Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
blue-sky (verb)
: to offer ideas that are conceived by unrestrained imagination or optimism.
Hosted by Erin O’Toole, President and Managing Director of ADIT North America. Erin is the former Member of Parliament for Durham and former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Blue Skies political podcast explores issues facing Canada and the world in a format that brings together thought leaders for an informed and engaging conversation.
We live in an age of political polarization and preference bubbles, of economic change, rising threats, and a rapidly changing world. Canada needs to stay relevant. We need more smart conversations. We need to dive into critical issues and big ideas with passion and unrestrained optimism. I'm Erin O'Toole.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Welcome to the Blue Skies podcast. Welcome to Blue Skies. I'm Erin O'Toole. It's been a while. Blue Skies has been on a little bit of a hiatus.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Because much like when I was in politics, whether you're in business or in public life, we depend on amazing team members to make us look good, and I know my guest will agree. Blue Skies started years ago with, myself, Jeff, Shane with the branding, then Andrew took it on, then Stephanie, and now Mackenzie. I'm not the technically proficient part of Blue Skies. I'm just the blabber mouth host whose policy interested and tries to get good guests to discuss important topics. And boy, do we have that today.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:So Blue Skies has been on hiatus, but I'm so happy that we have a special guest today because it's someone who's gonna help take us through the tumultuous world of international trade right now, but it's also someone who I greatly admire as a public servant and someone I got to learn a lot from during his time in public life. Ed Fast was elected as the MP for Abbotsford, where he practice law and raised his family in 2006. He's been reelected since then. His first election got a whopping 63% of the vote, and having been in Abbotsford, I can tell you everyone likes and admires Ed Fass. He started right away as a backbencher getting a private member bill passed within his 1st 18 months as a member of parliament.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Some MPs, myself included, never get a PMB passed, and Eds was on a justice issue, in fact, protecting children from Internet luring. He was chair of the justice committee up until prime minister Harper appointed him in 2011, minister of international trade during Canada's most ambitious trade period with negotiations with the European Union, the Trans Pacific Partnership, South Korea, Honduras, and a range of bilateral relationships include including enhancing the US relationship. Hard to even think about that. Now, he's married to Annette, has 4 daughters and 12 grandchildren, which is probably his most proud accomplishment. So welcome.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:More than that, I'm behind. Welcome to Blue Skies Ed Fast. So correct my intro now.
Hon. Ed Fast:The only thing I'll correct is I've got 15 grandchildren now.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I've gotta tell Wikipedia they're behind because I know your family's growing, and they're a lovely family, and they're all very proud of you. So welcome to Blue Skies, Ed. Thanks for doing this.
Hon. Ed Fast:Good to be on your podcast. I've been looking forward to it.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Good. And why I admire Ed, I met you when I hosted you as minister of international trade at my law firm, Heen and Blakey. I think we were looking at at, trade in the Middle East or in in India with a number of clients and with one of the NGOs in Toronto. You really impressed the crowd. You really impressed me, and goodness gracious, about 14 months later, I became your parliamentary secretary after spending a few months as a recently elected MP.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Let's start off there at you know, you're still the member of parliament for for Abbotsford. I'm getting you in your Parliament Hill office. Obviously, parliament is rounding down towards Christmas. It's a bit of a stalemate, But let's look back to your time as minister. CETA, TPP, the FIPA with China.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I wanna talk for a few minutes on all these things. But looking at that time, why was Canada so so so passionate about diversifying and opening new markets? We were so ambitious then. Why was that?
Hon. Ed Fast:Well, I would point 2 different reasons. The first would be that Stephen Harper made trade the linchpin of his economic policy. He understood that if Canada could open up new markets around the world, it would, refresh our trade agenda that hadn't been refreshed, since basically the NAFTA agreement was signed. And, it would also, encourage Canadian small and medium sized enterprises to actually look abroad for new opportunities. The second reason is back when you and I were on the trade file, around the world, trade liberalization was considered to be a good thing.
