International Trade Committee on March 10th, 2009

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

Now that the motion is coming forward, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right. There you go.

With that, I'm going to now begin with the first item, and hopefully we'll get to the second item as well. We have about 15 minutes.

I'm going to ask Mr. Julian to move his motion and speak to it briefly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll speak very briefly to it.

As everyone around the table knows, Dow AgroSciences has filed, under chapter 11, an investor state lawsuit that challenges the ban on pesticides in Quebec. This is something that I think all parties have raised in question period. The intent of the motion is to have one meeting on this, to which those who have expressed concerns about this would be invited. Potentially we'd also have government representatives to explain how the government is intervening on this chapter 11 case.

I'm suggesting that it's an issue of important public policy that has ramifications beyond Quebec. It could mean implications for other cities that have pesticide bans, like the City of Toronto. For those reasons I'd like to offer this as a topic for a stand-alone meeting of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Can you read it into the record?

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

Sure:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade hold a two-hour meeting with representatives of civil society and other groups concerned by the filing of a Notice of Intent by Dow AgroSciences under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, with regards to the banning of lawn and garden pesticides in the province of Quebec, which would include the David Suzuki Foundation, Toxic Free Canada, Environmental Defence, Equiterre and the City of Montreal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Comments?

Mr. Brison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm actually interested in chapter 11 and this specific case. I'm also interested in the Newfoundland government case with AbitibiBowater. I'm not certain whether Mr. Julian would be amenable to this, but perhaps this would be a constructive amendment. They're both chapter 11 issues. I think we can all benefit from a deepened understanding of chapter 11 in two distinct cases, but at least understand the implications of chapter 11.

Further, in terms of witnesses, I'd suggest someone like Gordon Ritchie, one of the negotiators of the FTA, as somebody who could help, and Barry Appleton, an international trade lawyer who's won cases on the chapter 11 situation while representing clients. It may be beneficial to us to understand the implications of chapter 11 in two distinct cases that are before the public right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Surprisingly, I have some appreciation of Mr. Julian's motion. I think it's a subject that we're going to have to deal with, because we do have the ban already, I think in Toronto, and now Quebec, and it's for sure that this is going to continue across Canada. I would be interested in hearing witnesses on this so that I can get a better understanding of it and how it affects us with the free trade agreements, etc.

I guess I'm wondering what date or what timing Mr. Julian had for his motion. Is there a particular time?

We have a lot of other stuff that we want to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin, did you have a comment?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

There would have been just as much support for the motion if I had presented it myself.

I cannot help making a link between this specific case and what the representatives from the European Union told us last week about standards. At some point, countries must establish standards and comply with them in their international relations. These standards may have to do with the environment or health, two areas that are impacted indirectly.

It is important to analyze chapter 11 based on this example. This is also an opportunity to evaluate what we should be doing to protect the standards we should establish as a society. International trade must not allow private companies to interfere directly with these standards. We have to be able to uphold these standards. It is therefore relevant to discuss this. This discussion will take up the full two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Fine, thank you.

Perhaps I could just interrupt for one minute and get the attention of the committee. It seems to me there could be a consensus here, with a constructive amendment proposed by Mr. Brison--if that were to be accepted by Mr. Julian. I think we do have an eye on our schedule and our time. This may just fold in with our next discussion, and that is our draft committee schedule.

Could I ask the committee if we could maybe get a straw vote at this point? We might perhaps consider this in one meeting, bringing a number of witnesses, if there are two sides to the issue, but more in terms of information for the committee. We would do that on the first meeting back after break week. That would be the week of March 23 to March 27, so it would be March 24. I think that would give the clerks time to get witnesses to come in.

In any event, I don't want to lead the committee too far. I was just getting the sense that, in regard to time, this might be a consensus for people.

Did you have something to add, Mr. Keddy?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question for Mr. Julian and Mr. Brison.

The only question I have...and I would expect that we're going to stay to our parameters here. Our parameters are trade. So how does chapter 11 work? It's not about the efficacy of 2,4-D versus other pesticides. We keep the questions to trade, not to the environment or biology. We keep to how chapter 11 works, and whether countries or provinces have a right to ban products that they feel should be banned. We stick to the issue of trade, not to the debate over pesticides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's a good point.

Mr. Brison, and then Mr. Julian--very briefly, if you might.

