International Trade Committee on Oct. 18th, 2011

[Sam Boutziouvis]

There are two very big issues in your question, Mr. Easter, which are very legitimate. In our view, it makes no sense whatsoever for Canada to impose tariffs ranging from 150% to 300% on things like chicken, milk, yogourt, and ice cream. It does penalize consumers. The CTV had a clip on Ottawans going across the river to Ogdensburg just to be able to buy milk more cheaply in Ogdensburg versus buying it in Ottawa. Canadians understand that they're paying more for these products than they would in the United States.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just to interrupt for a second, I think if you look at the study by the supply management groups, you will find that, yes, sometimes that's true in the border towns where it's used as a loss leader, but not when you look across the United States as a whole. Let's try to deal with facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll have his answer, Mr. Easter.

[Sam Boutziouvis]

We understand, with all due respect to all the parties, that this is an issue that all the parties support, that is, to defend supply management. It was in the Speech from the Throne.

However, we believe that in order to have an ambitious agreement under the CETA, and in particular in order for globally competitive western farm producers of beef and pork and other products to be able to get greater access to European markets, there are going to have to be some negotiations back and forth between the European Union and Canada with respect to these particular three sectors.

I'll just end on this. Our view is that the producers of these products can be globally competitive. They can export with the best of them. They make some of the best cheeses in the world, and they're great artisans. They should have the ability and capacity to trade, to have open markets and to trade on the quality of their product and their ability to export.

With respect to the CETA and future agreements, Mr. Chairman and committee members, our view is that they will come to your committee—like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements—and agricultural products and free trade on those products, especially in these three protected sectors, will come under even greater scrutiny. If we really want jobs and growth in the Canadian economy, we're going to have to discuss it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think, Sam, that we have to look at the other side of the coin, where we see supply management as a policy of rural development, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.

I have a question for Mr. Downe.

At the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Don, I understand there are some concerns about procurement. I don't know whether they are legitimate concerns or not, but people I've talked to from the various municipalities are concerned about the procurement side as it relates to the CETA agreement. Can you elaborate on that?

[Don Downe]

Well, Wayne, thank you very much for the question. We have some 3,700 mayors in Canada, so you're going to have a slight variance of opinions on some issues.

But what we've been able to do is secure a position on procurement that we've articulated to the federal government and the negotiator: that procurement thresholds should be reflecting what we had under the Buy American policy and that these thresholds will be there so that we in turn will be able to do business without being encumbered by low levels of thresholds.

There might be some concerns out there, but our position has been supported by our membership, which is some 2,000 municipalities strong, and we are articulating that to the federal government. We've indicated to them that it's our position. We are very interested in seeing what the outcome of the negotiation will be, because clearly it's premature for me to say one way or the other whether I like or dislike the agreement until I see the end result. We've been very clear on our position. We'll be happy to share our actual position with all your committee members.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our guests.

Your Worship, it's good to see you on the video screen. Thank you for participating today. I'll put my first question to you.

Obviously with your career in provincial politics in Nova Scotia, you're familiar with the Port of Halifax being the closest port by overday sail to the ports in the European Union, and the potential for increased trade to India via the Suez Canal, as well, for the Atlantic gateway. On the Port of Halifax, we expect trade to increase by at least 20% through this agreement with the European Union. Some 80,000 jobs...really, that kind of generates down to about $1,000 per household for Canadian families, understanding that some families would benefit more than others.

With your position in the Municipality of Lunenburg and companies like Composites Atlantic that export to the EU, there should be some substantial benefits to your municipality in particular, as well as to the rest of Nova Scotia.

[Don Downe]

Thank you very much, Gerald.

I'm here officially as FCM's representative as chair of the finance and intergovernmental arrangements committee, and I can certainly talk on the Canadian perspective. Relative to my personal view, I think you and I have had that conversation at home as to where the benefits would lie, but officially, on behalf of FCM, I have to hold that position as a personal view.

We at FCM have made it very clear that we believe in free and fair trade. We are a nation built on trade and we are a nation that will be sustainable based on trade. We want to make sure that there's fairness in this agreement. What we are doing as FCM is positioning our municipalities in such a way with the federal government, any federal government, to make sure we're protecting the rights of individuals and that we are going to get a deal that will be fair and just for us and all Canadians.

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

That's excellent.

Mr. Cannan asked a question and you answered. I will allow you to keep your FCM hat on. I noticed that you stayed away from the supply management trap. Considering your former life as a poultry producer--and continuing--that was admirable of you, but I would make a comment on supply management, because we've been very clear as a government that we will protect supply management in these negotiations. A number of issues on the table in these negotiations are much more important to the European Union than supply management.

