International Trade Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[Scott Sinclair]

You are missing something: the NAFTA chapter 11 experience. Take the S.D. Myers case, where Canada banned the cross-border transport of toxic waste, or the metal-clad case in Mexico, where the Mexican state regulated to control the siting of a toxic waste dump, and many other issues.

Almost half of the NAFTA investor state claims dealt with environmental protection. It's not simply an issue of the object of the policy, whether it's market-protecting or environment- protecting. It actually goes beyond that. The arbitral tribunals have looked at issues of indirect expropriation. These are the types of issues that are being adjudicated by these tribunals.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Sinclair might not appreciate this, but Quebec actually won the right to control pesticides. I just want to be clear on that. It was to regulate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Our time is very tight and we're going into the second round. I'll ask for one question and then we'll have to go into the in camera session.

Go ahead, very quickly.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

With all due respect for my colleague, Mr. Holder, I would like to go back to the question on job creation because I'm not sure it's as simple as was suggested. In situations like this, there's often an adjustment. For example, if you consider NAFTA and its impact on the automotive industry in Canada, we have to ask ourselves some questions. Trade on that scale always requires an adjustment to our system. I'd like to hear Mr. Sinclair talk about the impact on employment in Canada.

[Scott Sinclair]

I just want to correct a comment. I said that complete tariff elimination would not provide much of a kick to the Canadian economy. I think that is undoubtedly true.

I'm glad that you've raised the issue of jobs. There was a study done in 2009, before the fall of the euro against the Canadian dollar. It was a study that predicted a $12-billion boost to the Canadian economy. Somehow, certain spokespersons translated that into the creation of 80,000 new jobs in Canada.

I don't know what the methodology was, but I want to say that the computable general equilibrium study assumed full employment on both sides. To get an 80,000 figure is economically illiterate and indefensible. I think the committee should be studying that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Very good.

Mr. Keddy, one quick question.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Illiteracy is an interesting subject. I think where the number comes from—and it's a low number—is that, generally speaking, when you look at economic production around the world, about every $1 billion of increase in exports relates roughly to about 10,000 jobs. That's not Canada-wide, that's worldwide. If you look at that, you would actually have a 120,000 increase in jobs.

However, I do take exception to your comments about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Mr. Sinclair. Their president said:

FCM welcomes the federal government's commitment to a CETA deal that creates new jobs and opportunities for Canadians while protecting the local decision-making that is the lifeblood of strong, healthy Canadian communities.

These are elected officials. You may disagree with them, respectfully, and that's fine. But to say they're wrong when you're not part of that system, you're not an elected official.... I've sat in on briefings with the Canadian municipalities. They've been very supportive of this deal. They've asked very tough questions. They want to know exactly how the regulatory change will affect them. They want to know about reciprocity. But they're supportive, and to say anything else is false. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, that was more of a statement than a question.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

If I had time, I would have got to the quesiton.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We want to thank the witnesses for coming in. We appreciate the diversity of opinion at this table. Thank you very much.

We will now break for an in camera meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]