Evidence of meeting #6 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Roy MacLaren  Canadian Chairman, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business
Jean-Michel Laurin  Vice-President, Global Business Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters
Jason Langrish  Executive Director, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business
Don Downe  Chair, Standing Committee on Finance and Intergovernmental Relations, Mayor of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Sam Boutziouvis  Vice President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Paul Cardegna

October 18th, 2011 / 11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I call the meeting to order. I see that the time is 11 o'clock. We have our witnesses with us today, and we have enough of our members to carry on with the meeting. We will start.

We'd like to, first of all, thank the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and Jean-Michel Laurin, vice-president of global business policy, for coming in today.

As well, from the Canada Europe Roundtable for Business, we have the Honourable Roy MacLaren, the Canadian chairman, as well as Jason Langrish, the executive director. Mr. MacLaren will start, I believe.

We would entertain your intervention in this important study we're doing on CETA, the EU-Canada free trade agreement. We'll yield the floor to you for a 10-minute period. Then we'll have the intervention by Mr. Laurin and move on to questions and answers.

11 a.m.

Roy MacLaren Canadian Chairman, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know that the word “entertainment” is quite the word I would have used. We had a meeting in London the other day, a Canada-Europe energy meeting, during which two young people took off all their clothes and jumped on the table and protested about the oil sands. Actually, she was wearing a Canadian flag on her knickers, so it was--

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Please don't repeat that here.

11 a.m.

An hon. member

That's way too much information--

11 a.m.

Canadian Chairman, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business

Roy MacLaren

That's a confrontation I can't face....

Anyway, thank you very much for inviting us today. We're delighted to be back with the committee. I haven't had the opportunity of meeting with you before. My colleague Jason Langrish has, on several occasions, and I'm particularly pleased that he's here with me because he knows all about it. I'm merely decorative.

I do want to say, however, that the negotiations have gone forward very well. We've made great progress over the past year and a half. The support of the government has been essential in that respect, and we welcome that continuing commitment.

We began our interest in Canada-Europe with the recognition that the traditional route Canada has followed in seeking rules-based trade liberalization, that is to say, the GATT and, more recently, the World Trade Organization, no longer offers the promise that it once did. We have in fact been disappointed, as I'm sure you have been, by the failure of the Doha Round, which is now dead. The multilateral route that we had already to a degree abandoned when we in Canada sought a bilateral agreement with the United States--NAFTA--is no longer a promising route to trade liberalization.

For our part, and indeed, for my part, if I may be self-centred for a moment, we sought an agreement with the European Union as the most promising route to further diversification in Canada's trade relations. That, for reasons we could go into, Brussels did not welcome. It took us a good long time to induce Brussels to contemplate an agreement with, one, a developed country, as the European Union had no agreements with a developed country, and two, they had no agreement with a federation, which of course raises immediately the question of subnational government regulation.

Finally Brussels did agree, a couple of years ago, and the Canadian government, for its part, energetically assumed the negotiation. It did so and we did so in the Canada Europe Roundtable because of our conviction that Canada needs to diversify its trade relations. Canada, of course, as all of you know better than I do, is a country that depends so heavily on its exports that it would never be advisable to be quite so dependent on a single market as we became on the market of the United States.

Europe, as I said, responded eventually, and we then became engaged in a negotiation that is far more comprehensive and far-reaching than anything Canada has embarked upon before. This is partly because, as I said earlier, the internal barriers to trade that exist in all countries are more pronounced today than they have been in the past, and it's possible that the free trade agreement with Europe, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—I date myself by still calling it a “free trade agreement”—will provide a way in which we can escape from our self-imposed trade barriers internally.

Trade, after all, has moved from the borders. It's no longer a question of tariffs at the borders. Tariffs are not really any part of this agreement. They've been dealt with at GATT, and the WTO has essentially removed tariffs, or reduced them, with a few exceptions, to a point where they no longer have any meaning. But internal barriers to trade, that is to say, for example, interprovincial trade barriers, or provincial government regulation, have become over the years the much more prominent obstacle.

For my part, I welcome--as do we and the trans-Atlantic organization we represent--the removal of those barriers, which will necessarily flow from the agreement now contemplated.

I think that's all I want to say, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for inviting me today. I brought the brains of the outfit with me, so he can answer all your questions after Jean-Michel goes forward.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you very much.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Mr. Laurin, you have 10 minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Jean-Michel Laurin Vice-President, Global Business Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today on behalf of Canadian manufacturers and exporters. We're glad to take part in your consultations on the trade negotiations with the European Union.

Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to say a few words about the association I'm representing. CME is Canada's leading trade and industry association and the voice of manufacturing and global business in Canada. The association, through various initiatives such as the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition, represents more than 10,000 leading companies nationwide engaged in manufacturing, in global business, and in service-related industries.

Manufacturing remains the single largest business sector in Canada. In fact, manufacturing sales totalled $534 billion last year. Companies that make things in Canada currently account for 13% of Canada's gross domestic product. Manufacturers employ more than 1.7 million Canadians in highly productive and high-paying jobs. Their contribution is critical to the wealth generation that sustains the standard of living each and every one of us enjoys here in Canada.

Manufacturing is also a very export-intensive business. More than half of what we make in Canada is exported directly to other markets. As a result, issues around manufacturing competitiveness in Canada are closely intertwined with the ability of Canadian businesses to compete and to succeed in international markets. It's increasingly critical for our members to succeed in global markets.

As manufacturers increasingly invest in innovation and become more agile, more specialized, and better able to serve niche markets, the more critical it becomes for them to find customers, to find suppliers, and to find business partners globally. We also know that a growing share of our members is looking to take advantage of new opportunities beyond North America, in Europe and in other parts of the world: the European Union currently accounts for over 8% of our exports and close to 12% of our imports. We expect these proportions to grow as the result of a trade agreement.

That being said, CME has been supportive of the launch of trade negotiations with the EU, along with CERT and several others, and we've been quite supportive of the conclusion of this agreement. The conclusion of the CETA has the potential to help Canadian manufacturers and exporters diversify their sales into new export markets, to increase their presence in Europe at a time when they are looking for new business opportunities, and to position Canada as a more attractive destination for manufacturing investment by giving Canadian companies privileged, duty-free access to the two largest markets in the world, that is, the European Union and the United States.

For this potential to be fulfilled, it's critical that the agreement take into account both the offensive and defensive interests of Canada's most important trade and industrial sectors. I'd like to go into some of these concerns very briefly.

Obviously, our overarching concern in the negotiations is to ensure the agreement provides a net benefit to Canadian manufacturing. Manufacturers have the most to win and potentially also the most to lose in our negotiations with Europe.

Any agreement must reflect the importance of this critical business sector, reflecting the fact that manufacturing is a key driver of the Canadian economy and especially of Canada's international trade and innovation performance. In fact, manufacturing accounts for two-thirds of Canada's goods and services exports—we're very export-driven in the sector—but also for 88% of business spending on research and development and 90% of all new products commercialized in Canada. We're talking about a very innovative business sector.

As a result, we expect the outcome of our negotiations with Europe to deliver a demonstrable net economic benefit for manufacturers in Canada. Specifically, the agreement should result in a net increase in manufactured exports from Canada as well as higher levels of production and investment within Canada.

For this agreement to have a net benefit to Canadian industry, the conditions that need to be met through the negotiations include ensuring that the agreement results in real improvements in access to the EU market. Meaningful commitments to address tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, investment, and labour mobility, including the use of regulatory requirements to protect the European market, are vital to us for a balanced agreement. Commitments to improve market access must therefore be genuine, verifiable, and also substantial.

We expect the CETA to also include an ambitious schedule of tariff elimination, but it must also deal with the technical barriers to trade that for a lot of companies constitute a real obstacle to doing business in the European market, so we look for the agreement to have a balanced approach to dealing with regulatory barriers to trade. While some sectors—and I'm sure you'll hear from some of them—look for greater harmonization or mutual recognition with the European Union, other sectors look for more of a status quo approach because we've aligned our standards and regulatory practices with the United States, as some sectors are highly integrated on a North American basis.

We also expect the agreement to be ambitious with respect to tariff elimination, and we expect that tariffs in more sensitive areas will be phased out over timelines that provide Canada-based manufacturers the time they need to build capacity to take advantage of more open access to the European market, but also to adapt to changes in the domestic market that would result from an agreement. In that regard, we would look for the agreement to set tariff phase-outs that would provide for an adequate time for industrial adjustment and be contingent on real improvements in market access in Europe.

Procurement is another very important area in the negotiations. Our members look for reciprocal benefits in expanding access to procurement markets. I'm sure you've heard that Europeans have a very offensive stance on access to our provincial procurement markets, but we have several members in several industry sectors that also have offensive interests in European Union procurement markets.

Another important condition that must be met for the agreement to be of net benefit to Canadian industry is that the rules of origin requirements within the CETA reflect North American--not just Canadian--value added. In other words, when you make the rules of origin requirements under the agreement, it's important to recognize that Canada's manufacturing industry is very closely integrated with that of the United States, and that levels of North American content might be quite high, but in some cases the levels of Canadian content would be a little bit lower. In the European Union they don't necessarily have that problem, given that it's a single European market. The importance of this issue is that unless we get the rules of origin right, the percentage of Canadian-made goods that qualify under the agreement would be limited and would diminish over time.

Third, we also look for the agreement to have a robust dispute resolution mechanism so that we can ensure the agreement is effectively enforced once it's in place. It's critical that the agreement not diminish the efficacy of Canada's trade remedy system and our ability to enforce market-based international trade rules. CME members frequently face unfair competition from imports that benefit from government subsidies, product dumping, and other forms of support that contravene international trade rules. Canada's trade remedies system and WTO rules provide us with a transparent, rules-based means to address trade practices that unfairly and illegally threaten the competitiveness of Canada's manufacturing base.

Fourth, we expect the conclusion of the CETA to facilitate business travel between Canada and the EU by providing an expedited process for delivering visas for cases when they're required for business travel--and this should cover not only general business travel, but also after-sales service and other related business activities--as well as for temporary foreign workers travelling between Canada and the European Union. Manufacturers and exporters succeed today by adding value in global supply chains. A growing share of that value comes from services associated with the products that our members make. We're talking about things like conducting joint research and development with clients and suppliers, designing and doing engineering work with international partners, and providing after-sales service and the like, so it's important to also look at facilitating the movement of business people and workers.

Another important element of the negotiation has to do with ensuring that we modernize the Copyright Act. That's a very important issue not just for European companies, but for Canada's industry. Another element is implementing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. We're also looking for Canada to resist European demands to protect generic and semi-generic geographical indications commonly used by food manufacturers.

Finally, CME has recognized and applauded the government's leadership in helping Canadian manufacturers and exporters grow their business in global markets. We support the conclusion of an ambitious agreement with the European Union that effectively expands business opportunities and leads to greater production, greater export sales, and greater investment levels for Canadian industry. We also expect the government to complement this agreement and other trade agreements simultaneously by taking the steps required to improve our manufacturing competitiveness in Canada.

I'll stop there. I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you very much.

We'll now open the floor up to questions for any one of the three witnesses. We'll start with Mr. Chisholm.

You have seven minutes.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My thanks to our guests for coming in today to talk about such an important issue. We're going to share our questions amongst the four of us because we're all interested from our respective jurisdictions.

Having access to the European market is pretty exciting for all of us, right? It's a big deal, those 500 million people. I had a group of representatives from the agricultural sector in my office yesterday talking about the implications of those markets. I wonder if you could tell us what sectors within your membership you expect will benefit most. Are there concerns about any of your members or sectors being negatively affected?

11:20 a.m.

Vice-President, Global Business Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Jean-Michel Laurin

We represent all the companies in every sector of manufacturing and export-related or trade-related activities, and I think everybody has a lot at stake in these negotiations. You're right to say that some have more of an offensive interest, while some have more of a defensive interest.

Some sectors don't do a lot of business in the European Union right now, so they're looking for better market access, because they'll make things that they will export to Europe. Some of our members have been doing business in Europe and have had manufacturing facilities there, sometimes for hundreds of years, and they're looking for better investment protection, labour mobility, and things like that, because they already are in Europe and are considered to be almost a European company.

Some of our members are operating plants in Canada and saying that if they had this agreement they might be able to attract more investment into Canada, because they'd have better access to both the EU and the U.S. market. If you're looking at setting up a manufacturing facility to service the entire world market, Canada is a more attractive place, but there are other factors that come into play when you're trying to attract manufacturing investment.

I think all of the sectors have a lot at stake. Are you asking which ones have more offensive concerns or which ones tend to benefit most? It's really hard to answer that question today, because a lot depends on how the agreement is structured in the end. For example, I've mentioned the rules of origin requirements. This is critical, because how you set the rules of origin determines whether you can use the agreement to sell a product into the European market and vice versa.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

And it's going to be a sticking point.

11:25 a.m.

Vice-President, Global Business Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Jean-Michel Laurin

Exactly.

It's really hard for me to say who's going to win. Many industries have a lot at stake in these negotiations, and I think we'll be hearing from some of them. The automotive sector, the steel industry and all of their customers, a lot of companies making fabricated metal products across the country...they are going to be impacted by these provisions. You mentioned the agrifood sector. They have a lot riding on this.

There is a lot of potential in this agreement, but also a lot of risk. It's hard to say right now which sector has the most to gain. It depends on how the final agreement is structured. The EU is a huge market. We already do a lot of business there, but we could do a lot more. If you talk to Canadian companies doing a lot of business over there, they'll mention that there are a lot of barriers, such as tariffs and more technical barriers to trade. If we can remove some of these barriers, I think it would help Canadian businesses tremendously to grow their presence in that market.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I'm going to ask another quick question. Maybe Mr. MacLaren or Mr. Langrish could deal with it at the same time, because we're on a pretty tight timeline here.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

You have two minutes and 30 seconds.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I also want to ask about the dispute resolution mechanism for the investor-state provisions under NAFTA's chapter 11. There have been issues raised that this has not been to Canada's advantage and that the EU hasn't had it and doesn't feel any need for it. Also, the Australians have taken it out of their trade template. Why is it so important when you have rules-based traders--the EU and Canada--engaged in a partnership that we would need to have this written into the agreement?

