International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2012

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would if I could I just briefly speak to the three of them quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Basically, they all do the same thing. I think it's an economical motion.

The first motion would require the Minister of International Trade to appoint representatives to committees that supervise the implementation, functioning, etc., of the agreement.

The second amendment would require the Minister of the Environment to appoint representatives to the committee responsible for the implementation of the agreement on the environment.

The third amendment would require the Minister of Labour to appoint representatives to panels, committees, working groups, etc., referred to in the agreement to administer the labour side agreement.

Once again, it simply makes mandatory the carrying out of what the bill already provides as a discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, I think everyone's clear. It's a change of “may” to “must” on NDP amendments 9, 10, 11, and 12.

You've spoken to NDP-10, right? You're comfortable with NDP-10?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I didn't think that was taken care of. I thought it was just the other three.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let's go with those three, then, and then we'll go back to NDP-10. Is that right? Okay, we are dealing with NDP amendments 9, 11, and 12. We'll call for a motion on that.

[The Clerk]

The question is on NDP amendments 9, 11, and 12.

(Amendments negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

NDP amendments 9, 11, and 12 are defeated.

We'll now move to NDP-10.

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, this motion by the official opposition New Democrats would add the following after line 18 on page 4:

(1.1) The Minister must

(a) co nsult with independent experts on human rights and independent human rights organizations in order to assess the impact, on human rights in Canada and in the Republic of Panama, of the implementation of the Agreement; and

(b) within 60 days after this Act comes into force, cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on that assessment that includes the findings and recommendations of those experts and organizations or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that that House is sitting.

I won't belabour this point, but we did hear evidence from the ambassador from Panama and others that Panama was not that long ago a military dictatorship. It was a country that was a significant player in the drug trade and, of course, a known tax haven. Human rights abuses were common in Panama. They were not, I don't think, the worst in Central America, but I think any human rights abuses anywhere are not something Canadians wish to see.

This motion, then, has an evidentiary basis to it. Again, we're encouraged by the recent progress that Panama has made in transitioning to a democratic structure, but I think it's fair to say that Panama is not yet a country that we can say is fully committed to a fully democratic structure.

We also heard some evidence that the judiciary in Panama is still not completely independent. The possibility of political instability and political repression combined with a judiciary not yet fully independent of politicians forms a sound basis to require a human rights impact assessment and to require the minister to take some extra care to ensure that human rights, which I think all members of this committee and Parliament want to see improved by a trade agreement, are in fact elevated. The only way we'll know that is if we consult with people who know what's going on, on the ground in Panama, and parliamentarians will only know if such a report is tabled in Parliament.

Again, I would put it the other way. Besides encouraging members to vote for it, I would point out that if you don't vote for this, you're essentially saying that there will be no report tabled in Parliament on human rights on this trade deal, and I think that's regrettable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, we'll call the motion.

[The Clerk]

The question is on NDP-10.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's defeated seven to four.

Shall clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll now move to amendment NDP-13, which proposes a clause 15.1, which is the sunset clause.

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is an amendment by the official opposition New Democrats. It would amend the agreement to provide the following:15.1 The provisions of this Act cease to apply five years after this Act comes into force unless, before the expiration of that period, their application is extended by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, as we all know, most trade agreements have termination clauses. The usual one is that they could be cancelled upon giving six months' notice. This is nothing new. It automatically places before the House of Commons within a reasonable period of time, namely five years, the issue of the progress, or lack of it, in terms of the goals of the Canada-Panama trade agreement. It would allow democratic control in the House of Commons—less so in the Senate, I might add, since senators are not elected, but by our Constitution it must go there—to see if the agreement has succeeded or not.

I would point out that many claims are made about trade agreements. I think everybody on all sides of the House—Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals—believe that trade agreements have salutary effects. What I think is less clear is the accountability mechanisms to measure whether the claims that are made, which are largely hopeful and are usually expressions of optimism, come into force or not.

I think everybody on this committee and in the House wants the trade agreements to have positive effects for both countries—not only economically, but socially and environmentally. What's really vital in these agreements is to say to Parliament, “Let's look at this at a reasonable period in the future. Let's give this agreement a chance to actually operate. Five years from now, let's see if it in fact had the impacts and effects we thought it would have.”

I think it is also very democratic, because it keeps supervisory control over these agreements in Parliament. I believe it was the Conservative government that took the step of placing free trade agreements before Parliament to be voted on. I may be mistaken in that, but I think it's a good thing. I applaud governments that place these agreements before Parliament to be voted on. If that's the case, we shouldn't just vote on them and forget about them. We should vote on them, and within a reasonable period of time reassess them, and not be afraid to make adjustments if those are required.

My final point would be that if, as the Conservatives often assert, their free trade template is a model that will improve things like the environment, labour standards, and human rights situations in these countries—and it's an open question whether that's the case or not—then I think we should provide a mechanism to assess whether or not that happens. If they're right, they should be very happy to see this agreement come back before Parliament in five years, where they can show Canadians the effects of their agreement, or if those effects have not been achieved, make the adjustments that I think all Canadians would want them to make at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I find myself compelled to speak to this amendment.

I'm not about to start debating the importance of trade to the Canadian economy, but I will debate the issue that once this has passed the political hurdles, you take it out of the political spectrum. If any government, whether it's this government in the future or another government, decides this agreement is not in the best interests of Canada, there's a termination clause in it. If we were to bring a trade agreement back to the Parliament of Canada, very possibly with a minority government, whether it's a minority Conservative government or any other political party, it would become a political football.

Mr. Davies is being naive if he thinks there was any legislation passed in the last Parliament without a great deal of difficulty. These free trade agreements were worked on and worked on and worked on ad nauseam. Because we have a majority government, we're finally in a position to pass this measure. I really don't want to put it back in the realm of being a political football again. It was for the previous two Parliaments. It takes it out of that.

If a future government chooses to move in another direction, it has every right to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll ask for the vote on amendment NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(On clause 2—Definitions)

We will move on to clause 2. I believe amendment NDP-2 is not applicable. On amendment NDP-1, go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You'll have to help me find where we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We're going right up to the top, to clause 2 and NDP-1.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This would amend the definition section of the agreement. Sustainable development is a concept that's already mentioned in the agreement, I believe. This would define “sustainable development” as:"sustainable development" means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.I would move that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The amendment is moved. We'll ask for a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

I am going to ask if clause 2 shall carry, and if you look at your last page, I will also ask the committee if it is possible to include the short title, the title and the bill in that vote, but not the report.

Are you okay with that? Do I have consensus?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Then we will vote on those four motions.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Title agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Bill C-24 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now for the last one. Shall I report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I want to thank the committee for their cooperation and a job well done in very good time.

We wish everybody a great Thanksgiving weekend and a good week next week, and thanks to the department for coming in.

The meeting is adjourned.