International Trade Committee on Oct. 9th, 2014

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Chair, we can talk about it for maybe days and months, but the fact is that this will force us to renegotiate something. We all understand that January 1 is the deadline we want to meet. This is, of course, absolutely the NDP's anti-trade agenda that they indirectly want to enforce. I will be opposing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Any further debate?

Mr. Cannan.

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

I just want to clarify that investors in both countries have the option to use their home domestic or international tribunals. It's not favouritism for the Koreans or the Canadians. They are being treated equally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

I'll come back to you, Mr. Davies, once more.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a final point.

Mr. Chairman, I do agree that we should be doing what we can to have this agreement in place by January 1. We heard a lot of good evidence about the effect of the KORUS tariff tranche of tariff reduction slated for January 1, and we want that. But on the other hand, this agreement has taken years and years. In fact, it's taken a decade to negotiate. I think it behooves us to take care to make sure that we improve it as best we can before it comes into place, particularly when we have no confidence that this agreement will be in place by January 1. My understanding is the Senate is not necessarily going to cooperate by getting this agreement passed by January 1, and we have no assurance that the Korean government will have this agreement passed by January 1. So while it is a laudable goal for us to work towards that, we shouldn't sacrifice the quality of the agreement, and us doing our job as parliamentarians to make sure we have the best agreement possible, to meet some arbitrary rush deadline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Okay, I don't think we're going to see any changing of minds here, so....

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm not making any progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

As far as the NDP motion is concerned, I think I'll move to a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 agreed to)

I could group clauses 10 and 11 since there are no amendments, if that's okay?

(Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12—Powers of Minister)

We've got amendment NDP-4.

Mr. Davies, I'll give the floor back to you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is something that I really think all members of this committee should be able to get behind. That is, what we'd like to see is that the government establish an annual trade mission to South Korea to monitor the operation of this agreement, and in particular to observe and monitor the progress that we will or not make on eliminating non-tariff barriers, and then report the results of that trade mission back to Parliament on an annual basis.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in close contact with our legislators in the United States, who have the benefit and experience of implementing the KORUS agreement since 2012. Of course, it takes a fair bit of time to implement a trade agreement. In the early days it's hard to draw too many conclusions, but we also know from the Americans that there are a number of challenges in accessing the Korean market. A fair number of the challenges in the Korean market relate to non-tariff barriers. It's our view that the Canadian exporters' and the Canadian business community's ability to make the most of this agreement will depend in large measure on our ability to encourage the Koreans to give access to their market, which in turn requires them to make progress on eliminating the non-tariff barriers.That's key to unlocking the benefits of this deal, so we would urge all members to help Canadian exporters and businesses by making sure that the government does its part in making sure that the implementation of this agreement goes as well as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

When you look at this, to be so prescriptive as to legislate the need to organize an annual trade mission to Korea, in my mind probably wouldn't be the most effective way to ensure that Canadian companies are benefiting from this agreement. Obviously, over time, needs and approaches will change.

I think you also have to take this in the context of the government's broader trade agenda of trying to ensure we are providing a diversity of markets. We need to ensure we're looking at the priorities in our global markets action plan. We need to work with Canadian companies to ensure there's flexibility in circumstances and needs over time, to better ensure that companies can benefit from a range of agreements and trade missions.

I think that to be so prescriptive as to say that there must be an annual mission would not best serve Canadian companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Davies, quickly.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards made a good point, and I think it deserves a small explanation.

This agreement has been touted as an important one for some important reasons, one of which is that it's the first agreement that Canada has ever signed in Asia. That's point number one.

Number two, another advantage of this deal is that Korea is considered to be a gateway market. It's not only an important agreement for accessing the 50 million people in Korea, but also in establishing a beachhead in Korea for accessing other key important markets, notably, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others we don't have trade agreements with.

That's why I think that taking the rather exceptional step of requiring an annual trade mission, at least for, say, the first three or four years of this agreement, would be a good one. It would make sure that the government, from our point of view, is monitoring the operation of this agreement to make sure it's actually being implemented.

A number of witnesses have appeared before this committee and said that trade agreements, while often necessary, are not necessarily sufficient. Signing a trade agreement and going away is not a guarantee that we're going to penetrate the markets in the way that we hope.

I think there is a role for government. We signed this agreement. We negotiated it. The private sector will obviously start to implement it, but the government has a role in making sure that the agreement operates in the way that they intended.

That's why I think the rather exceptional suggestion we have made is justified in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I'm going to go to Ms. Liu, and then I'll come back to Mr. Richards.

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

I'd like to point out that we heard from witnesses at this committee that lowering trade tariffs is not the only way we should increase trade, that other measures are necessary. I think this amendment is to that effect.

I think the portion on eliminating non-tariff barriers is crucial for our manufacturing sector, which is so important to Quebec and Ontario. We've met with manufacturing stakeholders in committee, and I'm sure we've met with them individually. I think we need to do everything we can to eliminate non-tariff barriers.

I've been hearing that one of the best ways to do so is to shed light on these non-tariff barriers. I think we do need to take this extra step, not just to lower tariffs, but to deal with these non-tariff barriers.

I'll be voting in favour of Mr. Davies' amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Thank you, Ms. Liu.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

At risk of getting into a back-and-forth, a prolonged debate—

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

I won't let that happen.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your authority, but I want to respond very briefly.

I will confess to agreeing with much of the preamble that Mr. Davies provided in his last comments on how important this agreement is and why it's important. I certainly couldn't agree more, as it opens up the Asian market and there are opportunities that it creates.

However, I don't see the leap from there to the need to be so prescriptive about an annual mission. Certainly we want to do everything we can to ensure that Canadian companies have the chance to benefit, but we need to have the ability over time to be flexible with the various circumstances that arise. He even pointed that we want to have access to further Asian markets, and that may in itself necessitate that the focus be on some of those markets.

Although he's right that it's an important agreement, on the need to be so prescriptive about an annual mission, I don't see the leap from the preamble to that.

I appreciate his comments.

As far as Ms. Liu's comments, I think that market access issues like non-tariff barriers can best be addressed through institutional mechanisms like those that already exist in the agreement. I don't see the necessity for that in this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Mr. Morin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Out of respect for the people who spent 10 years working to get us to this point and for all those who incurred industry losses because the agreement was not signed sooner, once a year, we need to ensure that we are reaching our objectives. I see nothing wrong with that. It's certainly not wasteful. I can't even begin to fathom how much it has cost to get us to this point, as compared with what it would cost to organize a mission every year to measure our results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

Thank you, Mr. Morin. Again, I see the debate coming to a close. The arguments are starting to be repetitive.

With regard to the amendment, Mr. Cannan, would you have a comment? I missed your name.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate it because it is important that it not bind the hands of future governments. This agreement talks about a joint commission to be co-chaired by the Minister of International Trade of the day, whoever he or she may be, and the Korean counterpart. It is important once a year that the joint commission, upon the review of the request of either party, can have that commission report, as we heard from Ms. Campbell and others who were here earlier to testify.

There are some robust international mechanisms in place, institutional mechanisms like those established by this agreement. I don't see any need to support this additional amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Randy Hoback]

I'm going to bring the NDP amendment on clause 12 to a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On the unamended clause 12—I could group clauses 12, 13, and 14, if that's okay.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd prefer you just do clause 12.