Introduction

In April 2011, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru signed a presidential declaration that established the Pacific Alliance as a trade bloc and regional integration initiative. A June 2012 framework agreement among these countries formalized the Pacific Alliance’s various objectives, which include promoting the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.

According to the World Bank, in 2017, the Pacific Alliance countries had a combined population of 228.4 million people; together, their gross domestic product (GDP) was US$3.9 trillion, representing 38.9% of total GDP for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Since obtaining observer status[1] with the Pacific Alliance in 2012, Canada has sought to strengthen its relationship with this bloc, notably through the June 2016 Joint Declaration on a Partnership between Canada and Members of the Pacific Alliance and four cooperation projects having a combined value of more than $23 million over five years.

According to Global Affairs Canada, in June 2017, Canada was among the first countries invited to become an associate member[2] of the Pacific Alliance, a process that involves the negotiation of a free trade agreement (FTA) with the four countries as a bloc. The first round of negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA occurred in October 2017; as of April 2019, seven rounds had been completed. At present, Canada has FTAs with each of the Pacific Alliance countries, and three[3] of these four countries are among the 11 countries that signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).[4]

On 25 October 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade (the Committee) adopted a motion to undertake a study on a potential Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA. During five meetings held between 30 January 2018 and 13 February 2018, the Committee heard from 31 witnesses, including representatives of Canadian firms, trade associations, think tanks, organized labour, and human rights and international development organizations, as well as of foreign diplomatic missions; one individual appeared on his own behalf.

This report summarizes some of the comments made by witnesses and contained in briefs submitted to the Committee. In particular, the first section presents their general views about advancing trade relations between Canada and the Pacific Alliance, while the second provides their observations about minimizing barriers to trade and promoting regulatory cooperation. The third section highlights their suggestions for improving investment relations between Canada and the Pacific Alliance, while—in the context of a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA—the fourth focuses on their views about contributing to gender equality, promoting labour standards and mobility and protecting human rights. The last section contains the Committee’s thoughts and recommendations.

Some comments made by witnesses or in briefs submitted to the Committee by them and others are not summarized in this report, particularly those that address issues that are not directly related to a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA and that have been addressed in earlier reports by the Committee. For example, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Cavendish Farms, Mining Suppliers Trade Association Canada, the Canada West Foundation, Cypher Environmental Ltd., the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce spoke about existing and desired Government of Canada programs, services and policies designed to assist the country’s firms that either trade internationally or wish to do so. In particular, they mentioned the Trade Commissioner Service, export mentorship, and small and medium-sized firms’ awareness of export opportunities. In recent reports on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), multiculturalism and international trade, and e-commerce, the Committee has examined the topic of Government of Canada programs, services and policies that help domestic firms to trade internationally.

Moreover, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Mining Suppliers Trade Association Canada, Cavendish Farms and the Business Council of Canada raised the issue of trade-related infrastructure and related investment priorities, including projects that would increase the efficiency and timeliness of moving Canada’s products to domestic ports for export. The topic of trade-related infrastructure is addressed in the Committee’s reports on the TPP, the competitiveness of Canada’s steel sector, and the priorities of Canadians having an interest in North American trade.

Advancing Trade Relations Between Canada and the Pacific Alliance

Witnesses spoke to the Committee about the Pacific Alliance’s objectives, achievements and relevance for Canada’s firms that either trade internationally or wish to do so. As well, among other issues, they discussed the extent to which a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would affect Canada’s ability to diversify and increase its exports, establish effective, modern and harmonized trading rules, and strengthen both its trade with Asia and its ability to influence trade relations in the Americas.

Canada–Chile Merchandise Trade, 1998–2018 ($ billions)

Source:  Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, accessed through Trade Data Online on 11 March 2019.

