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]

Thursday, March 15, 2001

• 1529

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I call this meeting to order. We're privileged to have ministers Manley and Pettigrew with us today.

I'm very glad to see that Minister Manley has chosen to come in his 1960s South American costume. It reminds me of the time when we had the President of Argentina before the committee. You may recall it was similar dark glasses time.

This is the first hearing we are having of the committee leading up to the Summit of the Americas, for which we've decided to do a study. This is the first of the series. Given the public interest in the subject, we'll be presenting a report to the House, which we expect the government will respond to in the usual way.

• 1530

[Translation]

As you no doubt know, the Committee wrote a report on the Free Trade Area of the Americas in October 1999. We intend to act on this report by studying the issue in a broader context. To this end, we are going to invite witnesses from para-governmental organizations and business groups, as well as academics and government officials.

[English]

As you know, ministers, last week here in Ottawa we had a meeting of the Inter-parliamentary Forum of the Americas, which was duly constituted. We had 28 countries here and the parliamentarians from those countries will be presenting a report to our Prime Minister, which we understand he will be furthering on to the leaders of the Americas at the summit.

I'd like to say in introduction, colleagues, that I think the presence of both ministers here today indicates clearly that contrary to a lot of public perception the summit will be about a lot more than trade. It will allow us to exchange views and develop programs to strengthen democracy in the hemisphere and increase prosperity through trade while protecting the environment, labour standards, human rights, and cultural diversity and developing human potential in our region. We look forward to hearing the ministers and we look forward to completing our study.

Colleagues, we have one and a half hours. The ministers will probably be about half an hour. May I suggest, therefore, that we keep the first round to seven minutes rather than the usual ten so that we have enough time for more people to ask questions.

Welcome, ministers. We'll start with Minister Manley and then we'll hear from Minister Pettigrew.

Thank you very much for coming.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe we had agreed that the first round, when ministers appeared, would be ten minutes.

The Chair: That's correct. Well, let's see how well we do. I'm assuming they'll take half an hour. We'll have only an hour left, and if we take five rounds at ten minutes, that's fifty minutes, which leaves ten minutes for everybody else to ask questions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, with ministers we had agreed the round would be ten minutes. In order to develop any line of questioning, I think it's pretty important that we stick to this.

The Chair: We'll do our best. Could we ask you to maybe try to keep it slightly below that? We do want to try to give other people an opportunity as well.

Minister Manley.

Mr. John Manley: I'll try to be as rapid as I can, although I would like to set out a number of issues with respect to the preparations for and the expectations of the summit, which I think is taking place at a very exciting time for Canada and for our relations with the hemisphere.

The committee will know this is my first appearance here. I'll try to be as available as possible to the committee. Regrettably, I am committed to meeting with His Eminence of the Maronite Church afterwards, so I'm afraid the timeframe is going to have to be stuck to, by me at least.

Democracy and the growth of free markets are literally transforming the Americas. Canada has played an active role within the hemisphere in shaping an effective response to the challenges of democratic transition and economic and social change. We've become more engaged in the Americas because it is in Canada's interest to be engaged. Our future prosperity is intimately linked to our ability not just to recognize opportunities but also to show leadership in the development of hemispheric relations.

Our economic relations with the hemisphere have grown faster over the last ten years than with any other region. Today Mexico is our third-largest trading partner. Chile is a major destination for Canadian foreign investment, the largest in Latin America. Over 90% of our trade is with the Americas, including the United States, and the value of trade with the hemisphere increased more than 170% during this period, compared with 60% and 66% with Europe and Asia, respectively.

[Translation]

However, our deepening relations are about much more than trade. Last year, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of our membership in the Organization of American States (OAS) and hosted one of the most remarkable General Assemblies in its history.

Together with the OAS, Canada took the lead in a mission to assist Peru in strengthening its democracy. This process directly led to the staging of the first round of presidential elections on April 8, 2000. And it demonstrated the hemisphere's solidarity—and Canada's leadership—in the defence of democratic institutions and values.

• 1535

We are also working with other governments in the hemisphere across a range of sectoral interests that would have seemed unimaginable 20 years ago.

Hemispheric ministers of trade, transport, energy, gender, education, labour, justice, finance, environment, sustainable development, health, development, and agriculture now meet regularly. In the short time before the Quebec City Summit, there will be four Ministerial meetings, two of which—Finance and Environment—will take place in Canada. We will also host a Labour Ministerial in October.

[English]

While government has an integral role to play in fostering better relations with our hemispheric neighbours, I also want to recognize the contributions of legislators in furthering the understanding and cooperation in the Americas. The inaugural meeting of the Inter-parliamentary Forum of the Americas, FIPA, was hosted by Canada's Parliament last week.

I'd like to commend the leadership that you, Mr. Chairman, played together with Senator Hervieux-Payette in the launch of the forum, and to thank those who participated in FIPA.

The forum's first meeting produced useful recommendations on cooperative action to combat corruption and the traffic in illicit drugs; on the promotion of economic integration and the reduction of poverty; on environmental enhancement and protection; and on recognizing the value of cultural diversity. These recommendations and the constructive input that we have received from many sectors of civil society are valuable contributions to the policy process as we enter the final phase of preparations for Quebec City.

Substantial preparations for the Quebec City summit are underway. There have been four meetings of the summit implementation review group, or SIRG, on the draft declaration and the plan of action for the summit, as well as the statement on connectivity. The most recent of these meetings took place last week.

The SIRG has focused on developing the framework elements that were discussed and endorsed by the 34 foreign ministers of the Americas when they met at the Windsor OAS general assembly last June. As was agreed by ministers, the declaration and plan of action for the summit will embody a coherent and balanced agenda organized around three main themes—strengthening democracy, creating prosperity, and realizing human potential.

We are striving to ensure that the summit's mandate is focused and that it responds to the most pressing hemispheric priorities. We are working very hard with international organizations as well as with multilateral development banks to ensure that we have the human and financial resources necessary to turn our commitments into reality.

This last point is, of course, fundamental to the success of the summit. All of the countries involved know that the credibility of the summit process ultimately depends on our collective ability to implement those commitments. The Summits of the Americas must serve, and must be seen to serve, the real interests of the people of the Americas. They must lead to improvements in their quality of life and their standard of living if they are to be judged successful.

[Translation]

I would like to briefly review the major themes for the Quebec City Summit. The address given by the Prime Minister to the Metropolitan Quebec Chamber of Commerce and Industry on February 27, 2001, is a concise and comprehensive statement of Canada's principal objectives for the Summit.

The strength and unity of the hemisphere is based fundamentally on collective undertakings to consolidate democracy, promote and protect human rights and to enhance human security.

These objectives, and promotion of the rule of law, have been central to our efforts to provide a durable foundation for hemispheric integration since the first Summit in Miami in 1994.

• 1540

A strong democracy must be inclusive, and provide space for reasonable debate and constructive dialogue between governments, civil society and, of course, parliamentarians. This active commitment to rights, transparency, openness and citizen engagement is essential to keeping our democratic institutions vital and vibrant.

