HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 0905

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to follow up on a joint motion by Madame Gagnon, Mr. Sauvageau, and Mr. Harvard, which was agreed to, to hear witnesses from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and also appropriate officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, in regard to a meeting on the cultural content of the free trade agreement of the Americas.

Before I open the floor to the witnesses, I would like to ask members for their cooperation in staying for ten minutes after the meeting. We have a few items of business to deal with.

There's a motion by Madame Gagnon that must be dealt with. We also have to talk briefly about the terms of reference for the broadcasting study—not to agree on them today, but to be sensitized to them—and also the list of witnesses for the bill that will be coming before us, which has to be looked at and discussed.

So there are three or four items of business. If you can give me ten minutes after the meeting, I suggest we stop our hearings here at 10:45 and go on to in camera for 15 minutes.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Before the officials make their presentation on the FTAA, I would like to know why the motion inviting the minister to appear before the committee was defeated. I wasn't here last week.

The Chair: We are not going to have that discussion again. The discussion lasted approximately a half-hour. At the end—and I believe your colleague was there—there was a consensus between Mr. Sauvageau and Mr. Harvard and all of the members to hear the officials. We could come back to the discussion, but I do believe it has been done. I don't think that this discussion should be relived today. We said that the minister had no power over the negotiations which are underway, that the negotiations were the responsibility of Mr. Pettigrew. In fact, it is Mr. Sauvageau himself who suggested that we hear from the officials responsible for the negotiation.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, because we knew we didn't have a choice. What I'm saying is that we know that the members of Parliament from the government side do not want the minister to appear here. That must also be said.

The Chair: That wasn't it at all, Ms. Gagnon. Listen, there was a discussion and you were not present. You were represented by the members of your party and the discussion was very open.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, but I know how it went.

The Chair: I don't think that we're going to get into the discussion again today. A resolution was adopted unanimously by all parties and I think that we're going to work on it, because we can't relive the past. What's done is done. A vote was held. A discussion was held that lasted just about a half-hour and at the end there was consensus. Il was not a matter of preventing the minister from appearing or saying that she did not want to appear. The minister stated clearly that she was not responsible for any aspect of FTAA negotiations, and that Mr. Pettigrew was in charge. At the end, a resolution was presented. In fact, the suggestion to hear the officials came from Mr. Sauvageau himself.

[English]

I would like to open the meeting to the officials. Would the lead official please introduce his colleagues. We would like to hear approximately 15 minutes from you, and then open the floor to questions.

Mr. Don Stephenson (Director General, Trade Policy Bureau II, Services, Investment and Intellectual Property Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Don Stephenson. I am the director general for Trade Policy Bureau II. Trade Policy Bureau II is responsible for services, investment, and intellectual property and other matters.

Claude Carrière, my colleague, is the director general for Trade Policy Bureau I; we're number II, but we try harder. Trade Policy Bureau I is responsible for trade in goods. Claude is also Canada's chief negotiator for the FTAA and most of the regional and bilateral trade discussions in which Canada is involved.

• 0910

Michael Brock is the director of the Inter-American Division. Michael is one of the officials responsible for the preparations for the summit in Quebec City.

Cathy Dickson is the director for information and technology trade policy, responsible for trade and culture, among other files.

Janette Mark is the director for trade and investment policy at the Department of Canadian Heritage, and Artur Wilczynski is senior policy adviser, international relations, Department of Canadian Heritage.

Members of the committee, as we did not have much advance notice of the presentation today, we did not have time for a consolidated written presentation. Certainly one can be provided to you after this discussion, and perhaps it could address some of the questions that may be left open-ended when our discussion concludes. In the meantime, we will take a kind of tag team approach to the presentation.

As the FTAA is now inextricably linked to the Quebec City summit, the summit of the Americas to be held in Quebec City at the end of April, we thought it would be useful to ask our colleague involved in preparations for the summit to give a very brief overview of those presentations, and where the FTAA fits into the discussions in Quebec City. Many in the public hold the view that Quebec City is about the FTAA alone. That's far from correct; it's only one item of many on the summit agenda.

I would ask my colleague, Mr. Carrière, to give us an overview of where we stand in the FTAA negotiations generally speaking. What can we expect to be discussed at Quebec City and prior to Quebec City, in Buenos Aires, when ministers of trade meet to discuss the FTAA? What are the likely outcomes of those discussions? Where are we?

Finally, with the support of my colleagues, I would try to deal with the question of how culture, cultural diversity, is being dealt with in the FTAA, and in a wider sense, in Canada's trade negotiations generally.

If that's acceptable to the committee, I would ask Michael to begin with an overview of the summit.

Mr. Michael Brock (Director, Inter-American Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Don.

It is important to see the FTAA very much in the context of the summit of the Americas, which is a broad process for greater consultation and cooperation in the hemisphere in most areas of government activity. As most of you know, this process began in Miami in 1994 when leaders of the hemisphere came together, basically in recognition of the fact that they all shared a new vision, a vision based on democratic values. After several decades with long periods of unstable governments and dictatorships, all governments, with the exception of one, were dedicated to democratic values.

At the Miami summit, governments came together and gave expression to this vision, as well as to a vision of greater economic integration. This again resulted from a change in the situation in the hemisphere, when economies had been largely closed. There had been difficult periods, and countries were determined to work together to their mutual benefit to improve the situation for their people.

Leaders came out with an action plan that was very broad-based, addressing cooperation on a range of issues and problems in the hemisphere—such as strengthening democracy and respect for human rights, addressing poverty, dealing with corruption and the problem of illicit drugs, to name a few—as well as a conviction on, and commitment to build, a free trade area of the Americas.

This process of greater cooperation and integration was continued in the second summit in Santiago, Chile. The leaders at that time put a great deal of emphasis on education as an important foundation for economic integration and for strengthening democracy.

• 0915

These two summits produced a series of sectoral ministerial processes addressing issues of concern. Ministers of labour began to meet regularly, as well as ministers of justice, transport, energy, finance, defence, and education, to deal with this, and to develop cooperative approaches to issues affecting the hemisphere.

At that time the Prime Minister of Canada offered to host the next summit in Quebec City, and over the past year or so preparations have been going on to determine how we can continue this process next month in Quebec City.

When foreign ministers discussed the agenda and themes for Quebec City, they recognized how essential it would be to underscore the coherence of the summit's work. They stressed that strengthening democracy and economic integration should remain at the core of this process, but that there was also a very clear need to address and focus on certain issues of concern to many people.

This led to the development of three themes for the summit, of which some of you may be aware. The first of these is strengthening of democracy. This theme will address how institutions can be strengthened; how the work of fighting illegal drugs can be further developed; greater transparency; engaging civil society more in the process; and a number of other issues relating to security and violence that are of concern to people in this hemisphere.

The second theme is creating prosperity. This theme has been developed as a way to recognize the fact that prosperity is certainly not just about free trade. It's about addressing disparities; the need to deal with poverty; issues around natural disasters—which have a deep economic impact in a number of countries, particularly the Caribbean and Central America; labour and environmental issues. Ministers are meeting on these issues to develop cooperative multilateral action in the hemisphere.

The third theme is realizing human potential. It is based on the conviction that we must deal with issues such as education, health, and gender equality. They are at the foundation of building prosperity in the hemisphere. In addition, there is new attention being given to the situation of indigenous peoples, to children, and to issues of cultural diversity.

