SINT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Warren Allmand (President, Rights and Democracy)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

¹

1555

Mr. Fergus Watt (Executive Director, World Federalists of Canada)

º

1600

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands, CA)

Mr. Warren Allmand

º

1610

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Warren Allmand

The Chair

Mr. Fergus Watt

º

1625

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Fergus Watt

º

1630

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Fergus Watt

The Chair

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

Mr. Warren Allmand

Mr. Mark Eyking

º

1635

Mr. Fergus Watt

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. Warren Allmand

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Warren Allmand

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Fergus Watt

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Fergus Watt

Ms. Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Warren Allmand

º

1650

Ms.Lalonde

The Chair

---

CANADA

Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 023

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)): It seems we have a quorum.

[Translation]

    We welcome today the Honourable Warren Allmand. We'll start the meeting by asking Mr. Allmand to make a short presentation of a few minutes, then we will give our colleagues the opportunity to ask him some questions.

    Mr. Allmand, welcome to the Sub-Committee on International Trade. As they say in English, the floor is yours.

    

[English]

    Mr. Warren Allmand (President, Rights and Democracy): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    When I was given notice that I only have seven minutes, I thought there was going to be an army of witnesses here before the committee with whom I would be sharing. I see Fergus Watt's name here, but I don't see him. So I prepared a short statement, thinking there would be others, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Chair and members of the committee, the mandate of Rights and Democracy, which I represent, is to defend and promote democracy and human rights internationally, and one of our principal programs under that mandate is to deal with the impact of globalization on human rights. In this respect, we have been active. Our centre, Rights and Democracy, has been active at the meetings dealing with the WTO, NAFTA, APEC, and the proposed free trade of the Americas agreement. At those meetings we have advocated for the primacy of human rights in all trade agreements.

    With respect to the subjects under discussion today, transparency and outreach, I want to point out that the principles behind both those aspects are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 19 and 21, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, articles 19, 25, and 40, and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 16. All of these Canada has ratified. They deal with the right to information, the right to take part in government and government activities, and the obligation of governments to report on the implementation of those rights, in other words, the obligation of the government to provide information to the public and to Parliament.

    Furthermore, I must emphasize that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in articles 22 to 27, covers economic and social rights, such things as the right to work, the right to just remuneration, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to health care and education. I mention that because too often these rights are forgotten, underestimated, or not considered on the same basis as other rights, such as equality rights and the fundamental freedoms. These economic and social rights are repeated in greater detail in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Canada in 1977.

    Also--and this is important--in the preamble to the Universal Declaration there are provisions that place obligations on corporations and other non-state actors. It says every individual and every organ of society--that would include corporations--shall strive to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the rights set out in the Universal Declaration. So there's an obligation on all peoples and all organs of society, every individual, to carry out and respect the rights in the Universal Declaration.

    While there was some progress made by the WTO at Doha in Qatar, at their meeting from November 9 to November 14, with respect to transparency and outreach, there were also certain setbacks. There still is a long way to go in recognizing the primacy of human rights, including the right to information and the right to participation. In the lead up to Doha, the Canadian government conducted consultations with civil society organizations, and we took part, so there was an opportunity to have input prior to Doha. There was a provision of documents, more than in the past, which was a good thing. During the WTO conference in Doha the government of Canada provided for a daily briefing and exchange of information by teleconference with those organizations, both NGOs and corporations, business groups, agricultural groups, and so on, those of us who were not able to go to Doha. So each day we had an opportunity, for an hour or two, to discuss with the ministers and the officials what had taken place. We had a chance to say what we wanted to happen, and we asked pointed questions on many of the issues that were being discussed in Doha.

¹  (1540)  

    While that was good on the part of the Government of Canada, holding the conference in Doha, Qatar, was a setback for transparency and outreach, in that Qatar is a non-democratic, non-human rights state, with few freedoms and with overwhelming security arrangements. Furthermore, there was a strict limitation on the number of NGOs that could attend, and civil society participation in the conference itself was stifled from the outset. I should point out that although a good number of NGOs have official status, as we do, with the United Nations, there were so few spaces at Doha for NGOs that only a very limited number could attend.

    Moreover, within the conference many developing countries, members of the World Trade Organisation, themselves protested against the consensus-making process as being non-transparent. In other words, the consultation on draft texts, the nomination of what were called friends of the chair, the role of facilitators, who were described as green men, replacing the green room that we had in Seattle and prior to Seattle, all were to the detriment of smaller and poorer countries, whose input was not always reflected in the text and in the consensus that was announced. As Tetteh Hormeku of the Third World Network Africa remarked:

Instead of not consulting as in the past, the trick now is to consult, but to ignore the views contrary to the person doing the consultation.

    So in Doha we had these friends of the chair appointed by the powers in the WTO, and also these facilitators, who went around consulting with countries on what should be in the text, what should be decided, the draft text, and so on. While these people gave their views, when they saw the text at the end, they didn't see anything there that reflected their views. You will remember that in Seattle they had what they called the green room. In the green room the powers in the WTO would invite those people they wanted to consult with, but a lot of countries were not consulted at all. Then there was some protest by the smaller countries, by the poorer countries, that the WTO decisions did not reflect their views. In Seattle it all broke up. Here they at least consulted, but according to many of the third world countries, their views were not reflected, and they weren't totally happy with the results.