This commitment to democratic values is a fundamental principle for participation in the Summit process—a view that will be made explicit in Quebec City.

[English]

My colleague, Pierre Pettigrew, will speak to you about creating prosperity in the context of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, but I would like to underline now that while the FTAA remains central to our collective effort to promote economic growth and expand prosperity, the summit is not just about trade. Our commitment to economic integration is not just about the FTAA. We are equally concerned with how we reduce poverty, promote equity, create more opportunities for enterprise, share in the benefits of growth, manage migration, and prepare for and mitigate the impact of natural disasters.

The plan of action reflects our conviction that measures to promote economic integration, environmental protection, and workers' rights can and should be mutually supportive. The challenge is to make a positive difference, to promote equality of opportunity, and to improve the standard of living and quality of life for all the citizens of the Americas.

These commitments to democracy and prosperity go hand in hand with our resolve to encourage all segments of society to participate in the economic, political, social, and cultural life of their respective countries, and of the region in general. Social initiatives in the summit plan of action will support education and the acquisition of needed skills; give more people better health; advance gender equality; strengthen participation and dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples; and promote cultural diversity.

These initiatives have one aim—to empower individuals and to provide an equal opportunity to live with dignity; to realize their potential; and to contribute to the development of the societies in which they live and work.

[Translation]

Our hemisphere and the world in which we live are being transformed by information and communications technology, which is having a profound impact on all our lives.

Governments are only one of many actors in this transformation, but they play a pivotal role in shaping the environment in which these new and revolutionary technologies evolve, and the manner in which they are used to serve human needs and aspirations.

Connectivity is a tool, and our interest in promoting it in the Summit is meant to support, not to replace, action to meet the basic need of all citizens of the Americas. Canada has proposed, and our partners have accepted, that we work together to expand access to new technologies to serve the entire community of the Americas.

[English]

Before I turn the floor over to my colleague, let me emphasize one point. The Summit of the Americas is important not just because it represents the culmination of years of Canadian engagement in the Americas. It is also a cooperative effort by 34 partners to develop and implement a coherent and balanced political, economic, and social agenda that will benefit all citizens of the hemisphere. The Summit of the Americas is the fundamental forum and vehicle for transforming into reality a vision of a freer, more prosperous, and more socially just Americas.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Minister Pettigrew.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin my remarks, I note that I'm appearing before this committee on the very ides of March. We all remember William Shakespeare's warning, “Beware the ides of March”.

An hon. member: Even more so.

• 1545

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm certain, Mr. Chair, you will not let the same fate befall me and my colleague, John Manley, as befell Julius Caesar.

The Chair: I'm having a close watch kept on Mr. Robinson.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It was his own son in that case, so you have to watch everywhere, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you and the members of this Committee for inviting me to join you today, in the company of my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to speak to you about the Free Trade area of the Americas negotiations. Of course, I will be very happy to take part in a meeting next Monday of your Sub- committee on soft wood lumber. This will be an opportunity to continue the discussions we had in the House today. I appreciate my relationship with your committee and its sub-committees.

These negotiations are a high priority for our trade policy for many reasons. The FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, will be good for Canada, and it will be good for the hemisphere.

It forms a key component of an effort unique in our times to make progress on the full range of political, economic, social and development challenges facing the countries of the hemisphere, which are united in our collective commitment to a process of co-operative action: the Summit of the Americas.

The Summit of the Americas process that John Manley has just spoken about, is the mainspring of that common endeavour, and the FTAA is a proud creation of the Summit. The negotiations began as a Summit initiative in 1994; they were formally launched at the second Summit in 1998; to this day, they are a key component of the Summit of the Americas Plan of action.

In short, the FTAA is the main vehicle to promote growth and create prosperity through economic integration in the hemisphere.

[English]

They do say that charity begins at home, and there are real advantages for Canada in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. This committee knows that access to growing foreign markets is vital to our prosperity. Every day of the week, Canada does over $2.5 billion worth of business in two-way trade with the world. Last year, in 2000, exports accounted for an astounding 45.6% of our GDP, up from 25% in 1990. This performance rests on solid fundamentals at home and on a trade policy that has traditionally been based on the twin pillars of market access and rules.

That policy has made us a world leader in building an international trade environment, with enforceable rules that facilitate the flourishing and expanding exchange of goods, services, and investments, to the benefit of all participants. And trade, as we know, is about more than better jobs through exports.

As trade minister, I might let myself get carried away with enthusiasm with our world-renowned firms in sectors from telecommunications to agribusiness. Competitive imports have reinforced the dynamism of our economy and broadened Canadians' choice of increasingly cheaper and better products.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we all benefit from trade. That should be reason enough to extend the benefits of expanded rules-based trade to our partners in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It will be good for all of us.

But perhaps I can put my salesman's hat on again for a moment. It is clear why Latin America and the Caribbean hold tremendous potential for our business people. We are building the world's largest free trade area. It will have one-sixth of the world's population, or 800 million people. It already generates more than one-third of the world's economic activity, $17 trillion a year in combined GDPs. And those who think we already have all the access we need, with NAFTA and the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, haven't noticed the youth and vibrancy of those other markets in the Americas.

[Translation]

Like Rome, the FTAA will not be built in a day. Let me bring you up to date on where matters stand now, three years into the process.

• 1550

In two and a half weeks, I will be meeting with my hemispheric colleagues in Buenos Aires. This meeting will provide us with an opportunity to assess what has been achieved in the last 18 months in the FTAA negotiations, and how best to move forward.

At the Toronto Ministerial in November 1999, which wrapped up Canada's tenure as chair of the first phase of negotiations, ministers issued a Plan of Action for FTAA negotiators. In Buenos Aires, we will receive a report from the Trade Negotiations Committee outlining the progress made in implementing that Plan of Action.

We will also review the draft of the FTAA Agreement. This text, which has been at the heart of much public debate recently, is very much a preliminary document. It consists of a compilation of draft texts prepared by the negotiating groups.

Preliminary or not, it is a significant achievement, and demonstrates the commitment of all participating FTAA countries to moving forward within negotiations to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas. You will already have seen Canada's proposals to the various negotiating groups, including our draft preamble.

[English]

I flag the preamble because, consistent with the instruction of trade ministers at the San José ministerial of 1998, it proposes Canada's take on the fundamental premises of the FTAA undertaking, including respect for cultural diversity, better protection for the environment, and furtherance of core labour rights.

It is Canada's position that this consolidated draft text should be made public at the time of the ministerial, and I personally will continue to press our hemispheric partners for consensus to release the text.

Looking forward to the next stage of negotiations, we will develop a new plan of action setting out the direction and pace of further negotiations. We will provide instructions to negotiators to work toward narrowing differences in national positions and to commence work on the institutional underpinnings of the eventual FTAA.

As part of this exercise, we will also review the contributions and workings of the Civil Society Committee. Canada was a key player in the establishment of a Civil Society Committee in the FTAA process. This is a unique and unprecedented initiative in international trade negotiations.