This is a new area of focus for the summit process. There's a growing consensus about the importance of discussion and cooperation on the issue of cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is seen as a factor in social cohesion and economic dynamism, and serious discourse on this issue among the 34 countries in the hemisphere needs to begin.

Leaders in Quebec City will endorse a plan of action in all these areas and provide mandates to their ministers to pursue specific action to move ahead in these areas.

Mr. Chairman, I'll stop there and pass on to my colleague.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Carrière (Director General, Trade Policy Bureau I, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, as Michael explained, the free trade of the Americas' project is a process which stems from the Summit of the Americas and which is integrated into different initiatives of the Summit.

The negotiation project of a free trade zone is a very ambitious project bringing together 34 countries. If an accord was signed, it would create a free trade zone of 800 million individuals over half of which would be south of the United States. And these are young people who would offer our exporters a very interesting marketplace. Within the framework of the Summit, this will allow Canada to participate in the development of the hemisphere.

• 0920

I will give you a brief explanation of the timetable for the negotiations and of the process followed in negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

The negotiation was launched in Santiago in April 1998 following the recommendation of trade ministers. It is composed of nine negotiating tables directed by an advisory committee which reports to the minister. Minister Pettigrew presided at the first ministerial meeting following the beginning of the negotiations. This meeting was held in Toronto in October of 1999. Canada then worked to put in place the bases for negotiations and the administrative structures that would allow the negotiations to proceed.

Ministers gave instructions to their negotiators in Toronto to start developing the draft chapters for the nine identified sectors. Since October 1999, that is what the negotiators have been doing. They developed draft chapters which will be presented to the trade ministers at Buenos Aires on April 7. It's a first draft. And it is the first time that we are trying to put together this type of text with so many participants around the table.

The timetable for the negotiations calls for a conclusion between now and 2005. Therefore, in 2001, we are still on the first half of the negotiation process. The text that will be presented to ministers represents a first draft in an effort to compare the positions of the various countries on various issues.

We would expect that the ministers in Buenos Aires will give instruction to their negotiators to try to clarify the text, to try to find ways of bridging the positions and of reducing the differences between countries between now and our next meeting in 2002. We also feel that ministers will deal with two issues which are of great concern to us, namely that of greater transparency throughout the collective process of negotiation.

Canada has tried to present and to publish as much information as possible on Canada's negotiating position, but the collective texts are the property of the group. We will try to persuade our partners in Buenos Aires on April 7 to make those texts public at the same time as the ministerial statement which will come in time for the Summit.

We will also try to reinforce the process by which we consult with civil society. In 1998, the FTAA created for the first time a committee where civil society can participate in the negotiating process. This is an experience that was somewhat disappointing because several countries are worried about the objectives of a civil society in the negotiation process. Over the past three years, we feel, however, that there is a little bit less wariness on their part. We will try to reinforce the role of that committee, again in order to increase the transparency of the negotiation, and also to promote discussion workshops with civil societies throughout the hemisphere, in order to demystify what is going on within the negotiations.

• 0925

The Free Trade Area of the Americas also faces huge challenges. You know that among the 34 participants, we run the gamut from the most powerful to the weakest, the largest to the smallest, the richest to the poorest. On the one hand of course there is the United States, and at the other end of the scale you may place certain islands of the Caribbean. One of the concerns for the majority of the countries is the question of the small economies. How will the larger help the smaller economies to adapt to free trade and to benefit from it? That is the first challenge.

The second is the position of the two major partners in the process, the United States and Brazil in particular. For several years now, the American government has been losing its leadership role in the hemisphere. And several countries expected and are still expecting the United States to demonstrate that they are truly engaged in negotiating an agreement and that they are willing to open their market. What is of interest to most countries is better access to the American market.

The new administration, which is still being put together, has already demonstrated a great deal of interest, and much more political will as to the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas. It is possible that at the meeting in Buenos Aires and also at the Summit, a little bit more momentum may ensue in the negotiation process.

On the other hand, Brazil has never been very enthusiastic. It is quite wary of the process. It is rather fearful as to the ability of American institutions to profit from the Brazilian market and is not convinced that the United States will open its marketplace in those sectors of interest to Brazil.

Brazil is also trying to reinforce its industry. Brazilian economy opened up to the international marketplace just a short time ago. Until the end of the 1980s and into the beginning of the 1990s, Brazil had a rather closed economy as regards international trade. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Brazil has begun to open to international markets, but still needs time to adapt. We will have to see what will come out of a possible agreement between the Americans and the Brazilians as to the negotiating timetable.

That's about it. I can assure you that the FTAA will not be signed in Quebec City in April. We are looking at at least three years of fairly arduous negotiations before our goal will be in sight.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stephenson, are there others who would like to intervene, or are we ready for questions?

Mr. Don Stephenson: Just myself. I'd like to take a moment or two to talk in a general way about how we're dealing with the issue of culture in the FTAA and in trade negotiations.

Canada's position on trade and culture rests on two fundamental principles. The first is that trade in Canada is extremely important. We rely more on trade for our economic prosperity than any of our major trading partners. We are four times more reliant on it than the United States, and three times more than Japan. Trade accounts for something like 45% of our GDP, and one out of every three jobs. So for Canada, trade is an important principle of our trade and culture policy.

The second principle is that cultural expression, products, and services are not just goods and services like any others. Canada believes that cultural expression isn't just economic activity. It's central to fostering a sense of Canadian identity—or rather identities, in the plural. A country has to be able to produce, preserve, and distribute its own cultural products and services, for reasons that transcend the economy.

• 0930

In its trade negotiations, Canada has long believed that culture should be treated differently. It has therefore sought to exclude cultural industries from the disciplines of trade agreements. It has done so in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It has preserved that distinction for cultural industries in the NAFTA, and has had similar exclusions for cultural industries in the Canada-Chile and Canada-Israel free trade agreements.

In view of the convergence and technological change in cultural production on the one hand, and the increased effects of globalization on the other, the Minister of International Trade asked the cultural industries sectoral advisory group on international trade—the cultural SAGIT, as we refer to them—to consider how Canada should treat culture in international trade discussions.

The resulting report and recommendations of the SAGIT were that Canada should pursue the establishment of a new international agreement that would clearly set out countries' rights to preserve their cultural identities. It would also establish clear rules on what measures are permissible in that pursuit. The SAGIT recommended that until such an international agreement could be established Canada should take on no new commitments of any kind that would limit our flexibility to achieve our cultural policy objectives.

Canada has taken very active steps to promote the notion of a new international instrument among other countries. Perhaps Janette Mark could provide an overview of those activities, which were undertaken very much in partnership with the Government of Quebec. From the perspective of trade policy, we also try to support international awareness building. In ministerial meetings or leaders' meetings, we try to ensure that the declarations recognize the importance of cultural diversity.

The Government of Canada's position with respect to trade and culture is we will take no commitments that would limit Canada's flexibility in pursuing its cultural diversity objectives, and we will promote the establishment of a new international instrument on cultural diversity. How we do this depends on the circumstances of the specific negotiation.

With respect to the GATS, before this meeting I distributed the information kit on Canada's initial GATS position, announced last week by Minister Pettigrew. The document entitled “Initial Canadian Negotiating Proposal” has been tabled in Geneva as Canada's position in the negotiations.

