International Trade Committee on June 1st, 2022

[Erin Gowriluk]

I think that's a great question, Mr. Hoback.

I'll turn to my value chain partners to answer that question more specifically—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, sure.

[Erin Gowriluk]

—but I'll build on some of the responses they shared already to say that in representing Canadian farmers whose livelihoods depend on international markets, a level of stability and predictability is what's required at this point. They're facing an increasing amount of unpredictability now in the international trade environment. Anything we can do to be proactive through this office and to create a more predictable environment is something that we would support.

I would invite my colleagues to speak to some specific examples of where we should be dedicating resources.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, go ahead very quickly. I only get so many minutes.

[Daniel Ramage]

Yes, I can quickly chime in on that.

I think there are two areas. The enforcement of trade agreements is obviously very important. We actually have examples, as in Vietnam, where following the introduction and the entry into force of the CPTPP, the grain industry lost meaningful access to that country. That's one example where we need to be doing a better job of engaging and resolving the issues that are preventing us from exporting bulk grain into Vietnam.

Also, at the front end, we can do more in terms of engagement and relationship building to lay the foundation, the groundwork that is going to help us resolve issues proactively and prevent them from emerging in the first place. One example is in Indonesia, where we're currently negotiating a free trade agreement. We have ongoing trade risks that are not currently preventing trade, but those are risks that we should be resolving as we negotiate this trade agreement.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's fair to say, then, that you're all in favour of seeing a trade agreement go forward with the ASEAN countries. You are all looking for good results from that.

Taha, you're talking about India a little differently from what we're talking about now, so I'll probably talk to you on another day.

We just want to make sure that we actually get what we negotiate and that we actually get the results that are promised. Is that fair to say? Okay. Can you table your entire Indo-Pacific trade study itself with the committee? I think that would be really good for our clerks to go through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 30 seconds.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

What are other governments doing in that region outside of Canada? What are your competitors from other countries doing in that area? What's the first move or advantage?

[Chris Davison]

There are different approaches, but I will say that, generally speaking, we look primarily at the U.S., the EU and Australia.

The U.S. in particular has an extremely well-resourced presence in the region, in terms of the government-based personnel. They also have a large number of industry associations that have a significant footprint in the region. That's just one illustration of what was a recurring theme coming out of the report about the need for more on-the-ground, sustained presence in the region. There are some unique characteristics associated with the Indo-Pacific that we think justify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Virani for six minutes.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for some very informative testimony. It's good to see some of you whom I've met before.

I'm going to start with Mr. Ghayyur and reflect on some of what he mentioned with respect to India.

First of all, the testimony was very informative and excellent in terms of its content. Just to give you one reassurance, in terms of any dealings we're having with the Indian government, we're going in on an eyes-wide-open basis. That's the approach that Minister Ng has taken so far with her counterpart, Minister Goyal. It's an understanding of what is on the table and what the present incarnation of the Indian government represents. Know that many members of her caucus, including yours truly, have been vocal as well.

I took note of what you said in terms of chapters. I think about what we've done in terms of inclusive trade recently. We've taken steps with the renegotiation of NAFTA 2.0—or what we now call CUSMA because we like putting Canada first—with things like inclusive trade chapters on gender, chapters on the environment, and ensuring that women and indigenous partners are there as part of the negotiation team.

I'm just wondering if you could reflect on it and elaborate a little bit. When you talk about a human rights chapter, what are you envisaging in terms of the next wave of free trade agreements with India or otherwise?

[Taha Ghayyur]

Thank you very much, first of all, for that reassurance. It's great to hear that members of the caucus and people in Parliament do care about this cause and want to hear more about it. Thank you very much for that and for the acknowledgement.

As far as the specific question is concerned, just as you have specific provisions around gender, we would like to see protection of religious minorities more specifically, because that is what seems to be an issue in this case, when it comes to India and many other countries around the world. China is another example.

Specifically, it is the protection of ethnic and religious minorities, and their human rights essentially being promoted and protected. That is really what we are concerned about.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Ghayyur.

We'll turn to some of your colleagues. Maybe I'll start with Ms. Gowriluk from the Grain Growers of Canada.

It came up a little bit, but it wasn't focused on too much by most of you as panellists. Tell me about the context of where we are with Russia and Ukraine, grain and wheat supplies, and global food insecurity. What does it means in terms of the people you represent here at this committee?

There are different optics to it. One is that we have to ensure that Canada is playing its part in terms of grain and wheat supply around the planet. Another is that there's also a concern about not looking predatory in terms of global shortages and not exacerbating that and being opportunistic.

Can you sort of layer into your testimony a bit an aspect of the geopolitical situation we're faced with? Does that present us with opportunities? How do we handle those opportunities in the Indo-Pacific with respect to grain, in particular?

[Erin Gowriluk]

Sure, I'll offer a brief comment on that, and my colleagues, I'm sure, will have more to add on that.

From the perspective of Canadian grain farmers, at this point right now the crop is going in the ground; in many parts of the country, it has already. It's under way in other parts of the country. It's really up to Mother Nature at this point. We know that parts of Alberta and parts of the Prairies that are still recovering from drought conditions last year are lacking the moisture they need, so they're watching their crops very closely. In many parts of Manitoba that are still underwater, they're just getting that crop in the ground now.

