FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

Mr. Gerry Barr (President, Canadian Council for International Co-operation)

0910

0915

The Chair

Ms. Mary Durran (Researcher, Development and Peace)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Laliberté (Principal Economist, Canadian Labour Congress)

0925

The Chair

Mr. Stuart Clark (Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Foodgrains Bank)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

0935

Ms. Carol Devine (Access to Essential Medicines Liaison, Doctors Without Borders)

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Barr

0940

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Barr

0945

The Chair

Mr. Stuart Clark

0950

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stuart Clark

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. Stuart Clark

0955

The Chair

Mr. Mark Fried (Communications and Advocacy Coordinator, Oxfam Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Mary Durran

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

Mr. Mark Fried

1000

The Chair

Ms. Carol Devine

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Stuart Clark

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

1005

Mr. Mark Fried

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Mark Fried

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Mark Fried

The Chair

Ms. Mary Durran

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

1010

The Chair

Ms. Carol Devine

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Mary Durran

The Chair

Mr. Stuart Clark

1015

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. Stuart Clark

The Chair

Ms. Carol Devine

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Laliberté

1020

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

Mr. Mark Fried

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

1025

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Barr

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Barr

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

1040

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

1045

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

1050

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1055

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

1100

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Irwin Cotler

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Irwin Cotler

1105

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 038

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is consideration of issues relating to the fifth ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization.

We are pleased this morning to have as witnesses, from the Canadian Council of International Co-operation, Mr. Gerry Barr, president; from Development and Peace, Mary Durran, researcher; from the Canadian Labour Congress, Monsieur Pierre Laliberté; from the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Stuart Clark, senior policy adviser; from Doctors Without Borders, Carol Devine, access to essential medicines liaison; and from Oxfam Canada, Mark Fried.

I understand that four of you will speak for five minutes. We have an hour and a half and we need to finish by 10:30 for some other duties. So it'll be Mr. Barr, Ms. Durran, Mr. Pierre Laliberté, and Mr. Stuart Clark.

I just want to tell my colleagues that it is also our privilege this morning to have with us as guests members of a delegation from Bahrain, including the chair of their Foreign Affairs, Defence and National Security Committee, the Honourable Shaikh Dr. Khaled Al Khalifa.

Welcome to all the delegation.

[Translation]

Welcome to Canada.

[English]

It's nice to see you here.

Mr. Barr, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gerry Barr (President, Canadian Council for International Co-operation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all.

I'm Gerry Barr, president and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. CCIC is a coalition of more than 90 organizations that work globally for sustainable human development, to promote human rights, and to eradicate poverty. Our members are from both religious and secular development groups, professional associations, labour unions, and groups devoted to literacy, education, and youth. Their volunteers and supporters live all over Canada.

I am pleased to be here today with five of my colleagues associated with these member organizations, and we thank the standing committee for holding this hearing.

We're here to comment on the role that Canada is playing and might play in negotiations leading up to the fifth ministerial meeting of the WTO in Cancun. These concerns are also outlined in CCIC's recently released briefing paper, Crossroads at Cancun: What Direction for Development?

[Translation]

I was at Doha when the WTO announced the Doha Program for Development. Since then, Canada and several other industrialized countries of the world have adopted negotiating stands in opposition to the demands and needs of developing countries. This has to change, and quickly. The 5th Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization scheduled to take place in Mexico in September is the last opportunity for Canada and for industrialized countries to get the WTO to alter its change and to move toward a genuine development program. However, so far, it does not look very promising.

¿ (0910)

[English]

If Canada wants to make a difference at Cancun in favour of development, it will need to do five things: set aside the demand to negotiate new issues, called the Singapore issues, and fix instead the dysfunctions of the current agreements; create some room in negotiations on intellectual property, TRIPS, to access life-saving medicines and for key food security questions; keep some room in the services negotiations, GATS, for policy choices that favour public services; make development central to agricultural trade rules; and finally, please God, do something meaningful at long last to democratize the WTO.

I'll say a few words about the questions of the new issues and the democratization of the WTO. My colleagues will talk about some of the other possible action areas.

On the new issues, the developed economies are overloading the negotiating calendar, pressing for talks on behind-the-border issues like investment, competition, government procurement, and trade facilitation. Only yesterday, or the day before, the leaders of the G-8 restated and reiterated their determination to launch negotiations on these same new issues. But the same states have shown very little flexibility or fidelity with respect to honouring the old pledges of trade regimes and addressing the implementation challenges in existing agreements, called the “implementation issues”. Though these implementation issues were scheduled for solutions at Doha, they remain, almost all of them, 90 of 95, still outstanding. The message here is, no new issues; fix the current arrangements.

On democratization, the negotiating process is full of features that disadvantage the developing countries. To its credit, Canada has pressed for greater transparency, and with some success. It is partly the result of Canada's efforts in this regard that we now have access to WTO documents that some of our recommendations today are based on.

But openness in process must follow this initial documentary candour, and vastly more needs to be done. Last year a group of developing countries proposed changes for a more open negotiating process. Though it seems astonishing that countries that are party to an agreement have difficulty themselves in accessing the discussions that generate these agreements, it is true. Canada and other wealthy countries have spoken and worked, I'm sad to say, against this greater transparency in the negotiating process. That should end.

In this respect, we would ask that Canada build on its early advocacy for greater transparency at the WTO with new proposals for the democratization of rules and procedures to ensure equal and effective participation of developing country governments in WTO decision-making. The members of this committee can help to give the Canadian negotiating team the direction and mandate it needs to put development back into the Doha development agenda.

You know, almost everyone would agree that trade should not be seen as an end in itself, or especially as a way for the rich to become richer at the expense of the poor. International trade has the potential to contribute enormously to development, but things must change for the WTO for that potential to be released.

One telling illustration of the double standard in the current arrangement is that trade restrictions in rich countries cost developing countries about $100 billion U.S. annually, roughly twice as much as the entire planet receives in aid from the same economies.

The government and Canada's negotiators will take note of the views of this committee as they approach the fifth ministerial in Cancun, and I'd ask you to consider telling them to stop advocating for the launch of further negotiations on new issues and focus on the implementation questions that are still outstanding in industrial numbers.

¿ (0915)

Second, use Canada's position as a quad member to advocate for the democratization of rules and procedures to ensure equal and effective participation of developing-country governments in WTO decision-making.

We'll be in Cancun in September, and we'll join the rest of the world as we watch to see if development can be more than a catchword at the WTO.

I'm happy now to introduce Mary Durran of Development and Peace, who will present some of our reflections about intellectual property rights and the TRIPS debates.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Ms. Durran, please.

Ms. Mary Durran (Researcher, Development and Peace): Good morning. My name is Mary Durran, and I'm the researcher at Development and Peace.

As the official international development agency of the Canadian Catholic Church, Development and Peace is concerned with the right to food security in the developing world. This is an issue that's going to be on the table again in Cancun in the discussions on the WTO's agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, which currently allows patents on life forms, including the seeds of food security crops.

We call on Canada to encourage other WTO members, particularly those of the G-8 nations, to bear in mind the necessary role of the WTO in meeting the millennium development goals by 2015. We also ask that Canada reaffirm the commitment made in the Monterrey Consensus, from the financing for development conference in Monterrey in 2002, to promote trade as an engine for development, not just as an end in itself.

In Development and Peace's most recent campaign, at least 260,000 Canadians sent postcards to the Prime Minister to call for amendments to TRIPS so that such patents would be banned.

In the words of Indian theologian Josanthony Joseph:

Looking at the issue of bio-patenting from the perspective of the hungry, we have to conclude that what is unethical and therefore unacceptable is not the fact that research is being done that could perhaps create better crops and assist in the food security of the world. What is unacceptable is the fact that bio-patenting allows the control of the world's food supply to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

We see this as being very serious.

In our experience, the farmers of the developing world are best able to ensure the food security of their communities by low-tech, traditional farming methods, but patents on the seeds of food crops block the free exchange of seeds and information that is necessary to promote innovation at a low-tech and rural level. Patents stop farmers from saving and exchanging seeds at the end of each season, and they give breeders in the north exclusive rights over plant varieties that have essentially been developed by farmers in the south.

Patents on life forms, including seeds, also run counter to the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty signed by most member states of the WTO, including Canada. This convention mandates state parties to respect community ownership of biodiversity, including support for the agricultural systems of rural people.

