International Trade Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Our time is up, gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming again. We appreciate it. We know you have an awful lot to do with your time.

We do have a motion, or possibly two motions, that Mr. Julian has given notice of. We will deal with those now. Gentlemen, if you could just leave the table, we'll continue with the motions. Thanks very much.

Mr. Julian, go ahead. You can indicate whether you would like to bring both motions now or just one.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It won't take too much time, because I think we'll have a broad consensus from all four corners of this table. They are very straightforward motions that I'm sure will receive support.

I'd like to move the first motion, which is regarding particularly CA4, which, as we've seen, is well advanced in the negotiations. So the question is that we have full and immediate disclosure of the draft texts and Canadian negotiating proposals for the CA4 FTA, that we ensure that mechanisms are developed for authentic public debate, including stakeholder consultations open to civil society and broader public participation, and that this committee be mandated to conduct a further study on the potential impact of the Canada CA4 FTA, including on human rights. The study would allow the standing committee to make an informed recommendation to Parliament.

Mr. Chair, we've had a couple of brief meetings on this issue. Obviously concerns have been raised that are very legitimate, and I would hope we'd have consensus around this committee table to move in that respect. It is our committee responsibility to ensure, if negotiations are well advanced and if we are coming to the point of looking at signing a treaty, that it happens in a way that respects the Canadian public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Now we'll go to debate on the motion.

We'll have Mr. Menzies, Mr. Epp, and Mr. Cannan.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure this will come as no surprise to Mr. Julian, but I have a great deal of trouble with this motion. First of all, regarding reporting to the House, I don't think that is the mandate of this committee. We can make recommendations, but reporting to the House that we have done due diligence on this would be very premature. We haven't heard from a number of staff people from the trade department who can share some of the opportunities. We've heard pretty much the negative side. And we just heard from three officials who said they don't proceed with any free trade agreements unless there is some encouragement from industry, from Canadian companies, that there are benefits to Canada to pursue this. So we haven't heard that part of the debate yet.

The human rights part, the human rights issues, I would suggest, should not be dealt with at this committee. We have now struck a human rights subcommittee, which I have the privilege of sitting on. That is where we should be dealing with those issues. I think that would be appropriate. So if you're interested, Mr. Julian, maybe we should refer that suggestion to the human rights subcommittee. That might be an appropriate place to deal with it, rather than here.

I'm sure my colleagues will have some other comments about this too, but I just think the timing of this motion is inappropriate, and at this point I certainly could not support any part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Ms. Guergis is next. Then I have Mr. Cannan and Monsieur Cardin.

Go ahead, Ms. Guergis.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you.

I sure hope the Liberals weigh in on this conversation and that we don't just see what usually happens here when we have a motion coming from Mr. Julian, where that side just decides to vote in favour of it without actually engaging in solid debate.

I'm taking a look at the first bullet here, at “full and immediate disclosure”. In the cases in the past, with Costa Rica, Chile, and Israel, we have never released the draft text. It never happened under the Liberals. So am I seeing here, if they decide to vote in favour of this motion, that they've changed their policy and are now in favour of releasing the draft text for negotiations? That would be interesting to see, of course.

Also, in the case of multilateral talks, drafts have only ever been released with consent, and the CA4 actually thinks it would be premature to do this. I think we have to recognize that this is their position as well, that it would be premature.

I have some other points here. I would suggest, when we talk about authentic public debate, that we have had it, not only around this table but going back again even to the Liberals when they launched this in 2001. Prior to launching this negotiation in 2001, the Liberal government at the time actually held substantial and very comprehensive consultations to seek input to see whether we should even proceed with this any further. The Liberals at the time felt they had. This process remains open.

So am I hearing that the Liberals now have decided they didn't do due diligence at the time and hadn't had the consultations that produced broad support to actually go forward to the position we are in today? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about that.

I remind everyone around the table that there is an extensive public consultation process prior to initiating any agreement, and such is the case with this Conservative government, as we've seen with softwood lumber around this table. How often have we had public consultation here? I know the Liberals agree that we have had extensive consultation at this table around softwood lumber, or they would be encouraging us to keep going with it. But they know it's time to move on as well, which they have said around this table.

I think it's very premature, actually, to start reporting to the House on this issue. If you remember, Mr. Julian, I asked the bureaucrats to leave that day so that we could hear more from your witnesses, who were here that day. We haven't heard from them specifically on this. Maybe we should be hearing a little more detail on it before we start making recommendations to the House. I think it would be the responsible thing to do.

Those are just a few of my points, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Guergis.

Mr. Cannan. Then we'll go to Monsieur Cardin.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I know the time is limited.

I just want to reiterate the fact that we heard from two lawyers this morning from the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers. The question I asked them was—and I believe you, Mr. Chair, asked the question—whether or not information would be released unilaterally when they're negotiating with the partners. They said no, it's the consensus of both parties or all the parties involved.

As I stated during the discussion at that time, our government is prepared to release the information once the remaining four parties.... There has to be a consensus among all five of us, and the information will not be exposed unilaterally. I think that would be negotiating in bad faith. So I will not be supporting this recommendation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let's say that, on the whole, I have a favourable prejudice on this point, but, before going any further, I'd like someone to inform me, whether it's the analyst, the research officers or the clerk, about the committee's recommendation that the government suspend FTA negotiations with the CA4. I believe that's unusual. I even wonder whether it's not unconstitutional, in view of the fact that bargaining is a privilege that falls directly to the Crown?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll certainly ask the researchers for a comment on that.

If you're ready, do you want to comment?

[Peter Berg, Committee Researcher]

I'm only going to answer the first part of your question. Based on my experience, a committee submitting a recommendation to suspend negotiations isn't something that's normally done. I'm not a constitutional expert, but we could check to see whether it's possible. In constitutional terms, these people are empowered to conduct these negotiations. The fact remains that I'm not an expert in the field.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in view of these facts, perhaps it would be preferable to amend this motion by deleting the words “suspend negotiations”. I don't see why the negotiations couldn't continue if we requested information. Matters are cchanging; they're advancing. We could at least clarify things on our side, even if negotiations continue. The recommendations could follow.

The fact remains that my proposed amendment in no way prevents the recommendations from being maintained, regarding disclosure, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin, are you proposing an amendment to the motion?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes. I prepared a draft which could read as follows: “That the committee report to the House on the FTA negotiations with the CA4, while immediately disclosing, developing and mandating [...].” I've changed the verb tenses, but that's essentially the meaning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, we're now on the amendment.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I second this friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is it agreed that the amendment be accepted?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

If I agree to the amendment, does that mean I'm supporting the whole motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Of course not. It's only the amendment.

Mr. Epp, and then Ms. Guergis, do you want to comment?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Would it be possible to get this amendment in writing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The amendment would delete the recommendation that the House suspend... Actually, I'd better make it clear exactly what the amendment is, and what would be removed. We're looking at the French translation.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Normand Radford]

I can offer free translation, if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin, if you could see if this is what you were proposing for the amendment, the clerk will do a rough interpretation.

[The Clerk]

A very rough interpretation, Mr. Chair.

It would be something to this effect: “That the committee report to the House on the negotiations of the Canada CA4 FTA, while considering the following:”

The steps that are there now would constitute “the following”.