We hold that this group plays an indispensable role in the negotiating process so its mandate should be strengthened. In particular we see this group bringing forth the real concerns of elements of civil society to instruct and guide negotiators. It's ambitious, we know, but we think this committee is one of the best ways within the current structure of the FTAA negotiation process to air issues such as the linkages between trade, environment, labour, and other prosperity-related issues also addressed elsewhere in the summit process. Strengthening the committee's mandate is therefore one of the issues on which we will be seeking the concurrence of our hemispheric partners.

[Translation]

Our final task in Buenos Aires will be to prepare a statement to leaders on the progress of the FTAA negotiations to date. The FTAA initiative emerged out of the Summit of the Americas agenda, and is an integral part of the broader Summit objectives. The outcomes of the Ministerial will also be important, therefore, for the Quebec City Summit.

There is little doubt that, in the lead-up to the Ministerial and the Summit, there is growing debate over the FTAA. Canadians are asking what the FTAA involves, what position Canada is adopting on key issues. The Government of Canada is sympathetic to these concerns, and remains committed to consultation and transparency in these negotiations. It is precisely to ensure that the Government of Canada continues to represent the interests of Canadians in the FTAA negotiations that we have made a concerted effort to engage in an open, two-way dialogue with Canadians.

These extensive and continuing consultations have ensured that a number of priority concerns have been integrated into Canada's negotiating positions, even at this early stage in the process. We are committed to crafting an agreement that serves the interests of all Canadians.

• 1555

[English]

In addition, Canada has been, and remains, in the vanguard in terms of transparency in trade negotiations. Canada's positions in the FTAA negotiations have been in the public realm for over a year on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website in the government's response to this committee's report on the FTAA. Canada's FTAA negotiating proposals were also made publicly available on the departmental website last December.

As we head toward the summit, we are reminded that there are a number of challenges to address as we pursue the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas. One of the principal challenges is the disparity in size and economic development among the 34 countries. Negotiating a trade agreement among nations so diverse is unprecedented, and creativity and institutional support clearly will be needed so that the smaller economies may effectively prepare for, conduct, and follow up on the negotiations. Another challenge, as I have mentioned before, is persuading our partners to engage in greater transparency in the negotiations.

[Translation]

Let me now look down the road from Buenos Aires and Quebec City. What does the future hold?

There will, above all, be tough trade negotiations.

These are about creating the conditions for growth, economic efficiency, prosperity—conditions that will allow all countries of the hemisphere to flourish and give their governments the ability to deal with broader challenges like poverty, crime, environmental degradation, and threat to democracy and human rights.

My colleague John Manley has told you about parallel activities by labour, environment and other ministers within the comprehensive Summit of the Americas process, and I have told you of ways we are already seeking to integrate these considerations into the trade negotiations proper.

As an integral part of that process under the "prosperity" theme, the FTAA represents a historic opportunity to link economic growth to social development throughout the Americas.

One key to making that link work is setting an example through national action. Take, for instance, environmental questions: the Government considers that environmental assessments of trade negotiations are an important way to promote coherence between trade and environmental practices.

Just last month, we launched a Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations. The FTAA negotiations will be the subject of an assessment under this framework that will ensure that environmental impacts and opportunities are identified and considered.

This will give us an understanding of the benefits and implications of the FTAA for Canada's environment, and allow us to shape our objectives and tactics accordingly.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I have taken enough of the committee's time with my outline, though there is much more that could be said. I know that the FTAA negotiations are only partway through and that there's a long road ahead, but I believe we have already come an impressive distance and that our destination is well worth the effort.

I also believe the FTAA negotiations, taken in the context of the Summit of the Americas process, is breaking new ground in trade negotiations. We want it to do more. We want it to set new records for transparency and inclusiveness; to bring new opportunities for prosperity to hundreds of millions in the Americas; and to address directly or in the summit the whole set of issues that trade, investment, and globalization will raise in our societies. It is an ambitious agenda, and it is one that Canadians can be proud of, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate that.

We'll go immediately to questions, beginning with Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the ministers for agreeing to appear today.

The first question I'd like to ask would, I suppose, go to Mr. Manley. I note in some of the briefing documents we've received that one of the priorities of Canada in an FTAA agreement would be to reduce or remove some of the wasteful customs procedures, which would allow an easier flow of goods. But one of the things that stands in the way of that is concerns countries might have about Canada's ability to ensure the integrity of its borders.

Recently we've seen well-publicized problems dealing with an Algerian terrorist who was very easily able to fraudulently obtain a Canadian passport, which he used to attempt to get into the United States. We have the problem of Mr. Amodeo, which is well known. We have CSIS saying they're following up to 50 organizations associated with terrorist activity in Canada. We have a former director of CSIS, Reid Morden, saying that Canada has become a haven for terrorists.

• 1600

In the face of that kind of evidence, are there some specific steps our government would take to ensure that our borders are more secure than they are today, in order to have credibility in negotiating reduction in these barriers? What steps, specifically, are we going to take to ensure that people can't get passports as easily as Mr. Ressam was able to do?

Mr. John Manley: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think this relates very specifically to the Canada-U.S. relationship as much as to the summit or FTAA, because, needless to say, as we have such a large and busy relationship with the United States, it's that border that then becomes the issue, with over 200 million crossings per year. The Ressam case certainly highlights the importance we all need to place on adequate security measures.

The Ressam case is interesting because it really wasn't all that easy. The first time he tried, his emissary actually got arrested in the passport office, because the fraud was detected. The second time he was successful. I think what we come to here is the need for increased federal-provincial cooperation, particularly on some of the supporting documents that are used for an application for a passport. There is ongoing work in that regard between the federal government and the provinces. And we have the increasingly high-tech passport document itself, which is becoming more and more difficult to reproduce through fraudulent means.

There has been very active cooperation between Canadian and American authorities to ensure that there aren't undue concerns in the United States administration about the security of Canadian borders. It's clearly in our interest—and frankly, it's in the interest of the United States as well—to maintain as open a border as possible. So much of our trade, both ways, depends upon it. So we'll continue to pursue those objectives actively with them.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'm going to switch gears here for a moment. I want to go to the trade minister with a question.

This has to do with NAFTA but I think it has implications beyond that. The minister is interested in making changes to chapter 11 of NAFTA. I wonder if you could outline what changes you want to make and why, and what implications that would have on your negotiating position on the FTAA.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: What I have been seeking, for some time, as we discussed at this committee the last time I was here, is clarification about some elements of chapter 11 that I believe have been given extension beyond the real intention of the drafters. Some are about expropriation, for instance. You use some clauses on expropriation in a way that is, in my view, excessive and not useful. So I am seeking clarification from the other two partners to make sure that investment is indeed protected, but that we do it in a way that respects the intentions of the drafters of the agreement, and not let certain interpretations go much further. In particular, certain clauses concerning expropriation seem to me such that a truck could go through them. So we have to narrow down some of the definitions.

We want more transparency as well. I think chapter 11, in that clarification, which would be binding on the three NAFTA countries, would need to adopt more transparent ways of dealing with the investment, and particularly the investor-state, aspects.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'd like a clarification on that. I'm concerned that this might result in different treatment of companies based on their country of origin. The whole idea of NAFTA is to treat people equally, to treat companies equally. This is not going to result in any way in undermining that principle.

• 1605

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The process we're using is available only to foreign companies, not those from our own country.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'd like to ask a question that's quite general. Just with respect to how difficult it's going to be to get agreement on the FTAA, is there a concern that with the next round of the WTO coming up, countries will focus instead on trying to have rules-based trade pursued through the WTO more, instead of through the FTAA? Or is that going to be actually helpful? Could the WTO possibly be the template for establishing an FTAA down the road?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you for your optimism that we will be successful in launching another WTO round. It was a question that was put to me yesterday, and of course it is certainly the position of our government that we hope there will be another round. I don't see evidence yet that it will be the case, however, because of the position of a number of other countries around the world.

My view is that the FTAA, precisely because of some of what I said in my earlier remarks, is an initiative in which you have, for the first time, very small economies, less developed economies, together with the most advanced economies in North America. Many of the challenges we are facing at the WTO need creativity, they need original solutions. I think the work we will be doing at the FTAA will alleviate or find creative solutions to many of the challenges we are facing at the WTO. Therefore, progress on the FTAA will consolidate and strengthen our work at the WTO.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield my time to my colleague.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CA): Thank you.

Minister Manley, you said in your statement—and you've said this in other places—that this is not just about economics, and that's fair enough. On page 3 of the Canadian background paper on the 2001 summit, it says:

A commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law is central to the Summit process and to efforts to provide a durable foundation for hemispheric integration.

Fair enough. You've essentially repeated that here today, referring in both of the statements to the concepts of equality, environmental protection, workers' rights, respect for cultural diversity, and so on.

Given that there are going to be 9,000 delegates there, and roughly 3,000 members of the international media, one thing a lot of Canadians are concerned about is the message of potential hypocrisy and contradiction that Canada seems to be sending. Canada's trade in Latin America in 2000 was roughly $25 billion. Our trade with China, that singular nation with massive potential, is somewhere between $12 and $16 billion. The same standards aren't held in our trade with China, and Canadians are wondering why. Could you give an explanation?

Mr. John Manley: Well, we're not proposing to enter into a free trade agreement with China. I think what's important about this summit is that it provides us with a context within the hemisphere to put this strong emphasis on these very important ingredients, which will be necessary to have the kind of integration we're talking about. The enhancement of democracy and the democratic clause or the democratic statement will be key to that. Enforcing values like the rule of law and so on are crucial.

At this very significant point in time, we have an opportunity to really signal their importance in the hemisphere, in part because of events in the last year—namely, the very positive developments in Peru, in part as a result of the intervention of the OAS and of Canada, and second, the first peaceful transition in many years of government in Mexico.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

• 1610

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you for your presentations. I would like to start with Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

I think that more and more people and governments are realizing that Chapter 11 is causing interpretation problems for example with respect to the concept of expropriation and dispute settlement. I think there are a number of people in Quebec and Canada who think that this does not constitute an interesting basis for negotiations on investment.

I would like the Minister of International Trade to tell me how many suits have been brought against the government to date under Chapter 11 and the approximate amount of the claims.

While Mr. Carrière is doing his calculations, I can ask you another question about Chapter 11. For a long time, we have heard Canada's position on four themes that were made more or less public last week. Areas that were left out were our position on investment, services, dispute settlement and one other, which I have forgotten for the moment. You have made public a summary of Canadian positions on these themes. When will the positions be available on the Web site, particularly on investment, because everyone thinks this is a major issue in the negotiations on the Free Trade Area of the Americas?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There are some chapters on which our government has not yet tabled its own positions. The same is true of services. Yesterday we announced our position on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, but we have not yet done so in the case of the Free Trade Area. As you know, these negotiations are to occur over the coming years. We may be at the mid-point of the negotiations, and we thought it would be more strategic to take into account the position of certain other countries, to watch what the other countries do. Consequently, we are in the process of consulting the provincial government and the respective industries.

So there are a number of chapters on which Canada has simply not tabled a position, because we are still engaged in consultations based on the proposals put forward by other countries. However, as soon as this is done, this information will obviously be available on the Web site.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: How long will that take?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I do not know. It will all depend on how the consultations go. This will be done as our position is developed. As you know, we are very intent on consulting many people and on reflecting the country as a whole.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, but I find it a little strange that the government would table a summary of its position on investment without making available the text on which it is working at the moment. I find that somewhat counter to the concept of transparency, that we often hear a great deal about in the House when we ask questions about the process.

On the question of the amounts and the number of suits...

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We are checking on that and we will get back to you. If you give me advance notice of a question of that type, there is no problem, but in this case...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have been wanting to ask you that question for a long time, and I finally had an opportunity to do so.

A voice: We do not know that information by heart.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to take advantage of Mr. Manley's presence to raise an issue that I consider quite important.

One of the four themes of the entire initiative is to strengthen democracy. I share that concern, but I have some trouble understanding it given that in Canada there is no official mechanism whereby parliamentarians can take part in the negotiation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We've heard about a Take- Note Debate on March 27 next. Let us say that this is a step in the right direction, but it is far from enough, particularly given that parliamentarians will not have access to the relevant documentation to get some idea about the quality or value of the Canadian positions with respect to what is happening at the nine sectoral negotiating tables.

In recent weeks, we have heard that American parliamentarians had access to more information than just the American position. I was able to check on that myself. They do not necessarily have the basic texts used in the negotiations, but they do have summaries on the process. In the case of the Government of Quebec, the Minister of International Relations announced that she would make the text accessible—and that does not mean public—to the members of the National Assembly committee on institutions.

I would ask Mr. Manley if it would not be reasonable that before the Take-Note Debate on the 27th of this month, at least the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade might have access to documents of this type. I am not asking that they be made public. I am asking that they made available to committee members for discussion purposes in our respective caucuses and to ensure that the Take-Note Debate is of some use to the federal government.

• 1615

The Chair: I think that is a question for Mr. Pettigrew.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It was Mr. Manley who raised the theme of strengthening democracy.

Mr. John Manley: There is no division between us, but since this is a question about the Free Trade Area...

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: One can be Minister of International Trade and promote democracy and progress through trade. I am convinced, in fact, that developing trade contributes directly to democratic progress.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Charity begins at home. Generally, we should be setting more of an example...

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: That is why I am extremely pleased that our government showed the greatest degree of transparency in the hemisphere. We were the first to table our positions on the Internet site, one year ago. Canada is the country that did the most to establish a committee on civil society at the Summit of the Americas and within the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We have just made some recommendations to strengthen the committee on civil society. I really think that Canada has played a significant leadership role in this regard.

The issue that you raise is very important, and we all agree that it merits debate. Over the past few months, Canada, as I indicated, has played a leadership role in the hemisphere in terms of transparency. I have long been saying that Canada wants to make the texts public, period. They should be public. Now, we cannot act unilaterally. I don't know whether the position of the Bloc would be that we should act unilaterally and I don't know whether the government of Quebec would like me to act unilaterally. Ms. Beaudoin formally asked me to make the texts public, but in order to reflect her point of view accurately and understand her wishes, I wrote to her to ask her if she and the government of Quebec wanted us to make the text public even without the consent of our partners.

I would like you to tell me whether your are in agreement with our government in that the text cannot be made public without the consent of our partners. I'd be interested in knowing. I know that you cannot speak on behalf of Ms. Beaudoin, but you must communicate from time to time.

Therefore, we will not act unilaterally, even if I would like to know what our partners in the federation would wish for. You know that I have always been one in favour of a consensus and that is how I have always worked. I would ask you today to let me seek a consensus with our partners in Buenos Aires on April 6th and 7th. I began seeking this type of consensus when I was in Central America two weeks ago, with our partners from the Caribbean as well. Let me work with my colleagues to see whether my counterparts in the hemisphere, as we prepare for the Quebec Summit, would agree to this and would accept that the text be made public. If we don't have any consensus within the hemisphere as to the publication of the text, I undertake today to have the government study the issue and offer an answer if Parliament requests one.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I wasn't speaking of making the text public even if I think that they should be, so that we can have a calm debate within Quebec and Canadian society. I am asking whether the texts can be made accessible to members of this committee before the Take-Note debate on March 27th. In my opinion, that doesn't require any special permission because they will not be made public. They will simply be made available to members of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. I think that it would be quite acceptable that the committee who works and advises the government and Parliament on the process have access to these texts without them being made in any way public.

And I would like to add a last point just to show you that I speak from a position of strength. At the CSN, it was always said that I was a man of consensus. It is always good to show the way and to take the first step. In my opinion, without making any unilateral statement, the government could make the texts available to members of this committee and by this concrete act, demonstrate its willingness to be more transparent than it is now. That could be an exemplary gesture for the other countries involved in negotiation.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I take your point and I think it's a very important issue. I will continue to hope that we go as far as possible along the road to transparency.

As to the issue of members of Parliament, as I've said, if we do not make the documents public, I will ensure that the government studies this issue, because we do have parliamentary systems and issues of accountability. All kinds of legislation come into play, such as the Access to Information Act. Inasmuch as members of Parliament have access to these documents, does this mean that the documents must automatically be made public? This must be studied very seriously.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: March 27th is almost upon us.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, but I think that you'll be in a good position to participate in the debate on March 27th. I'm not worried.

• 1620

The Chair: I'm sure, Mr. Paquette, that you will agree with me that the debate in of itself allows us to participate as members of Parliament.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: And I would remind you that it is at the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois.

The Chair: We will be debating the issue.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, we are pushing Canadian democracy forward, that is what I can state.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to Mr. Paquette before moving to another issue, because my staff can be a little bit more precise? In terms of Chapter 11, there are three claims involving Canada that are currently under way: Pope & Talbot, S.D. Myers Inc., and UPS. These are the three that we are aware of, where we are vulnerable for a total of $380 million...

[English]

The Chair: Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I appreciate the presence of the ministers.

In case you don't know, I am from a small island state. I was born there. I am very concerned about the whole issue of creating opportunities in the hemisphere and the situation of the small island states, the small economies, and the initiatives that are necessary for those economies to be part of this entire discussion. So I am asking, what initiatives or what ideas are you putting forward, or is Canada putting forward, to assist those small economies to address the environment, labour, technology, and all these things that were delineated in your presentations?

Mr. John Manley: We will both participate in this one, if you don't mind.

I'm glad to know it's not Toronto that's the small island you're referring to. Sometimes we do consider it a bit of an island.

Ms. Jean Augustine: And there's also Centre Island.

Mr. John Manley: The summit's theme of realizing human potential is one of the ones that will be of particular interest in the context of the issues that you've raised. That's where we endeavour to build a construct of positive and meaningful engagements in areas like education, improved health facilities and care, the equality of the sexes, and engagement with aboriginal communities. The overriding theme that mixes with each of the categories of connectivity is also part of that, in part because it will play an important role in the context of future economic development but also because of the importance it has for education within the hemisphere.

We expect to see undertakings emerging from the summit that will engage countries in making real progress that will support the realization of human potential in those kinds of endeavours.

Perhaps on the trade side, Pierre, you might pick it up.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much.

Yes, it is a very important question because many of these island economies, which are smaller and often less developed, are very preoccupied and very concerned. It is important that Canada stand by them.

When we chaired the meeting in Toronto under Canada's leadership we set up a committee for the smaller and less-developed economies in the Caribbean in particular to analyse specifically the problems as they live them. We identified these problems and tried to address them.

We addressed them in a number of ways. CIDA works very well in capacity building in the Caribbean countries. As you know, the Prime Minister himself visited the Caribbean countries in January. I was there myself in February. I visited Kingston, actually. I prefer to say that, given the fact that it was in February. I'm not going to say “Jamaica” or you may have bad ideas about my trip.

The same day I met with Bob Zoellick in Washington, I went to see Enrique Iglesias, the president of the Inter-American Development Bank.

• 1625

One of the problems we have identified very concretely is that we asked these countries to lower their tariffs—free trade is really about eliminating tariffs—but for many of them, it is the only way they finance their states, and the International Monetary Fund has asked them to continue to finance their state.

So we have to find solutions. We have to help them build taxation systems in the territory and in the country. CIDA is there, and the IMF and the World Bank should make a bigger effort, as well. That's why Canada stands as an agent of coherence for our international organizations, so they can better join the FTAA and the World Trade Organization.

The Chair: There's another five minutes. Maybe I'll go to Madame Marleau, if that would be all right, and split the time with her.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): We understand what summits are about here, because we've participated in some. They're about leaders who get together and give speeches. It's all well and good, but what does Canada expect or want to be the outcome of this particular meeting? We know this is only one in many steps.

You have a bottom line. Yes, you've tabled what your suggestions are, but what do you really think you'll get out of this particular meeting, and what can Canadians expect in their day-to-day lives as a result of this summit in Quebec?

Mr. John Manley: Perhaps I'll start on this one.

I think what we see coming from this opportunity of having the 34 leaders together is the chance to take stock of the process toward democratization across the hemisphere. Certainly it will be a chance to look at developments in Peru, which I've mentioned before.

I think it will be a chance for President Fox to make a very clear declaration that reflects the advance that has occurred in Mexico in the sense that for the first time after 71 years of government by the PRI, there has been a transition to a new government. It was done legally, constitutionally, and peacefully, and I think it has really enabled Mexico with a new force to be a voice for democracy in the hemisphere. I think that voice will be well received.

We issued a statement last week concerning Chiapas, and I think we've seen over the course of this week great progress being made within Mexican society in dealing with some of the cleavages that have been there for many years.

I think it also provides for us within the hemisphere the chance to focus on the disparity that exists between the rich and the poor. Creating prosperity is not just about the FTAA; it's also about dealing with some of the key ingredients for creating opportunity. It deals with infrastructure, with education, as I mentioned earlier, with connectedness, all these things linked together, in order to deal with the challenge that exists in spreading the prosperity throughout the hemisphere.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Monterrey, in northern Mexico. It's a good example of how free trade actually can work, because you have a region that has virtually no unemployment and in which wages have risen to be comparable to wages in the southern United States. That's exactly what you would expect to happen. The challenge there with very little unemployment is now how to move some of the production into parts of Mexico where there's high unemployment but where there are other opportunities—for example, greater supplies of water.