In theory, paragraph 27(3)(b) of TRIPS in its current form allows WTO members flexibility on whether or not to permit patents on life forms in their domestic legislation--in theory. However, in practice the countries of the south have been subjected to enormous pressure to adopt intellectual property commitments that go beyond TRIPS.

For example, a group of African nations developed an African model law that attempts to reconcile member states' obligations to both TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity. This model law was endorsed by the African Union; however, the members of the African group promoting this proposal have been subjected to strong pressures from multilateral organizations, including the World Intellectual Property Organization, to adopt laws allowing patents on life forms, including seeds.

We therefore call on Canada at the upcoming Cancun ministerial to reflect the position taken by a significant number of Canadians that patents on life forms are unethical and unacceptable, and as such should be banned in the TRIPS agreement. In addition, in order to bring TRIPS in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity, we urge Canada to support the granting of observer status to the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity at the TRIPS council.

We would also like to draw your attention to the issue of TRIPS and public health. Carol Devine of Médecins sans frontières is part of our panel this morning, and she will be able to answer your questions on this subject.

Even though the issue of access to essential medicines was thought to have been definitively resolved at Doha, the issue in fact remains unresolved. Canada's role thus far in the negotiations has been to work against developing countries by advocating limitations on the use of public health provisions in TRIPS. We call on Canada, therefore, to reverse this position and to work towards a resolution of the problem of access to medicines that covers all diseases and benefits all developing countries.

Thank you.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The Chair We will now hear from Mr. Pierre Laliberté from the Canadian Labour Congress.

Go ahead, Mr. Laliberté.

Mr. Pierre Laliberté (Principal Economist, Canadian Labour Congress): Good morning. I'm hear to speak to you today about the Canadian Labour Congress' support for the submission prepared by the Canadian Council for International Development now before the committee for discussion.

We view the Cancun Summit as an opportunity to restore a better balance between trade and humanitarian priorities and to lend globalization a more balanced image. It is an opportunity not to be missed. I will confine my remarks to the General Agreement on Trade in Services which is currently under negotiation.

As you undoubtedly know, this agreement is moving up the list of nations' priorities, whether developing or industrialized, and for good reason. The scope of GATS is extremely broad and theoretically includes virtually all services and service delivery mechanisms. It has the potential to affect all regulations at all levels of government and service delivery, both directly and indirectly. It will even impact the way in which essential services are delivered, including health, education, water and electricity. Access to and the quality of these services already pose a major challenge to the majority of developing countries.

One of the major concerns expressed with respect to GATS is mounting pressure to commercialize these essential services. Preserving the scope for essential services to be delivered without direct fees by the State, or on a non-profit basis, is a critical development and human rights issue in developing countries.

Driven by conditions associated with the IMF's and World Bank's structural adjustment policies, the trend to privatization of services has expanded in countries of the South. Higher levels of private investment can lead to better infrastructures and can be the appropriate course of action. However, as noted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, private sector investment tends to emphasize certain alarming trends, such as two-tier service delivery, the exclusion of certain classes of benefit recipients and the dominance of trade objectives over social objectives. Pursuant to the most-favoured nation clause, if a country has already opened up a sector to a foreign services supplier, to all intents and purposes, the sector is open to liberalized trade pursuant to GATS.

Although a number of countries have privatized components of their public services, there's no guarantee that at some point down the road, they may not want to alter the balance between the private and public sectors. Under GATS, this move would prove costly because it would mean having to compensate not only foreign suppliers that potentially might feel hard done by, but governments as well. While services delivered as part of a government's program would be excepted from GATS, such services would need to be defined as services not delivered on either a commercial or competitive basis. This significantly restricts the scope of the exception.

Canada has indicated that it wants to keep its own basic services, namely health, public education and social services, off the table and will not make requests of countries in these areas. In our opinion, this represents a noteworthy development and we hope that other countries will follow Canada's lead. However, we feel that Canada needs to go a step further and ensure that GATS does not undermine the scope for government action to provide accessible and quality public services.

As it now stands, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, regardless of what its supporters might say, fails to adequately protect governments' ability to provide essential public services, where necessary. For this reason, we believe Canada has a duty to support the inclusion in GATS of a general exception clause for so-called essential services sectors such as health, education and water.

Furthermore, given the broad scope of GATS and its potential impact not only on basic service delivery, but also on governments' ability to legislate and adopt development policies, we feel that Canada has an obligation to support a call for an in-depth evaluation of the ramifications for developing countries of a broadening of GATS. Moreover, section 19 of GATS calls for such an evaluation to be done. However, this process was postponed indefinitely. We feel that this review is warranted before an expanded program of liberalized trade in services can be pursued.

Clearly, an evaluation of this nature would slow the pace of the negotiations. However, given the consequences, this would be the lesser of two evils. Any step to expand the scope of GATS should be taken with full knowledge of the facts. Like many others, we do not believe that all of the facts have been brought to light at this time.

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

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

We will now hear from Mr. Stuart Clark of the Canadian Food Grains Bank. Go ahead, Mr. Clark.

[English]

Mr. Stuart Clark (Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Foodgrains Bank): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm aware that you have heard some of our story before. I also want to assure the members of the committee that we've tried to take into account the passage of three months--half of the time between the time we last spoke here and the Cancun ministerial--and our comments today will be made very much in light of the final days of this process if in fact we reach a satisfactory agreement at Cancun.

I think it's important to underline that the matter of agriculture is the lifeblood of all societies. For developing countries, agriculture is also the source of eight out of ten livelihoods; it's the way eight out of ten people survive in these countries. If these societies are to prosper, then the agriculture systems must also prosper.

I want to note just on the side that Canada's renewed commitment to agriculture in its foreign aid efforts is I think a very positive sign recognizing this very important truth.

After rainfall, prices are the most important issue for farmers. Today as never before international trade determines agricultural prices everywhere. Whereas in Canada we are very used to this--it's been a reality in Canada for decades--it's a new reality for many of the sub-Saharan countries of Africa, for example, where food security is a really important issue.

So we would argue that, at its core, the Doha development agenda is about prices for developing country farmers. I don't think this is an overexaggeration given the preponderance of agricultural livelihoods in these countries.

I want to speak about two particular issues, ones that we've raised before but that I think have a slightly different shine to them in these last three months coming up to the Cancun ministerial. The first is on the question of balance.

You will all be aware that international agricultural trade is the most distorted sector of agricultural trade in the world. This is a matter that has been noted by Canada and made a part of our initial negotiating position to try to address the high level of subsidies about which Mr. Barr spoke. However, it's also clear that for at least the next five years there will continue to be high levels of subsidies in the EU and U.S., which will result in subsidized exports flowing everywhere, including the developing countries.

In short, the way it is working out right now, this massive imbalance is set to continue, and the consequences are absolutely catastrophic. This means farmers...and it happens; many of you travel, you visit developing countries, you probably visit cities first, and you see the large slums. Most of the people in those slums were once farmers.

That trend is continuing, and it's deeply destabilizing. The question about prices for those farmers' products is a key question of balance in any agreement that we're currently working on.

So we want to really urge that, in the final stages of the Cancun negotiations, Canada might be open to the idea of developing countries being provided with a special countervail that would enable them to use tariffs to protect themselves against these highly subsidized imports.

The development logic of this is obvious, but we want to make the point that the Canadian negotiating logic is also clear, for the existence of that kind of countervail would apply a continuous and strong pressure on high-subsidy regimes to do something about it. So it has both a development side to it and Canadian interest side to it.

¿ (0930)

The second point I want to make is about special products. In the draft texts put forward, you have heard us speak of food security crops. This concept is reflected in the notion of special products, and we would like to support developing countries' call that a certain percentage of their agricultural commodities would be exempt from further tariff reduction.

There's been a lot of discussion about, well, exactly which products should those be. We've done a lot of research to try to see if there are quick and fast rules that could be applied in a wide variety of situations to determine which kind of products should be special products. The long and the short of it is that it's a matter that simply must be determined in each national context, because farming is so diverse and the food security concerns of different countries are so diverse.

Allowing countries to exempt these products from further tariff reductions would have a very practical impact on prices for developing country farmers, and would also provide developing countries with the flexibility of letting those projects graduate should they want to export them. I think an important point is that the special products, as proposed, would all be non-net exported products, so we're not talking about an unfair or uneven playing table in terms of international trade.