Hon. Ed Fast:Most developed countries and many developing countries saw trade as a way of improving economic outcomes, not only in their own countries, but around the world. In some of the poorest places around the world, liberalized trade has seen the economic outcomes of the poorest improve over time. Of course, that has changed more recently, especially since Donald Trump came on the scene, became the president of the United States, and now has been reelected for a second term.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Yeah. And one word well, thank you for that, those dual reasons, and I think that was critical to the Harper government, which I joined and and then began working with you on it after Gerald Keddy was your PS, another great, great Canadian, was the economic crisis led to a very stagnant US economy. And so because our trade focus as a country was just so heavily based on the US, Obviously, we live on the border of the most voracious economy in global history, but when it slows down, so do we. So there was a real sense that we had to diversify. We had to open markets.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:And I always wondered, and I never really asked you this. When we had so many active negotiations underway, I remember at one point, CETA, we had the transpacific partnership with multiple countries. We had a bilateral with South Korea, as I said, Honduras in Latin America. Did we have the capacity within global affairs or what we call and and our embassies in the trade commissioner service? Like, were we stretching the the bureaucracy to the hilt at that point to be so ambitious?
Hon. Ed Fast:I would say yes and no. Or, yes, we were certainly stretching the resources we had available within global affairs and our trade department to properly negotiate these agreements. But I understand that Canada has a very sophisticated and talented talent pool, of trade negotiators that have been negotiating trade agreements, investment treaties, air transport agreements, double taxation agreements for many decades. And so, we were in a pretty enviable position to be able to actually then embark upon the most ambitious trade agenda as you referenced. And, again, it was Stephen it was effectively the linchpin of Stephen Harper's economic policy and start to pay dividends as we negotiated these trade agreements all around the world.
Hon. Ed Fast:It wasn't only under me. Some of my predecessors under the Harper government also got deals done with, say, Peru and with Colombia. And these were important agreements, even though they may have been smaller countries because they also allowed Canada to then engage in other issues like justice reform and capacity building and human rights, all these things that a lot of these countries, don't have long histories with. They're coming out of difficult, challenging backgrounds and histories, and we were now able to engage with them on those issues, even though it started off with a trade negotiation where we were able to build trust with those countries.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I'm glad you mentioned that because, you know, one of the best assignments you gave me as your parliamentary secretary was what we were doing in terms of economic diplomacy at the time, and you you hinted to that where we were building capacity within those countries. So truly, global affairs with foreign affairs, international trade, and development working together. So trading where there's a Canadian producer, whether it's a mining company, or whether it's a pension fund or an investment fund, then working with the justice system and building local supply chains, partnering with World Vision or another NGO on the ground. I still have people I worked with from that time talking about how effective it was and all hands on deck, that economic diplomacy. Do you think we've lost a little bit of that as that, you know, that's been stepped away from in recent years?
Hon. Ed Fast:For sure. I'm glad you asked that question. When we left government in 2015, I think it's safe to say that Canada was respected around the world. There was hardly a country that we couldn't travel to where we were warmly welcomed and embraced and where we could have dialogues on these different issues, not only on trade. And, the geopolitical situation around the world, of course, has worsened since then.
Hon. Ed Fast:But I believe that, our federal government has over the last 9 years made many, many missteps on the international stage where we have actually lost our ability to act as a trusted soft power. That reputation that we used to have all around the world where, poorer countries could come to Canada and look to us for advice and guidance on how they can improve their living standards, how they can improve their, aspirations to become democracies. We used to have countries come to us when we were negotiating trade with them, or we'd be in international forum where, poorer countries would come to us and say, listen, Ed. We're having trouble negotiating this or that agreement with such and such a country. Could you give us some advice, or could your negotiators help us?
Hon. Ed Fast:Provide us some best practices, some key negotiating points that we should keep in mind as we engage with these larger negotiating partners. They came to Canada because they trusted us. I don't believe that is any longer the case, and we need to recover that because Canada has so much to offer the world. And if we can only regain the trust of the global community, we can make a huge difference in the world.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I agree with you 100%, and I enjoyed working with you on that. Interestingly enough, I'm looking at you at Parliament Hill. I'm in Ottawa by chance because I was at Qatar National Day, and a few people were reminding me of how the the Gulf States and and particularly some of the tweets of Chrystia Freeland, got us in diplomatic wars through Twitter diplomacy. Remember? So a lot of people were bringing that up with me.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:It's only now that some of these relationships, are are healing. And, look, the five eyes relationships are the easiest ones because there are allies who are aligned on interest and on values. Other relationships are harder. Therefore, you can't have this Twitter diplomacy type approach. You have to build those relationships and trust.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:And as you said, we we had that. So I wanna take you through your your greatest hits, and I I do agree we had great officials, you know, Steve Verhul, we had, Ian, Bernie, as well as a lead on a number of them. Take us through SITA. How transformative the the comprehensive, economic agreement with European Union. Tell me about that deal because I know as your, you were working tirelessly on bringing that one over the line.
Hon. Ed Fast:Well, the European Union, was and is the world's largest consumer market. So it represented a huge opportunity for Canada if we we could successfully engage with the 27 countries of the EU. Now it's, I believe, with the UK out, it's, 26 or whatever it is, but a huge market that we just could not neglect. And, so Stephen Harper made that decision fairly early on in our, time in government to work very hard to engage the Europeans and to begin a negotiation. And that was done under Steve Rahul, one of Canada's most, most, successful trade negotiators.
Hon. Ed Fast:He's, I believe, now in retirement, but probably consulting still. But he, put his mind to positioning Canada to negotiate an agreement that would represent a very significant win for Canada in terms of opening up that large consumer market to Canadian exporters. And over time, we did that. We had to address a number of very challenging issues. The most significant one being the issue of, dairy access.
Hon. Ed Fast:The supply managed sector wanted to be at the table, wanted to make sure that their interests were protected. We also had to deal with, some of the, wine industry's, concerns over not being able to use certain badging or branding as they sold their products in Canada. But 1 by 1, we were able to, negotiate outcomes. And then shortly before we left office, we were able to conclude that agreement successfully. And even today, we're one of the only countries, if not the only country in the world, to have a trade agreement with the United States and with the European Union.
Hon. Ed Fast:Now you couple those 2 economies together, they are by far the economic powerhouse of the world, and Canada has this exclusive access to those two economies. So that was a pretty exciting time to be able to lead negotiations and successfully, bring that, that agreement home.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:That was a really, really good success. I remember when we reached final negotiated outcomes, you know, the the work we did with stakeholders was amazing. Let's let's drill down on what you raised in that for a moment because you you nailed it. I remember the geographic origin, origination issues, and I I used to joke with my friends in the private sector that I loved wine and cheese until I until I started working on trade deals, with the government because wine and cheese were the were the stress points in any of those deals. And another joke I used to say, I would say they would people would ask me, what's it like working for Ed Fast?
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I said, Ed is great. He gives me some great carriage, gives me advice. Ed goes to Paris to negotiate on cheese, and I go to Paris, Ontario to get yelled at by dairy dairy farmers.
Hon. Ed Fast:That's funny. Let's
Hon. Erin O'Toole:talk let's talk about let's talk about supply management. Because I I all the time I read, you know, whether it's Andrew Coyne or a whole range of people who say, oh, we should be happy if Trump makes us roll over on supply management. I I was always just so shocked at how little people understand the system, and I'm gonna ask you to take us through it. But before I say that is all countries subsidize food security and subsidize agriculture in some way or another. And I remember when the Trump administration came in and I was the the critic for the NAFTA negotiations, I used to remind people that the US spends more on agricultural subsidies in a range of ways that the congress structures it than we do on the Canadian Armed Forces.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Our system of supply management does have limitations on on import, on on production, and on price. Sure, it could be a consumer way that the price is is somewhat subsidized. But to suggest that Canada is the only actor having unique preferences for agriculture is is just fiction. So why don't you take it through take us through it? Because when I I remember starting with you and I said to you about what about supply management?
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I remember you explaining to me, well, first, we looked at the cost of this and the risks to farmers, and then it was an opportunity for us to actually negotiate, and push our our rivals a little further by having that system and and minimizing changes to it. Take us through supply management so that Blue Skies listeners can learn a little bit more than what they see on Twitter.
Hon. Ed Fast:Well, I can tell you, you need nailed all of the key points when it comes to, the reason we have supply management in Canada. You're absolutely right. Agriculture around the world is heavily subsidized, and there's no country in the world that subsidizes agriculture more than the United States. Huge, huge subsidies. So we are, you know, the, the elephant and we are not the elephant.
Hon. Ed Fast:The US is the elephant that is sleeping next to the mouse. We're the mouse. And when that elephant blows over significant danger. So our system of supply management ensures that our farmers get a reasonable price for the product that they produce. For example, chicken, it'll be eggs, it'll be turkeys, and, of course, dairy.
Hon. Ed Fast:You get a reasonable price for the product they produce. And in Canada, we control the the production to ensure that we don't overproduce to any great degree or under produce. Now in the United States, they do it differently. They pay their farmers 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars to subsidize their operations. Either way, it is a form of subsidy one way or another.
Hon. Ed Fast:It's government propping up the agricultural sector, and there's a reason why we do this. Every country, in addition to having and defending its national security, needs to have food security. And I think there are many in Canada, certainly, I think most Canadians, that understand that supply management to one degree or another represents an element of food security for us. Now you also touched on what what consequences does this have when we go to negotiate trade agreements? Certainly, when we negotiate with the United States, they're always looking to pierce the armor and extract more out of us in terms of providing American farmers with access to our dairy market.
Hon. Ed Fast:They wanna compete with us, but they don't wanna eliminate their own subsidies. So this is always, you know, tug of war between Canada and the United States. Now you know that I believe that we should not be taking supply management off the table when we negotiate trade agreements. That would be the only industry in Canada, of the thousands and thousands of industries that we have that we would take off the table and say to our negotiating partner, I'm sorry. We're not gonna discuss that.
Hon. Ed Fast:We'll discuss other areas, but not that. Well, right away, the negotiating partner is gonna say, well, that's the way you're gonna be. We're taking these 5 off. And they happen to be the areas of key concern for Canada. Now a negotiation is no longer possible.
Hon. Ed Fast:Do I believe that we should defend our system of supply management? I do for the reasons you and I have already discussed. Around the world, agriculture is heavily subsidized. Our form of subsidy happens to be the supply management system. But I think we have to be realistic that when we negotiate, when the United when we ask the United States to negotiate, we don't want them keeping any of our key interests off that negotiating table.
Hon. Ed Fast:So it is a bit of a quid pro quo. And in the interest of Canada's economic prosperity, I think we have to, ensure that all of our industries are there for discussion, and then we push back hard as we negotiate.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I would love to remind the, who keeps bringing this motion. I know you and I both voted against it. It's come up again where we would remove one sector from from negotiation. I I think, actually, not only does that, hurt the sector, it perpetuates myths about supply management that that, I'm glad our talk is is breaking down. But look, if we if we suddenly had to dismantle the system, There's been assessments of what this would cost because as you said, this type of food security policy, farmers were forced onto it, over 50 years ago because governments were constantly bailing out certain years when there was problems and nothing, so they provided stability.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:And quota now has a value. So if we suddenly eliminated the value, what would we have to compensate the existing supply managed sectors? Like and I don't need an exact number, Ed, but I know that the departments looked at these numbers, throughout the history of our negotiations. We're talking tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to eliminate the system and start from scratch. Is that fair?
Hon. Ed Fast:Yes. That's a fair assessment. It you know, it may even be in the 100 of 1,000,000,000, once you take into account, some of the farms that would have to close down, the value of the equipment that they've got in there might, be reduced dramatically. So the, the loss, I think we have to be realistic about what it means to shut down supply management. Now I'm not going to opine on what a future government might do in this regard.
Hon. Ed Fast:I do know that you and I have been consistent in, articulating the rationale for having a system of supply management in Canada. I don't hear anybody complaining that we have a shortage of cheese or of milk
Hon. Erin O'Toole:in Canada. Yeah.
Hon. Ed Fast:Why? Because we have healthy farms that are capable of producing for all Canadians. That's where we get food security. Now does that translate into a higher price? I think I'll leave it up to economists to decide what that means.