I think what we want to do in the context of this summit is talk very directly about how we see that prosperity spreading to other parts of the hemisphere where it has been a challenge to see it happen.

• 1630

I think Pierre may want to add a few thoughts on that.

The Chair: Could you be quick, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, I will be very quick.

To me, what would be a successful Quebec City summit would be that in the declaration, our leaders, the heads of government and heads of state, give us, the trade ministers, clear, strong marching orders to succeed in implementing a Free Trade Area of the Americas as soon as possible. I will be watching for their words and for the tone they adopt, and the insistence they put on it. But to measure the Quebec City summit, as far as I'm concerned, that is how I will measure it.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the ministers for appearing before the committee today.

[English]

I have questions in three areas, but I want to make a couple of observations.

First, the Minister for International Trade spoke in what I consider Orwellian terms about this whole FTAA process setting new records for transparency and inclusiveness. This is literally unbelievable.

When we see a process next month in Quebec City with a security operation that is literally unparalleled in Canadian history, creating an armed fortress in Quebec City, quite ruthlessly suppressing dissent, and in my view doing that in a way that violates some of the most fundamental charter rights of Canadians; when we see a government that is refusing to make public the text that is being negotiated, that could profoundly affect the lives of Canadians, the environment of Canadians, and indeed of others in this hemisphere...

The minister has been saying all along, “I'm trying to make the text public”. Now he's telling us, today for the first time, “I think the text should be made public at the time of the ministerial”. So now he's saying, “Well, yes, I'm trying to get the text public, but not until April 6 and 7—maybe”. It just so happens the House isn't sitting after April 6 and 7, until after the summit. That's about two weeks before the meeting itself.

This is not democracy but contempt for democracy when this government refuses to make text available. Then they say one country can veto that, because we need a consensus.

To top it all off, the minister says “We're really concerned about chapter 11”. The minister has indicated that. Presumably chapter 11 and investor state provisions would be considered in the context of the investment, the negotiating group on investment. If they're so concerned about that, why haven't they made any submissions to the working group?

It's absolutely incredible that they really care about investor state but haven't said a thing. They have not made any submissions. That's what the website says. They haven't made any submissions to the working group on investment—an extraordinary admission. This has nothing to do with democracy at all.

I want to ask the ministers of trade and foreign affairs two questions, particularly.

One, with respect to the issue of chapter 11, if the minister is seriously concerned about investor state provisions in the FTAA, if he really cares about this, why has his government made no submissions to the negotiating group on investment?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I think you have to be serious. You know very well all the efforts we have made on chapter 11. We've made immense progress with the new administration in Mexico, with Secretary Derbez now agreeing that we sit down together. Frankly, you cannot just come in and say this is terrible. We have made substantial progress and—

Mr. Svend Robinson: You've made no submissions.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Let me finish my sentence. I'm telling you that this government is now making clear leadership.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No submissions.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We are making clear leadership changes on clarifying chapter 11 of NAFTA. We are going to use all the information we have from other countries, but I have been very clear that our country will not re-engage, obviously, on what we are trying to change right now. My answer is very clear.

• 1635

Honestly, I would like to challenge the member, who says that this is terrible, that he has never seen anything like this, that we are hiding behind this, etc., to give me one single example of a more transparent international trade negotiation.

This government has released its position on the Internet and has consulted with society all over the place. I don't have one example of a more transparent and open international trade negotiation, not ever.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely absurd.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Give me an example.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The minister says “I've made our position clear”. Look at the website. There's nothing on investment. There's nothing on services. There's nothing on dispute settlement.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's a three-year negotiation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There's nothing on intellectual property, Mr. Chairman, absolutely not a word.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There are three more years on negotiation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Three more years? Well, then, that's different.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Absolutely.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about the 35th country in the hemisphere. On April 1 there'll be Canadians meeting in this very room, and in the room next door, voicing their concern about this total farce of so-called transparency.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Give me one example of a more transparent negotiation ever. We're making progress and you don't want to acknowledge the progress.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about the 35th country in the hemisphere that has been excluded from this process, the only country that's been excluded.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned that last week the Inter-parliamentary Forum of the Americas and the FIPA voted to include Cuba. It also went on, by the way, to call for the release of the negotiating text.

I want to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, why is it we are allowing the United States to call the shots about who can participate in the Summit of the Americas? Cuba has diplomatic relations with almost every country in the hemisphere. In fact, as I understand it, it has more diplomatic representatives in the region than any country other than the United States. It even has more than Canada.

They obviously bring a different perspective to the table. There's no question about that. But why is it that Cuba is the one country in the hemisphere that's told to stay away, told “You're not welcome to participate in this summit”?

Mr. John Manley: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Robinson is well aware that it's not simply a question of one country or another supporting or not supporting the attendance of Cuba. There's not a consensus among the 34 countries that Cuba should participate. I don't think it's particularly surprising. Cuba hasn't demonstrated any acceptance of democratic principles, political pluralism, or even adherence to international norms respecting human rights.

For that reason, in the near future I don't think you're likely to see a consensus among the 34 countries that Cuba should participate—particularly in a summit that seeks to place so much emphasis on strengthening democratic values.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So let me just get this straight: Cuba is not participating in this summit for the reasons the minister has outlined, and yet I understand the WTO is going to Qatar, which is not exactly a bastion of democracy and certainly does not have a great record on human rights.

Why is it Canada is prepared to participate in a summit at Qatar? Why is it Canada is prepared to actively court trade by sending Team Canada to China? China is not exactly a paragon of democracy. It's a one-party state, as the minister is well aware.

Why the double standard here? Isn't it the reality that the United States is calling the shots in this particular instance?

Mr. John Manley: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but I think we've been very engaged with Cuba, as we have with China. We have maintained trade. We have diplomatic relations. In fact, we worked hard on a human rights dialogue with Cuba, and with rather disappointing results, I'd have to say. I think we are engaged with China for similar purposes, and we hope to see more encouraging results.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question for the Minister for International Trade.

The Minister for International Trade was in Guatemala at the beginning of the month. While there, in an interview with La Prensa Libre, he was asked about the issue of labour and environment and the extent to which concerns around workers' rights and the environment would be integrated into the FTAA.

The minister said in the article that there will be no integration of labour and the environment within the agreement. There may be parallel accords, but they won't be in the agreement. Furthermore, there will be no commercial sanctions resulting from lack of fulfilment in these other areas. He also went on to question the “representivity”, in his words, of civil society.

• 1640

Why is it that these trade agreements that the minister is so proud of are prepared to protect the rights of investors, to protect patent rights and intellectual property rights, but they're not prepared to integrate into these agreements the basic rights of working people—the freedom of association, the end to the exploitation of child labour, and respect for the environment? Why the double standard? Is it in fact the case that this government is not prepared to include those as part of our proposal for inclusion in the heart of the agreement itself?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Anyone who was in Seattle will remember very well the big debate we had around it. You know very well that imposing our labour standards—and they're imposing our norms that we have as developed countries right now—in developing countries is perceived by these developing countries as protectionism by the back door. It is perceived by these people as a way to keep them down, to keep them behind. This is not something that Canada will subscribe to.

We support progress on the labour front and labour standards. We support progress on the environmental front, and my colleague John Manley expressed that very well a little earlier. But to make them conditional, to make their participation in the trade system conditional, is a way to keep them down, and this is not something that Canada will subscribe to. We want progress. We even want to eventually create better work to make the ILO, for instance, the International Labour Organization, more effective. If the WTO can help the ILO to be more effective in their promotion, I think it will be a very good thing. We want progress on every front. But we as a country do not believe we should impose these standards and keep the countries behind. We want them to participate in trade precisely to improve those labour standards exactly like the—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could you repeat that?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, saw a very good example not too long ago. When in Monterrey, he could see that these workers had seen their salary go now to the level of the southern states of the United States. I believe this is the way we should be making progress.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. We're over the time.

I just want to draw your attention, Mr. Robinson, to the FIPA meetings since both of us were there. The meeting you referred to asked for governments to consider making available to parliamentarians the draft text of the agreement. I think the minister's answer was that he was certainly considering it, and in fact he's working on it. To be fair, I think that's what the text says.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, they didn't say to consider it in three weeks.

The Chair: Well, the minister said... Okay, we will not take up the time of this meeting on that.

Mr. Casey, sir.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you, and welcome to the committee.

I just want to thank the Minister for International Trade for his acknowledgement of the Atlantic Canadian position on softwood lumber in the House today. It was welcome and certainly encouraging.

At any rate, I know this isn't about softwood lumber, but if the softwood lumber agreement doesn't get resolved, if the SLA expires and trade action is taken on April 2 both for countervail and anti-dumping, what effect will that have on this meeting in Quebec? Do you feel that's going to be a problem or a hurdle for negotiations if Canada and the United States have not resolved their lumber issue?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You know, the lumber issue has lasted about 100 years between Canada and the United States. It has not prevented us from developing a remarkable relationship—trade, economic, social, and defence. The Canada-U.S. relationship is vast. We are like-minded on a lot of things, and we have extraordinary trade relations as well. I hope very much that, after the termination of the present agreement, the softwood lumber will not get in the way of progress on all the other counts. You can count on us to be working constructively and engaging on every possible trade file and otherwise with the United States. But we also hope very much that on the softwood lumber file we will get from the United States what we want and what we deserve, which is free trade.

Mr. Bill Casey: Is the approaching FTAA negotiation putting more pressure on the negotiators in your department and on the Americans to fast-track a solution to find a temporary deal or an interim deal on softwood lumber? Is it affecting anything in any way, the approaching...

• 1645

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We will continue our exchange on softwood lumber on Monday. I will be coming back to the committee for our discussion on the softwood lumber. But there's no extraordinary link to the FTAA discussion. I mean, this is a discussion that will last another three years, we expect, and our negotiators are still exploring the framework of the agreement and all that. So it does not yet have any direct relevance or bearing on the softwood lumber issue.

Mr. Bill Casey: I was going to say the Brazilian beef ban left a bad taste, but I don't think I'll say that. I think I'll reword that. But it did leave a lot of ill will in Brazil, and Brazil could be a major partner in this organization. Do you think that will affect the negotiations and the relationship in Canada? Does it now affect the relationship between Canada and Brazil?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, this brief Brazilian beef thing had unfortunate timing. It was nothing that we really liked. It happened that as a responsible government we had to act in the way we did. But we are confident that the Brazilian government has understood that. And I would say the same thing about aircraft that I said about the softwood. It's four and a half years that Brazil and Canada have been confronting one another at the World Trade Organization. Canada has won four panels in a row. We insist that Brazil respect its international trade obligations, but I think Brazil understands that Canada would insist that our international right be respected.

I think that they will participate gladly in the Quebec City summit. The reason we have WTO panels and elements like that is precisely to isolate trade disputes and not allow them to contaminate the rest of the relationship. So I'm convinced that Brazil, as a very impressive and important partner of the hemisphere, will participate in the Quebec City summit and in the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Mr. Bill Casey: You know, I can't help but think that it will impact if the relationships are soured and some of these issues are ongoing. Are there any other issues that you see as hurdles or as being problematic going into the FTA negotiations?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's going to be a very tough negotiation. Our colleague, Jean Augustine, raised a very important point. The situation of the smaller economies is a very important challenge that we are meeting.

The FTAA will require original solutions and will require a lot of creativity. This is the first time we're creating a free trade area between such diverse economies. I mean, the nature of both the problem and the challenge is big. It's absolutely huge.

Mr. Bill Casey: Your answer to her—I wrote it down here—actually sounded like “We're going to export tax systems”. I think that should be a welcome event for the people in these foreign countries that are about to inherit tax systems.

Are you going to encourage them to establish taxation systems to replace tariffs?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I mean, one of the problems that we've known for some time is that the International Monetary Fund always requires countries to pay for their state and finances without borrowing too much money. But for many countries the only taxation system established in the country is tariffs at the borders. So it creates a problem for WTO people, and I'm saying we have to bring in coherence.

So it means, indeed, that we should do some capacity building in some countries to find other sources of revenue for the government in countries that have been too dependent strictly on tariffs at the borders. But I'm not saying that we'll export—

Mr. Bill Casey: Isn't that transferring a tax burden from our country to their country? I mean, now we pay the tariffs indirectly, and then we're saying that these smaller countries and the poorer countries will now have to establish tax systems to replace those. Are we talking income tax or—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's not up to me to decide what countries should be doing. I'm saying that in some countries the reliance for the financing of public services is almost exclusively on tariffs at the borders. They will have to find—and I think that Canada and the international institutions should help these countries to develop—other tools for financing their public services. Otherwise, they could not participate in the free trade area because the free trade area means there are no longer tariffs.

Now, I don't think I've said anything... It makes sense, what I'm saying?

A voice: Oui, oui.

A voice: Yes, Minister.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: No, Minister.

• 1650

Mr. Bill Casey: I have one last question following up on Mr. Robinson's question about Cuba. How many countries of the 34 would support Cuba joining this arrangement? Do you have a tally or an approximate count?

Mr. John Manley: No, it's not done by vote. It's done by consensus, and there is no consensus.

Mr. Bill Casey: Would you say there are some who would support it?

Mr. John Manley: I couldn't tell you.

A voice: Does Canada support it?

Mr. John Manley: Not at the present time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Monsieur Paradis. It's five minutes now. I say five minutes maximum, but if you could be shorter, it would be helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade.

My question is to Minister of International Trade. With respect to the Free Trade Area of the Americas Canada has some extraordinarily strong points. We have two legal systems: civil law and common law. We also have this Latin side to us, in Quebec, and in Latin America there is also a Latin side as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon aspect of the United States. We are close to the United States. We also know that the economies of Brazil, Argentina and Chile are, geographically speaking, quite far from the United States. Therefore, Canada's proximity to the United States is an advantage. We have a method and we are used to trading with the United States, who is our main trading partner.

