SINT Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TRADE DISPUTES AND INVESTMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DU COMMERCE, DES DIFFÉRENDS COMMERCIAUX ET DES INVESTISSEMENTS INTERNATIONAUX DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 1122

[English]

The Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

Today we are happy to have with us officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This is the first meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the examination of Canada's priority interests in the FTAA process. We are delighted to have with us today Claude Carrière, who is the director of the tariffs and market access division, and Kathryn McCallion, assistant deputy minister, international business, passport and consular affairs, who is also Canada's chair at the FTAA.

Welcome. Thank you for coming here today.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, International Business, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to members of the committee. We're pleased to be here. I understand that if I make a small presentation what you would probably prefer to do—and what would be a better use of your valuable time—is to pose questions. Both Claude and I are happy to answer them.

[Translation]

It will be a pleasure to answer your questions after a short presentation.

[English]

If you've been meeting Mr. Fried and various other members of the department, it may be slightly confusing; you may wonder what my role is in particular, when I would be more inclined to see you if I were doing Team Canada Inc. international business. I hardly ever go out in public on passport and consular issues. I try to keep my head down. But this is almost a residual activity for me, and it's the result of the department's efforts to utilize our resources effectively in what we call matrix management.

I was originally appointed as the ADM for Latin America just in time to accompany Prime Minister Chrétien to the Miami summit in 1994, and it was through that whole process that we got started on working towards a free trade area of the Americas. Canada has been committed to it politically all along, and from the official side we've done a lot of hard work behind the scenes. When Canada was elected chair of the process in Costa Rica, I had by that time been leading on this subject for a considerable amount of time, and even though I switched jobs within Foreign Affairs the decision was that I'd keep this activity and be chair.

Claude is in what we call the E branch, which is Mr. Fried's group. The policy work behind the scenes is all done by the same group of people. We don't want to leave you in confusion, with you thinking that there must be pockets of policy development somewhere in Foreign Affairs. There aren't. It's quite clear. On any two days of the week, we all—hopefully—sing from the same hymn book.

• 1125

I've handed out a little piece of paper. I thought I'd run through it quite quickly and then, as I suggested, welcome your comments.

The free trade area of the Americas is a comprehensive trade negotiation. It includes 34 democratic nations of the hemisphere. That expression, naturally, is an indication that Cuba, which is the thirty-fifth nation of the hemisphere, is at the moment not included in the process.

The free trade area of the Americas was the centrepiece of the Miami summit in 1994, with free trade and economic integration seen as a way of continuing sustainable development in the hemisphere and supporting recent democratization. I think those of you who follow developments in Latin America know that only recently could we announce that the countries of Latin America were more or less democratic after years of military dictatorships, internal civil wars and strife.

Also, free trade with economic integration was seen as a way of reducing the region's dependency on aid. It was very important for Canada, as our aid budget was limited, to offer to help and work with some of the countries—in particular, the Commonwealth Caribbean and then Central America—and help them grow into being more mature states, more economically viable. The availability of our aid money and of American aid money in particular was drying up or being limited or being pushed into other regions of the world such as Russia.

The formal negotiations were launched by the leaders, heads of governments and heads of state, including Prime Minister Chrétien, at the Santiago summit in April 1998. In actual fact, this was the culmination of four years of work. We had started our work in Miami and had had four years of working groups and annual meetings of the trade ministers.

One of the cleverest things, I think, that the leaders did manage to achieve in Miami was instructing their trade ministers to meet annually. The momentum of ministers being engaged kept officials on track. We spend the first six months of every year talking to each other and the last six months saying that the ministers are expecting results and really starting to push. That has been one of the motivations in keeping this on track. Except for one year when we were in an election period, Canada has always participated at the trade minister level at the meetings.

The principles and objectives behind the free trade area of the Americas are: it must be a balanced but comprehensive agreement; it must be consistent with the WTO; and it will be a single undertaking by all countries. At some point, we can discuss the demands by certain small countries that would like to have some benefits now and pay their obligations later. Some people would like benefits with no obligations ever. What we mean by a single undertaking is that even if we put in timeframes where you come on line later in the process, at the end of the day everybody is in for the whole thing. The smaller economies understand the concept.

You will hear from MERCOSUR that a single undertaking means no deals until the big deals—no little deals in the meantime and no interim agreements. I'll get to that later, but that's not exactly what single undertaking means. That's what it has been interpreted to mean by MERCOSUR to suit their political agenda.

We're committed to two dates internal to the decision by leaders. The first is concrete progress by the year 2000. If you want to know how much fun officials have when you're not watching us, let me tell you that there is a debate as to whether 2000 is January 1, 2000, or January 1, 2001, because the original agreement reads, “by the turn of the century”. Canada has chosen 2000 in order to bring some clarity to it.

Originally there were to be interim agreements by the year 2000, that is, if we reached agreement on certain areas that were simpler to come to agreement on, we would have those agreements come into force pending the outcome of the total. But with the absence of fast track in the United States, at the last meeting in Brazil, in Belo Horizonte, ministers agreed that we are not striving for interim agreements. We're really looking for discernible progress. Everything is to be finished by the year 2005.

Why is Canada so committed to the FTAA? Why are we doing this? Because we feel that on behalf of Canada and Canadian business there is tremendous opportunity for growth and job creation.

• 1130

By the year 2000, Latin America and the Caribbean region will have a population of 500 million, with the average age being 17 to 21, which is the beginning of consumerism, and 50 million middle- and upper-income earners, along with a GDP of $2 trillion U.S.

Now, we are constantly re-evaluating this. There's been an economic downturn, but at the moment we don't think the long-term potential has been jeopardized. We do acknowledge that there has been a short-term shock to the system.

Latin America is already a major market for Canadian goods and investment. Excluding the NAFTA partnership—the U.S. and Mexico—exports exceeded $5 billion and investment reached $25.8 billion in 1997. We think a secure and stable access to those markets is clearly of benefit to Canadian business.

With respect to the structure of the negotiations—I don't know how interested you are—there is an annual ministerial meeting. The ministers are clearly each country's chief negotiators, but they have nominated what are known as the vice-ministers, the deputy ministers. In Canada's case, I am the deputy minister or vice-minister.