I would just touch briefly on two other issues that we've raised before; some of you may want to ask about them during your questions. The first is the importance of access to northern markets for those products that developing countries are starting to export. There are important questions there about price instability, for which my colleague Mark Fried, from Oxfam, would have some fairly clear messages.

The last issue is the need for orderly marketing systems in developing countries. We recognize this in Canada through our supply management systems. We urge that the door not be closed for developing countries to establish similar kinds of orderly marketing systems. Again, without prosperous agricultural sectors, there will be no development, and the Doha development agenda will be hollow.

Thank you.

The Chair: We're going to start our question and answer session. I just want to remind my colleagues that it's five minutes for both questions and answers this morning.

We'll start with Dr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Dr. Patry, and thank you all very much for being here today.

Before we start, I just want to give a couple of bouquets to you, Mr. Fried, and to Oxfam for helping to take care of a whole slew of AIDS orphans in and around Pretoria. Thank you very much.

As well, thank you, Mr. Clark, for your extensive work in helping many of us to deal with the famine in sub-Saharan Africa.

There will not be enough time to take care of the questions I'm asking today, but if you'd be kind enough to submit a written submission to the committee on these questions, I'm sure we'd be deeply grateful.

Ms. Devine and Ms. Durran and Mr. Barr, I'm very interested in how we can get medications to developing countries. Perhaps you could submit to the committee any solutions Canada could put forward on the TRIPS agreement that would enable developing countries to get better access, cheaper access, to those medicines.

On the issue around the TRIPS agreement, Mr. Barr, perhaps you could provide us with some specific solutions on the issue of food security, which you mentioned in your comments.

Perhaps, Mr. Clark, you'd like to weigh in on that too, as a submission to the committee.

Finally, Mr. Barr, you mentioned solutions on what we could put forward to democratize the WTO. This is a very complex situation that most of us do not fully understand, and I would be grateful for any submissions to that effect.

So in the last two minutes, if any of you want to take a swing at those, that would be great.

Ms. Devine.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Carol Devine (Access to Essential Medicines Liaison, Doctors Without Borders): Thank you very much, merci beaucoup.

I'm glad to hear that you'd like a submission, because we'd be very happy to give one.

In fact, we think the opportunity at Cancun is incredibly important, or else the whole TRIPS system will come into question for bringing poor people access to medicine. Right now, six million people need antiretroviral drugs that are available in the west to prolong people's lives. As you well know, economies are being destroyed and lives are being destroyed.

The Doha declaration, which Canada was a part of over a year and a half ago, agreed that there was to be a solution—one paragraph of the Doha declaration—to actually deal with the issue of countries not having production capacity to make antiretroviral drugs. So a procedure or a flexibility to import drugs for those absolutely essential medicines is needed now, and Canada has been part of blocking this proposal. In September we really hope to see a reversal and we really hope to see that Canada will be part of a solution that they said was important a year and a half ago and that is simple, immediate, and economically viable.

We've seen a few proposals that there should be a limited number of diseases that should be able to have flexibilities for access to medicine. We've seen just a certain number of countries, and we think if it's Bahrain or Canada...and it says in the Doha declaration that any country should be able to decide what is its public health problem and how it's going to promote access for all.

So we are really hoping and urging and pushing that Canada will be part of a workable multilateral solution, and that the scope of diseases shouldn't be limited, the number of countries shouldn't be limited, and vaccines and diagnostics should be included. Right now we're seeing Canada, the U.S., the EU, Japan, and Switzerland fall to pharmaceutical pressure. As we speak today, people are doing administrative procedures, discussions, negotiations, and legal terminology when lives should be saved right now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Any other comments?

Mr. Barr.

Mr. Gerry Barr: I have just one quick point about this question of access to medicines. As we move towards Cancun, there is a danger that we will see a kind of spin on events that will display a concession on the access to medicines issue as a major gain in Cancun. I'm here to tell you that it is not.

At the last meeting in Doha, there was in fact a major gain on intellectual property rights with respect to access to essential medicines in the form of a political declaration that provided assurances to states that they would be able to use generics in circumstances where they thought it appropriate in key public health matters. However, the thorn on the rose was that those countries that did not themselves have the capacity to produce generics would not be in a position to be able to import them from countries that did make them, leaving the least-developed economies once again in the worst situation.

Now, there was an assurance that this would be taken care of. It has not, and it has been held, as it were, in the vest pocket of the developed economies until Cancun, when in the context of the single-undertaking approach it will be produced and offered as a major signal of forward motion. This is, I think, an example of exactly the type of thing that generates enormous and dark cynicism around the world about these questions.

One could identify as well the implementation issues. Minister Pettigrew said on the way to Doha that more than half of the implementation issues were effectively resolved. I am sure it was a description he offered in good faith, but at this point it's only five of 95. So of those that were thought to be resolved, virtually all of them are back in the hopper once again, for discussion once again, in this interminable process where one sees cards being traded over and over again for fresh and important concessions from the developing world.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for meeting with us this morning to discuss these issues. I have three questions for the witnesses. The first two are for Mr. Barr, and the third, for Mr. Clark.

Mr. Barr, in point 5 of your Executive Summary, under “Democratize the WTO“, you note the following:

Most recently at Doha, there were a range of unethical pressure tactics employed that marred the negotiation process and produced outcomes not reflective of the needs of poor countries.

Could you elaborate further on this highly interesting topic?

Secondly, at the end of point 5, you say this:

The WTO Director General has called for a code of conduct for multinationals that would control their lobbying influence.

Could you update us on the progress made in the drafting of this code of conduct?

My third question is for Mr. Clark. You talked about supply management. In Quebec, highly sophisticated supply management mechanisms are in place in areas such as agriculture. Canada could look to these mechanisms for inspiration and they could serve as examples and model for many developing countries to emulate. However, the feedback we're getting is leaving us increasingly pessimistic as to whether these supply management mechanisms can be maintained, whereas they could be expanded further. You yourself think that they should be expanded. The opposite seems to be occurring. Could you elaborate further on this point for us?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Barr.

Mr. Gerry Barr: I thank the member for his question. He has opened up a rich terrain, and I won't canvass it fully.

One is stuck in trade negotiations with an enormous challenge, and that is the challenge of resolving a discourse of international development cooperation in the context of trade arrangements that traditionally have been matters of very hard-edged discussions between nations. But with the expansion of those trade negotiations and trade language, and as globalization grows and the discourse takes over so many areas, the language of development and international cooperation is obviously more and more important. Yet there is a fundamental contradiction in the approach of these two styles of bargaining between countries--one is on the basis of sharp and hard interest negotiations, the other is motivated by the logic of international cooperation.

One is struck in these negotiations by the problem of throw weights, and capacity, because only a few major economies in the international space have the capacity to effectively assert their own agendas. The rationale associated with this is one of the rules-based system, which seems at first blush to be a very fair and appropriate kind of approach. But those of us who have experience in development cooperation know that the assertion of rules may end up enforcing and perpetuating inequality rather than generating equality.

In Canada we have many examples of this. We think about gender, cultural difference, and race. There are lots of examples in this terrain where rules that appear to be fair, because they apply to all, actually assert, articulate, and reinforce inequality. The same is true in international space.

Democratization at the WTO has to do principally with issues of voice, accessible process, and impact from those who are essentially on the margins of the international economy. There are dozens of ways in which these issues display themselves in the context of the WTO, but in this problem of the single undertaking, for example, you might imagine that deadlines in negotiations were intended as real markers, but in fact if you are a negotiator headed towards a single undertaking, the last thing you want is to meet a deadline on a sub-discussion. You want to keep everything alive, all your options open--that is, if you are a negotiator from an effective and robust developed economy.

If, as you see these deadlines falling...and virtually all of them do; hardly a single deadline is met on the way to Cancun. What you see there is the demise of third world concerns, because in the final undertaking, which is a kind of spasm at the end of a very expensive process, all of the smaller and peripheral issues get shaken off for what really counts, and what really counts is the concerns and agendas of the major economic actors.

So as you approach Cancun, if there is a sense of trepidation on the part of developing world actors, it is for that reason. They have seen deadlines consistently not met. Issues, therefore, which could have been set aside and addressed in the spirit of international cooperation but are not, are left, as it were, in play. And you know for sure that, with very few exceptions--some will be preserved for cosmetic purposes--those relatively marginal issues and interests will be shucked off in favour of the core agenda.

So I think we need to have a way of addressing this question of the single-undertaking process.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you. I don't mean to cut you off, but I'd like your answers to be shorter.

