Introduction

The World Trade Organization (WTO), which began operations on 1 January 1995 as the successor to the 1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, helps to establish principles and rules for non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable international trade between and among its 164 members. The WTO’s core functions are stipulated in the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the Marrakesh Agreement), and these functions include: serving as a negotiating forum for trade agreements; monitoring members’ trade measures; resolving trade disputes between and among WTO members; and building the trade‑related capacity of developing countries.

With the WTO experiencing challenges in performing at least some of its core functions, Canada—a founding member of the WTO—is among those advocating reform. In October 2018, Canada and a group of like-minded WTO members created the Ottawa Ministerial on WTO Reform Group (the Ottawa Group).^[1] Its first communiqué, which was released on 25 October 2018, indicated that the “current situation at the WTO is no longer sustainable.”

On 9 March 2020, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade (the Committee) adopted a motion to undertake a study on “ongoing and future efforts to reform the World Trade Organization, in collaboration with like-minded trading partners and countries, including the Ottawa Group, in the face of challenges to the existing rules-based international order.” Following the 18 August 2020 prorogation of Parliament, on 23 October 2020, the Committee adopted a motion to undertake a study on “World Trade Organization reform.” The testimony and briefs received by the Committee pursuant to both motions are summarized in this report.

During three meetings on this study, the Committee’s witnesses comprised government officials and representatives of: four general or sector-specific business trade associations; two civil society organizations; and one think tank. The Committee also received eight written briefs.^[2]

This report summarizes the comments made in the testimony and briefs about four of the WTO’s core functions: negotiate agreements; monitor trade measures; resolve disputes; and build the capacity of some members. It also provides the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations concerning WTO reform.

The Negotiating Function

The Committee’s witnesses identified some challenges that the WTO is facing in relation to its negotiating function. They focused on: e-commerce and digital trade; intellectual property; agricultural and fisheries subsidies; non-tariff trade barriers; trade and the environment; and current and future multilateral and plurilateral negotiations.

A.        E-commerce and Digital Trade

In indicating that Canadian businesses have identified e-commerce as “very important,” Global Affairs Canada officials underscored that “Canada is taking a very active role to try to bring [Canadian businesses’] issues to the table.” The officials added that the Government of Canada’s efforts in this area will “level [the] playing field” for the country’s businesses—especially those that are small or medium in size—“that cannot bear the type of administrative burdens and costs associated with some of the complex rules that are applicable to digital trade” and other barriers in certain foreign jurisdictions. They particularly mentioned limitations on cross-border data flows, data localization requirements and rules regarding the disclosure of a source code.

The Business Council of Canada noted that the WTO’s negotiations on e-commerce—known as the joint statement initiative on e-commerce^[3]—“can liberalize and create a level playing field for Canadian firms in fast-growing areas of our economy, including digital trade and e-commerce.” In a brief submitted to the Committee, Mastercard Canada explained that a WTO agreement on e-commerce would provide a transparent, non-discriminatory and predictable regulatory regime for digital trade.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation said that digital trade goes beyond e-commerce to include “cross-border data flows, with implications for data and [artificial intelligence] governance, competition, privacy, and intellectual property.” In its view, technical regulations in these areas should be developed through processes outside the WTO and then considered during WTO negotiations.

B.        Intellectual Property

With a focus on intellectual property rights, the Centre for International Governance Innovation observed that the advent of artificial intelligence and the “explosion of cross-border data flows” have changed “the economics of innovation and the nature of trade,” thus requiring reconsideration of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).

Regarding a proposal by India and South Africa^[4] for a waiver from the application of certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, the Centre for International Governance Innovation suggested that “there is a clear case that [pharmaceutical firms’] patent rights could be waived or be considered to be waived” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a brief submitted to the Committee, Doctors Without Borders urged the Government of Canada to support the proposed waiver, which it believed would allow “countries to choose to neither grant nor enforce patents … related to COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health technologies for the duration of the pandemic.”

Global Affairs Canada officials pointed out that the Government of Canada has not rejected the proposed TRIPS waiver.^[5] According to them, the Government is committed to identifying consensus-based solutions by supporting the WTO director general’s “third way effort,” which involves discussions with pharmaceutical firms aimed at resolving challenges relating to the production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine doses.

The Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale said that a “reformed WTO must completely overhaul intellectual property protection,” and suggested that the pandemic “makes it more necessary than ever to remove WTO intellectual property constraints.”

C.        Agricultural and Fisheries Subsidies

Concerning agricultural subsidies, Global Affairs Canada officials remarked that such subsidies “unduly distort trade and are a significant problem for Canadian agricultural producers.” The officials identified China and India as being among the “top tier” countries providing substantial subsidies to their agricultural sectors. Furthermore, they commented that a “key interest for Canada and a number of other WTO members is tackling those trade‑distorting agricultural subsidies.”

In a brief submitted to the Committee, the Canadian Canola Growers Association stated that, even though countries recognize the need for multilateral disciplines in relation to trade‑distorting agricultural subsidies, WTO negotiations to achieve that goal have been stalled. It referenced Cairns Group^[6] estimates suggesting that “amber box”^[7] agricultural subsidies will reach US$2 trillion worldwide by 2030, and underlined that “reforms are particularly important for Canada which cannot afford … the support provided by larger economies but requires a competitive field for its agriculture producers.”

As well, in a joint brief submitted to the Committee on their own behalf, the University of British Columbia’s Kristen Hopewell and Matias Margulis explained that—historically—the United States and European Union member states led the world in providing subsidies to their agricultural producers. However, according to them, China’s increasing wealth has resulted in that country becoming the world’s largest provider of such subsidies. They pointed out that China provided its agricultural producers with approximately US$212 billion in market price support and direct subsidies in 2016, an amount that exceeded the European Union’s US$100 billion, the United States’ US$33 billion and Canada’s US$5 billion.

The Grain Growers of Canada affirmed that subsidies provided by countries with a large agricultural sector affect international prices. It stressed the need for “an equal playing field for farmers internationally,” and suggested that the WTO plays an “important role” in ensuring this outcome.

Regarding fisheries subsidies, Kristen Hopewell and Matias Margulis mentioned that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals “identified the need for a WTO agreement to eliminate harmful fisheries subsidies as an urgent international priority.” They also indicated that China is the world’s largest provider of fisheries subsidies, and noted that the country’s industrial fishing fleet accounts for “42% of global fishing activity—outstripping the next 10 biggest countries combined.”

D.        Non-tariff Trade Barriers

In commenting on non-tariff trade barriers, Global Affairs Canada officials affirmed that “burdensome customs and trade facilitation procedures, onerous paperwork requirements, [and] unclear information regarding regulatory requirements in different markets” are issues of concern for Canadian small and medium-sized businesses. They added that the Government of Canada tries to be conscious of these businesses’ needs when negotiating international trade rules.

The Grain Growers of Canada said that Canada’s grain sector has faced “a laundry list” of non-tariff trade barriers in recent years, leading to restricted access to foreign markets. It expressed its hope that WTO reform efforts will include review of, and improvements to, the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and its Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, as well as adherence to international standards. As well, the Grain Growers of Canada stressed that these agreements require WTO members to introduce measures that are “based on science … and [that do] not constitute an obstacle to trade.”

Similarly, in a brief submitted to the Committee, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance advocated for enhanced WTO rules to ensure science-based regulatory requirements, as well as predictable conditions for Canada’s agricultural and food exporters. As well, according to the Canadian Canola Growers Association, “a renewed commitment to the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at the [12^th Ministerial Conference] would reiterate the importance of science-based rules and predictability to trade facilitation.”

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters asserted that Canadian businesses encounter problems when exporting to foreign markets, including because of unfair competition from state-owned enterprises, dumping, and currency manipulation. To resolve these issues, it urged the Government of Canada to “seek consensus with like-minded countries and prioritize which challenges to address first, and then update those [WTO] rules accordingly.”

Finally, concerning specific countries, the Grain Growers of Canada stated that Italy’s mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirement “has a direct and immediate impact on Canadian grain farmers.” It urged the Government of Canada to initiate a WTO complaint regarding that requirement. The Canadian Canola Growers Association highlighted that Canadian “canola farmers currently face politically motivated restrictions in accessing the Chinese market, as well as various barriers to the development of and access to crop protection tools and new seed varieties.”

E.        Trade and the Environment

With a focus on the environment, in a joint brief submitted to the Committee on their own behalf, Geneviève Parent and Jérôme Dupras—from the Université Laval à Québec and the Université du Québec en Outaouais, respectively—drew particular attention to the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, and said that WTO reform must consider new realities, including climate change. They also suggested that, under expanded Agreement on Agriculture provisions, WTO members should be able to promote and encourage food security, as well as sustainable production and processing methods that both protect the environment and support climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Moreover, in their view, WTO rules about public support for environmental protection should be “broadened” so that agricultural producers can be “directly and appropriately” remunerated for their operations’ “environmental services.”

The Trade Justice Network highlighted that “it is paramount [that] the WTO and trade rules protect climate policy,” and proposed that WTO trade rules that “conflict with climate action should be eliminated to allow communities and governments to advance bold climate protections ….”

F.         Current and Future Multilateral and Plurilateral Negotiations

In speaking about the status of various WTO negotiations, Global Affairs Canada officials explained that, even though the current comprehensive multilateral round of negotiations launched in 2001—the Doha Round—has reached a stalemate, negotiations are ongoing on several issues. They said that negotiations concerning fisheries subsidies “have reached a critical stage,” with WTO members striving to conclude those negotiations by the WTO’s 12^th Ministerial Conference, which is scheduled for 30 November–3 December 2021. They pointed out that the Government of Canada has actively contributed to those negotiations, including through a proposal to “discipline subsidies contributing to overfishing and overcapacity.” As well, in their view, the negotiations on domestic regulations for services “are also getting quite close to conclusion,” which provides another opportunity to modernize global trade rules.

Regarding the needs of Canadian small and medium-sized businesses, Global Affairs Canada officials spoke about the Government of Canada’s participation in an initiative that led to the creation of a WTO working group on micro, small and medium-size businesses. According to them, this working group will take a “microscopic look at the particular kinds of challenges that [such businesses] face in international markets and [will] try to ensure [the development of] WTO rules that are specifically designed for small and medium-sized enterprises.”

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials indicated that the Government of Canada co‑sponsored a statement by the Cairns Group that sets out a framework to limit and reduce countries’ trade-distorting agricultural subsidies in the context of WTO negotiations.

Regarding plurilateral negotiations, Global Affairs Canada officials underlined that challenges to the multilateral approach have led some WTO members to pursue plurilateral agreements. In their view, willing members have launched plurilateral initiatives—also known as joint statement initiatives—in such areas as e-commerce, investment facilitation for development, domestic regulation of services, and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation asserted that multilateralism is best, but indicated that a plurilateral approach can help to build consensus among like-minded countries. Similarly, Mastercard Canada stated that a reformed WTO “should promote and support more plurilateral type agreements,” such as regarding e-commerce.

The Monitoring Function

The Committee’s witnesses identified certain areas of concern relating to the WTO’s monitoring function. They specifically commented on: government notifications to the WTO concerning their trade measures; and countries’ trade-restrictive measures introduced in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

A.        Government Notifications of Trade Measures

While acknowledging Canadian businesses’ concerns about the low level of compliance with government notification requirements and the lack of information regarding WTO members’ trade measures, Global Affairs Canada officials said that resolving the WTO’s monitoring-related challenges “were front and centre” when the Government of Canada and some like-minded WTO members established the Ottawa Group. The officials stated that, as part of WTO reform proposals, the Ottawa Group has identified methods for more timely reporting and notification to the WTO of governments’ trade measures.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation said that effective monitoring of WTO members’ trade measures depends on government notifications about those measures and information sharing. It stressed that these government notifications continue to be the most important source of information, and suggested that many governments face capacity challenges in complying with notification requirements. According to the Centre for International Governance Innovation, government compliance with notification requirements could be enhanced by ensuring that “information requirements are fit for purpose, and by providing support for building governments’ capacity to gather and share information.”

In a brief submitted to the Committee on his own behalf, Queen’s University’s Robert Wolfe underscored that government compliance with the notification requirements in the WTO’s various agreements remains very uneven. He proposed that the WTO should review these requirements “to identify the gaps” in the compliance processes.

According to the Canadian Canola Growers Association, efforts to improve information sharing would increase the effectiveness of existing rules and the WTO’s monitoring function. It pointed out that, because large oilseed producers—the United States, Canada, China and Argentina—are lagging behind in notifying the WTO about export support measures provided to their canola producers, it is difficult to assess members’ compliance with the WTO’s rules, and to adjust practices either to respond to—or to mitigate the impact of—a new export measure.

B.        Trade-restrictive Measures and the Pandemic

In making general comments about the WTO’s monitoring of its members’ trade measures Global Affairs Canada officials maintained that the multilateral trading system is facing an increasingly challenging environment, including because of growing protectionism since the beginning of the pandemic. The officials said that, in June 2020, members of the Ottawa Group issued a joint statement—“Focusing Action on Covid-19” —in which they committed to a six-point work plan with concrete action items. Furthermore, they highlighted a November 2020 Ottawa Group ministerial meeting that was followed by the release of a communication on trade and health that called on WTO members “to avoid disruptions in the supply chains of essential goods” and that proposed “the launch of a multilateral WTO initiative on trade and health.” According to them, the Ottawa Group members presented this communication to the WTO’s General Council on 16 December 2020.

Regarding the European Union’s restrictions on exports of COVID-19 vaccine doses, Global Affairs Canada officials indicated that the Ottawa Group’s approach is “more of a long‑term effort to … move WTO members in such a direction as to get rid of issues that are potential barriers, like customs procedures, limit the use of export restrictions, … eliminate tariffs and increase transparency.” In their view, the objective is to strengthen global supply chains and to ensure the “free flow of essential medicines and medical supplies.”

The Grain Growers of Canada expressed concerns about rising nationalism and protectionism, both of which—in its view—have been exacerbated by government measures implemented in response to the pandemic. According to the Grain Growers of Canada, “the [Government of Canada] must hold a firm line against this growing wave of protectionism” because it is “more critical now than ever to remove existing barriers, and urgently fix and modernize the World Trade Organization.” As a result, it proposed that pandemic-related measures should be “targeted and transparent, avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, and … be withdrawn as quickly as possible to avoid any adverse effects on trade.”

The Dispute-Settlement Function

Witnesses spoke to the Committee about several challenges that the WTO is experiencing in relation to its dispute-settlement function. In particular, they discussed: the current status of the WTO’s Appellate Body; some impacts of a non-functioning Appellate Body on Canadian businesses; and interim dispute-settlement arrangements.

A.        The Current Status of the Appellate Body

In describing the current status of the Appellate Body, Global Affairs Canada officials highlighted that—since December 2019—the Appellate Body has not been able to hear appeals of dispute-settlement panel decisions because it has not had quorum. In the officials’ view, as a result, a WTO member “can prevent the resolution of a dispute by effectively appealing [a panel’s decision] into the void,” thereby undermining the "legal rights of WTO members.” They asserted that the “loss of recourse to binding dispute settlement has serious implications” for Canada, which they described as “an active user” of the WTO's dispute-settlement system, having been a “party to a total of 63 disputes since 1995.” The officials also mentioned that Canada has “played a leading role in discussions on how to resolve the impasse in appointments” to the Appellate Body, which they viewed as “the most pressing issue facing the WTO.”

Regarding U.S. actions in relation to the Appellate Body, Global Affairs Canada officials characterized that country’s involvement as “absolutely essential,” and maintained that Canada has “looked for every opportunity to engage the United States” about reform of the Appellate Body and WTO reform issues generally. They observed that, “unfortunately, [U.S.] engagement thus far has been quite limited." The Business Council of Canada described Canada’s need to work with the United States to “restore the functionality” of the Appellate Body as “really critical,” and indicated that “this is one of a list of priorities [that Canada has] with the new administration.” As well, the Business Council of Canada stated that it is “critical that [Canada brings] the U.S. back to the table,” and suggested that the Ottawa Group—of which Canada is a member—is “well positioned to do that.”

The B.C. Lumber Trade Council “strongly encourage[d]” the Government of Canada to “do what it can to resolve the current … impasse” concerning the functioning of the Appellate Body. As well, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council emphasized that it is “critically important” for Canada that the WTO continues to have both a “strong … dispute settlement mechanism” and a “well-functioning neutral body to adjudicate” disputes that the country has with its trading partners. The Centre for International Governance Innovation remarked that the Appellate Body’s non-functioning status "threatens the whole [WTO dispute-settlement] system,” while Mastercard Canada proposed that the WTO should both improve the transparency and timeliness of the Appellate Body’s “decision making process,” and establish “clear principles to prohibit overreach” by its members.

B.        Some Impacts of a Non-functioning Appellate Body on Canadian Businesses

With a focus on the impact of a non-functioning Appellate Body on Canadian businesses, Global Affairs Canada officials mentioned that those businesses “are deeply concerned that Canada's rights at the WTO are undermined …, in particular vis-à-vis the United States.” The officials indicated that Canada is currently a party to between five and eight cases before the Appellate Body, including in relation to wine with Australia, aircraft with Brazil, and softwood lumber with the United States.

The Grain Growers of Canada asserted that the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism is a “major concern” for its members, and emphasized the need to resolve what it views as the Appellate Body’s “current paralysis.” Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters felt that “smaller markets” such as Canada, which “might not have the weight to throw around that other countries have,” are disadvantaged by a mechanism that is “slow” in resolving disputes. In underscoring the need for Appellate Body reform that ensures timely resolution of disputes, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council mentioned its preference for reforms that “will ensure that Canadian companies can get a fair hearing from a neutral body that is fully functioning and able to hear cases through to appeal and deliver timely resolution to disputes when they arise.”

Regarding softwood lumber, Global Affairs Canada officials expressed their concern that both WTO cases involving Canada and the United States have been appealed. They explained that, because the Appellate Body is currently not functioning, “those cases have essentially been appealed into the void,” and there is “no immediate resolution” to them. In the opinion of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, it is important to have the Appellate Body’s decisions on these cases “finalized.” The B.C. Lumber Trade Council believed that a dispute before the Appellate Body frequently “drags on for several years,” leading to “added cost and uncertainty” for Canada’s softwood lumber sector.

C.        Interim Dispute-Settlement Arrangements

In noting alternative dispute-settlement arrangements, Global Affairs Canada officials suggested that, because of the possible impacts on Canada’s current and future disputes of the Appellate Body’s current inability to hear and decide appeals, it has been “very important” for the country to establish one or more interim arrangements to “ensure [that Canada has] some form of appeal mechanism.” In that regard, the officials underscored that, in July 2019, Canada and the European Union agreed to a bilateral interim appeal arbitration arrangement to resolve appeals “until such time as the appellate body impasse is fixed.” They also mentioned that, in January 2020, Canada and 16 other WTO members “built on the success” of this bilateral interim arrangement by “agreeing to work towards a similar interim arrangement that would apply between participating members until the appellate body is again functional."

As well, Global Affairs Canada officials stated that Canada and some other WTO members have “explored” the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arrangement as an alternative to “simply appealing into the void.” They believed that interim dispute-settlement arrangements help to “safeguard” Canada’s “rights to binding two-stage dispute settlement with willing WTO members until the appellate body is functional again.”

The Centre for International Governance Innovation identified the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, “no-appeal agreements” and the use of dispute-settlement mechanisms in other trade agreements to which WTO members are parties as interim dispute‑settlement options, while the Canadian Canola Growers Association said that the Multi‑Party Interim Appeal Arrangement “provides some certainty and stability, and a platform for Canada to move discussions towards a permanent solution” to the Appellate Body’s current non-functioning status. The Business Council of Canada characterized the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arrangement as a “critical stopgap measure to ensure that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism continues to function in several leading economies.”

The Capacity-Building Function

In their appearance before the Committee, witnesses examined various topics relating to the WTO’s capacity-building function. They concentrated on: the development status of some members; and special and differential treatment, including in relation to China.

A.        The Development Status of Some Members

In discussing the challenges currently affecting the WTO’s daily functioning, Global Affairs Canada officials highlighted a “lack of consensus on how to treat developing countries.” The officials asserted that classifying a WTO member as a developed country is “contentious.” In their opinion, recent debates have explored recognition of the “significant differences between or among developing countries.” They indicated that the challenge is how to “differentiate among developing countries in the kinds of obligations we would expect them to take on.”

