International Trade Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Ms. Ramsey.

We'll go to Mr. Fonseca, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your presentations.

This TPP race started a long time ago, as far back as 2006. In 2008 the U.S. came in. As one of the last to join, it was 2012 when we joined in those negotiations. Our biggest trading partner, friend, competitor, is the United States and they were four years ahead of us.

I understand the non-disclosure as the negotiations, the consultation, was going on, but do you feel because, knowing that chapter 12 was pretty much done and the United Sates was out, that part of the agreement had been concluded, it was even worth your while to be at the table then?

Mr. Smilie.

[Christopher Smillie]

Nobody knew the U.S. was out until the document was released by New Zealand in November, so that was a surprise. I'm not trying to rebut your question in any way, but because of the nature of how it was negotiated, nobody knew the U.S. was out. That was the key point. The U.S. trade rep is proud, and continues to be proud, that no immigration law was changed with the U.S., no American job will be lost. You can go to their website and check it out. It's quite patriotic.

I don't think we have that same moral ground to stand on with chapter 12. The problem was that nobody knew. If there was a discussion with labour providers starting in 2006.... In fact, we worked with the U.S. government quite closely on the beyond the border working group to try to get labour mobility between Canada and the U.S., and we were told not to worry, that this would all be fixed with the TPP. Then we saw the result. They backed away. The problem is nobody knew, so how do you do a negotiation and figure out what's best for your country when you don't really know what's going on?

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

Yes, Mr. Benson.

[Phil Benson]

I reject the notion that these have to be confidential and secret. NAFTA was done publicly with full participation of trade unions, NGOs, everybody else. There was an election fought over it and Mr. Mulroney won that election. I reject the notion that somehow something can fundamentally change our democracy, fundamentally deal with what you or perhaps the NDP or the Green Party or the Conservatives coming back into power can't change because you've agreed to it. It should not be done in secret. I reject that notion. It should be held publicly. People should be involved. We should know what's going on, and that idea.... As Mr. Smilie said, this permanently changes the game. Here's my fear: once it is done in one deal, the clamour will come from business and other people that it has to be in all deals, and how do you stop it?

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

In my riding I have a number of large contractors actually that are national and global in scale. When you look at a company like EllisDon, the concern I've heard is that in some depressed markets when it comes to infrastructure, like Spain where they've had a bit of a crisis, they may come through a country like Mexico, which would be part of the TPP, if ratified, and then be able to set up in Mexico and then move into Canada and take over many of the large infrastructure projects. Is that a concern that you've heard?

[Christopher Smillie]

There is nothing stopping that kind of thing.

The only issue with something like that in terms of workers is that the workers have to originate in the country that we've signed a side deal with. In terms of contractors, it might end up being a Spanish country, but in fact we'll only accept the workers from the five side deal countries, so they'll have to show admissibility based on their being from Mexico, and the list goes on, Peru, or Australia.

The companies are one thing, but the workers would have to come from a country of origin and be admissible under TPP.

[Matt Wayland]

We can add to that.

We spoke to our electrical contractors, both at the provincial level and at the national level, and they were quite concerned about that, not only from our workers' standpoint but with regard to their process of running a business, and that was from small contractors right up to our largest ones in Canada.

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

Okay, thank you.

Chapter 12 of the TPP mentions temporary entry for business persons only, which is what it says, and not for workers or tradespeople.

How would you see that this would not be able to stop those from being “on the tools”, as you say?

Mr. Wayland.

[Matt Wayland]

If you look under chapter 12, I think you're referring to section A, Business Visitors. Is that correct?

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

It's chapter 12, and it's in 12.2 and 12.4.

[Matt Wayland]

Under section C would be Intra-Corporate Transferees, but also the next one, which would cover workers, would be under section D, Professionals and Technicians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That wraps up the time there.

[Phil Benson]

Section D would enable technicians and so our tradespeople would be defined as technicians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are you all right there for clarification? Good.

We're going to move over to the Conservatives for five minutes. This is their third round and it's our last round.

We're going to start off with Mr. Trost, for five minutes.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's been a few years since I've been a permanent member of this committee, so it's good to be back.

I'm going to put my questions in the following context, partially because my job is to specialize in Canada-U.S. trade and Canada-U.S. issues. I was down in the Congress and talked to various congressmen there.

First of all, I think the Liberal government's consultations are about buying time to see what the U.S. is going to do if—hang on there, Sukh, I'm not scolding you guys—and they'll decide, one way or the other, based upon what's going on in the United States. Having talked with Republicans and Democrats, I personally would say that the U.S. probably has less than a 1% chance of ratifying the TPP.

In some respects, my questions are going to be looking forward, beyond the TPP, to what we would do if we would redo the TPP later on, if we would end up doing a bunch of bilaterals, let's say an independent bilateral with the United States, Japan, etc., and through the list.

I'm going to start with a friend from the natural resources committee in the past, Mr. Smillie, and then whoever else wants to jump in on this one can.

If we had to start this over again as far as looking for ways to increase labour mobility for Canadians going abroad goes, where would you start? I'm not asking about people coming in, but I'm saying let's figure out a way and figure out what we should negotiate, and how we should do it to get more Canadian welders to be able to work on projects in Mexico, Peru, Japan, Malaysia, etc. Where would you start?

I'm looking beyond the TPP. I'm talking about in the next round when we do this, since this has turned out to be a practice round, or I'm 99% sure of that. What would we do to enhance the ability of your members to go abroad and work on some really great projects?

[Christopher Smillie]

I think we fix North America first. I think we work Canada, U.S., and Mexico with the same contractors, the same purchaser of construction, the same energy companies doing business in all parts of the jurisdiction, and then we look to Europe. I think that's a natural fit.

I'm not sure if you've asked actual construction companies to come to testify about this issue.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'm a substitute on this committee, so—

[Christopher Smillie]

It seems like a world away to go to do business in Japan. Japan has some of the largest construction companies in the world, and my personal gut feeling is that PCL or EllisDon probably wouldn't win a bid in Tokyo for a long, long time. They have a much better chance of expanding their business here at home or in Europe. In fact, PCL is working in the United States, so let's get it right at home first.

But with the friendships and systems that we know—

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

As far as who we should focus on specifically for trade is concerned, what would we do? Let's say we are focusing on North America first. I remember being offered a job by Baker Hughes Atlas to go down into Texas. We didn't even think twice. I was a geophysicist and would have been covered under NAFTA. How is this different for the expanded trades?

[Christopher Smillie]

Add the skilled trades to the NAFTA visa occupations.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

The NAFTA visa works, but just add more occupations to it.

[Christopher Smillie]

Yes. The U.S. isn't too excited about renegotiating the NAFTA occupations. We got that message from the White House. Start there, and mobility would be improved between Canada and the U.S.—

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Let me throw this out, then. Does everyone else agree, then, that the NAFTA occupation negotiations were a good idea, and that this should be a template, just expanded, provided, of course, that the countries are similar enough that we can work back and forth?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

There's only a minute left.