International Trade Committee on Feb. 11th, 2008

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being witnesses today and for your excellent comments.

I concur that Canada's prosperity, given that we are one of the most resource-based countries in the world, depends on more aggressive pursuit of bilateral agreements, but we haven't had that free trade agreement initiative for several years—and Minister Emerson has been leading the way. We want to level the playing field in key markets, and that is one of the driving factors that Mr. Emerson has publicly stated on several occasions when attending this committee.

Specifically to Mr. Laliberté, I come from British Columbia, where the forest sector is an economic generator and a cause of great concern, given that about 78% of our forests are being lost to the pine beetle right now and given some of the challenges we face in the manufacturing sector. We had a witness who attended the committee, Mr. Woo, the president and co-chair of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, who said that South Korea was heavily reliant on imported wood, as it imported about 90% of its wood.

Coming from Quebec, do you and the forestry workers you represent see any opportunities by going ahead with this agreement?

[Pierre Laliberté]

Of course, there is always opportunity. Your job as a parliamentarian is to weigh all the opportunities and losses that are likely to happen.

Whenever we talk about natural resources, these are boom and bust industries. The fact of the matter is that we know we have finite resources and we have needs that are going to be growing. I would say that what matters most to us is to have a world that has sound rules. In this sense, I think we're all in agreement around this table that we need rules and disciplines that ensure that you're treated the same way when you do business in a country as when they come and do business in yours. That does not mean to us that we have to rush into every market with the sense that if we miss it, we're going to lose the race.

The fact of the matter is, as you know, that a trade agreement does not guarantee the final result. The proof of that is the softwood lumber conflict, which is ongoing and where we actually surrendered pretty shamelessly. We think we have something, but we don't necessarily get it in the end. That's where the multilateral nature is a better safeguard than the bilateral nature of this.

Your point is well taken. Certainly on the face of it, the Quebec forestry industry could use an uplift.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I agree with investment in technology innovation. Tolko Mills, in my riding, just put $13 million into their operation and it's one of the most efficient in the province in their area of expertise. I think that's where we're concentrating with our science and technology. Minister Prentice and his ministry right now are going through a review.

Also, the challenge is that all sectors will not benefit equally at the same time. In the long term, and thinking about the bigger perspective, you say not to rush into an agreement, but other than NAFTA and the European Free Trade Agreement, we haven't signed one since 2001. I'm not sure we've really rushed into anything.

Korea is our eighth-largest trading partner right now. They're signing all kinds of agreements with other countries. Of course, the United States hasn't ratified; it will depend on what happens with their election. But there are all kinds of rumours that if they sign there, then we're going to lose an opportunity.

Putting that into perspective, if you're looking at government, do you recommend that we just put everything on hold and not sign an agreement? Or should we sign an agreement that has benefits in the long term for all the economies in our country, while working with those that might be affected in the short term through incentives such as tax incentives and enhancements that we have in place right now, such as the $1 billion community trust fund that we're using during the downturn of our partners to the south and other global economies? We're still at the lowest unemployment in 33 years and continue to have a very successful economy, considering all the facts that are surrounding us.

Putting that question to the table, if you were sitting in my position, what would you do?

[Pierre Laliberté]

I would not sign. I would do what Mr. MacPherson suggested, which is to go to the stakeholders and do the review that should have been done prior to engaging in the negotiation.

I think Mr. Shipley said we're going to do what's best for Canadians. I think you need to assess those costs. Our assessment is that there's more risk in the short run of rushing into something that's ill-conceived than in taking our time.

The fact of the matter is that trade grows out of economic growth. The reason why we've had five years of rather good economic times is that for the first time in 25 years central banks around the world have decided to let loose a little, thanks to 9/11. We've been calling for that for 20 years, but it didn't happen. Now we've had monetary conditions that were sort of pro-growth, and indeed growth did take place.

To us, this is the most important variable in the equation. Whether we change a tariff from 10% to 5%, given that we have currencies fluctuating by 60%--or 25% in the case of the won--I mean, we're basically tinkering with the details.

That being said, I think what was said earlier about having clear rules and rules that are on a level--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I concur. We have to level the playing field, but at the end of the day a decision has to be made. If not everybody is a winner at that time, maybe in the long term, as Mr. Shipley said, you are going to look at what's invested for our country and hope that this will be the result.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

I am going to wrap this up. I want to thank our witnesses. It was a very interesting meeting. It pointed out just how difficult and complex these matters are and alerted us to concerns that we may not have otherwise considered. I thank you for your candour and also for your answers. I appreciate it very much.

With that, we are adjourned.