International Trade Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Tabatha Bull]

Look at where the export opportunities are. There are 54,000 indigenous businesses in Canada. We have done some studies with Global Affairs on what sectors those businesses are in, and where the export opportunity is. We're really looking at the opportunity for trade missions in our neighbouring countries, to see where there is a need for that specific sector and how we get those indigenous businesses to those sectors.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Anderson, I'm just curious if, within your membership of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, you're aware of any members who filed under chapter 11 of the original NAFTA, or who brought a successful suit through chapter 11.

[Bridgitte Anderson]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware. I've been in the role for three months, so it's still a little early on. No, I'm not aware. I can look into that information and get back to you on that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

For our witness from the Toronto Region Board of Trade, I have the same question.

Are you aware of any members who filed under chapter 11 against either the United States or Mexico and whether or not they were successful?

[Leigh Smout]

I regret that I am not able to answer that. I'm sorry. I don't have that information.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is it something that you might follow up on later in writing to the committee?

[Leigh Smout]

Yes, absolutely. We'd be happy to do that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Right on.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us in person or by videoconference.

My first question is for Ms. Anderson.

Ms. Anderson, you referred to the softwood lumber industry. You said that CUSMA provides protection. I must confess that I don't see any protection. Instead, I feel that this issue has been completely left off the negotiating table.

As we know, recurrent crises have occurred in recent years. The American method has always been to establish punitive tariffs. Even though the courts ruled against the United States, while punitive tariffs were in effect, the industry was gradually heading toward bankruptcy.

However, despite the time limits under the former NAFTA, and I believe that the time limit was 325 days to resolve a dispute of this nature, we know that things were always done through the back door. For example, it took time for the United States to appoint arbitrators, and that way, they gained time.

Wouldn't this have been a real opportunity, during the negotiations, to regulate as many practices as possible so that this type of thing would no longer be possible? We could then have really taken sound legal action with regard to the softwood lumber issue.

[Bridgitte Anderson]

To answer your question, I think that from the perspective of the British Columbia forest industry, as I've mentioned, it has been an incredibly challenging time. We have thousands of people out of work. There is no question that we encourage the government to continue to work towards achieving a negotiated softwood lumber agreement.

To your questions about CUSMA, my understanding is that it preserves the original dispute settlement provisions for anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases and strengthens the panel process for state-to-state disputes. Chapter 10, which was previously known as chapter 19 in the original NAFTA, maintains for Canada and the U.S. only a binational panel review mechanism for reviewing anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations by either country.

It remains to say that we need a robust and a fair mechanism in place, so while we are pleased that chapter 10 remains in place under CUSMA, we again reinforce the need for a negotiated agreement.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

On that point, we can agree that all sorts of practices could have been specified in CUSMA. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” The issue is often not so much what CUSMA includes but what it doesn't include.

[Bridgitte Anderson]

Again, I think I would say that I encourage the government to find a negotiated settlement for the softwood lumber dispute. No better than many others across Canada, we can look at what's happening in British Columbia. Definitely we're looking at around 4,000 jobs that have been lost in mill closures, due in large part to high tariffs. British Columbia definitely would like to see an agreement and some certainty in place on this.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

We've also seen this in Quebec, in our lumber industry. We completely understand the situation.

My next question is for Mr. Smout.

Mr. Smout, you said that CUSMA would boost trade competitiveness. First, I've studied the issue of competitiveness very carefully. The word never seems to refer to exactly the same thing. Are we talking about market share, exports or the attractiveness of a territory? It's a somewhat catch-all word. In what sense did you use it?

Since we haven't received any economic studies yet, I was also wondering about your sources. If you could share them with us, it would certainly be helpful to the committee.

[Leigh Smout]

Our resources are our experience working with thousands of SMEs in the Toronto region and across Canada and with the members of our board of trade in Toronto, and the sense that they have that.... Again, I don't want to say that CUSMA is the perfect agreement that's going to solve all problems. It is different from NAFTA, and we're going to have to manage through that. What we're suggesting is that it was probably the best thing that could be negotiated during this time and that having a lapsed NAFTA would be much worse than entering into this CUSMA.

With respect to competitiveness, our business at the World Trade Centre is related to small and medium-size enterprises and how we can support them in a number of ways in their capacity to trade internationally. First of all, it's encouraging them to be interested in trading, because Canadian businesses need to be encouraged quite often to trade. Then it's developing their capacity and creating an export plan with them. Then, it's connecting them to markets. The only reason you would do any of those three things is if you think that their business has a value proposition.

The value proposition ideally coming out of Canada is not price. It tends to be quality and being internationally known as folks who are good to work with, people you can trust doing business with. When I speak about competitiveness into the U.S., it does bring back a bit of a [Technical difficulty—Editor] because they're able to produce similar types of products to us, and when we go there, we need to have some price advantage. Certainly the value of our dollar can help us there, and tariff elimination is a critical piece of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lewis.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming tonight.

For Ms. Bull, a CBC article from 2018 states, “In the end, the USMCA emerged without an indigenous chapter, but its ideals were 'woven throughout' the fabric of the final deal”, according to the Prime Minister. It also goes on to note that UNDRIP is not mentioned in the final deal.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Tabatha Bull]

I agree there are definite provisions throughout the CUSMA that reflect indigenous peoples, and although it does not meet UNDRIP, it does speak to the participation of indigenous people in negotiations. In arriving at where we are on CUSMA, I think it is a good step towards including indigenous people in the discussion and negotiation.

We always have more discussions to be had and more negotiations to be had, but I believe that this is a really great first step.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Great.

Can you explain to me what some of the challenges are to the indigenous businesses in Canada with regard to their trade to the U.S.? Are there any challenges that you face?

[Tabatha Bull]

Mostly it's access to capital and being able to grow the business from the initial perspective. We have some very large businesses that are doing great work, but a lot of businesses are small to medium enterprises, and being able to access the capital and financing to go to that next tier of business to be able to export has been a barrier to some.

I would say, as well, that we have a lot of businesses that are direct to consumer. As I said before, broadband and infrastructure for on-reserve businesses are a definite barrier for them to be able to export.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's a fair statement. I can appreciate that.

I would imagine that a lot of the exports would be clothing and textiles.

[Tabatha Bull]

They are, but we see significant amounts in IT, actually.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Oh, really?

[Tabatha Bull]

Yes, there is some real growth in IT. We did a recent report on agriculture as well. There is existing growth in the agriculture sector.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Great, thank you.

I have a final question.

You mentioned in your opening statement...was it that 24% of indigenous companies export, to the tune of 30,000 companies?