with one another. These very major areas of disagreement stem from extremely rapid economic change. Agnès Gruda, who is an editor for La Presse, not known for her far-left viewpoint, stated in one of her articles on the Summit of the Americas that we are in an airplane, but that no one knows who is the pilot. We might even go as far as to say that we don't even know where we're going, but what we do know is that we're going there very quickly.

Understandably there are protests, particularly since this is taking place in secret and for the time being, the democratic institutions of the countries seem powerless to control what is taking place in these negotiations. A reaction strikes me as quite normal. I think it will help us come up with mechanisms so that these negotiations do not take place above and against the will of the democracies and their citizens.

That being said, I have a number of specific questions following those I previously put.

You have Mr. Chrétien's ear and I know that the provinces have asked to be involved in the negotiating process. I am not talking about the summit here. The fact is that the provinces are not involved in the negotiating process. Even if the Deputy Minister of Education of Quebec was designated as an advisor, it was not under mandate from Quebec and Quebec has no reason to feel it is more represented because its deputy minister, whose competence is recognized, is part of that group. This is an extremely important matter. Parliamentarians and even the provinces do not feel involved and I know this is true for my colleagues.

Important issues will be discussed. There is Chapter 11. We will not go into this in detail since, as you noted, you are here to speak specifically about the Quebec Summit but Chapter 11 does worry many people, including Pierre Marc Johnson, a former premier of Quebec, who is not a hot-head and who said that the next negotiations should be based on something quite different from Chapter 11.

You talked about corporate responsibilities and the responsibilities to them. That is an extremely important question, as well as the issue of services. I put a question to Mr. Dymond, who negotiated the MAI for Canada at the OECD and who is, I believe, a specialist in the matter. You probably know him.

• 1640

I asked Mr. Dymond whether the Quebec model, based to a large extent on private but non-profit corporations and mainly funded by the government, could be undermined in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. He answered that it most definitely could. I had him repeat his answer and he told me: “Yes, definitely.” But he did say there were certain ways of countering this effect. This was also true for Mr. Petrella, who raised this question about water. That indicates how important this issue of services is.

Mr. Pettigrew told me that he would work on this but on the Canadian's site at the present time there are only two lines stating that the position has not yet been developed. It confirms that there are concerns in the provinces and everywhere else. The reason why I am emphasizing this is that I would like to hear your views on the matter.

I could also ask a question about Cuba. I know that the West Indies asked Cuba to be present for important economic reasons, I believe. Then there are extremely concrete questions such as the security bill, the $34 million. Can you give us assurances that the millions of dollars in security costs will be completely refunded by Ottawa?

Lastly, you will understand that I cannot conclude without saying that Quebeckers, and I am sure that I can speak on behalf of Quebeckers, of whom you are one, are very happy that all these countries will be able to see their magnificent capital but they are worried about the wall and they would have liked to see the premier of this only French-speaking state in the Americas be able to greet them in a manner worthy of the occasion.

Mr. Marc Lortie: First of all, on the matter of consultation with the provinces, let me make once again a distinction between the Summit and the consultation undertaken by the government for the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

There is a confidential Web site for the government of Canada and all the provinces, at the Department of External Trade level, that shares all the information relating to this communication. So this communication does take place in a regular manner. I wouldn't say that it is on a daily basis but if someone from any province wishes to communicate daily with the government of Canada through this Web site, then it can be done. Every three months, the officials responsible for trade policy and negotiations, such as the negotiation for the creation of a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, get together and review the situation. Every six months, the deputy ministers meet and review the situation. Every year, the ministers meet and take stock of the situation.

So as far as the trade negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is concerned, there is a system that we have had since the time when the Free Trade Agreement was negotiated with the United States and was then extended to Mexico. People are now quite accustomed to it. People work regularly on this and there is a regular exchange of points of view. It is part of federal-provincial co-operation with respect to trade policy and, more specifically, the negotiation for the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. All this is done on a regular basis.

As for the Summit of the Americas, at my level, I share all information with the deputy ministers of International Relations or Intergovernmental Affairs, depending on the governments, in the development of the action plan as the process unfolds.

• 1645

As far as education is concerned, the procedures are provincial. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Education is a provincial creation. So it is towards this entity that we turn to establish the Canadian position on education and any necessary follow-ups relating to education when it comes to implementation.