Mr. Clark, you have something to add.

Mr. Stuart Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that I think the question Monsieur Rocheleau has raised is absolutely core to the agriculture negotiations, and indeed to the WTO as a whole. César Gaviria, the Secretary General of the OAS, at a major economic conference earlier in May said we need to convince the people around the world that this whole effort makes sense.

I think there's a question about the legitimacies of the trade regimes, a question increasingly asked, and asked by supply managed farmers in Canada and others. If you look, however, at the trade regimes, it's very clear that every country has their special products. And in the first agricultural trade agreement, the Uruguay Round agreement, there were, although not explicitly stated, a number of carve-outs for special products. Agriculture is so different from manufacturing widgets, and simply requires, if you're going to incorporate it into a trade regime, a lot of exceptions because of the very different circumstances.

So on the question about supply management and the fate of supply management under the relentless pressure to reduce tariffs, I think for agriculture in virtually every country there are special products and special sectors that will be defended. And Canada, I believe, will work hard to retain the TRQ system as their way of doing things. But as Mr. Barr has said, the same kinds of flexibilities are very much needed for developing countries, and so far Canada has been reluctant to entertain any of those kinds of special products. Although they have made it into the chairman's text, I know that Canada says verbally that we have many objections and we don't want to go there. But I think it's very clear that special products are simply going to have to be there.

I sincerely hope that supply management would be one of the ways that Canada would be able to accommodate agriculture to international trade, and I hope that the door will be left open for developing countries to do the same kind of thing.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Mr. Eyking.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question probably is for Mr. Clark.

CIDA seems to be our arm in helping underdeveloped countries quite a bit, so a lot of the challenges and solutions, and how we're dealing with them, should be installed in our CIDA policies.

Personally, I did a lot of work in Central America with farming groups before I got into politics. I worked with cooperatives, helping them with their growing systems, irrigation, and also their marketing systems.

I'd like to just get your perspective a little more on specifics when you're dealing with some of these communities. I was fortunate enough to be a farmer, so a lot of things I could relate to, but I found that a lot of complaints from these communities were that the western world had this idea of coming in with all these bright ideas, and they wouldn't look from the ground up.

So I want you to give a little more detail on how we maybe should change some of our CIDA policies, how we should look at these countries, how we should not look at them as primitive structures, and deal with that, whether it's teaching them how to grow organic coffee or plants for medicines and that type of thing without really tipping their whole society.

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Stuart Clark: Thank you. I think that's a very important question.

We opened this discussion by talking about agricultural trade, and we want to say that we think the right rules are a necessary condition for agricultural development in Central America, as in sub-Saharan Africa, but it's not enough. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

So to the question of aid policies, I think there is a growing credibility, scientific credibility, building up around indigenous farming methods. That's not to say that indigenous farming methods have the total answer; there is great scope for scientific insights to be grafted in, and perhaps you did some of this kind of work yourself. But what we did in the old days, coming in with the idea that a western industrial agricultural system should be transplanted, has if not disappeared then certainly waned.

The food security policy group has been working hard on the question of how CIDA should use its new resources in the area of aid to agriculture. And one of things we have emphasized very strongly is that a majority of that aid for agriculture should be going to reduce poverty. As you well know, agriculture can go in a number of different directions. Investments in large-scale industrial flour production might produce a lot of income for a country, and we don't negate the importance of that, but we think the focus of CIDA's and Canada's helping arm to farmers should be around practical farming methods that help people who are currently poor.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Are we doing a good enough job of that? And how should we improve it if we're not?

Mr. Stuart Clark: The announcement, after a decade of decline.... In rough numbers, we went from $300 million in aid to agriculture in the early nineties to $100 million by the end of the decade, and now the current minister has announced that by 2006, I believe, CIDA's assistance will rise to $500 million. That's all to say that a lot of this news is very new, and I think it is very much of an open question how Canada will use that opportunity.

We certainly look forward to working with CIDA, and at times keeping you informed here of what we think needs to be done to make sure that additional important contribution to agriculture is used in the best way.

So it's really too early for me to answer the question, “How have we done?”, except to say, “In the last decade, terribly.”

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Fried.

Mr. Mark Fried (Communications and Advocacy Coordinator, Oxfam Canada): Perhaps I can add something briefly.

To bring it back to the trade question, one of the changes CIDA has begun instituting in its overall aid policy is to support national governments in their own anti-poverty efforts, and to support local ownership of development rather than imposing programs designed in Canada. That's certainly a positive trend among all donor countries. At the same time, however, the international trade regime imposes restrictions on what national anti-poverty programs can be like, because there are certain policies you're not allowed to take up and can't pursue, policies that some developing countries have used very successfully in the past. For example, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Asian tiger countries did very well by restricting imports and promoting exports. There were a number of policy methods, particularly in agriculture, to support local agricultural development. These things are restricted by the current trade rules, and unless there's some change in the international trade regime, the effectiveness of national anti-poverty efforts will not be as great as it should be.

The Chair: Ms. Durran.

Ms. Mary Durran: On the question about CIDA and aid, I think it's very important that we don't give with one hand and take away with the other. There is a very definite need for policy coherence between the policies of CIDA and the policies of international trade.

For example, to come back to the question of seeds, on the one hand CIDA is supporting some very good agricultural development projects in the developing world, including in Central America. On the other hand, if Canada is supporting WTO regulations that allow patents on seeds, which actually damages farmers' food security, then this isn't good. It's giving with one hand and taking with the other one.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I go to Ms. McDonough, I just want to mention that it's our pleasure to have with us this morning, with the Bahrain delegation, Ms. Audrey McLaughlin, former NDP leader and member of Parliament from the Yukon. I think she's now a director with the National Democratic Institution.

The floor is yours, Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much.

You took right out of my mouth the first words I was going to speak, because I think it is appropriate for us to welcome our colleague Audrey McLaughlin, who has the exciting challenge of working with the democratization activities going on in Bahrain today. It's just wonderful to have Audrey with us, and the delegation; welcome.

I just want to take a moment to try to understand more clearly what it is that causes Canada to talk the talk but not walk the walk when it comes to following through on the Doha agenda, specifically commitments to developing and impoverished nations. I think when you're trying to get a person or an organization or a government to change their behaviour, you have to try to understand why they're doing what they're doing in order to get them to make the change.

Sometimes a gem will just jump right off the page, and here it's Mary Durran's explanation of how giving with one hand and taking away with the other doesn't quite add up to meaningful, lasting, genuine development.

I'm wondering if you can elaborate on this a little bit more specifically. What is it Canada is doing in those discussions, or is just by default, really, that they're not taking up in solidarity with the developing countries and consistent with what the Doha agreement was supposed to have been about? Is it by default or are there overt positions Canada is taking?

Secondly, are there other developed countries, middle-sized countries, that are being more proactive, genuinely progressive, and more faithful to the core of the Doha agreement and that Canada should be inspired or guided by, and we perhaps can learn more about?

Mr. Mark Fried: Thank you very much for the question. It goes back to part of what Mr. Barr was mentioning before about the different logics of trade negotiations and development work.

Unfortunately, trade negotiators are trapped by their interpretation of short-term economic self-interest of their countries, influenced primarily by the exporting interests in the countries. This is true for most countries around the world. In order to achieve development goals of the Doha Round, which are stated quite nicely rhetorically, it will require a different sort of approach, one that only the political leadership can provide. It's something we can't expect from the negotiators. It's something we would expect from our parliamentarians and from our ministers, which would get beyond the rhetoric to see and address the negotiations globally. Here we have this global challenge of development. More poverty, more hunger, more strife is not in our interest, but it's a longer-term interest, and one we have to see beyond the immediate questions: How many of these things am I going to sell to this country? How can I get them to open their markets so I can export to them? We have to get beyond to see a big picture.

This is something we expect from politicians. We have tried to put forward in our past submissions the small steps Canada can take in these particular negotiations to go in the right direction. There is the bigger picture, but there are small, immediate steps that can be taken, some of which I've mentioned today.

À (1000)

The Chair: Any other comments?

Ms. Devine.

Ms. Carol Devine: Thank you.

On the overt positions Canada is taking regarding access to medicine, we saw developing countries and activists working extremely hard to get to the Doha declaration in 2001, and now, as I've said before, we're really seeing pharmaceutical industry pressure and protectionism of western interests when it comes to access to medicine and the ability to have generic medicines possible for developing countries.

