[English]
Thank you very much to all members of the committee.
In starting today, I want to say thank you very much for having had the pleasure of reading your report and the comments from the different parties, because in fact it's how we can improve and how we can better meet your needs and the needs of the business community.
I do have a short statement, and then my colleagues and I would be very happy to answer any questions or have any discussion that you might like. The chair has already introduced my two colleagues with me today, so we can talk a little bit about anything that you might wish.
I start by saying that ten years ago my predecessor sitting in this chair would have welcomed an opportunity to talk about exports, but as your recent report really outlines, the world is more complex: it's about two-way trade, two-way investment, innovation, global supply chains. These have all impacted on what we do, how we do it, where we do it, and who our partners are to accomplish it.
We have in the past put emphasis on companies competing with companies, and that's still true today in a global marketplace; but as Minister Emerson has put it, within a global commerce strategy, really we have to put more emphasis on how governments compete with governments as well.
At the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we work with our partners to coordinate and manage the “whole of government” approach to Canada's trade policy, trade promotion, investment promotion business lines. That means really working with a number of groups, including businesses, other government departments, the provinces, the territories in formulating our trade policy, determining that market negotiations are priorities, helping business and investors capture global opportunities, and promoting Canada's global presence around the world.
We rely on our major stakeholders from trade associations such as the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, just to name a few, and regional associations from the Canada China Business Council, to the Canada-Arab Business Council, the Canadian Council on Africa, Canada-India Business Council, and a number of others. All of these collectively form the team.
We have industry associations from plastics to steel, from aerospace to advanced technology. We share the same clientele. We have the same members and we share the same objectives. I think this is really important, because if you look back even ten years ago, there wasn't that collective feeling of industry associations, trade associations, other government departments on the priority of what we can do overseas and how it helps our companies.
We cooperate here at home. We cooperate in key markets around the world and we cooperate through innovative electronic tools, like the virtual trade commissioner, which I'll discuss in a moment. But let's start in Canada. There are 12 regional offices in Canada whose main purpose is to find and work with business people who wish to take advantage of international commerce opportunities that are identified by our missions abroad.
The second major task is to assist provinces and municipalities to attract investors to Canada. Having regional offices in each province brings trade commissioners closer to the business community and allows us to identify key industrial subsectors that are internationally competitive. We currently have about 107 employees in the regions who provide us with a broad-based domestic footprint so critical to connecting with clients. All of the regional offices except one are co-located with Industry Canada. In some offices we're joined by representatives of Canadian Heritage, and a pilot project in Montreal is being conducted where officers in the regional offices do the front-line work of promoting and counselling for the Canadian Commercial Corporation. But it's not just a matter of co-location with other departments; it's also a matter of cooperation. I want to differentiate between the two.
The regional offices and provinces co-chair a regional trade network that provides a strategic team approach to trade, investment, science, and technology. It's composed of Foreign Affairs and International Trade plus the provinces, partner federal departments such as Industry Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Heritage, economic development agencies such as FedNor, Export Development Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Western Economic Development Agency. So it's really a full team in each province.
Together we coordinate strategic plans, such as premiers' trips to China or India. We collaborate on significant events, such as incoming and outgoing trade missions. We share knowledge pertaining to the capabilities of key businesses and the funding available for international initiatives. This type of coordinated approach is extremely useful in connecting companies and businesses to global opportunities.
Turning to the rest of the world, I'd like to turn to our international presence. The continuum of domestic and overseas offices and a trade commissioner service at home and abroad to help companies is a major step forward from the past. It really is this domestic continuum—what we do abroad to what we do in Canada, and how you pull it together—that makes a difference.
As you know, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade manages 168 missions in 111 countries. We also have 128 honorary consuls and 16 other offices that offer points of service. In total, we have in 312 points of service in 159 countries. Of that total, our trade commissioner service operates in more than 140 cities worldwide. We have approximately 250 Canadian-based trade commissioners, about 350 locally engaged trade commissioners, and about 200 to 250 support staff.
We are stretched thin to meet current needs and succeed in new or expanding markets. But this requires greater focus on our part, redeployment of resources, and an emphasis on results. This kind of presence provides many opportunities to work closely with our partners in some of the world's most important markets.
I'd like to illustrate this with one example: the U.S. enhanced representation initiative. By far, the U.S. is our most important trade and investment partner. Indeed, on the virtual trade commissioner we have about 20,000 companies, and about 16,000 companies explore the U.S. marketplace every year.
The ERI, U.S. enhanced representation initiative, brings together Foreign Affairs and International Trade and six other departments, including Industry Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canada Economic Development, Western Economic Diversification Canada, and the National Research Council of Canada.
Together, the ERI partners oversee a network of 22 new and existing consulates general, consulates, and trade offices. This also includes the staffing of all positions, ensuring that programs delivered by missions across the United States reflect shared priorities and a collaborative approach.
This initiative is an important part of our effort to keep Canada's commercial relationship with the U.S. strong and vibrant, but we don't just sit with what we've had in the ERI. We're taking a look at how the ERI can transform itself into a North American platform concept, and it would include other government departments, such as Environment, Natural Resources, National Defence, and Heritage, which could join the group.
For a moment, let me expand on the numbers when we talk about who our partners are. I'll talk about co-location for a minute. For instance, Agriculture has seventeen positions located in our missions abroad; Natural Resources has three; Export Development Canada has twelve; the Canadian Space Agency has three; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency people are in four of our missions; Heritage has six; Ontario has ten officers co-located in our missions; Quebec has eight, plus 21 separate offices; and Alberta has seven inside our embassies and two outside. So it's really a team approach everywhere.
If I could explain for one moment, under the global commerce strategy, we have what's called market plans. This is a way to take a look at any country and decide what tools we need to use. In fact, it's reflected in your “Ten Steps to a Better Trade Policy”, because when you look at a market, you have to look at what are the quiver of tools that we need to use to get into it. It could be market access, it could be free trade, it could be foreign investment protection, it could be air negotiations.
For instance, too often we focus on just one aspect of what the policy tools might be. I would argue that for instance in China the biggest thing we did was air negotiations, moving from 15 or 16 flights a week to 66 flights a week. This means that our companies bypass the coasts of Beijing and Shanghai to get into the interior, to Wuhan and other parts.
This puts pressure on me, because the trade commissioner service is all about contacts and local networks. In fact, it means that we can't be stuck with a bricks-and-mortar approach to being an embassy and some consulates. How do we make our people mobile? How can they look after business in other parts of a country? I use that as one example.
We are also looking at how Canada becomes a partner of choice for international business and whether that means regulatory issues. How does that play into the provincial game? We are also looking at how we connect with Canadian business to offer the global opportunities.
On connecting with business, I'm going to take one moment to talk about a new thing we have. Not surprisingly, the bottom line for our clients is accessibility of federal services, not who delivers them. It doesn't matter to companies and provinces what department or partner provides that service; what matters is having a single window of service, one that helps them to capture global opportunities in the most innovative way.
With this in mind, we're working with Agriculture, with Heritage, with Export Development Canada, and with the Canadian Commercial Corporation to develop something called the “virtual trade commissioner”, which will more effectively serve the market information and intelligence needs of Canadian companies involved in international commerce. As you may know, the virtual trade commissioner allows Canadian companies that have registered to obtain selected country, sector, and other information, as well as intelligence from any of the participating departments and agencies. This was a step in the right direction to meeting businesses' needs. And we're still making progress.
Studies that were undertaken in 2005 and 2006 indicate that the services and information that were provided came from 23 different federal government websites. In some cases companies were required to repeat the same or similar registration information over and over again. This is not effective or efficient, and it certainly doesn't help companies. In response, we're working closely with a number of departments and agencies on something called the “government online trade services”. It's a project to determine the best, most efficient ways to provide federal government trade services to our clients based on company needs rather than the organizational structure of the federal government. Indeed, Export Development Canada chairs this innovative project on our behalf.
I understand the committee hopes to visit several countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East in June. I encourage you to meet with Canadian companies that are active in these markets and to learn from them about how we can better meet their needs and bring prosperity and jobs to Canada. I hope you will be able to assist us by fashioning an approach for the future, not just what we have today. The point is that the government has an important role to play in helping Canadian companies and investors succeed in global markets. At Foreign Affairs and International Trade we're committed to working with our partners at all levels to find the most effective ways to deliver these services.
I should mention before I close, Mr. Chair, that the world has changed dramatically in the last ten years. The number of federal government departments that are interested in international issues has expanded exponentially. Ten years ago somebody in my job could have sat here and said that we're in charge of exports. Today if I said that most people would laugh. The fact is that everybody has an interest and it's how we coordinate and collaborate together.
Let me give you an example--aboriginal international business development. We've been working with visible minorities, with different groups, and for the last few years with the aboriginals, to develop a way to get more aboriginals into the international commerce game. Our department can't do that by itself. We have to reach out and have partnerships to be able to do that.
I could use ten more examples to show you that one department can no longer manage it all. It's how you deal horizontally. It's how you work with your colleagues. And most of all, it's how you work on behalf of companies. If you don't have a results-based focus, none of this really matters.
I could offer one other thing. When your committee travels I hope we can give you some pre-travel briefings. My colleagues will be responsible for that. Plus, our trade commissioners will look after your program on the ground. We'll get you country profiles and background information on the major issues and on some of the problems we have.
Some of the markets you're looking at are not ones that are well represented and some areas don't even have a presence right now, so collectively we would really appreciate your insight on what we can do and how we can do it better.
With that, Mr. Chair, perhaps I could say thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
My comments started with the machinery of government issues. I know you said we could go further on it, but I thought that questions might be a better way to get at it.
Thank you.
You have put this in the right context: companies of different sizes, what do they need, what can they expect? Clearly, a larger company needs one level of support and the SMEs need something else, but all of them are looking for local market knowledge and intelligence, contacts.
The global value chain could say that a company may want technology from Japan, investment from Europe, and export to the United States. So the way we would touch that company may be very different, depending on the market. In the past, we used to talk only about helping that company export, but now we talk about how we can build the company with investment, with technology, with our services.
But it comes down to the number one issue, our focus groups, our questionnaires, client surveys. It's always market knowledge, people on the ground, the more people on the ground, the more assistance. That's what they want. So it's a complex issue, market by market, size of company and sector.
But as more companies move into the service side it has an even larger implication, because in the past it was easy to talk about raw materials, manufacturing, which are still priorities, but more and more we're seeing the service companies. In the past we used to see companies that would need two years of manufacturing before they could export. Today, some companies start looking at the overseas market from day one.
So when they look at our people, I like to refer to it as Canada's largest international consulting firm, with more points of service abroad than any other private sector company. We have people on the ground who work for them to help them with contacts, with intelligence, with language, with whatever they need in that marketplace. So we work with those companies as their consultant, I guess is the best way to put it. But there's a difference between how we'd find it in Europe and some of the markets of Asia.
:
The point I'd like to make is that I think we should be cautious and clear, but we have to maintain our credibility. We've had witnesses come in front of us to give lengthy dissertations and answer a lot of questions, but the essence of a lot of the argument is speculative. It's not concrete. It's worries. It's concerns. It's fears. It's things that may have been heard or may not have been heard, but they're not very concrete.
This is a classic example, I think, where someone has a fear of having perhaps heard of a meeting where something might have been discussed. Maybe they give it in a bit more detail than that, but not much more detail than that. And we've only had one or two or maybe three witnesses pertaining to this. It's all very indirect and it's all rather benign, actually.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, I think the credibility of our committee is at stake here. What we're doing is chasing phantoms. We're going to focus this committee and all of its resources on a phantom, something that's not concrete, something that only a few witnesses have mentioned. And it will damage our credibility, because people will say, “Well, what are you doing as the committee? Why are you chasing that when in fact you have more important work to be doing--for example, studying the machinery of government?” That's very concrete.
