Evidence of meeting #6 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was deal.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Toupin  Procedural Clerk
Ian Burney  Chief Trade Negotiator, Bilateral and Regional, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
John Gero  Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's good to be back. I will make a brief statement, and then my officials and I will be happy to take questions.

As you'll recall, when I was here last March I conveyed to you my impression that Canada was falling behind the competition in terms of our international trade agenda, market access, investment attraction, and international partnerships. I also indicated that when you recognize that Canada is a small trading economy, that presents very serious issues and problems, because our wealth creation, our social programs, our ability to keep people employed in high-quality opportunities depend on trade and our being competitive in trade.

Over the last year, I think it's fair to say, we've begun to turn that around. We are also making, I think, some serious progress toward strengthening the competitive foundation of the Canadian economy.

Your committee issued a report earlier this year, and I congratulate you on that report. I think it was excellent. It restored my faith in the system. I can say that much of what we have been doing over the last year is very much in line with the recommendations contained in that report.

Domestically as well, we are shaping policies, whether it's tax policies, fiscal policies, regulations, or other government policies, to enhance Canada's competitiveness and our ability to attract foreign investment. We announced a tax reduction plan that by 2011 will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment among the major industrial economies.

On the infrastructure side, we've announced a program of $33 billion that will be fundamentally focused on economic infrastructure and supporting Canada's capacity to grow and sustain growth over the long haul.

In that $33 billion is of course $1 billion that will be focused on the Asia–Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. That is more than just a transportation system. It's a critically important part of our trade policy and our trade strategy going forward. As I've said many times, trade strategy is about much more than tariffs these days. It's about a whole range of issues that affect our ability to compete in global supply chains and networks.

Similarly, on the east coast we're working closely with provincial governments in Atlantic Canada to build on that region's many transportation assets, such as the port of Halifax, to create an efficient and attractive Atlantic hub for the whole northeast coast of North America.

These moves are attracting very significant global attention and global investment. Earlier this year I was in China and Hong Kong, and a great deal of interest in what we are doing was expressed by the Chinese and by people in the transportation and logistics business in Hong Kong. I was in the Middle East a week or two ago and got very much the same reaction. Last year Dubai Ports World acquired the Centerm marine terminal in Vancouver, which was part of its acquisition of P & O Ports' worldwide network of marine shipping facilities.

So clearly the world is paying attention to what we're doing inside our borders. The strategy of making Canada a gateway to all of North America I think is gaining traction and it's going to be a critical part of our trade and competitiveness strategy.

But just as we're encouraging the world to reach out to Canada, we also recognize the need for Canada to reach out to the world and become more active in global commerce. We're implementing a global commerce strategy that will provide a strategic, focused approach to market development and services to business. The budget committed $60 million over two years and $50 million per year ongoing to implement that strategy.

On the trade policy side, the World Trade Organization remains the foundation of our approach. We're an active and committed member of the World Trade Organization, and we will be continuing to push hard for an ambitious outcome in the Doha negotiations. Intensified efforts are anticipated in the coming months, and with new agriculture and market access text from the chair expected in late January or early February, we're going to have a lot of work to do early in the new year.

We continue to work hard at pursuing both our defensive and our offensive interests in those negotiations. That's why I'm so deeply concerned by a recent turn of events in the rules negotiations. In the release of the chair's text, we found a proposal to reinstate a method of applying anti-dumping duties that's called “zeroing”, which had been struck down already by the appellate body of the WTO. This is unacceptable to Canada, and we will continue to raise our concerns on this front.

As we pursue our multilateral goals, we also recognize the need to move forward bilaterally and regionally. For example, we're strengthening our most important relationship with our friends, partners, and allies in the United States. We are very concerned about border issues between us and the United States, and we continue to advocate aggressively to ensure that our goods and people are able to flow efficiently across our border.