Hon. Ed Fast:But in terms of ensuring that we have a long term food supply in Canada, certainly supply management does that in the face of massive subsidization to the south of us.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Yeah. Great point. So memo to team Canada, memo to, very smart people on Twitter who who complain about supply management. If we're putting it on the table, we should ask Donald Trump to pledge to not spend 30,000,000,000 each year by congress on American subsidies. If we're talking about a level playing field, that's really what we're talking about, and I don't think, Trump would ever do that.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:So let's talk another myth. You were there when we had the the FIFA. I see a lot of, very unintelligent people on Twitter, conspiracy theorists, galore on FIFA. FIFA stands with stands for the foreign investment protection and promotion agreement. We we signed one of those with China.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:I was defending it in the house, much to Elizabeth May and other people that thought the sky was falling. Talk about why we signed a with China during your your period as minister, Ed.
Hon. Ed Fast:Oh, that's a great question. The reason we signed an agreement with China to protect investment is because we were receiving reports from Canadian companies who had invested in China. And once they made those investments, found out that either the local or provincial or the national government would step in and say, well, actually, we want this investment to be managed and controlled by Chinese companies, and so the investment would be expropriated without compensation. Now in Canada, we already have the rule of law where we don't expropriate except with compensation. That is not and was not the case in China.
Hon. Ed Fast:And, obviously, there were many Canadian companies that saw this huge market and wanted to make investments in China, but realized that they were incredibly vulnerable if they poured, you know, 1,000,000 of dollars into these investments. And then after the fact found out, oh, the government in China is expropriating this or they're passing laws that make our investment less valuable. So the solution that is to negotiate an investment treaty, a protection treaty that would ensure that the rule of law applied. In other words, if a Canadian company makes an investment in China, if there is expropriation, it must be with fair compensation, and the government will not treat a Chinese company more preferably than they would a Canadian company. Now those are all reasonable suggestions to make and to incorporate into an agreement, and that's what we did.
Hon. Ed Fast:Now there's been some talk about, oh, this is a terrible agreement we sold out, and now China has this unlimited access to our country. Let me note that the Chinese FIPA is not a trade agreement. It is not a market access agreement. It does not provide China with any additional access to our marketplace for their investors. We have some tough laws in Canada, in including the Investment Canada Act, which regulate and restrict the kinds of investments and the size of investments that can be made by foreign countries, when they seek new markets.
Hon. Ed Fast:And so the foreign investment protection treaty that we actually signed had nothing to do with market access, didn't make Canada any more vulnerable to Chinese investment. What it did, it protected Canadian investors when they invested in China. And so the question I often put to my NDP colleagues in the house who continue to be skeptical about this agreement is, can you name me one investment that China has made in Canada over the years or that Canada has made over the years in China that's been subject to a dispute under our FIPA? And can you point to any case where Canada's national interests have been compromised under this FIPA? And they can't point to any because there aren't any.
Hon. Ed Fast:This agreement was there to protect Canadians when they invest abroad, specifically in China.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Well said. We, we should call this podcast myth busting with Ed Fast because we we're gonna talk to the block about their, their supply management motions and the NDP and and the green on on their FIFA myth. As you said, Canada is a rule of law country. So if there was ever a Chinese investor with a failed issue here in Canada or an issue with the government, they have our courts, which are the most transparent and and effective in the world. Our investors, our exporters didn't have that there.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:So was for Canadian protection. Look. We could go through South Korea, Honduras, TPP, but I wanna get to what you've referred to as the elephant in the room, because, you know, we could be the mouse beside the American elephant. It was actually Justin Trudeau's father that came up with that analogy saying, living next to the Americans is like living next to an elephant or sleeping next to an elephant. You feel every twitch and grunt is his comment.
Hon. Ed Fast:Yes.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Look, you talked about the changing attitudes towards trade. You were there at the sort of peak of of the liberal trade order. We're now in managed trade. You could say the first step in what is deglobalization now was when Trump withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership as president, and we've started seeing tariffs. We've seen a wider increase in the use of sanctions.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:We're seeing carbon emissions potentially being another form of managing trade. Talk for a little bit about this transition because, you know, as Canada's most active minister under the globalization, under the liberalized trade order, is it hard to watch this sort of coming down on us shifting into this managed trade time?
Hon. Ed Fast:Yes. It is. It's very difficult to watch, the world turn inward, beginning with the United States. I call it trade in the era of Trump because Donald Trump ushered in a whole new era of protectionism. And it's very surprising because, the United States has actually been one of the champions of trade liberalization for decades.
