Studies show, for example, that every $1 billion in foreign investment creates or sustains some 45 000 jobs. And, at present, total foreign
investment in Canada stands at an impressive $188 billion.
As a result of earlier rounds of trade talks, we have opened our economy and enhanced our opportunities. And, as a country that depends so
heavily upon trade and investment, we have benefited from more open markets.
At the same time, we have remained free to regulate in areas such as culture, health care, education, social programs, the environment, labour
standards, and programs for Aboriginals, minorities and the management of our natural resources.
Second, we have benefited from liberalized trade because it brought rules to what had been an international free-for-all, with the biggest and
richest nations usually coming out on top.
As a mid-sized economy in the world, Canada no longer has to worry about an environment where "might equals right" or where the law of the
jungle prevails.
Fair and predictable rules mean Canadian products should not be excluded from foreign markets by discriminatory standards. Rules mean
Canadian companies have the same opportunity to win contracts from foreign governments as their competitors. Rules mean that subsidies and
other incentives do not distort trade or investment decisions.
Rules also mean that Canadian intellectual property, including designs, are protected against theft or piracy. This is a crucial protection in a
world where trade in services, as well as goods, is becoming increasingly knowledge-based.
Not only have these rules allowed us to gain access to key markets around the world, but they have also provided the framework for very
successful regional agreements, such as the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement], which has created thousands of jobs for
Canadians.
The fact is that by making trade subject to clear rules -- rules that apply to all, regardless of size or economic might -- we have levelled the
playing field. And given this fair chance, Canadians have demonstrated themselves able to compete -- and win -- against anyone in the world.
So much so, in fact, that Time magazine has called Canada an "exporting superhero," and our annual trade figures look like the graphs for one
of those outperforming mutual funds.
The bottom line is that trade is something that Canadians are extraordinarily good at, and the worldwide trend toward freer trade plays directly to
our strengths.
Our strategy, therefore, must continue to be to push for access to international markets and to encourage others to open their economies, so
that they too can enjoy the benefits that freer trade provides. At the same time, we need to continue to do everything we can domestically to
ensure that our companies can take advantage of the opportunities that are unfolding.
That's why our Government has made a deliberate effort to encourage companies -- especially small and medium-sized companies -- to begin
exporting. Indeed, I have created a special unit within my department aimed specifically at small and medium-sized enterprises.
We have also targeted special programs at women, youth and Aboriginal entrepreneurs in order to ensure that the benefits of trade are broadly
shared.
The Prime Minister's Team Canada trade missions are perhaps the best known of our efforts to open doors and break down barriers to trade.
But they are by no means the only ones.
The Government has also invested some $100 million over the past three years in programs that promote trade and investment. We have
created Team Canada Inc, which brings together all of the various federal programs and services under one roof, so that companies can quickly
get access to the information they need to begin exporting.
Through initiatives like the Program for Export Market Development (PEMD) and the recently announced PEMD-I, which focusses on
investment, we have helped entrepreneurs enter export markets and involved the municipalities in our partnership.
We have also established the WIN Exports database, which matches Canadian capabilities with opportunities abroad. And we have enhanced
our Trade Commissioner Service, putting more officers in the field where they can serve Canadians best.
Abroad, we have worked hard to open doors so that our companies will have access to key markets. We have signed free trade agreements with
Israel and Chile, and have expanded the free trade agreement with the United States to include Mexico.
And we are currently involved in negotiations to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), as well as pursuing a free trade agreement
with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
These regional negotiations complement and enhance the efforts we are making on the multilateral front, through the WTO.
These and a host of other efforts, both at home and abroad, have been undertaken with one single objective: to allow Canadians to participate in
the exciting opportunities that trade liberalization is bringing.
But while the Uruguay Round was significant and resulted in real benefits for Canada, it did not address every issue or solve every problem.
Many stones remain unturned, and much work remains to be done. As we undertake this new work, it is important to carry the lessons we have
learned into the next round.
A New Dynamic
There can be no doubt that in recent years the trade landscape has changed -- and changed dramatically. Let me suggest two characteristics of
this new dynamic.
First, just as all politics is local, so too all trade is local. Second, and related, foreign trade is now very much a part of the domestic agenda.
Let me expand on each of these.
I spoke earlier of both the tremendous opportunities that are opening up for Canadians and of the anxiety some Canadians feel about further
liberalization of trade and investment.