    That's what happened in Doha at the last major meeting of the WTO at the ministerial level. With respect to the operations of the WTO generally, there are still serious problems with respect to transparency, outreach, and human rights. The dispute panels, for the most part, are held in camera, there is no right of intervention to bring balance and other considerations to the issue at hand, and since the WTO is set up outside the UN system, the United Nations rules for NGOs and civil society participation do not apply. Furthermore, there is no right of appeal of WTO decisions to an impartial tribunal where all aspects of the matter can be considered.

    The problem lies in bringing coherence to the application of trade treaties and other treaties that may have some application to the issue at hand, treaties of the International Labour Organization, human rights treaties, environmental treaties, health treaties, and so on. So when there's a conflict between a trade treaty and another treaty of the kind I just mentioned, there is no recognized way of resolving the issue.

    I ask the question, why shouldn't, at the very least, officials of the International Labour Organization, officials of the World Health Organisation, officials of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, and others, international environmental organizations, have the right to intervene and make their case? Better still, why not other experts and expert groups? Why shouldn't they have the right to intervene and give their expert views on an issue at hand?

¹  (1545)  

    I could refer to the famous case of asbestos, which you know went to the WTO, and there was a dispute where France and certain European countries did not want to permit the import of asbestos, for health and environmental reasons. Of course, the French and the European governments gave their argument, and they won that case. But the issue was, why shouldn't the experts of the World Health Organization, the World Environmental Organization, and others in the area of health and environment not have the right to intervene in cases like this to give their views before the panel? It has been done on an ad hoc basis, but there's no rule or absolute right for intervention, as there is in Canada in all courts. In the Supreme Court of Canada we just intervened in a case last November. We made an application, and we were given the right to intervene on a expert basis.

    So why shouldn't these panels be open to the public and the press, as such courts are in most democracies? The decisions of the World Trade Organization have great impact on the everyday lives of people, because certain products are allowed to be circulated in trade, certain products are not, certain services are, certain services are not. It may have a great impact on the everyday life of ordinary people, and I believe these panels should be open to the public and the press. And why aren't these decisions appealable to a court that considers all the implications, not just a tribunal that has trade expertise only?

    Let me conclude by once again explaining the legal argument as to why trade treaties must recognize the primacy of human rights. As I pointed out, there are numerous trade and human rights treaties. Within the WTO we have many sub-agreements with respect to agriculture, services, intellectual property, and so on. Then we have human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration, the international covenants, the rights of the child, the rights of women, torture, and a whole lot of treaties. By the way, most of these human rights treaties have been ratified by the same countries as are members of the WTO. For example, 145 countries have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and 110 of those 145 are members of the WTO. So here they are the same countries in the WTO that also ratified these human rights treaties. The question is, how should the human rights treaties, environmental treaties, or health treaties be read together with the trade treaties? What should take precedence? Should the trade treaty take precedence over the human rights treaty or vice versa?

    The answer is in the United Nations charter, which binds all members of the United Nations. Article 103 says:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter shall prevail.

    So the UN charter prevails over any other treaty, including a trade treaty. But what's in the charter? Look at article 55:

The United Nations shall promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

    And article 56 says:

All members of the United Nations pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set out in article 55.

    The two main purposes of the UN charter are the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the promotion of human rights. There's no mention of trade. I'm sure the nations that approved the charter weren't against trade, but they did not put trade as an object of the United Nations, whereas they did put in human rights. So if you have, in accordance with article 103, a conflict between a trade treaty and the UN charter, the UN charter should prevail. That is, human rights should prevail over trade treaties.

¹  (1550)  

    That's what happens in most of our democracies. In Canada, for years and years, we've promoted trade. We have laws on trade, we support business, and so on. But all those laws and all those policies are subject to our Constitution and our Charter. You cannot say in Canada that trade should take precedence over the Charter or over the Constitution. It's done in correspondence with the Constitution. We believe the UN charter, in article 103, says the same thing. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the present time there is no body to rule on such conflicts or issues. I believe it's up to legislators, not only in Canada, but internationally, to fill that gap, to create solutions, to find new institutions that will deal with this whole issue of trade and the primacy of human rights. When I say human rights, I include issues such as transparency and outreach and the ability of citizens to participate, because those things are in the international human rights instruments.

    I should tell you, in conclusion, that there is some important work being done on this right now by the subcommittee of the United Nations on human rights, and also by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is set up to enforce and implement the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

    Mr Chairman, there were many other things I could have said, but I was instructed to limit myself to seven minutes--I think I've gone over the seven minutes, but I'm here alone today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. You're never alone, Mr. Allmand, you're always in good company.

    In a timely fashion, we have our second distinguished witness, Mr. Fergus Watt, the executive director of the World Federalists of Canada, who, unfortunately, went to the wrong room. He probably did not receive the updated notice. So we will give him a couple of seconds to pull out his documentation and pass it around.

