Evidence of meeting #117 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cptpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I have a question on subclause 13(1) for the officials, and article 28.20. I wonder if you could explain this clause. I'm wondering if it's related to the suspension of the ISDS provision, or is it strictly state to state? Is there someone who can answer that?
12:40 p.m.
General Counsel, Market Access and Trade Remedies Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
It's state to state, not ISDS.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I think we inadvertently skipped clause 13. We went to subclause 13(1).
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's right. I went to subclause 13(1), so we're going to have to go back to clause 13, right? We're on clause 13(1).
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I just had that question, and they said it's state to state. Now he's going to....
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
That's subsequent to clause 13, right? We haven't treated it as clause 13 yet.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Technically we have to do clause 13 before we do subclause 13(1).
Shall clause 13 carry?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Now we're back to proposed new clause 13.1.
Did you already get your answer, Ms. Ramsey?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Yes. Now you're at my amendment. I had a question, and now I have an amendment.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this amendment coming forward from the NDP is really about more transparency and accountability. It's about requiring an annual report on jobs, on the trade imbalance, and on non-tariff barriers.
In the first part we're asking for an analysis of the jobs created and jobs lost. We've had a lot of conversations at the trade committee about this. Certainly think tanks and groups come before us with economists who express their views on using one particular modelling type. They come forward to tell us their estimate of how many jobs will be created, but we really don't have a way to revisit that and to really understand whether that has happened, for good or bad. I think it would be really helpful and important for Canadians, and certainly for us as parliamentarians, to know the impact and to know whether jobs were actually created or lost out of this agreement, and where they were created or lost.
In this particular agreement, when we look at the report that came from Global Affairs economists, there is an acknowledgement, which we heard today from our officials, that there will be job losses in the auto sector in Canada. It's really just about wanting to reflect back on our agreements and to have a report that tells us whether we created jobs or lost jobs by having that analysis after the agreement.
The second part is about the balance of trade, and certainly the President of the United States has been railing about trade imbalances over the summer. Again, I think it's really incumbent on us all to understand whether our trade balance with the countries we've signed agreements with is working. Is it something from which we're seeing a benefit?
In this week alone, a reporter from the CBC did a story on our own Stats Canada figures. A year after signing the European agreement, CETA, our trade has actually gone down. We have a tremendous volume of imports coming into the country, but overall we are actually exporting less than we were a year ago when we signed that agreement. Instead of reporters having to go out and chase these stories to put these pieces together for Canadians, I think it would be important to have a mechanism that would give us this annual report to tell us the state of our trading relationships with these other countries.
It's something we talk about at this table often. We speculate about it and wonder, and then we reflect back on where we've seen successes and where, unfortunately, we've seen losses. The amendment would put this more into effect so that we would have this annual report to the House of Commons so that we would have an understanding of that trade balance.
Lastly, this is a huge issue for us when we talk about non-tariff barriers. I can't count the number of people who have sat in front of this committee and said that tariffs are really meaningless to them at this point. It's about the non-tariff barriers, because yes, they have access to these countries, but they can't get into them. Then we see stories popping up, on a recurring basis, on our pulses and different agricultural products across our country, showing that they're being denied entry into a country with which Canada has a written agreement. They're being denied on the basis of non-tariff barriers.
I know that in the CPTPP there was an attempt to address some of these concerns with the committees that have been struck, but the committees themselves don't have teeth. They're not really able to resolve the issues brought forward before the committees.
I know that our agriculture sector in particular really suffers under these non-tariff barriers. It's been so significant to them that it's prevented them from seeing what is being touted as the benefit of these agreements, because essentially they end up at the doors of these countries or the ports of these countries and they're denied. They end up leaving perishable product sitting in ports all across the globe, the loss of which they can never recoup.
It's such a significant issue. It's really where we're going in terms of trade, because we're signing so many agreements in Canada in which the tariffs themselves are no longer the issue presented to us by the witnesses who come before us. It really is about the issue of non-tariff barriers. I think we have to start looking at them in a holistic way, and this report would at least allow us to understand and get a reflection from people who are exporting about what has happened in the year of the CPTPP: Where are we one year on? Do you think you've been able to get into these markets? Have you created jobs? Have you lost jobs? What is your balance of trade on a year-to-year ongoing basis?
That's the spirit of this. I hope to see support from members on the committee, because I do think this is a culmination of our work. We're looking to have an ability to understand better the impact of the trade agreements that we sit here and listen to, dig into, and try to understand. Certainly the TPP and now the current CPTPP have been the largest focus of our work over these past three years. We saw 400 witnesses. We travelled across the country. We spent an incredible amount of time on the report that Ms. May referred to earlier, which we brought before Parliament. We've been very engaged in this issue in the House of Commons. As opposition members, we raise on a constant basis the reports that come out in the media about how Canada is faring in terms of trade.
In that spirit, I hope to get support from my colleagues, and I will leave it at that.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Ms. Ramsey.
Is there any more discussion on this amendment? I see none.
All in favour of the amendment?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Sure thing.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There are no more amendments from clause 14 on, but when we had our information session with the officials here, there was some information that we could bring up on the clauses.
Mr. Christie, I think clause 14 could have a bearing on the information that we were looking for. Are you guys okay with that?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations and Lead Negotiator of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Yes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Do you want to repeat what you asked, Ms. Ramsey, or are we good to go?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
The officials are going to talk about it again. I don't think you need....
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Yes. At the beginning of each section, could they give us an overview of...?