International Trade Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

How many?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Well, it depends on the round. I think the most we had at one point was 15.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

In Singapore?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I'm getting a count...I don't have the exact number.

There were stakeholder events at a variety of rounds in Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. As for how many Canadians appeared, it depended on the round. In Singapore, we had 13 Canadian stakeholders participating.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

All right. That's great.

We've negotiated with the European Union and now with Korea. We're in the process with the TPP. What does this say about the future role of the World Trade Organization?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Well, as I said, for a country like Canada, which is highly trade dependent—I don't know if “middle economy” is quite the right term, but that's a term you often hear used to describe Canada—I think the World Trade Organization is crucial, and I think global rule setting is crucial. The challenge is that as an organization it has not been able to move forward with the Doha agenda as we would have liked to see. That said, there's some very good work happening in Geneva to adjust to that reality and to harvest, as they say, as many outcomes as possible.

This is more of a speculation, because we can't really know, but I think that as some of these larger regional or bilateral agreements come together—for example, the United States is negotiating now with Europe, we've negotiated with Europe, there's the TPP, and Japan and the European Union are negotiating—it may well provide an impetus for everybody to go back to Geneva and say, “Okay, let's take all of this and globalize it.” Again, this is speculation on my part, but I think that would be a very good outcome from a trade policy perspective.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

We've just concluded, after years of negotiation, this agreement with the European Union. As a department you've had a tremendous opportunity to consult with stakeholders. You've gone through the negotiation process. Would that experience not inform your negotiating position with the TPP, knowing what stakeholders have told you about trade with Europe? Presumably it would be similar in terms of their expectations for trade with other Asian countries. With that in mind, would you anticipate an outcome similar to what we were able to conclude with the European Union?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I'm not sure I would put the link that way.

I would agree with your comment that through extensive consultations for the European negotiations, through extensive consultations that we have for a bilateral with Japan, and for extensive consultations that we have for putting into place our refreshed global market strategy as a department, there's a huge amount of work that has been done in engaging with Canadian businesses and stakeholders to understand where their market interests lie, where their business interests lie, and what we can do to assist them in terms of trade policy tools, investment agreements, FTAs, and air agreements. There's a variety of taxation agreements. There's a huge tool kit, right?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

You get my point.

[Kirsten Hillman]

The consultations that we have are broad-based. They're ongoing. They're not simply in relation to an FTA. They're in relation to the bread and butter of our job, which is to understand Canadian businesses and Canadian stakeholders' trade interests. We take that information in a variety of contexts and use it in a variety of contexts, and then we dig down specifically in respect of this initiative. So yes, I guess, in a simple answer to the first part of your question, yes.

Because we happen to have the same information at our disposal with respect to what Canadians want, does it mean that we will have the same outcome in the TPP as in the CETA? I'm not sure that I would make that link, because the outcome we have is partly in relation to what we're seeking absolutely, and it's partly in relation to what others are seeking, and it's partly in relation to the specific configuration of that agreement, which may be slightly different from another agreement. They're all based on a similar model, but they all try to build upon each other.

I absolutely anticipate that this will be of great benefit to Canadian businesses and stakeholders and exports in the region. There's no doubt about it. For similar sectors in some respects, similar benefits across Canada in different provinces, absolutely.... Will it be exactly the same? I guess time will tell, but I think it will be very important. If it shapes up the way it's trying to shape up now, I think it will be very important indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Back to Mr. Hoback. The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I know Mr. Allen talked about the supply management sector, but I just wanted some assurances. All sectors have interests in play in the TPP. I know the beef sector is very excited, canola growers are very excited, the wheat growers are very excited, and the barley growers are very excited because they look at the opportunities.

Can you assure this committee that you're looking after all the best interests of agriculture producers right across Canada?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Absolutely.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. When we look at some of the rumours coming out about the TPP, there's some talk out there that Japan and the U.S. are trying to delay those talks. Can you comment on that statement or do you have any information to add on that?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I certainly don't see that from my perspective at all. I think that it comes down to what we were saying a little earlier, that as negotiations progress, the easier issues get resolved, and the harder issues remain. The harder issues take time. They take energy, they take effort, and they take creativity. That's what happens in any negotiation as you get to the final stages. So both of those countries, as does every country around the table, have very clear domestic objectives of what they want to get out of this. They have sensitivities to manage, and it takes time. It takes time to work those through.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I'm done. Can I give my time to Mr. Hiebert?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes. You've got three minutes.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Some have been critical of the confidential nature of the negotiations. Are other participating nations consulting their stakeholders as we are yet also maintaining a similar level of confidentiality or are other nations providing more public information than Canada is?

[Kirsten Hillman]

No, not to my knowledge. We have, amongst ourselves as negotiators, an undertaking that specifies that we will keep the details of the negotiating text confidential. To my knowledge, everybody is respecting that.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Everybody is on the same page. There's no one country providing more public information than Canada is. We're staying to the same line or level of confidentiality between all partners.

[Kirsten Hillman]

Yes.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

My last question relates to a comment that my colleague Mr. Cannan raised regarding the fifth round of negotiations in Japan. We have these bilateral trade negotiations going on, one with the TPP and then with Japan directly. If one or the other was to conclude, what would the impact be on the remaining? Let's say we concluded the Canada-Japan free trade agreement. What impact would that have on the TPP or vice versa?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I'm not sure it would necessarily have an impact. Concluding with Japan, I'm not sure that would have an impact on the TPP as a whole. I think the parties to that agreement would still press forward to ensure that they get the deal that they're looking for. I'm also not sure it would have an impact on our negotiating position with Japan and the TPP. If we concluded a deal with Japan, it would be because we believed that we had come to a deal that was in the best interests of Canada on a bilateral basis. In the TPP there are many similarities to what we're negotiating bilaterally, but there are differences as well, so we would want to stay at that table to pursue those interests with all partners, including Japan.

Conversely, if the TPP concluded before our bilateral FTA with Japan, I think that there would remain issues between us bilaterally that we might very well want to continue to pursue with Japan, so these are complementary initiatives.

In the context of a bilateral, one can sometimes go a little further than one might be willing to do in a larger group, or focus on specific interests that you have vis-à-vis that other market in a way you might not be willing to do in a larger group. So there should always be an incentive for that bilateral to carry on, as well as the TPP, and vice versa.

The TPP, as I said, is a regional initiative rule setting. Japan is a major player in the region, and we want to be in a deal with them in the TPP.

As I say, I think that they're fully complementary and hopefully they'll both move toward conclusion in a very ambitious way and relatively quickly.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Just to clarify, if we're negotiating on the same subject at the TPP and with Japan directly and one was to conclude, would that not solidify our position vis-à-vis Japan on that particular subject or would we then also be able to consider going further or not going as far on a particular issue?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I think that all options would be open to us, because it would be a different configuration. We would define our interests in the bilateral context or in the regional context depending on the discussions being had at that table. I don't think by concluding a certain package bilaterally with Japan we would necessarily have to have the exact same package in the TPP, because the dynamics are different, the players are different, and what's on the table is different in some respects, and vice versa. So what we do and would always do is to try to get the best that we can in both fora, to advance as much as we can in our relationship with them and to integrate it as much as we can in both places. Those are the advantages, in fact, of being at the table for two initiatives with Japan.