A. Objectives, Achievements and Relevance for Canada’s Firms

Concerning the Pacific Alliance’s objectives, the Embassy of the Republic of Chile mentioned that the bloc would like to develop an international trading system that is “based on clear rules and aimed at building resilient and sustainable societies.” The Embassy of the Republic of Peru remarked that the Pacific Alliance “aspires to become an important bridge—economic and commercial, cultural and political—between Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region through mechanisms of co-operation.” As well, the Embassy of the Republic of Peru thought that the free movement of goods, services, people and capital will help the Pacific Alliance to become an investment and commercial hub that is integrated into the global economy.

In noting the Pacific Alliance’s achievements, the Embassy of the United Mexican States characterized the bloc’s regional integration efforts as successful, while the Embassy of the Republic of Colombia maintained that the Pacific Alliance is “moving towards” financial integration, pension mobility and fiscal transparency among the bloc’s countries.

The University of Ottawa’s Carlo Dade,[5] who appeared as an individual, similarly contended that the Pacific Alliance countries have made “remarkable” progress regarding trade integration, and highlighted the bloc’s efforts to combine “beyond the border initiatives” and “one-stop shops” for firms that are interested in doing business in the Pacific alliance region.

With a focus on the relevance of the bloc as a trade partner for Canada, the Business Council of Canada observed that the Pacific Alliance is “already an important market for many Canadian companies,” and pointed out that the value of annual trade in goods and services between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries collectively is $54 billion, which is higher than the value of Canada’s bilateral trade with such countries as Japan and the United Kingdom.

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute said that the Pacific Alliance countries have “stable and open economies,” while the Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicated that they have a large and young population. According to Scotiabank, the bloc’s GDP, young population and commitment to economic stability are among the factors that make it an attractive place in which to do business.

B. A Canada–Pacific Alliance Free Trade Agreement

In mentioning that Canada and the Pacific Alliance would ideally conclude their FTA negotiations in 2018, the Embassy of the United Mexican States noted that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would help Canada to diversify its international economic relations, and would provide the country’s firms with a unique opportunity to participate in global supply chains. Likewise, the Business Council of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce thought that such an agreement would diversify Canada’s export markets.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance described opportunities to increase Canada’s agricultural and agri-food exports to the Pacific Alliance countries, but urged that negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should not reduce the country’s ability to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or to ratify and implement the CPTPP. Briefs submitted to the Committee by Cereals Canada, and jointly by the Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Canola Council of Canada, suggested that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would create export opportunities for Canada’s cereal and canola products, but emphasized that the country should prioritize negotiations for—and the implementation of—other FTAs.

Canada Pork International highlighted that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could provide Canada’s pork producers with enhanced market access to Colombia and Peru, and indicated its “trust” that the Government of Canada has sufficient resources to negotiate, ratify and implement the CPTPP, NAFTA and other FTAs.

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters thought that Canada’s ratification of new FTAs would not increase the country’s manufacturing exports because of capacity constraints in that sector, while Connors Bros. Clover Leaf Seafoods Company stated that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would not provide its Blacks Harbour production facility with new export opportunities because of what it characterized as Canada’s “herring resource constraints.”

Concerning effective, modern and harmonized rules in FTAs, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said that the Pacific Alliance countries are “business-minded and embrace the rules-based democratic order.” The Canadian Global Affairs Institute contended that, because the United States is no longer “the anchor of trade liberalization,” such “middle power groupings” as the Pacific Alliance need to “sustain the rules-based order that serves [Canada’s] interests.”

In the opinion of the Business Council of Canada, a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could harmonize the provisions in Canada’s existing FTAs with Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru by creating “one common text with the rules for doing business” in those countries. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce commented that such an agreement could include provisions regarding regulatory cooperation and trade facilitation that would be more modern than those in the FTAs that Canada has with each of the four Pacific Alliance countries.

Similarly, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters stated that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would provide Canada with an opportunity to “update and modernize existing frameworks that companies are working within with the countries.” In indicating its support for such an agreement, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters called for the Government of Canada to implement new support measures that would help Canada’s firms, including those that are small and medium in size, to “find new markets and customers in the [Pacific Alliance] region.”

The Canada West Foundation believed that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would provide Canada with an opportunity to increase its engagement with Asia.[6] The brief submitted to the Committee by Mr. Dade indicated that the Pacific Alliance is adopting initiatives aimed improving the bloc’s competitiveness and its attractiveness for trade with Asia, and that “it is in this light that the [bloc] becomes even more important to Canada.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted that associate membership would provide Canada with “a very early advantage and an opportunity … to play a significant role and even a leading role in the trade relationships in the Americas.” Likewise, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute pointed out that associate membership in the Pacific Alliance would allow Canada to become both “a leader within the Pacific Alliance by virtue of being the biggest economy” and “consolidate [its] position as a first mover.”

According to the Business Council of Canada, participation in negotiations for FTAs, including a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, at an early stage allows Canada to shape the negotiations and to be present as other countries join as signatories. Scotiabank, as well as Cereals Canada’s brief submitted to the Committee, provided a similar perspective.

The Embassy of the United Mexican States said that Mexico and Canada share common goals regarding gender, the environment and labour standards, and that the two countries are “looking for new chapters in a [Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA] with regard to these issues.”

The Canadian Labour Congress thought that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should have “people's well-being and workers' rights at its core,” and urged the Government of Canada to publish studies of various economic and social impacts of such an agreement.

Regarding negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, Oxfam Canada suggested that “civil society [organizations need] more information” so that they can analyze and contribute to discussions about such an agreement and its implementation. In the view of the Canadian International Council, the negotiations should include “meaningful” participation by “marginalized groups.”

Minimizing Barriers to Trade and Promoting Regulatory Cooperation

In addressing the manner in which tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), as well as non‑tariff trade barriers, affect Canada’s trade with the Pacific Alliance, witnesses identified some ways in which a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could reduce—if not eliminate—obstacles to enhanced trade. They also described opportunities for Canada and the Pacific Alliance to cooperate when developing regulations.

Canada–Colombia Merchandise Trade, 1998–2018 ($ billions)

Source:  Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, accessed through Trade Data Online on 11 March 2019.

A. Tariffs and Tariff-Rate Quotas

With a general focus on Canada’s exports, Cypher Environmental Ltd. indicated that the elimination of tariffs in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would increase the competitiveness of Canadian goods and services in the Pacific Alliance countries.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance commented that a significant portion of the jobs in Canada’s agri-food sector would not exist if Canada did not have “competitive access to world markets,” and stated that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would provide opportunities to reduce tariffs, including in relation to Canadian canola and pork products.

Regarding canola, the Canola Council of Canada noted that Colombia applies “punitive and unpredictable” tariffs on Canadian—but not on U.S.—canola oil, which makes Canada’s exports of this product relatively uncompetitive. In suggesting that there is an opportunity to eliminate these tariffs, the Canola Council of Canada said that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would improve the competitiveness of Canada’s canola oil, provide more predictable access to Colombia’s market, and enable Canada’s canola sector to increase both its exports and its domestic processing activities.

Concerning pork, Canada Pork International said that Colombia’s TRQ on Canadian pork essentially means that “trade pretty much stops” at exports of 6,000 tonnes annually because a 41% tariff is applied on exports above that quantity and suggested that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should eliminate tariffs on Canada’s pork exports to make them competitive with such U.S. exports, which are not subject to a tariff or TRQ. In discussing Canadian pork that enters Colombia duty-free because of the country’s TRQ, the Canadian Pork Council urged a simpler process by which the Government of Colombia allocates these imports to Colombian consumers. Regarding Peru, the Canadian Pork Council believed that the amount of Canadian pork that can be exported to that country tariff-free should be increased, and that the tariff on exports above this amount should be reduced or eliminated. Canada Pork International made a similar proposal.

With a focus on Canada’s imports, the Saint John Port Authority remarked that, in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, the economies of Canada and of New Brunswick’s Saint John region would benefit from reduced tariffs on goods imported from the Pacific Alliance countries.

Regarding rules of origin, the Embassy of the Republic of Chile observed that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could allow Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries to “accumulate origin,”[7] which would facilitate entrepreneurs’ ability to trade at preferential tariff rates.

B. Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

The Canola Council of Canada maintained that “common restrictions” in three areas affect agricultural exports by Canada and by the Pacific Alliance countries: the misapplication of sanitary and phytosanitary measures; non-tariff barriers; and measures in relation to plant breeding innovation. In the view of the Canola Council of Canada, a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could “build momentum for a consistent approach to these issues.” As well, the brief submitted to the Committee by Cereals Canada pointed out that Peru has issued notices of non-compliance to Canada’s cereals exporters due to the presence of weed seeds.

Regarding trade in pork products, Canada Pork International noted that Colombia has given the United States’ swine herd a trichina-free designation but has not done so in relation to Canada’s herd, with the result that U.S. producers can sell fresh, chilled pork to Colombia, while Canadian producers can sell only frozen products. Consequently, as a priority outcome for the Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA negotiations, Canada Pork International and the Canada Pork Council highlighted the need to ensure that the Government of Colombia provides Canada’s swine herd with a trichina-free designation.

Cypher Environmental Ltd. described product registration and approval processes as “lengthy and expensive challenges” that can prevent Canada’s small and medium-sized firms from “capitalizing exports when trying to penetrate [the Pacific] Alliance countries.” Similarly, Cavendish Farms indicated that product registration procedures in Peru and Chile take more than one year to complete, and make it difficult to adapt to changes in the market in a timely way. As additional examples of non-tariff barriers to trade, Cavendish Farms noted these two countries’ inorganic and microbiologic testing requirements, as well as Mexico’s “unique” retail packaging requirements.

C. Regulatory Cooperation

In discussing regulations, the Canada West Foundation mentioned that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA would allow Canada to “take advantage of the harmonization that [the Pacific Alliance countries] have been building among themselves.” As examples of initiatives designed to encourage regulatory cooperation, the Embassy of the Republic of Peru observed that the Pacific Alliance has a technical working group that discusses “regulatory improvements,” and the Embassy of the Republic of Colombia stated that a Pacific Alliance committee is “working on a one-stop shop system for regulatory issues.”

The Embassy of the United Mexican States commented that it is “crucial” for Mexico to ensure regulatory compatibility and standardization with its trade partners, and that associate membership in the Pacific Alliance would provide Canada with an opportunity to share best practices regarding regulations.

According to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, Canada has significant experience working with trade partners to increase regulatory compatibility, and any regulatory cooperation efforts by Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries would likely result in regulations with which Canada is already comfortable. Similarly, Cavendish Farms claimed that the Government of Canada could benefit from “being at the table early,” both to influence the manner in which the Pacific Alliance countries regulate certain sectors and to encourage them to adopt Canadian standards.

With a focus on the agricultural sector, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance encouraged the Government of Canada to pursue “science-based outcomes in regulatory measures that protect human, plant and animal health and safety,” and indicated that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should include “common low-level presence and maximum residue limit standards and policies.” The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance also maintained that mechanisms that ensure adherence to “science-based rules” are easier to implement in regional, rather than bilateral, FTAs. The brief submitted to the Committee by Cereals Canada suggested that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should provide a common regulatory approval framework for new plant breeding techniques and a clear “science-based” process for resolving disputes about sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

The Canola Council of Canada said that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could help “regulators in different countries talk to each other more often.” As well, the Canola Council of Canada thought that such an agreement should require committees of regulators to meet when concerns arise and to notify exporters of these concerns.

Connors Bros. Clover Leaf Seafoods Company indicated that Canadian product quality and safety regulations for the seafood sector differ from those in the Pacific Alliance countries, and commented that eliminating these differences “is critical to our continuing long-term competitiveness, and to ensuring a level playing field for our products….”

Regarding digital technologies, the Business Council of Canada observed that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA that would facilitate cooperation among regulators in Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries could expedite “commercialization of new technologies across a large customer base.” As well, Scotiabank remarked that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should include provisions aimed at enabling coordinated cooperation on product testing regulations for both creators of fintech[8] and “established incumbent financial institutions.” Scotiabank pointed out that such provisions would allow Canada’s financial services firms to operate “in an integrated fashion across the [Pacific Alliance] bloc.”

Mr. Dade believed that Canada would benefit by cooperating with the Pacific Alliance in such areas as customs pre-clearance and “‘behind the border work’” for goods.

Improving Investment Relations Between Canada and the Pacific Alliance

Witnesses told the Committee about Canadian investments in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, either generally or in relation to the mining and financial sectors specifically. As well, in the context of a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, they discussed opportunities to improve investment relations.

Canada–Mexico Merchandise Trade, 1998–2018 ($ billions)

Source:  Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, accessed through Trade Data Online on 11 March 2019.

A. Existing Canadian Investments

In mentioning that Canadian investments in the Pacific Alliance countries total approximately $40 billion, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute particularly noted investments in Mexico’s mining sector. Mining Suppliers Trade Association Canada stated that at least 220 of Canada’s firms either operate in, or have an ownership stake in, 43% of the more than 500 active exploration and mining projects in the Pacific Alliance countries.

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute characterized Canadian investments in Mexico’s mining sector as significant, with the Embassy of the United Mexican States observing that Canada is the source of 50% of the value of foreign direct investment in that sector in Mexico. According to the Embassy of the Republic of Chile, Canada is the largest investor in Chile's mining sector, as well as the country's third-largest investor. With a focus on corporate social responsibility, the Embassy of the Republic of Peru pointed out that Canada is a major source of investment in Peru’s mining sector, and observed that Canada distinguishes itself by the active participation of its firms in projects that have both “a social development component” and positive effects on Peru’s rural communities.

In referring to itself as the “bank of the Pacific Alliance,” Scotiabank highlighted that it earns 18% of its total income in the Pacific Alliance countries, which were described as “a strategic focus.” The Embassy of the Republic of Peru mentioned that Scotiabank’s investments in Peru are “very important,” while the Embassy of the Republic of Chile noted Scotiabank’s ranking as Chile’s third-largest private bank following a $2.2 billion investment to acquire a Spanish bank. As well, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said that Canadian investments in Mexico’s banking sector are significant. The Embassy of the Republic of Colombia discussed the significant investments that provincial funds—including the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec—have made in Colombia, and remarked that Canada was the largest source of foreign direct investment in that country in 2016.

B. Opportunities to Improve Investment Relations

The Embassy of the United Mexican States believed that opportunities exist to increase the flow of foreign direct investment between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries in the natural resource and other sectors, and in “advanced areas” relating to technology. The Embassy further commented that bilateral investment flows between the Pacific Alliance countries and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore could increase if the latter four countries were to become associate members of the Pacific Alliance.

Scotiabank outlined the benefits of “deeper integration” between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries, including more investment opportunities, increased trade and capital flows, and higher returns on Canadian investments in those countries. According to Scotiabank, provisions in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA that would protect pension fund investments, particularly through “steps to improve the legal environment” and dispute resolution, would advance Canada’s interests.

In providing a different perspective about investment protection, the Canadian International Council suggested that mechanisms for settling disputes between investors and states are controversial, partly because there are insufficient data to determine the extent to which these mechanisms attract foreign investment. The Canadian International Council also claimed that such mechanisms can lead to two forms of “regulatory chill”: a government “rolls back” a regulation after it loses a dispute; and a government decides not to introduce legislation because it fears that doing so could lead to a dispute.

The Canadian International Council stressed the need to ensure that safeguards for women's rights and efforts to promote gender equality are not limited by protections for investors, and emphasized that an investor–state dispute-settlement mechanism in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could be considered “socially regressive because of the dangers associated with regulatory chill.” Accordingly, the Canadian International Council called for two “explicit carve-outs” from any such mechanism: to protect human and environmental rights from the mechanism’s effects; and to provide governments with the “policy space” to allow “positive discrimination” for the benefit of society’s most vulnerable.

Addressing the Priorities of Certain Groups

In speaking to the Committee about a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, witnesses discussed initiatives that could contribute to gender equality, promote labour standards and rights, as well as mobility, and protect human rights.

Canada–Peru Merchandise Trade, 1998–2018 ($ billions)

Source:  Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, accessed through Trade Data Online on 11 March 2019.

A. Gender Equality

The Canadian International Council believed that the Pacific Alliance countries—all of which have women’s economic empowerment forums—are ahead of Canada in promoting gender equality, and pointed out that the country has neither pay equity nor universal child care. In asserting that Canada should be a leader in “gendering global trade,” the Canadian International Council characterized the political will to do so as “strong.” As well, the Canadian International Council stressed that Canada needs to adopt a “holistic approach” to this issue that includes “concrete commitments,” and described the negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA as the “right” opportunity to implement such an approach.

Oxfam Canada said that—to the maximum extent possible—the Government of Canada should prioritize gender equality during the negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, which would halt a “race to the bottom” regarding women's rights and precarious work. According to Oxfam Canada, negotiations for a “strong” gender chapter would provide an opportunity to strengthen the analogous chapter in the Canada–Chile Free Trade Agreement to incorporate reporting and accountability. Oxfam Canada specifically suggested that, if an FTA establishes a committee to address gender equality issues, the committee should have a “role and a set of accountability mechanisms” to make recommendations. Oxfam Canada also said that the committee should be inclusive, and should have “clear targets and a clear mandate.”

The Canadian International Council emphasized that a “socially progressive, gender-sensitive” Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should improve “economic opportunities for women entrepreneurs.” Moreover, the Canadian International Council stated that a gender chapter in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should include “positive differentiation for women,” such as by facilitating licensing for them or by providing women-owned service providers with preferential market access.

As well, the Canadian International Council stressed the importance of analyzing the impact of a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA on women’s lives. Likewise, Oxfam Canada called for a “strong poverty and social impact analysis” of such an agreement in order to understand its potential “differential impact on men and women.” Oxfam Canada also said that, in order for a gender chapter “to have teeth,” it should be based on sex-disaggregated data and analysis.

Finally, in speaking about the Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement and the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, Oxfam Canada noted that the Government of Canada helped to ensure that “gender dimensions were realized through capacity-building activities.” The Canadian International Council expressed a desire to use capacity-building resources, ensure “gender-sensitive coherence” throughout a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA, and apply a “gender lens” to the entire agreement.

B. Labour Standards and Rights

The Embassy of the Republic of Colombia indicated that the Pacific Alliance has a working group that is focused on labour standards. The Embassy also observed that, to improve labour standards, the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement has established a dialogue between Canada and Colombia, with the countries currently involved in negotiations for an action plan.

The Canadian Labour Congress remarked that the newly appointed Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise is “far more useful” for addressing labour complaints than is the current labour chapter in the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As well, the Canadian Labour Congress mentioned that Mexico does not enforce its labour laws, and described Chile’s “major effort” to reform its labour laws as “a positive step.”

In suggesting that FTAs have never treated workers’ rights and investors’ rights equally, the Canadian Labour Congress said that the labour chapter proposed during the NAFTA negotiations “marks a significant change” by treating the rights of workers and of investors more equally than is currently the case. The Canadian Labour Congress hoped that the Government of Canada would continue “to build on this effort” during the negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA.

