International Trade Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

If the United States now were to renegotiate and look to get into the new CPTPP, would we see Canada now in a much better position than it would have been if had signed on to the TPP as it was in its original state?

[Bruce Christie]

Absolutely. As indicated earlier, we will benefit from what we call a first-mover advantage, particularly in the Japanese and other markets, to get a foothold in areas in agricultural sectors for products like beef, pork, and grains. This is a market that we have not been able to penetrate in the past because of the high barriers, but without the United States in the agreement, we will benefit from getting more of a foothold in these markets before the United States decides, if it decides, to come back to the group. That's still unclear at this time.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I'm a neophyte to these kinds of big trade agreements, being that I just joined this committee two years ago. What I'm seeing is the approach that we're taking. A steady approach—doing our homework, doing the analysis, consulting with Canadians, looking at putting in these progressive elements—would seem to be the right approach going forward with what we're doing with NAFTA, and what we're doing with other agreements around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Give a quick answer, please.

[Bruce Christie]

Absolutely. That's our feeling. Over the last, I would say, two years or so, we have been trying to advance our progressive trade agenda. It has not been easy. Some parties feel that progressive issues, although important, don't rest in trade agreements. They are not open-minded in that regard.

We've had successes, and we're continuing to open minds around the world among our trading partners.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going go to the third round. We're just going to have five minutes for each party.

Mr. Hoback, you seem to be pretty anxious to say a few words. We're hoping it's questions and not statements.

Go ahead, sir.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Again, we're looking for co-operation with the Liberal Party to help them get this through fast, but we're not seeing it, so I guess I have to clear the record up on what was said in the past, and what's done for.

I can remember when I chaired the committee. We went around and had meeting after meeting. In fact, we have some witnesses in the audience here who probably testified four times in front of our committee by the time you added all the consultations in.

For him to say that they weren't properly consulted.... The reality is that their consultation was actually a stalling tactic to not ratify the existing agreement. When the U.S. pulled out, they didn't think that they wanted to do anything. It wasn't until there was pressure from other countries to come back to the table that we came back to the table. Then they had to put their own twist on it, so they called it a progressive trade agreement, and they threw all these progressive things at it, which I understand you took to the table, and you tried very hard to sell those progressive agreements.

What was the reaction of the people who you tried to sell them to?

[Bruce Christie]

I think the initial reaction, to be fair, was that Canada was bringing new issues to the table. We agreed that we wouldn't reopen the text and that we wouldn't reopen existing chapters or add new chapters.

I think we were able to make certain progress in advancing our progressive trade chapter. I can tell you, having been at the table, that I worked, along with my team, very hard to advance some of these issues.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But you just said yourself that most countries felt that the progressive side doesn't belong in trade agreements. For example, Australia says that, yes, it does a trade agreement, and it looks at the progressive side of things through its NGOs. It does it through NGO funding to make sure that it actually achieves the targets it set out to achieve.

Isn't that more of a preferential response to these types of situations, rather than holding your whole commerce at stake based on culture or—I don't want to say it's diminished anything—based on a political agenda of one party?

[Bruce Christie]

Well, we didn't see it that way. We were trying to demonstrate the need, particularly after the U.S. left the agreement. Obviously the TPP was met with toxicity by some parties around the world, by interest groups. We felt that it was the view of some groups that they weren't benefiting from free trade agreements. What we were trying to do was to stop and reflect on making the benefits of a trade agreement open to everyone in our society.

We did face resistance, but I think the initial resistance was because they didn't want to change anything. It had less to do with the actual items that we were proposing. Beyond that, I think we did make some success in the limited amount of time we had, and we probably could have made more if we were operating under a different negotiating environment.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

With the environment being the U.S. presidential situation and his views on trade agreements, the TPP and that whole scenario, one might say that changes the whole atmosphere around trade agreements right across the world.

You talked about consensus, and you said you were unclear on the amount of consensus required before the U.S. can come back into the deal or any of these 22 side deals or provisions that were suspended.

You said you needed consensus by everybody, and I asked you, consensus from those countries that ratified or consensus of those that were part of the negotiation? You said that is unclear. Therefore, what is it?

If we're not part of the first six countries and they decide that they are going to allow the U.S. in carte blanche, with no negotiations, the way it is, Canada would effectively not be at the table. Is that not fair to say?

[Bruce Christie]

Not necessarily. We haven't clarified that point yet. At present—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

How can you say you haven't clarified it? What is there left to clarify? You must have a succession plan. You must have an idea of what that looks like for other countries to come into the agreement. If China showed up tomorrow and knocked on the door and said, “Hey, we like this, we want to join,” what's the process?

[Bruce Christie]

We haven't established that yet.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You haven't established that yet.

[Bruce Christie]

No. We're starting this summer. We have a meeting to begin the process to finalize what the frameworks, rules, and procedures will be for future accessions, but we did not finalize that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

How do you bring forth ratification legislation with that not being defined?

[Bruce Christie]

Our focus is on bringing the existent agreement into force among the 11 parties. By the time the agreement enters into force, we will have concluded our discussions.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Then we'll need new legislation if the U.S. wants to join the agreement somewhere down the road. Is that fair to say?

[Bruce Christie]

No, not necessarily. We're setting up the rules for engaging with other countries, but we won't necessarily have to return to Parliament for approval of those rules and procedures.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, so if another country outside the U.S. wants to join and we say, “Whoa, we don't like their progressive elements or the lack of progressive elements in their country,” how do we deal with that as a Parliament? They say, yes, they're joining, and we say, “Well, wait a minute; we don't agree.” How do we have that say?

[Bruce Christie]

We do have a say, because once this agreement enters into force, accession decisions have to be agreed to by consensus. Thus, Canada—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Parliament won't have a say.

[Bruce Christie]

The Government of Canada will have a say.