Underneath the group of vice-ministers who are committed to meet regularly and are now called the trade negotiating committee, we have nine negotiating groups covering subject areas: market access; agriculture; government procurement; services; competition policy; subsidies, anti-dumping and countervailing duties; investment; international property rights; and dispute settlement.

Almost the only anomaly of being a sector as opposed to a subject is agriculture, but I'm sure you're all aware of why and how that happened.

There are three special groups that look at horizontal issues. They are: the committee of government representatives on the participation of civil society, a Canadian initiative; the joint government-private sector committee of experts—private sector members and government members working together—on electronic commerce, whose mandate is to come back to the Canadian ministerial meeting with a view as to if and how electronic commerce should be negotiated in the context of a trade negotiation; and third, the consultative group on smaller economies, which is almost a watchdog approach on behalf of the small economies.

We're all members of this last group, but its mandate is to make sure that the smaller economies don't get left behind in any one of the nine negotiating groups. It's a horizontal committee.

The negotiations were based on the recommendations agreed to by ministers in San José, Costa Rica, last year. Minister Marchi was there.

With respect to the scope of the negotiations, agenda items include: traditional barriers; non-tariff barriers; areas of regulation affecting trade in services; competition, trade and investment; and government procurement.

Our role for the last several months has been to manage the process. What it's leading to is a ministerial meeting on trade in Toronto in November 1999. What we're hoping to be able to provide or reach agreement on is an outline of the basic agreement. The main focus of the meeting—to go back to our progress by the year 2000—will be business facilitation: can we find areas in which we can improve the business atmosphere in the hemisphere, areas that are not subject to detailed negotiations? Then, how do we improve our engagement with civil society, which is part and parcel of the part of the process you're helping us to do?

To date in the consultative process within the structure of the FTAA—which is different from the Canadian attempt—the civil society subcommittee has issued “An Open Invitation to Civil Society in FTAA Participating Countries”. It's on the web site. There are two web sites, ours and the official FTAA web site in Washington. They have been invited to do written submissions. We've asked them to focus on trade-related matters.

It's really important that the message we send out is that this is a trade negotiation. While we're open to the linkages of various elements of our societies with trade negotiations, the empowerment of trade negotiators to solve social issues is very limited, so the danger as you open it up for an enormous breadth of discussion is that people are more disappointed than happy, because they thought they were part of a consultative process. The inability to realize or to provide answers on certain files becomes very negative.

It's not a very strong concern in Canada, but it is an enormous concern in most developing countries. They are very sensitive to opening the floodgates and hearing from all parts of their society on all societal ills when, in actual fact from their perspective, their trade negotiators are off getting access to the United States market.

• 1135

So the consultative process really has quite a few sensitivities. I would say that it has almost 34 sensitivities. There are 34 countries and each has a different perspective on how the consultative mechanism can work.

In regard to our domestic consultations, you are providing one of the key elements. There is a trade meeting on February 17 with the provincial trade ministers and with Minister Marchi, who will start elaborating more fully on the process. There are also the SAGITs, where, sector by sector, the business community is being consulted by the government. And then: how do we reach out to this civil society?

Business facilitation, which is going to be one of the main agenda items when we get to Toronto, was discussed in Suriname, at our last meeting at the level of vice-ministers. People are really still struggling with how much we can do. There's a collection of ideas that has been brought to us by the business communities. With the trade ministers' meeting, there is usually a business forum. In the last couple of years, the business forums have been asked to provide and have provided their interpretation of where the negotiations should go, but more importantly, they have provided their interpretation of what governments could do to facilitate business.

Some of those issues that are not subject to negotiations in a technical, trade-negotiation way but should be discussed between governments were compiled into a list by the tripartite committee composed of the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the OAS—the Organization for American States—and ECLAC, which is the economic commission for Latin America under the UN system. They offer all the secretarial support behind the scenes. They compiled the list. It was 235 items. We're trying to narrow it down to doables, and the subject area in which we think most possibilities lie is the area of customs and crossing borders. So that's where the focus will be—enhanced customs cooperation.

What have we achieved to date?

We have been talking for quite some time. First, I mentioned the tripartite committee. These three institutions had similar but not overlapping mandates and weren't exactly working in cooperation. I'm pleased to say that I've been amazed at their capacity to cooperate. They co-fund projects, they each have a group of people and they do work collectively. Only a bureaucrat could tell you that cooperation between institutions is positive, but in actual fact, these are the institutions helping those countries and they now have similar objectives in the trade and trade preparation area.

Also, there's been extensive preparatory work, with a lot of data collected. Whereas we didn't have data before, we are now working from a much more intellectually secure base.

Next, networking in the region was not as strong as one would imagine—just because they all speak Spanish. As a direct result of the meetings we've had, if you are a businessman, for instance, and you have a problem accessing a market in Bolivia, Claude actually now knows the first name of the person who does market access in Bolivia and we can phone. There are a lot of phone calls going on. I get phone calls from my colleagues all the time on quite a lot of subjects. There is a very powerful, cooperative feeling of “just getting to know you” and working to a common goal. Again, it's behind the scenes. You won't read about it in the newspaper. But it is to the benefit, I think, of understanding other countries in the hemisphere and making systems work.

Last, throughout the hemisphere, there has been an increased understanding of trade policy and of the reason for market access negotiations, at both the sub-regional level and the national level. Using Carleton University and various other institutions, we've offered courses to help train negotiators in the Caribbean and in Central America. This enhances their capacity to negotiate on their own behalf, both with us and in the context of the World Trade Organization. It's a whole series of building blocks.

With respect to the status of negotiations, we're on track, but we're really at the beginning of the process. The first round of meetings is complete. The second is in train. As a matter of fact, I think we meet every day between now and the ministerial meeting, except on weekends, national holidays and religious festivals, like Easter, which we were discussing as I came in the room. Somebody wants to meet on Easter Monday.

• 1140

The third meeting will be held in Bolivia in the summer. We suspended the meeting in Suriname because we had not reached a successful conclusion on business facilitation, so in April in Miami there will be an interim meeting at the level of vice-ministers to see if we can't push the agenda ahead.

There are real challenges that lie ahead of us. Clearly there is the one you're all familiar with: the Americans do not have a fast track and are unlikely to have a fast track in the near term.

We're obliged to show some concrete progress by the year 2000, which will be a marker for the business community. They'd like to see some progress. This is not something that bureaucrats are engaged in for the fun of it. This is something to actually improve economic growth in the hemisphere, and the business community is watching us and asking, “Are we going to see any light at the end of the tunnel in the short term?”