In terms of your interaction with DFAIT, with Verheul, our chief trade negotiator, and with Minister Fast, I would hope that when the minister and our chief trade negotiator were at FCM you had an opportunity to clarify a number of issues that were of major concern to the municipalities. You mentioned procurement. Other issues that would have been explained, I would expect, would have been water and a number of other issues.

Could you review that interaction with the chief trade negotiator and Minister Fast?

[Don Downe]

Thank you, Gerald.

The meeting in Nelson was a very positive one. Our members were very happy to see the minister come and present and discuss this issue. We had some very legitimate concerns, and I believe the minister and the trade negotiator were forthright in their position in going into round number nine. Clearly, the sense around the table was that people were very positive and were reassured that the government was listening to the concerns of FCM. We are appreciative of Minister Fast for taking that initiative.

Clearly, when the deal is done, that's when we'll see. The proof will be in the pudding, as it were, at that point in time. But we were very encouraged by the minister coming and we thanked him for that. Our FCM council thanked him for taking time in his schedule to come out. He did answer our questions and he was forthright and open to all our members, those who were concerned about specific items and those who were in favour of going ahead with trade. I think it was a positive day. We appreciated their candidness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

You know what? You do have a little bit more time, but there's one individual who hasn't had a chance to ask a question.

Madame Péclet, if you have a question, go ahead.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Is there translation for Mr. Downe right now?

There's no translation? Okay. I'll try to be as clear as possible in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

He'll get English translation.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That's perfect.

My question, in fact, pertains to opening procurement markets.

You are in quite a good position to understand the impact that greater access to these non-tariff barrier-free markets will have on companies and materials in Canada, for instance. We know that this will probably have an impact on employability. This will, for instance, lead to job loss.

We can also see, in appendix 1 of the Conservative government's 2009 budget, that an investment in infrastructure results in economic spin-offs that are five times greater. So every additional dollar invested represents $1.50 for the GDP.

In difficult economic times, we know how important it is to invest in municipal public infrastructure.

I would like to hear your comments on the impacts that this will have on municipalities, particularly in terms of job protection and the regulation of Canadian materials.

[Don Downe]

Thank you very much for your question.

With regard to procurement, when they develop a procurement threshold, we've asked that its levels be sufficient so that we will not be burdened with additional costs on items we would get through normal procurement, and without having to go through some sort of international screening to make it happen. We're asking that the threshold be substantial enough to allow us to do business as normal. I don't think anybody's going to come and try to take over a particular project that's worth a few hundred thousand dollars. The overall threshold on capital was around eight and a half million dollars, which is part of what we'd discussed and negotiated under the Buy American policy, and we've been talking about that being a critical component in the negotiation.

With regard to jobs and regulation, we have asked very clearly that we not be forced to lose the ability to govern at the municipal level. It's incumbent upon the province and the federal government to make sure those rights are enshrined within the agreement so that we will not be in a position of losing our authority as an entity of government within Canada.

As far as jobs and impact on what's going on are concerned, until the final agreement is actually dealt with, it would be premature of me to guess whether this would be a positive or a negative. On that, we know that trade is important to Canada, and our position has always been in favour of free and fair trade.

With regard to the regulatory side--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Can we make it really tight?

I'll give you 30 seconds to wrap it up if you want, Don. Thank you.

[Don Downe]

The bottom line for us is that we will continue to be vigilant on positions we've taken. The government has been at the table with us and we continue to work with it. We encourage your committee to work with the provinces and others to make sure this arrangement on trade will be beneficial to all Canadians, just as we are trying to make sure that it would be beneficial to municipalities.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few words on this important issue and also for the questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you for contributing through video conference. It worked out very well. It's always important to hear from the municipalities across our country and from you as a representative.

Thanks to you as well, Sam, for being here from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

With that, we will adjourn this part of the meeting. We have to go in camera for a little piece of business, so we'll do that.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, seeing as we're dealing with motions I have put forward, which are both really related to Buy American, I do not believe there's any need for the committee to go in camera. I would far prefer that these motions be discussed in the public arena, because the public needs to hear what the positions of the various parties are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I hear what you're saying.

Is there agreement to not go in camera? Or would you like to go in camera?

[An hon. member]

We don't need--

[An hon. member]

No, let's go in camera. Let's get it done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. We're going to put it to a quick vote.

Those in favour of going in camera?