We can put in place specific recommendations and we can basically improve the way in which our government pursues trade policies, the way it targets particular countries, and the way it works with industry instead of chasing these phantoms.
Once we start chasing this phantom of water being included under NAFTA, when it's not included under NAFTA, what are we going to be chasing next? We could have other witnesses who come in and put up other smokescreens, and then we'll have other motions that come forward and we'll be running in circles.
We have an agenda in front of us. We've been accommodating on this agenda of the security and prosperity partnership. We've televised them, we've gone with extra sessions, and we've called in extra witnesses. And now we're going tangential; we're moving into the obscure here.
It's a concern of mine, because as MPs we need to have credibility. Our committee needs to pursue work that is important to the government, that's important to Canada, and this is simply wandering off into I don't know where. So that's the point I'd like to bring up.
In fact I've called on our Liberal colleagues to realize this. I don't know why there is such support from our Liberal colleagues for a motion such as this. And I don't say that in a partisan way; I say that because I really don't understand it. I would actually look at my Liberal colleagues and say, “Don't you agree with what I'm putting forward here, that we're going to be heading off on the path?”
I don't know why they're not staking out their ground more, Mr. Chair.
We saw that before with the witnesses on the SPP as well, where Mr. Julian had.... How many witnesses did you want to call forward? It was a lot of witnesses, and the Liberals were just basically abrogating their ability to call witnesses to another party.
So I would look at my Liberal colleagues and say, “Have a look at this and think back to the witnesses who appeared before us and what it was they said.” What you will realize is that it's speculation, at best. Basically this committee is going to be pulled off track, off rail, chasing speculation.
It's a concern of mine. I think it's a concern of my colleagues. I hope it's a concern of my Liberal colleagues as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Once again, I want to reiterate what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, had to say. This is a committee in which we may disagree from time to time on what we are doing and what we move forward on, in terms of thought process, but I think factually—I'll say it once again—the credibility of this committee is at stake should we factually misrepresent something back to the House.
This does not make any sense to me at all. I know Mr. Menzies has talked about the statement made in 1993. We've had witnesses come before our committee who have worked on NAFTA and have said that bulk exports do not have anything to do with this agreement. So we are going to look very unprofessional to bring forward this motion that is factually incorrect in terms of dealing with bulk water.
I will remind my Liberal friends. I have quotes here from Chrétien in the House of Commons, not one of my fans by any stretch of the imagination. I'm going to quote him, because I need to remind my Liberal friends where they stood on this issue before we started with this committee.
It says here that he “told the Commons yesterday that water is exempt from the North American Free Trade Agreement”. His foreign affairs minister, John Manley, who I probably like a little bit better than Chrétien, “also assured MPs there's no change in government policy”. “Water should not be treated as a matter of trade.” “The position of the government of Canada is to oppose the bulk removal of water from any of our drainage systems...”.
So once again, this is a position the Liberals have clearly taken. I'll go back to what Mr. Lemieux said. I don't understand why these guys are now all of a sudden the arm of the NDP and they talk about a motion that's going to make this whole committee look like a joke.
An hon. member: It's better than the Green Party.
Mr. Dean Allison: Well, you're right, it is better than the Green Party. That's a good point.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, my point is that factually this motion is incorrect. We have had witnesses who have said it's incorrect; we've had statements by government, we've even had former Liberal prime ministers who have said this is incorrect. My concern is the lack of credibility this committee will have, going forward, by introducing such a reckless, such a partisan, such a totally irrelevant piece of information, as far as this motion goes. So I want to express my concern again.
This is a question of credibility that I will put forward to the Liberals. We can disagree on policy and we can disagree on other things, but this is a factually incorrect motion and it should be struck. We should not even be having this conversation right now.
I will remind my Liberal friends that their prime ministers or ministers of foreign affairs have all been on the record saying that is not true, so I want to know why all of a sudden now they're switching their position on this.