International Trade Committee on March 25th, 2013

[Kerry Buck]

Our interests on the immigration movement of peoples front with Pacific Alliance countries, as with all countries, are twofold: first, to ensure the integrity and security of our immigration system and our national security, but at the same time to facilitate movement of people who help increase our economic ties and economic benefits to Canada. At times, those two objectives can work in tandem. At times, they're competing and conflicting. We will not sacrifice one in favour of the other. Those two objectives need to be met, but it's not a zero-sum game.

We have taken a number of steps over the last couple of years to increase or facilitate movement of people from Pacific Alliance countries—and other economic powerhouses in the region, to be frank—by increasing for example the number of our VACs, our visa application centres. I just concluded our bilateral consultations with Chile about an hour ago, and one stat from that process is that we have one of the fastest visa processing times in the world for Chile, but we still ensure that we protect our national security and the integrity of our immigration system. So we have taken a number of steps—I won't get into all the details—to facilitate movement of peoples.

How this issue will play out in the Pacific Alliance remains to be seen. There's not complete clarity on what the threshold for membership is, but as I said, those two objectives of our ours, the security and the integrity of our immigration system, will absolutely continue, but our second objective of facilitating movement of peoples also is top of mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Shory, the floor is yours.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As well, thank you to the witnesses for being here.

So far in this study, and also in your presentation today, what I have found is that it is clear that the department supports joining the Pacific Alliance. I had the same sense from the ambassadors who were here in the previous three meetings.

Surely it is clear from the FTAs with these four countries that Canada has benefited. The trade has been doubled or tripled. It seems that the department has conducted an analysis to evaluate the benefits and the costs, etc., and, based upon that, you're here to support that. My question is, if we go ahead, what is the process of becoming a full member?

[Kerry Buck]

Again, on conditions of membership, we know two things, and Pacific Alliance members know two things. The framework agreement that the Pacific Alliance states have adopted says that a country requesting accession must have a free trade agreement in effect with each of the parties—well, we have that—and second, that acceptance of membership will be subject to unanimous approval by the Council of Ministers.

Beyond that, the precision for that threshold of membership is not quite there yet, and Pacific Alliance members are discussing it. Similarly, the process for accession to full membership is still under discussion and, of course, it's related to what the threshold is. These are technical issues. They're technical issues that have policy impact and policy importance for us, so the decision hasn't been made yet on full membership because we don't have sufficient clarity. The clarity doesn't yet exist amongst Pacific Alliance members about what the threshold is and what the process is.

We're measuring it. We're talking to Pacific Alliance members, but they themselves are not quite there yet.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I see that even though Canada was the first country invited to be an observer, there are quite a few other countries. The question would be, if Canada joins as a full member, would there be any hitch or limitation that Canada would consider to having all other observers joining this Pacific Alliance?

[Kerry Buck]

I think it's difficult for us to assess right now the benefits of the candidacy of their other observers. We're focusing on our relations with the Pacific Alliance and Pacific Alliance countries. I'm unable to assess the membership of other observers.

We have an edge in that we have existing FTAs with all four members. We are in their markets in a very big way, and we have very strong bilateral relations with them. We have an edge over other observers. Our interest is keen. Their interest is keen. We also bring a lot to the table: we have a lot of Pacific presence; we're G8; we're G20. It's something we're looking at carefully.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Another concern I have is whether there were any consultations with the stakeholders or the public in this regard before we joined the Pacific Alliance, or is where we are taking it basically confined to the department or the committee?

[Kerry Buck]

We're still in the exploratory phase. We haven't gone out to stakeholders yet, because we don't have the details to go out to stakeholders with.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

It was my assumption that the department had done an analysis. Has the department done an analysis?

[Kerry Buck]

We did a cost-benefit analysis for observer status. That has put us in a position to get more insight into what the discussions are amongst the Pacific Alliance members. Once we have more clarity on what the threshold is for membership, what the agreements are, and what the areas of negotiation are inside the Pacific Alliance, we'll be in a better position to do a fuller cost-benefit analysis. We're not there yet, because Pacific Alliance members aren't there yet.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

So if Canada becomes a full member in the Pacific Alliance, what will the balance be for the provinces and territories? Will some provinces and territories have more benefits? Will some have negative effects? Has that kind of analysis been done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's the last question. Please give us a quick answer.

