The Canadian embassy?
Evidence of meeting #66 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 indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #66 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 indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, in our Canadian embassy there are a few problems such as favours being granted. I think the Canadian government should look into that and shuffle the local people working there.
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
It's been going on for a long time. It's not only that; even people there are openly saying, “Give us this much money and we'll get you the visa”.
None of my relatives have come here or want to come. This is a general situation back in India that I have heard about and seen. Genuine people are not getting visas. People should be screened properly and should be looked after to determine whoever is genuine or whoever is paying the proper taxes. They should be allowed to come, rather than picking and choosing....
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Ghuman, I want to move to the issue of how business is conducted in India, and I'll put a word on it: corruption.
We already have evidence before this committee that India ranks 184th out of 185 countries in terms of contract enforcement, and it is ranked by the World Bank as being a fairly difficult place to do business.
You've already commented on some of the difficulties we have. Do you have any suggestions on what Canada can do? If we're sitting at a trade table with India, how can we address that issue or improve the situation for business people?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
The Canadian government should definitely talk to the Indian government. When any investor is investing money, they should be protected by the bureaucrats, by the police. They are harassed when they're doing fine and are successful. Even in the beginning they are harassed, but when they are very successful, then they are definitely harassed.
In the past, I built a couple of resorts and made a good profit on them, but now I'm having second thoughts on whether I should do that again. One of the governments—the state government, I'm talking about—is very corrupt, and you have to watch.
People are doing business, yes, in certain states. Gujarat is one of the best for commercial relations. I can say that's a safe place to do business today.
Another problem in India is that our federal government—in India we call it the central government, not federal—should have the say, not the state government, because when somebody does business in the state, the state government is the one that starts bothering or harassing the investors.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. Today, if one government gives a commitment, an agreement is written, and everything is done, and in the next term a different government is in power, they'll cancel all of it. This is how foreigners are being harassed.
4 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Ghuman.
Mr. Dhesi, I want to get your view on this. You said in your paper—and thank you for the very well-researched paper that you've given us—that there's an investment gap, with an estimated $1 trillion U.S. required to meet India's resource needs over the next five years. Accordingly, India is encouraging private participation—I would assume investment—in infrastructure development.
Given the difficulties of contract enforcement and, as Mr. Ghuman has said, some of the precariousness of investment, what do you have to tell us about how we can better protect Canadian investors?
4 p.m.
President, Pacific Exotic Food Inc.
In terms of my experience doing business with India—I've been importing products from India since 1988, and still continuing—there should be one window where all the approvals come from. India has many levels of these things. As Mr. Ghuman told you, the police are involved, bureaucrats are involved, and provincial politicians all want to keep their share.
When the Canadian government wants to talk to the Indian government, these questions should be asked and brought to one table. There should be one window where the approval comes from, not various levels. If you want to acquire land, then you have to go to what we call revenue officers. They have a percentage; otherwise, they won't give demarcations, which means you can't acquire the land.
I can keep talking like this, but it's very important for the Canadian government to look at all these issues, at how the Indian government works to give you a permit to start a business. These are the important issues for people who are hesitating to invest—particularly Indian-origin people, because they have the local experience as well as the Canadian experience.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses.
It's a great immigrant success story, coming to Canada in the middle of the winter and surviving to tell about it. Thank goodness your father had the foresight to hide your passport.
And thank you for your presentation here, Mr. Dhesi. This is very thorough and complete.
I have one question for both of you. What we often take for granted in Canada is not the norm in many countries of the world, and that is a very highly respected, well-educated civil service that plays by the rules, that understands the rule of law, and quite frankly is not corrupt. That sometimes puts us at a disadvantage in other locations. I'm certainly not saying that all other jurisdictions suffer from corruption, but we know there is corruption in some other jurisdictions.
So here's my question to you. We have been aggressively working on a FIPA, a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, with the Indian government. We felt several times that we were nearly there, and every time we get pushed back a little bit. How important is it to actually sign this FIPA to protect not just Canadian foreign direct investment and investment on the ground in India, but also Indian foreign direct investment here in Canada, and to nurture and enhance that?
Whichever one of you wants to go first, please do.
4:05 p.m.
President, Pacific Exotic Food Inc.
First, in my experience, before the Canadian government signs an agreement, like other businesses, the Canadian government should also take a delegation over there to the business people, not to the governments, as I did when I went with the Prime Minister and trade ministers in 1996.
To hear the real story, you have to go to the local people, the real doing-business people, not the bureaucrats or the politicians. Politicians aren't going to force. Let's do business. We need business. We need FDI.
My suggestion is that the Canadian government should consult the local Canadian business people and sit down at the table with Indian business people and find out about their process and their difficulties, such as corruption.
I want to back up for a point. In India there are educated people also, but 10 years back their salaries were very low and their living standard was very high. They could send their kids to private schools, colleges, universities. There are no other means except corruption.
Now salaries have been increased at every level. I go every year to India and talk with the bureaucrats. My family members are in the bureaucracy back home. But these are the issues. Not politician to politician or upper-level bureaucrat to upper-level bureaucrat; they should go to the middle levels, the real business people and find out their solutions, what they want. Then they should make conclusions before they sign this FIPA. Those are my suggestions.
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I agree with Mr. Dhesi. Our officials should go to the business people, but not with a big bang. I think our government should choose delegates who should go and talk to the government. There should be some meetings, and not at one place in Delhi only. They should be in major cities where the businesses are, and we should invite all the business people there. Then individually they should make small groups and go everywhere and talk to them, and bring everything back on the table and have a discussion.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
This may be a point of clarification. The principle behind a FIPA is exactly what you gentlemen have been talking about. When you invest in the country, you have to be treated by the same rules as any Indian company. So there can't be any unfair advantage from domestic business in India. I just want to finish explaining here because that should prevent...and it gives you access to the courts and a level playing field.
There's been a lot of consultation and a lot of work leading in to this already, but what I'm talking about is a clear set of rules that are equal both to domestic business in India and to foreign investment, investing in India. Canadian investment, of course, in this case.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
The Indian government used to be very strict. If anybody foreign wanted to invest, Canadians or whomever, they used to keep it to a maximum of 49% foreign investors and 51% used to be the Indian government. But now it is open. Now the system is totally the other way around. The Indian government used to protect their interests, but now they do protect foreigners. They are still not protecting foreigners; they are not going to protect Canadian investors unless the Canadian government puts some pressure on them.
The law is there, but the law in India is not the law. They make their own laws. They can make and break...I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about the bureaucrats or anybody. We have to look at that. We are more concerned with those laws.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Not only the state level; even in the centre, but bureaucrats.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
President, Pacific Exotic Food Inc.
India is adding a fast-track court system, but the Indian counterpart knows if a foreigner goes there for a week or two weeks, then they will pick another date. Then frustrated people come back home and leave everything there.
Consideration should be given to how the cases should be resolved.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you. I don't know where to start, Mr. Chair, to be honest. I take it that you both are in favour of an FTA with India.
Given what you both said—which is rather worrisome—what has to be done to ensure, to put in place the necessary protections before we sign an FTA with India?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
In terms of the negotiation... I might as well tell you where I'm coming from. I'm of the opinion the Government of Canada is signing FTAs for the sake of signing them and not looking at the underlying problems that we have with some of the free trade agreements that we already have. We are increasingly seeing deficits in trade, we're not adding value in Canada the way we should be, and we're not creating the kind of economy in Canada to benefit the Canadian people the way we should be.
I believe in free trade agreements, but we need to do more within the country to ensure that more benefits stay here. Before we get down to the nitty-gritty of signing a free trade agreement with India, what do we basically have to get assurances on from India before we do that, to prevent the kinds of things that are happening at the business or bureaucratic level in India, to protect our Canadian investors and Canadian businesses that do business there?