You will note that Canada's position on culture is made extremely clear. It says almost exactly what I just said: “We will take no commitments that would limit our flexibility, and we will pursue an international instrument on cultural diversity”.

If you look at the objectives on the third page, the last statement says:

Canada will also not make any commitment that restricts its ability to achieve its cultural policy objectives until a new international instrument—designed specifically to safeguard the right of countries to promote and preserve their cultural diversity—can be established.

That's our position in respect of the GATS.

• 0935

The structure of the GATS is what's referred to in trade policy as a bottom-up agreement. That is to say, everything is out unless you list it as in. So every country must list, specifically, what sectors it wishes to open, and how. So for the GATS, keeping cultural industries out is simply a matter of not actively listing them in our list of commitments. That's the bottom-up process. NAFTA, on the other hand, is top-down: everything is in unless you specifically list it as out.

For the FTAA, it's not clear. Particularly with respect to the services part of the agreement, the 34 countries haven't agreed yet what the structure will be—whether it will be a top-down agreement, as the NAFTA deals with services, or a bottom-up one like the GATS. If it's top-down, we'll proceed by exclusion as we did in Canada-Chile or Canada-Israel. If it's bottom-up, like the GATS, we'll proceed by not including commitments on cultural industries.

That's the basic answer, although in all these agreements there are other important issues to deal with on culture and culture-related matters. For example, there are discussions about disciplines on subsidies—what kinds of subsidies governments can offer to industries, and the degree to which they can have an effect on distorting trade.

The disciplines we might agree to on subsidies would very much concern the cultural sector. So we have to be mindful of the impact on the cultural sector in those discussions, and be sure to exclude that sector.

In addition, when we deal with other sectors of the economy, there can also be impacts on the cultural sector. For example, when we discuss telecommunications and the relationship between it and broadcasting, that has to be made clear. With respect to our discussions on the transmissions of electronic commerce, a clear line has to be drawn between commerce and content so there aren't any inadvertent impacts on the cultural sector.

Essentially that's how we would exclude culture, by not taking any commitments in the agreements that would limit Canada's flexibility in culture.

[Translation]

As I said earlier, in all its international trade talks, Canada attempts to support greater awareness of cultural diversity. Canada has proposed a preambular text for the FTAA agreement that stresses the importance of cultural diversity. Canada's proposal for the preamble of the FTAA agreement reads as follows:

Recognizing that countries must maintain the ability to preserve, develop and implement their cultural policies for the purpose of strengthening cultural diversity, given the essential role that cultural goods and services play in the identity and diversity of society and the lives of individuals;

[English]

I will conclude by saying that Canada's position on cultural diversity for the trade discussions, and for the preamble to the FTAA, has the strong support of the cultural sector and the cultural industries, including the Coalition pour la diversité culturelle.

Our position is based on consultations with the cultural sector. Some of these were joint consultations in spring 2000, by officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on the basis of the SAGIT report. Other consultations were with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, at about the same time. So our position has strong support among the affected stakeholders.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd be delighted to try to answer your questions.

• 0940

The Chair: Thank you.

We have just over an hour for questions. As I mentioned to members, I would really appreciate it if you'd stay after 10:45, and we'll clear up a few items of business, including a motion that is before us.

I'll open the floor to...

Mr. Don Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my colleague responsible for regional trade negotiations has to attend to such business and must leave at about ten, so if there were questions specific to the FTAA and wider than culture, I invite the members of the committee to address those questions to Claude before he has to leave.

[Translation]

The Chair: If you have questions for Mr. Carrière, please ask them before 10 o'clock.

[English]

We'll start with Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Carrière mentioned that attention to discussions on how poorer countries could be brought into the global marketplace would be taking place. What assurances do Canadians have that our interests will remain priority and not be negotiated away? To what extent will we capitulate in order to allow the poorer countries to rise to our level?

Mr. Claude Carrière: We won't capitulate. Our job, my job, is to promote Canadian interests. We think that includes opening markets in developing countries to Canadian goods and services and investment so that we can participate in their development, and that it will create wealth in those countries as well as in Canada that would allow them to increase their levels of development. But we also recognize that they need to adapt and that this opening has to be adapted to their capacity to open. We have indicated that we are prepared to negotiate, in certain circumstances, longer phase-out of tariffs, and the like, in specific sectors during the negotiations.

We have also been working with regional institutions—the Inter-American Development Bank, the OAS, and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean—to work with the smaller economies to provide technical assistance and capacity-building assistance to help them negotiate, help them begin to plan for adapting to a free trade environment and to take advantage of the access that they will have to larger markets such as the United States and Canada, and to plan for increased competition in their own markets from products, services, and investments from Canada.

In sum, we think increased trade and opening of trade in their economy will lead to greater development, but we recognize that it will need to take place at an appropriate pace for them.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: You mentioned that there will be longer phase-out periods. Did you mean that the longer phrase-out periods would apply to the emerging countries, or would it be even? We would not be reducing tariffs at a greater rate than are other countries?

Mr. Claude Carrière: The starting point is a bit different. For the most part, around 95% of what we import from non-NAFTA countries enters Canada duty-free already, whereas probably the reverse proportion is true where most of our exports face tariffs in those countries. So they have more opening to do than we do in the first place.

We have indicated that we see three types of phase-out of barriers or tariffs. To take the classical example, we see that there should be a significant proportion of our exports benefiting from immediate access to these markets. We recognize that in some cases there should be a mid-point—five years, for example—to reduce tariffs. In cases where there is import sensitivity, we see a ten-year phase-out.

We recognize that in some cases, some countries will want a longer phase-out, and some will negotiate very strongly to increase that, but they'll have to pay for that by accelerating the phase-out in other sectors, and hopefully our own.

• 0945

We also will be taking into account our own import sensitivities in certain sectors, including some agricultural areas and some industrial product areas—for example, textiles and clothing, some agricultural products, supply management commodities. We will be taking that into account in the negotiations, and in close consultation with stakeholders.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Carrière.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I am pleased to meet with you this morning.

We have several concerns about what the government and its official representatives are saying regarding cultural diversity. It is one thing to want to include, in the texts, specific language about the Canadian government's commitment to protecting cultural diversity... For example, the officials told us that culture was not excluded from the services agreements because we did not want to put the American government in an awkward position. Do you not see this as a means of excluding culture from any trade commitment? Isn't that the wrong message to send to the United States, which is fairly nervous about that commitment? We saw what the results were in the NAFTA and in the FTA.

Mr. Don Stephenson: With regards to the discussions on culture in the GATS, the Canadian government's position is extremely clear. It is set out in the document that I distributed. We will be making no commitments. Canada's position, as I explained, is that matters proceed by means of active commitments.

As far as other agreements—and even the GATS—are concerned, Canada does not stand in the way of any country wanting what it wants. If the United States wants commitments from other countries in the cultural sector, it is up to the Americans to decide and to ask for it. Canada must make its decisions for itself. The structure of the agreements most definitely allows Canada to proceed in this way. Canada's position is clear: we do not intend to make commitments. I cannot explain it more clearly than that.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a second question. If you will not make clearer commitments than that, you are sending the wrong message to the Americans. That is one thing. Secondly, I thought that Canada could be a leader in terms of the sensitive nature of recognizing and excluding cultural diversity. What steps have been taken with other countries like Chili, and Latin American countries, to ensure that cultural diversity is not part of the agreements that are being negotiated at the WTO or as part of the FTAA?

