International Trade Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Do you not need concrete projections for this? That is, numbers on the new market access that Canada will gain or are these just kind of hypothetical projections?

[Kirsten Hillman]

It depends on where we get to at the end of the day.

What we look at is what the tariffs are today in the sectors of export interest to Canada. The sectors of export interest to Canada include a variety in the TPP, the goods I've just mentioned to you but also the services areas—a variety of professional services, engineering services, and environmental services. This comes back to the question I was asked earlier about services. We get more strong support and intervention from most of our service providers in this initiative than I've seen in a long time. That's a high priority for Canadians as well. Exactly what it will end up with it's too early to tell. We can't say at this point. Those are what we're pursuing.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

A recent editorial in the New York Times said that Canada is actually one of the countries that are seeking to undermine the creation of a dispute settlement process that would enforce the environmental provisions of the agreement. They base this assertion on a leaked environmental chapter.

Is this true? If so, what would be the reasons for Canada's position?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Canada has had either environmental side accords or with the CETA now an environmental chapter in all of its modern FTAs. We are committed to strong environmental chapters. This includes an ability to pursue action if the chapter or the side accord isn't being enforced. That's our position and that's absolutely the position that we're taking at the table of the TPP.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

In other words, it's not a clear position in favour of a dispute settlement process concerning the environmental provisions.

[Kirsten Hillman]

There are many different kinds of models of dispute settlement process and different countries have different perspectives on that. We have had in the past, in all of our FTAs, collaborative dispute settlement processes whereby independent experts look at the alleged breach and come to a conclusion on a path forward. We've always had enforceable chapters and, as I say, that's the position we're taking here.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The Government of Australia has also said that it's unwilling to submit to the investor dispute settlement under the TPP and has encouraged TPP negotiators to exclude ISDS. As well, the EU is another party that's seriously examining ISDS in the TPP. However, the U.S. Congressional Research Service stated that the proposed TPP will likely contain provisions related to dispute settlement and governance of the agreement. Could you comment on Canada's position on this issue?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Specifically in relation to ISDS or dispute settlement generally?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

On ISDS specifically.

[Kirsten Hillman]

Canada's position is that in seeking predictable, open, transparent environments for our investors, we seek both strong rules and enforceable rules, enforceable through state to state and investor state. We're taking that position in the TPP.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoback, the floor is yours.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mrs. Hillman. It's great to see you out here today on the TPP.

I'm kind of curious. Could you identify some of the obstacles that are maybe holding things back at this point in time? Are there any serious obstacles that you see at this point in time as far as getting us to a completion date and getting this back out into a place where it can be ratified are concerned?

[Kirsten Hillman]

I don't see any particular obstacles that would stand out more than in any other negotiation. The reality of any trade negotiation is that as we resolve issues it's those that are the most challenging that remain until the end. That's always the case. So there are issues that are challenging out there for every country, a variety of different issues depending on the country.

We were talking a little earlier about some countries not having taken on some of these kinds of obligations before. That can be difficult for them when it comes to really finalizing those commitments. Market access and opening markets to investment and services, and financial services and government procurement, can also take time to really get to the level that we want and that others want, and goods as well, in all areas.

I wouldn't say that there's one thing in particular, or two or three things. I think it depends on the country and that for each country, as I was saying, there's this bargain that you're working on. Some are more difficult issues to get them where you need them to go in order to say that this is a deal that makes sense for me and my country.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

As we've added different groups or different countries into the talks at the TPP—and you said there are other countries showing interest in it—does that reduce the level of ambition or level of resolve to get it done or does it change it?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Absolutely not. In fact, I would say the contrary.

I think the interest that we're having from Korea.... Taiwan has expressed interest recently. Thailand has expressed interest. There are all different sorts of magnitude of interest. But I think, on the contrary, that really reinforces for us as negotiators the need to get the agreement finalized amongst ourselves so that we can start the process of having new countries enter and expand the agreement. I would say it also reinforces the need to make sure that we're setting out an agreement that meets our high ambition goals so that as it expands in the region we have a platform that we really think is going to be effective as the membership grows.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

As we go through the TPP and we sign the TPP, how does it impact existing bilateral agreements, for example, like the one we've just done with Korea or NAFTA? Does it supercede it? Does it overtake it? Are there areas that it would have impact on, where this part of the agreement would actually supercede NAFTA, for example? How would that work?

[Kirsten Hillman]

We have a lot of bilateral FTAs with countries with which we are also partners in the WTO. There's a principle that we use when we have overlapping commitments. One is that from a goods perspective, from a market access perspective, the most liberalizing regime can prevail. The exporter can take advantage of whichever rule is in place under whichever agreement that is most beneficial to that exporter. So in that sense, I guess “supersede” would be one way to put it.

In terms of disciplines—so the rules in the areas of state-owned enterprises or technical barriers to trade, or SPS, or what have you—there's a principle of coexistence. To the greatest extent possible, what we are trying to do, and I think succeeding in doing in the TPP, is establishing rules that simply build upon everything that we've done to date. They take what we've done to date and try to bump it up one step further to address concerns that have been raised with us by our businesses. Again, they should be able to coexist. Obviously, we'll have a very rigorous legal analysis at the end of the day and ensure that that's the case. If not, there are mechanisms by which we can make sure that everything fits together smoothly.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. And, of course, our colleague from the NDP just made a comment about transparency, and the government has basically been saying this has been the most transparent agreement. Of course, I would say it's not the government saying that; it's actually the negotiators saying that.

Would you not agree with that comment? With all the agreements you've done, how would this transparency and consultation process compare to previous agreements you've worked on?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Speaking from my personal experience—and I haven't worked on every FTA we've negotiated—the feature that I was saying was unique, that I've never seen before, which I think is extremely successful, is this stakeholder event that the negotiators implemented before we joined, whereby stakeholders from any TPP country could come and attend a negotiating round. The negotiations would be suspended for a day, and those stakeholders could make presentations, and not only chief negotiators, but anyone from your negotiating team would sit and listen to the presentation, and then afterwards there were question and answer opportunities, and also opportunities for stakeholders to actually seek bilateral meetings with negotiators from other countries.

Here in Canada, our stakeholders can seek meetings with my team as they see fit. But one thing that is much more complicated I would think is for them to actually have an interface with negotiators from other countries. And when I said I'd never seen anything like this before, that was the feature, in particular. It was a transparency element that I'd never seen before and I think was extremely successful.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It goes to prove—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Allen, welcome to the committee, and the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Miss Hillman and Miss Theodore for being with us today.

Let me start right out. I'm the agriculture critic, so supply management is obviously fairly important to my area. Clearly, it's no secret what New Zealand has said about supply management, or the U.S. I happen to live very close to the border, about 20 minutes from Buffalo, where you can buy a jug of milk for two bucks U.S. if you go to Tops. There's no question they're looking to come into the market.

A really easy question. Is supply management still on the table?

[Kirsten Hillman]

Well, I think the answer to that question is that we've entered this negotiation with the sensitivities that we have. Other countries have sensitivities that they have. We—

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

No, I get that. I used to bargain too. I did collective agreements for a living. I get that.

Is it on the table? It's pretty simple. It is or it isn't.