International Trade Committee on Oct. 18th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much for your interventions, both of you.

We'll turn it over to questions and answers. I'll just remind the committee that we do look forward to reciprocal working relationships with the European Parliament. They are going to be here November 1. We'll look at an opportunity to reciprocate in due course.

Mr. Chisholm, you have seven minutes.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Let me say to the representative from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives that I appreciated your presentation, but I was disappointed, frankly, that you took a personal run at somebody who simply has the courage to stand up and voice an opinion that is different from yours. I didn't think that was called for, but it's your time and you can do with it what you will.

Your Worship, I'd like to direct a couple of questions towards you. Let me just say that you and I have spent some time in this business together and I would never have had the courage to move to the level of politics that you have. I've always said that municipal politics has to be the toughest level. You're the closest to the electors, to the taxpayers, and you have less control over the revenues that you are able to generate. Let me say that I admire the work that you and other members of the FCM are doing.

I wanted to ask you to speak to some degree on item number four in those seven principles, with respect to the public interest, and I know that some of your members have mentioned being able to protect the public interest. I know that it's an issue of some sensitivity around the whole procurement issue. I wonder if you feel that you're being listened to and what your sense is about how this matter will move forward in these negotiations.

[Don Downe]

Thank you very much, Robert. I appreciate the comments and the kind words. I guess I must have got enlightened to get to this level of politics. Maybe if you had any influence on the province to enshrine municipalities with more empowerment, that would be good; we wouldn't have to be a charter of the province via the Constitution.

With regard to question number four, the public interest is an issue that I think is important to all Canadians. This government has brought in the provincial government at this level, and I understand that they are actually at the table. The provinces are playing a vital role in transit and other issues of significant importance, such as water. Clearly the provinces have a voice at that table, unlike the FCM. We have a discussion point through DFAIT, and we have had conversations with previous ministers and trade negotiators, but when it comes to sitting at the table, we're not there. We're not entitled to be at that table. We have pressed our concerns with regard to that.

The other issue is that there are some concerns out there that we would lose our right to control our own utilities. That's not part of the agreement as we understand it. We've brought that issue forward to the minister and it was clarified that this is not going to be part the negotiations. We are bringing our concerns forward, and at the end of the negotiations we will know what the outcome will be, but we have been able to voice our concerns very clearly to that level.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That sounds good. The provinces are involved to some degree, not directly at the table, but sitting in a back row, I believe, and not always at the table. I'm not sure. Maybe they're not always in the room. Anyway, regardless, I know that they're involved at a level at which they have never been before, which is certainly a good thing.

Your Worship, are you getting the support that you feel your members require from the provinces that are participating in these issues you've raised?

[Don Downe]

What we have done is communicate with our provincial counterparts throughout the country and encourage them to have dialogue with the provinces in any specific area. As well, at the national level, we were bringing those concerns forward. So clearly we are doing all on our end in communicating both at the provincial and at the federal level to make sure that some of these concerns are addressed. It is up to the provinces to really step up to the plate.

I encourage all of us to work cooperatively, together with the province and the feds, to make sure that these items are enshrined in the agreement. That will be beneficial to all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

The first question is for Your Worship. I, too, want to echo the sentiments of the rubber meets the road perspective of local government. I had the pleasure of serving nine years as a member of the City of Kelowna council. I know that it's a great honour.

[An hon. member]

It was a great council.

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

And you have a great member of Parliament. He has told me that. So there you go.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

You represent a beautiful community and part of Canada. I know that Minister Fast also was a city councillor for nine years in British Columbia. I served a couple years on the UBCM executive and attended FCM, so I thank you for your leadership there.

I want to follow up a little more on what you talked about, Your Worship, in regard to the FCM meeting with Minister Fast. Can you expand on how those meetings went, on whether the minister was transparent, and on exactly what municipal consultation took place and with how many communities, as well as on FCM's recent letters back and forth? Do you feel that you are being listened to by Minister Fast and our government?

[Don Downe]

As I mentioned before, through DFAIT we have had meetings that are conference calls, by and large, with previous ministers and the trade negotiators.

As well, we had discussions with Mr. Fast, who, by the way, was a councillor in Abbotsford, B.C. I spent a few years of my life living...[Technical Difficulty--Editor]

He indicated that he would be interested in coming to talk to FCM. He came to Nelson, B.C., which we really appreciated. It was a very positive meeting. Basically, we opened it up for members of our committee to ask any questions they had of the minister. The trade negotiator was there as well. The members who had the discussion had some legitimate concerns about the agreement. He was forthright in his discussion with them.

