FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I would like to call this meeting to order. We have a quorum for the purposes of taking evidence.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome a group of distinguished witnesses who have taken the time to come and join us. I would like to apologize to you personally as I'm going to have to leave at 4:15 p.m. because I have an emergency in Toronto. However, we will have a full complement of other members of the committee here.

I'm going to ask Elizabeth May if she would go first because she has other fish to fry—I don't know if we should describe the environment minister as a fish to be fried or what, but—

Ms. Elizabeth May (Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada): I only said that in terms of the fisheries minister—

The Chair: Now that he's environment minister, you can fry him anyway.

Ms. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've made my apologies personally to as many members of the committee as I could when we were just getting organized because I will be doing the NGO equivalent of jet-setting—I have to catch a bus.

I will just begin by making a couple of opening comments. For those of you who don't know, the Sierra Club is an environmental group. We've been active in Canada since the late 1960s but have existed globally since 1892. So we understand the concept of working across borders.

• 1535

I'd like to make the point that the Sierra Club of Canada is neither against trade nor are we against free trade. What we are against, and what we're very concerned about, is that the current model of economic organizations—we see it now in the free trade agreement; NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement; and in the post-Uruguay Round, the version we now call the GATT and the World Trade Organization—is no longer, in our view, fundamentally about trade.

These agreements are about an economic order that exists primarily to ensure expanding profits for transnational corporations. They have grown in a way that I would suggest the initial drafters of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would never have imagined. They have exceeded their legitimate social and political mandate, and in the process I think they have lost legitimacy with the public. They are no longer just about the commercial buying and selling of goods across borders, which is what most Canadians understand by trade. They are in fact about expanding the political role of transnational corporations and reducing the role and the scope of domestic governments to act to protect the environment, natural resources, health standards, labour standards, or whatever.

I disagree with our Minister of International Trade on this point. This is not a problem just of wording or interpretation such as the difficulties we're now experiencing with chapter 11. The agreements are so fundamentally directed at increasing corporate clout that a few nice words here and there are ineffective and in effect get steamrolled by the overriding effort to meet the needs of transnationals.

What we've learned since the NAFTA came into effect is that “the protective language doesn't work”. You can look to article 20 of the GATT and see how it's been gutted by interpretation at the World Trade Organization. Or we can look at chapter 11, where basically any agreement that sets out to create powers in a transnational corporation to put it on an equal footing with government to sue for the impacts of regulations—which were certainly not intended in any way to be expropriation of assets of the corporation, but for which the corporation claims it has lost an expectation of profits—is clearly outrageous.

One of our fundamental concerns is we don't have the text of the FTAA. We know, and we commend Minister Pettigrew for deciding, that chapter 11 in its current language is a mistake. But we think it's more than a wording problem. The problem is that the model is flawed.

Now, we'd also point out that when NAFTA came in, we were promised that it would be very good at protecting the environment. We were given the protection of the Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. If these agreements through their implementation were to be seen incidentally to affect NAFTA, they were essentially behind a firewall; they were safe from NAFTA actions because these treaties were named in NAFTA.

In the recent S.D. Myers case, we saw that a chapter 11 arbitration panel actually found that recourse to the Basel Convention was of no use. They ruled that since the United States hadn't ratified the Basel Convention, even though it was explicitly mentioned in NAFTA as an agreement to be protected, Canada couldn't have recourse to it.

We have also seen that NAFTA included an agreement, or at least a side agreement, generally referred to as the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation. I note that, although the agreement and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation that it created are essentially toothless, it's done quite a lot of good work. But apparently even a toothless environmental side agreement is too much for the new round and there's no talk of having any such hemispheric agreement for environmental cooperation in place.

Now, what's happened to trade agreements? Why do I refer to them past and present as different? Why are they now transnational power grabs?

I suggest in answer to this a very interesting insight, which I found somewhat electrifying from Dr. Ernst van Weizacher. He's a German member of parliament, former head of the Wupertal Institute, now chair of the German Parliament's Study Commission on Globalization of the World Economy: Challenges and Resources. Dr. van Weizacher has seen dramatic changes in the behaviour of capital and in the nature of these agreements since the end of the Cold War.

In his view—and I mention this to you because I think it's fascinating to get a historical perspective—before the end of the Cold War, capital had something to prove. We were in an ideological struggle, the notion of free-market capitalism versus the closed Soviet system. Capital had to prove it could behave itself. With the collapse of the Cold War, in Dr. van Weizacher's words, capital has nothing left to prove. It is now exerting itself to do nothing but increase its own profit margins at obscenely large rates. It no longer is constrained by those things that constrained it during the Cold War. I thought this was a very interesting insight.

• 1540

Minister Pettigrew has said that we don't need to worry about seeing the text for Quebec City because one trade agreement is more or less like the others. Now the obvious point that most of my colleagues have made in response to this in the media has been to say, well, if you're transparent about something, we get to see the actual text. It's not enough to tell us one is like another.

But I make a more fundamental point here. One trade agreement is not necessarily like another. I direct you to the features of the European Union. As each nation within the European Union surrendered sovereignty in order to create a trade bloc within Europe, they adopted the following features: a supranational, democratically elected, European Parliament; an acceptance that every country within the trading bloc would have to meet the highest environmental standards in operation within that trading bloc—in other words, every country, including Spain, had to raise itself to the standards under which German industries operated; and last, in order to help Spain and other poorer countries within the European Union do this, a transfer of resources from north to south.

These features are completely absent from NAFTA. Mexico's been put in the position of attracting investment by accepting maquiladoras with situations and conditions that would be appalling in Canada, with toxic waste running through open sewers in the middle of a community. Had the NAFTA model been more like the European Union, it might not have provoked the massive movement that you now see mobilizing against the Summit of the Americas. I think it's important to recognize that not all of us are just against globalization. We're against this kind of globalization, an economic globalization that serves certain interests and ignores others.

In other words, NAFTA operates as a one-way ratchet down on environmental protection. The GATT and WTO operate in the same way. Both are premised on a race to the bottom to secure competitive advantage. The FTAA must not follow a flawed model, nor need it do so. No new trade agreements should be negotiated until we address the evident problems with NAFTA and GATT.

I think with that I'm going to depart. I'm sure that other members of this panel will be able to elucidate what's wrong with chapter 11. I support the points that John Foster, I think, is about to make on intellectual property as well, and the investor state.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. May. We won't consider your leaving our room as a race to the bottom—

Ms. Elizabeth May: It's a race to the bus.

The Chair: We'll assume you're just racing, period. So thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to Common Frontiers. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Foster, I understand you'll be sharing your time.

Mr. Foster.

Mr. John Foster (Principal Researcher, Civil Society at the North-South Institute, Common Frontiers): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We're speaking today on behalf of Common Frontiers. I will provide a general introduction and review of concerns and John Dillon will look at a specific area of concern: trade-related intellectual property.

We're speaking on behalf of Common Frontiers. This is a working group or coalition that has been working across sectors in Canada for about 13 years on trade investment development and human rights issues with a focus on this hemisphere. We work in close collaboration with Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale. We are both part of the formation of the Hemispheric Social Alliance, which brings together various social movements across the hemisphere and which was formed at the time of the hemispheric trade ministers' meeting in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, in 1997.

Common Frontiers has appeared here before. In 1999 we tabled a comprehensive study called “Alternatives for the Americas”, which was the product of collaborative effort across the countries. In 1999, in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we organized an encounter between the hemisphere's trade ministers and civil society organizations from around the hemisphere. It may be useful to note that in that encounter, in which Mr. Pettigrew brought some 20 other trade ministers to our meeting place, it was organized without security fences or police lines. The ministers came to our meeting place and dealt with civil society without trouble or incident.

• 1545

On that occasion, we presented Mr. Pettigrew with two papers, one on investment finance and debt in the Americas, the other on social exclusion, jobs, poverty, and prospects for the FTAA. These papers contained over sixty recommendations, and although we asked at the time for a reply in detail, to this day, more than sixteen months later, we have yet to receive a written response from the minister.

Similarly, in September 2000, Common Frontiers, along with more than 330 groups from throughout the hemisphere, sent a letter to the negotiations committee requesting the release of the draft text. Similarly, to date, that has been without result.

I want to raise a number of areas where we'd consider new directions for continental integration. We want to be clear we are not lobbying for minor adjustments to the FTAA. In fact, our alternatives, taken together, would call for really a qualitatively different kind of agreement, an agreement aimed at development and social justice in the hemisphere.

To illustrate how our proposals differ, we'll look at two crucial areas, the first being investment.

In the case of investment, whereas NAFTA imposes prohibitions on performance requirements such as national content rules, our alternatives for the Americas would promote the use of performance requirements. National governments could require foreign investors to include domestic content in their products, to hire local personnel, to transfer appropriate technology, and other means.

Secondly, with regard to the investor-state mechanism to which the previous speaker referred, our concerns are fundamental and based on concerns for democratic sovereignty, due process, and transparency, as well as sustainability. Unlike Mr. Pettigrew, who only wants to clarify the language in NAFTA relating to the definition of expropriation and measures “tantamount to expropriation”, our alternatives would reject the investor-state mechanism in its entirety. This mechanism, which cedes power to sue governments to foreign corporations, violates the most basic principles of democracy and strikes out the rights of citizens and of their governments, whether municipal, provincial, territorial, tribal, or federal. Its lack of transparency and access is regressive. We therefore urge this committee to recommend clear provisions for performance requirements on investment and the rejection of any investor-state mechanism in any FTAA.

We have quite a list of other priority concerns that I will leave to your reading. Mr. Dillon will shortly address the issue of intellectual property rights in particular.

Let me move to follow up on a presentation made recently by one of our members, Rights and Democracy, from Montreal, to your committee last week. We wish to endorse the approach brought forward before this committee by Warren Allmand and Diana Bronson.

Canada needs to become a full member of the inter-American human rights family. The terms of Canadian ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Protocol of San Salvador: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights need to be clarified now, and ratification needs to be proceeded with. The currently pending, so-called freestanding conventions on torture, violence against women, and enforced disappearances should also be ratified. There should be energetic engagement of official and non-governmental energies in how to implement and strengthen these instruments, and there is work here for parliamentarians like yourselves.

There are two tracks in implementing a human rights approach that we would like to emphasize. One is the clear recognition of the priority of human rights law. How might this be accomplished? As a lay person, it has always seemed to me to be deceptively simple: draft a clause—not one in the preamble, but one high up in the operative clauses of a trade and investment agreement—that simply states that nothing in the agreement shall inhibit or prevent the parties from implementing their human rights obligations as expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights, the American convention, the San Salvador protocol, and the ILO conventions to which they pertain.

In the case of dispute or alleged injury, a case can be taken by the states, their citizens, or an interested third party to an established tribunal that shall make an adjudication. That tribunal might be either the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Which one might be debated, or perhaps it might be both, depending on the nature of the case.

• 1550

We urge this committee to recommend this kind of approach, and, specifically, that you recommend this kind of clause.

Finally, I want to say this sort of detail, which we could reproduce with regard to a variety of other potential parts of the agreement, illustrates why access to the issues and texts under negotiation early in the process is essential. This is why detailed parliamentary and public debate, as well as a constant review of the process being taken by our negotiators, is the key. If the medium is the message, then the process affects the product of international negotiations in the case of trade.

Why do we persist in this peculiar affection for secrecy in the case of trade and investment agreements, whereas in other negotiations that affect trade and investment, like the biosafety negotiations held in Montreal recently, we can operate in a much more accessible and democratic fashion? Will this committee recommend a change of approach?

Finally, let me ask the committee one question. In your debates last week, it was mentioned in passing that the government had undertaken assessments of the potential human rights implications of the free trade area of the Americas. If you have received studies to this end, we would like them to be made public. We would like to know if you have received studies to this end. If not, we would like to know if you will request these studies and then share them with the rest of us once the studies have in fact been done.

Thank you.

The Chair: Pretty well everything we get is of public record, so we'd certainly share them with you. We'll check—

Mr. John Foster: Thank you.

The Chair: —but you're more than welcome to have anything we see, Mr. Foster. There's no secrecy here. We have no secrets.

Mr. Dillon.

Mr. John Dillon (Research Coordinator, Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice, Common Frontiers): Mr. Chairman, I wish to address a particular issue of intellectual property rights in the context of the free trade area of the Americas.

The whole initiative to have intellectual property rights treated within trade agreements came first and foremost from the pharmaceutical industry. As you well know, at the time NAFTA was still under negotiation, the Mulroney government extended, through Bill C-91, further rights on pharmaceutical patents at the expense of cheaper generic substitutes. We have long argued that there are provisions, both within the WTO, TRIPS, and NAFTA, that would still allow compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals under certain conditions, but the Government of Canada has chosen not to take advantage of those provisions.

Meanwhile, the transnational drug companies are using the WTO dispute settlement tribunals to further change Canada's laws. One recent case prohibits generic companies from stockpiling medicines in anticipation of the day the patents expire. Another case has led to legislation that is now before the Senate, in the form of Bill S-17, to extend drug patents to twenty years from seventeen. A 1997 study at Queen's University estimated the cost of adding an extra three years to patent life could be some $9 billion by the year 2017.

In developing countries—

The Chair: Sorry, is that the cost to our public health system or the cost to the—

Mr. John Dillon: That's an overall cost, Mr. Chairman, for both private and public costs for pharmaceuticals in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Dillon: In developing countries, the lack of generics is not just a question of costs, but also of life and death. Some developing countries have taken advantage of particular clauses within the TRIPS to license generic copying of medicines to meet emergencies like the AIDS epidemic, or to allow for parallel imports—that is, the import of cheaper copies of drugs—from other countries.

In this hemisphere, Brazil has a specific program that allows the generic licensing of drugs that were patented prior to 1997. This has meant that some of the major anti-retroviral drugs used to treat AIDS patients are available free of cost to AIDS sufferers in Brazil. The same triple-drug treatment that costs $10,000 to $15,000 in North America—that's in U.S. dollars—is available for only $700 in Brazil, and Médicins sans frontières believes the price could be brought down to $200 a year. An Indian generic company has offered to produce the same treatment for $350 a year for Médicins sans frontières.

• 1555

Recently, Brazil took another step: licensing the generic copying of an anti-retroviral drug that came onto the market after the date specified in this legislation. The transnational drug companies are alarmed by this precedent, so they've begun to take action. They've persuaded the U.S. government to bring a case before the WTO against the Brazilian law. In fact, they're so alarmed that they have offered to sell the same medicines to African governments at what they say are their costs of production, because they're alarmed at the precedents.

The U.S. government, meanwhile, has put both Brazil and Argentina on its notorious 301 watch list—a warning that the U.S. may take unilateral trade action in retaliation. The U.S. has also threatened the Dominican Republic with withdrawal of access for its textiles unless it withdraws a compulsory licensing and parallel importing of generic drugs. One writer has called this a modern version of gunboat diplomacy.

As the FTAA negotiations go on, the pharmaceutical companies will see in them an opportunity for closing what they perceive to be loopholes in trade-related intellectual property codes. Negotiations should be an opportunity, on the other hand, to reverse the trend to ever greater protection for corporate patent-holders and to establish the priority of access and affordability to essential medicines. Many developing countries believe that not just drugs for treating people with HIV/AIDS but the whole list of essential medicines identified by the World Health Organization should be exempt. We therefore urge this committee, Mr. Chairman, to recommend that the Government of Canada work diligently for the reversal of trade-related intellectual property rules and an end to U.S. unilateralism at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.

Industry Minister Tobin is quoted as saying he will reopen the debate on whether drug prices are being kept too high for too long. This is especially important in Canada, where spending on drugs is the fastest growing health care expense in Canada. Parliamentarians in this House should also join their European parliamentary colleagues in demanding the withdrawal of the court case 39 drug companies have initiated against the Government of South Africa.

Finally, Canada should use the FTAA talks as an occasion to make it clear that all developing countries should have the right to license the reproduction of parallel importing of AIDS drugs and of the entire list of essential medicines in order to safeguard people's human right to health care.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dillon.

We'll next go to Mr. McCreery, from the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.

Mr. Liam McCreery (President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to provide our views on the negotiations towards the free trade area of the Americas.

I would like to take just a little time to introduce our organization. CAFTA is a new coalition of associations, companies, and organizations in the agriculture and agrifood industry that rely on trade. Through multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, CAFTA seeks the creation of an open, market-oriented, subsidy- and tariff-free trading environment for agricultural and agrifood products. Our membership encompasses associations of primary producers and processors, and also represents exporters and marketers of agrifood products. Our members account for hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs in production and processing and for more than half of Canadian agrifood exports.

I understand you have asked us to talk about the proposed free trade area of the Americas today, but I would be remiss if I didn't stress to you that it is in the current agricultural negotiations at the World Trade Organization where the greatest benefits will be found for agriculture and the agrifood sector. It is at the WTO where the greatest challenges lie.

For that reason, CAFTA's primary focus is on global trade reform. Many sectors of our industry will only see real benefits when the massive export subsidies and trade-distorting support expenditures of countries both inside and outside of the proposed FTAA are addressed. We note in particular the price-depressing effects of export subsidies being provided by the European Union and the production and price distortions caused by the massive domestic support programs being provided by the United States.

• 1600

However, while we are cautious about agreements that don't address global trade, we also recognize that by entering into bilateral and regional free trade agreements, countries can help to advance the international trade agenda and at the same time reduce barriers to trade within specific regions of the world.

Therefore, CAFTA supports regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade in agriculture and agrifood products, provided that these efforts do not undermine the longer-term goal of maximum reductions in agricultural tariffs on a global and reciprocal basis.

As Canada enters into an increasing number of bilateral and regional trade agreements, it is important to ensure that the goal is real improvements in access for all Canadian products on a commodity-specific basis.

Our organization will not support regional agreements that result in gains for one sector, for example, telecommunications or aerospace, at the expense of another, such as refined sugar or malt.

Also, before focusing on new trade agreements, Canada should ensure that our industries are benefiting from the agreements of which we are already a part. We refer to the lack of progress that has been made in obtaining compensation under the WTO from Brazil for its implementation of a tariff quota on Canadian wheat in 1996. If the intent for the FTAA is to achieve benefits for all sectors, Canada should first resolve its WTO agricultural issues with Brazil before risking the entrenchment of the current breach of the rules in another trade agreement.

Phil deKemp, who is from the malting industry, will expand on this issue when my formal presentation is complete, if that is okay with the chair. It'll be within our ten minutes.

The Chair: Okay, if you can do that.

Mr. Liam McCreery: I would like to turn now to some specific goals that CAFTA has for agricultural trade within a free trade area of the Americas.

First, in the area of market access, the market-access goal for the FTAA is to progressively eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers as well as other measures with equivalent effects that restrict trade between participating countries. CAFTA supports this goal in general with the following additions.

