Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 51 - Evidence - Meeting of October 18, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 18, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, met this day at 10:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to order.
For the purposes of our audience, I will have our senators introduce themselves.
Senator Dean: Senator Dean from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Senator Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah from Ontario.
Senator White: Vernon White, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator R. Black: Robert Black from Ontario.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
The Chair: I am Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan.
We are meeting today to begin our examination of Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, often referred to as the CPTPP.
We are also pleased that the minister will be here for the first time before this committee in his capacity as the Minister of International Trade Diversification. We will hear from the minister about his mandate and put questions to him on that. We are taking the opportunity to be efficient but detailed both on your portfolio and the introduction to our bill.
Honourable senators, I remind you that you have received much paper on the CPTPP.
The trade report that we did previously has been circulated to all new members and those of us who have sat on the committee for some time.
We have also received excellent comparisons between TPP and CPTPP by our analysts. We received an interpretation of why it is necessary, or at least in our best interests, to consider being one of the first six in. This is different from when we were studying CETA, which was a preference for being in it. There are certain important issues that follow from being in the first and our analyst has provided a paper on this matter in both languages. We have more documents, the file is thick, so we are looking forward to it.
I know that some of the papers that you received were worked on over the summer, and I am reminding you of all papers you have just to refresh your memory.
I’m going to turn the floor over to Minister Carr. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The floor is yours on your mandate and on your introduction to CPTPP. I can assure you there will be questions from the senators, and I know you have your officials to assist you. Welcome to the committee.
Hon. Jim Carr, P.C., M.P., Minister of International Trade Diversification: Thank you, senator, for the invitation to be with you. I always feel when I come to the Senate, either in whole or in committee, that I’m walking into a place about which I learned a lot from my mentor, a Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba by the name of Duff Roblin. He will be known to some of you and, I hope, better known in a few moments by others, as someone who believed in the essential role of the Senate as the Government of Canada and the institutions of Canadian government reach their maximum potential.
He believed in the power of the Senate to add value to all debates in the Canadian polity, and he imbued in me a true appreciation for the work that you do. When I enter here, I think of who he was as a politician, as a public person and also what he symbolically represented to me and to others.
He was appointed to the Senate by a Liberal, Pierre Trudeau. He was appointed to the cabinet by a Conservative, Brian Mulroney, where he held the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate. All of what he did and said about the bipartisan nature of the best of Canadian politics is a lesson I have held dearly all my adult life and which I bring to this discussion this morning.
I also remember at a moment like this my colleague and fellow Manitoban, Ed Fast, who did so much important work in the development of this agreement that we will be discussing this morning. I know that I join all senators and all Canadians in wishing him all the best during a difficult time.
What a remarkable two weeks it has been, senators, if you think back about what has happened in Canada and around the world in such a short period of time. I often say those of us, including everyone in this room, who are in the business of making history every day, it’s difficult to know exactly what others will say about us when the historians look back on this era of Canadian public life. I’m sure they will pause at least for a couple of pages on the last few weeks, to review ever so briefly, that Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed on a historic extension of continental cooperation. I would be happy to talk about the importance of that agreement, but to say that it adds 470 million people to a free-trade zone for Canada and shows that when we can find alignment in the interests of our own country with our trading partners, the result is that it is in the benefit and interests of all three nations.
Then literally, a day later, Shell announced a $40 billion investment, the single largest private investment in Canadian history, in an LNG project which will take natural gas from the Montney in northeastern British Columbia and move it by pipeline. Then it will be liquefied, ultimately in the cleanest way in the world, in Kitimat and sent to partners in Asia, which will displace coal-fired electricity with the cleanest LNG in the world. This confidence from the investment community in Canada and its capacity to extend its export markets to Asia is a very important message.
Also, colleagues, remember that the ownership included a 25 per cent stake from a Malaysian company, Petronas. There is Chinese, Korean and Japanese investment in this one project. That happened literally 24 hours after the agreement in principle of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Then at the same time, as many will know, we were celebrating the first anniversary of CETA. If you take those three agreements and combine them, you will see we have added 1.5 billion customers and consumers in a free-trade zone.
That is why I think we are coming through such a dynamic period and why I’m so pleased to talk about both my mandate from the Prime Minister and this trade deal in particular.
“Diversification” is an impactful addition to the title of the ministry. As a matter of fact, I am the first ever Canadian Minister of International Trade Diversification. Diversification means several things beyond the obvious. The obvious is that an expansion of export markets is in Canada’s national interest. For example, 99 per cent of all of our oil and gas exports go to one country, the United States. It’s clearly in Canada’s interests to look well beyond our own hemisphere as an export market for much of our natural resources. But diversification also means those who create the wealth. In trading companies in Canada itself, why is it that 11 per cent of companies who trade in Canada are owned by women? What are we leaving on the table? That’s why we understand that to embrace the capacity of the women entrepreneur in Canada, to look beyond the traditional markets, is a very important value and objective.
We talk a lot about wealth distribution in Canada. It’s a dynamic, robust debate. We love to have it. Senator Bovey wants more for culture. I want more for symphony orchestras, senator. Someone else wants more for infrastructure. I bet you there is a senator on this side who thinks we spend too much or not enough on health care. It’s an essential debate about how we redistribute income and wealth in our country, but equally we have to talk about the creation of wealth. And that’s what a trade agreement does; it establishes a bridge that the entrepreneur, the small- and medium-sized enterprises can cross. Because ultimately a trade deal is really a means to an end. It’s a bridge to take us to jobs and wealth creation for our citizens. That’s why it takes up so much of our effort as a part of the aspirations of our government, and I know that this is a goal that’s shared by many around this table.
Also, just to bring you up to date to this week, I had the pleasure of being in Toronto with the Prime Minister and other colleagues — Minister Morneau was there, Minister Freeland — at the Global Fortune 500 event where the most active and powerful investors in the world came to Toronto to hear the Canadian story. Senators, I was amazed at the degree of optimism and enthusiasm to do business in Canada. It was a buzz, if I can call it that, that I don’t think we would have felt even a few months ago.
So the time for Canada is right to be aggressive in these strategic objectives of the expansion of our markets and also the invitation of direct investments from offshore. There were countless CEOs there from virtually every corner of the world. We have much to offer, and the time is now.
Just to take some examples, we are the home of a burgeoning artificial intelligence sector. We have innovative entrepreneurs who are tackling global food production and security. We have abundant natural resources that can, as I gave as an example a minute ago, displace the use of coal worldwide. And we are now seized with an opportunity, right here and right now, to take advantage at every turn. In the three months since I was appointed as the Minister of International Trade Diversification we have celebrated, as I said, the first anniversary of CETA. I have travelled to the ASEAN market in Singapore. I have travelled to Tel Aviv; we are hopeful we will be able to introduce into Parliament and to you the Canada-Israel free trade agreement. The TPP is under discussion now. We are having continuing conversations with the Pacific Alliance and with Mercosur, which are the nations of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. We are looking east, west, south and, may I say, north as well. With the revitalization of the Port of Churchill, Canada will be positioned more powerfully than ever before to look at our northern territory as an international gateway both east and west.
Taken together, all of this activity amounts to wealth creation and jobs. With your help this chamber can bring to life a most remarkable value statement. With the ratification of CPTPP, Canada will be the only G7 country with trade agreements with the other six. Think about that, how powerful a statement that is, and the reality that it presents to countries who want to do business with Canada.
We are on the verge of becoming a truly global platform with preferential access to 1.5 billion people, which is two thirds of global GDP. And this is just the beginning.
The CPTPP is the cornerstone of Canada’s efforts to increase Canadian trade and investment in the dynamic and fast-growing Asia-Pacific region. You may have noticed in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister that he specifically mentions this region as a priority for Canada and a priority for my work. Just parenthetically, it’s interesting to be a minister where you are held accountable not only by your boss, the Prime Minister, but by the hundreds of millions of people with computers, or billions of people, who happen to move on to that website and know exactly what’s expected of me.
It’s a real moment in transparency and a little humbling, I might say, as you watch what is being accomplished against what we want to accomplish as set out in the mandate from the Prime Minister.
You know, of course, that the CPTPP is the cornerstone of Canada’s efforts to increase Canadian trade and investment in Asia. It’s an ambitious and high standard agreement. It will help to strengthen a rules-based international system that facilitates global value chains and, of course, has tremendous economic significance for Canada.
This will form a trading block consisting of 11 countries, including Japan, with 495 million consumers and a combined GDP of $35.8 trillion, representing 35 per cent of global GDP. Combined, CPTPP will eliminate tariffs on over 95 per cent of tariff lines and the vast majority of tariffs will be eliminated immediately upon entry into force of the agreement.
These benefits will be held in all sectors across the country, including beef, pork, cereals, fish and seafood and forestry, on a range of industrial products, information and communication technologies, metals and minerals and financial and professional services, among others. Crucially, this government fought hard to claw back unhelpful provisions on intellectual property and secured an exception to protect our culture.
We championed and saved the groundbreaking environment and labour chapters, including that they be subject to dispute settlement.
As senators know, the CPTPP will enter into force 60 days after the first six signatories notify, in writing, the CPTPP depository in New Zealand of the completion of their domestic ratification procedures. To date, three CPTPP signatories have ratified the agreement.
Senators, it would be very helpful for Canada to be part of this initial group and we know that the date is fast approaching. Early November is a target we should not miss for our exporters to be the first to take advantage of this vast market.
I also hope we can discuss the other side of the diversification coin, and that is diversifying who gets into trade. As I mentioned before our youth, Indigenous people, newcomers and women, equipped and confident that they too can compete and succeed in the world; that trade works for them and includes their hopes and ambitions for their businesses and their families.
One of the vehicles for change is also the rules-based system on which we have depended for our prosperity for decades. During my mandate, I will work with other countries to support the development of pragmatic and realistic ideas to strengthen and modernize the WTO.
As a matter of fact, colleagues, a week from today, Canada will welcome 12 like-minded countries to talk about WTO reform. They represent every continent around the globe. We will establish the basis upon which like-minded middle powers can come up with agreement on sensible reforms of the WTO — which needs to be reformed. We will then take that consensus and roll it out to other countries who, right now, might not be like-minded. But we will make the argument that a rules-based international trading order is in the interests of the entire planet.
So that is a very important milestone. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity and privilege to host these ministers in Ottawa next week.
On the world stage, Canada is stepping up where leadership is needed, building more bridges than at any point in our history. And at home, we’re reaching out to more Canadians to ensure those bridges are crossed successfully for the prosperity of our middle class. There has never been a moment as exciting as this one and we must pursue these opportunities.
Thank you for your attention, senators, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Minister, thank you for the overview. I have a long list of senators who no doubt will address some of these issues, but I trust we will come back to CPTPP and get the answers that we need to proceed.
Before I do so, I want to recognize Senator Smith, the leader of the Conservative caucus in the Senate, who is, I think, at the back watching us. He could sit at the table, but he seems to be very comfortable there. Welcome to the committee.
I’m going to start with the list that I have.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, minister for being with us, and thank you to your colleagues, also.
I am going to talk about CPTPP. I’m trying to get a big picture sense 10 years hence when you’re coming back and telling us the consequences of this treaty. In concise terms, give me a brief summary of what impact it has on our economy, to the job market and so on.
Mr. Carr: I could talk about the bridge that we have built and what that bridge means for the potential for wealth creation and job creation as presented to SMEs; the access to those trillions of dollars of GDP; the fact that much of that region will be tariff-free over time; the accessibility for Canadian entrepreneurs to extend into that market will be at an all-time high. At the same time, we have to improve our capacity to prepare small- and medium-sized businesses.
Senator, you probably know we have a network of 1,000 trade commissioners around the world who are available to advise small- and medium-sized enterprises. But, when you are then able to say to them that they have access to these markets at preferential rates than we have historically had in Canada, you can be more concrete than otherwise.
It gives us a sense of momentum and also lets us take examples of small- and medium-sized enterprises that have extended their export possibilities and have done so successfully. For a very long time, we have relied on the United States because it is geographically proximate and there is an ease in relationships for linguistic and cultural reasons. So, now we have to say, “Here are examples of industries that have taken advantage of the trade commissioner service, have taken advantage of reduced tariffs and who are able, as a result of that, to explore possibilities that never before were possible.”
Senator Massicotte: We had an information session and have all done a lot of reading. I like numbers, so let me tell what I read that has consequence: GDP will go up by $4.2 billion in the next 10 years; exports will go up $3.2 billion, which is quite significant, and exports obviously means jobs to Canada.
But imports will go up by $6.9 billion, or nearly twice as much as our exports. I suspect that means a lack of jobs or, obviously, intense competition for producers in Canada from that $7 billion worth of products from the exterior, and we will lose approximately $500 million from duties we are collecting today from those importers into Canada.
My issue is I’m worried about jobs. We were told there will be a nil impact on jobs, but I’m having difficulty with that statement when we know exports will be $3.2 billion but imports will be $6.9 billion. Obviously, $6.9 billion means products coming to Canada being sold by people in those 11 countries, presumably taking away from our product and our job creation.
Can you explain that to me? How significant is that competition factor in the loss of jobs in Canada?
Mr. Carr: According to the chief economist at Global Affairs Canada, the CPTPP will generate long-term economic gains for Canada totalling $4.2 billion. The gains are driven by increases in goods and service exports and investment driven primarily by new preferential access for Canadian businesses to markets in which Canada does not already have a free trade agreement. I’m talking here about Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Australia.
The CPTPP gains are greater than $3.4 billion under TPP due to improved market access. I want to make another point. These are numbers we can quote that are not prospective; they are real. In the first year of the European agreement, Canadian exports increased by 3.3 per cent with a dollar value of $1.1 billion.
A very good example was when I was in Montreal two weeks ago with Cecilia Malmström, who is the European Union Trade Commissioner. We toured a bicycle factory that had just won a contract in Barcelona for 7,000 bicycles. Only could have happened within a free trading environment because there was a 15 per cent tariff that has been reduced to zero. The procurement chapter allowed his company to compete. Coming the other way, there were examples of Belgian chocolate factories opened in Ontario creating jobs for Canadians as a result of the new rules.
So it’s possible that jobs can be created for Canadians both ways in this trade flow with the obvious benefits to Canadian consumers. All in all, we would conclude that this package would yield net job growth and wealth creation growth for Canada.
Senator Massicotte: If I can continue, I’m not sure that helps me a lot, but I appreciate your level of confidence. Having said that, if you look at the trade deals we have done with Columbia, South Korea, Jordan, Honduras and so on — and we have free trade deals with those countries — there has been no significant consequence on our trading pattern with those countries in spite of the fact we signed a free trade agreement. I think it’s consistent, the comment you made earlier, that this should only be a first step to a more significant economic development. Obviously our past in the last ten years has not been the case.
Now, what’s the change, what’s your vision and why should we all get on the bandwagon when it has made no significant impact in the past?
Mr. Carr: I think the bandwagon is explaining to small- and medium-sized enterprises the potential these agreements offer them. You are right, it is a platform and it doesn’t necessarily start with dramatic numbers. But it’s our belief that over time the numbers will be consequential. There is a cultural shift within the small business sector in Canada. That is happening and has to continue to happen in order to take full advantage of what governments are creating at the highest level. I’m very confident this is going to happen.
The best way to excite the industry, I believe, is by showing examples where it has worked for others, and to use the services of the trade commissioner’s offices to prepare them to build the capacity necessary to take that leap.
If you believe in the concept of wealth creation through liberalized trade, then you have a belief that in the long term that’s going to pay dividends if it’s in a rules-based international trading order. That’s why the work we are doing in the WTO is so important. That’s why, at a time when there are protectionist forces in the world, countries like Canada — and those who are coming here next week — understand that we have to demonstrate through economic growth and job creation that this is the way we can maximize opportunities for our people. I also note that the CPTPP has a small- and medium-sized business chapter; the first time in Canadian history.
Senator Massicotte: The one sector that’s getting hit hard has been the milk producers, and it’s going to be the second or third time after Europe and hopefully the NAFTA 2. Your government has promised to take care of them, to make sure we compensate them for the damage they are suffering. If you look at the experience we have with the European agreement, we basically offered investment money. Many farmers said, “We don’t need that. We are already modernized quite a bit.” In other words, they were quite dissatisfied with what we proposed for the European agreement.
Why will this one be different? What’s our approach? How do we make sure in this case that we compensate them fairly for the damage we’ve caused from signing this new free trade agreement?
Mr. Carr: Senator, we know that our dairy, poultry and egg farmers are vital to Canada’s prosperity. They provide the highest-quality products to Canadians at reasonable prices and they support strong rural economies and communities. Since taking office we have invested more than $350 million in Canadian dairy farmers and processors. We understand that there will be impacts on our farmers, and we are committed to fully and fairly compensating them, and to help ensure that they continue to succeed.
We have been continuing our CPTPP consultations with them through the summer. I know that the Prime Minister as recently as last week met with dairy producers. I’m also certain that Minister Freeland did the same thing. We will continue to strongly support and defend our world-class dairy, poultry and egg farmers and our supply management system.
We also remain committed to growing our agricultural exports to $75 billion by 2025, and putting more money in the pockets of farmers, while strongly supporting our daily, poultry and egg farmers.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, minister, and welcome to the committee. Minister Champagne signed side instruments to formalize a common understanding on several issues with the nine signatories of the agreement. The largest amount of the side letters that Canada signed is with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. My question looks at the side agreement on e-commerce with Vietnam. In his response letter addressed to the Vietnamese minister of trade on March 8, 2018, Minister Champagne stated, and I quote, that:
Both countries shall continue consultation on cooperation for the implementation of the Cyber Security Law of Viet Nam or related legislation concerning cybersecurity with a view to ensuring consistency with the Agreement.
Can you tell us exactly what “. . . consultation on the cooperation for the implementation . . . .” means in this letter.
Bruce Christie, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada: Senator, in the final negotiations of the CPTPP, we negotiated some additional side letters with all countries. In the case of Vietnam, there were two areas where Vietnam needed a little more time to bring their cybersecurity legislation into conformity with the standards of the new agreement. So, we signed a side letter with the Vietnamese government to give them some additional time to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with the agreement. That’s the process we are undertaking right now.
Senator Ngo: I would like to point out, minister, that we signed the agreement in March, but in June 12, 2018, after the deal was signed,the Vietnamese National Assembly passed a highly repressive cybersecurity law that now requires tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, Samsung to share the personal data of users in Vietnam. With this new law there is no safe place for the people in Vietnam to speak freely. Since last June, many peaceful dissidents have been criminally charged to serve a sentence.
Look at this issue that is also a trade impediment for Canadian small businesses. Does this side agreement put any mechanism in place to protect online freedom and freedom of speech in Vietnam?
Mr. Christie: Thank you for your question, senator. The cybersecurity laws of Vietnam that you refer to, and additional laws that they may pass, need to be consistent with the obligations they have undertaken under the CPTPP. The Vietnamese government, like Canada, is going through the process now of ratifying the agreement. But, in the side letter after this grace period ends — that we have provided Vietnam to bring their cybersecurity and other related laws into conformity — if they are found to be non-conforming with the standards of the agreement, subject to dispute settlement, Canada would be in a position to take Vietnam to a dispute settlement case under the agreement.
Senator Ngo: So, that means there was no consultation with Canada on the development and implementation of the cybersecurity law before they passed it?
Mr. Christie: Senator, we have not been consulted as they have developed their legislation to bring the CPTPP into effect on this particular issue.
Senator Ngo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I am very interested in the diversification component of your mandate. I think this is particularly interesting in the context of negotiating trade agreements where, of course, there are gains for Canada. There are winners, for the most part, but there are also sectors of our industry and commercial companies that inevitably lose out because they are less competitive.
I want to make the immediate link with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the impact that signing the agreement has on the supply management system for dairy producers in Quebec, but also across Canada. My question is twofold. First, what impact do you think justifies the compensation program you mentioned, and is it comparable to the one provided for under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement?
Second, for all the trade agreements that Canada has signed and intends to sign, should compensation programs be systematically considered or do you think we should move toward additional programs to assist in the transition and conversion of certain industries that, in the context of globalization, unfortunately, are in particular experiencing problems with competitiveness?
[English]
Mr. Carr: Senator, as I said in an earlier answer, we are committed to the protection of the supply management system. We are in current and continuing conversations with the industry to determine fair and full compensation. As the displacement resulting from the trade agreements becomes clear, then will be able to zero in on the best form of that compensation in conversation with the industry. This is the commitment of our government, as articulated as recently as two days ago, by the Prime Minister.
You asked a second an interesting question about the transition in industries that may be impacted by the consequences of a free trade agreement. I could broaden the question and include: industries that are affected by artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, the changing nature of work, and our capacity — as a society — to adjust in ways that anticipate those changes and prepares, not only the workforce of today, but, also the workforce of the future to respond to that.
We have a very important thrust in Canada of doing exactly that. You know of our supercluster initiative that extends from coast to coast in Canada, ranging from the digital economy on the West Coast to protein industries on the prairie, advanced manufacturing in Toronto, artificial intelligence in Montreal, and the blue economy in ocean research in Atlantic Canada. Inherent in all those clusters is the impact on employment over time and our capacity to train our people to position themselves to changes in the work environment, whether that’s induced by trade agreements or by technology; and how Canadians, because of our very impressive commitment to innovation, can be on the leading edge of these changes.
Another interesting point: I was in New York during the United Nations General Assembly week and had a series of bilateral meetings with trade ministers from around the world and CEOs. In one conversation with the CEO of an American company doing business around the world and wanting to expand its footprint in Canada, I asked the question to the female CEO, “What does it look like from your perspective when you are making investment decisions worldwide? How does Canada stack up competitively?” The answer was fascinating. While commenting, in passing, on regulatory issues on taxation where she concluded it was a bit of a wash, she said, “Actually, your competitive advantage in Canada is your open immigration policy, because you understand that your talent pool is not Canada but it’s the world.” In the international competition for skilled workers — and, may I say, semi-skilled or even unskilled workers — Canada has a competitive advantage, which plays to the heart of your question about the transition in the digital era to this new economy powered by our capacity to be ahead of the curve. According to this one CEO — and I have heard it from many others — this is actually one area where we excel.
Your question is a very good one, but I think it’s beyond trade. It includes changes to technology and our capacity to adjust.
Senator Housakos: Welcome, minister, to the committee. I want to pick up on the line of questioning that Senator Massicotte started with. You talk about the desire on the part of the government to diversify trade and our economy and to look to various regions of the world. I wholeheartedly agree that free trade has been beneficial for Canada, particularly the trade arrangement with the United States and trade with Europe. It’s been beneficial because we have two particular markets like Canada that have very similar labour codes and labour systems in place. We have similar standards vis-à-vis intellectual technology and protection of intellectual technology. We have currencies that allow us to be competitive.
I want to point out that when the previous Harper government came into power, there were a total of four or five free trade agreements signed. When that government left power, there were over 45 agreements signed. Clearly, this isn’t a new model of trying to go out and reach out to new markets. I think the previous government did it with great success because they had dozens of free trade agreements, many of which I sponsored in the Senate.
The question I have for you and the department is: What have we put forward as a benchmark in evaluating the success of those agreements? Like Senator Massicotte, the way I evaluate a trade agreement is making sure that Canada sells as much, if not more, to the country we have trade with than they sell to us. My skepticism, looking back at many of these agreements is, in pursuit of this great zeal to sign free trade because we are looking for another bonanza like we had with the U.S. agreement, there are a number of these agreements where we have severe trade deficits with these countries. I don’t see how we will be able to compete with some of these countries because of labour standards. Simply put, if you look at a country like Honduras, their average minimum wage is significantly lower. Many of these countries we have trade agreements with devalue their currencies, which are already devalued, which makes it hard for Canada to compete.
What benchmarks do we have in place to evaluate the free trade agreements because we have so many in place. What standards do we identify before we engage with a potential country. That is, standards we expect that country to have in terms of labour policy and average income for their employees? It’s nice to say that one of our strengths is our immigration policy, but as a Quebec senator, I can tell you that in Quebec right now the average income of the newly arrived immigrants is considerably lower than your average Quebecer. And the unemployment rate amongst the immigrants that have come into Quebec is considerably higher.
Mr. Carr: You assess policy — trade, economic, social and tax — in the macroeconomic indicators that we all assess in the country. At that level, we know that Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio is the healthiest in the G7. We know that Canadians have created 600,000 new jobs in the last two years. We know that the unemployment rate is at a historic low.
That is not directly as a result of trade agreements that we have signed, but it is as a result of a combination of economic, taxation and social policy, which I think most would argue is of a net benefit to Canada.
If you look at the economic impact of all the trade agreements, how about NAFTA? What has been the impact on the Canadian economy of the NAFTA agreement? It’s been enormously beneficial. So, we believe in the fundamental growth narrative from a free-trading nation, and we can use countless examples in the several agreements we have where that is of benefit. I don’t think it’s simply looking at the balance sheet at a moment in time to say that we are importing more from that country than we are exporting. It’s way more complicated than that. We also have to look at foreign direct investment and the power of that investment to stimulate economic growth in a host country.
The other point that you make, and I completely agree with it, is that we have to continue to measure the success of these agreements in ways in which we can explain it to Canadians.
There comes a time when we have to assess whether or not, on balance, we believe these agreements are in the national interest. If they are not, we take advantage of whatever provisions there might be within those agreements to renegotiate them and make them stronger for Canada. But I think if you look at the general state of the Canadian economy and the well-being of its citizens, I would conclude, as I’m sure you would, that these agreements have left us better off than we would have been without them.
Senator Housakos: Minister, I reiterate that I agree that the NAFTA has been a huge bonanza for the Canadian economy, but I’m also pointing out that there are a lot of secondary agreements with smaller nations, and I wonder whether we have taken steps to evaluate those agreements.
Are there any agreements out of the 45 we have in place that, looking at them today, we wish we hadn’t signed or we would be willing to renegotiate in the interests of Canadians?
Mr. Carr: I haven’t gone through that exercise personally. It could be that some of my officials have. I invite them to answer if they have a more precise answer than that.
But you can always improve on the execution of any agreement, and you always have within those agreements the capacity to review how well it’s working, not only from the perspective of your own interests but the perspective of the interests of your trading partners.
So can I say that all, I think it’s 41 — maybe you are right and it’s 45 — agreements, have been used to their maximum value, but I can say that in every case they offer the entrepreneurs and the small- and medium-sized enterprises more opportunities than they had before.
Also, if you look at the nature of some of the agreements, particularly the Canada-Israel free trade agreement that we have modernized, it includes provisions that have never been in any other agreement. So, we are learning from these other agreements that have been signed and are in force and, through these lessons, making sure that the Canadian position, as we negotiate these new agreements, is able to incorporate the learning from the other ones.
It’s hard to directly measure all of the advantages of an FTA. I mentioned this $40 billion investment from Shell into the LNG market internationally. We can quantify the number of jobs: it’s 10,000 in construction. We can quantify the amount of investment: It’s $40 billion. But how do we quantify the buzz I felt in Toronto yesterday in the wake of that investment from investors around the world who now look upon Canada more favourably than they had before that investment was announced? How do we measure that? Over time, maybe we’ll be able to take a stab at it; we can’t yet. I think the same is true of these free trade agreements. But if we believe sending a message to the world that Canada is a place that welcomes their investment, welcomes the competition of a free-trading environment, is a place where they can do business with a reliable tax system and regulatory environment, with a government that understands the importance of wealth creation, we are in a much better place than we would otherwise be.
Senator Dean: Minister, thank you for being here. Thanks for the roll up of Canada’s breakthroughs in the last year in the area of trade.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank our federal and public service colleagues who have done this with other governments too, stretching back and covering the 45 agreements Senator Housakos talked about. We are thankful for your service to Canadians every day.
I wouldn’t have been alone in noticing in the chaos of Brexit that Canada’s CETA agreement has been heralded by some as a potential life raft, as I’ll call it, for the U.K. in terms of its Brexit options.
Can you comment on the trade and investment implications of Brexit for Canada? Is there anything in particular we should be keeping an eye on?
Mr. Carr: First, I’d like to second your motion of thanks to the public servants. Whenever I go across the country and around the world, I’m continually reminded of the high quality of the Public Service of Canada. We sometimes take that for granted; we shouldn’t have. Thank you for pointing that out, senator. I experience it every day.
We will make sure that access between the two economies of Canada and the U.K. will remain open regardless of the ultimate result. It’s in flux right now. We know that both the United Kingdom and the EU are important commercial partners with Canada. We have very strong historical ties with both. This very building we are in would not likely have been constructed were it not for the magnificent example of Westminster, which I think is the finest model in the world. It’s in our interest to continue to build positive relationships, as we continue to do with the U.K., the EU, and the EU member states. We support them as they seek to reach an agreement on their new relationship and as soon as possible to minimize uncertainty and unpredictability.
Provisional application of CETA will continue to apply to the U.K. until it officially leaves the EU. I believe the date is March 29, when there has to be final determination, and we are having continuing discussions with the U.K. on the future of our bilateral trade relationship following Brexit, while recognizing the U.K.’s lack of jurisdiction to negotiate an FTA while it remains a member of the EU.
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here.
We met at your hometown in July for the Midwestern U.S.-Canada conference. You came to do the opening remarks as minister for natural resources. When you walked out of the room, you became Minister for International Trade.
Canadian farmers and fishermen are sending big new shipments of wool, lobster and canola oil to China amid the U.S. trade war with China. From April to August 2018, according to Statistics Canada data, the value of Canadian merchandise exports to China rose 23 per cent, a surge of nearly $2 billion over a period that coincides with the period of the greatest rise in tariffs between the U.S. and China. How long will this surge last in terms of the China clause 32.10 in our USMCA?
Mr. Carr: I’m glad, senator, you have given me an opportunity to talk about that clause. And of course, we welcome that 23 per cent increase; that’s a very high number. And by the way, at the same time, our trade with the United States and our exports to the United States also grew impressively, so we were able to see those two developments simultaneously.
The clause 32 that you reference does not change the capacity of any of the three signatories to this agreement to choose to exit the agreement, at any time, for whatever reason, with six-months notice. That was true in the current NAFTA agreement and it’s true in the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Nothing has changed. There is a clause in that agreement that says that if any of the partners within it want to begin free trade discussions with a non-market economy, they must give the other partner notice.