Hon. Ed Fast:Even the World Trade Organization, the big leader there, the United States. And if you went to International Trade Fora, it was always the United States that was looked to to provide leadership when it came to trade expansion around the world and having a rules based system of conducting trade. And then, of course, during the election of 2016, it was actually in 2015, where we were negotiating the final strokes of, the Trans Pacific Partnership. And I remember in the middle of that election, which unfortunately we lost, but in the middle of that election as trade minister, I was called down to Atlanta. Barack Obama had wanted to conclude a deal before our election happened.
Hon. Ed Fast:He wanted to have a deal in place on the Trans Pacific Partnership. 12 countries who were all like minded and wanting to set up a a system of rules based trade within the Asia Pacific region. And so we assume the United States would continue to take the lead with TPP because they were the ones who actually spawned this agreement, And it was Canada that actually joined quite late in the process. We're very grateful that in the end, we were allowed to join the TPP. We were excellent, negotiating partners at that table.
Hon. Ed Fast:And here we are in Atlanta. We're able to promote Canada's interest. We got what we felt was a very good outcome, and everybody went home assuming the TPP was gonna be laid to rest. But then you had the presidential election in the United States. And Donald Trump, for his own reasons, saw fit to advise that if he became president, he was he was going to withdraw the US from the TPP.
Hon. Ed Fast:He considered it to be a bad deal. He didn't like free trade, generally. And, unfortunately, soon thereafter, it was Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the presidential race, who also came out and said, well, she would also pull the United States out of the TPP. And ever since then, of course, we've seen a global trade system that has started to turn inward and reverse many of the gains that had been made in the previous decades. Donald Trump was the first.
Hon. Ed Fast:He did in fact pull the US out of the TPP, which left 11 partners who eventually, concluded a deal without the United States called the CPTPP. But then we saw also, the United States refusing to appoint, arbitrators in the World Trade Organization's, dispute resolution process. So without people capable and appointed to make decisions when there are trade disputes around the world, there's no capacity anymore to adjudicate and in some ways to enforce. Although enforcement, you know, under the World Trade Organization is largely man voluntary, and, the members of the WTO have to effectively police themselves. And so, around the world, we've now seen other countries that are starting to question the value of trade and say, well, what's in my national interest?
Hon. Ed Fast:And then they quickly revert to, okay. What do I, as a populist, want to promote? Oh, you know what? Protecting incoming goods and protecting our local domestic interest industries from competition, maybe that's a good thing. But when you take that to its logical conclusion, eventually, every country around the world would put up these huge tariff walls, and we'd be isolated from a one or one another.
Hon. Ed Fast:And comparative advantage, which is the huge benefit of free trade, would no longer be available to us. The cost of goods would be more expensive. We get into trade wars tit for tat, and that is exactly the global trade a rules based trade system that the WTO had been created to avoid.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Yeah. That's almost seems, where we are now. Throw in a little bit of the polarization from social media and tweets about prime minister Trudeau being the governor of the 51st state, and we're in tit for tat almost schoolyard taunts and and and trade uncertainty. Let's look at couple of the key commodities here, Ed, because we we touched on why, under your leadership, we we signed that FIPA or FIFA with with China to protect Canadian exporters, investors. But can you have free trade with, you know, non free economy?
Hon. Erin O'Toole:So with the United States, and I'm sure you've talked to members of congress about concerns after the US under president Clinton pushed for Chinese entry into the WTO, the the communist system within China continued to degrade. So when there was a hope that that WTO and engagement would turn them in the right direction, Obviously, especially after 2017, Xi has taken it in the other direction. So can can steel plants in Canada and the US or aluminum smelters in Kitimat, BC or or in the Saginaw Region of Quebec, Can they really compete against state owned and subsidized enterprises in in China? So what do you think on you know, it seems like the disruption of of of liberalized trade is being led by commodities like steel and aluminum in the audio industry. Speak for a minute on on this.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Can you have free trade when one of the partners is not free?
Hon. Ed Fast:Well, the quick answer is no. Absolutely not. And you're right. We've seen that with China. And China is not a market economy.