    As soon as he has made his presentation, we will open the floor for questions and comment. This is designed to be a dialogue, so, Mr. Allmand, if you disagree with something Mr. Watt says, please, jump in, and vice versa, and Madame Lalonde will jump in and say something, as well as Mr. Lunn and Mr. Eyking, and so on. So this is a free-for-all afternoon. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we'll be able to get the best of you, ideas and suggestions about how we can improve transparency and outreach at the WTO.

    Mr. Watt, our deepest apologies for sending you to the wrong room. We welcome you to the committee. If you would, briefly give us some comments, and we will open up the floor for questions.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Fergus Watt (Executive Director, World Federalists of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Harb. I do apologize for being late. In addition to going to 253-D in Centre Block, where I was sent initially, I was then directed to 308 West Block, where they were sorting out the problems of Zimbabwe. I guess one's never too old for a tour of Parliament. But I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your discussions today on WTO negotiating issues from a Canadian perspective.

    Canadian parliamentarians have been at the forefront of efforts to enhance transparency of the WTO through the addition of some sort of parliamentary dimension to the machinery of the organization. There were further discussions among parliamentarians at Doha. Many members here participated in those meetings. I was there as an NGO observer, and I participated as well in some of the preparatory meetings for the Doha sessions and worked with a group out of the European Parliament to try to create a parliamentary assembly for the WTO. So it's in that context that I'd like to provide some background for you today.

    Growing interest by parliamentarians in the work of the WTO has been a feature of successive WTO meetings. In 1999 120 parliamentarians issued the Seattle declaration, which called for creation of a permanent standing body alongside the WTO. In 2001 two international meetings of parliamentarians in April, under the auspices of the European Parliament, and in June, under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, discussed parliamentary involvement in the WTO. Both meetings convened a globally representative group of parliamentarians. Both called for further discussions in Qatar. However, there are competing visions as to the structure and mandate of any future parliamentary body. WTO Director General Mike Moore favours the IPU as host of future, as he puts it, meetings of parliamentarians, and indeed, the IPU has been granted observer status at the WTO. The group led by the European parliamentarians and many Canadian parliamentarians favours a more robust standing body, a permanent parliamentary assembly overseeing the WTO.

    Canadian interest in this issue is also long-standing. Canadian parliamentarians and the Canadian government have taken an interest since before the 1999 Seattle meetings. You'll recall this report following the cross-country hearings, which recommended the creation of a parliamentary oversight body. In October 2000 a Department of Foreign Affairs news release summarized Minister Pettigrew's proposals for a more transparent WTO and discussed the idea of a parliamentary dimension.

    Minister Pettigrew has also spoken to the issue directly, and I quote:

The idea has also been mentioned of a Parliamentary Assembly for the WTO and I have no problems with this idea.... In Canada Bill Graham has mentioned this in his report from the Foreign Affairs Committee.... This Assembly would not only take ideas from civil society but the communication would work the other way too, helping to explain the WTO to the world's people.

    In October 2001 Mr. Graham, still at that time chair of the FAIT committee, chaired a round table briefing for Canadian MPs and Senators on “Parliamentarians, Global Governance and the WTO”, which my organization helped to organize, along with the Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development, and there were 24 participants at that meeting, 17 Canadian parliamentarians, from all parties.

    At the recent WTO ministerial meeting over 90 parliamentarians, seven Canadians, from around the world held a three-hour meeting and issued a declaration calling for a stronger parliamentary dimension in the work of the WTO. That meeting was jointly convened by these two groups, the IPU and the committee of the European Parliament. They papered over their differences sufficiently to issue this joint declaration, and among other things, the declaration called for governments to add a sentence in the WTO ministerial conference final declaration that would say: “Transparency of the WTO should be strengthened by associating Parliaments more closely with the activities of the WTO.” The thought was that the idea would be carried by member governments in the WTO. This language was supported by Canada and the European Union, but at the end of the day, was not included in the ministerial declaration. However, the parliamentary conference in Doha also mandated a joint IPU-European Parliament steering group “to prepare a conference on trade issues in 2002. As part of those discussions, the steering group should present options for a parliamentary dimension for the WTO”, which would be presented to the next ministerial meeting.

º  (1600)  

    The IPU will hold a conference March 17 to 22 in Marrakesh. It is one of the statutory conferences. Among other things, they will be trying to grapple with the issue of U.S. membership in the IPU, because the U.S. has pulled out, which is a bit of a blow to that organization.

    Parliamentarians, civil society representatives, and government representatives will participate in a three-day symposium hosted by the WTO April 29 to May 1. It would be the first time the civil society representatives and parliamentarians, the two basic dimensions of what could be democratizing influences on the WTO, are together in a WTO symposium.

    A meeting of the steering group for the IPU-EP joint conference is scheduled for April 23 in Brussels. The IPU has identified participants in this steering committee, but has reportedly allowed no budget appropriations for this year for the holding of meetings. On the other hand, the European Union has come forward and ponied up some money for this process to continue.