Mr. Don Stephenson: I do not see how cultural diversity or culture could be excluded to a greater degree in Canada's position.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I am not talking about excluding them to a greater degree, but we can nevertheless influence other countries as to the importance of this issue. We know that if the United States, for example, intends to negotiate with other countries in return for certain other products, it could also have an impact on our intention to exclude cultural products. Cultural products include education, cultural diversity and other things.

• 0950

Mr. Don Stephenson: As I explained earlier—and Janette will perhaps be able to provide further details—Canada is making a huge effort to promote the importance of cultural diversity. The network of culture ministers that was set up by Ms. Copps, as well as our efforts during international trade negotiations to focus on cultural diversity, are precisely in keeping with the sense of your question, I believe.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would also like to know what efforts and what amounts of money are being invested. What form do these exchanges take? Perhaps Ms. Mark could answer.

It's important to know what is being done. Statements can be made, orally and in writing, but we are getting mixed signals, in particular from Mr. Manley who, in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs said:

We are entering an era in which human culture is worldwide. Ideas and information flow as easily along these synapses as shares and currencies are exchanged.

I think that these words show the consideration that is really being given to culture, cultural diversity and exclusion. It is also essential to have clear signals from our government representatives.

Ms. Mark, could you describe to me the efforts being made by Canadian Heritage, since the minister is not here? It has been said that Heritage is not involved, that it is a matter for International Trade. What is Canadian Heritage doing to influence the debate?

[English]

Mr. Artur Wilczynski (Senior Policy Adviser, International Relations, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Madame Gagnon. I'll try to answer on behalf of my colleague.

Canadian Heritage has been working with key hemispheric partners to raise awareness about Canadian objectives on the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity. We've been working specifically with the Organization of American States, with their cultural office. We've also met with key players within the Inter-American Development Bank to begin a dialogue on cultural diversity within the hemisphere.

We view the summit of the Americas process as an important means of deepening the dialogue in the hemisphere on cultural diversity, and we are hopeful that some of the outcomes from the summit will facilitate a more in-depth discussion on cultural diversity as it relates to our partners in hemisphere. We are looking forward to such activities as, possibly, expert seminars, perhaps even a ministerial level meeting on culture in the hemisphere, to address some of the concerns you have specifically raised.

Again, we're looking forward to whatever discussions do come out of Quebec City, what leaders can agree to, to give guidance to officials and ministers on how to proceed on this front.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Before I put a question, I would like to say, with respect, that the opposition member is seeing danger where none exists. I think Canada's position with respect to culture and cultural diversity is quite clear and explicit. The objective, as outlined under GATS, I don't think could be clearer. Canada will also not make any commitment that restricts our ability to achieve our cultural policy objective. That's about as clear as we can get, I think.

If there were some attempts at attacking, breaching, or compromising our cultural sovereignty and our ability to support cultural diversity, then I would expect some leadership from our government. Would you concur in that, Mr. Stephenson?

Mr. Don Stephenson: Yes, certainly. As I noted in response to the earlier question, there will be requests, as there have already been requests, in respect of the GATS negotiations for example, for access to Canada's cultural industries. Canada's position is very clear, and it will remain clear throughout the negotiations.

Mr. John Harvard: It was either you or someone else who mentioned the nine round table or sectoral table discussions at Buenos Aires in a few days. Do those tables have anything to do with culture, directly or indirectly?

Mr. Claude Carrière: None have to do directly with culture, although some could have an indirect relation, as Mr. Stephenson has mentioned.

• 0955

Our position in the FTAA will be identical to our position announced for the GATS last week: that we will take no commitments that will limit our ability to pursue policy.

Mr. John Harvard: But you don't expect anything substantive on the cultural front in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Claude Carrière: No.

Mr. John Harvard: Could you give us some hints with respect to these new international cultural instruments you allude to? When you talk about that, what do you really have in mind?

Mr. Don Stephenson: First of all, the cultural SAGIT, the sector advisory group to the Minister of International Trade, is currently working on its own recommendations for what an international instrument on cultural diversity might be. As well, there is a working group under the network of ministers of culture established by Minister Copps that's also working on proposals, recommendations, for ministers with respect to the nature of an instrument.

So I think it remains to be seen, and it certainly remains to be discussed and decided what an international instrument on cultural diversity should be. It's stated in the government's response to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that the instrument would “set out clear ground rules to enable Canada and other countries to maintain policies and promote their culture while respecting the rules of the international trading system and ensuring markets for cultural exports”. It's described as recognizing “the special role of cultural goods and services and the right of governments to preserve and promote cultural diversity.”

As to how exactly you would structure such an instrument, as I say, we're early in the debates about the substance, but I guess, on the one hand, it would try to establish the principles of cultural diversity and the importance of cultural diversity in society, and on the other hand, it would set out very specifically the kinds of steps governments can take—and this would be agreed internationally—to preserve their culture.

Mr. John Harvard: Just one more thing, Mr. Chairman, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. In the late eighties we first had the free trade agreement with the United States. I don't know whether the correct word is that the free trade agreement with the United States was subsumed under NAFTA. If I'm right, we had the free trade agreement with the United States subsumed under NAFTA. If we ever come to the FTAA, does NAFTA then become subsumed under FTAA?

Mr. Don Stephenson: That would be an issue decided in the negotiation itself. As I understand it, if the FTAA were completely silent on the issue and there were overlaps in the obligations of the two different agreements, the more recent agreement would apply. But what is likely to happen is that in the negotiation itself, decisions would be made about which agreement the parties to the agreement wish to have apply. You could make those provisions chapter by chapter or article by article in the agreement. You could indicate that in the case of this or that article, it is the FTAA or the NAFTA that will apply, by agreement. Or you could simply proceed through a general provision. That is to say, in the FTAA you might choose to state that in respect of all trade between the parties of the NAFTA, it is the NAFTA that will apply.

Mr. John Harvard: Does that mean that if Canada were wanting to, from our perspective, repair some part of NAFTA, we could do it through the FTAA process? It's hypothetical, I suppose.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, very much so. To complete what Mr. Stephenson said, in the matter of co-existence between FTAA or NAFTA, or which agreement would prevail in specific areas, the bottom line is that Canada would decide which agreement would prevail in any particular area. But similarly, in order for any changes to be brought to any section of the NAFTA through the FTAA, the other partners would have to agree, so it amounts to the same thing. The United States and Mexico equally would decide that. In the event there is no consensus or agreement, then the NAFTA would remain the operating agreement.

• 1000

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Harvey said. It's not really a question related to culture but rather with regard to the NAFTA and the FTAA.

At one time the Minister of International Trade came before us—maybe it wasn't this committee but rather another international trade committee—and said he did not want to repeat chapter 11 in the FTAA. Is that still our position?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, the minister has indicated clearly that we seek to clarify chapter 11, and we are proceeding. In fact, my colleague Mr. Stephenson is leading the charge on that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's very good to know.

Going back to the new international instrument on cultural diversity, Mr. Stephenson, you're on the international trade side. The international trade people are still looking at the February 1999 SAGIT report. That's two years ago. It's not just yesterday or a few months ago that report came out.