When Médecins sans frontières and other organizations are at the WTO, we have developing countries come up to us after we give our presentation about the disease burden and the actual possibilities--simply exporting and giving production capacity to poor countries to give cheaper and effective generic drugs--and they say to us, “Thank you for saying that, because we find it difficult to say it. We have other pressures because of our debt and because of our agriculture.”

So the issues are interlinked, but I want to be extremely frank and say we have seen Canada and other western countries bow to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Again, as a second part to my question, are there other countries acting in more responsible ways that we should be emulating or collaborating with and joining forces with?

Mr. Stuart Clark: Just as a brief answer to that question, on the matter of agriculture, if you look at those OECD countries that have very particular agriculture, particularly Switzerland and Norway, they're very aware of the difficulty of fitting the square peg of agriculture into the round hole of trade rules. So their proposals, which take on board a lot of developing country issues, really reflect that quite well.

I think that's a really important point, that those countries with difficulty fitting into the one-size-fits-all in the rich countries are the ones we can look to, just as we have difficulty with the whole matter of our supply managed commodities.

The Chair: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think in many respects a lot of the things you've been talking about really address or are concerned with the issues around environmental justice and environmental rights, and I have a couple of questions.

First, you have the Convention on Biological Diversity on the one hand, that countries around the world have signed on to, and yet you have these contradictions that you're trying to reconcile in the “trade only” silo sphere, as it were. What national governments, particularly in the developed world, are supporters of the kinds of things you've been advocating?

I want to quickly draw your attention to a paper the European Council has been looking at with regard to bringing the right to environment into the human rights protection system. In this document they cited the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, in which it says:

Man

--and one would hope “man” includes women--

has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being....

So way back in 1972 there was this talk of integrating issues around economy, environment and equity. Who at the national level is supportive of these kinds of ideas that you're concerned with?

Second, one of the witnesses in their documents had indicated--I'm trying to find the source here--that this is supportive of the aims of NEPAD in terms of the approach you've been articulating here this morning. My question is, is this in support of the espoused values of NEPAD or what we may see in the practical reality of the implementation of NEPAD?

À (1005)

Mr. Mark Fried: Certainly it's in line with the espoused values of NEPAD. There hasn't been much in the way of implementation of NEPAD to date, so it's hard to speak to that.

We don't speak on behalf of developing country governments. They're not our constituency. We speak based on our experience in the field, in our understanding of what poor farmers, poor people, poor communities need, with the type of rules that will encourage and allow for their development. Quite often our partners in the field will identify their own national governments as being as much of an obstacle as the international trade rules. So their national policy problems are fundamental as well.

Our main concern with the trade rules and trade regimes is that they allow flexibility so that better national policies can be created. Unfortunately, it's going the other direction. It imposes strictures on national policies, not allowing those policies that our partners in the field of poor communities are advocating for with their own national governments.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are there any national governments in the developed world that are supportive of bucking this particular trend?

Mr. Mark Fried: Yes, certainly there are. India has exercised great leadership, as has Brazil. The Africa group of countries, led by Zimbabwe, has been quite outspoken, as has Kenya. A number of developing country negotiators have championed these proposals--

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, I said “developed” countries.

Mr. Mark Fried: Oh, I'm sorry; developed countries--

The Chair: Ms. Durran.

Ms. Mary Durran: The first part of your question seemed to be getting at the question of policy coherence. I think there is a growing awareness in the developing countries. I mean, I've heard it said in Canadian government circles that, yes, we must get TRIPS more in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity. But I think people are only just starting to think about this.

Within the UN there is a whole process for policy coherence between human rights legislation and trade policy. This started more or less with the millennium process and the millennium summit in 2000 at the UN. There was certainly a realization that the world had to be more consistent and coherent with its policies.

At Monterrey again last year, part of the Monterrey Consensus was making trade an engine for development and having consistency among all these different strands of policy. So I think people are starting to think about this, but it's something that hasn't yet been taken fully on board.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Ms. Devine, you mentioned the inability of developing countries to get access to vaccines and diagnostics. I liaise with the Rx and D companies as well as the generics, trying to deal with these. If you could provide us as a committee with what blockages they're putting in, I'd appreciate that.

I've also been told that internal decisions within a number of developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa have caused a lot of over-the-counter medications and prescription medications to cost much more than they should be. If that is so, could you tell us a little bit about that?

On the issue of foodstuffs, Ms. Durran, you mentioned foods being patented. Are these GMO or non-GMO foodstuffs you're talking about?

Finally, Mr. Clark, I brought up the issue of developing countries being allowed to use countervailing duties equivalent to the subsidies that developed countries use. I brought that up to our minister's office, and they said, no, we will never support that, because it goes completely counter to what we're doing.

Is there another option that would enable developing countries to compete fairly, or is that the best option you know of?

Thank you.

À (1010)

The Chair: Ms. Devine.

Ms. Carol Devine: On your question about vaccines and diagnostics in developing countries, I mentioned vaccines and diagnostics in the context of some of the proposed solutions to the issue of getting access to medicine to developing countries. In the December 2002 negotiations we actually saw on the table the chairman...a text for trying to find the solution to the paragraph 6 issue, that diagnostics were taken out, that it was only medicine. We felt it was extremely important that vaccines and all health technologies be included in the Doha declaration and TRIPS.

Medicines are one thing, but we see in developing countries, with neglected diseases and major infectious diseases, that there is a lack of vaccines, lack of diagnostics, and as you know very well, the drugs are not only ineffective, archaic, toxic, non-existent, not available or too expensive, but the vaccines also play an incredibly important role.

One of the arguments we get when NGOs such as MSF say that there has to be a workable solution to the TRIPS Doha declaration for medicines for the poor...and one thing we'd like to rebut publicly. We received a letter from Catherine Dickson saying that for research and development and innovation, we fear that if patent protection gets lower, then innovation and research and development for diagnostics, vaccines, and medicines will become more difficult.

Well, we refute that, because when we're talking about AIDS, even, and a lot of neglected diseases, there is virtually no research and development because there's no market. People can't pay for those drugs, so there's no interest in either the public or the private sector. Although in universities and so on people are doing research into neglected diseases, they never get to the market. To give just one quick example, for the last 25 years only 3% of research and development has been for malaria and tuberculosis, and for neglected diseases, 1%.

So for research and development, vaccines, diagnostics, and medicine, I disagree; I think it's a fallacy to say that stronger intellectual property means more drugs and vaccines. In fact, I think we can show that needs-based research and development hasn't existed so far, and it's something we have to have innovative solutions on. MSF has a proposal about that, which I'll send to you.

Could you repeat your second question?

Mr. Keith Martin: It was dealing with seeds, but it was for Ms. Durran, actually. We were talking about life forms that were GMO or non-GMO, because it makes a difference.

Ms. Mary Durran: Just to come to that question, in fact GMO foods and patenting are actually two issues, but they are linked. In practice, most food crops that have patents on them are GM foods, but actually in some cases there have been cases where a non-GM food or a non-GM seed has had a patent put on it. You can call this a case of “bio-piracy” when, for example, a corporation has taken a seed that has been produced by several generations of farming, appropriated it, and said, “This is ours, and we're putting the patent on it.” That has happened on some occasions.

In practice, though, what happens is that you have a crop that's produced over several generations, a company makes a small genetic modification, and then they put the patent on it.

Development and Peace hasn't taken a position on GM foods per se, because we think this is a different issue. What bothers us is the issue of ownership of the food chain, when a company takes something that is the result of several generations of farming and says, “This is ours, and no one can do anything with it.” This is slightly different from GM foods.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Clark.

Mr. Stuart Clark: There was a question asked by Mr. Martin about countervail.

I want to say the position of the minister's office is entirely consistent with Canada's negotiating position, and indeed with the interests of all developing countries. Northern subsidies are the problem, and the reduction of the highly subsidized exports that flow to the world market is the development challenge. So we agree on that.

From the point of view of Canada, which is primarily an exporter, things such as countervail, seen strictly from Canada's point of view, are seen as negative unless you argue that, as a tactic, a targeted countervail against those subsidies that you want to see reduced is going to apply pressure.

What I think needs to come is that the Canadian negotiators need to be given a clearer signal that on this critical issue for developing countries, in the final stages, if it's very clear--which I would say is already abundantly clear from the U.S. Farm Bill and CAP--that in the near to medium term we're not going to get those subsidies down, then Canada needs to be on the side of the developing countries in providing them with a practical tool.