He in turn has sent a letter to us with regard to the seven principles, which we are very firm on. We are being vigilant to make sure the negotiations follow these seven principles. He annunciated the position at that point of the federal government relative to those seven positions.

It was a very open and very positive meeting.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate that it was frank, two-way discussion, and open and transparent. We not only say that, but I agree that it is important that we have that two-way dialogue, because at the end of the day, I said, it's the communities across Canada that can benefit from this agreement as well.

I would like to ask a question of vice-president Sam from the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers. From your perspective, the members have been supportive, as you indicated from your opening comments. Where do you see this agreement in the perspective of today's economy?

We see the uncertainty not only in North America but in the global markets. To provide this agreement would provide some stability and certainty in the Canadian markets. What kind of message would it send globally if we were able to ratify this?

[Sam Boutziouvis]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We're firmly of the view that if Europe and Canada can agree on this deal early next year or in mid-year, it would send a pretty powerful signal from two developed economies that they're standing against the bulwark, against all of this uncertainty, and that they're leading politically and economically to continue to remove barriers to trade and promote job creation and economic growth.

As I've said in my comments, there have been some protectionist impulses from various countries in the past two or three years, especially since the onset of the global economic and financial crisis. Canada and other countries are doing their best to deal with them. Thus far, with respect to this great contraction that we've had, we haven't had the same sort of protectionist impulses that we had in the Great Depression. The WTO has recorded that as such. However, we still need to maintain a vigil, a strong vigil.

This would be a very important and powerful signal, just like I think the United States gave last week, finally, after two or three years, when it came to the table and announced that it would pass their Colombia, Korea and Panama FTAs--by the way, after we've done our Panama and Colombia FTAs. We've had the advantage, the tariffs have been reduced, and our western agricultural producers have been able to benefit from that, so once we negotiate this deal, it's our view that we'll have a particular advantage, especially if the tariffs run to zero. Even though they're relatively modest, in some areas they are quite high, as has been pointed out in the previous discussion.

We do think there will be a very good positive impact and we should make every effort to finish the negotiation as soon as we can.

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

Just as a supplemental, some of the facts that we've learned from this pre-negotiation discussion are: an increase of $12 billion annual in trade with Canada; an estimated 80,000 new jobs; and increased trade bilaterally by 20%. We've talked about and have heard from previous witnesses about Doha and WTO, so we have to go this bilateral and multilateral route. We know that in Canada basically two-thirds of our economy is as a trading nation.... The U.S. economy is down, so we need to diversify. Like your RRSP portfolio, you don't want to put all your money in one basket, just you don't want to put all your trade in one basket.

What do you say to those organizations, the special interest groups, that are lobbying and protesting on the Hill against this agreement? What message we can send to them? The fact that in the big picture this is actually the best direction for Canada to take, being a trading nation...?

[Sam Boutziouvis]

It's best put when we consider that Canada has less than half a per cent of the world's population and yet has more than 2.5% of the global trade market. Because of that, we have a higher standard of living.

By the way, Germany has 1% of the global population, but it has a 9% share of global trade. Look how Germany is benefiting very much and how, in so many ways, it was able to avoid the initial impact of the crisis--precisely because it was so competitive globally.

All that is to say that we have an extraordinary opportunity. We should try to take advantage of it. As I said in my remarks, this is but one of a series of bilateral arrangements that your committee will probably be very busy with going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, you have seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you, Don. I couldn't help but think that in a previous life for the two of us, you and I led one of the largest demonstrations on the Hill in support of supply management at one time, which leads me to my question to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

On May 6, I understand, Mr. Manley wrote a letter to the Prime Minister that contained the following, and I'll quote: “...we believe the time is right to phase out the national supply management systems...which penalize consumers...”. Is that still your position?

[Sam Boutziouvis]

It is.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Can you explain to us how it penalizes consumers? It certainly doesn't penalize them any worse than the amount of the salaries of chief executives. That's why we have these “Occupy” demonstrations in North America. The benefits that the—

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, there's need to make it a point of order. It's a fact of life, guys. One per cent--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll say if it's a point of order, not you, Mr. Easter.

Go ahead.

[Sam Boutziouvis]

I'm happy to respond, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Go ahead. That's fine.