
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8"> <title>NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE SERGIO MARCHI, MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TO THE 1999 NATIONAL CONFERENCE: TOWARD AN AGRICULTURAL POSITION - DIALOGUE WITH CANADIAN INDUSTRY</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> 99/30 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE SERGIO MARCHI, MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TO THE 1999 NATIONAL CONFERENCE: TOWARD AN AGRICULTURAL POSITION -- DIALOGUE WITH CANADIAN INDUSTRY OTTAWA, Ontario April 19, 1999 (2:40 p.m. EDT) It's a real pleasure to be with you today -- and I want to thank Minister Vanclief and the provincial ministers for their generous invitation. This is a wonderful opportunity for ministers to hear first-hand the hopes, as well as the concerns, of the agricultural industry as we prepare for the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization [WTO]. I know that Lyle has held a number of round tables over the past few months, and that many of you have contributed to those as well. So thanks to all of you for coming and for participating in this important process. I understand that you had a very full and productive morning, focussing on the international agricultural trade environment, and that this evening, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Glickman will be bringing the American perspective on some of these issues. Today, I would like to try to give you a sense of the broader picture as we approach the upcoming WTO negotiations and place the agricultural agenda within that larger context. As you know, negotiations on agriculture and services are slated for this year. Quite frankly, many of our trading partners see a broader round emerging so that we will have the flexibility we need for effective negotiations. The full scope of the negotiations is currently being hammered out, and trade ministers will finalize the agenda when we meet in Seattle in November. But whatever the final agenda, agriculture will be front and centre, so we need to be prepared. I don't need to tell any of you that this next round will be challenging. The issues are sensitive, the differences serious and the consequences significant. And forging a consensus here in Canada will not be easy -- there's no sense in pretending otherwise. There is a great diversity of often competing interests, and it will require our best efforts to reach a position that meets the needs of all Canadians. But I remain optimistic that a Canadian consensus can be reached; that we can enter this round negotiating from a position of strength -- a strength rooted in a common commitment to the common good. And I know that the agricultural community has already done a tremendous amount of work toward this end. One of the results I would like to see emerge from these negotiations is agricultural trade brought more fully under rules similar to those that apply to trade in other sectors; for example, the prohibition of export subsidies. It is my firm belief that agriculture, like other sectors, benefits from being part of a rules-based system, where might does not equal right and the law of the jungle doesn't prevail. One of the great achievements of the Uruguay Round was that, for the first time, agriculture was brought under international trade rules. The Uruguay Round also strengthened the international trading system by providing for effective mechanisms to resolve disputes that will inevitably arise. And while many issues remain unresolved, Canada has benefited from those results. We've benefited because our economy is so dependent upon trade. In fact, trade is more important to the health of our economy than it is to any other major economy on earth. Now, you would expect a trade minister to trumpet the importance of trade, but when you consider that 40 percent of our GDP and one in three Canadian jobs depends directly upon exports, you can see that the stakes are indeed great. And when you appreciate that agriculture and agri-food production constitute almost 5 percent of our GDP, and that the sector's exports account for 8 percent of our merchandise exports, you can understand how important these issues are to all Canadians. Clearly, trade is not an abstraction. It isn't something that happens out there. It produces real jobs for real people in real communities, and it is happening locally, in our rural and urban communities. Like politics, all trade is local. And far from seeing trade liberalization as something to be feared, Canadians have come to see it as something to be embraced. So trade is a crucial part of our economic lifeblood, and expanding that trade, under the umbrella of the WTO, is vital to the economic future of this country. But as I said, it isn't just increasing trade that's important -- it's expanding and strengthening the system of rules that ensures market access and regulates that trade. To a mid-sized economy like ours, rules level the playing field. Rules prevent free trade from becoming a free-for-all. And rules mean that disputes get resolved, not based on the size of the participants, but on the merits of their arguments. And rules mean that Canadian intellectual property is protected against theft or piracy. This is a crucial protection in a world where trade is becoming increasingly knowledge-based. Biotechnology, for example, is playing a larger and larger role in the agriculture and food industries, and clear rules regarding its