We're also working closely with both the U.S. and Mexico to ensure that the North American partnership remains strong and prosperous. There, we're cooperating to avoid duplication in regulations and standards, and to find ways for our sectors to cooperate more effectively across the border. Canada has benefited greatly from being a partner in NAFTA, and we must continue working closely with our neighbours to give our businesses the freedom and the tools they need to compete securely and predictably in today's global, competitive environment.

As you know, the Prime Minister has also taken steps to ensure that our focus here in the Americas doesn't end with Mexico. We see the hemisphere as our neighbourhood. The Prime Minister is leading our engagement with the countries of the Americas with a strong focus on creating prosperity, improving our collective security, and promoting our fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and rule of law.

Building on NAFTA's success and our free trade agreements with Chile and Costa Rica, we're actively looking to strengthen and expand our commercial links in the region. As you know, we're negotiating free trade agreements with the Dominican Republic, Peru, Colombia, the Caribbean community, and the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. We recognize the importance of these markets and the new and exciting opportunities that enhanced commercial ties would offer to our respective citizens, but we also know the importance of trade and investment as the most effective way of combating poverty, crime, and disease in some of these countries.

Looking more specifically at Colombia, the government strongly believes that beyond the commercial potential for Canada, a free trade agreement with Colombia would contribute to stabilizing that country further by helping to create the conditions of prosperity, such as employment opportunities and stronger international trade and investment links.

Moving on to Europe, at the Canada–EU summit in June, leaders agreed to launch a comprehensive study on the benefits of a closer economic partnership. Canada hopes that study will lead to a more ambitious commercial partnership with the European Union. This year saw the conclusion of negotiations of our first free trade agreement since 2001 with members of the European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. This is Canada's first free trade agreement in six years, and our first free trade agreement with European countries. I hope we'll be in a position to sign the final text of this agreement early in the new year, and to submit it for parliamentary approval shortly thereafter.

In Asia, we're pursuing free trade negotiations with South Korea, as well as Singapore. And in the Middle East, which this committee visited earlier this year, Canada is in the process of seeking a formal negotiating mandate with a view to launching free trade negotiations with Jordan in 2008.

Boosting our level of foreign investment inward and outward is another priority. We know that investment drives trade. It's not just a matter of getting people investing in Canada, it's also a matter of ensuring that Canadian companies and investors are investing abroad and building their links to global supply chains.

To move this priority forward, this year we finalized negotiations on foreign investment protection and promotion agreements, or FIPAs, with India and Jordan, and we're currently negotiating with other countries, like China and Kuwait. Negotiations will begin in the new year with Vietnam. We announced last week that we would be exploring with Russia the possibility of upgrading the existing FIPA that we have in place with them and bring it up to a new-generation FIPA standard.

In addition, officials have been actively exploring FIPA negotiation possibilities with a range of countries in Africa, Asia, and the Asia Pacific region. I would expect there will be additional negotiations launched next year as a result of these efforts.

Air services negotiations are another important element of our approach. They help drive the human links that breathe life into any commercial relationship and create opportunities for airlines to carry business people and cargo between our markets. Canadian consumers, businesses, and air industry players benefit from increased choice, flexibility, competitive pricing, and market access that liberalized air services provide.

I'm just wrapping up, Mr. Chairman.

Building on our government's blue sky international air policy, which was launched one year ago, we've successfully negotiated new air agreements or updated existing ones with Japan, the United States, Ireland, Kuwait, Iceland, Jordan, New Zealand, and Singapore. Just last week we announced the launch of negotiations with the European Union. These negotiations are expected to result in an open skies framework between Canada and all 27 member states of the EU, replacing the bilateral agreements we currently have with 19 of those countries.

Innovation is another important part of our efforts to create a competitive Canadian economy. As you know, our government has an aggressive plan to invest in Canada's science and technology architecture, a key element under Advantage Canada. This will position Canada to find new ways to develop innovative and technologically rich commercial products on a global scale.

As part of this strategy, we're joining with jurisdictions like California and the European Union, and countries like China and India, to forge science and technology partnerships.

I cannot overemphasize that Canada represents only 2.4% of global research and development. We therefore cannot do it alone and we must partner internationally to remain globally competitive. High technology and science are key parts of Canada's future economy, and we're aggressively moving forward to accelerate research and commercialize new technologies, in partnership with nations around the world.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, on many fronts the government is taking steps to get Canada back into the game, to create a more competitive, innovative economy at the domestic and global level. I look forward to working with this committee as we move forward.

I thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chair.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal John Maloney

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Bains, for seven minutes.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, for coming and meeting us before committee.

I have a quick question with respect to the estimates. There's an amount of $28.3 million that was allocated to help collect new export charges against softwood lumber from Canada. Is that above and beyond the amount, the $1 billion, that was left on the table? Is that an additional amount?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

The amount of $28.3 million that is included in the estimates, is that above and beyond the $1 billion that was left on the table?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

That's simply the money for administration of the softwood lumber agreement, which is recovered from the export taxes that would apply.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

I do want to say I agree with the original remarks in your opening statement that as a trading nation our economic success is very important to help invest in our social programs and maintain a high quality of life.

As you know, this committee has currently undertaken an initiative to look at the South Korea free trade agreement specifically, and this is a study that's currently taking place here in committee. With respect to quality of life, the number one concern that many people have whenever we enter into a negotiation is the economic impact of that free trade agreement, specifically the impact on jobs.

Have you done an analysis or do you have an economic model that indicates the number of jobs that would be lost and created if a free trade agreement were struck? If you have such an analysis, can you indicate how the data was created? Was it based on 2006 levels, 2005 levels, and how were you able to determine those numbers?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

We actually have a couple of analytical studies, econometric studies, of the impact of a possible Canada-Korea free trade agreement. They are on the department's website. They're based, as I recall, on the impact if a free trade agreement were in place in 2005. The impact indicates there would be approximately a 56% increase in Canadian exports and an increase in Canadian GDP of about $1.6 billion per year, based on 2005.

I know there have been some other studies done out there by folks like the IWA. Candidly, those are extremely flawed studies and bear no resemblance whatsoever to what we think the actual impact of a trade agreement would be with Korea.

I would emphasize that at the moment we don't have a free trade agreement with Korea. We're not even close to a free trade agreement with Korea.

My fear would be that we continue to have difficulty negotiating an agreement but the Americans proceed to ratify the U.S.-Korea agreement. If that happens, if the Americans go ahead with an agreement with Korea and we do not, that will cost us over $1 billion a year in economic losses and export losses, which will translate into job losses.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Do you have any numbers on the jobs that will be lost and the jobs that would be created with the potential free trade agreement, if it were to be signed? Do you have any numbers indicating an increase in job losses?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

We have looked at that on a sector-specific basis. We looked at it in the auto sector, for example. If there were a negative scenario where there was actually a loss, something like five to 23 jobs was the range we came up with, not our department but outside economic experts. Candidly, when you're looking at the kind of adjustment that industry has been going through, that, to me, is not a killer proposition.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Sir, did you also look at the used car market and the impact that would have, under a free trade agreement, specifically on jobs as well?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'll ask Mr. Burney if we've done that.

December 4th, 2007 / 4:25 p.m.

Ian Burney Chief Trade Negotiator, Bilateral and Regional, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

There was no specific modelling done of used cars per se. This is a proposal that is on the table from Korea, but it is one that Canada has not yet accepted.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Okay, so there has been no economic analysis done of the used car market and the impact it would have on jobs.

4:25 p.m.

Chief Trade Negotiator, Bilateral and Regional, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Ian Burney

At the moment, there is a prohibition on used cars from all countries other than the United States and Mexico. There are some exceptions to that. In fact, as a matter of course, we do import used cars from Korea that meet the exceptions, but there has not been any specific analysis done on a provision that is only a proposal at this time.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

My next question is on market access. I guess that's a legitimate concern we're looking into in committee and making sure that it is a two-way trade initiative, that it's levelling the playing field. We obviously have concerns around manufacturing, specifically in the auto sector, and that's something we'll examine.

It has been brought to our attention that RIM is encountering difficulties in that market as well. RIM products—the BlackBerry, for example—are encountering difficulties because of some of the regimes they have in place. We've also had issues with Canadian beef being exported into that market. Are you aware of any other products or sectors that are encountering similar difficulties in the South Korean market?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'm sure there are, and our negotiators have probably dealt with literally dozens of non-tariff measures that affect one sector or another. When it comes to beef, that's not formally part of the negotiation, because it's a phytosanitary issue related to BSE. We would certainly not be proceeding with a free trade agreement in the absence of opening up the Korean market for Canadian beef.

When it comes to the auto sector, I think we all know there have been a variety of non-tariff measures that have been cited as barriers to Canadian penetration of that market. We've set up an auto committee so that we can get the best advice possible in terms of precisely what those barriers are and what needs to be done to remove them and create open access.

When it comes to RIM and the BlackBerry, I know they have had all kinds of issues in all kinds of markets. They go through extensive negotiations to get in, as they had to do with China and with India, and as we will assist them with, in getting into Korea.

Frankly, if you don't have a trade negotiation where you have all the pieces on the table, where you can do some puts and takes, you may never get there in terms of breaking some of these barriers down. So this is actually the very best way to drive a process of opening the market up.

We may not get to a free trade agreement with Korea. I cannot tell you that we will.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal John Maloney

Mr. Cardin, for up to seven minutes.

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Minister, lady and gentlemen.

Negotiations in the WTO are presently at a standstill. However, it appears the department believes it is important to develop trade agreements and especially to move towards bilateral agreements with a large number of countries. Unless I am mistaken, some 20 agreements are being contemplated and negotiated.

Earlier you mentioned Korea and said that lots of data available on the department's Website show that we would be winners. But this is not the feeling among the major players, people in different sectors like the automobile and automotive parts industries and others. This is not the general feeling. Furthermore, people believe there is a lack of information to be able to properly choose the model to be used by analysts and people working on these various bilateral agreements.

It is legitimate to ensure that our companies can do business abroad and to expand, which will be good for the bottom line. We know that corporations go abroad to make money but we do not necessarily get an overall positive impact taking into account the damage caused here, in Canada and in Quebec. We do not really see concrete benefits from the various business relationships that could take shape with a number of countries. When it comes time to assess a trade agreement with a country, we should look at the overall balance of gains and losses. So let us start by evaluating those.

Everybody has concerns and doubts about these agreements. What can you say to reassure the various players?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

In an agreement such as, potentially, the Korean one, we actually do an awful lot of analytical work. We do it generally using econometric models, and we do impact assessments. The reality is that how industries will take advantage of opportunities, how they will be affected by new competitive conditions, is not something you can be completely sure of.

If I were looking at Quebec, though, I would certainly look at some of the Quebec companies that are major players in the global market—the Bombardiers and the SNC-Lavalins. There are literally dozens of global companies rooted in Quebec that, I can assure you, would have very significant opportunities in Korea. Can I tell you that no companies in Quebec will be competitively affected in a possibly negative way? I cannot tell you that.

We go through extensive consultations before we undertake these negotiations. We go through various iterations of consultations as we progress along the path, and as we get closer to the end, we consult further with the industries that really ought to know what the impact is, what the opportunities are. That's essentially the way we do it.

At the end of the day, we try to mitigate or erase any of the negatives and maximize the positives. We would only do an agreement if the positives substantially outweighed the negatives, and I candidly think the negatives tend to reflect people's fears more than the reality of what will actually happen.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

For a good while now, we have been hearing about the impacts on the manufacturing industry as well as on forestry. Those repercussions are enormous.

You say you do analytical work on the potential impact, but it could have been easily anticipated. The government could have taken measures a long time ago to safeguard this sector, but it was never done.

If we are able to foresee repercussions on some industries, we could also put into place measures to assist our industries without contravening international regulations.

Does your analytical work forecast that some sectors could be affected more than others and does it contemplate action plans to remedy these consequences without being excessively protectionist? Could we set up some programs to support our businesses? There will certainly be some negative impacts. What do you intend to do? The government in effect made a commitment to assist the manufacturing sector.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I think if you look at the manufacturing sector--and you mentioned the forest products industry as a prime example--the forest products sector would not be one of the sectors that would be affected in a negative way by a Korea free trade agreement. In fact, quite the reverse.... It opens up market opportunities for lumber, pulp, paper, OSB, plywood. You name it, substantial opportunities would open up in that sector.

When you look at the manufacturing sector and the impact on jobs in the manufacturing sector, which has been extremely difficult over the last few years, it has nothing to do with Korea; it has nothing to do with the United States. It's been a situation that I think reflects the hypercompetitiveness, particularly of China, but other economies. Exchange rate issues have been very difficult for the manufacturing sector. So I think you have to look broadly at all the fundamental drivers of the competitiveness of manufacturing to really get at that issue.

Are there adjustment programs? They're not in my portfolio. But clearly Minister Solberg and the government are developing and implementing programs designed to assist workers. If there were specific identifiable issues flowing out of a trade agreement, we would certainly look at whether it might be appropriate to have some specific form of assistance. But it's not something you would offer before you could demonstrate there was a unique case for that particular sector.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal John Maloney

Merci, Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Pallister.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Minister, welcome. Welcome to your people also.

I think we're all excited to hear the ambitious agenda you've described to us. It's exciting in particular after more than a decade of rather lacklustre and lethargic approaches to developing trade networks around the world. That being said, I think many of us on this committee understand the importance of advancing human rights as well and recognize that developing stronger trading relationships with other nations where human rights are in jeopardy at times is important and critical, and that these two things are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are intertwined realities.

My question to you pertains specifically to the Colombia negotiations, where we know human rights violations have occurred and where we do everything in our power as a nation to address those realities. What kinds of actions are you taking to specifically address the issue of human rights in terms of the negotiations themselves? Secondly, if you'd like, please comment on your hopes or your aspirations as far as addressing reductions through trade, achieving real reductions in the human rights violations that have occurred in Colombia, in the hope they will not occur with that frequency in the future.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

David Emerson Conservative Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you for that question.

Members of this committee will know that Colombia has been through some very tough times over the last ten to fifteen years. It was an economy driven by the drug trade and by paramilitary organizations. There have been death squads and executions in the thousands over the years.

With the election of President Uribe, we believe there is a very strong commitment on the part of the Colombian government to improve the situation in Colombia. We believe fundamentally that we have to look for all opportunities to provide Colombians with legitimate, legal opportunities to create wealth, to create jobs, to get themselves out of poverty. There are few things we can do for a country like Colombia that are more powerful than a free trade agreement or an agreement that will allow Canadian investors to go into Colombia and make socially responsible but wealth-creating investments. In our opinion, that's the number one way to deal with poverty.

On the human rights front, we do not rely strictly on the trade agreement to deal with human rights, although we will have a human rights chapter in the free trade agreement if we get there—there will be one on the environment as well—that will ensure that Colombia meets internationally recognized standards for labour and for human rights, and commits itself to the ongoing enhancement of human rights.

We will also be—and we have been over the last year or two—putting over $30 million into various initiatives on the ground to support organizations that are trying to strengthen democracy in Colombia and strengthen the legal system, programs focused on improving the rights of children, and a wide variety of other initiatives that we think have to complement the free trade agreement.

When a government is committed to taking on a program of fundamental democratic reform, of enhanced freedoms, of human rights, of trying to impose rule of law, we believe the worst thing you can do is walk away from them and leave them in an economically desperate situation. That would be absolutely the worst thing to do.