Part of this apparent disconnect between the benefits that abound and the perceptions that exist is due to the singular failure on the part of
government, business and international institutions to explain the benefits of balanced freer trade and to encourage participation in it.
Our task is to show the immediacy of international trade -- to demonstrate its relevance to our daily lives and to prove that, at the end of the day,
all trade is local.
Canadians don't need to understand the arcane language of trade policy to be informed about what it can mean to their businesses. Nor do they
need to follow every twist and turn in negotiations over some esoteric point of trade policy.
But they do need to understand that international trade and investment is not something that happens "out there," to "other people." It is what
happens when an automobile is assembled in Windsor or Cambridge, using steel produced in Hamilton, aluminum from Quebec, zinc from
British Columbia, plastics from Ontario and electronics or computer components from across the country.
It is what happens when a Canadian university markets its programs abroad and recruits students from around the world. It is what happens
when a local high-tech company sees a niche for its product, sells it abroad and expands its operations at home.
And so, while it is true that the game has changed, it is a bigger and potentially more lucrative game. And all of us have a responsibility both to
grasp its potential and to explain its significance.
But let me say that this responsibility is not just that of government. The private sector, too, must become informed, involved and engaged.
Business needs to explain what the international trading system means to its bottom line and to our way of life. It needs to make it its business to
know what's going on in Brussels as well as what's going on in Ottawa.
Another way we can begin to meet public concerns is through policies and programs that encourage business participation in the global
economy. There is nothing that demystifies international trade more than winning that first contract in a foreign land.
Just ask the thousands of Canadian businesses that have done their homework, put in the effort, raised their sights to new frontiers and then
gone out and made it happen.
So that's the first thing we have to understand: that all trade is local and brings benefits right to our front doors and to our main streets.
Second, foreign trade is now an integral part of our domestic agenda. Let me explain what I mean by that.
One of the fundamental changes that has occurred in recent years is the increasing overlap between international developments and domestic
policy.
Earlier trade negotiations were primarily focussed on so-called "border issues" and addressed things like customs procedures and tariffs --
impediments that delayed or blocked access at the border. These negotiations were very successful, and many tariffs have now been eliminated
or significantly reduced.
Today, the greatest impediment for business is non-tariff barriers -- issues such as standards, licensing and approval procedures, product and
professional certifications, and, more broadly, the regulatory framework.
All of these areas have traditionally been the purview of individual states. So, too, have environmental, social and cultural policies, as well as
competition and investment policies.
Now, these are trade issues, discussed in trade negotiations and often the subject of trade agreements. And as a greater range of areas that
were traditionally domestic in scope become trade issues, the number of players involved with trade issues must also expand.
The fact is that trade is no longer a matter for trade ministers alone, but for many other departments as well. Nor is it simply a matter for the
federal government. As provincial and even municipal areas of jurisdiction become affected, they too must be engaged and consulted.
Just next week, for example, I will be hosting my provincial counterparts to address these sorts of issues.
The fact is that our participation in the world economy -- through our trade agenda -- is now an integral part of our domestic political agenda of
jobs, growth, safety, security and social programs.
And throughout this whole process, Canadians have the right to be heard.
That is why last Saturday, 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.
I might add that our desire to involve the wider public is not just something that we practice at home. In the negotiations on the FTAA, for
example, we pushed for -- and obtained -- a special working group on civil society that will hear views from all segments of our societies.
With more and more elements of our domestic agenda now having a trade dimension to them, we simply must engage our citizens in our
discussions.
The move away from so-called "border issues" has had an international impact as well as a domestic one. With the emphasis increasingly on
non-tariff barriers and on transparency, the international trade agenda has become as much about strengthening markets as about opening
them.
And so the focus has shifted to issues like creating a stable, predictable environment, good governance and discouraging corruption.
The real challenge in trade policy, therefore, is not protectionism versus liberalization -- closing or opening our borders -- but to recognize our
interconnectedness and learn to manage our national differences.
Promoting Canadian Values Abroad
As we embark on a new round of negotiations, it is more important than ever that we go in with our eyes open, our priorities identified and our
principles clearly articulated.
And it is very important that Canadian values are reflected in the positions we propose.