Minister, you have travelled a great deal, more specifically in South America lately, and you will continue to do so. How can we, within the framework of these two systems of law, bring about a rapprochement between the cultures and the borders with the Americans? How can we benefit from or use this to invest and help others further invest in order to help our friends in South America within the context of the FTAA negotiations? I'd like to hear you on this point.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It is true that in exporting services, for example, we are very often asked for a point of view on the two systems of law. You are quite right to say that that helps us to understand the way things are done under both regimes and to end up at an equitable solution. It's a very good example of the contribution that we can make. It has happened in South America, for example, where we have helped many countries in writing their constitution, primarily because of our own experience here in Canada.

We have a specific role to play and we have assets which allow us very often to act as a real bridge between the United States and several countries of Central and South America.

Mr. Denis Paradis: I have a second question, Mr. Chairman.

We are aware of the political situation in Haiti. It is the poorest country in the hemisphere. There is a lack of water, of sewers, of electricity, of roads, etc. We also have a large Haitian community in Canada. Regarding the themes of the upcoming summit, namely, to reinforce democracy, create prosperity, and capitalize on human potential, Minister, you are quite right to say that when we create prosperity it serves to reinforce democracy and to realize human potential as well.

We look at the two Americas and we see Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, smack in the middle. Is there a chance that Canada can garner support from other countries to do even more? We see that the Free Trade Area of the Americas wants to create prosperity. Can we do more to ensure that Haiti gets a leg up?

Mr. John Manley: I think that Haiti's situation is a very complex issue. We feel that there has been some progress made in the area of democracy with the elections which were held last year, but in order to create prosperity, a great deal of investment and work is required.

• 1655

As Canadians, we have made contributions in terms of the police force and the legal system, which are essential in order to achieve the level of confidence required for private sector investments. But I believe that it's a large challenge and that it will continue to be a challenge within the hemisphere if we want to reach an acceptable level of growth for Haiti. It's a situation that requires our continuous attention.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you Minister. How much time do I have left Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You have no time left. That is all.

[English]

Mr. Moore, sir.

Mr. James Moore: Thank you.

I suspect that in the Americas there's no consensus on how to approach Cuba. Since 1959 they've either incarcerated, driven out, or murdered a fifth of their population, and that probably causes some kind of divide. Clearly, Canada has different standards with regard to engagement with Cuba.

We have different standards of engagement with Africa. For example, we don't import products made with ivory because of our concern about endangered species, and we deem that a relative human rights issue.

We have different standards of human rights in other areas of the world. I see that here we've deemed some human rights issues such as workers' rights, environmental protection, and building on quality of life, which are very broad, altruistic notions.

Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs developed a specific list of human rights that are applicable from hemisphere to hemisphere and that we apply to every country, or do we essentially apply human rights status on a bilateral basis? Is there a basic human rights template that we apply to our trade negotiations with a country, or is it ad hoc?

Mr. John Manley: Human rights are not Canadian rights. Human rights are international in their recognition, and the standards are international standards. We engage countries on a bilateral basis, as we engage them on a multilateral basis. We're dealing on a multilateral basis in the context of the summit. But very frequently human rights necessarily becomes part of our bilateral relations as well. That's why I say in the context of the summit there's no consensus on Cuba. But that doesn't mean we don't trade with Cuba and we don't try to engage Cuba.

Mr. James Moore: My question is more along the lines of we don't trade with Cuba because we're concerned about issues of human rights there, and we don't trade with some African nations because of concerns of human rights.

A voice: We do.

Mr. James Moore: We do, but we have some restrictions. We have restrictions with other countries as well. Does Canada have a national set of human rights standards that we apply to every trade relationship or we try to pursue? Do we have those standards and have we even thought of negotiating those within committee?

Mr. John Manley: There are cases from time to time in which sanctions are imposed, but from Canada's point of view, that tends to be most effective in the context of multilateral action. The best example of where that may have been successful is the sanctions imposed against South Africa. We don't generally impose trade sanctions on countries in order to enforce human rights objectives. We try to use engagement with countries to encourage achieving human rights objectives.

Mr. James Moore: Fair enough.

My second question is on a very different topic. With regard to the upcoming meeting in Quebec City, a lot of media attention has focused on the possibility of violence in the streets and so on. We saw what happened in Seattle, where news networks, such as KOMO, and different TV stations put TV cameras on the corners of buildings and just waited for the violence to start. They set up the stage for it. Is Quebec City properly prepared? Has the foreign minister looked into proper preparations to ensure that the possibility of injuries to citizens is being properly safeguarded against and the possibility of embarrassment of one of our greatest cities doesn't take place? Will there be full law enforcement for those people who commit crimes if we do get to that stage?

Mr. John Manley: Of course there is a significant effort on security, which is what Mr. Robinson was complaining about earlier. I have to say I consider it unfortunate, but it's a fact of the times that if we are going to preserve the right of democratically elected governments to meet and consult together and go about their business, we need to provide security in order to protect them and their delegations.

• 1700

I believe the security precautions being taken are adequate and not excessive, given the experience in other venues and in other situations. I believe there is ample opportunity for those who wish to demonstrate, or to voice dissent, to do so in a peaceful manner. They will not be able to do so in a manner that threatens either our guests or the delegations present. It will be necessary for us to provide that protection.

So I believe it's adequate, yes.

The Chair: I have time for just one more question of about one or two minutes.

Mr. Harvard, I think you're next.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated he had to leave at 5 o'clock. I wonder whether the Minister for International Trade might be prepared to stay for a few more minutes.

The Chair: Did I understand you to say that you have something going on?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm back on Monday on softwood.

The Chair: Mr. Pettigrew will be back with the subcommittee on Monday.

Mr. Harvard, very briefly.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): I can reduce this to one question, and that has to do with the security arrangements.

Mr. Minister, I'm just wondering whether the government has been able to reach a consensus with protest leaders that respects the freedom of assembly and speech on the one hand and law and order on the other. What happens very often is that, after these things take place, there's a lot of blame attributed to each side that one side has broken the bargain. Those are the allegations. Is there an agreement beforehand as to exactly where the two sides stand, and what people can and can't do?

Mr. John Manley: Well, as you know, there will be opportunities. Not only the people's summit but also extensive meetings are occurring between government, and representatives of governments, and representatives of civil society. However, at the time of the summit, as you know, some of those who have said they intend to come have also said that they intend to prevent the meeting from happening. I think we have really no choice except to ensure that security is adequate to enable the meeting to occur.

So, yes, there's a place for demonstration. Demonstration is an important element of democratic society. However, fundamental to democratic society is the ability of people to go about their business peacefully, and we'll have to protect that as a first priority.

The Chair: What level of support is the government giving to the people's summit, Minister?

Mr. John Manley: Both the federal government as well as the Government of Quebec are contributing funds in the order $300,000 from the federal government and $200,000 from the Government of Quebec to the holding of the people's summit.

The Chair: I'm really sorry, colleagues, but we're over the time.

Ministers, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it and we look forward to continuing this study on the summit.

Thank you, colleagues.