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.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to offer support to my colleague from the Green Party. The New Democrats have been outspoken on this issue in the House. I've been outspoken at the committee about the importance of removing these regressive provisions that are a direct threat to our sovereignty and to our ability to protect our public in terms of their health and in terms of our environment.
This government has repeatedly said they have an agenda to move toward climate change. There's no mention whatsoever of climate change in this agreement, so there's no respect of the path that we're on in Canada—or the path we should be on, I should say, because clearly we're not on that path under the Liberal government.
We have been outspoken because we have become the most sued country in the world. We believe that this provision should be removed—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
September 20th, 2018 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
On a point of order, Chair, in history, when the committee goes through clause-by-clause study, when they come to a clause they don't like or want to amend, questions are presented to the witnesses. In both cases questions have not been presented to the witnesses. They've made more of an attempt to give their points of view, or in some cases lobby or stall. I would instruct the chair, at his will and under his guidance, that maybe we should get back to what is convention and go through the process of clause-by-clause consideration. If they do have questions for the witnesses, I would entertain those questions. If they're just taking the floor to speak, then I think they're wasting the committee's time.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Hoback. I don't think it's quite a point of order. Ms. Ramsey's always pretty quick. She has a comment. If we let her finish, we'll go from there.
Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey, and finish.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue to say that right now in negotiations in the U.S., there's a conversation about removing chapter 11, which we heard from one of the officials earlier. The original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement is where we began down this road, in talking about this investor state provision. The New Democrats support the removal of this provision from all trade agreements. Ms. May mentioned several countries that are doing this. India as well is in the process of removing it from all their trade and investment agreements, and won't sign on to any agreements with these provisions. There certainly is an argument to be had.
Some 400 witnesses appeared before us. Ms. May has mentioned some of the witnesses, the officials who submitted briefs, but in our public hearings where we had people from the general public come forward, ISDS was at the top of the list from people who came before us at the committee as we travelled across the country. They wanted to see this provision removed. It's disappointing to hear that at this point we can't remove it, that we would have to renegotiate the treaty to remove it. That it even appears here is regressive for Canada, and it's not the path that New Democrats believe we in Canada should be going down. I will offer my support to Ms. May in the removal of these provisions for the ISDS portion of this agreement.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Ms. Ramsey.
Seeing no more discussion on this amendment....
As you know this amendment falls together with PV-2, PV-3, PV-4. All in favour of the amendment—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Yes, I guess we can. Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to continue. We are at clause 8.
12:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, clause 8 is still open for debate or amendments.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's right.
(Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 11)
I think the NDP has an amendment on clause 11. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this particular amendment, it's clear that we're not looking at a removal of this provision, which is something that I'm supportive of. I think it's unfortunate that we can't see a full removal of it, but what I'd like to propose in the amendment are some improvements to this process, because it is largely unaccountable.
The amendments I've put forward here would make the membership of the chapter 28 dispute resolution panels more broad-based and accountable. It wouldn't leave the power solely with the minister. The minister would have to refer to separate parties, separate bodies, and provide opportunities for public participation.
If Canada is going to continue down the path of including this type of investor-state provision, why is there not an attempt to improve these provisions? Why isn't there an attempt to bring them into the public eye, as we heard from Ms. May and as I believe one of the officials referenced earlier said that others are doing? This really speaks to the ability, first of all, to remove that power essentially from one minister, a power that we think is not responsible or in the best interests of Canadians, but ultimately we would be able to have these panels, at a very bare minimum, be more broad-based and accountable, and as I said, provide those critical opportunities for public participation.
The main criticism we've heard, other than the cost and the cooling effect it has had on provincial legislation in trying to implement some things in Canada—and I'd say the cost in the cases is significant—is the fact that it's in secret. There is no ability for the public to engage in this process whatsoever, and I do not believe that Canadians support this type of secretive panel, appointed by the minister, meeting without Canadians having knowledge as to what we're being sued for, why we're being sued, and the amount we're looking at. That's anti-democratic.
This amendment speaks to that, and I hope I'll find some support for this amendment in the committee.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Ms. Ramsey.
Are there any comments on the amendment? I don't see any.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Chair, can we do a recorded vote again, please?
(Amendment negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 agreed to)
We have a couple of other opportunities to get ready.
(On clause 12)
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Come on. Let's all stay focused here. We're on clause 12, and I see we also have an amendment on this clause.
Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is an attempt to have some accountability, some transparency, for the expenses that will be required for this panel to exist and for this arbitration to happen. Obviously some funds are going to be required. The Canadian government should be transparent and open with Canadians about what those expenses are, and reporting is, I think, the best way to do that. I don't believe that what I'm putting forward would change the spirit of the wording or be opposed, but I will ask that question to the officials in a moment.
I think that within three months after the end of each year, the minister should lay before the House a report that sets out the expenses that have been incurred by the commission during that year. I believe Canadians strongly support open, transparent government. It's certainly something we've heard from this government, although there's been serious lack of it in their actions. This is an opportunity, I believe, for the government to show Canadians that they're serious about being accountable, being transparent with the money they're spending.
Canadians are not happy with some of the decisions the government has made recently with the public purse. This would be a way for the minister to very easily provide this to Parliament. I don't think it would infringe on any of the rights of the member states or countries that are involved in this agreement. It would be simply for our own domestic interest, so that we would know exactly how much this panel is costing us and exactly what's involved there.
Therefore, I'll ask the officials, before I close my remarks, if they view this particular amendment to be possible within this agreement.
12:30 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
I guess the short answer is that this amendment would effectively represent a unilateral amendment to the treaty; therefore, it would make it impossible for us to ratify the agreement if the amendment carried.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
In what way could this be part of the CPTPP then, if it isn't allowed there?
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to offer the officials more time to revisit this, if you feel that would be appropriate. I think there were some comments they wanted to make.