I don't want to take a lot of time with the committee here, but I'd be happy to explain to you that there is actually a technicality within GATT that is very simple. The Europeans and the U.S. have something called the “peace clause”, which prevents them from getting spanked, or punished, for their subsidies. That's going to expire at the end of this year, and they're going to look to have that renewed. When that peace clause expires, there will be a window of opportunity, when this defensive tool could be a very important topic of discussion. I would like Canadian negotiators to look favourably at that moment.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Marleau.

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Clark, you just fell into the question I was going to ask on bringing the whole U.S. policy into the equation.

I know they've said they were going to spend a lot more on development. I know they seem to have put aside moneys to do this. I'd like your impression, those of you sitting at this table, of how this all plays into the mix. As you and I know, the U.S. has been very selective in targeting certain countries, certain things.

Perhaps I'll let you go on about the role the U.S. plays, which is very pivotal to our own well-being here in Canada, as we all know, and which drives a lot of the decisions that are made just about anywhere.

Mr. Stuart Clark: It's a big question, and I know we're short on time, so I'm going to give a short answer.

The Americans' willingness to provide higher levels of aid, as you probably know, are contingent on what they term to be good governance. Of course, who can be against good governance? Nobody's against good governance. However, this is rather specifically defined as open markets, tariff reduction, and so on. So that's the hook that's in the bait, so to speak, and I think developing countries are very aware of that.

Of course, the Americans are not the only ones that provide development assistance, so there are other options. I would hope that Canada would not, in its call for good governance, make those same kinds of links.

The Chair: Ms. Devine.

Ms. Carol Devine: I'll comment very briefly about the U.S. position, and it relates to the Honourable Alexa McDonough's question about overt positions.

The U.S. position on TRIPS has been extremely evident and challenging for nations to get generics, and for developing countries to get access to medicine. We feel that Canada should take the position that Doha should be the ceiling for all international, bilateral, and regional trade agreements. We're concerned about Cancun and the WTO; two months later, the FTAA was very concerned that 34 countries in the Americas, including Canada, would be locked into a bad deal about access to medicine. We're urging that FTAA would have no intellectual property provisions, and the U.S. is really driving the position of stronger intellectual property, making it very difficult for poor countries to get medicine.

And it's a double standard. We saw that with anthrax. Canada and the U.S. issued...or threatened a compulsory licence, and we got ciproflaxin extremely cheaply. What about poor countries? There shouldn't be this double standard. The U.S. is really leading that, and we hope Canada can stand apart.

We know it's difficult. They're our main partner. But we're seeing in TRIPS agriculture...we're seeing horse trading in medicine and agriculture. People are important.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Laliberté.

Mr. Pierre Laliberté: I'd just like to comment briefly, as this is an important area. Mention was made of the FTAA, but several bilateral negotiations are also now under way and clearly, the Americans are involved at all levels.

With respect to intellectual property rights, it should be noted that US proposals at the bilateral level go even further than under the FTAA framework. Therefore, it's important that we make the WTO a truly adequate framework. As Aristotle said, there is no worse injustice than treating persons who are not equal as equals. The crux of the problem is the fact that development imperatives stand in opposition to trade imperatives. If we could manage to strike a somewhat healthier balance between the two -- a perfect balance is beyond the realm of possibility -- and achieve some measure of satisfaction, this race to bilateral and sub-regional treaties would likely slow. In any event, that's what we're banking on. Thank you.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you. You may put your question, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you very much for that brief presentation, given the important challenges at hand.

I'd like to hear your views again on agriculture. It seems that everything is holding steady on this front. In developing countries, the majority of the people work in agriculture. As I see it, a satisfactory ruling on this question is critically important. In your view, why will we not see an agreement on the elimination of export subsidies?

Again yesterday, Mr. Bush rejected a request for such an agreement that had been made of G8 member countries. We should be supporting this request which would mean that developing countries could continue to use simplified trade mechanisms to defend against imports of unfairly subsidized commodities. Could you explain the situation to the committee so that it can, hopefully, give this matter further consideration?

[English]

Mr. Mark Fried: Thank you very much for the question.

On the question of export credits, the United States uses two primary areas for putting subsidized food onto the world market and driving down world prices. One of those export credits, which provides credit to a government or to foreign firms to buy U.S. products, allows them to put things on the market at a cheaper price. The other major area is food aid, where the United States continually gives large amounts of food aid to countries that don't require food aid. These are countries where the United States' business interests face commercial competition from other countries, and they want to drive down the price to put their competitors out of business.

These are two areas that are quite susceptible to political manipulation because of the nature of the U.S. political system; individual companies can lobby for both aid and credits to go to where it is in their commercial interest. Both have been identified by Canada and by the European Union and certainly by developing countries as terrible problems that have to be done away with. The political dynamic is such that the United States has refused. But you're right to mention that as a specific problem.

On the question of the countervail, which Mr. Clark mentioned before, these sorts of subsidies, such as export credits and food aid in the case of the United States, or direct export subsidies in the case of the European Union, are in the laws of the United States and European Union now. They're going to continue for at least another five years, and probably quite beyond that. As long as they're going to be subsidized, with cheap food sloshing around in the world market, it's going to drive poor farmers out of business and cause havoc.

Poor countries need a simple way to defend themselves. Currently under the rules, you have to prove damage to 80% of a sector before you can put on a countervail duty, and it's impossible for a poor country to get the signatures of 80% of their farmers that they've been damaged by this cheap import. It's simply not possible. We need a simplified countervail, simplified measure that says if you're exporting a product that you subsidize in your own country, a defensive measure will allow a tariff equivalent to that subsidy to be imposed by the poor country importing it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. McDonough, a short question, and the last one.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: I have just a very brief question.

I was at a symposium on the African crisis on the weekend, where it was suggested that NEPAD, in at least its original inception, was very much inspired by the corporate globalization model, not grounded, and very much top-down. I know you have here suggested that the Canadian government is to be congratulated for more openness, more consultation with civil society, and I'm wondering whether, in view of the concerns you've raised of a broader nature, there's any reason for optimism that NEPAD has become more grounded, that there is in fact more engagement with civil society, academia and so on, and even with the African local governments since its original inception.

I know it's been suggested that there hasn't been a lot of implementation. It's mostly talk and not so much walk. But is there reason for optimism that there is more engagement on the ground around the very kinds of issues you're talking about, that trade and liberalized trade that's one-sided is not really the answer, and what's needed is more of what you're talking about?

À (1025)

The Chair: Mr. Barr.

Mr. Gerry Barr: Just a few quick points--

The Chair: Just one point; I know you.

Mr. Gerry Barr: The reason for optimism is that NEPAD brings African concerns and the African problematic on the agenda quite decisively, and in a way that engages major international donors. Looking at the G-8, it appears that has survived, thanks in large measure, I think, to the Government of France, who gave it real priority at the G-8. And good for them.

Major process and content issues around NEPAD remain. Civil society has not even begun to get a look in the door in terms of the process. One can hope that there will be some retrofitting of an ill-designed but admittedly African-sourced set of visions, at least in the most latter days, but these are all ideas that have predecessor versions in the west and in the developed world, and it leads one to worry that in order to gain the support of major donors, African leaders swallowed hard and provided ideas that would get the easy agreement of northern donors, and therefore there's a lack of important alternative thinking in the NEPAD plan.

However, the positive part is that it has gone through the G-8 with apparently a reaffirmation that the international donors are still engaged, and for that we are very pleased.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank all our witnesses this morning for their appearance on this very important issue. We're going to recess for five minutes, after which we'll go in camera for consideration of a draft report on the humanitarian catastrophe in African states, and possibly also a motion from Mr. Cotler.

Thank you.

À (1028)

À (1036)

[Translation]

The Chair: My dear colleagues,

[English]

before going in camera, we have a motion that has been distributed by e-mail to all members of the committee on May 30. This motion is from Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Cotler, the floor is yours.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This resolution comes against the backdrop of killing fields in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where, as all the documented evidence has shown, a war, which some have called the third world war, has lasted four years, involving a half-dozen African nations and killing more than three million people. This war is being played out in miniature in the district of Ituri, where 60,000 people have been killed and 500,000 displaced since 1999.