    On the basis of this, I would like to offer a couple of recommendations for your consideration. Canadian parliamentarians and the Government of Canada should take the necessary steps to also review options for establishing a parliamentary forum for the WTO. There are a lot of unresolved issues as to how you best structure a parliamentary oversight body. How would it be financed? How would its representatives be selected? What would be its institutional and legal connections to the machinery of the WTO? There are many models out there: the OSCE parliamentary assembly, Bill Graham's FIPA, which is a more loosey-goosey model. There are different ways you can do this. If Canadian parliamentarians are going to participate in this global debate, and also the Canadian government, I think some further study ought to be carried out.

    Second, I would like to recommend that you support the creation of a parliamentary network of the WTO along the lines of the recently created and successful parliamentary network of the World Bank. I believe many members of this committee are familiar with that and may have even participated. It had a false start in 1999, but has begun again and is doing a lot of useful work. There are some questions about its future. It's serviced and supported by the World Bank now, but I think the intention is to make it an independent network fairly soon. There are questions as to how best to do that. That would be another way to get representatives of the world's people playing this oversight role for these very important international organizations.

    That's it for me. I've known Warren Allmand for more than 20 years, and I can't remember when we've ever disagreed, but we'll try to offer different perspectives on whatever questions you may wish to pose.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation.

    Now we will open the floor for questions.

    Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands, CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I would like to welcome both witnesses here. It's great to see Mr. Allmand here.

    We're focusing on transparency and outreach, and I'll make just a brief statement, Mr. Chairman, at the outset. I accompanied the minister to Argentina for the FTAA discussions about a year ago, and I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the minister's lead in those discussions. He was successful in getting the draft text of the FTAA released; it was Canada that led the way in that. As far as transparency goes, I also understand that Canada has proposed the de-restriction of WTO documents after a three-month period.

    I do think it's really important that there be transparency. I listened to Mr. Allmand, and we end up in this discussion as to whether the NGOs should be actual participants at the table. The WTO members are only states. Again, I'm pleased that Canada provided briefing sessions, as Mr. Allmand has informed us, on a daily basis from Qatar, so that our NGOs could have feedback through our elected officials. I think it's always important that we are as open and transparent as possible, that information is made available.

    Outreach is a more difficult issue to grapple with, and I'd like both the witnesses' comments. We struggle always, as Mr. Allmand has pointed out, with the human rights components, the universal declaration of rights. How do you grapple with that? Obviously, you're not going to be able to fulfil all requirements. What immediately comes to mind is China, and I'd like your comments on that as well. How do you feel about China's accession to the WTO? Over a long period of time I think things will improve. We can't get all the way, and by not allowing countries who do not have great human rights records to come in, I think we leave them on the starting line. But hopefully, we'll be able to achieve greater and greater results with respect to some of these issues.

    So I'd like your comments on that. Just where do you draw the line in outreach and trying to move that agenda forward?

    Mr. Warren Allmand: First, perhaps you're correct that Mr. Pettigrew and Canada have in many respects taken a lead on these things--sometimes we'd like it to be more, but.... I was on the phone when he was in Argentina and announced that the text was going to be released for the FTAA and the meetings in Quebec City, and we thought that was a great victory. However, although he got agreement to have it released, it wasn't released until after the Quebec City summit. So while he fought for the release and they agreed to it, we never got the text until after the summit in Quebec City. We did finally get it, and that was an achievement, but we didn't have it in time for the discussions in Quebec City, neither we nor parliamentarians. Nobody had it until afterwards, but we finally got it.

    With respect to NGOs, I'm not talking about just NGO participation, I'm referring to civil society participation. Civil society would include churches, trade unions, bar associations, universities, institutes, and so on, groups that have an interest. At the United Nations there are rules on this. For example, I will go in a few weeks to the UN Commission on Human Rights. There, if you're a recognized NGO of the United Nations, you have the right to submit documents, which are distributed to all countries. You have the right to sit in on all the meetings. At the end of each day NGOs can intervene for, I think, three to five minutes on the subject discussed during the day. You put your name on a list, you don't have the same time as the governments, it's at the end of the day, but we have the right to give our views. NGOs include not just human rights NGOs, but the Business Council on National Issues, the Federation of Agriculture, a wide range of people.

    Those rules don't apply to the WTO; the WTO is set up by the same countries, but outside the UN system. What we're pressing for is that the WTO adopt a similar set of rules. Canada was very helpful on this at the OAS. The OAS did not have the same set of rules for NGOs or civil society as the UN did, but now they do, because there was a battle led by NGOs, civil society, and assisted by the Canadian government. We don't want the same rights to be around the table as governments have, obviously, but the right to have input and get the documents, because you can't do input if you don't have the documents. If you don't know what's going to be discussed, you can't prepare yourself to give a proper view or opinion.

    Then there's the whole business of human rights and how you would deal with a conflict between a human rights treaty and a trade issue. With respect to China, there's widespread evidence that the Chinese often use prison labour, forced labour, in producing products that go into international trade. Consequently, they don't have the same cost factors as we do if we produce the same thing in Canada. Let's say you decide not to allow that product into Canada. Let's say Canada takes a decision. Now China is in the WTO, and if that goes to a trade panel, where all the people are just trade experts and you have nobody who is an expert in, let's say, forced labour--or it could be child labour in another case--how do you get a good decision out of the panel that's dealing with the dispute?