As well, Global Affairs Canada officials underlined that Canada “takes a very pragmatic view on development at the WTO.” The officials explained that countries to be considered “developing” should be identified through the “various negotiations that are under way at the WTO,” with consideration given to the “specific types of flexibilities that may be needed for certain developing countries in a unique context.” The Centre for International Governance Innovation stressed the importance of “finding ways to provide flexibility in the rules for developing countries that is commensurate with their level of development.”

B.        Special and Differential Treatment

With a focus on special and differential treatment for some WTO members, Kristen Hopewell and Matias Margulis characterized such treatment as “among the most pressing issues for WTO reform.” They thought that, “amid the rise of major emerging economies,” the challenge is to ensure that special and differential treatment is “designed and operationalized” in a way that does not “undermine global development objectives.” The Centre for International Governance Innovation drew attention to the need to “find solution-oriented approaches” to the “controversial issue of developing country status” and eligibility for special and differential treatment. As well, the Centre for International Governance Innovation emphasized that “not all countries need or should benefit from the same level of flexibility” concerning special and differential treatment.

Regarding the development status of China for purposes of the WTO and the country’s eligibility for special and differential treatment, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters suggested that the WTO’s “handling of the China question” will “define its future and the future of the global trading order.” Kristen Hopewell and Matias Margulis remarked that “allowing China to access [special and differential treatment] is increasingly problematic due to the harmful effects of its trade policies” on other developing countries that are WTO members.

The Committee’s Conclusions and Recommendations

As a founding member of the WTO and a leading member of the Ottawa Group, Canada is at the forefront of international efforts to reform the WTO. The Committee’s notes that the WTO is fundamental to a rules-based international trading system, and—in that context—it is critical that the WTO is able to undertake its core functions effectively and efficiently. In addition to those that were a focus for many witnesses, the WTO is also an important partner with other international organizations, which allows collaborative work in meeting challenges.

When countries pursue multilateral trade agreements, they generally look to the WTO as the forum through which negotiations occur. The Committee recognizes that the WTO needs to be able to facilitate such negotiations among its members. This ability is perhaps especially vital in order to recognize such emerging issues as e‑commerce and the environment, as well as to address concerns about intellectual property protections and harmful subsidies. That said, plurilateral approaches—which involve only some WTO members and focus on particular sectors—should also be explored, as appropriate.

Some WTO members’ non-tariff trade barriers—mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirements, as well as sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are not science-based—reduce export opportunities for Canadian businesses. The Committee observes that, unless the WTO addresses the existence of such barriers, countries are unlikely to limit the implementation of measures that restrict access to their markets.

Under the agreement that established the WTO, members have an obligation to meet government notification requirements, thereby allowing violations of the WTO’s agreements to be identified and addressed in an effective and timely manner. The Committee maintains that fulfillment of these notification requirements enhances the transparency of the multilateral trading system.

The WTO’s ability to resolve disputes between and among its members seems to be a particular challenge at this time. The Committee underscores that urgent actions are needed concerning the WTO’s dispute-resolution mechanism. “Appealing into the void” can create uncertainty for Canadian businesses and undermine Canada’s rights. While interim appeal arrangements are helpful in the short term, they are not a substitute for a fully functioning Appellate Body.

Finally, trade-related capacities vary among the WTO’s members. The Committee points out that, as the WTO fulfills its capacity-building function, it is important to identify the countries that are genuinely in need of support, and to provide assistance so that they are better able to implement—and to benefit from—WTO agreements. In that context, now may be an opportune time to consider issues relating to development status and special and differential treatment.

In light of the foregoing, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada reaffirm the right of each World Trade Organization member to adopt trade policies for the best interests of its citizens.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada emphasize at the World Trade Organization the importance of public services provided by national, sub-national and municipal governments, as well as their non-market nature, in the public interest.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada emphasize at the World Trade Organization that the cultural exception is non-negotiable for Canada.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada uphold the right of World Trade Organization (WTO) members to support their agricultural sector, particularly by implementing special measures to protect their farmers in accordance with WTO rules.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada appeal to the World Trade Organization to review intellectual property protection as it relates to COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of such a review should be improving developing countries’ access to medicines, where necessary.

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada ensure that the implementation of World Trade Organization rules does not conflict with international environmental agreements.