International Trade Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'm not a lawyer—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Nor will I be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's clear.

Mr. Julian, do you want to move your amendment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Holder is right. On our clause-by-clause sheet, it was actually in the reverse order. So that's a very good point.

New clause 56.1, again, for a better measure of public accountability, would simply require that the Minister of International Trade report, within five years of this act's passing, on the provisions and the operations of the implementation act—in other words, of the bill itself, including any recommendations for amendments.

I think we've had compelling testimony that there are concerns around this bill, around the provisions of the labour side agreement, the environmental side agreement, and how that would work. I think it is a wise course of action to ensure that in this bill there is a reporting back mechanism so we can see the difference between what has been purported around the bill and what the actual operations and results are after a five-year period. For that measure of public accountability, I propose this amendment to add clause 56.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

First, are there any comments specifically from the officials on how this might affect the bill?

[Carol Nelder-Corvari, Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance]

I'd just make an observation that of course it's the right of this committee to request such reviews at any time. In terms of what's happening in the trade relationship, there may be an opportune time that is apparent to the committee.

With respect to any amendments, this bill of course reflects a bilateral negotiation. So as regards proposing unilateral amendments in the context of the report, unless there was something carried out bilaterally, I wouldn't expect that to take place. As I read this, it says “report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any recommendations for amendments to this Act”. My only point is that this act reflects a bilateral negotiation. So amendments to it, unless there were errors, would likely have to reflect further bilateral negotiations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just heard what I wanted to ask. Thank you very much for that.

But, Mr. Chairman, to ensure a reporting structure, Parliament doesn't stop; it's an ongoing process. To my understanding, there's always a reporting structure. We can always request reviews and changes, whether they occur or not, depending on the circumstances.

For something like the request that has been put here in new clause 56.1, I don't know. I'm a bit concerned about it, if I can put it that way. I'd like to ask the panel again if they could just calm me down, or put me at ease, or flag something for me, as I think you did a minute ago, Carol. I'm just not at ease with it.

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

There's one other point I would like to make. One of the key benefits of a free trade agreement is predictability in market access. This may suggest to our bilateral trade partner that we're going to put this under constant assessment and perhaps propose amendments to it, which may create some uncertainty for both domestic exporters in Canada and in Peru.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, do you want to wrap this up?

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

I'll let Mr. Brison go first.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The point that we can request a review at any time as a committee is an important one, but a future trade committee may not see it as important to do a review. As a member of the current trade committee, I'd like to impose on whoever happens to be on this committee five years from now that they report back to Parliament on this. It is not a substantive change to the agreement that imposes a requirement for bilateral discussions; it's simply a progress report back to Parliament on the effects of this.

I think it's a reasonable amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have Mr. Julian and Mr. Cardin.

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

I agree with Mr. Brison. In the last six months we've had a 50% change in this committee. So in five years maybe I'll still be on this committee, I don't know. Maybe some of you won't be. The reality is that committees change, so having a committee intent is different from having it included in the act.

The government has said it is concerned about labour standards and environmental standards in Peru, and it has included the side agreements for that reason. This is a way of monitoring to ensure it is part of public policy and that the government is accountable for what has been put forward on this agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

We're running out of time, but I'm going to ask Mr. Cardin for a final comment or question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Each time we're presented with a free trade agreement, we ask for an impact assessment and we're told that this is not possible, that there is no crystal ball with which to predict the future. We know that because of the agreement, our business people and our exporters will sell more products and will probably make more money, but we really don't know what impact it will have. We are merely asking that after five years, an impact assessment be conducted. Then we could gauge the impact on various industries. I think such an exercise is important. If there is no legal requirement to do an assessment, I think people will opt not to do one. There will be the occasional complaint, but the assessment will not get done. So then, this is relevant point. It doesn't mean that changes will be made, simply that possible, desirable changes will be identified. As part of any free trade agreement, it is possible to negotiate changes with the parties. However, this would mean that a report would be produced for internal management purposes. We would consider which changes would be desirable and then, we would go and negotiate with the other country. I don't really see any problem here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 57 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Shall the short title carry?

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

I propose that the short title and schedules 1 to 7 be grouped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for that. We should have done the schedules first. Courtesy of Mr. Julian and the lack of time, I'm going to agree with you.

Do we have unanimous consent of the committee to do the short title and the schedules in one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

(Clause 1 and schedules 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.