I'd like to hear from Ms. Mark about what the department is doing. My understanding is that the lead on this instrument actually has been taken by our own Minister of Canadian Heritage. That's one thing. Maybe you could quickly answer that.

The Chair: Monsieur Carrière, excuse me.

[Translation]

Can you stay another two minutes?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Lanctôt would also like to ask a question.

The Chair: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'll ask my questions after my colleagues have asked theirs. I'm not in any hurry.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bulte.

[Translation]

There are two questions for Mr. Carrière.

[English]

Ms. Lill, why don't you ask your questions. We'll ask Mr. Lanctôt to do that also. Then Mr. Carrière can answer the whole thing and be on his way.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

I'm very concerned about the fact that the United States has very clearly put forward their negotiating position, and it includes full coverage of the cultural sector under the FTAA. They want coverage of all services and service suppliers in a top-down architecture for the service chapter, and they want extensive application of the most favoured nation and national treatment aspects. These are really heavy-duty clauses.

I'm very excited also about the idea of having a separate instrument. We know very well that separate instrument is not going to get anywhere whatsoever if this government moves toward accepting some of the agreements that are on the table. So I would like to know, is Canada going to allow that most favoured nation rule to be applied across the board to all services? This clearly would mean we would no longer be able to undertake co-production projects with particular countries unless it's agreed to do so under the same conditions as with the U.S. Is Canada prepared to allow for that rule to take place?

The Chair: Are you finished with your questions to Mr. Carrière?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have another one. Is Canada proposing the same transparency rules for government regulations in the area of services in the FTAA as it is in the GATS negotiations? Is it proposing that all regulations over services be “the least trade restrictive”?

Just as a comment, it's wonderful to talk about cultural diversity, but as we know, there's a great merging now between cultural diversity and commercial diversity. We have Nike Nation, Benetton, and Michael Jordan Inc., and these are all moving into a cultural sector. They see themselves as creating culture. We know that's going to be a real hard thing to pull apart.

Where's the safeguard that we are going to have the years that are required and the teeth and the legitimacy to make sure we don't just get bowled over at each one of these little regional meetings, such as the one in Quebec? I just don't have the assurance, and I need more assurance on those issues.

• 1005

The Chair: Mr. Carrière, can you digest another question?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn, in fairness to you, it was your turn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): That's okay.

The Chair: We'll let Mr. Lanctôt put a question now.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt, you may ask your question now, please.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Carrière, I would like to know whether, when we talk about culture, that includes sports.

I will explain myself. There are some very important issues related to sports. For example, there is the problem of doping in sports, as well as the funding of athletes and salaries. There is the question of outside trainers and the funding of educational efforts, because this problem of doping calls for education. Is there a section on sports in the FTAA that is being negotiated?

[English]

Mr. Claude Carrière: Thank you.

To Ms. Lill, the U.S. is free to advance its position as it sees fit.

We have announced our position in the GATS, and it will be our position in the FTAA as well. The government will take no commitments in the areas it has identified. Mr. Stephenson can provide more details, but I think we have been quite clear on our unwillingness to take on commitments in those areas. We have made no proposals in the FTAA in the services area because we were waiting for the development of our overall position on the GATS, and our negotiating position on services in the FTAA will be coherent with our position in the WTO and the GATS.

[Translation]

With regard to your question on—

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Carrière, perhaps you could also touch on Ms. Lill's question about the juxtaposition today of the big conglomerates, such as Nike and Michael Jordan Inc., just getting into commerce and culture.

Mr. Claude Carrière: I have to beg incompetence on that one, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps Don—

The Chair: Maybe you could answer Mr. Lanctôt's question, and then we'll come back to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Carrière: In the negotiations on the Free Trade Area, as far as I know, no country has made any proposals in the area of doping. I don't think that it really comes under trade.

This is an issue that is dealt with by other authorities, at the United Nations or by the International Olympic Committee. There is perhaps even something as part of the Summit, but not in the FTAA.

The Chair: What about sports?

Mr. Claude Carrière: I don't really see—

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will give you an example, so that you will understand clearly. Take sports in general, or professional sports in particular. Suppose someone wants to invest money in order to support a professional team. Could that be considered dumping? There are a number of considerations. We could look at athletes' earnings or the training of trainers. It can be very broad and it may definitely be part of—

Mr. Claude Carrière: We can look at this, but as far as I know, it is not really part of it. For the time being, there does not appear to be anything dealing with this type of issue included in the negotiations.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We could lose teams, for example. Would it not be a good idea to offer some protection in this regard?

Mr. Claude Carrière: It's a matter that falls within someone else's responsibility.

[English]

The Chair: If it is not included, obviously the trade agreement doesn't have an impact on it. Is that correct?

Mr. John Harvard: You have to decide where you're going, up or down.

Mr. Don Stephenson: That's right. You have to decide in the FTAA whether we're going bottom up like the GATS or top down like the NAFTA. But like my colleague, I've never heard a discussion

[Translation]

on the issue of dealing with sports in international trade agreements. It may be something to look into.

• 1010

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I will go back to Ms. Bulte.

[Translation]

Mr. Carrière, thank you for your time.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: Excuse me one second, I'm sorry—

Mr. Don Stephenson: May I may add one comment in response to your question?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes. I didn't get an answer to the second question, about transparency rules and “the least trade restrictive”.

Mr. Don Stephenson: With respect to the preservation of MFN exceptions for film and television co-production, our position would be that we would wish to preserve that exemption into any new agreement, including the FTAA.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay, and regarding the last question I asked, are we proposing the same transparency rules for government regulations in the area of services in the FTAA as in the GATS negotiations, and are we proposing that all regulations over services be “the least trade restrictive”?

Mr. Don Stephenson: With respect to transparency, yes, we are looking for the same transparency objectives in the FTAA as in any agreement. I think one of the most important objectives in trade negotiations in any context, whether it's bilateral, regional, or multilateral, is to make the rules more transparent.

One of the principal barriers to Canadian exporters, whether of services, goods, or anything else, is the fact that most countries are not nearly as transparent as Canada is in terms of the rules and regulations that apply. So it's one of the central objectives, not just to get increased access and lower tariffs but actually clearer rules.

In a lot of other countries it's more difficult to know what the rules are, and the rules are applied in arbitrary and not very transparent ways. So that's a very important goal in trade negotiations, and yes, that would be a goal in the FTAA.

With respect to exactly how those rules are applied, whether in the GATS or in the FTAA, those are matters for negotiation, and those negotiations are ongoing. So as to how we would frame rules, would we frame the rules with exactly the same words as other agreements, for example, “least trade restrictive”, I don't know, but the principle of “least trade restrictive” certainly would be among those that Canada would wish to defend in any trade agreement.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte, Mr. Hearn, and Monsieur Harvey.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's a new international instrument on cultural diversity. So I wonder if Ms. Mark could talk a little bit about what the department has been doing in that area. But before you do that, I have a question for Mr. Stephenson.

During the FTAA consultations that we did across the country, when the idea of a new cultural instrument came up and using the FTAA forum for the purpose of promoting that instrument, one of the responses we received at that time was that the FTAA was not really the place in which to do it.