Hon. Ed Fast:Certainly, the United States has concluded that. We have concluded that. In fact, Canada and the US have not provided China with market economy status under the World Trade Organization because we are concerned about their predatory trade behavior, dumping that takes place, heavy subsidization. And, you know, you layer on top of that all of the intelligence gathering that, the Chinese state does in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere around the world, and, the stealing of proprietary information and its intellectual property, trade secrets. Can oh, sorry.
Hon. Ed Fast:China is not ready yet to be treated as a market economy. A market economy would follow the rules of trade as established by other free market economies, those that are presumably represented at the World Trade Organization. That has not happened yet. And and that I'm not surprised that we're seeing a response by president-elect Trump, to this kind of behavior from China by talking about massive tariffs against Chinese imports. Now Canada is going to have to really grapple with how do we respond because we may also have faced tariffs from the United States.
Hon. Ed Fast:How do we respond to those bilateral tariffs? How do we respond to tariffs that the United States may want to impose on China? And we'll want Canada to join them in imposing. And these are all discussions, of course, that I fully expect will play into the expected, CUSMA or USMCA or new NAFTA renegotiation that may take place in 2026.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Okay. Wrapping up this part on the United States, obviously, you know, you as a former trade minister, myself as your, and then I was the shadow minister to miss Freeland during NAFTA to renegotiation 1.1.0. I wrote an op ed recently, and I entitled it make Canada serious again because I think the last time we saw president Trump, building on Obama actually who first started tariffing Chinese steel and bringing up the transshipment and the Huawei and some of the technology theft and other things. We knew they were going to be pushing for, onshoring, reshoring, steel and aluminum, auto, yet we put forward the progressive agenda. Right?
Hon. Erin O'Toole:You know, they like the transpacific partnership, they didn't change any of the trade provisions. They just added progressive to the name without really changing any trade issues. I in my view, you don't have to comment. In my view, we did not take the negotiations seriously last time, and I really want Canada to do that. So as a former trade minister, Ed, during probably the most ambitious trade time in Canadian history, what are a few points of your advice for team Canada facing the the tariff threat from Trump and facing his preference for managed trade and and and tariffs as a way of forcing outcomes.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:What's some free advice that you have for team Canada?
Hon. Ed Fast:Well, let me respond by quickly responding to your comment about, the, negotiation of CUSMA. You're right. I don't believe, our our federal government was serious when they sat down with Donald Trump to renegotiate NAFTA. And most people are really hard pressed to find any gains that Canada made, substantive gains in terms of market access. They point to the fact, well, we now have certainty.
Hon. Ed Fast:While we didn't go into that negotiation simply for certainty, we were told we're gonna have a better deal than we had before. By all accounts, it's actually a worse deal. The concessions were all on Canada's side. But if I were now gonna give, advice, what I would say, first of all, there's a serious challenge with negotiating or renegotiating because that's a very narrow negotiation where Donald Trump would have all the cards to play. We would have none.
Hon. Ed Fast:We face so many other trade and non trade, frictions between our country. You know? There's a whole list. The digital services tax, which, Trudeau has basically unilaterally imposed instead in instead of looking for a global solution to that challenge. There's the outstanding softwood lumber agreement.
Hon. Ed Fast:There is the, Columbia River Treaty, which a lot of people, forget about, which is a significant tree that addresses salmon habitat, but even more importantly, addresses energy security for the United States. Water security, how do we manage all of that? There's other issues. We've got ongoing challenges with buy America provisions that the United States imposes, which prevents Canadians from competing in the United States. There's the issue of, say, border security, which Donald Trump has really keyed in on.
Hon. Ed Fast:We're dealing with energy security, the Keystone pipeline. These this there's a whole waterfront of issues that are outstanding between Canada and the United States. If you negotiate simply on the narrow pretext of getting a deal on COSMA, we're gonna make more and more concessions. We will likely get very few, if any, from the American side. And yet the biggest issues facing Canada maybe are outside of the current iteration of NAFTA or CUSMA.
Hon. Ed Fast:So I would say to the government, look at this waterfront of issues. Is there a way of cobbling together a broader agreement, say, on defense spending? Include that as part of the discussion. You are a great advocate, Erin, of making sure Canada does its part, that we step up. We fulfill our commitment to the 2% spending.