Electoral cycles should also be considered. On any day of the week, somebody is about to go into an election or is coming out of an election, and government policies shift priorities and shift attention. People are quite concerned, for instance, about the Argentinians, who co-chair with Canada and will have the next ministerial: one of the candidates running to replace Menem is not widely enthusiastic about free trade. What impact will that have? What will the next U.S. president think? And so on....

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): We have that problem here.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Another challenge is the unequal size and economic development of players. If you put this on a continuum, you have the United States, the most sophisticated marketplace in the world, at one end, and you have Haiti at the other, where they say, “Market? Qu'est-ce que c'est?” We really have to take that into consideration.

Yet another challenge is competing trade policy priorities. Mexico is running around doing Mexico-Europe and Mexico-MERCOSUR, MERCOSUR is running around doing MERCOSUR-Chile and MERCOSUR-Bolivia, Canada is running around doing EFTA, etc., and everybody is doing WTO. You have to decide on your level of priorities.

Last, then, as I mentioned earlier, the global financial crisis is having a huge impact. If you read the papers, you will read that the problems in Brazil are seriously affecting MERCOSUR—and MERCOSUR is a major player in the exercise.

We're still hot on Latin America and the possibilities. We think it's a long and delicate process, but we think we're off to a good start. The secretariat in Miami is being run by a Canadian, so we're quite proud of that. We actually got started. I know in the grand scheme of things.... Getting started was seen as a difficult thing a couple of years ago, but the negotiations have started in Miami.

That's the end of my presentation for now. I'm happy to answer questions, as is Monsieur Carrière.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to welcome Miss McCallion. We heard Mr. Carrière earlier this morning. I just want to congratulate you for undertaking this process. It seems to me that this is a tremendous challenge. I sometimes wonder whether it can be pulled off, but I still think it's worthwhile to undertake.

I have a couple of questions, though. In terms of the nine negotiating groups, I guess the plan here is to move beyond what is currently taking place at the World Trade Organization. I assume most of these countries belong to the World Trade Organization. So I guess that's the first question: is the intent to try to achieve things that we don't have under the current WTO process in terms of market access, government procurement policy and so on?

Second, I don't have a very good understanding of the single undertaking yet, and I'd like to maybe walk through that. Does that mean we would have an agreement with 34 countries but some countries would sign to come on at a later date and have to meet the criteria in just in the same way that you'd have to meet the criteria for the WTO now? Does it mean they would not be a part of it until that time? Maybe you could just explain how that might work.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Your first question is, how do you make the free trade area different from your obligations under the WTO? It can be a case of timing in that you achieve certain goals of lowering tariffs or improving market access faster than the timeframe set out in the WTO—or you set the obligations higher.

• 1145

Originally when we were looking at this, the objective from the Canadian and American sides was to have a NAFTA-like agreement in the hemisphere. The NAFTA has very high levels of obligations in certain disciplines, higher than those in the WTO. We were persuaded to see this all quite differently from MERCOSUR's perspective. If you remember, there were comments on a building-block approach—that they'd build up MERCOSUR until it became the South America free trade area, so it would be SAFTA versus NAFTA and then the two would crash heads.

It was the considered view of the negotiators that this would not work, that what we are working towards is an improved agreement, with improvements on the WTO—but it would be WTO-consistent. It's not against the WTO; it's just whether we can get higher levels of obligations or whether we can get the same levels of obligations but implement them faster. That's the concept.

With respect to the second question about a single undertaking, we could probably, for instance, reach agreement on investment within a year. Last week's meetings on government procurement went very well. They are not near an agreement, but there was always hope that they could reach some possible basic agreements in certain subject areas. The chances of reaching agreement on agriculture in this same timeframe are very slight. The single undertaking concept means that at no matter what speed you reach agreement on the elements, the final package is a whole: “this is the agreement and it includes all these elements”.

Where it got off track a bit was in deciding whether we could put in place those preliminary agreements as “interim” agreements. It was decided that we would wait until we had the whole package, whereas the smaller countries are saying that they can agree ultimately to this but they'd like differential treatment in the number of years during which we would apply it.

Let's say we were going to reduce tariffs on a particular product. They'd like 28 years or 400 years. If you talk to the Caribbean, at least three of the major islands do not have an income tax structure, so all their government revenue comes through tariffs at the border. Agreeing to reduce their tariffs by the year 2005 puts them in a quandary: what do they do to replace national revenue? They will ultimately do it, they assure us, but they ask if they could have a longer timeframe. This is what the differential treatment line is, right? Greater clarity....

Mr. Charlie Penson: Maybe I can throw in just one more question. It's my understanding that to start with, some of these countries are having trouble meeting their obligations under the WTO—

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: True.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —let alone upping the ante here.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes.

Mr. Charlie Penson: You talked a little about whether they're democracies or not. It's almost debatable in some cases.

How are we going to achieve this if there are not very good civil law systems in some of these countries? It's all well and good to say you are going to have a subsidies code and so on, but how will it be carried out in practice if there are difficulties? How will they meet these standards?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Not easily, but I think one of the things we were looking for almost as a business facilitation or as progress by the year 2000 was that people were meeting their WTO obligations. We ran into difficulty with it, but that would be a signal of progress.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: That was and remains in consideration.

It will be difficult. There's no doubt about it. One of the reasons that Canada, using CIDA, is offering these courses on trade negotiation is so governments understand that you don't just agree to something and sign, that your obligation is to implement over time, because there is still a knowledge of working that through.

We're asked sometimes if it isn't easier to negotiate with someone who doesn't know how to negotiate, and you could answer, “yes, it is, because we just overwhelm them”, but the real answer is, “no, it isn't”, because there's no sense in having an agreement on paper if they're not ready to implement it.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have a final question on the civil society aspect of it. Domestically, we're going to do what we're going to do here, but are you saying that the FTAA has web sites asking and encouraging people from other countries to give their ideas, thus not leaving it to the domestic governments to carry out the explanation of what's involved?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: This is actually the nature of the debate. There is a split in the hemisphere between having openness and transparency and inviting problems.