The United Nations Security Council met on Friday and authorized the deployment of a French-led force of 1,400 new soldiers--most of them are French, but others are from Africa and other nations--to be sent to Ituri in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Therefore, people may feel that my proposed resolution has been overtaken by the action of the UN Security Council on Friday.

I just want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that in the wake of the UN Security Council resolution, there was a lead editorial in the New York Times, “Stopping the Genocide in Congo”. And the International Crisis Group warned against the impending genocide.

The view of informed observers is that this security force is too little as well too late, to use that proverbial phrase, and that more needs to be done not only in terms of beefing up the UN security force but also in terms of overall political, diplomatic, and humanitarian approaches to stopping the genocide in the Congo.

I might add that 350 civilians were killed over the weekend in a continuation of this killing field, and it hasn't even made a blimp on the radar screen. We don't know about it in the media. And this is after the United Nations Security Council resolution giving authorization for deployment.

I think it's also important to note that this UN security force will not be able to leave Bunia, the capital, under its mandate. Much of the population has fled to the countryside, and the massacres are occurring in the countryside.

As the New York Times editorial put it on Saturday, the day after this UN Security Council resolution, and I quote:

We worry that the troops may be too few and have too limited a mandate to do what is needed: stop the killings, end the flow of weapons from neighbouring countries and disarm the militias. The French-led contingent and its new powers are also temporary.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on this point, this UN force is only one part of the component that is needed. We are going to need diplomatic, political, and humanitarian approaches, which include increasing the pressure on Congo, Uganda, and Rwanda to carry out the peace accords to stop army militias and so on.

So there is a multilayered as well as multilateral role for Canada to play here. It includes more than just augmenting the troops; it includes as well the other diplomatic, political, and humanitarian efforts.

With respect to that, I've introduced the resolution, Mr. Chairman, that:

The Committee

in view of the worsening crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of compelling evidence presented recently to it

--referring to our subcommittee on human rights--

calls upon the Government of Canada to intensify its efforts to reach agreement in the United Nations and through other multilateral channels, to act immediately and forcefully to bring an end to the fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to start a massive humanitarian relief effort and to engage the commitment of the international community to play its part in achieving long-term stability and development in the region;

further urges the Government to seriously consider contributing a significant Canadian Forces and civilian police contingent to a new United Nations security force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Canada's expertise in peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction and credibility in the region allow the possibility of a substantial contribution toward resolving this crisis;

notes the implications for Canada's involvement in other multilateral efforts but believes that the urgency and magnitude of this humanitarian crisis must make it a priority for the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I do not use the word “genocide” lightly. I don't think any of those who have reported on what is going on now in the Congo, such as the International Crisis Group, or the editorial in the New York Times--post the UN Security Council resolution on Friday--use that term lightly.

I think this is a situation of extreme urgency, one that requires that this be a compelling priority for our government.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

We'll go to Mr. Eggleton, Mr. Martin, and then Ms. Carroll.

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this motion. When Irwin Cotler brings forward something like this, one has to pay a lot of close attention to it. He knows this subject matter quite well.

Last night I watched a tape, which I'd seen before, about what happened in Rwanda. You know, if this kind of thing continues....

This area of Africa is plagued with this terrible, horrible, genocidal activity. I was equally appalled at the response of the United Nations and the response of the western countries to what was happening there. Once again, you saw Roméo Dallaire pleading for help and not getting it. Surely we've learned the lessons of that. We can't allow that to happen again. We have to take a very strong stand on this.

It says in the second part here that we should also consider “contributing a significant Canadian Forces and civilian police contingent”. Well, I know that we haven't got the Canadian Forces to do it, and I think that's appalling too, because I think we should have the Canadian Forces in this kind of situation in the Congo. But I know the reality. Our forces are stretched, and the commitments are to Afghanistan, and there is still a heavy commitment in Bosnia. There just aren't the troops to do this. So we either have to rework our priorities or we need more troops. And I think it's the latter: we need more troops.

You know, we make a difference in the world in things like this. We have always stood on the necessity to involve ourselves in human protection from this kind of disaster. I think we should be there, and I think it's just terrible that we're not there.

So I support the resolution strongly. I do know, though, there won't be significant Canadian Forces, but we should make the point, and we should ask the government to consider it.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, Ms. Carroll, and Ms. McDonough.

Mr. Keith Martin: I also strongly support what Professor Cotler is doing here and echo the comments of Mr. Eggleton.

I have seen people, adults and children, chopped up with machetes. While it is impossible for us here to imagine what that is like, believe me, when you see this in front of your face, it's equally impossible to understand why it happens.

The number of people murdered here is almost four times the number of people massacred in Rwanda. As Professor Cotler has mentioned, it's the greatest number of people killed since World War II.

We have not done enough. There are three areas in which we must contribute, one of which we may not be able to: diplomacy, humanitarian needs, and defence. While we may not be able to make a contribution in terms of troop strength, it does not preclude us from taking a leadership role in calling for troops from other countries, perhaps along the lines of what ECOMOG put forth.

We can fund that. It is well within our capabilities to do that so that we are making a contribution.

Secondly, more people have actually died in the Congo not from the end of a machete but from starvation and disease. We can make a substantial contribution to support medications and medical personnel, perhaps through a group like Médecins sans frontières, going in and providing medical care in areas once they are secure.

Finally, the individuals who go in as peacemakers will have to go in under aggressive rules of engagement, under a chapter 7 arrangement. We simply cannot sit on our hands any longer in the face of this. We like to denigrate the UN, but the UN is us, and we're part of that. What the world is looking for is somebody to stand up and make the clarion call for an aggressive, effective, doable, and rapid response to this crisis along the lines of diplomacy, defence, and humanitarian needs.

Finally, pressure must be applied to Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, who are culpable in this. We have not done enough. Uganda is the darling of the international community. We're willing to ignore its involvement in the Congo while pouring money into the country itself. Some of those moneys are actually going to support this conflict, so we have to take a very long, cold, hard, objective look at where our aid money is going and choke off that supply in support of the governments of Uganda and Rwanda unless they are willing to make effective contributions to ending this conflict.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We'll go to Ms. Carroll, then Madam McDonough, Madam Lalonde, and Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I join with my colleagues in wishing to have a statement go forward from this committee on the horrors we are witnessing and the need for a response.

I would just mention, Keith, that I think it's important to do some acknowledgement. I don't think we are sitting on our hands...and I say that only in a conversational manner, of course. We have, since 1998, put $36 million to $38 million in attempts to deal with the starvation, under the definition of humanitarian aid generally. We have been active, with our special peace envoy, since 2001.

I'm not in any way suggesting, from what we're observing, that it's been successful, but Canada has been very proactive through the United Nations in all that we have been attempting to do, both with monetary assistance in humanitarian aid and through the efforts we've been making diplomatically. We have, in both ways, used the expertise and reputation we have.

I understand fully what is being discussed this morning, but in using the words of Art Eggleton...who acknowledges, while supporting the motion before us, that we don't have the troops. I think we are as close to fully extended as we can be. His reference was to “rework our priorities”. Perhaps there needs to be acknowledgement on the part of the committee that this is the kind of thing that will be necessitated.

So while it's very important to express as a foreign affairs committee our horror and our priorizing of the Congo over all other crisis areas, if in fact that is what this conversation is having us do, I think there has to be some acknowledgement of what we have done to date, which has been considerable, particularly if one looks at our efforts in relation, perhaps, to others, and I think to pass a motion saying that, to quote your motion, Irwin, “notes the implication for Canada's involvement in other multilateral efforts”....

Do you...or are you suggesting a redeployment, or, in Mr. Eggleton's words, a reworking of our priorities? I think there is some onus to consider the impact of what we put in words in a motion, and be willing to stand behind the suggestions we're making.

Finally, I'm sure everyone is well aware that Canada has responded, along with the French, by sending from troops to Hercules planes. We also have Canadian officers who have been in Paris these last couple of days, and about to return, working with the French as far as planning for the United Nations mission.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

À (1050)

The Chair: : Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak very strongly in support of the resolution. This doesn't deal with the immediate urgency--to state the obvious--but I would hope we would take the opportunity to make a definite commitment to ourselves, and in our work, to follow through on having some witnesses before the committee, if not in the spring then in the fall, around the lessons to be learned from Rwanda. I mean, it's Rwanda revisited; I think we're seeing, again, a failure to really recognize what needs to happen in the face of horrendous genocide.