[Kerry Buck]

We're not there yet. The Pacific Alliance is not there yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

That takes us over to Mr. Morin.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We heard that some other observer countries were looking at joining the alliance.

Which countries are likely to join?

[Kerry Buck]

The other countries that have sought and been granted observer status to date are Australia, Spain, Uruguay, Paraguay, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Japan. They have been granted observer status. This is fairly recent. We have been an observer since last October.

None of these is yet in a position to look at full membership, because they haven't met the condition precedent of having existing FTAs with all of the Pacific Alliance members. They are not yet at the stage of doing an analysis of whether membership suits their needs, because they haven't met that one threshold.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

One thing we heard over and over again was that we are looking at like-minded countries. Don't you think this could take the debate toward an ideological perspective, as in trying to find countries that share our political views in the broader sense?

[Kerry Buck]

I've been a diplomat for a while now, and I won't call “like-minded” a term of art, but it's a term we use to signify countries that frequently take common positions internationally on issues of concern to us, like protection of human rights or liberalization of trade. It's not political in any sense. It's about our foreign policy directions. When I said these four members were among the most like-minded members of the Pacific Alliance, I meant only that in our relations at the OAS, the UN, or bilaterally we find a lot in common with them.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have just one small question.

You have more experience than I do. I heard a comparison that poked a hole through my eardrum when my colleague was comparing the EU and the alliance. Europeans have been into trade. Most of them share a common currency. Their economies have been integrated for a long while.

I don't want to say anything negative about those four countries, but if you look into the not so distant past, they have had extremely violent military conflicts, and they're not totally settled yet, and they haven't really made up their minds as to what their alliance is going to be. Don't you think we should sit back and remain observers for a while, and see what comes out of their alliance and how stable it's going to be. That's one other thing. They've been so stable and progressing economically, but, socially, is it going to last? There have been some coups d'état and all kinds of stuff in those countries, with the army taking control of the governments, and the history of that there. What do you think of that perspective?

[Kerry Buck]

I think that's a very valid question. It is true that in the Latin American region for a number of decades many, many countries were marked with violent pasts, full-on conflict, military and others, and civilian dictatorships as well.

I don't know what timeline to put on this—I'd have to think more carefully—but over at least the last decade, if not more, those violent swings and that violent period in Latin America have really shifted. A number of countries have moved away from that past of dictatorship, away from that past of conflict, and made some very, very important progress on political stability, on returning to a peaceful environment, and on growing a significant middle class—which also has an impact, not just on economy prosperity, but also on their political stability. You've got a much freer press than there used to be and much more stable electoral processes in the Pacific Alliance countries. It's always dangerous as a foreign policy practitioner to estimate whether this will stick or not. But as a foreign policy practitioner, when I look at the four countries in the Pacific Alliance, I'm very, very confident that it will stick.

There are continuing human rights problems. There's the aftermath of conflict in some of these countries. This is normal: every country has human rights problems. But there have been some very, very important steps made by those governments to make sure that there's sustainable security and sustainable democracy, a really important shift.

So while it's a very valid question, the region, and particularly these four Pacific Alliance countries, has really come a long, long way.

I'll give you one example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Maybe you can give the example on the next question, but we'll have to move on.

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses for being a part of this.

I just want to follow up on the discussions that have happened across the way.

Is Canada worse off because we have been involved and have signed free trade agreements? When I listen across the way, it would become very clear that we should not be in them, that, in fact, we are worse off because of them. Do you have a comment on that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, to imply that we said that is wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fine. He can answer whatever question he likes, because I could stop some of yours, too, if you like.

But go ahead, you can answer the way you like.

[Cameron MacKay]

Well, I think the Canadian government's position is that the free trade agreements we have negotiated so far have made Canada better off, and that freer, liberalized, rules-based trade, be it through the WTO, through bilateral trade agreements, or through regional trade agreements, basically create the foundation for further economic prosperity. It's for that reason that successive Canadian governments have negotiated free trade agreements.