11:25 a.m.

Jason Langrish Executive Director, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business

I'll take this one.

It's not entirely accurate to say that the EU doesn't use investor-state provisions. What the EU does is that they've negotiated bilateral investment treaties, or BITs, as they're referred to.

In many cases, they are negotiations that occur between, say, Germany and an African nation, in which case there would be the sense that there are other ways. If your rights are compromised as an investor, perhaps you could use something like your aid that you're giving to the country as a way of bringing them back around to seeing things in the way that the Germans would want them to see it.

The reason that this has been controversial has not been because it's an investor-state versus state to state. It has been controversial because it's a tug of war between the member states vis-à-vis the European Union, which is one authority to negotiate investor treaties under the Lisbon Treaty. That's why. There has been a bit of a push-back, but if they had serious concerns about it, they wouldn't be discussing investor-state, as they will be in this coming round.

The reason why it's important for Canada is that Canada, even though it's a country that's incredibly reliant on trade and incredibly reliant on sales to foreign affiliates and things of that nature, is not a country with huge resources, especially when you compare it to a country like the United States, China, or India, or Germany, for that matter. Therefore, too, the expectation that every time you may have a problem you have to basically petition your government to act on your behalf is not only unwieldy, it's unrealistic.

Frankly, I think the investor-state provision has benefited us under NAFTA. If you look at the number of actual cases that have been brought forward under it, it's minuscule, considering the volume of trade and the flows of investment that occur. The stock of investment is half a trillion dollars. The number of cases where they've exercised the investor dispute resolution mechanism within NAFTA is fairly minimal. Also, in a global rules-based trading system, even if we're talking about a bilateral negotiation, again, for a country of 35 million people, it's in our benefit to have binding, clear, concise, and actionable rules that govern our relations with other trading partners. We simply are not at the same level and scale as the United States.

Just to give you an anecdote, if you go to the WTO and sit in on any negotiation, you'll see that the size of the delegation tells it all. That acts as a proxy for the types of resources they can dedicate to these types of things.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you very much.

Mr. Keddy.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome our witnesses.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Holder, so I'll try to be succinct. I have two questions, the first for Mr. MacLaren.

Mr. MacLaren, you've spent a lot of time in government in Canada and you've had an illustrious career. You've seen the trade balance from both sides, from the political side and from the business side. We appreciate that.

You mentioned in your opening comments the stalemate at the Doha Round and the difficulty of pursuing binding multilateral trade agreements anywhere on the planet. Is there potential here for this agreement—because I believe there is—to lead the way for future agreements? If we can come to grips with a number of issues such as government procurement and all those issues that have never been on the table before, is there a potential to really break that stalemate here?

11:30 a.m.

Canadian Chairman, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business

Roy MacLaren

As they say in the funny papers, I'm glad you asked.

You're absolutely right. Absolutely, this is building-block stuff. It's a template for eventual return to multilateral.... What we're seeing in the meantime, however, with the demise of Doha Round is the rapid expansion, the blossoming, of bilateral agreements, many of them at the instigation of or the promotion by China, or India, or Brazil. The terms of trade are increasingly being set in our absence--I mean the west's absence--from international trade negotiations with the demise of the Doha Round. These terms are increasingly set by China, India, and Brazil.

Here in Canada, we have an opportunity not only to display to the world that we're not a protectionist country, that we're not indulging in protectionism, but more important, that we're attempting, with our European partners, to set new standards of international trade negotiation that will set the terms and the tone for future trade negotiations internationally, bilaterally, and regionally, which otherwise the Doha Round might have done.

But I, for one, do not want to see trade standards and trade practices set by China or India, and here is an opportunity to get aboard the bandwagon before it leaves.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

At this point, it's Mr. Holder.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

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

Is that pretty well half?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Yes.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

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

All right. I'll come back in the next round.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON

Thank you. I love democracy.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.

I'd like to join our side, Mr. MacLaren, in saying that you've had a very distinguished career, and we'd like to thank you for your service to our country in so many facets of what you've been involved with.

Mr. Langrish, I'd like to understand a little more about the Canada Europe Roundtable. I know that it's been around for a dozen years. As I understand it, you've been advocating free trade with Europe for quite some time. I'm trying to understand from your perspective, in terms of the activities you do, why free trade with the EU is so essential. What do you think your members hope to gain as a result of this?