First, it is vital that access be reciprocal. Countries must provide equivalent access to all participants in the agreement in order to receive access.

This issue is of particular concern to our sugar-producing and sugar-processing members. Canada is a world leader in terms of the openness of its sugar market. We import nearly half the sugar coming into North America annually even though our country represents a very small portion of the total population of North America. Currently Canada does not have a duty on raw sugar from FTAA countries and maintains only a very small tariff on refined sugar. Many FTAA countries have high tariffs on refined sugar that must be brought down significantly before they achieve any additional access to Canadian markets.

Second, as we move towards tariff-free trade, Canada must ensure that a formula approach to reductions is used to ensure that very high tariffs are subject to large reductions in order to harmonize tariffs amongst members. Then we should proceed with further cuts to all tariffs.

Tariff reductions must be made on a product-specific basis to ensure that meaningful access is provided for all commodities.

Access must be provided equally for substitutable products and between partners to the FTAA and other regional trade agreements.

This is of particular concern to our oilseed producer and processor members. Consumption of vegetable oil in FTAA countries is increasing, increasing potential for increased exports of Canadian oil. To realize the potential, Canadian product is accorded the same access as that of palm oil, which is currently the main vegetable oil used.

In addition, it is important to ensure that the tariff escalation that is currently in place on refined versus crude oil in many countries is eliminated and that Canadian oil gets the same access as that accorded to partners to existing trade agreements.

And finally, as in the WTO negotiations, CAFTA supports sectorial initiatives such as zero-for-zero agreements for certain groups of products, such as oilseeds and oilseed products and barley and malt, where the industry supports and initiates such agreements.

• 1605

With regard to export competition, it is consistent with our goal for WTO agricultural negotiations that CAFTA supports the stated goals of the FTAA committee on agriculture that call for the elimination of export subsidies affecting trade in the hemisphere. FTAA countries must agree not to subsidize the export of products into markets of their FTAA partners. They should also agree to work together in the WTO towards the elimination of all export subsidies internationally and to develop international trade rules that will ensure that other programs such as food aid, export credits, and promotion do not serve as export subsidies.

Also consistent with WTO goals is the principle that the FTAA should prohibit the use of export taxes and restrictions that provide processors with a cost advantage in procuring raw product.

In the area of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures was one of the biggest achievements of the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. This agreement commits WTO members to ensure that measures are only applied based on sound, internationally recognized science. CAFTA encourages FTAA negotiators to strive for the same agreement within the FTAA and other regional and bilateral agreements. SPS measures must not be used as unjustifiable trade barriers and must not discriminate between countries.

In addition, it will be extremely important that Canada ensure that all partners of the FTAA are clean of reportable diseases and that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is satisfied with the inspection and sanitation systems in these countries so as not to put our livestock and meat industries at risk. Our livestock and processor members also encourage negotiators to seek system-wide approval for all meat processing establishments that are inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Attention also needs to be paid to anti-dumping measures. The use of anti-dumping actions has increased internationally, and Canadian agriculture and agrifood products have been the target of these actions. As a growing number of countries, including those within the proposed FTAA, establish anti-dumping legislation and begin to take anti-dumping actions, it is important that the rules be made clear to ensure that the cyclical nature of the agrifood sectors is recognized.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CAFTA sees the value in pursuing regional free trade agreements such as the proposed free trade area of the Americas, provided that they complement and reinforce efforts to achieve more open trade on a reciprocal basis internationally and that they do not compromise any one sector of the Canadian economy in order to benefit another. And with that, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: I'm wondering how to do that. You've actually had your ten minutes, and I'm a little nervous about opening the door to somebody else because we have three more presenters. That's a full half hour, and that won't leave much time for questions. I appreciate that we're all going to be crushed this afternoon. I wonder if we could leave it. Certainly if you wanted to put in a report to us, we'd be more than happy to receive it from the malting industry, and that might be the best way to handle that. You might let him answer some questions.

Mr. Liam McCreery: That's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Now, Ms. Anthony, before I turn to you, because you're the next, I wonder, colleagues, if I could excuse myself. As I said, I have to get an early.... I'm going to ask Mr. Harvard if he'd be good enough to take the chair.

Colleagues, for next Tuesday we had booked Mr. Lortie for the morning. You will recall he is the Sherpa. He's not free in the morning, so I'm going to book him in at a special time in the afternoon. I think members are interested in having some time with Mr. Lortie. He's obviously key to what's going on, so we'll have to try to get a special booking for him Tuesday afternoon.

I apologize for having to leave, but Mr. Harvard will no doubt discipline this unruly band.

Thank you very much.

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

I understand there are only two more witnesses to hear from before we go to rounds of questions, so we'll hear from Ms. Anthony.

• 1610

Ms. Jen Anthony (National Deputy Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students): Good afternoon. The Canadian Federation of Students would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to present our concerns regarding the free trade area of the Americas and the Summit of the Americas that's scheduled for Quebec City next month.

Since 1981 the Canadian Federation of Students has been the progressive and democratic voice of university and college students across this country. Today we are comprised of over 400,000 students from 60 university and college student unions from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia.

The assumption on which our movement was founded—education is a fundamental right, not a privilege limited to the wealthy—does not make a distinction between primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. A free and democratic society and a vibrant and socially just economy depend on universal access to post-secondary education.

The system of education for which we advocate is one that is based on the principles of the Canada Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. Unfortunately, current FTAA negotiations put at risk Canada's public education system, including post-secondary education.

As the Government of Canada participates in the negotiation of the free trade area of the Americas, the Canadian Federation of Students asks that the federal government act courageously and stand up to those who would seek to redefine education as a for-profit commodity rather than as a public good.

The free trade area of the Americas, to include 34 countries of north, south, and central America, would be the most far-reaching trade agreement ever negotiated, with a scope that will reach into every area of life. It would have legislative and judicial authority to challenge any laws, practices, and policies of individual countries and strike them down if they are deemed to be barriers to trade.

Currently, the FTAA is being negotiated outside the realm of citizen scrutiny as the Canadian government, among others, will not publicly release the text of the agreement. We reject outright any process by which our government, supposedly acting on our behalf, negotiates international treaties in secret. We wish to use this opportunity to reiterate our demand that the text of the FTAA be released for public consideration.

In reference to the secrecy of the FTAA negotiations, International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew has stated that nothing looks more like a free trade agreement than another free trade agreement. Thus, we will use our knowledge of similar agreements to focus our comments today.

The FTAA is a trade and investment regime, a body of rules governing the hemisphere's economy, entrenched as international law and with enormous powers of enforcement. The rules, conventions, and procedures that it constitutes will confer unprecedented rights to investors, will limit country sovereignty, and will subvert local democratic self-government. The rules are enforced through a set of legally binding constraints, backed up by trade sanctions.

The FTAA will give private investors and transnational corporations unprecedented powers. They will have sweeping authority even in supposedly protected areas of education, including post-secondary education, health care, social security, the environment, water, culture, and all government services, whether first nations, federal, provincial, regional or municipal.

The FTAA turns human rights and the public good, such as education and health care, into commodities or products that can be bought and sold for profit, while stripping citizens of their democratic right to direct their country's public policies. The products, called services, are labelled sectors of the economy. Examples include such things as courses, degrees, and even our very colleges and universities.

The powerful combination of a new services agreement with the investor-state rules means that the FTAA will give transnational corporations unprecedented new rights. By transferring power away from democratically elected governments, the FTAA will subvert any public control over the economy.

• 1615

I would like to quote the deputy director for trade at the Organization of American States—this is from about a year ago, March 25, 2000—who said:

Since services do not face trade barriers in the form of border tariffs or taxes, market access is restricted through national regulations. Thus the liberalisation of trade in services implies modifications of national laws and regulations, which make these negotiations more difficult and more sensitive for governments.

To preserve Canada's post-secondary education system, this public system requires a complex and comprehensive framework of federal, provincial, and territorial policies, laws, and funding arrangements that restrict the rights of private investors and service providers.

The federation believes the Canadian government, as well as provincial and territorial governments, must have the power to enact laws to protect the public system of education, laws that reflect and enhance the regional, cultural, linguistic, and political complexities of Canada.

Stripped clean of any pretence to equity, fairness, quality, and accessibility, herein lies new public policy, or ideology, of post-secondary education. Education is considered a business opportunity and a sector of the economy like any other. Under this market-obsessed direction of Industry Canada, education has now become perversely redefined as a “knowledge-based industry” that offers “training services” and “instructional products” requiring different “delivery models”.

Again I quote, and this is from Sergio Marchi, the former International Trade Minister, currently the Canadian Ambassador to the World Trade Organization:

Education is now an industry. Canada needs to approach the international marketplace for educational services with the same discipline and commitment that we bring to other sectors.

The federation rejects this vision of education. Education is a universal right, not a business opportunity. Education is not optional but an essential part of being a full and equal citizen in the new economy, and it is a mistake to redefine it as a commodity, something that can be traded or bought and sold in the global market.

Education is part of what the ancients called the res publica, the public's thing, the common good. Education must therefore be publicly funded and administered for all to enjoy and benefit from equally. Like Canada's cherished health care system, education must be protected from FTAA's attempts to reduce it to a personal privilege or the FTAA's effort to subject it to the profit-driven logic of supply and demand in the international marketplace.