Fortunately, in Santiago, where Quebec was not represented, the ministers of education of the Northwest Territories represented the Council of Ministers of Education. Their role was taken over by the Quebec Department of Education two years ago. So for three years we have been working with the authorities in the Quebec Department of Education.

You may tell me that they represent the Council of Ministers of Education and not Quebec. It is difficult for me to separate the two. If the Deputy Minister of Education of Quebec occupies the seat of the representatives of the Council of Ministers of Canada, he is also there as Deputy Minister of Education of Quebec. If not, he would have to bring along his assistant deputy minister who would represent...

But that being said, he is not there solely as the representative of his government. He is there in order to share with his colleagues. The deputy ministers and the assistant deputy ministers responsible for education do see each other regularly and together they determine the international developments that are of interest to them and those that are of lesser interest.

As for services and Chapter 11, I believe that Mr. Pettigrew expressed his views both on Chapter 11 and on services. It is in the context of the negotiation. With the provincial points of view, the very particular point of view of the government of Quebec on the matter of services will be made known and given expression as part of the federal-provincial consultation on the negotiation.

You mentioned Cuba. You know that the Prime Minister and the government of Canada do have a favourable bias towards Cuba. We have always had a very open relationship, a very transparent and fruitful one. But what is the subject of the Summit of the Americas? The Summit of the Americas is devoted to the restoration of democratic values throughout the hemisphere. We should never forget that there were 19 military dictatorships in 1976. Twenty-five years ago, there were 19 military dictatorships in the Americas. In 1980, there was a renewal. At the end of the 1970s but particularly in the 1980s, there was a profound renewal in the hemisphere.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, but there are still some quite serious problems in several of these countries. But officially speaking...

Mr. Marc Lortie: That is why the Quebec Summit will be sending out a very clear signal. But there was a profound political transformation in the Americas, a return to democracy. The year 1994 was a celebration of this return to democracy in the hemisphere. This return to democracy was accompanied by a great economic transformation. The fact that Canada became a member of the OAS in 1990 was because of this great political transformation. It was because of this political transformation that we decided to join this political club, the OAS, the Organization of American States, where we had the status of observers since 1971.

When the Prime Minister left Santiago in April 1998, he flew to Cuba and discussed the issue of the dissidents with the President of the Cuban Republic; this is a forgotten word nowadays, dissidents, and dissidence. It's a word that harks back to the Cold War. He discussed the case of four specific persons who were risking a prison sentence because they did not agree with the regime.

• 1650

Since that time and even today, when we discuss issues relating to the defence of human rights and matters relating to political prisoners, and dissidence in relation to a political system, the Cuban reaction, the reaction of the Cuban authorities is silence.

So when we are defending such issues and democratic principles in the context of the Summit of the Americas there is an incompatibility with what the Cuban authorities are doing in this respect.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In Colombia and so many other countries, there are executions...

Mr. Marc Lortie: But in each of these countries, the political system is a very democratic one. This may be considered relative but the basis of democracy is established. That is the question as far as Cuba is concerned.

Of course, Canada is continuing its bilateral relationship with Cuba. Canadians continue to invest in Cuba and visit the country. On that score, there is no problem. We are maintaining our bilateral relations.

As for the security bills, last October, when I met Ms. Martine Tremblay from the Department of International Relations, she told me that security costs were shooting up astronomically and she asked what we were going to do. We set up a negotiation and discussion group with the Deputy Minister of Public Security of Quebec and the deputy minister responsible for the matter with the solicitor general.

Since last fall, the two of them have determined the security costs and they are continuing their negotiations to have the government of Canada absorb most of the costs that this will result in for the government of Quebec, including the costs for Quebec City and the City of Sainte-Foy, in matters of security. Discussions are continuing at a good rate and I believe that they will soon result in a satisfactory conclusion. But it is the two of them that are managing this issue, the Department of Public Security in Quebec and the solicitor. This is being done at the deputy minister level and the dialogue is proceeding at a good pace.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We'll keep a watch on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three or four small questions. I think they're simple ones, but at the same time they're not....

I have been wondering, and therefore I'll ask. There are four or five languages throughout the area: English, Spanish, French, Portuguese. Of course, I can say all of the others: Papiamentu, patois, Creole, etc. Is there a working language for the summit? Is there some agreement that there will be a working language or that the translations will be done in a UN style?

When you look at the whole issue, Mr. Chairman, of education, culture, and a whole series of things, how do we communicate that by these various language roots? That's my first question.