Well, this applies to all three countries. Is it wild to speculate that perhaps it would be one of the other two signatories to the agreement that wants to establish a conversation that could lead to a free trade agreement in a so-called non-market economy? I can’t predict the politics of the United States in the next two or four years or how a new administration may view the possibility of a free trade agreement with China.
Of course in the example of Vietnam, it does not apply because it predates this agreement. But we believe that Canada has exactly the same sovereign control over its discussions with bilateral trading relationships with any country, including so-called non-market economy countries, and we will continue to have this conversation with China. Minister Ng was in China just two weeks ago. Minister Morneau and I are travelling to Beijing to co-chair a conference on November 11 and 12, and other ministers will travel there. Premiers from Atlantic Canada are travelling to China with two federal ministers on the journey.
We are looking to deepen and broaden our trading relationship with China sector by sector. If at some time, we enter into a conversation about a full free trade agreement, we will inform our partners in North America as we are obliged to do, but it does not constrain us from deepening other trading ties with China or any other country in the world.
Senator Oh: Any future FTA agreement with China or any other Asian country will not be affected by clause 32?
Mr. Carr: What clause 32 says is if we enter into a formal, free-trade negotiation with a non-market economy, we have to inform our partners. If our partners don’t like it, then they have the capacity to bolt from the agreement just as they do now.
To reinforce the point, this is a reciprocal arrangement and applies equally to the other partners of the tripartite agreement; namely, Mexico and the United States.
Senator Oh: But do we have to get approval from them?
Mr. Carr: No.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you and all your staff for the work you are doing, being here today and the overview.
The protection of intellectual property is critical. Over my travels the last months in particular, there was much consternation that intellectual property may not be enshrined. There is support for that enshrinement.
You mentioned several B words this morning. I want to look at the cultural industries, not just the not-for-profit arts, but the cultural industry as part of those B words. One is brand and the other is bridges in this digital era.
We learned yesterday in our work on cultural diplomacy that in our cultural industries, Canada’s video game creators — most of them under 34 years old, which gets to your youth discussion — they are international leaders as game creators. The sales abroad are considerable. That industry alone contributes $4 billion to the 60 per cent of GDP which you quote as being from exports and imports.
I want to ask you a question about the bridges for small business, the one-or two-person owned businesses within the cultural industries which together create a fair amount of our GDP. With any of these agreements, what are your projections for the very small, creative profit enterprises? In light of your interest in youth that you mentioned, where do you see international student exchanges fitting in as a groundwork for preparation of our workforce of tomorrow?
Mr. Carr: Well, senator, let me first thank you, as a Manitoban, for all of the stellar work you have done promoting Canada’s cultural life, not only in our province, but across the country and around the world. Thank you for your passion about the rehabilitation of the Churchill line and the port, the work you have done to create a wonderful museum in Churchill itself, and by extension, the value you place on Canada’s capacity to share its cultural value and brilliance around the world. That’s true in what we do or what we don’t do in free trade agreements.
Let me review a little bit that our cultural diversity, our linguistic duality and the protection of our culture is absolutely critical for Canada and to Canadians. We’ll always protect it, and we’ll protect it in ways that are demonstrable and enforceable, including in trade agreements.
With CPTPP, we have adopted a chapter-by-chapter approach that guarantees that the cultural exception will apply wherever it is necessary. We succeeded in implementing a joint statement on the importance of cultural diversity in the preamble itself. To strengthen our flexibility to support our creators and protect our culture, we have signed bilateral agreements with each and every one of the other CPTPP countries. The result is that Canada will retain all of its power and flexibility to support our creators and protect our culture as we always seek to do.
In the negotiation with the United States and Mexico we also preserved our cultural identity and our capacity to ensure that it’s left to thrive in ways that are important to Canadians.
Also, for the first time, there is an SME chapter to address unique challenges of SMEs. You referred to very small operations and that there is a clear trade commissioner service that works closely and specifically with those SMEs.
By the way, this is an advertisement, that service is free. So these thousand trade commissioners, when they spend time with very small businesses, they don’t leave a bill behind. This is what we believe to be taxpayer-funded public service for the SMEs that would include those SMEs that are primarily concerned with culture, with digitization of our cultural values, and, of course, always working closely with youth to ensure that they can take full advantage of new opportunities.
On the question of student exchanges, personally I’m a huge advocate of those exchanges because when young people have the rare opportunity to travel internationally, and become familiar with another country and its culture, they automatically become ambassadors. If you look at how many are in Canada now — wish there were more — it is of tremendous value going forward. It’s not irrelevant to tie the impact of those student exchanges on our capacity to take full advantage of trade agreements because many of these students either stay in Canada or go back to their countries with a high view of Canada. Many of them become entrepreneurs who take a much different set of understandings and advocacy of the country where they have received most of their education. So I’m a big believer in all of that.
Senator Bovey: What about art students overseas? What role does that play in trade agreements?
Mr. Carr: I would take your advice on how we can enhance that possibility. In the case of all the senators around the table, whenever you believe you have an idea that will enhance our understanding of the capacity of these agreements, or where you believe we have missed an opportunity, or how you think we can do something better, please, I would welcome, and my departmental officials will always welcome, the input that you can offer.
The Chair: This committee studied trade agreements. When the house was in its pre-study of TPP, as it was then, we decided not to duplicate that cross-country tour and analysis that they did. We went into previous trade agreements, and there were a number of points made. One is that we sign the agreements, they have great expectations, but there is not an implementation strategy by the government, and it has to be step by step. We can’t just say that we have trade commissioners out there because the small- and medium-sized businesses told us they don’t have time to stop to do any formal work. They need more help, more assistance.
We recommended very strongly, and continue to recommend, that there has to be no stopping right after we sign, it’s a done deal and here it is, it’s your agreement. There has to be an implementation strategy. So I, in turn, turn it over to you. You turned it over to us, and we have a responsibility to give you suggestions. But we are suggesting that you have a more concerted effort of an implementation strategy, and I’d welcome you looking at our report. That’s the background.
Mr. Carr: I’m very happy to learn from that study, and also to make a more general comment. It’s not only how we take advantage of a trade agreement through follow-up with trade commissioners and others who may not be aware of what that opportunity is. Follow-up is so important in all we do, and if you don’t follow up properly, you will not take full advantage. I understand this when I travel internationally and you meet people for the first time, and there is a tremendous sense of opportunity and well-being, and I’m so glad that I’ve had a chance to meet you, but if you don’t follow up from that meeting, that hand shake, that one meal, it goes nowhere. You have to follow up right away and make officials accountable for that follow-up because it is the second, third, fourth and fifth contact that ultimately produces the best results. Absolutely with you on follow-up, and I look forward to reading your report.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, minister, for being here.
As a sponsor for your bill, it’s fair to say that I’m in agreement with free-trade agreements and, in general, with the concept of trade liberalization as a creator of wealth for nations and its citizens.
What happens after the agreements are signed? In a previous life, I saw an analysis that showed our balances with markets where we had made a free trade agreement, before the free trade agreements were signed and several years after. In most of those, if my memory is correct, our imports grew faster than exports. Clearly other countries are leveraging these free trade agreements more than we are.
My question is not just about signing the free trade agreement; it’s about execution after they are signed. Should we be doing more to help our businesses, to direct, expose and encourage them, to hold their hands? Because, as you rightly said, it’s not just about the free trade strategy. We should give as much importance to the execution of the strategy as the strategy itself.
We seem to say that it’s done, and we walk away. It somehow is not working as well as it should.
Mr. Carr: I agree with you completely.
In the case of CETA, we know that there is $36.1 billion of activity. This is our exports to the European Union. But in the one year of CETA, it has grown by 3.3 per cent, or $1.1 billion, so we can quantify that. But your wider point is that once these agreements are signed, how do we ensure we take maximum advantage? The answer is that we look for ways of enabling the small- and medium-sized enterprises to build the capacity they need in order to take advantage of it. That doesn’t always happen overnight. That takes time.
In these FTAs, we’re also committed to using more resources than we ever have before to take advantage of CPTPP and other free trade agreements.
There is renewed commitment. Also, I don’t think it’s insignificant that the messaging you are hearing from the top of our government, the position is clear, and I think Canadians agree with this position, that the expansion of our export markets is in the strategic interests of Canada. That means there will be an investment of resources to give life to that commitment. We will be seeing, over the next number of months, just how that commitment takes shape, but it’s real. It’s my job to make the case inside government that the theoretical advantages of free trade agreements that most of us on this committee would share, most of you would share, have to be made real by building capacity for those who can take advantage of it.
That’s both the political commitment and the investment commitment that the Government of Canada will continue to make and for which we will have to be held accountable. Because it’s not only the very well-informed members of this important committee who will be assessing it; Canadians will be assessing it. The people who vote for me or don’t will be assessing it.
We not only have to make the arguments, but we have to prove we are making real progress. We believe the way to do that is to follow both the policy and the investment strategies that have been announced by the government, for which ultimately we should be held accountable.
Senator Marwah: I am glad to hear that. I shall mention your commitment in the exclusion part in my speech at third reading.
Mr. Carr: I’m sure I’ll be sent a copy, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here this morning. I have a very quick question for you.
First of all, following your remarks, I wanted to share a thought with you. You spoke about creating wealth. This speech is always extremely reassuring for Canadians. You also mentioned a visit to Toronto where you felt optimism and enthusiasm from investors in Canada. Let’s hope that all this won’t be changed by the concerns about Bill C-69 at this time. We are being inundated with emails on this, but that isn’t the issue this morning.
My quick question concerns the expansion process of the current agreement, and you touched on that. The Republic of Taiwan has expressed interest in being part of this agreement. Is Canada considering supporting this bid?
[English]
Mr. Carr: There are a number of countries that have indicated an interest in acceding to the CPTPP. They include Colombia, Taiwan, Thailand and the U.K. They are all considering whether or not to join the CPTPP. We are currently focusing all of our attention on ratification, and then we’ll be finalizing the procedures for accession. That has not been done yet and won’t be done until the sufficient number of countries have ratified the agreement, given official notice to the depository, which is in New Zealand, and then, I believe, that’s followed by a short period before the agreement is actually in effect. That is when those who have ratified will bear down on the very important issue of accession.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I understand that you have to proceed step by step, but has the government given any thought to whether or not support Taiwan’s bid?
[English]
Mr. Carr: We are not considering the values within any of these nation states who want to accede until the ratification is complete, but they have to be prepared to meet the high standards. Whichever country wants to accede to the CPTPP, that will be the threshold. They will have to conform with the high standards contained in the agreement itself, but the focus of those countries that seek to ratify is on the ratification process of which all of you in this room are very much a part. After that’s done, we will turn our attention to accession.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I have two questions that I want to pose to you.
These 40 side letters, are they diplomatic notes or binding? Could we have access to them to understand what the side agreements were with the varying countries for future reference as we look to the implementation?
Mr. Carr: I just happen to have the answer to that question, senator.
The Chair: We did not set this up.
Mr. Carr: From one of these world class officials that I was referring to a moment ago.
Canada obtained a number of bilateral side letters with the CPTPP, which form an integral part of the agreement. Eighteen of these side letters are binding, which means that they have the status of legal treaties, which is a very important point. All of the important letters that Canada negotiated on culture to autos have the status of a binding side letter. This means that they are enforceable through the dispute settlement mechanism of the CPTPP.
So they are treaties in themselves.
The Chair: As we are studying the bill, it would be helpful to have those filed with the committee. We can have that for next week. I won’t take your time here to enumerate them all.
Mr. Carr: Senator, I can do better than that. They are all public now. They are on the website.
The Chair: They were of great concern to some people to want to know. If you don’t tell us, we begin to imagine, and I think it’s important for us.
The other issue is on CPTPP. I think we are looking at this agreement, but as we always say when negotiating trade agreements, there will be winners and losers, inevitably, because of the diversity and consensus that you have to reach.
We have talked about the dairy industry here. Will there be specific compensation, separate and apart from the compensation that is in the new NAFTA, whatever you wish to call it? In other words, we understand that some people may — I’m not saying it’s going to happen — suffer a loss. We know that some industries in the past thought they would be affected, but they found new and ingenious ways to make the trade agreement work for them. I’m not sure about dairy, but I think we need to know that there will be a follow-up quickly, so we can assure everyone that there is something in it for the national benefit.
Mr. Carr: I have two observations, senator. One is that as we continue the conversations with the dairy industry, full and fair compensation will take shape. There is a commitment from the Prime Minister to make sure that happens. You make reference to winners and losers, and it inspires an observation from me.
The Government of Canada has to make decisions every day that determine the national interest. And the national interest is not necessarily a sum of special interests or even a sum of regional interests. It supersedes all of these things. So the lens through which I assess the value of a trade agreement, or actually any public policy initiative, even any tax measures, is whether or not it’s in Canada’s interests and whether or not we can defend it on the basis of those interests.
Inevitably, in a country as diverse as ours, geographically, linguistically, ethnically, there will be points of view that are not aligned all the time. That is just the nature of our federalism and of who we are as Canadians. It’s our job as the Government of Canada to think of Canada’s interests factoring in all of the components within it. There will inevitably be politicians and commentators and interest groups who think we got the balance wrong, and they will say so. They will either say so in the form of a platform that has to compete against other platforms at election time, they will say it on the floor of the House of Commons, which I might experience two hours from now, they say it in op-ed pages and in newspapers and on blogs and at dinner tables. That is the very essence of a vibrant democracy. I see all of this, including trade agreements, not through the prism of what sector, what region may or may not think it did better than another region, I see it through the question of is this good for the country. We believe that the CPTPP is good for Canada.
The Chair: Minister, I have no quarrel with that. However, when we make choices on national interests, we have to take into account and provide compensation for those who may not profit as well as others. You make a judgment value, but I think you have an obligation to ensure that it works for everyone, or at least that they are factored in. That’s why the compensation issue is extremely important, whether it’s dairy or something else.
Mr. Carr: I agree, senator.
The Chair: I see we have about five minutes. Senator Ngo had another question and Senator Massicotte.
How much time do you have, minister?
Mr. Carr: I think two-and-half minutes, more or less.
The Chair: Then perhaps we can entertain a question from each of senators, and then the minister can answer all three.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, minister. Another side agreement with Vietnam is co-labour. I’m concerned about that because in Vietnam there is no freedom of association and peaceful assembly and so on. Can you tell us exactly how this agreement helps improve labour laws in Vietnam?
Mr. Christie: Senator, in the original TPP agreement the United States had an annex with Vietnam to help them bring their labour laws into conformity with that agreement. That annex no longer exists, given the United States withdrew from the TPP agreement. So we, as parties to the agreement, provided Vietnam, through a side letter, the capability of an additional grace period of three years. During this period — in which Vietnam will bring their labour laws into conformity with the agreement — we will not impose economic sanctions on the Government of Vietnam for not complying fully with the terms of the agreement.
That side letter, and the grace period that it provides, gives Vietnam the additional time it requires to bring their labour laws into conformity. Once this grace period has ended, then all of the other CPTPP parties, if they deem Vietnam is not living up to the high standard labour provisions of the agreement, they can take them to an enforceable dispute settlement panel.
The Chair: I know the minister has to leave, but the officials can stay further. Are the two other questioners directly for the minister?
Senator Housakos: It is directly to the minister and it is a short question.
Minister, can you share with this committee the necessity for Canada to have clause 32.10 in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement?
Mr. Carr: Senator, you know that these negotiations are complex. I also know from some experience that you never really see bottom lines until you are facing a hard deadline, and then when you face a hard deadline you make an agreement that you believe to be in the best interests of your country.
The clause was put there to show that, reciprocally, these three countries will have to inform each other if they enter into these free trade negotiations. As I said earlier, I do not believe this constrains Canada as it moves to deepen relationships in Asia and elsewhere around the world, nor does it impact us from making important strides.
If, down the road, the United States or Mexico want to enter into formal free trade agreement conversations with non-market economies, they will have to inform Canada. We then will make a decision on whether we think this is such a threat to the national interest that we want to bolt from the agreement.
But senator, we can bolt from the agreement now for any reason with six months’ notice, as can our partners, so I am comfortable with where that clause leaves Canada’s capacity to reach out to the rest of the world.
Senator, if I have one minute to close —
The Chair: Senator Massicotte still wants to ask a question.
Senator Massicotte: You asked for advice. I have been heavily involved in the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group as the vice-chair, and I have spent quite a bit of time with trade officials, including the ambassador in Tokyo. I’m very pleased the Prime Minister chose to create a diversification minister. My own observation would be I think it’s very necessary for our country to change our culture. I would make the observation that our agreement with the U.S. was very profitable, but frankly, that’s probably the only one. All the other ones, we passed them but we have not ensured they benefit Canada significantly. I think that’s why your role is very important.
I think you have to focus on changing culture and persistently and consistently so, and not a one-off effort. There is a major job to do. We are a trading nation, but predominantly with the United States only. I wish you luck; it’s very important.
When I was in Tokyo last time, we observed with TPP that there is a significant agricultural potential for us in Canada. When I asked what to do with this information after getting all the studies done, the trade officer said it’s not their job to call and solicit and pursue opportunity. They are really there to help once you identify an interest. I would think that many other countries do it differently: they see an opportunity, they call up the association of agricultural producers or whatever and put the dots together.
I wish you luck. It’s a very important job. We’ll talk about it five years from now and see if you lived up to our expectations.
The Chair: I don’t think that was a question. I think that was a suggestion. Minister Carr?
Mr. Carr: I just want to thank you and your colleagues for this chance to share with you some of our ideas and to hear yours.
And also I want to thank Senator Marwah for the leadership you have shown, sir, on this file. I want to thank you on behalf of the government. We are working together co-operatively with you because we share the goal of creating wealth and jobs for our people. This bill will help us get there. Your co-operation is very much appreciated. Thank you for the opportunity to spend time with you.
The Chair: Minister, thank you for coming and enlarging it so that we could deal with CPTPP, as well as your mandate, and I think we really covered trade with some focus on CPTPP.
Senators, the officials can stay if you have any further questions, so I need an indication. Or should I thank everyone who has come before us? Would that be correct? All right. I think the room has just indicated that they are satisfied with the questions they had at this point.
We may come back to officials or the minister for further questions as we commence our study, but thank you for appearing and we hope this is the start of a dialogue on issues very important to Canadians, and that is their security and their future. So thank you, minister.
(The committee adjourned.)