I'm pleased to hear from Mr. Wilczynski that there have been meetings of the OAS, and that the greatest barrier to pursuing the instrument there was that, for most of those 33 other countries, the main purpose of their negotiations was to gain access into the U.S. market, that the whole question of culture was really quite irrelevant, and that this was not the place where we were going to find our supporters or our champions as we would in Europe, let's say, or in France. I wonder if you could address that.

Also, I was delighted to hear you talk about the issues related to culture, that you're watching the question of subsidies in telecommunications. Is there actually someone who is watching that? I know that happened after NAFTA. We were caught on things that we didn't think were going to affect us outside of the cultural exclusion. I'm very heartened to hear that, and I would hope that you would tell us that there is actually somebody monitoring that on the cultural front.

Mr. Don Stephenson: With respect to the FTAA not being the right forum in which to negotiate a new international instrument on cultural diversity, I'd like to clarify what I said earlier, that every forum is the right one at which to promote a greater awareness of the issue of cultural diversity.

That's why in every discussion—the FTAA, the G-8, any place we can get hold of more than one minister in one place—we promote the idea of cultural diversity and seek to include it in the discussion. So in the OAS forum, in the negotiations on the FTAA, we try to put that issue on the table.

• 1015

With respect to it being the right forum to negotiate the instrument, I would agree with whoever it was who said it's probably not the right forum. There are perhaps fora that are more appropriate, that include, first of all, more countries in the world, and secondly, come at the issue from a cultural policy perspective more than the trade policy perspective.

As well, it might be fair to say that we're not there yet. We're still in the process of trying to define what the substance and disciplines of an international instrument would be in Canada's view. Then we might be ready to deal with it elsewhere.

With respect to who's watching, it's Cathy. Cathy has a couple of people on her team whose job it is to track and try to analyse the impacts of all trade discussions on culture.

The Chair: Ms. Mark.

Ms. Janette Mark (Director, Trade and Investment Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): I work a lot with Cathy in watching all those issues as well.

I think Don has given the first step of what I would say the department has been doing on the instrument. The SAGIT report gave us very little guidance on what they thought this instrument might look like or where we should negotiate it. So a lot of work over the last two years has been focused on how you increase awareness internationally of issues around cultural diversity, about what Canada sees as a main concern with respect to our ability to promote and preserve cultural diversity.

The linkage with trade policy is really the second step that we have found in our discussions internationally. Cultural diversity is a very broad concept. It is very difficult to come up with a definition. For example, each country comes to the table with a different set of concerns, especially between developed and developing countries, depending on the structure of their state.

So a lot of the work in the department has been focused on just getting the discussion going internationally, increasing awareness, trying to promote cultural diversity as a legitimate policy objective so that when we get into any discussion of the specifics of an instrument that kind of discussion leads to more specifics of what the instrument would do, or what other countries see it could do for them.

In terms of the activities specifically, we view any opportunity as a good opportunity to speak to the Canadian views. As Don said, we've been active in the G-8 process, in the OAS context, in UNESCO, in our bilateral relations. There's always a briefing in there on cultural diversity, trying to raise it in our bilateral negotiations.

Last year in Seattle we were trying to get language in the ministerial declaration of the WTO recognizing that cultural diversity was an important objective of government and that governments have a right to maintain policies to pursue and promote cultural diversity.

So it's kind of the contagion effect that we're working on now. We're just getting the ideas out there internationally.

The next step, which we're into now, is using, for example, the international network on cultural policy that Ms. Copps is involved in, trying to get the members of that country to focus on some of the more specifics of scoping out what the instrument might actually look like, drawing from their own experiences and their own national cultural frameworks, because what we consider to be cultural policy might not be the same in other countries or their priorities might be different. For example, there's the area of heritage protection or antiquities, and other issues have come up.

If you'd like, at this point I can ask our tour to go into a little bit more detail on some of the specifics of the working group, of the network that is actually tasked at this point in scoping out some of the major issues that would be covered within an instrument, or we could offer to come back with the—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It would be a separate meeting.

Ms. Janette Mark: There's another group within the department that is charged with pursuing the instrument more broadly in a longer-term strategy.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I know our time is limited, so I think—-

The Chair: I don't know where we'd find time now, because we have legislation coming up. But is there any way you could produce a brief on what's going on, which we could perhaps circulate to members? Then if that is not satisfactory, we could ask you to come back. Maybe we'll start with that, if that's okay.

Ms. Janette Mark: Okay.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Perfect.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hearn.

• 1020

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

When we were negotiating the NAFTA many of the same concerns that are being expressed now were expressed then. As a result of our involvement with the U.S., did we suffer? Have we learned from mistakes made, if we made mistakes, and if not, why are we concerned that we would give in now when really we already have a trade agreement with the main player in the whole negotiating process? That's part one. I'll leave you with that first.

Mr. Don Stephenson: I guess it's fair to say that we have learned over the years and through the different agreements more about the issues involved in culture and trade. For example, we now have, as Janette pointed out rightly, a trade policy unit at the Department of Canadian Heritage, which we did not have before.

We have had the experience of the application of NAFTA, GATT, and other WTO agreements on which now to base, I would suggest, a more and more informed position in respect of culture.

We also have a very clear government position on cultural diversity today that's based on those experiences. And we do take different approaches from what we did in the past. I would suggest we perhaps have more informed positions in respect of how to preserve cultural diversity.

Cathy.

Ms. Catherine Dickson (Director, Information and Technology Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I might add that we have a very broad interdepartmental group that's looking at issues involved in cost-cutting, which Sarmite was referring to earlier, and I'm thinking particularly of electronic commerce.

We have formed an intergovernmental task force that's looking at all of the issues and working with stakeholders. We also very closely interact with the sectoral advisory groups.

Culture started the ball rolling in the sense of producing the report, but the information and communications technologies facet is also working on that, as well as the Canadian Council for International Business. We're working with all of those groups to get feedback from them too.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I was going to say all of us, and perhaps I shouldn't say that, but most of us would agree that the NAFTA agreement has been beneficial to our country, to the people in the country who have certainly found a tremendous amount of new employment because of such agreements. And undoubtedly, if we can find the markets you talk about, it will enhance this.

With that in mind, one of the things that concerns me in relation to the upcoming summit in Quebec, which undoubtedly ties in with what we're talking about, is the number of people who are—I was going to use the word “viciously”—protesting the summit. I have major concerns, and in light of our past experience, in light of the I think positive results to the large part, why are such concerns being expressed? What is the reasoning behind it, from your perspective? Are the concerns legitimate, or is there another game being played?

Mr. Don Stephenson: That's an extremely difficult question.

I think that as the impacts of increasing globalization are felt more and more deeply in everyone's lives, they have reacted in deeper and deeper ways.

I think there are certainly very legitimate concerns being expressed in respect of how to manage increasing economic integration with the U.S. and every country in the world on the one hand and being able to preserve one's own social and political choices on the other hand, and how to balance those things.

People also want to see Canada integrate its social and political values in its trade positions with other countries, and those are legitimate objectives for Canada.

• 1025

I think it's fair to say that there's a good deal of misinformation. The public polling on trade suggests that something around two-thirds of Canadians think the NAFTA was good for Canada. About two-thirds of Canadians think the government has done a good job in trade, generally speaking. It's the highest mark in terms of government performance that Canadians have given this government.

In the same polls, only 12% of Canadians can make a link between their own economic situation and trade, which is a bit of a disconnect. A colleague of mine in the United States said a poll in the U.S. suggested that zero percent of Americans could describe in even the broadest way how the world trading system works.