Secondly, I think when the leaders all show up in Quebec City you'll find that there will be mainly one sex. I'm not too sure, is there a woman among the 34?

Mr. Marc Lortie: One woman.

Ms. Jean Augustine: There is one woman. So again, the whole issue of gender issues and how those issues will be handled in a macho Latino world will play....

The Chair: It's like the theatres—when the one lady goes to the washroom she will be able to get there.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So the whole issue of the theme, which has to do with poverty.... We know that as we make some economic gains, etc., that oftentimes.... I think the North-South Institute just did a study in Africa that showed in the African countries where they had a huge economic move forward, women somehow bore the burden of a lot of the fallout from that. That's my second question, about the gender equality issue.

Then I want to ask about the issue of migration when we talk about hemisphere-wide.... If we're talking hemisphere-wide, how does migration play into that?

• 1655

Lastly, what happens to the summit of the people, from the 16th to the 20th, the recommendations or whatever comes out of that? Does it feed into the summit itself, and how are these parallel summit events, like the summit of the people, playing into what comes out as the declarations, whether it's political or connectivity?

Mr. Marc Lortie: Mrs. Augustine, on language of the summit, it is the four languages. The Spaniards speak Spanish, the Brazilians always speak in Portuguese, we speak in both languages, the Haitians always speak in French, the Caribbeans speak in English, the Americans of course.... Guadaloupe and Martinique are not there; they're not participating countries.

We are operating in four languages and we are publishing.... You will see the declaration as soon as it is posted; it is posted in four languages. The plan of action is in four languages. That's the way we operate. It is quite a challenge sometimes, but a fascinating challenge, I have to say. It's not a deterrent. It is a fascinating challenge to sometimes reconcile, especially texts.

Gender equality is a very important point indeed. Leaders have changed in the hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, only four leaders were present at the Miami summit seven years ago, and now we have 30 new leaders coming to Quebec City. Twenty-one were not in Santiago. But at this very moment in the hemisphere, we have one woman president, and that is the President of Panama.

There are two things on migration. In our forum, countries wanted to highlight the positive feature of migration. Migration is too often perceived as illegal migration, and it was felt that it was a tremendous plus for society to have migration. And what to do for migration? Therefore there is a section when we deal with migration about human rights and migrant workers. There is a section about the important economic feature of migration for a country.

Let me give you a very concrete example. More than 4% of the GDP of El Salvador depends on the money sent back by migrant workers to El Salvador. It is a major source of revenue in the economic life of a country.

Mexico launched a new process not too long ago called the Puebla process, where El Salvador, Canada, the United States, Mexico, and eleven more countries are sitting together and discussing in a very constructive way all issues related to migration. It is our main source of inspiration for the plan of action and it is of growing interest.

Finally, the people's summit. Indeed the summit is going to meet before the leaders' summit, from April 16 to 20. They're going to come up with a declaration. We are in the process of organizing with the leadership of the people's summit to call on Canadian ministers to officially give the declaration of the people's summit. It will be the responsibility of the Canadian ministers, since we are assuming the chair of the Summit of the Americas, to make it available to all delegations—leaders included. Therefore, when leaders arrive in Quebec City, they are going to be seized, by the Canadian chair, with the results, the recommendations, and declarations of the people's summit. In addition, we will also organize a liaison during the Quebec City summit with the leadership of the people's summit to carry on with our dialogue even at the time of the summit.

• 1700

On that score, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I received on Saturday afternoon the declaration of the indigenous summit, which took place here in Ottawa. Three hundred leaders from the hemisphere met at the invitation of our leadership of our indigenous leaders. They have developed a declaration for the Quebec City summit, and we are also going to make that declaration available to all leaders at the Quebec City summit.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I'll put one last question to Mr. Lortie. Thank you, Mr. Lortie.

There is something I'd like to understand. I get the impression that everyone wants to have access to the negotiating texts, as if the Quebec Summit were the final and decisive stage of the FTAA without any possible return. We see the ministers travelling about: the Minister of Energy went to Mexico City, the Minister of Transport to Uruguay and the Minister of the Environment to Montreal; the Finance Minister is now in Toronto and our Minister of International Trade is heading for Buenos Aires.

At the same time, we are told that these texts are nothing but hollow rhetoric, recommendations from all the countries, amounting to more than 900 pages. I'd like to know what all this amounts to. In the build-up to the Quebec Summit, people had huge expectations. There are so many negotiations, so many ministers travelling about and so many claims being made on one side and the other; what exactly is the present state of affairs?