It has always been this Government's view that trade allows us to export not only our goods, but also our values; that the global economy must
be a humane place where good government, democracy and the rule of law ensure that the benefits of trade liberalization are shared among all
levels of society. We have never believed that it is necessary to sell our souls in order to sell our goods.
And just as we have a responsibility to protect individual rights and maximize opportunity within our own society, we also believe that similar
obligations flow with respect to the global community we are creating through freer trade.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if we simply pursue markets without concern for the citizens within those markets -- if we do not temper
the pursuit of progress with the commands of compassion -- then we are destined to fail. More, we deserve to fail.
And if we do not temper our push for profit with due consideration for the environment, we will be like the person who constructs a new
foundation for a house by borrowing material from the roof: we will simply have achieved today's objectives at the expense of tomorrow's
opportunities.
So today, more than ever, debates over trade must address issues of fairness and justice and the equitable sharing of prosperity.
Do We Need Further Negotiations?
Now, with all of the progress we have made, it may be tempting to pause, to consolidate, to take a breather. But while it would be tempting, it
would also be a mistake.
Our efforts abroad have opened up exciting new markets for Canadian businesses and created new demand for their goods and services. We
need fair and objective rules to preserve these hard-won gains. We cannot afford to be satisfied with the status quo -- we must continue to grow
and to expand the benefits of a rules-based trading system to other sectors and to other parts of the world.
The fact is we still have work to do. As I said earlier, the Uruguay Round left unfinished business that we need to complete.
Access, for example, remains an important issue. In today's global village, there are still neighbourhoods we cannot enter, streets we cannot
travel, customers we cannot secure. We need to open those doors and make our village one that is fully accessible to all.
We need to encourage others to take the steps we have -- to become open, outward-looking economies and to explain the benefits of doing so.
We also need to find ways to advance participation in the global economy by less-developed countries. To marginalize them now would not only
deprive them of their greatest hope for future prosperity, but it would be also be to deny ourselves the future contribution they can make to the
world's economy.
More negotiations are also necessary because, as recent international economic upheaval has shown, no nation can restore growth solely
through its own domestic market. Trade holds the potential to help solve these problems, and so we need to extend its reach.
And if we are to make the trading system truly universal, we must include sooner rather than later in the WTO such major economies as China,
Chinese Taipei, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine and make them partners in future negotiations.
Finally, we have to ensure that the rules of trade themselves keep pace with the changes taking place in business practices, technology and
social systems. We cannot proceed into the next millennium with rules that don't reflect the new realities.
And so there is a need for further trade negotiations.
How Should We Proceed and What Should These Negotiations Cover?
The immediate issue before us is how we should proceed and what should these negotiations should cover.
In terms of the form these talks should take, Canada's position is that flexibility should be our watchword. As you know, some would like to see a
comprehensive new round, while others favour tackling issues on a sector-by-sector basis.
Our view is that both options carry their own difficulties.
A major new round, in trying to encompass so many divergent issues and interests, can become unwieldy and exhausting. And its dynamic of all
or nothing means no progress for several years until every last issue has been resolved.
The sector-by-sector approach, on the other hand, leaves itself open to countries simply "cherry picking" those sectors that work to their
advantage. Such a mercenary approach does not indicate great confidence in the WTO or in its ability to create widespread agreement.
That is why, for over a year, we have proposed a middle ground. We have suggested broad-based discussions that would deal with clusters of
issues and sectors in a way that is manageable, digestible and timely, and has something for everyone.
This would mean setting a timetable to implement results in clusters as they are achieved, thus detaching them from other areas where progress
could be slower or more difficult to obtain.
This would produce an "early harvest" of agreements and provide momentum at a crucial time.
At the end of the day, however, a single undertaking, whereby all countries accept playing by all of the new rules, must still be our ultimate goal.
I am pleased to say that this approach appears to be carrying the day, with both the United States and the European Union also seeking the
implementation of concrete, early results as they are achieved.
We must also take steps, in addressing the form of these negotiations, to ensure that the particular needs of developing nations are taken into
consideration and that these talks produce benefits for developing and developed nations alike.
In terms of the content of the negotiations, our view is that the talks should be broadly based, both to attract support and to satisfy a wide range
of interests.
Ideally, this means that negotiations will extend beyond the mandated areas of agriculture and services. Without pre-empting your consultations
or prejudging their outcome in any way, let me suggest the following areas that governments might consider: