International Trade Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

The current economic crisis allows us to take a position. The American president has been talking about this since he took office. He feels that we have to revisit the market economy system and control it more. We in the Bloc Québécois think that this is a good idea. At the moment, the system as we know it has reached its limits.

Our committee is studying bilateral free-trade agreements, although we could be working multilaterally, through the WTO, for example.

What do you think about this new way of doing things and of signing agreements?

[Shirley-Ann George]

Thank you for that.

Just to clarify a point first, Monsieur Cardin, what you said I think might be misinterpreted. Barrick is not releasing cyanide into the valley. They are treating their waste appropriately, and we wouldn't want somebody to misconstrue what was said.

Your point on multilateralism is an absolutely valid point. Canada will do better in a multilateral trading system. We do not have the power, the economic might, to negotiate the same types of agreements that the U.S. does, as we heard this morning, and the EU and other very large economies. The challenge is that a multilateral agreement requires....

We need now 147 countries to agree before we can get the next WTO agreement. We almost had a major step forward last July; unfortunately, India is said to have pulled back at the last minute and so we couldn't make progress. Now we're waiting for the U.S. and India to decide if they're willing to start the negotiations again. Canada is still very active over at the WTO, putting forward a number of interesting proposals to try to unlock the logjam. But without a strong multilateral agreement, we're not able to make progress.

Bilateral agreements can also be a mechanism to demonstrate how you can go further than a multilateral agreement, so it is an opportunity to extend trade agreements beyond what you'd get.

The bottom line is that multilateralism for Canada will always be the best mechanism, but bilateralism will always be a needed second stage, just as we have found with the Canada-U.S. agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Yussuff, do you want to wrap this up?.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Yes. I wanted to acknowledge two points.

I think the importance of corporate social responsibility was raised. I'm not suggesting by any means that Canadian companies in operation abroad don't try to adhere to good measures and good behaviour, but the measures are still voluntary. In the context of the trade agreement, protecting investment is not voluntary. It's a core element of the agreement and it has teeth and retaliatory measures should those provisions not be adhered to.

I would agree with Shirley-Ann George about the importance of multilateral negotiations. They provide us with common rules around the globe as to how we're going to treat each other, and they have far better value because of the weight of other countries that are brought into the process. That always should be appreciated.

The last point I would make, and this is only because I spent a lot of time in the Americas as part of my responsibility, is that there is a degree of respect for our country, both in the Americas and in the Caribbean, that is yet to be appreciated, whether by this government or by previous governments. I think we do this on a continuous basis, treat the Americas as a relationship that we can take for granted. I do believe that as a country we have far more interests in the Americas because they're our neighbouring region, and the degree of respect that we have in the Americas ought to be treated with a lot of respect.

Most of the challenges that the smaller economies face in the Americas have to do, of course, with the devastation of poverty, which was the result of the structural adjustment programs that were imposed on these countries. This has essentially crippled them financially, and now, as they're trying to get themselves out, there's a recognition by the World Bank and other financial institutions that they have to take a different approach, and we have to bear that in mind.

There's no question that in terms of what we do in trading relationships, we need to ensure that we're not damaging our relationship with these countries, that we're enhancing our relationship with these countries. Canada needs to spend more attention and resources in the Americas than in any region, because there's a degree of respect we have that we can benefit from. This respect comes from our long interest in providing sanctuary to countries when people were under tremendous military occupation as well as the fact that we were not an interventionist force in the region.

I would hope in this committee's deliberations there will be some recognition about the things we can do to enhance our relationship with the Americas, not simply to treat it as though it's all going to revolve around trade. Trade is only one part of our relationship. Our human capacity to connect with each other is much greater, and Canada needs to be investing more in that relationship than in any other relationship.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff; I'm sorry, you were going over time there.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, guests, for your presentations.

Ms. George, you've stated the benefits to the companies your organization represents that employ Canadian workers. While it won't be a monster leap ahead financially, over the long term it will be beneficial. I appreciate your saying that.

Mr. Pomerleau, the benefits to the pork industry, although not a huge leap ahead, will open up some very good opportunities over the years.

I have to correct Mr. Cardin. I was here when Mr. Pellerin was here, and not once did I hear him say that the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on. As a matter of fact, as Mr. Holder pointed out, he said he would have seen some things go further, but overall it was something he could support and we should go ahead with it.

Mr. Yussuff, I think you contradicted yourself, and I have to bring this to your attention. You made the statement that the Peruvian people are quite knowledgeable and sophisticated in so many respects. I can't remember what the text of your statement was. But I have to remind you that these knowledgeable and sophisticated Peruvians democratically elected a government that in fact ran on free trade as part of their platform. So to say that this free trade deal they were democratically elected to negotiate is so flawed and unworkable contradicts your description of the Peruvian people. I assume you would say the government that was elected was knowledgeable and sophisticated as well.

You also made the statement that you shared with your brothers and sisters that it will not benefit workers in either countries. I don't know how you can make a statement like that when Ms. George and Mr. Pomerleau both talked about how it would benefit business, from the point of view of the Chamber of Commerce and pork producers in the country. I know that the labour movement and the socialists don't have much love for capitalists, but I doubt if you'll find any stripe-suited capitalists working at the pork producer locations in Canada. You'll find hardworking Canadians who believe in what they're doing, and they're doing a great job in this country. So I kind of think that statement is wrong about not benefiting workers.

I probably won't get time for a question here, but I take great offence to your use of the phrase “neo-liberal agreements”. I've seen this very free use of the word “neo” in many presentations by folks connected with your organization. I find it very offensive, because I believe it's purposely used to try to conjure up some nefarious right-wing plot, although in this case it's used with liberal. I've never known a neo-liberal in my life who was nefarious. You lost me as soon as I read that and I find it very offensive. I know it's not an accident that was put in. I want to tell you and your colleagues that continued use of that phrase, that application, will lose me every time. I suggest you be more careful with it.

The other thing is that the booklet you held up, in my recollection, has never shown up in my office. I suggest that if you have material, you might want to circulate it, rather than keeping it in house. Whether you navel-gaze at it or not I'm not sure, but....

I know I've used up my time. I wanted to get that off my chest. I hope you heard my points.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry; these are five-minute rounds, and it has been five minutes, so we don't have an opportunity for a response.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, the word “neo”, according to my Greek heritage, means “young”. I think as it relates to us Liberals, they are young Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're going to have to wrap this up.

We'll have a short question and a short answer from Mr. Silva, and that will have to conclude it for today.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank also the witnesses for bringing forward their comments. I appreciate some of the remarks about some industries. Of course, we're all interested in the pork sector, which is very important as well. At the same time, I actually really enjoyed the closing remarks of Mr. Yussuff, which I think were very important.

He talked about the engagement of Canada within the Americas. I strongly believe in that as well. On a level of respect, I think it's very important. You're right that there have been some structural adjustment issues there in those countries, but they are coming out of it. I think everything that we can do to help them we should do. On the issue of concern about labour and also environment, the agreement does in fact attempt to address these issues.

I'm not an expert by any means on trade negotiation deals, and I know we have experts within different departments, but at the same time, I think what is missing, and maybe what we need to do, is an impact study.

On the issue of labour and the Canadian free trade agreement with Peru, it does talk about respect for the International Labour Organization's declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work of 1998. It does put in an additional $1 million for technical cooperation programs, and the environmental stuff talks about not derogating from environmental laws to encourage trade investment, and to ensure that proceedings are available to sanction or remedy a violation of environmental laws.

It also talks about the voluntary best practice of corporate social responsibility. I've never been crazy about voluntary practice of corporate social responsibility, to be honest with you, which is why I'm hoping the private member's bill that my colleague put forward goes through. I think that's something we're a little bit weak on. Overall, it does attempt to address some of these concerns that we have.

I think the big problem with these negotiations is that we bring in these experts, and we hope that they're doing the best trade deal for both countries, which is based on respect and which will also be best with regard to both the labour and the environmental issues of concern. However, I think what is missing at times--I'm not sure whether it needs negotiation--is to also bring other parties to the table, like labour and the environment, so that we're able to get a good, solid agreement.

That's probably the reason an impact study would be quite feasible or would be something that should be done for trade agreements as we go on in the future. Or we could even assess them after a year or two, and that's something we should probably be looking at as a committee. We should do studies about how these agreements impact both labour and the environment, and we should bring those who are interested in these issues to the table. As I said, we're not experts on trade agreements; we're bringing experts to the table.

I think these experts don't always go outside the box and bring other people into the discussion as well, which I think is quite important.

That's my comment, but if Mr. Yussuff has anything else to say, I'd like to hear from him.

[Hassan Yussuff]

I'll just offer one point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Before you start, I would just like to say that we have a minute and half left.

Mr. Yussuff.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Very briefly, I'll simply say that all of the agreements we've negotiated to date have another core in terms of the side agreement to labour, which has proposed to do exactly what you're saying. It talks about how we can improve the conditions and the protection of workers within the context of the ILO conventions.

My only point is that, despite those good intentions, the reality is very much lacking in substance to achieve those objectives.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Can I also have that booklet?

[Hassan Yussuff]

We will send a copy to everybody on the committee. We'll circulate it to everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

That will conclude the questioning. Thank you very much.

We have two points of business going on here.

I'm going to thank the witnesses again for appearing today and for a great round of questions and answers as well as statements.

With that, I'm going to conclude this portion. We're going to move in camera, so I'll give the members a few minutes to bid adieu to our witnesses.

Thank you again for appearing.

[Proceedings continue in camera]