People ultimately don't know much about how trade agreements work. They don't care too much either. They care about things like culture, health care, the education system, whether we're going to have a secure water supply or energy supplies, those sorts of things. When they hear concerns raised about those sorts of things, they become anxious.

I would say that to a very large extent those concerns can be addressed with just better information. To some extent, they are real challenges of trying to live in a global world.

The Chair: Monsieur Harvey and Mr. Murphy.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to hear comments on the negotiations that are beginning and that will take several years. Being in politics, as you know, is not like being in Sunday school. Quite often in political parties, we have to ask ourselves what is really going on.

For weeks now, the debate has focussed around the tabling of documents. I have been reading the departmental texts, and as far as I am concerned, the Canadian documents have been made public. Canadians who are interested in the negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas have access to the government's position. Could the federal government, before the initial proposals of all the governments are tabled, which will take place on April 7, I believe, publish the documents on behalf of Mexico and all of the other countries that will take part in the negotiations?

Mr. Don Stephenson: I think that my colleague, Mr. Carrière, would answer that the Canadian positions have been made public and are found on our website, but that we cannot make public the position of other countries without their consent. We must respect the other countries in the negotiations. Canada is pushing very hard for an agreement between all of the countries participating in the negotiations to release the texts. However, until we have their approval, we must respect their wish.

Mr. André Harvey: The initial proposals should be made public soon. Will the result be that the initial negotiating proposals of all of the countries will automatically be made public?

Mr. Don Stephenson: I am not sure if I understand your question, but if the current text is made public, each country's position would be made clear.

Mr. André Harvey: When Canada publishes its proposals before the beginning of the conference—you mentioned April 7 at the earliest, I think—will all of the other countries also publish their initial negotiation proposals at that time?

Mr. Don Stephenson: All of the countries have presented their proposals for the negotiating text. The text itself contains a series of sentences in parentheses. The parentheses indicate items that have not yet been agreed upon. These parentheses are made up of all of the countries' proposals, and in the negotiations, they will be trying to remove the parentheses.

• 1030

Mr. André Harvey: I would now like to speak about the cultural aspect, Mr. Chair. You know that as members, we have a lot of work in our regions. I come from the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean region. There are a great number of projects and we are here to defend the interests of our region. So, we cannot go in-depth into all of the issues.

In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois and a number of organizations have started to protest... I am happy to meet with protestors. There is a lot of talk about the cultural aspect. With the guarantees that we have, what is the main obstacle to preserving Canada or Quebec's cultural diversity in this context? What is the main problem? Are you anticipating problems in the FTAA negotiations with respect to the cultural issues?

It is my impression that the deal is already done for the free trade negotiations. I think that the process will be relatively easy and make a constructive contribution to the country. Am I wrong? Tell me one major obstacle to an agreement on preserving our cultural diversity. If there is not any, then I am quite happy and I think that we are creating a build-up and organizing people to protest for concepts that are already guaranteed in the documents to be made public.

I am reading from a text from the minister and from the Prime Minister: we must preserve the Canadian way of doing things. Minister Pettigrew told us that we are reaffirming our position with respect to cultural diversity. It is in writing. Do you see any major obstacles, in the negotiations, to preserving our cultural diversity? No?

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Stephenson. I want to follow up on an issue raised by Mr. Hearn: this whole area of communications strategy.

Like Mr. Hearn, I follow the NAFTA. If the correct negotiations can be done, and Canada's position on cultural diversity can be protected, in the long run I think it's a good thing.

You mentioned that your directorate is attempting to demystify the process. I agree that there's a lot of misinformation out there. It seems to me, from reading the media reports and talking to people, that they don't know what's going on in Quebec City. They see a big meeting of many countries, they see media reports that there will be 30,000 protesters, they see Premier Landry getting some media play too, but people aren't really aware what's going on.

Whose responsibility is it to keep Canadians better informed? I read the backgrounder presented by the minister, and quite honestly I find it rather weak. You talk about publication in the Canada Gazette, and about discussions with major stakeholders. The people here in Ottawa are obviously informed; they have a major interest in the negotiations. But I don't think the average Canadians out there in Vancouver or Charlottetown have any idea what's going on in Quebec City, except that it's going to be one big protest. Is there a communications strategy? Who's responsible for it, and is it being done properly?

Mr. Don Stephenson: First let me answer by saying I think we could do a better job on our communications efforts. There are others in this debate who seem to be a good deal more effective than the government in communicating their messages.

You refer specifically to our efforts with respect to Canada's position on the GATS. There are two parts of that effort I would point to with particular pride. The first was when we invited over a thousand civil society groups to our multi-stakeholder consultations in each province. Something like 350 representatives from various groups participated. I think that was a good effort.

• 1035

As well, I would point to the two very comprehensive websites for our negotiations on trade and services. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website has a trade negotiations page with all the pertinent documents on our negotiations, including GATT and FTAA. There is also a website called Services 2000, administered by our colleagues at Industry Canada. Again, it provides a very comprehensive list of documents regarding Canada's positions on the GATT.

Finally, with respect to communications for the summit, maybe I could ask Michael to comment.

Mr. Michael Brock: What you say is a challenge, as Don Stephenson has said. The media tend to find it easier and more attractive to report on protesters than to examine the substance of the issues. That was the case last year, when protesters wanted to close down the OAS General Assembly in Windsor. But in the end, I think the general public was able to learn that the foreign ministers were in fact addressing citizens' concerns about democracy in certain countries. A great deal of excellent work was done to help Peru return to the democratic system, and to strengthen the system. They dealt with illegal narcotics, they dealt with corruption—those are all concerns.

There are challenges to globalization as well as great opportunities. We have to explain this to people however we can. Last week, Ministers Manly and Pettigrew appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to make it clear that this summit is not only about trade. It's about many other things—about governments with convictions coming together, working together, cooperating on issues of common concern, such as democracy. These issues now move across borders in ways they didn't before, and the only way we can deal with them is to work together cohesively.

Across the country—across the hemisphere, in fact—there have been extensive consultations on what the summit is about. Now it's a matter of continuing to do that—continuing to get the facts and information out, continuing to show Canadians that governments aim to strengthen their institutions and their cooperation. The challenges of globalization are real, and require this type of concerted action.

For example, dealing with illegal drugs—a horrible issue in societies throughout the hemisphere—people say “It takes a network to feed a network”. By coming together at the government level, building networks of ministers in these various areas, the governments aim to address these issues.

The Chair: Mr. Brock, could you conclude? We don't have too much time.

Mr. Michael Brock: Certainly.

The Chair: I'll have Ms. Gallant and Ms. Lill, who have asked me for time.

Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Which ministries will be taking the lead on matters pertaining to the Internet or the FTAA?

Mr. Don Stephenson: Well, the Department of Industry would have a lead role in electronic commerce. But we now have 28 working groups on various sectors or issues in the GATS and other trade negotiations, and many other departments have interests in that issue and concerns about it. Certainly our department does, the Department of Canadian Heritage also, but the lead department would be Industry Canada.

• 1040

Ms. Catherine Dickson: In the FTAA, e-commerce has been discussed in a joint working group of the private and public sectors, and the leads have been shared between my shop and a shop in Industry Canada.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: To what extent will there be discussions, if any, on moving towards a common currency?