• 1150

Some countries are very hesitant to do this in a transnational way. They say they have their own domestic process and that it's up to them as the government to come to the negotiations and assure us that they have discussed this within their own borders and that someone is negotiating on behalf of country X. There are others who feel that just opening the process and encouraging dialogue across borders, between elements of our society, is healthy.

Therefore, what we have an agreement on so far is that we will accept inputs from various elements of society within the hemisphere to the FTAA web site run by the tripartite committee in Washington.

It is not yet at the level of dialogue. Canada would like to reply to their submissions, but we have several competing ideas. Certain countries don't have any intention of answering. They say that we can send them all the mail, but.... The DFAIT site is for us, for Canadians to talk to us.

I should probably tell you that we have been meeting on the FTAA process with Dick Martin and an enlarged group, pre-Belo Horizonte, for three years now. I meet with them regularly before going to a meeting, and I tell them what's happening after a meeting. The group is not made up of just labour people. They bring with them environment groups and various others. It's at a very nascent stage. There are usually about 14 people in the room, and I do what I've done to you: I just talk and talk at them and then I leave.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ms. McCallion and Mr. Carrière, I want to thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask a few questions, the first being a supplementary to that of Mr. Penson regarding the civil society. A committee of government representatives has been set up. Would it be possible for you to tell us where things stand on that issue? Could you tell us what the general direction is at the present time and to give a preliminary report on the input of this civil society?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The committee has only met once. It fought for two days in Miami. The best we could do—because Canada is in the lead of trying to make the process much more open and engaged—was this invitation.

When I last talked to the person responsible for compiling the inputs, we only had two. One of them was from our friend at BCNI, Tom d'Aquino. It was a speech he had given in public in Canada. As for the second one, when we were in Suriname, I met for breakfast with the artisans and woodworkers of Suriname. They had a presentation and they've now sent it to Washington.

Is that it, Claude?

Mr. Claude Carrière (Director, Tariffs and Market Access Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I think there are more now.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Are there?

We know that the Americans were trying to encourage more collective briefs. In the process we're involved in, we summarize them, evaluate them and make a report to ministers. Ministers will subsequently do something or decide something at the meeting in Toronto in November.

For the moment, no work has been done other than to receive them. I'd be happy to show any of you the inputs at any time. I have no problem with that. Other countries in the hemisphere do not want these documents to be made public by the FTAA, whereas if Tom d'Aquino has already delivered a speech, it's in the public domain anyway. We—the Canadian delegation—don't have that problem and we'd be happy to share with this committee whatever comes into that group. But there will be sensitivities in the hemisphere.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

Which of the nine negotiating groups is looking into the issue of a cultural exemption? Has this already been discussed?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: No, not yet.

Mr. Claude Carrière: The trade negotiations committee, the umbrella committee, deals with all issues, including those which are not covered by the negotiating groups. Neither Canada nor any other country has raised the issue of culture, even if some related matters may have been discussed in one group or another. The Canadian position is the same everywhere, whether it be under NAFTA, the WTO or the free trade area. No negotiating group deals with this specific issue.

• 1155

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It will have to be raised someday.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

Could you be more concrete as to the definition of “concrete progress”?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Oh, oui. You want me to “please be more concrete on the concrete progress”. Okay.

First, we are governed by a declaration issued by leaders in Miami in December of 1994, with a president who was quite confident before all his excruciating experiences. He really felt that he would have fast track and deliverables. That leader, Mr. Clinton, was promising that Chile could join NAFTA, that we were going to have free trade in the hemisphere and that we'd be halfway done by the year 2000.

All the rest of the countries were saying, “We think 2000 is too soon, but let's see how far we can get by 2000.” They didn't say anything other than “we will show concrete progress” by the turn of the century. Being leaders, they left all of us trying to implement this. We started off with their objectives. We are diminishing them. Canada, for instance, is going to claim victory at just getting the process started.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When negotiations started, there were 34 countries and we were optimistic that an agreement could be reached. You mentioned elections in Argentina and that one of the candidates is not very supportive of free trade. We have gone through a similar situation here, when we were talking about free trade with the United States and the Liberals were much less enthusiastic about all these free trade agreements than they are now. They have warmed up since. What would happen if in one, two or more states, leaders elected before 2005 decided to stop this process? Could we keep on going with 30 players or would the withdrawal of some players mean the end of the process?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: We could keep on negotiating with less than 34 countries. Although we have 34 seats at the negotiating table right now, all countries are not interested in the same issues and do not take part as actively in negotiations. However, I would imagine that progress would be rather slow. It is clear that everyone can stay close to the process rather than closing the door completely, but without being really involved.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's take a major player like Brazil and its financial and electoral situation.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I have to admit that if Brazil were to withdraw, it would change lots of things.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Exactly.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: However, it is clear for the time being that everyone wants to stay.

[English]

Here's one way we looked at it: to get to Suriname is not easy, and all of the vice-ministers went to Suriname. We have little benchmarks. If you were not going to go, you really wouldn't go.... What the Brazilians actually said is that they would have to go more slowly because they're managing the process at home, but they didn't say they were leaving.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It would be regrettable, but it is possible that some countries will withdraw. Due to the international financial situation, it is possible that some countries will ask, as Brazil did, to delay the process. Although one never considers such a possibility at the onset of negotiations and it is bad form to say so publicly, there is an exit door that can always be used if things do not work out: we just stop negotiating. Could we delay negotiations until 2010, 2025 or 2050?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, it's possible. The remainder would decide—if there were enough remaining—to continue. The biggest possibility is that the group will decide to roll it into the WTO.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: For example, if concrete progress is not made by 2000, could this be a first sign? Could we still remain optimistic?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: No. It depends on how ministers explain themselves coming out of the meeting in Toronto.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Really, they could come out saying they had set themselves too high a bar so they're just going to aim here instead of there—after congratulating themselves on how much work they've done.

• 1200

The progress since 1994, when they weren't even talking to each other, is quite exceptional. If you look at it in retrospect, we have achieved a lot. If you look at the future, maybe we set ourselves too fast a track or maybe the obligations are too high. There's no indication of stopping at the moment, but slowing down, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Chairman: Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I would like to return to the three special groups dealing with horizontal issues, and specifically the input of civil society. What is the interface between the three special groups and the sectoral groups, including agriculture and government procurement? How does it work?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The three groups are not negotiating groups, but all 34 countries are represented on all of them. Each group is different.

