International Trade Committee on Jan. 30th, 2018

[Alex Neve]

I'll bridge back to Mr. Allison's question at the outset as to what the benefit might be of something that's multilateral as opposed to bilateral. The fact is that the only agreement of the four that exist that has any attention to human rights is the Colombia deal, and it's woefully inadequate, as I said before. In fact, we've reached a point of feeling that it's more problematic than beneficial, because it gives a veneer, as if human rights are being taken quite seriously in the context of the deal, when they truly are not. A whole, wide range of.... Indigenous peoples would be a perfect example. There are massive human rights violations that indigenous peoples throughout Colombia have experienced that are clearly in an economic, commercial, and trade context and are totally overlooked and ignored by the assessment. Having a bilateral process has been problematic. Perhaps something multilateral would open it up and offer us the opportunity to create some new mechanisms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir, and thank you to Ms. Ramsay. You're right on time. We're going to go to Madam Lapointe for the Liberals. Go ahead.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I have questions for all three of you.

Mr. Richard, you said earlier that when there are free trade agreements, there are no customs duties. You mentioned that Mexico is a very important market for you, as well as Chile, possibly.

Are there duties on your exports to Mexico currently? What tariffs apply to exports in the three other countries of the Pacific Alliance? What would happen if they were eliminated?

[Daniel Richard]

Currently, there are no duties on our exports to Mexico, nor to some countries in South America, but there are duties on exports to Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I am talking about Pacific Alliance countries.

[Daniel Richard]

Okay.

The advantage of an alliance like that is that there are clear rules of the game, and Canada takes part in the development of those rules. We support an agreement that can provide a framework for our trade. We see that as an advantage for Canada.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What Chilean tariffs apply to your sector?

[Daniel Richard]

Where Chile is concerned, the problem is not tariffs, but non-tariff barriers like inspections. Several inspections are atypical for our industry and we consider them a barrier to trade.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Why does that happen? Is that due to other things you don't see?

[Daniel Richard]

It's possible that there are local market forces that want such barriers to exist, but we aren't experts on the Chilean and Latin American markets. In any case, we see such a free trade agreement as an instrument or lever that will allow us to broaden access to those markets.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Would an agreement like that help you to export to Peru and Colombia?

[Daniel Richard]

Having access to one country helps us to export to all of the neighbouring countries, because the logistics improve considerably. The more we can export our products to the south, the more our access to those markets improves.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Neve, I have a question for you.

You spoke earlier about safeguards. You said that the agreement with Colombia was unique. What mechanisms should be put in place to advance human rights? Ms. Hall Findlay said earlier that we had to set an example and show leadership in that regard. How would you go about ensuring that such safeguards are in place?

[Alex Neve]

I want to make it clear that we don't necessarily disagree fundamentally on some of the key aspects here. Amnesty International is not saying with respect to the Pacific Alliance—or really any trading proposal—don't do it, don't enter into trade, and don't have freer trade. We're saying that in doing so, use this as an opportunity to make sure we maximize every possibility for advancing stronger human rights protection, and, as your question highlights, that we absolutely pay attention to the safeguards needed to make sure this will not contribute to or cause human rights violations.

The Colombia human rights review process—it's not a human rights impact assessment process—was potentially a step forward in that direction, but as I've said repeatedly, it has ended up being a serious disappointment. We are looking for something that highlights the four key attributes I mentioned. It needs to be independent, and there are ways to do that by drawing upon expert bodies, academics, institutions, and expert consultants. It needs to be comprehensive. In other words, that very specific, limited focus on tariff reductions and whether they caused a specific human rights violation is not at all adequate. It needs to be transparent, in that it needs to be open to the public and accessible. If we can move in that direction with any trade deal, but certainly the possibility of something with these four nations, I think we would see some significant progress.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Hall Findlay, you suggested that we do a study on the infrastructure that supports international trade and exports. What would you suggest, specifically?

[Martha Hall Findlay]

I suggest that we do a study on the importance of international trade infrastructure, since it is that infrastructure that helps us to improve our economy. This will allow us to do even more.

Yes, in English, I strongly recommend that we should do a more complete study on the infrastructure required to further our trade, because good trade infrastructure is what we need to enhance our economic prosperity, which then encourages our ability to build all of the rest of the infrastructure our communities need.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

That ends our first round. I have word that our other panellist is going to be here very shortly. If you're a member of Parliament who's in the middle of your five minutes and I cut you off and I go right to the panellists, we'll pick you up again to finish up your time, because you might want to change your questioning with the new panellist coming in.

Without further ado, we'll start the second round and go to the Liberals. Madam Ludwig, you've got the floor.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Good morning, panellists. Thank you so much for being here.

I am going to be transparent and say that there's a strong New Brunswick connection.

Mr. Neve, we'll see you again hopefully in St. Andrews.

Mr. Richard, thank you for joining us.

Ms. Findlay, it's nice to meet you today.

I have a number of questions. Firstly, from someone who's taught international trade for almost 20 years, one of the things that I would always tell my students in New Brunswick is how important it is that we are at the table. An agreement is valuable because it represents people who have come together to agree upon different terms, different rules. I'm certainly very proud of what the government has done with the progressive trade agenda. While I see it less as about lecturing, I do think this agenda is an important part of the discussion. If we're not having that discussion, whether about human rights or the role of women and indigenous people, then who is going to have that discussion with these nations?

I'll form my questions largely around that.

I also want to get back, Mr. Richard, to the questions on infrastructure, so I'll proceed quickly.

Ms. Findlay, you had mentioned the importance of domestic policy and working with businesses. I couldn't agree more. If we look historically at the number of trade agreements that we have penned in Canada, we have not done a reciprocal amount of work, I believe, in helping companies get more engaged with trade, whether it's indigenous people, whether it's women, but also with the small or micro businesses.

Mr. Richard, if we look at a company like Cavendish Farms, you are well integrated in the international trade market. For the micro businesses with one to four employees, and that are about 54% of Atlantic Canadian businesses, what's the spinoff for them from you as a larger company, or medium-sized company on an international scale? How can the micro businesses benefit?

[Daniel Richard]

Of course, there's the indirect impact. For example, this plant that we're constructing in Lethbridge, 80% of whose product will be for our export market, there are going to be a lot of new farmers—I don't have the numbers with me—who are going to be growing potatoes as a result. There will also be a lot of equipment sellers selling equipment. There's going to be infrastructure dollars spent on irrigation, on warehousing. There are a lot of spinoffs. It still remains difficult for small and medium-sized companies to operate internationally.

The indirect impact is certainly there. It's probably multiplied. I'm sure there's quite a significant multiplier effect. We often hear the spin that this is just in support of multinationals, but multinationals also operate in their home country. That's where I think you see the most direct impact. To the extent that we're supporting companies like Cavendish, we're supporting farmers on the land. I think that's one of the big impacts.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Great. Thank you.

My next question, starting with Mr. Neve and then Ms. Findlay, is regarding the domestic side.

Mr. Neve, when you're working at Amnesty and with others on the human rights aspect, which is absolutely critical, how much work is done with Canadian businesses on that domestically here in Canada, as Ms. Findlay talked about, in terms of international business planning and corporate social responsibility before these Canadian businesses engage, for example, with the Pacific Alliance?

[Alex Neve]

We have done a lot of that over the years. It's obviously nowhere near as extensive or comprehensive as it could be. We simply don't have the capacity to be engaged in that way, but we have over the years directly engaged with individual companies on their operations in countries like Colombia, which is one that comes to mind. We have often also dealt with an industry sector, have welcomed opportunities to speak at conferences and that sort of thing. It's been in two dimensions. Certainly we often try to do it in a proactive way before there are major concerns, by urging companies to adopt better policies and safeguards, etc. It is also, unfortunately, sometimes done in a more confrontational instance where are very serious concerns that a Canadian company's operations have caused human rights violations. We've even been involved in court proceedings here in Canada that have been launched against some Canadian companies about very serious human rights allegations. It's quite a gamut.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Ms. Finlay, I've just got a few seconds left, and I'm going to give the rest of it to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

No, I'm sorry. Maybe we can get it into another segment, because we're going to have to move over to the Conservatives.

Mr. Carrie, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I want to get back to this non-tariff barrier issue. I always hear that when Canada goes into these agreements, we're like the Boy Scouts. We always obey the rules and all of that stuff. We've had different countries like Korea and Japan that have non-tariff barriers. If we move forward with this, what should be the strategy going into it to address or reach potential agreements on these non-tariff barriers ahead of time?

I'm going to throw you a curve, too, just because it sounds like you'd like it, about marijuana. The government's current policy on marijuana seems to be a little bit out of sync with our international obligations. I come from Oshawa, and there is a lot of auto work back and forth across the border, and if our policy on marijuana doesn't line up with that of other countries—and on this list we've got Colombia and Mexico, countries like that, where drugs are a very big issue—what does the government have to do ahead of time to get out in front of the marijuana issue so it doesn't become one of these maybe non-tariff barriers that might slow down the movement of product across these borders?