Currently, many Canadian provinces allow training companies to sell diplomas for profit. However, they are not legally recognized as universities because under the law the granting of university degrees is restricted to domestic, non-profit institutions. This will change. When for-profit universities are established in Canada, degree-granting authority will have to be given to any foreign private for-profit education companies to ensure compliance with national treatment and most favoured nation rules.

By simply following the rules, these foreign-based corporations will have rights that limit government policy to a greater extent than with domestic investors under Canadian law. Foreign investors will have the right to establish themselves in any FTAA country; they will have the right to compete for public dollars with public institutions like colleges and universities. Even worse, from the moment a public service is privatized, the FTAA rules will make it impossible for citizens to reclaim public space and retreat from privatization initiatives, because foreign investors will have the right to sue Canadians for compensation for lost current and future profits.

The aim of the FTAA is to remove barriers to trade and investment. In the world of international trade, our public schools themselves are considered such barriers. Public funding is defined as an unfair subsidy. Public administration is called government monopoly. The public regulation of tuition fees is seen as predatory pricing. These forms of public financing and democratic control of post-secondary institutions will be challenged as non-tariff barriers. Any policy that restricts investment by foreign-based for-profit universities and colleges, like affirmative action hiring or residency requirements for governing boards, could be challenged as a trade barrier. Public subsidies will have to be made available to the private, for-profit institutions.

Under the FTAA, the public education system itself will become slowly dismantled as public funds are depleted.

It is our resistance to the very idea that education is an industry, a business, a product, a commodity, a sector, that has compelled the student movement to organize in historic numbers. In recent years thousands of students and their supporters have demonstrated against homegrown structural adjustment economic policies and international structural adjustment economic policies promoted by various financial institutions and trade regimes, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

• 1620

Students have marched, rallied, organized forums, leafleted, camped out, and even conducted strikes to highlight the threats to public post-secondary education. Part of the criticism raised in these student protests was to call into question the subordination of human rights—the right to education and health care, for example—to the international rules of trade and commerce and the dictates of private corporations.

In April students will again organize. We will travel to Quebec City to protest against the free trade area of the Americas, and across the country students will organize in their communities in opposition to international free trade.

The members of the Canadian Federation of Students have raised serious concerns about the criminalization of dissent and excessive security measures that are being undertaken in Quebec City. The violence being perpetrated by police against those who choose to voice their opposition to free trade and corporate-led globalization is not acceptable to the people of this country. Money for fences, batons, riot gear, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, wooden bullets, and plastic handcuffs represent the extent to which the Government of Canada will go to ensure that only those voices friendly to their pro-corporate agenda are heard. Furthermore, such mechanisms serve only to intimidate Canadians whose rights are being trampled.

In conclusion I would like to say it was a Canadian who helped co-author the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which article 27(1) provides:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible on the basis of merit.

Furthermore, in 1976 Canada recognized the right to education by signing the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13 2(c) obliges signatory states to achieve the full realization of the right to equally accessible higher education, “in particular by the progressive introduction of free education”.

To keep these international promises, the federal government must adopt another global strategy than the one being promoted under the auspices of free trade. That is, Canada must create and support democratically accountable institutions whose focus is not just finance and trade but also the advancement and protection of human rights, social justice, and the environment. We must promote institutions in which knowledge of, for example, the humanities and science and technology is equally shared, not traded to the highest bidders.

In anticipation of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April, the Canadian Federation of Students calls for: one, the release of the comprehensive texts for the free trade area of the Americas; two, Canada's withdrawal from any current and future negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas; and, three, the protection of members of civil society from police brutality and repression in Quebec City.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you, Ms. Anthony.

Now we'll turn to our last witness before questions, Robert Keyes.

Mr. Robert Keyes (Senior Vice-President, International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Chair.

I'm pleased to be here this afternoon to present the views of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the FTAA and the summit and to respond to your questions. I apologize for the absence of my president, who was invited and had hoped to be here but at the last moment could not make it.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its members are on record as a supporter of free international trade and continued liberalization of trade. This was reaffirmed last autumn when we put into play renewed resolutions from our coast-to-coast membership on Canada's trade priorities. So it will come as no surprise to you that we do support the creation of a free trade area of the Americas and negotiations to that end.

The reason is quite simple, and I would hope it would be obvious to everyone. Canada is, has been, and is going to continue to be a trading nation, and we need to take every opportunity we can to expand our international opportunities. Being a relatively small country of only 31 million people, our domestic market is limited. We have to trade with the outside world. We need to do it within the discipline of a rules-based system that international trade agreements bring. If we don't have such agreements, then we're going to be caught between much larger partners, such as the United States and the EU, which have the ability to squeeze us out of their markets.

• 1625

If you doubt the need for these agreements, simply consider that Canadian exports to the U.S. and Mexico have increased 80% and 65% respectively in the first five years of the NAFTA. Exports are 43% of our GDP. This is no coincidence. One in three jobs depends on exports. More than a million new jobs have been created since the NAFTA came into force. Today's unemployment rate of 6.9% is the lowest in nearly 25 years. This is no coincidence either.

If we say no to an FTAA, it's going to hamper us from expanding our exports into a burgeoning market of 500 million people south of the Rio Grande. Broadening our trading opportunities, trying to take advantage of these opportunities, and creating a system to make this happen will help to keep Canadians working and build a better standard of living for all of us.

But an FTAA is not just about benefits for Canada. It will respond to the needs of the dynamic and fast-growing economies of our hemispheric partners. For those countries in the Americas with high unemployment and tremendous social challenges—and there is no shortage of social challenges they face—an FTAA will help them to grow and develop so that they can put the resources toward tackling their problems in a way they're going to find very difficult to do otherwise.

It's quite clear that at the FTAA negotiating table there is great disparity in the capabilities of the various countries involved. The same has been true at the WTO. It's a challenge for us to ensure a successful FTAA delivers benefits for all partners in the agreement. If it doesn't, then it's not going to work. As a developed country, we have to work hard to make sure it becomes a win-win situation. There has to be a widespread sharing of the benefits.

In our view, the anti-FTAA arguments do not coincide with the best interests of Canada or of any country. The simple fact is that trade and commerce help to raise standards of living and encourage innovation. The absence of that fosters poverty.

Much has been made about the big companies and their agendas. This ignores the rapid growth in SME-sized companies found in communities from coast to coast to coast, which are capitalizing on opportunities outside of our borders for their goods and services. In fact, 70% of Canada's exporters are small and medium-sized companies with less than $1 million in annual sales. These small companies are also those who are creating the lion's share of jobs in this country. So they need a good rules-based system in which to work.

Let me zero in on a few key objectives of the negotiations. The first is the reduction of tariffs. Notwithstanding falling tariffs as a result of multilateral trade agreements, tariff barriers remain an important component of the FTAA discussions for Canada and for the other partners at the table. Of the current imports from FTAA countries, 94% enter Canada duty free. But we face tariffs on some of our key products. For example, paper products face tariffs ranging from 5% to 22%; telecommunications equipment, from 3.5% to 32%; auto parts, from 12% to 20%; and potash, from 4% to 12%. These are high numbers, and it's important that these tariff barriers be tackled.

From the perspective of countries offering their goods to Canada, we're going to have to demonstrate that our own market liberalization efforts are met in a timely manner. It's a two-way street.

Canada has recognized for some time that a rapid change in tariffs has an impact on industry structure and competitiveness in the reciprocating countries. That's why there would be phased reductions. This is normal practice.

Another priority is in the services arena, where Canada has a lot to offer. The service sector is the fastest growing sector in many countries, as economies shift to a new basis. In our case we have a great opportunity in services related to environment, energy, telecommunications, financial, and a variety of professional categories.

A key objective has to be to ensure the efficient movement of people across borders.

A third priority is what I call business facilitation. This is not an exciting topic for most people, but TBTs, or technical barriers to trade, are essential to the smooth flow of people and goods. Customs procedures, visa requirements, documentation standards, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, rules of origin, these nuts-and-bolts items are very important to the structure of a trading system and they're high on our agenda.

• 1630

Some of the countries of the Americas have customs administrations that are underfunded and understaffed and don't have the experience to ensure consistent and predictable treatment to people coming inside the countries. Canada is already providing significant capacity-building assistance in the region. This is important and it should continue.

A fourth priority is investment. We strongly believe that this has to be an integral part of the FTAA, but the issue has several components—issues of barriers, non-discrimination, and protection of investors. It's important to think about these separately as well as together.

The countries of Latin America need inbound investment, but there's a host of specific barriers that need to be discussed through the FTAA process. Some of these are apparent; others don't really become readily evident until you go to try to launch an investment.

On investor protection you will recall the 1999 report on Canada's approach to the FTAA. This very committee noted that strong investment protection measures should be a priority objective. We agree. We were also encouraged to see Minister Pettigrew affirm his strong support for the need for investor protection in his article in the National Post last week.

Investors require certainty, confidence, and fair treatment from the jurisdictions in which they will invest. Canadian firms investing in Latin America want this assurance. Exactly the same is expected of firms investing in Canada.

At the end of the day it's about host governments being held accountable to the rules that they themselves have agreed to, and it's about non-discrimination. If there is going to be discrimination, let governments be transparent and above board, and let an investor decide accordingly if they want to go ahead.

As a country that both needs international investment and is a source of investment itself, Canada must respect this quid pro quo.