The easiest one is the electronic commerce group, which was established because the Americans became very concerned during the last year that people were starting to regulate electronic commerce without understanding it. What they were really looking for was a commitment to stand still, i.e., no regulations on electronic commerce until we've discussed it.

They raised this at APEC, at the WTO and at the FTAA. They did not have consensus. They did not have support. What they achieved was an agreement to study it and its implications in the context of this negotiation. We're to come back to it at the end of this year in Toronto. The goal of the electronic commerce group is to simply say that they don't think this is subject to the negotiations or that they think it's being better managed in Geneva with the WTO—or to say “this is what we recommend”. This is quite a distinct group with a very short-term mandate.

The consultative group on small economies has the word “consultative” in its title because it is to consult consistently. The smaller economies, led by the Caribbean, are very concerned that there is a misunderstanding of the impact of free trade on their societies. They're looking for a breadth of understanding that is not normally discussed in a trade negotiation. We've established this group where they can express their concerns and where attempts can be made on development assistance that help them transform their economies, but it's not a negotiation. We're all members there. Canada participated at quite a senior level during the first four years of the process.

This group is also empowered to remind negotiating groups that they have failed to consider the impact on the smaller economies. Although we argue that because we're concerned about the impact on smaller economies we would carry that thought into the nine negotiating groups anyway, they're not as confident that the totality will do so.

The group on civil society is, quite frankly, a mess. It isn't a group that people are comfortable with. Ministers merely agreed to have a committee on civil society and then all got on planes in Costa Rica, leaving certain persons to solve this.

At the first meeting in Buenos Aires, we were to put together the committee. We were to establish its rules of procedure and how it would operate, and we were to elect a chairman. We failed to elect a chairman, so Canada is serving ad interim as the chairman of that group. We failed—the fickle finger of fate—to come up with guidelines on what we would achieve in the long term. The only thing we agreed to was to put out this announcement saying, “We'd like to hear from you.”

Several attempts have been made to select a chairman. We had a very prominent Chilean offer his services, but several other countries said that until his guidelines—his operating mandate—were established, they would not agree to a chairman who was prominent and would create activity around him.

• 1205

It's quite clear that officials aren't going to be able to do this. It's quite clear that this will be the subject of discussion at the ministerial meeting. We're keeping the process running. I am quite an optimistic person, but on this subject I have no hope that I'll be able to achieve agreement at my level.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The impression I have is that “civil society” is a buzzword phrase—it has been for a few years now—that they felt a need but it was very vague, and that the group is, with very great difficulty, trying to get to some objectives. My impression is that they want to do something but they don't quite know what. Is this correct?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: It's not even that much.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The Democrats are committed to genuine dialogue with labour and environment groups, as we know from the NAFTA side agreements, and we support that. They don't have a difficulty with it. Most of the Latin American countries feel that their labour groups or their other groups helped bring them revolutions in the past, and they're not so sure they want to talk to them just yet. We have different domestic objectives being discussed internationally. It's very difficult.

The Mexican government, for instance, doesn't want to internationalize discussions on labour. They want to say that it's a national issue. They don't want to have a superstructure to do it.

You're right: the phrase “civil society” is very interesting. Certain groups are very angry—and there have been two parallel groups—that we've been much more open and kinder to the business community. At each negotiation there has been a business forum, where the businessmen are running around talking at ministers and ministers are receiving their inputs. Parallel groups are saying, “The least you can do is to do the same for us.” Canadians understand and are quite happy to do that, but the resistance is very high.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My next question is on a more sensitive subject since it is about how Canada is perceived, compared to the United States, by the 33 other countries. We know that there is an ambiguous relationship between Latin American countries and the United States: there is both love and hate. We also know that Canada has an excellent reputation, although on the international scene we have never been viewed as a major power, rather as an intermediate power. I wondered what the perception is and what is the stature of our government among these 34 countries.

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: That's a great question. I'm glad you asked it.

I'm having a lot of fun, because for the first time the Americans are working from a policy vacuum. They don't have their normal role. So with their diminished role, if you look at the globe with the round curve, for the first time Latins can see Canada without looking through the United States. They see us, and they see us exactly how you've explained it, as honest, upright and committed, but they see that we're different from the Americans despite being a member of NAFTA. For the first time, they see me. I'm not always as charming as I am today—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: —and they see me being quite nasty to the Americans and saying “we don't agree with you”. We've subjected the Americans to what they regard as one of the most humiliating parts of the process: they have to negotiate as one equal with 33 equals, whereas historically they always negotiate one-on-one and then collectivize the agreement at the end.

Part of the reason I'm so positive about the process is precisely that: we've insisted on a round table for the past four years, and everybody has one seat and one vote. For the Americans it's very frustrating. We'll reach agreement by consensus. They say, “there's consensus and consensus”, and we say, “no”.

Where we're trying to make a lot of progress and where we've put a lot of energy is in implanting this perception of Canada now, because the moment the Americans get fast track, ça change, tout va changer, and we will take our normal back seat.

But I think we'll have left them with the impression that they can talk to us, that they can say, “Can you help us understand the Americans? Can you keep them out of our face?” I see it as a very positive opportunity.

• 1210

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I was in Mexico on a delegation very recently, a couple of months ago, and that was certainly my impression. Those Mexican authorities I spoke to—it was not a trade mission—were very keen to get to us without going through the United States and wanted to see us play a bigger role in the Americas, particularly with Mexico. That was definitely my perception. Is this your perception as well?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes. The Mexicans will actually be here next week, I think, for a joint ministerial meeting, and they are bringing a large delegation of ministers. They really do want to do that.

On the trade side, our primary relationship is with the United States—I'm in charge of our exports, 83% of which go to the United States—so this is not an anti-American speech; it's just that we have a golden opportunity and we're trying to maximize it to our benefit, but not to the detriment of the Americans. We talk to them all the time. I didn't want my slight anti-American tinge to....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before we go on to the second round, maybe I could just follow up on the participation of civil society. We know there's going to be a business forum before the ministerial meeting. If we have a separate civil society group that runs parallel, don't we run a danger of the input not going into the ministerial meeting, a danger, in fact, of having all the media focus and the attention on the bad things that are happening in civil society? How can we engage them more? It's almost like it'll run parallel, like it did at APEC, when the ministers met together and the NGOs met together and the two groups almost didn't speak to one another. How do we solve that problem?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: If I knew the answer, I could be more famous than I am.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I think I know some ways in which we can do this. First and foremost, the business community doesn't want anything to do with “civil society” and is really quite annoyed with us that we've lumped them together as civil society.