You talked about an action plan containing 18 individual segments. What are the various stages? There is more than one stage. Have we reached the agenda stage? I'd like you to tell us exactly what stage we have reached because we don't really know what to expect in Quebec City: statements of various types, clauses relating to connectivity and democracy, that sort of thing. People will say that all this was necessary to come up with a clause on democracy. You told us that heads of State will of course be meeting each other and that this is a good thing because they can develop links among themselves. There have been lots of new heads of State since 1998, as you noted. All this may be quite important but what is the present status of all this?

Mr. Marc Lortie: As far as the agenda of this Summit is concerned, it is based on three themes: the strengthening of democratic values; the creation of prosperity; the development of human potential. In relation to these three themes the following texts will be issued. A political declaration of about five pages; an action plan for the 34 governments involved; an action plan of about 50 pages for implementation. This action plan will be divided into 18 sub-chapters and among these sub-chapters there will be the strengthening of democracy; what can we do to include civil society in governance? The 34 countries will make a commitment to take particular measures. So there will be 18 sub-chapters in this 50-page action plan.

Lastly, there will be a special statement on connectivity: what action should be taken by countries in relation to connectivity to close the digital gap between countries in the North and the South? What is the best way of going about this? What are the possible solutions? There will be a series of texts on the subject. But when you ask me a question about the texts and you hear people talking about texts, those are not the texts they mean.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's what I wanted to know.

Mr. Marc Lortie: The texts you hear about are the texts being negotiated for the Free Trade Agreement. People are demanding these texts saying that it is necessary to have them to take part in the process and to know what is at issue in the negotiations. What is the content of these texts? You referred to a very precise figure, 900 pages of texts. We have brought together the 34 negotiating positions of the countries on the Free Trade Agreement.

• 1705

Canada's position on tariffs is that they should be brought down to zero. But what is the position of Brazil, of Guyana, of Chile, of the United States, in other words, the position of the 34 countries around the table? You are all in favour of zero. That is our common position. But suddenly, we see a different position: I am willing to bring my tariffs down from 35 to 20%. Well, that is your position. That is part of the text. As for you, you advocate 12% but I have two reservations: I do not wish to include products X and Y; I don't want to have my cars subject to... Well, that's another position. So for the negotiation, the text is being developed at the present time. It does not exist as such. And when will it be concluded? When will we put the final touch to it? Well, we have three years of negotiation left.

The Canadian government's position is that these texts should be available. But of course they do not belong to us. They belong to all the 34 countries. These are the texts you are hearing about. We intend to call for these texts at the Quebec Summit. I am in the habit of repeating that we do have a certain amount of experience with free trade agreements, since we have three of them: NAFTA, Chile and Israel. We have nine negotiating groups that are very well-known. The Canadian positions are known within these nine groups. They are very dry texts, extraordinarily boring, but if someone takes the trouble to look at what we negotiated in the Free Trade Agreement with Chile or in NAFTA, they will find what we are basically attempting to achieve in the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Thank you.

The Chair: I protest, Mr. Lortie. As a former professor of international trade law, I can't allow our texts to be described as arid. They are fascinating.

Ms. Marleau, you have the last word.

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): You talked about the result of the Summit meeting of the Peoples of the Americas and said that this report or text would be presented to the ministers and that they would see about giving this text to the leaders.

Did you consider the possibility of allowing the representatives of the Peoples' Summit to make their presentation themselves to the heads of state? As you know, a number of people say that yes they will be meeting each other but this will not have any real impact on the heads of state. Have you taken that into consideration?

Mr. Marc Lortie: Yes, we did but I must say that there were a great many requests of this type. The Peoples' Summit is made up of 26 groups of Canadian organizations. The 100 other groups that I consult wish to attend the Peoples' Summit but they are not invited.

Mrs. Diane Marleau: In other words, you are saying that the Peoples' Summit does not include all groups.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Yes, that is my first remark. Secondly, there is of course the Peoples' Summit. There is also the Summit of the Aboriginal Peoples which will be meeting. Mayors will be meeting in Quebec City. The parliamentarians already met. There is a series of forums taking place and they all wish to appear before the chiefs of state and of government.