application are essential. By setting clear rules for trade, we can provide a measure of certainty and predictability for the entire industry. And by attaching tough penalties to those who violate the rules, we can impose disciplines on countries that might be tempted to stray form the acceptable course. For instance, we are fully prepared to exercise our WTO rights, including retaliation, if we are unable to resolve the long-standing dispute with the EU on beef. Of course, this is not our preferred option, and we are pressing the EU to comply with their WTO obligations and reopen their market to Canadian beef. This also means that we must respect the rules ourselves -- not only when it is convenient, but also when it is not. Because we can't have it both ways. Of course, where we feel an error has been made in interpreting those rules, we will not hesitate to appeal -- as we have said we will do in the case of the WTO ruling on our dairy export pricing system. Nor will we hesitate to object to measures, as we did to those put forward in the North Dakota legislature, that seek not to facilitate trade, but to restrict it. So let there be no doubt: we will never allow our friendship with the United States -- or any other nation -- to supersede our obligation to Canadian farmers. One of the new realities we face as we approach the next WTO Round is the changing nature of trade negotiations themselves. Let me explain what I mean by that. Earlier trade negotiations were primarily focussed on so-called border issues, and addressed matters like customs procedures and tariffs -- impediments that delayed or blocked access at the border. As you know, these negotiations were very successful, and many tariffs have now been eliminated or significantly reduced -- although there is still work to do. Making further progress on border measures must remain a priority, including agreement on greater disciplines with respect to transparency and the administration of tariff rate quotas by WTO members. But today, non-tariff barriers -- issues such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures [SPS], licensing and approval procedures, product and professional certifications, and, more broadly, the regulatory framework, are great impediments for exporters. Our challenge is to address these issues -- issues that have traditionally been the purview of individual countries -- in a multilateral environment. This is a significant shift in focus: what were once internal matters of individual countries are now trade issues, discussed in such forums as the WTO. And as more areas that were traditionally domestic in scope become trade issues -- as there is a greater convergence between our trade agenda and our domestic agenda -- it becomes increasingly important that the people affected be the people consulted. That is why our government posted a notice in the Canada Gazette -- and on our Web site -- inviting all Canadians to express their views on this challenging new trade agenda. And that is why we asked both the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to consult with Canadians from across the country. My Parliamentary Secretary, Bob Speller, who is here this afternoon and who is a former Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, has ensured that I have been kept fully apprised of developments in the agricultural sector. In the case of agriculture in particular, it was essential that broad-based consultations with the various sectors, provinces and the public at large be held to assist us in developing Canada's negotiating positions and objectives. And make no mistake: these consultations were not an exercise in public relations -- they have been an effort to involve as many people as possible in defining the issues and suggesting positions that the federal government should consider. Many of you have performed yeoman service in this regard. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Alliance of Canadian Agri-food Exporters, the Supply Managed Sectors, the Agriculture, Food and Beverage Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade and many other groups and associations have produced outstanding papers on a whole range of issues -- and I want to commend you for them. Also, several provincial governments held consultations and produced reports on industry views and on issues with respect to the negotiations. These papers are impressive not only for the positions they present, but also for the attitude they convey -- an attitude of flexibility and of willingness to work to resolve industry differences. And surely that is the key. We are all in this together. We are all seeking an outcome that provides certainty. We all want better access for our products, we all want clarification on SPS issues, we all want effective dispute settlement mechanisms and we all want the early elimination of trade-distorting subsidies. By addressing these issues within the context of a clear, rules-based system, I am confident that we can emerge from the upcoming round in a far stronger position than we are now. But first, we have to do our homework. We have to listen to one another's views. And now, we have to look at the best interests of the industry -- and the country -- as a whole. I am confident that if we do this, we will be helping to lay the foundation for our future success -- success at the negotiating table, in the marketplace and on the family farm. Thank you. </body> </html>

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices