Evidence of meeting #70 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was foreign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think you agreed that the point was made with Mr. Easter—
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I think he's reinforcing it. Humour us here....
You don't have to answer. You can answer as you like. Go ahead.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes.
So you've made a financial contribution to the Conservative Party. Do you feel, Mr. Vidler, that it has compromised your thoughts on this?
5:25 p.m.
Director, International Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I do not believe so.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify this. There is nothing wrong with their testimony; it's still on the record. I just want to clarify, as an individual, if he's partisan—
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Van Harten, I just want to ask you quickly, are there alternatives to ISDS mechanisms? Can investors protect their investments in some other way? Can we have it all? Can we have a system based on the rule of law, and protect democratic decision-making, and have an orderly mechanism for protecting investors and ensuring that agreements are enforced, without having an ISDS mechanism with the disadvantages that have been identified?
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
Yes, we're very familiar with it in our own domestic law systems in many countries. We have courts that are independent. In some cases, they can override legislatures. That's all very familiar and well established. Investor-state arbitration is different because it's not a judicial process, and that's really where a lot of the conundrums arise.
I think it's certainly possible. I honestly think that if people from a different range of perspectives, other than the lawyers and arbitrators who work in this field and do quite handsomely in the field...if we look beyond that group, I think you'd probably end up finding quite a fair bit of agreement on some of the issues if you really combed away at the details.
If I may take the opportunity to add this, I just want to make clear for a fulsome record that I have donated, including recently, to multiple political parties, and I consider myself to be a bit of a free agent.
5:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know where to go after that interjection.
There was a point made earlier by Mr. Bubber, on Scotiabank. I didn't quite hear the answer for how many branches and how many employees Scotiabank has in India.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Okay. That's what I thought I heard the first time.
It doesn't sound like a very large footprint. So is this primarily corporate banking?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you for that.
I think I have time for one question.
Mr. Vidler, one of the numbers that always amazes me on the India-Canada commercial relationship is the size of the GDPs of Canada and India. We're talking trillions of dollars—I think it's somewhere around $3.7 trillion or $3.9 trillion—yet our balance of trade is a few billion dollars, quite frankly.
I'm a little challenged by that number, but I also see tremendous opportunity to expand this trading relationship. India is our commonwealth partner, one of its main languages is our official language, and it has a similar background in law. How important are all of those dynamics to expanding this relationship—not overlooking for a moment some of the huge challenges between the federal state and state law in India and the protectionism within the Indian economy?
5:30 p.m.
Director, International Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I think we strongly agree that more of an effort could be made. Canada could be doing better in India.
If I could, I'll address one thing and then try to address the others, if I can, afterwards. The focus on the bilateral trade statistics is something that I think the committee should think about. In fact, when I walked in earlier, I heard Ailish Campbell telling you this as well. There is a statistic on trade in value added, which came to light a few months ago. It came from the OECD and the WTO, and it tries to look not just at what's crossing the border to wherever...because a lot of things that Canada may be trading are not being traded directly to India. They're going into the U.S. market and being transformed there a second time and then going to India, or they're going from Canada to Germany and then going to India.
Those statistics that came out demonstrate this value added. In 2009, for instance, when I think our trade was only around $4 billion with India bilaterally, this new statistic actually argued that it was $9 billion to $10 billion in trade in value-added terms. What it has done is to track some of that value added that's gone through third countries.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vidler, Mr. Bubber, and Mr. Van Harten, for your input. We've found it very valuable and we appreciate your comments.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.