Some of them, however, when you talk to them, are part of what I tried to explain a little earlier: if we could get the NGOs up to speed enough so that they focus their comments constructively on trade issues or on issues that can be fixed by trade negotiations.... They're so anxious to be heard that they have a tendency to take on too many issues and then go right over the top with them, so you hit this wall of resistance where the business community says, “Oh, they want us to fix everything! Why don't they just focus?”

I would say that the contribution of “civil society” would be improved by a dialogue whereby they understood the issues and could focus their comments on specifics, not just on general complaints.

The other way is to not only listen; they'd like feedback. We have found on several occasions that when telling them something like “the Canadian government's never going to negotiate that”, you don't get the negative reaction you think you'd get. What you've done is offer clarity. You've said, “This is the issue, this is how it's being negotiated and this is the subject area, and what you're asking us to do is hors de la situation, it's just so far out that we won't be doing that.” As long as they understand, the anger factor gets reduced quite rapidly.

The other thing I find is that we don't have the resources we need to do it individually. When they get together, their complaints collectively far outweigh their contributions. They all get in a room and the only thing they have in common is that they don't like the government, which is different from us taking them on one at a time and asking them what their issues are.

Second, we've had the dialogue within the department as to how we're going to manage Toronto and we haven't yet come to a conclusion about how we incorporate them sufficiently into the whole process so that they don't become the “anti-group”, like the “protest group”. That remains one of the issues we're fighting.

The Chairman: All right. Then let me ask you this: do you have any recommendations for this committee as to how we, in engaging civil society, can assist in focusing civil society? Do you see any role for this committee and do you have any recommendations in that regard?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I'm not sure where the committee got to this morning on round tables and talking. You asked me for documents. What we've decided is that we have to be quite sensitive while we're the chair of the process, but the Canadian government position is that all documents are available. We are not negotiating in secret. If I, as the chair, start throwing all of them at you, then the whole hemisphere says, “But we haven't agreed that those aren't restricted documents.”

• 1215

Part of it, I think, is showing that you are willing to be transparent, that you have the knowledge and you're willing to share it on our behalf. We're limited in the number of people we can field for a discussion, so it's a bit like tiers, in which we'll tell you everything we know and then you can help us tell other people.

It's part of what I just suggested. If we could instruct people in the best way to communicate with us.... Maybe yelling on the street and having placards gets you on the news, but it doesn't actually get you to the people who are dealing with the issues. This is more about how we focus people on making a contribution specific to the issue being dealt with.

That's something like Claude is suggesting to me, and I lose sight of it: the whole process of the FTAA was part of the Summit of the Americas process, so in actual fact, there were 24 subject areas addressed in Miami. This morning, this committee and I have concentrated on only one. Issues like the environment, the role of education, mothers and implications for the health of children are all included in the bigger document and they are being discussed in all other forums in the hemisphere—such as PAHO, on the health of the hemisphere.

I think we need to tell Canadians that not everything has to go into the trade negotiations, that many of their issues are being addressed in a more global sense in the hemisphere as part of the summit process.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I find this really interesting. The ILO is a forum in which labour is being discussed, addressing some of the very issues that will be in discussion at the civil society level as well.

I was interested to hear talk about a sort of critical mass in discussions in terms of Brazil—and you know how important Brazil is—but I do think we can't fool ourselves into thinking anything other than the United States being the big prize for most countries. If the United Stated isn't onside or if they don't have fast track, how far down this road can we go before we have to say at some point that negotiations don't go any further until they get on board? I do think that's not going to happen until the next elections in the United States because of the situation with the president right now, so that takes us beyond the year 2000 period. How much thought has your group given to this or how much discussion has taken place about it? We can't negotiate forever and then just have it all renegotiated again in Congress.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: In your last comment, you put your finger on the true issue. As you probably know, there is no obligation for the Americans to have fast track at the start of the process. They need fast track to conclude the process. As a matter of fact, they don't actually need fast track to conclude the process if everyone is willing to be negotiated three or four times through Congress. Historically, almost all World Trade Organization negotiations that have started have started without the Americans having fast-track authority.

The level of suspicion in the hemisphere, the “treatment of Mexico after NAFTA”, has meant that the hemisphere is saying to the Americans, “We're not going to go through this process and have it happen to us twice or three times, so this time you have to bring that card to the table.” The tolerance factor of how long we wait until we finally challenge them is what's under discussion. For most of us, it will be a wait until the next president. Somewhere in 2001, everybody's going to have to decide if the Americans going to bring fast track to the table.

But what you also have is “chicken-and-egging”. You have the Brazilians, who are not really sure they want to do this. After they posted Mr. Franco to the OAS—isn't he the ambassador to the OAS?—they had unilateral opening of their markets. They were an import-substitution economy. Then they joined MERCOSUR, and now they're in WTO and in the FTAA. They'd like to slow down. They've said they'd like to slow down, but the blame is on the Americans for not having fast track.

• 1220

What you really have is a commitment to continue because there's a lot of work to be done, but we will come to a point at which we'll have to decide, quite categorically, whether we carry on. But then, Americans need fast track to go to the WTO and they need fast track to continue with APEC, so—

Mr. Claude Carrière: May I add something?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, at any time.

Mr. Claude Carrière: We have to bear in mind that the negotiations are not to conclude before 2005. The target date for ending the negotiations is 2005. The process today and for the next several months, if not years, is as much one of helping many of the Latin American countries get to the WTO level of obligations—we discussed this earlier—as it is one of allowing for much bilateral discussion. Along with FTAA meetings, whether at the ministerial level or at the vice-ministerial level, there is a considerable degree of bilateral negotiation going on in the context of these meetings. At one FTAA meeting, MERCOSUR and Chile concluded their bilateral negotiations.

The framework of the FTAA enables movement in the hemisphere. This also will be an incentive for the Americans to get fast track, because there will be concern about being left behind. That is the other side of the equation.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I want to get back to this single undertaking. I still haven't got my head around this. I want to use an example and see if you can help me out.