    I referred to the whole business of the asbestos case. Canada lost, Quebec lost, but as an environmentalist, I'm not too unhappy with the decision, even though it hurts some people from my province. There they had to take into consideration health, which is very important. To what extent does asbestos harm health? It's not a trade issue, it's a health issue. You need to have interventions on that by people who are experts in health. It could be the same on an environmental question with respect to trading in certain animals, certain fish species, and so on.

º  (1610)  

    I'm saying there has to be some way to deal with this. Within our own countries there is. If some province in Canada or the federal government passed a law assisting trade in some way that violated our Constitution or our Charter of Rights, that would be struck down by the courts, saying you can trade, but you can't have child labour in Canada, you can't have forced labour, you can't ignore the basic principles of the charter or the Constitution. I'm saying there has to be a way to deal with that, and there isn't at the present time.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mme. Lalonde.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): On the issue of documentation and participation in the negotiations, I would first like to add that Minister Pettigrew has without a doubt done good work, but let us say that the civil society, the parliamentarians and the Bloc québécois had greatly helped and spurred it on - I think the Alliance wanted it as well - to go get the documentation. After all, how could we follow the negotiations without having the documentation? I think there are many kinds of collaboration...

    Mr. Warren Allmand: It's a team effort.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, that's right. I am certain that the ministers do not always appreciate it the same way, but at the end of the day, it helps them because they can use it when dealing with ministers from other countries by saying that, at home, the civil society and the opposition... That was a short introduction.

    Yes, the documentation is necessary to be able to follow the negotiations, but even so, they can't be dated when we obtain them. If we can't follow the current negotiations with the documentation... It is always useful to have the documentation afterward, as it is information, but it doesn't help the negotiation process.

    I have carried out negotiations for quite a few years in my life. I know that you can't negotiate on television, at least, not easily. However, I do know that there is one thing that can be done, and that is to give parliamentarians and the NGOs information on the principle issues being negotiated. Yes, there are issues. There are the interests of some developed countries and the interests of developing countries. There are various interests and we will reach an agreement when there are exchanges which will make it possible to reach an agreement which doesn't completely satisfy anyone, but will allow us to function.

    What is important for both parliamentarians and NGOs, is to know what is being bartered, because it is a barter. This is an idea that is dear to me. It may be to find out why a particular claim we may have, even on the matter of rights, creates a problem, if it does create a problem, for developing countries. If needed, we must make our populations understand certain things or obtain means of compensation. It is certain that, in this negotiation, we find ourselves facing interests which aren't the same. I wonder what you think of that? Don't we have to have the information which would allow us to know where the different interests are?

º  (1620)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Allmand.

    Mr. Warren Allmand: I fully support what the honourable member has suggested. There's no way that interested parties and expert groups can comment in an effective way if they don't have the documentation.

    I didn't touch on this in my original remarks, but there are several types of meetings with the WTO, and we must distinguish between them. We have the ministerial type of meeting that took place in Qatar and in Seattle, where the ministers come together every couple of years or so and map out general policy to launch new areas of negotiation. There we have more transparency, because it's more in the spotlight. So we had these teleconference meetings with the people back home, we had consultations leading up to the meetings, and we got some of the documents.

    Then we have the negotiations that are going to come out of Doha. There's a whole range of negotiations on services etc., and here's where they get down to the detail. At those meetings we don't have too much information, the documents, or the right to know what's going on. Members of Parliament could get up in the House and ask what was being discussed on the negotiations with respect to intellectual property, with respect to agriculture, or with respect to other things, but there's a whole range of meetings going on negotiating new free trade arrangements that come under the WTO. So that's another type of meeting.

    Then there are the dispute panels. These are the panels where one country lodges a dispute against another country. We had one with Brazil on aircraft, there was one, as I say, on asbestos. There's a whole range of them. They're like courts. It's there that I was arguing in favour of the right to intervention, the right to openness, so that the public and the press can find out what's happening, because the decisions on those disputes have great impact on the economies of countries. They could mean a lot in terms of jobs. With the interest of Quebec, especially for the eastern townships, in asbestos, they were very much involved in trying to find out what was going on, pressing for a decision that would come their way. On the other hand, in France they were pressing to be protected; they did not want asbestos in, for health reasons. We had similar kinds of disputes going on. So I argue that if you're going to really have a transparent system, those dispute panels should be open. Any of us can attend a court hearing here in Canada, we can sit in on the court, we can find out. This case in British Columbia, where they're digging up the land of the men who are accused of maybe murdering these women, is all open. We have a chance to comment, the press has a chance to comment. You get the documents, you have a right to give your view.

    We have very important things going on in these panels, going on in the negotiation meetings. We don't always have the documents, we don't know what's going on, we have to speculate. We know there's a hearing, but we don't know exactly what's being argued on both sides. I've talked to Mr. Pettigrew several times, and he will say Canada is pressing for more transparency. As a matter of fact, I was just looking at the speech he gave on January 17 in Madrid, Spain, on the post-Doha situation. This was a speech to the Rafael Del Pino Foundation, in which he says Canada is very interested in pressing forward with more transparency, more openness, and so on, but he tells me there are countries in the WTO who aren't interested at all, and we know many of these countries are not democratic countries.

