Statement made on 22 April 2009 by Senator Mac Harb
Hon. Mac Harb:
Honourable senators, if you will recall, I wanted to speak on this bill. However, because my colleague Senator Grafstein is the critic, I deferred to him. If there is no urgency that this bill be referred to committee, I would speak tomorrow. However, if there is a sense of urgency, I do not mind saying a few words today.
It is said that "the devil is in the details." If one were to read the bill itself, it is, on the surface, an extremely commendable initiative to expand free trade between Canada and all of its partners around the world.
However, the issue that bothers me in this bill is that, notwithstanding the fact we already have agreements with those countries, we still require specific agreements with each one of those countries on the issue of agriculture. This is not a simple matter. Simply put, this is an indication of the failure of the trading system on the international scene. This is an insult to developing countries around the world. Since the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs was signed years ago, developing countries have been calling over and over on developed countries to open their markets to exports from developing countries.
What have we done? Country after country has continuously put stumbling blocks in front of the World Trade Organization in order to block any kind of agreement on the Doha Round. It is absolutely embarrassing that developed countries have not been able to come to their senses. In this day and age we have to bring down borders and open markets rather than put up barriers that do not allow developing countries to export their products to developed countries.
Honourable senators will be interested to know that agricultural subsidies in the United States alone exceed US$150 billion on an annual basis. If we consider the subsidies provided by Canada, Japan, the United States, as well as Europe, those four trading blocs account for more than the gross domestic product of Africa and Latin America combined. That is an absolute embarrassment, something we should not be proud of.
As a country that prides itself on the notion of fairness and on being a leader in the international scene, one would suspect that this government, as well as previous and future governments, would stand up and be counted internationally in an effort to bring those other offenders to their senses. I include Canadians among those offenders, as well as the Americans, the Japanese and the Europeans. In doing so, we can ensure that the trading system is fair to all of the players.
About three or four years ago, in Mali, there were farmers who were taking their cows to the market to sell them. The milk from those cows was the only source of income to support their families. When they took the milk to sell it at the market, they were not competitive, so they were not able to support themselves. What happened to the farmers? They moved away from the rural areas and into the municipalities and cities.
What have we done? As a result of our subsidies, both direct and indirect, we have caused harm to the least developed countries in Africa. We continue to cause harm in developing countries that cannot sell their products to developed countries.
I would submit that the World Trade Organization, as an institution, has not been able to resolve this issue. Canada needs to push the agenda now on another front, which is either through the OECD or the G20. The Leader of the Government in the Senate can take that suggestion to her colleagues.
Simply put, the fora we have been playing in are not working. A WTO that functions on the basis of consensus will not happen. Why not? It will not happen because the number one and number two leaders at the WTO are Pascal Lamy from Europe and a deputy from the United States. That is a conflict right there. That will not work. This matter has to be taken out of their hands completely — out of the secretary's hands and away from the WTO — and put in another forum.
I would submit that the OECD is probably the place to put it. Ask the OECD to convene an international conference of sorts whereby they would bring together the main offenders. By "offenders," I mean the main players — the ones who are guilty. These are the United States, Canada, Japan, as well as the European Union. Bring them to the table with those who have been playing a leadership role on behalf of developing countries — mainly Brazil, India, as well as China — and have a head-to-head, frank discussion so that we can be honest with ourselves. We have to be serious about moving forward, opening trade and supporting the international trading system. Only then can we bring about solutions. It is only then that agreements and bills such as this will make a lot of sense.
Honourable senators, this bill will not bring millions of dollars to the coffers of the Government of Canada. Over 95 per cent of products, as things stand according to WTO rules, go to those countries and come to Canada without any kind of a penalty. We are talking about a small percentage of products that may have some sort of an implication.
In the end, the principle of the matter is involved here. If we want to bring about a better world and a better community, and if we want to be fair and equal in sharing our resources with others who do not have abundant resources, then we have to be frank about the fact that we are guilty. We are hypocritical on the international scene. The Americans, the Japanese and the Europeans have been doing it, as well as Canada.
It is time for us to be honest. If we want to resolve the issue of fair trade internationally, we have to be frank and fair ourselves. So far, we have not been fair, frank and honest.
We need to move forward with the agenda. We need to take this issue out of the hands of the WTO and put it in other hands. Only then might we have an honest broker to convene a conference or meeting and have a proper discussion. Until then, we can pass all the bills we want. We now have proposed agreements with Caribbean countries. We are proposing an agreement with Latin America. We have proposed agreements with Columbia, South Korea and other countries. All those agreements are meaningless unless the fundamental issues are resolved — that is, market access and agriculture.
That is what you wanted to do. If you do not want to do that — if they are not interested in giving up this issue — we need to be frank. The whole trading system has to change to the point where we will say, "Let us stop talking about agricultural and market access." Let us allow each individual country to identify one national product that we call a "national product" because it deals with national security issues. We do not want to open our doors to that product. Call it whatever you want to call it. If we do that and are honest about it, we might have a trading system that will work.
You cannot have it both ways. We cannot really walk in the corridors of those conferences and say we are honest and serious about having a proper, workable, functional trading system. It is not proper, workable or functional. It is not working.
I do not want to block this bill; I would like to see it go to committee. It is my hope that my colleagues on the government side will take it back and see whether the Minister of International Trade will push forward for this kind of a conference, because it has gone on for way too long.