I guess I have just two quick points. It's obvious there would have to be, at the moment, some redeployment of troops, but I also think we shouldn't lose sight of the importance of the kind of creative partnerships between military deployment and civilian peacekeeping deployment. I think there is a lot of creative work that is being done and that can be advanced that is very much needed here.

The second point is that I made earlier reference to a symposium on the weekend on the crisis in Africa. One of the things that just came up again and again was the complicity, and in many cases the outright thuggery, of some of the multinational corporations in the whole situation in the Congo and other conflicts in the area. I think we have to be far more willing to confront this, and be far more vocal about it. Really, it's the resources being captured there that are in turn paying mercenaries.

I think the rest of the world is hoodwinked into thinking, oh, well, as outsiders it's something we can't do anything about, with internal tribal warfares and so on. But that really is not the case. Many more fundamental problems are being created by corporate might and muscle that I think to a very large extent Canada and other countries turn a blind eye to.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, followed by Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm pleased that a motion respecting this matter has been put to the committee. However, I don't think we should be talking about a “worsening crisis”. I don't feel that the crisis is worsening at the present time. Admittedly, there is some danger of a genocide, but the danger is not necessarily great. One has to remember that between three and four million deaths have already been recorded and a number of steps have already been successfully taken with a view to resolving the conflict. Ironically, the bloodshed in recent months occurred because Uganda agreed to withdraw its troops. Over the years, groups of soldiers, including children and professional soldiers, sprang up and weapons use became widespread. The same kind of situation developed elsewhere in Africa. Obviously, these groups are lawless. I suggest we delete the reference to “worsening” and replace it with “in the face of the crisis”, since this is a crisis that has been allowed to escalate. Ms. Carroll, all countries in the Western World have stood idly by, for all kinds of reasons, either because they felt there was nothing that could be done or because they were unwilling to invest the money to resolve the issue.

So much the better if the world's attention is being drawn to this region, although events taking place are no worse than in the past. It's nice to know that we can do something and that we're determined to help African countries resolve this conflict. It should be remembered that 700 Uruguayan soldiers have been dispatched to keep the peace and to protect foreign workers. Clearly, more are needed. I hope this resolution helps not only to broker a permanent peace, but also to prevent genocides and to jump start development initiatives as well. I would just add that Congo is a vast country, as everyone well knows.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak very strongly in support of this motion. I think a number of committee members have already laid out those points. However, I would just like to emphasize a couple of things.

Madam McDonough had talked about looking at partnerships, and being creative about these partnerships. I think there are international possibilities as well around that, not just within Canada.

I do apologize, but I wish I had brought this article that had appeared in the Globe and Mail with regard to the situation in the Congo. I think in many respects a number of very excellent ideas were clearly laid out in that article. One of the things that was most glaring was the amount of money this individual talked about to be expended over the next two years. While it seemed like a heck of a lot of money, it represented only one day with regard to the attack in Iraq--one day of armed conflict. That money could be then put toward two years' worth of very substantial, comprehensive, integrated work to solve this particular problem in this part of Africa.

I appreciate the difficult job the parliamentary secretary has on this committee, and any committee, for that matter. However, I do believe it is our job as parliamentarians to set priorities, and it is also our job as parliamentarians to support the government, when those priorities are set, to find the resources.

So I am very supportive of this motion.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on the very same day the resolution was tabled at the United National, resolution 1484 called for urgent intervention in this conflict. Perhaps Mr. Cotler could explain to us the connection between his motion, which was tabled on the very same day that the United Nations ruled on the urgency of the situation, and our proposal. Canada has already made some commitments pursuant to UN resolution 1484. Under the circumstances, what purpose does the motion serve?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey. That's all for Mr. Cotler. Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to add one last point, and that's the situation of our armed forces and our peacekeepers. I fully support what Art said, and have been supporting it since I got elected in 1997, and that's the need to increase our armed forces. He will recall many interventions in certain places. However, it is June 3, 2003, and what we have is what we have.

What we have are 2,600 personnel deployed overseas in operations. We have more than 1,200 Canadians in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are about to deploy about 1,800--and all of this is in action--in Afghanistan. We have more than 1,000 soldiers in other armed forces, support members involved in the war on terrorism. And we have hundreds, not a large number, scattered from the Golan Heights on the Israeli-Syrian border to Sierra Leone and Ethiopia.

I merely say that it's good sometimes to recall that information, and while I do so, I would also point out that Canada's ratio of troops deployed in peacekeeping missions to the total number we have is one of the highest in the world.

I'm onside with how this committee perceives this situation in the Congo, but I have the job of reality-checking, and I think this committee has to join me in that job.

Á (1100)

The Chair: You do your job well; we agree.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, I have just a very simple question with regard to the article Karen referenced from the Globe and Mail.

Was that the article by Peter Langille last week, or was that a new article in the last day or two?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think it was just recent. In the article--this name sounds familiar, and it may well have been last week--the individual was talking about looking at the use of African troops, clearly barring certain nations from being involved in that process but also involving Africans as well, which I thought really lent well to your argument about more creative partnerships.

I have it on my desk.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Can you circulate it to the committee?

The Chair: Yes, once you get to your desk, can you circulate it, please?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Absolutely.

The Chair: Now we'll go to Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to respond to the helpful comments that have been made by members of this committee. I might begin with the comments made by our colleague, Aileen Carroll, as secretary to the foreign affairs minister.

I think it's important to appreciate that the resolution grew out of witness testimony before the subcommittee on human rights. That included Denis Paradis, the Secretary of State for Africa, saying the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is “the most serious political and humanitarian crisis in Africa”. So I think the government has recognized it. We also had a special envoy, Marc Brault, and part of this is also based on their testimony before the committee.

That's why, in the third sentence of the resolution, we use the word “intensify”, that we call upon the Government of Canada to “intensify its efforts”. We're not suggesting that Canada's not been engaged; we're just saying those efforts, because of the gravity of the situation, need to be intensified.

On the matter of troop deployment, I just want to say--because I try to my homework on this--we have specifically 1,277 troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina--

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I was rounding off. I could have done that, but I rounded off.

Some hon. members: Oh. oh!

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I just want to say, I looked into this, and I know exactly how many troops we have--i.e., 1,037, the war on terrorism, etc.

The whole purpose of this resolution, as Art Eggleton...is basically to sound the alarm. We want to sound the alarm, and we want to send a message, in terms of our own work and in terms of the government's work internationally, that we believe there is an opportunity for Canada to exercise diplomatic, political, humanitarian, and moral leadership on this issue. And it isn't only in the matter of the redeployment of troops; that's a decision and determination that the government can make. We're asking the government to “seriously consider”. That's what we're saying, in the light of priorities, “to seriously consider” how these kinds of redeployments can and should be made.

Alexa is absolutely right about the multinational corporations ravaging the Congo. That's in part of our report of the subcommittee on human rights, and we make a reference to that as well.

To Francine Lalonde, we use the words “worsening crisis” because since the Ugandan troop was pulled out, and since the efforts there by a very modest UN security contingent of 712, random and targeted killings have been going on. Just from this past weekend, it looks as though it's getting out of control. That's why we say “worsening”.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You had huge things like that before; that was my only point.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: No, I appreciate your remark. We should have been moving earlier. In that sense, your comments are well taken.

To André Harvey, with regard to the UN Security Council resolution and the authorization of troops, this basically is trying to do what we feel the UN Security Council resolution did not do, which is to sound the alarm.

And it may be, as Keith Martin has said, that what the UN Security Council should be doing is discussing this thing under chapter 7 and not just in terms of another resolution. But I'm saying in terms of passing the kind of resolution with regard to chapter 7...which would include all the elements. I'm just saying that we're asking Canada to exercise multilayered leadership here, and that would include referencing to the UN Security Council, pressure on the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, multinational corporations and the like.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Cotler.

You have the motion in front of you.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

I move that the resolution be adopted as a report from the committee to the House and that the Chair, or a person designated by the Chair, present this report to the House.

[English]

Are we all agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Oui.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Regarding this morning's meeting, will we be tabling a motion? Is the committee expected to present a report? If we're to accomplish anything, it's important for us to join our voices to those of the witnesses who have spoken. Should I draft a motion?

The Chair: I believe we've adopted a resolution calling on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear before the committee. In my view, he's the right person to listen to our views and comments on what transpired this morning when various witnesses gave testimony.

[English]

Now we're going to go in camera, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for consideration of a draft report on the humanitarian catastrophe in African states.

[Proceedings continue in camera]