Let's say Costa Rica can't meet one or two of these items of the nine that are being negotiated. Will Costa Rica be allowed to join and have those particular sectors come on later? Or will they not be allowed to join unless they meet the criteria that the 34 countries have developed?

Mr. Claude Carrière: There could be two answers to your question.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Is that all?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, only two.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Actually, there is one answer: it's “maybe”. The single undertaking means no cherry-picking; you abide by everything, by the whole package. Now, if the Costa Ricans are able to negotiate an exemption or a longer timetable, then they will have that exemption or longer timetable. They will have negotiated and paid for it and others will be extracting concessions from them for giving them a longer timeline, for example, in regard to this particular sector or that particular sector. That would be the process of negotiation.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Let's continue with the example. If they weren't able to meet the agricultural section, if they negotiated a 10-year exemption or whatever, how would your example work?

Mr. Claude Carrière: It depends on whether they would be exempting all of it or just one product, in which case, perhaps, they would be negotiating a shorter timetable in another subsector of agriculture. It's all a question of negotiation. Their decision will then be the decision of all the countries participating at the end of the day—as to whether the deal or the agreement that's negotiated makes sense for them.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Isn't that going to be a very complicated process with 34 countries?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, very complicated, which is one of the reasons why it will take some time.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: That's also why it's good training for the WTO; 34 is easier than 134.

Mr. Charlie Penson: [Inaudible—Editor]...this is all about, a learning process for FTAA.

What about other areas, such as Canada preparing for our society to participate through language training and through education in terms of what the cultural differences are business-wise and in terms of what it's like to live or work in these countries? How can we prepare better for the time when we are going to have an agreement that we have to get our public ready to participate in?

• 1225

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: That would be more in-house, and when I say in-house, it means not just inside Canada but very much how the other half of Team Canada Inc.... One of the things we've agreed to with Industry Canada is that the skill of trade commissioners per se is in understanding other markets, etc. Industry Canada and the provinces, because of absence of resources, were trying to work collectively and collaboratively in the training of Canadian exporters. It's export training at home in how you trade with other nations. We're looking at it individually, but it isn't a collective activity.

When we evaluated the list of potential business facilitation issues, there were quite a few things like this, like round tables or manuals or directories, but in particular, the bank, as one of the primary funding agents of the collectivity, said, “We'd be happy to do these things. It's not that they're not doable; who funds them? Where are we going to get the funds for them?”

We're coming back in April with a list of the things we feel need to be done or don't need to be done. These are all ideas; we're going to have to abandon this one or say that we like that one, but then we have to put a dollar value next to it and see what we can afford to do and in what order. It's under consideration.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Shouldn't we also be involving our colleges and universities in this discussion?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes.

Mr. Charlie Penson: For example, they may put on a program for Latin American studies.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I think the L branch is doing that with FOCAL, which is the primary NGO group for relations with Latin America.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I just think we need to address that issue as a committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We have been discussing the role of civil society. I would like to ask about the role of the Parliamentarians of the Americas' group. As far as I know, its members met only once. How could this group help you to get the discussion going within the civil society? Could there be any linkage between negotiators, the round tables and all of that and the Parliamentarians of the Americas?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: There is no official linkage at the present time. We have had one briefing session with Ms. Hervieux-Payette.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, I remember having briefed the Canadian parliamentary delegation that went to Quebec.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: In preparation of this meeting.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: After Quebec, the Parliamentarians of the Americas who were there, representing 34 countries, expressed a common desire to play a role in shaping the negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas. In your view, would it be desirable to link with this group and to make it operational? They could help to raise the awareness of the civil society in some of these countries. If so, how?

Do you prefer the latter question? No?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: No.

It's always possible. How? We're very resource-tight. The way you've approached it is good, with one group helping a bigger group use its influence, but even helping that group.... I know, for instance, that some of the countries at the ministerial meetings include their parliamentarians on their delegations, which solves that problem. Mr. Marchi took—

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Carrière: Mr. Sauvageau.

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, and he also took parliamentarians with him to Costa Rica.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I was there with you.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes. If you are thinking about a formal system, the answer is no. If you are talking about formalizing the process, I am not sure.

[English]

Talk about it with the minister.

Again, it's really about information, about who owns the information and whether we are willing to share it. Yes, we have the information and, yes, we're willing to share it, but the question is, what's the best way of sharing it, recognizing that we have very limited resources for this?

• 1230

With respect to the FTAA file, at one point there were four of us doing it. Well, you saw us; there were more of us in Costa Rica, but normally there are four of us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: It's about how we promote the geometric progression of information being shared, keeping it clear. Here's my biggest worry. It's like the L'Oréal ad on TV: I liked it, so I told one person who told two, who told eight, who told twenty-eight.... But they only had to say that it's good shampoo. What I'm worried about is that if you use the ripple effect, you get too far away from the actual facts.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you are looking for a vehicle to reach out to civil society in some countries, you might use this group which already exists in several countries.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, it is an excellent idea.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In principle, Parliamentarians are the representatives of their people. Most of the time, whether we talk about free-trade or other matters, the role Parliamentarians can play is forgotten. In this case, Parliamentarians have shown good will by creating this group and I think that a linkage would be desirable.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, yes, this is excellent.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay. This is my personal opinion and I share it with you.

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Oui—how we can use it more effectively.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My next question is on negotiating blocs. Some small countries do not negotiate individually but as blocs. Unless I am mistaken, one of those is CARICOM. On the other hand, Canada and the United States negotiate on their own. How about MERCOSUR?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: No, it is the opposite.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could you explain which blocs are part of the negotiations?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Everybody can negotiate as a bloc if they have agreed in advance to have a spokesperson. In agreeing to let you negotiate as a bloc, we demand that all four countries of MERCOSUR, having negotiated as a bloc, will implement the agreement. Is there an agreement amongst the members of the bloc that all the countries, having =1846=] negotiated as a bloc, can accept exactly what's been negotiated?

At the moment, the only one that's even close to being able to do that is MERCOSUR. CARICOM has just chosen a spokesperson. The Central Americans were getting there with their committee on sustainable development; two elections later, they're fragmented again. We're talking to the Costa Ricans about how it would be nicer if they got them together. The Andean community felt they were being left behind by MERCOSUR, so they agreed to have a spokesperson.