In the view of Oxfam Canada, a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should include “strong and binding” labour provisions that would consider the particular needs of working women, including in relation to pay equity and sexual harassment at the workplace. Also, Oxfam Canada suggested that labour provisions in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should include binding mechanisms for addressing labour rights violations, such as instances of child labour.

The Embassy of the Republic of Peru said that Canada and Peru have a labour cooperation agreement that provides for periodic meetings to discuss labour issues, and that addresses the development of human resources and the protection of workers’ human rights.

Connors Bros. Clover Leaf Seafoods Company highlighted that differences in labour costs between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries “put our continued production at risk in New Brunswick.”

C. Labour Mobility

The Business Council of Canada maintained that modern and harmonized labour mobility provisions in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could “broaden the regional talent pool” and facilitate the movement of businesspersons between countries. Similarly, in mentioning such provisions in “modern” FTAs, the Mining Association of Canada emphasized the importance of being able to move professionals in the mining sector “reasonably and fluidly” to work cross-border.

In advocating greater efforts to facilitate the flow of professionals across borders, Scotiabank called for further removal of visa requirements for business travel between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries in order to enhance the exchange and flow of knowledge and expertise for Canada’s financial, manufacturing and natural resource sectors. The Business Council of Canada observed that Canada may not be able to remove all of its visa requirements that apply to the Pacific Alliance countries, and suggested that a trusted traveller program for businesspersons should be established.

The Embassy of the United Mexican States said that the Pacific Alliance is working to facilitate the mobility of people, which has been beneficial for Mexico. Similarly, the Embassy of the Republic of Chile contended that Chile has mechanisms with countries in the Pacific Alliance and some other neighbouring countries that allow for the mobility of temporary workers. In stressing the importance of labour mobility for Chile, the Embassy of the Republic of Chile remarked that the country would like to be able to “count on” expert Canadian workers to help in designing and building solar or wind energy projects.

Mr. Dade said that the Pacific Alliance is constantly updating labour mobility measures, and noted that the Pacific Alliance is considering “a common entry visa to facilitate trade with Asia.” He added that this visa would “give Asian countries wishing to do business on this side of the Pacific a competitive advantage.”

D. Human Rights

In describing human rights violations in the Pacific Alliance countries, Amnesty International Canada said that human rights defenders endanger themselves by speaking publicly about the environmental impact of business operations, labour leaders are threatened and killed, mining-related contamination and pollution create “serious” and “lethal” health risks, and acts of violence by firms’ or governments’ security forces occur in response to disputes and protests about a firm's operations.

The Canadian Labour Congress maintained that more trade unionists are killed in Colombia than in any other country in the world, and added that the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement has enabled “sustainable” complaints to be filed with the Government of Canada about actions taken by the Government of Colombia. The Canadian Labour Congress noted that one such complaint revealed that the Government of Colombia “had not met its commitment” under that agreement, and that some of Colombia’s laws “completely contradict” the agreement’s provisions.

The Embassy of the Republic of Colombia emphasized that the peace process involving the Government of Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia[9] is important for human rights in Colombia. As well, the Embassy commented that the Government’s efforts to support human rights through that process have focused on adopting a human rights policy, combatting impunity, and providing reparations and protections to victims.

Amnesty International Canada underscored that a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should be subjected to “robust human rights impact assessments,” and urged the Government of Canada to conduct such assessments for all potential FTAs before negotiations are concluded and at regular intervals thereafter. In the view of Amnesty International Canada, these assessments should be independent, comprehensive, transparent and accessible. Moreover, in citing the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, Amnesty International Canada said that the bilateral human rights impact assessment process has been “problematic,” and indicated that a multilateral process could create “some new mechanisms” to address human rights violations.

The Canadian Labour Congress stated that all FTAs should include “wide-ranging” and “comprehensive” exemptions relating to Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests. In this regard, Amnesty International Canada described the human rights provisions in the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement as “woefully inadequate,” and noted that the “massive” human rights violations against Colombia’s Indigenous peoples “in an economic, commercial, and trade context” are “overlooked and ignored by the [human rights impact] assessment.”

The Canada West Foundation believed that trade agreements should focus on trade, and contended that “Canada can do far more” to promote human rights and other elements of its “progressive agenda” through leading by example, rather than through telling other countries “what they need to do.”

The Committee’s Thoughts and Recommendations

In the Committee’s view, the Pacific Alliance countries are already significant trade partners for Canada, including because of the FTAs that the country currently has with each of them. However, a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could enhance trade and investment relations between Canada and the Pacific Alliance as a bloc. To achieve such a goal, particular attention should be paid to provisions focused on tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, regulatory cooperation, investment, labour mobility and the priorities of certain groups.

Despite Canada’s existing FTAs with each of the Pacific Alliance countries, tariff and non‑tariff barriers continue to limit trade in some Canadian products. The Committee feels that addressing these obstacles in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA could help Canada to increase and diversify its exports. Opportunities for export growth might be especially significant for such agricultural products as canola, cereals and pork.

The Committee is aware that the Pacific Alliance has been working to promote cooperation among the regulatory authorities in the four countries. The Government of Canada could build on these efforts by negotiating provisions in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA that would improve collaboration among regulators in Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries. Doing so could facilitate trade and investment for Canada’s firms, including those in the agricultural, seafood, financial services and innovation sectors.

In the Committee’s opinion, governments should be able to adopt and maintain policies, initiatives and other measures that are needed to protect the public interest. To this end, if a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA were to include a mechanism for settling disputes between investors and states, the relevant provisions should ensure that governments in Canada and in the Pacific Alliance countries can legislate and regulate to achieve legitimate public policy objectives.

The Committee notes that measures in a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA that would facilitate the flow of businesspersons and professionals between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries could help Canada’s firms that trade with—or invest in—those countries. In particular, access to the human resources that these firms need to compete against their foreign counterparts could be improved.

As well, the Committee believes that, while the benefits of FTAs for firms may be clear, such agreements should also have positive outcomes for other segments of society, including women, workers and Indigenous peoples. In both domestic and international contexts, it is important to create opportunities for women, ensure that Canadian and foreign workers are appropriately compensated and have safe working conditions, and protect human rights. In this regard, the negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA provide an opportunity to pursue such positive outcomes.

Finally, the Committee highlights that negotiations for a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA should not limit the negotiation, ratification or implementation of other FTAs. The Government of Canada should ensure that adequate resources are available to enable Global Affairs Canada both to negotiate a Canada–Pacific Alliance FTA and to pursue other trade policy initiatives.

Within this context, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada, during negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance, prioritize provisions that would minimize tariffs on Canada’s agricultural and other exports, and address non-tariff barriers that limit exports of Canadian products, including pork and cereals.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada, during negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance, endeavour to include provisions that would promote regulatory cooperation between Canada and the Pacific Alliance countries.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada, during negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance, seek to include enforceable provisions designed to protect investments. These provisions should not limit governments’ ability to adopt and maintain measures in the public interest, including those that protect the environment and those that ensure respect for human rights generally and the rights of Indigenous peoples specifically.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada work with the Pacific Alliance to facilitate the mobility of businesspersons and professionals in a manner that does not reduce wages or the number of jobs for Canadians. Consideration should be given to including commitments in a Canada–Pacific Alliance free trade agreement regarding the temporary entry of businesspersons and professionals.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada, during negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance, work toward outcomes that would contribute to gender equality, promote labour standards and rights, and protect human rights, including those of Indigenous peoples.

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada ensure that Global Affairs Canada has sufficient resources to negotiate a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance without limiting its ability to negotiate, ratify or implement other free trade agreements.