Hon. Ed Fast:We need to do our part for continental security, for global security, for NATO. And I would suggest that all these issues that I've just articulated need to be considered not only in context, but as an opportunity for Canada to get a deal that actually addresses most of them and allows Canada to have some chips to play with. We need to have the few cards that we can play with so that we can push back on the Americans. Right now, we go into a renegotiation of Kazuma or a a further discussion about where Kazuma might go. I suspect we're gonna end up losing ground rather than gaining ground and having a a much larger win for Canada beyond just trade.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Great advice. Look at the wider relationship, which we were doing, at the end of the Harper government. One of the great assignments you also gave me was the regulatory cooperation with the United States, and I got to work with the Council of Foreign Relations on the the launch of their North America 2.0 study with General Petraeus and Robert Zeollick. Cross promotion to a previous podcast of the Blue Skies. I had Robert Zoellick on to talk about North America 2.0, energy security on bilateral cooperation, security partnership on defense and in the Arctic, all of these things that, as you said, take a more comprehensive view and then remind the Americans that we're more than just a trading partner.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:We're a homeland security ally. Yes. We're we're we're an international ally. Great advice for team Canada, Ed. So look, I'm gonna wrap up here with a part of the blue skies I always like to do because blue skies by its I'm obviously blue like you, we're conservative, we're optimists.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:What is something from you're almost you're you're hitting 19 years in in politics, next year. Pretty incredible. Real commitment to the country. A lot of the things that people have seen whether your time is as a minister, your your your advocacy on a range of issues, related to to the dignity of life, related to protection of children, justice, human rights. If you look back, at the end of your time, whenever this parliament wraps up, what is something that you can talk to your 15 grandchildren about that that brings you a real sense of, of pride?
Hon. Erin O'Toole:And particularly something that maybe people might not know, but they should know about your public service?
Hon. Ed Fast:Oh, that's a really interesting question. Maybe I'll I'll make it very personal. Obviously, I've had the opportunity to, become friends with many, many MP colleagues on the hill. That's one of the most enriching parts of the job being a member of parliament. And, some years ago, there was a group of us, Chuck Strahl, who's now passed away, Mark Warawa, who's also passed away, unfortunately, and a couple of other guys, Randy Kamp was another one, Kevin Sorensen.
Hon. Ed Fast:We formed a group called the MP 5, and we we sang gospel music. You know, we go different venues and sing gospel music. I was a piano player, so I wasn't a singer, so don't ever ask me to sing. But, it was one of those things that took politics and added a dimension to it that provided a lighter side to it that allowed us to express some of our artistic, gifts in a way that still, dovetailed with our political careers. So sort of the highlight of that was when we were asked to do a cameo appearance at the National Arts Center.
Hon. Ed Fast:And so we we went there and sang 2 songs and, I thought we got a pretty good round of applause and, no one was expecting perfection from us, but I think they appreciated the effort. And, that's one of the things I'll remember fondly over the years is not only those, 4 friends that I made there, but many other friends like yourself, Erin, where we work together to promote Canada's interest on the international stage, but also here at home.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Well said. M p 5, I remember I've had the good fortune of hearing you play the piano. You're a remarkably talented pianist. And so now we know that the honorable Ed Fast has has been on the stage of parliament in Ottawa, but also on the stage of the National Arts Centre, performing. That's pretty amazing.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Listen, Ed, I you know, I know I speak for many former and current caucus, many conservative, many Canadians who've admired your commitment to the country, to Abbotsford, to your family, to your faith, and to the character you bring to politics. That's why as at the outset, I said I was so excited about this episode because I was bringing someone that I learned and tried to emulate in some ways in my political career. Thank you for your service. Thank you for opening up trade markets for Canadians, and thank you for blue skying your career on the issue of trade with us today.
Hon. Ed Fast:You're very welcome, Erin. I'd be glad to do it again if there's an opportunity.
Hon. Erin O'Toole:Well, I look forward to seeing you either here in Ottawa or somewhere in beautiful BC in the future. Best to your family, and Merry Christmas, Ed.
Hon. Ed Fast:And you as well. Thank you.