Mr. Don Stephenson: There will be none.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: To what extent will Canada be promoting our nuclear industry as a means of achieving our Kyoto Protocol objectives?

Mr. Don Stephenson: I'm afraid I can't answer specifically. It would be the Department of Natural Resources that would prepare Canada's position in respect of energy matters. I don't have the position before me, if indeed they have prepared it.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: There are some South American countries that are pressing for the legalization of the illicit drug trade. Is our country at all open to this?

Mr. Don Stephenson: That has not been proposed in respect of our trade discussions. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would not be the department to make recommendations in that matter.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Lill, and Madame Gagnon.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you. I just want to ask one more question.

I have to say I am distressed when I hear the chief negotiator for the FTAA tell me that he begs incompetence on the issue of how we promote where culture and commerce begins. I find that very alarming, and I hope we all do. I think that's what he was here to talk about. We are the cultural heritage committee, and that's what we want answers for, and not just vagaries around how well we are doing in this file.

Again, what are the threats to cultural diversity? The protection, I think, for cultural diversity that we put forward consists of subsidies for cultural industries. We put in Canadian content regulations. We have a public broadcasting industry. All of these things can be threatened if culture is put on the table as a service. Do you agree or not?

Mr. Don Stephenson: I would say all of those things can be protected in our trade negotiations, and will be.

If I may speak in defence of my colleague, I've spent most of my career in cultural policy in the federal government, the last three years as director general responsible for cultural industries at Canadian Heritage. I would have as much trouble as he did deciding where to draw the line between culture and commerce, particularly as that line moves. There are those who would say that strip malls in our suburbs are very much part of our culture.

I can tell you that where multinational firms—Nikes or property managers—produce cultural goods, as we would describe them, they will be captured by the policy the Government of Canada has framed in respect of the protection of cultural diversity. Where we're into broader socio-cultural considerations, while I would have the same difficulty as my colleague knowing exactly where culture ends and commerce begins, they're certainly very much tied together.

Ms. Wendy Lill: The things that protect our culture, which are, as I said, subsidies and CanCon, would be threatened by favoured nation status, by chapter 11, investor state, and by national treatment. All of those are the kinds of clauses that will get at that, if culture is seen as a straight service. So we know what we have to do there—correct?

Mr. Don Stephenson: Indeed. As I noted earlier, you have to take into consideration a variety of aspects of a trade agreement in order to ensure that you don't have effects you don't want in respect of culture. It's not just the absence of commitments, or not just a proper set of exclusions, depending on the structure of the agreement. You also have to worry about what commitments you're taking in subsidies. You also have to worry about what commitments you're taking in respect of investment protections, chapter 11. You have to look at the whole agreement. I can assure you that in Cathy's shop and in Janette's shop, that's exactly what they do.

• 1045

[Translation]

The Chair: We will end with Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Lanctôt. Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord asked you some questions. The government members seem satisfied with texts, but I think we also need to look at the double-talk used by the ministers of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade.

There are all sorts of things being said and I think that we need to be concerned.

For example, the Minister of External Affairs, no sooner than last week, at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London, said that above all, globalization was about the power of inclusion and creating an interdependence. This is not just about economies, but also cultures, concepts and our expectations. How will this be accomplished, and at what cost? We need the safeguards. I am quite concerned, as Ms. Lill mentioned earlier, when we are told that this negotiation of trade agreements such as the FTAA is not the time to establish safeguards on services and to have a clear debate on the meaning of cultural protection.

The texts fail to include the ability to preserve other cultures' ways of doing things. Do you understand me? We were told that we did not want to be in the position of asking things from the United States. This was what the bureaucrats said. I'm not sure if it was you, Mr. Stephenson, who answered that.

It is quite worrisome to see the difference between the principles and the reality. It is as though we were at the check-out line in the store and wanting to ask the cost of a product, and we are told that now is not the time to ask. There are already points of friction in international trade.

The Chair: Could you please get to your question?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We have been told that principles will be discussed later. I think that we need to have guidelines. I am worried and you haven't calmed my fears today.

I would like to know how it is that you make the real distinction between what is happening in trade and the cultural protection that should exist.

Mr. Don Stephenson: I have to repeat that my directives for these negotiations are clear in the documents that we distributed. My directives are very clear on the issue of culture.

With respect to the distinction between trade and cultural diversity, I believe that all of the economic products on which we can agree to say that they are part of culture, including books, periodicals, films and television programs, will all be protected in the negotiations.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Basically, it's the whole audiovisual field. That is where the United States make money. They are not interested in what we are doing in museums or in other sectors of cultural activity. We know that there is an American audiovisual invasion, which is very profitable for the United States. Therefore, they will go into sectors that are very... That is where it will be negotiated.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, if you would like to discuss your motion, we will have to continue. We cannot do everything at the same time.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, yes. There was nonetheless—

Mr. Don Stephenson: I will close in saying that the United States has the right to ask and that Canada has the right to refuse.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, we will end with you.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to speak about what Mr. Hearn brought up earlier, his experience with existing problems of cultural diversity with respect to trade.

I have heard, since the beginning, answers in which we have been told that yes, we will be there to negotiate and protect specific issues and everything.

I am wondering why we do not include in the FTAA negotiations to come a general principle to be respected, whether it be on culture, language, education or health. I do not want to continue listing things, but yes, it is possible to list these things and to foresee, right away, a clause on these issues.

• 1050

When it comes time to determine whether or not an issue comes under trade or cultural diversity, there will be a means to settle the issue immediately, if there is in place a general principle, so that we know that this will never be touched. Thus, there would be a forum to settle the question as to whether something falls under trade or culture. Why would we not anticipate this immediately in the FTAA negotiations?

Mr. Don Stephenson: First of all, with respect to the FTAA, Canada is putting on the table its position on the importance of cultural diversity. This is the language proposed by Canada for the agreement's preamble, and it states it quite clearly. Canada's position on culture is extremely clear in the Canadian proposal that was announced last week and presented in Geneva, at the WTO. So, Canada's position is extremely clear.

With respect to clarifying the definitions of culture and commerce, I think that it is essentially through our efforts to develop and establish a new instrument on cultural diversity that we will answer your question and propose precise language on the definition that should be established for cultural diversity, and on the means that all of the countries should be allowed to employ to defend their cultural diversity. It would be a part of this initiative.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Will this definition be specified in these negotiations, for the FTAA?

Mr. Don Stephenson: With the FTAA, we are only dealing with the preamble, but in the work that is being done on the new instrument, we are trying to specify the definition.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Very well.

The Chair: Before we leave,

[English]

Mr. Wilczynski, you will send us a document on what the department is doing in regard to negotiations and what initiatives you've taken in between?

Mr. Arthur Wilczynski: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we'll provide the committee members with a brief on the activities of the network as they're pursuing the instrument and the working group on globalization.

The Chair: And, Mr. Stephenson, if it's not too much to ask, in connection with Mr. Lanctôt's question, is it possible to find out what happens with sport?

Mr. Don Stephenson: Certainly.

The Chair: I know that sport is not involved in NAFTA, so obviously it's not being attacked. But just to know where we are at, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Don Stephenson: Indeed.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming. We really appreciate it.

[Translation]

Thank you for coming.

[English]

The rest of the meeting will be in camera to discuss a few items.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]