    So I know it's a challenge, but as far as we're concerned, we want to know. It affects our jobs, it affects our health, it might affect our environment, and we should know what's going on.

    The Chair: Mr. Watt.

    Mr. Fergus Watt: One other aspect in which better information flows would be crucial is the implementation of WTO agreements and rules. This is another important area of responsibility for parliamentarians. For example, in my work advocating some sort of parliamentary oversight forum, often, initially, I would encounter parliamentarians and government representatives from less-developed states who would say, oh, gosh, another body at the WTO; we can't even send our state representatives there, how can we fund all these parliamentarians to go there? But in fact, once you get parliamentarians engaged in the process, they can actually do more and find out, for example, about some of the rules regarding special and differential treatment, some of the rules that can be to their advantage as parliamentarians, which they wouldn't otherwise be aware of.

    Also, for states that are less than ideal models of democracy, the idea of having their national parliamentary representatives in a global parliamentary forum can contribute to a culture of democratic process and collegiality among parliamentarians that would, as Mr. Lunn said, contribute to adherence to the rule of law and some of these principles in having a rules-based trading order.

    So you're bang on, we need these better information flows through a number of levels of the WTO system, as Warren says.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mme. Lalonde, do you have another question?

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, I would appreciate it if you could tell us a little bit more about organizations of parliamentarians which you mentioned, particularly the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I have been participating for several years at meetings of the Council of Europe because the Parliament of Canada has had observer status since 1997. Gary has already been there and Mr. Eyking may come. It is a real parliament. It's an assembly that meets four times a year. Its a parliament which takes positions that are then submitted to the Council of Ministers, who must respond within 45 days.

    It is certain that such an institution is infinitely stronger than a inter-parliamentary or parliamentary union which meets once or twice a year, whose members often change and which doesn't necessarily have the committees which can study questions in-depth and act in an independent and professional manner. Some people are wondering how to fund this.

    Do you have any suggestions? I should have some. We should have some. As the WTO plays an ever greater role in our economic life, our social life and, by ricochet, our cultural life, should we not give ourselves the means to have a parliament similar to that of the Council of Europe? There is automatically the issue of its relationship with the United Nations, but we know that there are no parliamentarians there, only countries.

    It's not an issue I've looked at in-depth. As you seem to be familiar with it, I would like you to expand on this in reply to my question.

[English]

    Mr. Fergus Watt: I quite agree that the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly offers a better model than the IPU. The fact is that there are a number of models out there, and we're a long way from finding the best one for the WTO.

    As for guidance, I can only suggest some general principles. I think how well financed it is, how frequently it meets, how representative it is, its mandate, its access to the actual intergovernmental organization, all these variables would constitute the effectiveness of the assembly or forum in question. The level of effectiveness needs to be calibrated, I would say, to the importance of the organization in question. For an institution like the Commonwealth, you might be talking about a less robust parliamentary assembly than with the WTO, whose decisions in respect of dispute settlement and so on are binding on states.

    Let's face it, the WTO is a powerful organization. I don't think you want some idle talking shop as a way to keep parliamentarians on the sidelines. That's what I'm afraid of. I think it's not going too far to say that's even what some of the staff at the WTO want. They don't want some body of parliamentarians mucking around with their business. What's needed is some political oversight. The WTO intergovernmental process deals with trade and issues, and these are trade representatives, that's as it should be. But the reason there's such a clamour among civil society over what the WTO is and does is that trade has impacts. It has impacts on a whole range of human rights, environmental and social standards, etc. These issues are well-known. In any community the body that is supposed to make political compromises and to deliberate on competing public policy issues is a parliament. Therefore, we need a parliamentary body for the WTO. The real question is, how effective should it be? What powers should it have? What legal status should it have in respect of its connections to the WTO? What composition should it have? How would its members be representative? What role is there for opposition parties? How would the national parliament choose its representatives? How would voting occur? What about financing? I'm giving you a laundry list of the variables and the questions, and as I said, there are many issues out there.

    My organization has published a paper by John Bosley, who's a former Speaker of the Canadian Parliament. He based it on his experience creating the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which is another fairly useful--

º  (1630)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: But not strong.

[English]

    Mr. Fergus Watt: Yes, like the OSCE itself.

    I've looked at the literature in a comparative analysis of these various models, and there isn't one out there. There is a very useful document about NGO rules and access. This has been studied quite a lot by those who want to democratize international organizations, global governance. The issue of NGO access rights and privileges has been studied, and there's much more literature out there on that than there is pertaining to parliamentarians. There's a need for greater work in this area.

    The Chair: Mr. Eyking.

    Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney--Victoria, Lib.): I've got a feeling that this could be a very cumbersome thing. I don't know why. I'm trying to visualize the WTO meeting. What do we have, 150 countries, 170 countries, in the WTO?

    Mr. Warren Allmand: There are 140-something.