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

Further to the point, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have a totally different situation, but a similar challenge to chapter 11. I want to have a better understanding of what the weaknesses of chapter 11 are and what we ought to be looking at in terms of future trade agreements.

Although I think all of our witnesses are good witnesses, and from organizations that I have great respect for, I think the principle is not whether or not pesticides are bad. In terms of our deliberations, the principle is whether or not chapter 11 is impeding the capacity for sovereign governments within Canada, federally or provincially, to make decisions that are legitimate to defending their interests.

I want to study chapter 11. I want to study this issue and the Newfoundland issue. I'm wondering whether there's a way to start with a briefing from the department on chapter 11. Maybe we could have a couple of experts on chapter 11 and a couple of cases, including these two current ones. I'm wondering whether that may have more benefit.

On the specific motion where you get very granular in terms of specific witnesses, I think we agree in principle, but we're not necessarily sure. If we do a two-hour session with just these witnesses, it will be more focused on the environment side as opposed to the chapter 11 side. I support in principle the idea of doing chapter 11, although I think the witnesses in this case are heavily focused on the environmental substance as opposed to the trade substance, which is what I'd like us to drill down on. We'd probably agree on outcomes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I will ask you to comment, Mr. Julian, after my comments. Let me just step in here.

I'm sensing that we might just amend the motion by eliminating the “granular” part, as Mr. Brison referred to it, and saying only that the standing committee hold a two-hour meeting on chapter 11 of NAFTA. I think you could then add that the meeting would take specific interest in the filing of a notice of intent by Dow AgroSciences, and the Newfoundland and Labrador issue.

I think that would be the motion, and then we could, just by consensus and the lists that are provided to the clerk, sort out a balanced two-hour meeting for discussion in that regard. But that's just a suggestion.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think very clearly we would want to see the City of Montreal and Équiterre here. I think they would be taking discussions that are focused on the trade element and the decision by the City of Montreal to support the pesticide ban.

I agree with Mr. Keddy and Mr. Brison that we're focusing on chapter 11 and not on the advisability or not of a pesticide ban. The democratic decision I think is the one that's impacted here.

Mr. Brison's case is quite compelling around Newfoundland and Labrador, but I would suggest that perhaps we'll be looking at more than two hours if we want to bring in all these elements. I think the Newfoundland and Labrador case on its own is a quite compelling one. We can look at extended hours, perhaps a three-hour meeting, if we wanted to work both in or over two meetings.

I think we all agree with the principle of dealing with chapter 11 and agree on having witnesses who address the chapter 11 provisions specifically. I'm flexible on some of the witnesses, but not on all of them. I think a couple definitely need to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a list. First is Monsieur Cardin, and then Mr. Keddy.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the discussion should really focus on chapter 11. Of course, the idea came to us more quickly as a result of the Dow AgroSciences situation, but if we add other dimensions of the issue, I think we could easily discuss all of the issues in two hours. Since we are studying Canada-U.S. relations, it is particularly relevant to take a very close look at chapter 11 using specific examples. It is quite likely that the meeting could last more than two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It sounds as though we have a growing consensus here. The only question is how much time we will have.

Mr. Keddy, go ahead.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you.

My only suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a two-hour meeting. We schedule an hour on Dow Chemical in Quebec, an hour on Newfoundland, and if we find that's not sufficient, then we can talk about another one.

When you have a motion that gets beyond one meeting, then you're getting into a study by the committee, which is fairly in depth. My suggestion is that if we do an hour for each and we find that's insufficient, then we can come back, after one two-hour meeting, and try to find another meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I don't wish to cut off debate here, but we are running out of time.

I think we're going to get a consensus. I think what was expressed by Mr. Keddy probably does sum up where we are.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Can you possibly also move, at the same time as the motion, the draft committee's schedule? I'd like to adopt that as well. I think it works perfectly fine within the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, I do think we have a pretty good consensus on the draft committee's schedule, but we'll get to that, Mr. Silva, as soon as we wrap this up.

I think we're okay with this. Perhaps I can just suggest this and see if we can get it done in the next couple of minutes: that the Standing Committee on International Trade hold a two-hour meeting on chapter 11 of the NAFTA, with particular reference to the notice of intent by Dow AgroSciences regarding the banning of lawn and garden pesticides in the province of Quebec, and the Newfoundland and Labrador AbitibiBowater matter....

Give me a nice way to put that, Mr. Brison.

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

Well, it's the current chapter 11 challenge by the Province of Newfoundland with regard to the--