But at the moment, you would be negotiating with each country individually at the final negotiations. It's really not negotiation bloc by bloc yet, and we have indicated absolutely clearly from the beginning of the process that there is no such thing as NAFTA bloc negotiation; they negotiate with Canada and the United States and Mexico. Although we're a free trade area, we are not negotiating as a bloc.

It's a work in progress.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

The Chairman: Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could I interject something, Mr. Sauvageau? This is related to what you just said.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My pleasure.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I do not want to cut you off.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, go ahead.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My comments are precisely on the contribution of Parliamentarians. One and a half year ago there was this meeting of the Parliamentarians of the Americas in Quebec. Canada participated in this conference at the time but I heard since that Canada is withdrawing. So I wanted to share this piece of information. This group could have been a vehicle for the approach you suggested, but I do not think it is possible any more since Canada is not in the picture any more, as they say.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to complement your comment to tell you that Canada withdrew in order to set up its own group of Parliamentarians of the Americas, to avoid being lumped together with Quebec.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I do not have any comment on this.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It might be useful supplementary information.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, maybe.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You should talk about it with senators.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: When he said “with Quebec”...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, do you have another question?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Oui.

The Chairman: Then we'll hear from Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We already know the position of American business people. Could you tell us about the views of American representatives, of senators and the public in general? What is their perception? Business seems to be supportive, but what do Americans think?

• 1235

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Speaking for the Americans or about the Americans is a dangerous business.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I would say that they were wildly enthusiastic at one point and were really very much the moving force. They put forward Miami to be the site. But then it was all overtaken by other things. One of the conversations we had at the level of vice-ministers in Miami was about what we could do to raise the profile again. I would say this isn't anywhere near as attractive as impeachment. It will come and go depending on the benchmarks, which is, I think, why we have the benchmarks. With respect to the year 2000, everybody's going to wake up and say, “What happened? Did you get it done?” Then it'll go away again. I think we're dealing with waves. I guess it's the Republicans who are in favour of free trade and the Democrats who aren't. It's cyclical.

I think the safest answer is that it comes and goes. But there isn't a large group of them who are opposed. The most I can say is that they're indifferent.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Carrière? No?

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: You're allowed to not agree with me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Merci. Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Penson talked about what I call, in my lingo, intercultural training. It is about how to do business and other things with people from different cultures who also have different business practices.

When I headed a government organization in Quebec we did a lot of work with the then minister of International Affairs of Quebec, Mr. Ciaccia, on the contribution of Quebeckers—but this applies to all Canadians—who came from other countries, who migrated to Canada and who are now Canadian citizens. Mr. Ciaccia had published a white book where he talked about the large practical contribution these people could make; he said that they could give advice on the ways of doing things in any given country, on how to do business with these people and also that they could help build networks between our country and another. Is this something that the Canadian government could consider?

Mr. Claude Carrière: There are several sides to your question. I can tell you from my own experience that we have benefitted from the advice of cultural or ethnic communities. For example, in the case of the agreement between Canada and Chile, the Chilean community especially in Montreal with the Canada-Chile Chamber of commerce, worked with us and with the government of Chile in support of the negotiation and, at a later stage, the implementation of the agreement. It also worked on strengthening the relationship so that exporters, business people from both countries, could reap the full benefit. So, here we have an example where we worked with an ethnic group. I am sure there are other opportunities. The free-trade area is one of them. We are very supportive of this approach.

[English]

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: It's a good idea, but how do you do it? Most people run their days without ever thinking about free trade. How do you transform the dialogue into terms people understand and assimilate well? On one side you have the fear: “I don't want free trade because I'll lose my job, my brother-in-law will lose his job and we'll be overrun with American products”. You've heard the fear list.

• 1240

What we're not very good at is the positive list. How will it affect you? Will you have more money in your pocket? Will you have a wider selection of choices of products? When economists talk about economic growth it always sounds so great, but “what does it do for me living in Etobicoke?” “Not very much.”

One of the things about using people is this: how do you make the message clear enough so that it's transmitted easily? The easiest thing to transmit is the fear side of it—“we're opposed”. It's much easier to get everybody opposed to it than it is to get them for it.

I was our high commissioner in Jamaica. I know that it's very difficult to talk to Jamaicans, because they're one of the groups that have left Jamaica behind. They have very close family links, but they say they're Canadians now. I came up here once from Jamaica to talk to the Jamaican community about the problems of drugs and these kinds of thing and they were all saying, “But that's Jamaica's problem. We're Canadians. Why are you talking to us?” I use that just as a personal example.

How do you bridge that gap?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could I just say one thing? I too happen to know the Jamaican community well. I think that's not just for the Jamaicans. More generally speaking, if you talk to business people about business links it's one thing. If you talk to Jamaicans here in Canada about drug problems in Jamaica, it's a totally different dialogue, for obvious reasons,

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: C'est vrai.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I see an interesting link between people who have done well in Canada—business people—some of whom would really look forward to having links back to their original countries.... We could put it that way. This is very vague as a question, but I was just wondering how these links could benefit the kind of discussions that you're having.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: It's something we'll have to consider. At this point, we haven't. I have been asked to give speeches there—not here—a couple of times. Maybe it would be better to speak here and let those people speak—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes. We don't realize just how much “back and forth” there is, not only in terms of telephones and computers but in terms of actual physical people displacing—and goods very often.... I worked in this field for a number of years. I don't know how many people I've met who look forward to going back to the country they first came from and creating some kind of commercial link.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, they do.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: For many, this is a dream.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, we'll take a look at it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I realize that as a suggestion it's vague.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: But it's a good idea.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, a short question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are any other subjects being discussed at the Summit of the Americas besides the free trade area, such as education, drugs, etc.? Is the civil society also involved in those subjects?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is the desired outcome an agreement or a treaty?

Mr. Claude Carrière: It depends on the subjects.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: Yes, it depends on the subjects, but this is a large part of the discussion at the Summit of the Americas.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The next summit will be held here, in Canada. The issue rests on our shoulders. It will form a large part of the discussions at the next summit.

[English]

The Chairman: When is that meeting?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The date is chosen by the Prime Minister.

The Chairman: So it hasn't been chosen yet.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: No.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? No?

[English]

Thank you very much for your very enlightening discussion. We appreciate you coming here, and I hope we can call upon you again to fill in the gaps as we go through this process.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: I'd be happy to come back.

The Chairman: Okay.

The meeting is terminated.