    Mr. Mark Eyking: Would you have, say, 10 from each country going as parliamentarians? I'm just visualizing 2,000 or 3,000 people there discussing trade issues. Unless you had some prepared text going in.... Say somebody brought up how soccer balls are being made. There are 40 countries making soccer balls, and they're using child labour. How would this be taking place in this forum? Would you be saying, first of all, they shouldn't be selling these soccer balls? I'm just trying to follow this through, where you have 3,000 people, and then you have the negotiators in another room. I'm just trying to get around this, that it would be very cumbersome, or things would almost slow to a snail's pace. Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm just trying to get beyond that.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Fergus Watt: International society has not evolved to the point where we can begin to think of a parliament for the WTO that would have legislative powers. We're talking about a consultative body. At the end of the day, the trade rules are going to be made by the trade representatives, the intergovernmental representatives. So this is an oversight body, a deliberative body.

    As for the number of representatives, I agree with you that if you get into the thousands, that's unwieldily. So I think the high end would be around 500 or 600. There are different formulae for weighted voting. Do you say a parliament is a parliament is a parliament, and have two representatives from each parliament? There's a new regional parliament in Africa that's structured along those lines. Madagascar gets five representatives and Nigeria gets five representatives. I don't think that's very democratic, but that's what they did, because that's what they could negotiate. You could do it according to population. Or you could have weighted factors, such as share of world trade, population, one per state, or something like that, so nobody would get less than one vote, but China and India wouldn't dominate the thing. It gets very complex, but weighted voting in international organizations has been studied to death, because it's not a new problem. It's bedevilled every new specialized agency of the UN. They have to create these rules every time they create a UNESCO, a UNEP, and so on.

    But for a consultative body, as John Bosley points out, initially, most of its decisions would be consensual. It's an oversight body. It's first and foremost a forum. We don't have a forum for public policy debate on WTO issues. The streets of Quebec City and Genoa are less than ideal.

    Mr. Mark Eyking: I have no problem with the concept--something has to happen--but I'm just trying to visualize it happening. Do you have this forum before the trade talks begin? Do you have one person from Liechtenstein, 50 from China, and 45 from U.S., and they get in a room and you see this happening where we, as western societies, are maybe pushing our visions on less-developed countries or countries that are not up to snuff on human rights.? Eventually, ideas will come out, laws these countries would have to follow, I guess. So when you come to negotiation time, your representative will say, okay, this forum has discussed this, and you cannot have child labour in making soccer balls. So if you want to be in WTO, you cannot have these children working. Is that the kind of thing you would envision happening?

    Mr. Warren Allmand: Since I was in Parliament for 31 years and participated in some of these sorts of things, I know it takes a while to work out. I've been with delegations of parliamentarians going to the non-proliferation treaty meetings in Geneva, with parliamentarians going to the United Nations on special conferences. I remember a group of parliamentarians meeting at the World Conference on Social Development in Copenhagen. And it's more or less what Fergus Watt has said. They get the documents, they're in the room, they listen to the governments discussing, then they can go back and discuss among themselves, take positions, and give advice, as a whole body or to their own individual countries. When I came back to my own parliament here in Canada, the information I picked up there helped me contribute in my caucus, in Parliament, when they were discussing these same issues, because I had the benefit of participating in these parliamentary forums associated with these other issues.

    I think the same thing has to be done with trade, because, as I pointed out, last year, with those documents on the FTAA, while we finally got them, it wasn't only NGOs who didn't have them prior to Quebec, Canadian members of Parliament, even in the government caucus, did not have them. The only people who had them were the government officials and the minister. Here you people were trying to give comments--I can visualize it, because I was in caucus a long time myself--trying to give advice as to whether you liked or didn't like what was going to be presented in Quebec City. You couldn't do it, because you didn't know what was in the document. You had to speculate on what you read in the press and so on.

    It can and should be done, and it can be worked out so that it's not cumbersome. We've just worked it out, as well, with the OAS. There's now a parliamentary body associated with the OAS, and they're members of Parliament from all parties. Not only can they speak out there and give advice to their governments and give press conferences, but when they come back home, they're much better informed when standing up in caucus and in Parliament and other places, in their constituencies, answering questions and dealing with the issues.

    I had something else to add to that, but I'll do it later, Mr. Chair.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: I have a quick question to ask both of you. When it comes to civil society, NGOs in particular, would it be more effective for NGOs and civil societies to make their input through Parliament, and then Parliament would take those views and pass them on to government and then to the WTO? Or is it the other way round, where NGOs go straight to the WTO in order to be heard?

    I've really been struggling quite a bit with this issue, because I thought that's what the parliamentary system should be for, to take the views of constituents, including civil society, and pass them on to government, thereby taking it to the international level. It's a catch-22, because if these NGOs were to go straight to the WTO meetings, in a sense, and really have a role, I wonder how effective that would be, compared to coming straight through the parliamentary process and the parliamentary system. I would like your thoughts on that.

    Mr. Warren Allmand: I think you need both. As a matter of fact, we have both right now in Canada. In the whole lead-up to both the FTAA and the WTO meetings there were hearings in different parts of the country by parliamentary committees, so Canadians had a chance, and Canadian NGOs, for input as what they thought the Canadian position should be. But you must remember that many countries that belong to the WTO, NAFTA, or whatever don't have the same parliamentary customs, whereby both of us are here today giving our views. I can name a hundred countries where they don't have that opportunity. What we have now are rules for participation, to a certain point, in the assemblies of the United Nations and the OAS. We're saying there should be a similar thing for the WTO. So you could do both.