• 1710

We had a youth forum in Quebec City in the month of March, it took place in a very constructive manner. Well-known writers are meeting as part of the Salon du livre. There is the Porto Alegre Summit which will also be making a declaration. In other words, there is a string of representatives wishing to make their representations directly to the chiefs of state. We have had to draw our conclusions and say that the chiefs of state... First of all, it should be realized that the Summit takes place over a short period of time, it is very condensed. It starts on Friday evening at 6:30 and concludes on Sunday at 2 p.m. It will end with a press conference scheduled at 1:30 p.m. So it takes place within a compact period of time and the idea of having a revolving chair for all the groups wishing to be represented would not have allowed us to achieve our aim of giving impetus to hemispheric co-operation. It is a possibility we considered and I must say we received very strong representations from the Peoples' Summit.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Mr. Chairman, may I add a final note to my summary that was a bit too short. I forgot to mention one important point, that is the fight against illicit drugs, which will be on the agenda of the Quebec Summit and will consider reinforcing the existing mechanism used by countries in their fight against illicit drugs in the Americas. This mechanism established in 1998 provides very beneficial results for all societies and we will take the opportunity of the Quebec Summit to strengthen this co-operation mechanism in the fight against illicit drugs, something that is very relevant for parents and young people.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lortie. Again, thank you for coming at this extraordinarily busy time for you.

Maybe I could just ask one quick question about the consequence of the summit. I don't say it bothers me, but clearly the emphasis at the moment is being put on the free trade of the Americas, largely by those who are against the process. There's also a reason for that, and that is, many of the witnesses have come before us in our WTO hearings and our other hearings and have emphasized that unlike other international institutions, the trade agreements have enforceable provisions and therefore they bite—they sort of work—whereas all these other things we're talking about at the summit, whether it's the democracy clause or the education issues, etc., are out there, but they don't have the same practical way of being implemented.

I'm wondering if the summit, in your view, will enable us to see more clearly how in fact we can achieve those other goals. We seem to be able to achieve the goals of liberalizing trade. We seem to have the technique as to how to do it. You mentioned the MERCOSUR example with Paraguay, which is a very interesting one, I think, where the threat of withdrawing trade concessions was enough to end a coup d'état. But that's a rather dramatic one on the more complicated issue of human rights education. We're concerned.

Again, I was very impressed by your suggestion that the Inter-American Bank will be brought in, so that in fact there will be ways to finance these activities. That too is something that I don't think the people of Canada realize. I think most people think the only thing there is the FTAA. It's partly that they're being misled in that belief, but there's also a certain reality to that because of the nature of trade agreements in international affairs being more effective than other forms of agreements.

So when we talk to people about the environment and say we're going to be discussing the environment, they say, yes, you're going to talk about it, but you're not going to do anything about it; you can talk about connectivity, but you won't do anything about it, whereas in trade you'll do something. I think that's the problem we have in talking to our constituents and in trying to get the word out. Those of us who believe in the process are having trouble understanding how we can better explain that.

• 1715

Mr. Marc Lortie: Of course, the trade agreement is a treaty. It is very precise. You have rights and obligations under a treaty. A political declaration is an expression of political will. That's the direction. But at the end of the exercise, it is very important to realize that if we're not able to strengthen democracy, if democracy is not a reality, we could forget about the FTAA because it won't see the light of day.

It is fundamental. We have to remind Canadians that no Canadians invested any Canadian dollars under the Pinochet regime, but since the Pinochet regime we have $12 billion invested in this small country, which represents three times what we have in Japan, what we have in Germany.

We need to reinforce those messages. Maybe they are more subliminal. Maybe they are not rights and privileges and obligations, but they are as important. If the democratic rule tomorrow morning is suspended, for instance, in Peru or anywhere else, Canadians will receive a very big shock because the Toronto Stock Exchange is going to react. We are now a major investor in that country. That's the new reality.

But it takes time to develop our message to penetrate public opinion, to see that it is important. The advantage of having a treaty is that you have rules and obligations there. That is the beauty of it, and it is a little clear as the plan of action.

But, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the intention of the Canadian government this time around with the plan of action in the political declaration is to be as concrete as possible, to show results, to make commitments—and that those commitments be properly financed by us or by the financial institutions responsible for this economic investment. I mentioned first of all the IDB, the World Bank—very precise. If we're going to discuss aid in the Caribbean, are we going to do something about it? Are we going to announce something about it? The answer has to be yes.

The Chair: Thank you. That's very helpful.

Again, thank you very much for coming this afternoon. We wish you all the best. Godspeed and good luck with your very important work.

We're adjourned until Thursday morning when we'll have our last hearing on the Summit of the Americas.