We don't have a lot of insight at this point in terms of what we can expect the harvest will look like. We're hopeful that Mother Nature will co-operate and we'll be able to fill any gaps that the international market may be facing. We know there are a number of food-insecure regions around the world that rely on grain from the Black Sea region. All other countries will be pulling together to supply what we can for those regions.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

As some of you chime in—Chris and others—I'd also like your thoughts on this. The perspective I'm going to get at, and I'm going to be candid with you.... When you talk about a trade diversification office on the ground—and I also heard that from Troy, who was sitting in the back literally 24 hours ago—I appreciate the sentiment and what you're driving at.

Tell me two things: Is there a precedent in any other region in the world where we do business of having a dedicated office that is outside of the normal rubric—when I talk about the normal rubric, I'm talking about our trade commissioner service—and also, how do we explain that the TCS is good, but not quite good enough for this specific role?

How do you differentiate what you're contemplating from the current trade commissioner service, which I think most of us would generally agree does a very good job?

[Chris Davison]

Maybe I can kick that off.

First of all, our report reaffirms just what you said. It's very complimentary to a number of existing services and programs that are afforded and that support exporters from the Canadian government. I want to be really clear that this is not a criticism. It's about how we complement and strengthen this in that space.

What's a little bit unique about this is a recognition that trade commissioner service and other post staff in many instances don't have the technical background and capabilities that we're talking about associated with this office. They're also tasked with a number of files to deal with that have them looking at exports and promotion from a number of different aspects.

The office we're talking about would be made up of principally three buckets or types of people. We would have technical people—plant science, plant pathology and veterinarians—who can proactively work with a number of these sanitary and phytosanitary types of measures that I was talking about earlier. We're talking about regulatory experts who can provide that capacity building, both on the ground in terms of greater capacity from Canada and also in terms of working collaboratively to develop greater capacity and support risk-based systems in the Indo-Pacific region, for which there are varying capabilities. Then, of course, there are agriculture and trade policy personnel. All of those are linked with staff in the region, but also here in Ottawa and provincially, etc.

That's how I'd build on what you said. This is meant to be a complement to strengthen it.

I think the region is a little bit.... All regions are unique, but some are more aligned or maybe easier for us to work with more remotely or with less of a physical presence. We heard repeatedly the importance of sustained, on-the-ground presence. We need to be in the region. While there's significant opportunity, I also want to stress that the competition in the region is intensifying as well. This is not just about growth. Growth is what we're after, but we need this to sustain the market share that we have today as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Monsieur Savard-Tremblay for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you to all the witnesses for being here. On behalf of the committee, I just want to say that we are sorry.

Mr. Ghayyur, thank you for your testimony.

As part of our study, we heard testimony quite similar to yours. Witnesses warned us about certain countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. In some cases, we heard about the displacement of indigenous populations and the dangers of forced labour. We were told about jobs that don’t pay enough and aren’t subject to proper health regulations. I imagine you have similar concerns about India.

My colleague asked a question earlier about a human rights chapter.

Do you think there should be a chapter on labour? If so, what should it regulate?

[Taha Ghayyur]

Thank you for that question.

At this point, of course, we do not have sufficient evidence when it comes to labour rights. Of course, there are concerns about labour in many such countries, but when it comes to our concern right now with human rights, which is what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been pointing out over and over again, it has to do with freedom of religion, expression and media, and freedom to express any critique of the government.

What we're looking for specifically is religious rights, the right to express yourself and the right to defend any person who is going through human rights violations. What we would like to see specifically concerns human rights defenders and journalists, as well as ethnic minorities and religious minorities.

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

So that must be officially included in a possible trade agreement.

In addition to violations committed directly by state actors, we’ve heard about human rights violations committed by multinationals. Obviously, there are fears that a possible trade agreement would increase multinationals’ capacity to commit certain misdeeds. We heard testimony about the palm oil sector in Indonesia and Malaysia and the mining sector in the Philippines.

Do you think that, when it comes to India, there are contentious sectors that require particular caution and attention?

[Taha Ghayyur]

I can't think of any specifically at this point that I can talk about when it comes to multinationals. Our concern is, unfortunately, the lawlessness at this point, which has the tacit approval of the government.

It's not so much the multinationals and the businesses that are involved. Unlike China, for instance, and many other countries you just mentioned, whether it's Indonesia, Thailand, or other places where multinationals are definitely playing a very significant role and forced labour is a serious concern, in this case, this is not something we are concerned about, at least at this point. It's something we are definitely monitoring very closely, of course, when you have so much lawlessness and targeting of people indiscriminately.

Labour is another aspect that we definitely need to be studying, and it is something that Canada should be very seriously looking at. As a human rights advocacy group, we are also looking into it very seriously.

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

Since we’re talking about a trade agreement, I’ll use the example of Canadian companies doing business in countries where both the social safety net and regulatory toolkit are grossly inadequate. How can we strengthen the rules so that these companies respect human rights?

[Taha Ghayyur]

I think it comes down to the whole idea of due diligence. In some cases, we have seen precedents where government essentially has a code around responsible business ethics. That is something all businesses should follow in Canada when it comes to dealing with India or companies that have been doing business with India.

Of course, at a larger level, we're not necessarily suggesting at this point something like the Special Economic Measures Act, which we have seen with Myanmar or China, for instance. Right now we are talking about more proactive due diligence, which we should be doing both at the government level and also the corporations, and any company in Canada that is actually doing business with India.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Masse for six minutes, please.