Dispute settlement is another important aspect of this debate. We did a survey of international investment barriers last year and 93% of the respondents said that investor-state dispute settlement provisions were either very important or important. So we look to an FTAA to incorporate measures that will allow for disputes to be handled fairly and efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with an observation about the summit agenda and its relationship to the FTAA. Contrary to how it's been portrayed in the media, Quebec City is about much more than trade. No FTAA agreement is going to be signed in Quebec City. Governments are at a stock-taking point in negotiations; there is much to come. The way forward and the pace of negotiations are going to be important topics for discussion towards the end of the month. At the summit, the other agenda items on democracy, connectivity, and human potential are vitally important to the overall progress of development in the Americas.

A commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and peace and security are fundamental to fostering better living conditions and raised standards of income for all members of the Americas. This is exactly the kind of environment in which business, economic development, growth, and prosperity for everyone flourishes.

From a business perspective, we encourage the government leaders to work hard at these agenda items as well and to exhibit progress. We'll all be the better for it. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

Members, Mr. McCreery has indicated to me that the representative of the malting industry would take about two minutes to finish off the presentation that was started by Mr. McCreery. If it's all right, let's hear from Philip deKemp for a couple of minutes and then we'll go to questions.

We have roughly 55 minutes, so I think we have time. Mr. deKemp.

Mr. Philip A. deKemp (President, Malting Industry Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to add to Liam's comments and to give a little bit of a flavour as far as pros and cons of the FTAA are concerned.

As president of the Malting Industry Association of Canada, I wanted to bring to the committee's attention that we talk about trying to get into new trade agreements when, quite frankly, Canada still has existing obligations and rights under the WTO in countries like Brazil, and certainly in agriculture.... To give you an example, five years ago Brazil tarrified their wheat access to Canada. We lost three quarters of a million tonnes of grain, principally wheat, into Brazil, which is about $150 million.

• 1635

When Brazil does things like that, sure, they're allowed to do it under WTO by increasing tariffs, but they have to provide compensation. In Canada's case, a memorandum of understanding was negotiated three years ago to provide, as compensation, access to other agricultural products to go into Brazil, of which malt was one. Malt, our industry, represents 20% of our exports into that country and two thirds of what we produce goes to export.

Unfortunately, nothing has happened and so the question to the committee is.... It always seems to be that Canada wants to play by the rules, Canada wants to be in the game, Canada wants to, I guess the analogy is, play hockey. But if the rules don't work for you, we're saying, let's go two out of three games, or three out of five, until we win.

The point is in Canada we have $150 million of compensation owing to us and yet we're willing to take a look at another free trade agreement of the Americas without asking for compensation that is rightfully Canada's, for agricultural products, not just malt.

Certainly every time we in agriculture try to raise that issue, it always gets put to the side burner by Foreign Affairs and International Trade, because we have a bigger issue, they always tells us, than agriculture—that's Bombardier and aircraft. We have rights there but we're still not exercising them.

So the question to the standing committee is, if we're going to agree to new agreements, let's settle things that we currently have rights and obligations to, including in Brazil.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you very much, Mr. deKemp.

Now we'll go to rounds of questions. According to the rules, each member gets five minutes. Members, we have more than 45 minutes, so if you run out of time in your round, don't worry, I'm sure we can come back to you.

We'll start with the Alliance and Mr. Lunn, followed by Ms. Lalonde of the Bloc, and then we'll go to Mr. O'Brien of the government.

Mr. Lunn, five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to walk out. I had to make an important call. I didn't mean any disrespect by that.

I listened to the witnesses and also to Elizabeth May from the Sierra Club. Everybody seems to be one hundred percent focused on the FTAA as opposed to the Summit of the Americas. I'd like to get the thoughts of whoever wants to comment. I think at the Summit of the Americas there's a lot more than the FTAA, without question. There will be no trade agreement that will be concluded in Quebec City. I suspect the negotiations will be very preliminary. This is going to take until at least 2005 before anything even comes close.

So I throw it out there for your comments that there are so many other important issues we should also be discussing. We can't be naive enough to think that this is all about the FTAA. Yes, it's one component of it, but this big text that's out there, as we heard from witnesses this morning, is just the general position of the 34 member nations. It will move forward and it will be very important that we get the text and have a full, open debate.

I want to add one other comment to the previous gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Chairman. I think it was....

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. deKemp, from the malting industry.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. deKemp, I want to throw one question out to you, if you can hear me. I understand your concerns. Why are we embarking on another free trade negotiation when we're not able to even fulfil all the ones we have now? I can bring back one area, softwood lumber. It's a huge frustration for all of us here that we have free trade under NAFTA and yet the United States, it would seem, is protectionist in many areas. The flip side of that coin is, we still have to use the tools and keep moving forward, but it also may give us the tools to push them that much further using the tools that are in place now.

I believe we have prospered under the NAFTA and the free trade agreements, and although they're not perfect—we can look at the situation with Brazil and it's not perfect—that doesn't mean you just say everything's failing.

So I do think there's merit in the idea that when we're taking on the United States, or Brazil, in negotiations for the FTAA, we should be saying, listen, we want to sign a free trade agreement for the hemisphere and we expect you to honour your existing ones. And we should push them even harder so they have credibility when they come to the table. I think we can use that to our advantage.

• 1640

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there's not much time. I don't know if you just want to appoint a few people to respond....

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes, I think I'll do that. You've already used up three minutes of your five, so why don't I ask Jen Anthony and perhaps Mr. deKemp, since you singled him out, to give short answers, and maybe we can squeeze in John Foster. Could you keep your answers fairly short for this intervention?

Ms. Jen Anthony: In 60 seconds or less.... The Summit of the Americas process is obviously important. There's an opportunity there to utilize a process that will promote human rights and democracy throughout the Americas. That is at the end of the day what the process should be about.

Unfortunately, that process has been largely hijacked by negotiations on the FTAA, and most of the process at this point is towards signing that agreement. Even if we are to assume that this is not the case, that this was only a portion of the process, at the end of the day the FTAA text itself and the agreement we come to, if it looks vaguely like other free trade agreements we already have, will undermine any other work the summit might be doing around human rights and democracy.

So clearly if we have concerns about the other parts of the summit, which we do, paramount are the concerns over free trade.

Mr. Gary Lunn: There will be nothing signed in Quebec City. That's my understanding.

Ms. Jen Anthony: We're aware of that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you. We'll go to Mr. deKemp for a short reply and then to Mr. Foster.

Mr. Philip deKemp: With respect to Brazil, as far as saying we have enough time to take a look at it, Canada right now has lost $150 million in sales of wheat. I'm not even representing the wheat industry. As far as the malt industry is concerned, we have a 14% tariff on malt and a 25% tariff on the freight. We'll probably not sell very much malt next year. To give you a ballpark number, the federal government just announced $500 million in support for farmers; about $140 million of that is probably targeted at Saskatchewan. We'll probably lose about 15% of that just by not buying barley any more out of Saskatchewan for that market.

We have an agreement. We're not exercising our compensation rights, and quite frankly a lot of it doesn't have to do with Brazil. It has to do with Canada, because all agricultural issues are put off to the side so we can deal with Bombardier. We've been told that for four years, and in the meantime we've lost all of these sales. We're going to continue to lose more, $150 million worth a year. I don't know what the compensation was on Bombardier, $320 million or whatever the case is, but at $150 million we're half of that. And yet we don't want to talk about this because there are other issues within Canada to deal with, namely aerospace. That's all we were trying to raise.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Foster, do you have a short intervention?

Mr. John Foster: First of all, I think about a year ago the former Premier of Quebec, Pierre-Marc Johnson, in an article in the Globe and Mail, commented on the institutional disequilibrium between our investment in trade and investment agreements—investment of energy, trade lawyers, people at DFAIT and various other places—and our investment in social and human rights issues.

That's basically what stands behind the attitude of civil society to Quebec City. The broad discussions in Quebec City will probably result in another nice declaration. They may result in another series of relatively minor facilitating moves in a number of areas. But they will not have the clout, the investment, or the effect, as my colleague has mentioned, that the negotiations on trade will have.

So if instead we were talking about the sort of negotiation in Quebec that Elizabeth May put forward, something on the European model in which parliamentarians were involved, in which there was a charter of rights, in which there was democratic supervision on a collective basis of what would emerge, then Quebec City might be worth taking more seriously. But lacking that, I think people keep their eyes where the ball is.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you. Now we'll go to the Bloc, Mr. Paquette, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): I thank each of you for your presentations.

I believe I heard that tariffs are a relatively secondary issue for Canada in the negotiations. There appears to be more focus on investments as a negotiating issue.

In your opinion, Mr. Foster and Mr. Keyes, can Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement be considered an acceptable basis for negotiation of the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement or should a different basis be used and, if so, which one?

• 1645

There seems to be agreement that investors are also entitled to a degree of security. Therefore, what would be the nature of well-conceived negotiations on investments?

[English]

Mr. Robert Keyes: Let's go back to what an investment agreement is all about, to start with.

An investment agreement is an attempt to ensure that when a company makes an investment in a country, it is going to be fairly treated. As I said in my remarks, there are really three elements to the investment issue. One is rules and certainty, another is a lack of discrimination, meaning national treatment and an even playing field, and the third is investor-state and rights of redress.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA has been tarred and feathered recently. The minister has called for clarification of the words and definitions that are used, etc., and for getting back to what the drafters really intended. Well, I suspect what the drafters really intended has probably been lost in the sands of time.

I suggest that five cases going to a panel and an arbitration decision after five or six years of NAFTA means the sky is not falling in. I also suggest that, for the volume of investment that is made across the three countries, the number of disputes that have been challenged is pretty small.

Chapter 11 is certainly being looked at as one place, one model, in which to start. Does it need some clarifications? Possibly. Does it need some change? Possibly. Can it work better in terms of procedures, in terms of transparency and some of the other issues that have been raised? Quite possibly it can. Let's have a look at that, but let's not say the sky is falling and that chapter 11 is being blamed for an inability of governments to regulate in the public interest. There are still lots of regulations coming out of governments, and I don't see every single regulation being challenged.

I think we need an objective look at this whole issue. Perhaps this is something this committee should take on, but let's have a very objective look at what the key issues really are in this dispute.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

Mr. Foster or Mr. Dillon, did you want to respond on this?

Mr. John Foster: Mr. Chair, I think we made clear in our first presentation that we would oppose going forward on the basis of the current investor-state mechanism in chapter 11. The experience of Canada in much of the 16 cases that we know of thus far is not a positive one and has resulted in what we might call a chill factor, as well as in the concrete expenditure of millions of Canadian dollars.

The first point I want to make about this is that it is an issue of democratic concern. We are talking about a privilege for foreign investors, vis-à-vis Canadian investors, in dealing with the Canadian state over the heads of the Canadian people, the electors. We are dealing with a process that is secret unless the corporation involved wills it otherwise. We thought we got rid of that in the British tradition back around the time of the English Civil War. We're talking about a process that, to a large extent, goes around the processes of due process at the provincial and national levels. And it's a process that puts states under obligations to corporations, but in which there's no equivalent balance.

This is not the way to start. However, we feel that if we go ahead on this basis, it's only the beginning of the game, and we will see a renewal of the international effort to create a multilateral agreement on investment, something that was so ill-fated and controversial just a few years ago.

I think the essential arguments here affect all parliamentarians and all Canadians, not just people interested in investment and trade.

I think that's where I'll cease.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

• 1650

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of observations, if I might, and a couple of questions. I won't repeat the comments of Mr. Hart, a witness we had this morning, but he made some very good comments—I'd commend them to the witnesses—on the difference between secret talks and talks properly in private. I don't know how anybody can call these “secret talks” when several thousand people, some declaring themselves bent on violence, are descending on Quebec. So I'll leave that there because I want to get on, but I thought his remarks were very cogent this morning.

The comment's been made that the government only wants to hear from those who support the deal. Well, we've had witnesses today. Four of six expressed reservations, if not total opposition, to the process. This is the parliamentary committee hearing those comments. Tonight in the House of Commons, as we all know, there will be a take-note debate, where all parliamentarians have an opportunity—or many—to participate. There's a special subcommittee on trade holding hearings. There's a website that's been up and running for weeks that's been visited by many Canadians. The Minister for International Trade has met with a number of NGO groups.

Mr. Speaker, I just think it's factually wrong to make the statement that the government is not interested in the views of those who aren't devotees of the free trade area of the Americas or this summit in general.

Mr. Foster mentioned that the minister met with a number of his colleagues and himself with no need for security. Well, that's wonderful, and we wish it could be that way in Quebec. But it would be somewhat naive to think that.

I want to quote a witness we had this morning, for the record, Mr. Chairman. It's the newsletter of FOCAL, a group I'm sure you're aware of—a March 2001 newsletter. It says this:

It is unfortunate that a minority of actors seem more interested in “shutting down the Summit” than in engaging constructively on issues that are central to the people of the hemisphere.

That's why, Mr. Chairman, the democratically elected Government of Canada has a duty to ensure that those people will not shut down the summit. I would submit to you that if those who disagree go, obey the laws, demonstrate properly using their democratic rights within the law, and don't go there with an agenda to shut down this summit, then we could have a wonderful meeting, like Mr. Foster apparently had with his colleagues. But I think it would be naive to think that this will happen.

To my questions, I wonder if Ms. Anthony's aware of the recent report by Mr. Kofi Annan of the United Nations, where he called on increased, liberalized, globalized trade as a very key component in helping address poverty in less-developed and developing countries. Are you aware of that? And, if you are, what is your reaction to that?

Ms. Jen Anthony: I'll be honest. I'm not aware of the details of the report to which you speak; however—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, no, that's fine. If you're not aware, then I guess you can't comment on it.

Ms. Jen Anthony: I can make a comment on the general perception that has arisen, perhaps.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: There are perceptions and misperceptions, and I think, frankly, we're hearing some of that today, and that's fair enough. We're interested in hearing people, but.... So if you don't know about that report, I'd rather go to my next question.

I would just simply say that Mr. Annan's comments, of course, were pretty much reiterated, to some extent, by Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, when he spoke to the Canadian Parliament recently. They were certainly, Mr. Chairman, reiterated by a ministerial round table that I attended last week in London, in the U.K., chaired by Development Minister Clare Short of the U.K., in which those ministers of development simply said the same thing. They said that we have to make sure...as Mr. Keyes has pointed out, globalized, liberalized, free trade, which is inclusive, is the best answer. It's not the enemy of the less-developed and developing countries; it's the best answer for those countries.

I want to go, then, to my next question. It's again, actually, to Ms. Anthony. I wrote down this quote exactly because it interested me. You were referring to your students, and the quote was “their opposition to international free trade”. I guess I was disappointed to hear that because we heard Ms. May say that they were not opposed to globalized free trade, but they were just opposed to this version of it. And I might share some of those reservations; in fact, I do. But I'm disappointed to hear a student leader say that your organization is opposed to international free trade. I wonder if there was a resolution passed at any national conference of your organization and, if there was, if you'd mind tabling that resolution.

• 1655

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I would just like to point out that this period is for some answers. We've spent five minutes, Mr. O'Brien—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, with respect—

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): —and we haven't got any answers.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes. With all due respect, I asked my first question and she wasn't aware of the report. I understand that so I'll go to my next question

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I know, but it's still five minutes on questions and we haven't had one answer.

Jen.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Maybe we'll get one now.

Ms. Jen Anthony: I would start by saying that there are essentially two great myths around trade. One is that the general public can't possibly comprehend trade, which I think is unfair. The second is that we have only two options, that is, free trade or no trade.

The Canadian Federation of Students and our members are not opposed to trade. We are opposed to free trade.

In reference to the second part of your question, yes, we actually do have a policy—I didn't bring it with me—called “Trade Agreements”. It outlines some of the history of Canadian trade agreements and calls for the abrogation of the free trade agreement with the U.S. It also calls for the abrogation of NAFTA, the immediate withdrawal of service and negotiations within the WTO, the withdrawal of Canada from future negotiations on the FTAA, and Canada never to enter into negotiations similar to those of the failed MAI again.

So, yes, we do have those policies. They were passed at a general meeting of our federation. Our federation meets twice yearly at national general meetings.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We'll go on to the next round.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Could we have those tabled with the committee at some point?

Ms. Jen Anthony: Yes. Absolutely.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We'll do that. Thanks.

Mr. Robinson, you have five minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to take my five minutes to make a speech, but I did want to observe that when Mr. O'Brien talks about the glories of free trade throughout the hemisphere and its advantages, perhaps he might want to talk to the indigenous peoples of Chiapas or to poor women working in maquiladora zones with toxic chemicals, at wages and working conditions that are absolutely appalling. It hasn't worked out very well for them, or for many other poor people throughout the hemisphere.

I have questions in two areas. My first question is for Mr. Keyes. It's a question similar to one that I asked at an earlier session and didn't get an answer, so I'd be interested to try it on you.

The existing trade deals—WTO, NAFTA—protect what we call intellectual property and protect it very vigorously. As we know, in Brazil, pharmaceutical companies that have just declared record profits are asserting their intellectual property rights to try to stop Brazil from making inexpensive drugs available in the fight against HIV/AIDS. They're doing the same thing in South Africa.

We know that intellectual property rights have been asserted in other fora as well. In fact, here in Canada, the Patent Act is being amended because of that. These are enforceable rights within trade deals.

I want to ask Mr. Keyes this, Mr. Chairman. If business and pharmaceutical companies can enforce their rights to protect their intellectual property within the context of these trade agreements, why shouldn't working people be able to enforce their rights? An example would be just basic internationally recognized rights, recognized at ILO—the right to join a union, freedom of association, the right of children not to be exploited and have their labour exploited. Why shouldn't those rights be just as important as the rights of major pharmaceutical companies to protect their intellectual property? If they are just as important, why shouldn't they be enforceable within the context of the trade deal, just as the intellectual property rights are enforceable within that deal?

Mr. Robert Keyes: I'd be interested to know to whom you asked that question when you didn't get an answer.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was another witness from the corporate sector.

Mr. Robert Keyes: Another witness from the corporate sector.

Nobody denies the importance of human rights issues and labour issues and environmental issues. It's coming down to a question of how you can enforce these in a justiciable and appropriate fashion.

There are organizations like the ILO that are very...I mean, that's their mission in life, to—

Mr. Svend Robinson: That doesn't work very well, does it, in terms of enforceability?

Mr. Robert Keyes: No, it doesn't because they do not have the kinds of mechanisms the WTO has, or trade agreements have, where there are rules, where there are very specific steps and processes laid out. Maybe that's what the ILO should have. Maybe those are the kinds of mechanisms we should have through multilateral environmental agreements. But a trade deal and trade issues are dealt with within the context of a trade agreement. That is the purpose of a trade agreement.

• 1700

As Renato Ruggiero said not too long ago, a trade agreement is not a Christmas tree on which to hang every ornament. If you do—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, there's one ornament there now that is dangling quite nicely and that's intellectual property. Since when is that trade?

Mr. Robert Keyes: It certainly is a trade issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Why is it any more a trade issue than—

Mr. Robert Keyes: It's a trade issue whenever you are selling products and you want your products and your rights associated with the product you've developed to be protected.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And if you're selling your labour?

Mr. Robert Keyes: Labour is not the same kind of thing as a pill—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Or as a patent—

Mr. Robert Keyes: —or as a patent. Now, regarding labour, I don't mean at all to denigrate the importance of labour and the services of people that they offer. But I'm saying our view is that the proper place to deal with these issues is within forums and mechanisms that are specifically designed and oriented to them. That will be a better solution in the long run—

Mr. Svend Robinson: And has the Chamber of Commerce suggested—

Mr. Robert Keyes: —than trying to force fit everything into a trade agreement.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Is there any way we could hear witnesses' answers without those witnesses, while they're giving the answer, being interrupted by Mr. Robinson or any other member?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. O'Brien has his opportunity to ask questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's right, and you had your opportunity to ask questions, Svend. We'd like to hear the answers.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Try to make it short.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wonder if the witnesses from.... I'll certainly look forward to the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Chairman, making representations to the ILO to strengthen their enforcement mechanisms to ensure—

Mr. Robert Keyes: May I add something, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We're pretty well out of time, so we'll go to the next question.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: My final question, then, Mr. Chair, is to the witnesses from Common Frontiers.

There's been significant debate about whether or not, in the context of the FTAA negotiations, we should be seeking to say, “No. No more FTAA. Let's deal with the existing agreements and some of the very profound flaws in the existing agreements.” Or, as some have proposed, we should be seeking to include social clauses or environmental clauses or workers' rights clauses within the FTAA. What's the Common Frontiers' position on that issue?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Can we have a short answer? We're out of time.

Mr. John Dillon: Very briefly, Mr. Robinson, our position is that you can't fix a bad agreement by adding even a very good labour clause or social clause. You have to deal with what's wrong in the agreement. You have to deal with the intellectual property provisions, with the investment provisions, with the services chapters. A good agreement that starts on another basis recognizing basic human rights, principles of fair trade, principles of government sovereignty over investment, would have labour clauses and social clauses. But you can't fix the existing agreement just by adding a clause.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you very much. We're out of time.

We'll go to Dr. Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I have some remarks for Mr. Dillon. You talk a lot about intellectual property. The first thing you mentioned was that you came out with the Queen's University study in 1997. I was a member of the committee in 1997, and, just to let you know, this study was sponsored and paid for by the generic company. That's the first fact I want to tell you.

The second thing you mentioned is that the prices of the drugs are too high. You know for sure there is a body, a review board, that was looking at the pricing of new drugs. You mentioned also that the fastest growing cost in health care in Canada is drugs. There are many other reasons for that. In Quebec, we say

[Translation]

le virage ambulatoire.

[English]

It's quite important. The main thing is that the population is aging and many more people are living much longer. That's one of the reasons why the cost of drugs and health care in Canada is increasing.

One of the other reasons is that with this

[Translation]

virage ambulatoire, which is a shift to ambulatory care,

[English]

some people having surgery in hospitals, such as bypass surgery, stay in hospital for four or five days instead of ten days or two weeks. That's one of the reasons.

The question is, why are U.S. citizens coming into Canada to buy drugs? There is a reason for that.

• 1705

You mention also that the intellectual property...it's too long. You're probably aware that it's 20 years since the beginning of the development of the molecule, and there's only one in 500 molecules that could reach medication, and that the medication could sell. The research and the approval of any drug takes roughly around 12 years, and there are eight years left for that.

You also know, probably, that medication could save costs. If you're just looking at.... Many, many years ago, 20 to 25 years ago, in this country there were hundreds and hundreds of operations just for the stomach, and since we found new drugs for stomach ulcers, there's no more surgery for ulcers, except for cancer. We're saving costs there.

You talk about stockpiling. You know that since 1993, Canada agreed with working on stockpiling. We agreed on this. There was a decision by the WTO after the United States and the European Union went against Canada, and stockpiling can no longer be done.

It's important to understand for me.... You mentioned generics; you mentioned intellectual property, but after 20 years what happens with the generic company? The generic company at that time can start selling drugs, and they're selling that drug at 75% of the cost of the brand name, without doing any research, without doing anything about this. To me, this is much too high for the Canadian population. It's much, much too high.

I just want to mention also that this generic company...they don't copy.... Which drugs are they copying? Heart, cholesterol, stomach, asthma, nervous condition? They don't do any research on neurological disorders, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, any of these diseases. Why don't they do any research on these? There's no money in it for them. They just copy medication that suits them. That's one thing.

One thing you mentioned also is the answer to Mr. Robinson about the WTO. With any agreement—NAFTA/ALENA, WTO, any agreement that Canada is doing—Canada is losing a little bit of its sovereignty. There's no doubt about it.

I just have one question.

[Translation]

A very large share of Canada's economic development is grounded in the knowledge-based economy, and that is one of the reasons why our government has decided to invest huge amounts in research and development. How can we invest in research and development—be it in the field of pharmaceuticals or any other field—if we ignore the very principle of intellectual property? What do you have to offer other than intellectual property regulations?

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Dillon, can you answer the question?

Mr. John Dillon: Yes. Thank you very much.

First of all, on the point about where the research is happening, most of the research that's being done by the brand-name pharmaceutical companies is into illnesses predominantly that occur in the north, sometimes lifestyle issues like obesity or hair loss. Only 10% of their research is going into developing treatments for the diseases that plague the poor of the earth. That's one point.

The second thing is on your question of how can we develop research if we don't leave it all up to the pharmaceutical companies. If you think back to earlier parts of this debate, the Eastman report on the pharmaceutical industry developed, I think, a very sophisticated formula that dealt with the prospects of pooling moneys for research into new pharmaceuticals that would be available to universities, not just to the private laboratories. There are formulae that have been investigated and that have been proposed in the past that could pool that research.

Finally, I just want to say that what's happening right now because of the AIDS crisis is the pharmaceutical industry is on the defensive. They realize they're getting some very bad public relations. I think it's a moment for us to sit up and take notice, and to reopen the whole of the debate. I think the Queen's University study, regardless of who paid for it, is a very relevant piece of data because it's going to be very costly for the people of Canada.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you very much. We're out of time, sorry.

Ms. Lalonde, five minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foster or Mr. Dillon, in his early days in office, Vincente Fox made several very critical statements regarding NAFTA. He didn't want to withdraw from it, but he claimed that there needed to be a structural fund of $10 billion to tackle underdevelopment.

• 1710

What do you think should be done at the Summit in Quebec City and under the FTAA to attack the problem of underdevelopment? I also have a question for you, Mr. McCreery. Is the Quebec dairy industry represented by your organization and do you support supply management, which is essential for Quebec producers in a number of sectors?

Mr. John Foster: Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

[English]

With regard to your first question and the issue of funds and the poor, let me begin by stating facts that are based on the United Nations' annual development report—the one that always says Canada's number one.

In Latin America, we are dealing with tremendous divergences. Of world regions, it's the most pronounced. That means very simply that in Guatemala, the richest 20% gain at a factor thirty times that of the poorest 20%. What interests us in this regard, as related to trade agreements, is that in virtually every country in the hemisphere, with the possible exception of Costa Rica, coincident with twenty years of trade and investment liberalization—this is not something new, this has been going on in waves for two decades now.... What is the pattern? Does it follow Mr. Pettigrew's pattern that trade raises all boats and, as Mr. Keyes has said, that it's good for the poor? The evolution is that in every case except that of Costa Rica we're seeing a greater and greater polarization between rich and poor.

What brings that home is the recent Statistics Canada report indicating that, during the time when these policies have been front and centre on the part of the Canadian government, we have a situation in which the richest 20% in Canada have increased their share by 39% in recent years, while the poor are flatlined. This should be of concern to anyone concerned with social integration, social justice, social development, and the economic future of the country.

So the first thing to be said about this is that trade agreements and the liberalization agenda have not served the social agenda thus far. The second thing to be said, and in this I'm perhaps closer to some of the other speakers on the panel, is that if we have changes in tariffs that affect domestic industries—this goes not only for us but for infant industries in the south—then not only must things be staged, but there must also be adjustment assistance to endangered industries, and particularly to endangered workers. This can be accompanied with special funds for poorer regions, as was the case in the European situation.

I think it was about—what is it now?—twelve years ago or more that President Salinas came to Canada or came further north, and he said virtually the same thing President Fox has said: If we're going to go ahead with this, then let's have a common fund to adjust situations in poverty-stricken areas, for poor groups of workers, etc. Basically, the response from the United States and Canada to both presidents has been a cold shoulder. If we are to go forward on an equitable basis, I think this is precisely the sort of thing we should be discussing.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

Go ahead, Liam.

Mr. Liam McCreery: To answer Madame Lalonde's question, the dairy industry is not represented on CAFTA, and we do not speak for supply management. We do speak for over one-half of the farm cash receipts in Canada and for producers in Quebec through the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian sugar industry, and the Canada Beef Export Federation, and through the Grain Growers of Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Monsieur Duplain, and then, if there are no more questions from the opposition, we'll go to Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I have two very short questions. I listened to your presentations, which I found interesting. Mr. McCreery, there is something that I would like to ask you. I found it interesting you touched on some concrete matters that will not necessarily be dealt with in Quebec City. My question has to do with the example of oils. You mentioned that we will have to ensure that this is part of the agreement. In specific cases like this, I would like to know if you have the names and if you feel that you are listened to when you ask for particular things directly.

• 1715

My other question is for you, Ms. Anthony. I quite realize that education should not be threatened in Quebec, but you are affirming that it will be. I listened to some of your presentation and I would like to know, for myself, some of the exact details. I would like to know how education is being threatened, because if this is true, I feel it is serious.

The last thing that I would like to raise concerns what you had to say about the Summit in Quebec City. I feel some apprehension. You are somewhat in agreement with free trade, but you maintain that education is threatened. A few minutes ago, toward the end, you also spoke of police brutality—and I wonder about the tone you used, and this is a comment as well as a question. Does your association really think that we in Canada have reached the point where the police reacts violently to peaceful demonstrators? If I understood correctly, that is what you are saying. You spoke of police brutality. We hear that over and over again in connection with the Quebec City Summit and it is being blown out of proportion to the point where it seems almost as if war will break out in Quebec. Have you reached the conclusion that the police treat demonstrators roughly, during peaceful demonstrations?

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We'll hear from Mr. McCreery, and then Ms. Anthony.

Mr. Liam McCreery: Thank you.

Just to clarify something, are we talking about vegetable oil, from canola and soybeans?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: For example, yes.

[English]

Mr. Liam McCreery: Discussions on trade in vegetable oil are in the FTAA text.

As far as people listening to our message is concerned, I want to emphasize that we've had excellent cooperation with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and their trade negotiators.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

Ms. Anthony.

Ms. Jen Anthony: As to the two questions, my understanding of the first question is that you're wondering where we see the threat to education being posed and what form that threat would take.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: On specific things, I'd like to receive documentation. If I could have... I would like to receive documentation on specific areas where you are sure that a threat to education really exists.

My second question had to do with police brutality, which you mentioned. Does your association really think that the police will use violence against the peaceful demonstrators in Quebec City?

[English]

Ms. Jen Anthony: In terms of the first question, our concerns are around the implications of private service providers or private education providers demanding, suing, or using mechanisms within investor-state mechanisms to cause government restrictions around education to be repealed, eliminated, and various things like that.

Currently, the DeVry Institute, which is a private university internationally, is threatening to sue the government under NAFTA, due to legislation that was just passed in Alberta to allow private universities there. If they were able to successfully do that, they would then be entitled to operating grants to provide education services. Essentially, that will mean one of two things. They will either be able to have access to those operating grants, which means less money for the public system, or operating grants would have to be eliminated altogether.

So the concerns are around the implications of...we don't believe that when the deal is signed, all public education is finished. What we're talking about is the idea that, if the deal is signed, it gives corporations the right to then go back saying they don't like this legislation or they don't like that regulation. We have concerns about the outcomes in those areas, the same way there have been some cases in the past under NAFTA and the WTO that have been problematic, but not in the area of education thus far.

• 1720

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Do you have a short answer on the possibility of police brutality?

Ms. Jen Anthony: On the second question, we have seen an increase in police repression against demonstrators in the last number of years. In this country, I would say it goes back to APEC in Vancouver in particular. A lot of that organizing done by the federation was done out of our federation's Vancouver office, and we saw a lot of violence perpetrated against peaceful demonstrators there. It has continued. And we saw it in Seattle, if you want to go to an American example.

But again, when we went to Windsor, the one reason I think we didn't see it in Windsor was simply because the police outnumbered the demonstrators. But even in Windsor, there were a number of violent attacks on demonstrators. For demonstrators who attempted to hang a banner on a fence, there were police officers who attempted to hurt them with metal bars, and there was pepper spray everywhere.

We have definitely seen an increase in that sort of brutality, and we are fearful about what will happen in Quebec City.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

I think we have time for two more interventions, from Mr. Paquette and Mr. Paradis, and then we'll be out of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: In the first place, I would like to remind you—and Mr. Pettigrew has said this several times—that Canada's position is to exclude public education from the negotiations. As for private schools, and universities in particular, I do not know Canada's position at this time, and the whole position on services has not yet been made public. So, there is indeed cause for concern. The Quebec Education Minister, Mr. Legault, in particular, expressed concern. Therefore, although we should not adopt the worst-case scenarios, there are nevertheless some concerns surrounding the private education system, in Quebec and elsewhere, and universities in particular.

Now, as for police brutality, I hope that we do not see it and I think that everything really will go smoothly in Quebec City. I hope so. However, I must acknowledge that the fact that the RCMP and, unfortunately, the Quebec provincial police approached certain bus owners not to prevent them, but to dissuade them, from leasing buses to people who wanted to travel to Quebec City, in particular to the march of the Summit of the Americas on April 21st, seems to me to be at the limit of what is acceptable in a democracy, where people have the right to demonstrate peacefully for a cause. Although I agree with you that we should not be paranoid, it is clear that the police forces are taking measures that are somewhat unusual in our democratic system.

I would like to come back to the question of the social content of the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement. In your view, should the economic benefits included in the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement be linked to respect for human rights, labour rights and environmental rights, and should this be in the agreement itself, instead of in side agreements, as is the case with NAFTA?

[English]

Mr. John Foster: Mr. Paquette, I think your proposal is a very positive one, and this is precisely the sort of framework we should have in mind. There was a lot of debate on this in Europe, with the question of the adhesion of various additional countries. I'm not sure the final result of the debate was at the standard level I would personally prefer, but there was certainly the sense that new entrants must meet a series of standards, many of which touch on the precise areas you're talking about. So I have no difficulty with that approach at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: How do you respond to the argument of social protectionism, the new form of social protectionism?

[English]

Mr. John Foster: You can say that, but as this committee heard last week, the vast majority of members of the Quebec summit and the free trade negotiations have already ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which commits them to progressive realization of the right to health, education, and various other rights, as you have already heard. The vast majority have signed the American covenant, and an increasing number are now ratifying the optional Protocol of San Salvador on economic, social, and cultural rights in the hemisphere. Virtually every head of state or his or her equivalent in the hemisphere signed the Copenhagen Declaration on social development.

• 1725

All kinds of citizens' groups are trying to hold these governments accountable to what they've already agreed to in the social sphere. I think it's therefore a matter of asking if these governments are as serious here as they were there. The one affects the other. These things are integrated.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think we're pretty well out of time, except for Mr. Paradis. Don't get worried.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Common Frontiers, to one of you, Mr. Dillon or Mr. Foster.

I understand that you are co-partners with the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale for the People's Summit of the Americas. Mr. Brunelle, who testified here this morning, told us that he was having trouble finding enough money to run the People's Summit of the Americas.

My question is as follows. How many participants are you expecting and what is the budget for your People's Summit of the Americas?

[English]

Mr. John Foster: I can't give you an absolute total of the budget, but it's roughly $400,000. A great deal of that, of course, relates to facilities and logistics in Quebec. One of the concerns we have at this point in time is adequate funding from social movements in the south, which do not have great numbers of their own resources to bring their spokespeople and representatives north.

In terms of the numbers who will arrive, I'm sorry, I cannot give you an estimate, because we're still receiving notifications. The summit is organized on a fairly decentralized basis. There are a series of workshops or forums, each of which has its own management by a local community group based in Quebec, and each of which is receiving registrations as we go.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I would like a supplementary, Mr. Chairman.

I understood that the Canadian government was contributing $300,000 and the Quebec government $200,000, for staging the People's Summit of the Americas.

What I wanted to know was, how much additional money will your associations, Common Frontiers and the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale, add to the $500,000 provided by the two levels of government?

[English]

Mr. John Foster: There's a significant amount, but I again can't give you a total on that, simply because we're talking about the very people who are attempting to rent buses, to pay for train tickets and air tickets, and so on, to get to Quebec City.

Well over $150,000 is being contributed by small community groups, cultural associations, student groups, environmental groups, etc., but I'm not on the budget committee and I'm not on the planning committee, per se, of the summit.

We'd be glad to give you information on that.

Mr. Denis Paradis: I have just one more short one, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

This is my last question. Do you have any discussion papers available, at the present time, for the People's Summit of the Americas?

[English]

Mr. John Dillon: Yes, Mr. Paradis, we mentioned in our presentation that at the last People's Summit in Santiago, Chile, in 1998, we worked on our documents on alternatives for the Americas. What we are doing now is updating those documents, and the new version will be released in Quebec in April.

Mr. Denis Paradis: And it's going to be released at the summit?

Mr. John Dillon: That's right, but the existing version is available in four languages on our website.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

The chair would like to finish this off with one question, and I'd like to put that question to Mr. McCreery.

Liam, trade has mushroomed in the last several years. That portion of our GDP attributable to exports has nearly doubled in the last ten years, yet you wouldn't know it by the current state of depression in grains and oilseeds. It's almost as if this so-called good news story around trade has bypassed grains and oilseeds. That being the case, if we conclude an FTAA at any time in the future, can the grains and oilseeds sector expect anything good out of it?

Mr. Liam McCreery: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that our industry is based on trade. We are a trading nation, an exporting nation in grains and oilseeds. We need access to markets, and we need to be able to trade in a fair way.

• 1730

The current problems in the grains and oilseeds sector have nothing to do with our ability to compete with the world. It's a question of competing against the coffers of the United States of America and the European Union. We hope the trade agreements will be able to lessen the support given to our competition by their governments and that we will thrive.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you very much.

I wish we could continue, but we're out of time. On behalf of all members, my thanks to all the witnesses.

This meeting is over.