    By the way, not all of us can afford to go to those meetings all around the world. NGOs may appear before the parliamentary committee, then they meet, and a few of them will go off and make their points. But it's very important, Mr. Chairman, that they do this often in solidarity. At the meetings in Doha there were people from India, NGOs, academics, and other civil society groups, trade unions, churches. They don't have the opportunity in their country, so that would be the only opportunity for them, if you have rules in the international organizations.

    I think it helps to have both, the opportunity to speak to your deputies and make sure your national policy is one you will be proud of when they go to the meeting, but also a chance to influence all the other countries in solidarity with other unions, other NGOs, and so on.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Watt, do you have a comment?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Fergus Watt: Generally, I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. Some of these international NGOs are fairly large, global, and so on. They often have a lot of expertise to bring to bear, and they can assist representatives of smaller, less wealthy states.

    I don't think we suffer from having too much information. It can be a burden for some of us at times, but you want NGOs to have as much access as possible. Ultimately, legal and decision-making responsibility rests with the state representatives, undoubtedly, but the ability to marshal and present information by NGOs at the national and international level, and also regionally, in the context of the Americas and Europe and so on, is to be encouraged, I believe.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Are there any further questions from my colleagues?

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I just want to thank the presenters. And for the benefit of Madame Lalonde, Mr. Watt, thank you for your advance preparation of your text, but it's helpful--I'm sure you know this--if you can get it to the clerk in advance, so that it can be translated. I know when I get documents and they come in French only, it's very difficult for me.

    Mr. Fergus Watt: Thank you, and I take that opportunity to apologize. It's just a matter of the time that was available to me with the notice I had for this meeting. I would have liked to have a French version available to you, and I'm sorry for that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you very much for your presentations.

    I remember a question that has not been touched on very much, which was posed to Warren Allmand. It concerns the lack of existence of a place where we could make the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts and trade agreements co-exist. We absolutely must look at that and find some way of inserting into free trade agreements - I just got back from Mexico - the social and cultural aspects, which have a great deal of importance in peoples lives. The WTO was imposed on us and now, there are free trade agreements everywhere. It's the big thing, it seems. There is a great deal of work being carried out in parliamentary associations...

    The Chair: There is not enough time.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: ...but are they doing work relating to trade organizations or agreements? Not much. We can try to talk about human rights and so forth, but the root cause of problems is often trade agreements. Trade doesn't just bring happiness. I think we are going to agree on that.

[English]

    Mr. Warren Allmand: It's an extremely serious matter. You can't even appeal these things to your national courts. These trade agreements take precedence over our Constitution and our courts. If under NAFTA or the WTO something seriously affects Canadians, either their health or their environment.... You had that case in Mexico, where they wanted to dump toxic waste in a town, the town didn't want it, they went to a panel, and they were losing their case. Usually under our legal systems, there are procedures to take something out of administrative tribunals and put it into the ordinary court system. The agreements we're making on trade don't allow that. So it's one possibility that at least in countries, we might change, put in provisions that will allow us to appeal certain things to the court system. Of course, the people who are focusing on trade don't want that. They want trade to prevail over everything else, and they don't want anybody else meddling in their trade. But life isn't like that.

    There are several possibilities. One is to allow appeals to the courts of the countries concerned, their supreme courts, their appeal courts. Another is, someway or other, on major issues to use the World Court in the Hague. The other would be to have a special tribunal that would rule on these things. Now there are differences of opinion between major international organizations, between the International Labour Organization and the WTO, between the World Health Organization and the WTO, between UNICEF on education and the WTO.

    On the whole business of transparency, Mr. Chairman, I give you one final example. They have this TRIPS agreement under the WTO, the agreement on intellectual property, copyright, patent. There are 40 million people in the world with HIV, 28 million in Africa. When South Africa and Brazil tried to get the drugs to give to the people with HIV to help save and improve their lives, they weren't able to, because of the WTO agreements on intellectual property, which totally controlled those patents, so that ordinary people couldn't get them. Through a big battle at the meeting in Doha, they came up with a slight improvement on that. As a matter of fact, it's a step forward in their statement on TRIPS. But how much better it would have been, how much more open, to allow the health experts and the other people to intervene. Some governments, of course, brought people with them, but it seems to be common sense that if a world organization is going to make rules on intellectual property, and there's a serious problem, let's say, with AIDS, where 40 million people are suffering, you should be able to bring in the experts. They should have the right to intervene and give their opinions. That makes sense. I know in Parliament, when we're studying some important issue, we bring in the doctors, we bring in the health experts, we listen to both sides, then we make a decision. That should be the same in an international arena.

º  (1650)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Otherwise, protests are going to increase.

[English]

    The Chair: On this silver note, I want to thank you on behalf of my colleagues. This is an exceptionally important topic, outreach and transparency. Certainly, your presentation today will help the subcommittee, and eventually the main committee, to make a report to Parliament. We are in the process of developing a recommendation for our government, and your answers to our questions, as well as your recommendations and your comments, will be taken to heart. We will do everything we can to reflect what you have told us today. So with this, I want to thank you very much.

    We will adjourn.