Evidence of meeting #133 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 way.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I'd like to move the amendment, and I'd like to speak to it. This is quite an extensive amendment. If you look at amendment NDP-1, it's about clause 3.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
It's NDP-1, yes.
If you look at it specifically, it really is about some additions to put into this space. Following proposed paragraph 4(a), we'd like to see....
First of all, in addressing proposed paragraph 4(a), the amendment is proposing to add a paragraph 4(a.1). Proposed paragraph 4(a) is, really, an aspirational statement. These are often included in the beginning of implementing legislation, but we'd really like to see some real goals. If we were to have an addition of a paragraph 4(a.1), which is in NDP-1, it would read:
substantially increase investment opportunities in Canada and the State of Israel while preserving the right of each of the parties to the Agreement to regulate and to achieve legitimate policy goals;
This also really does speak to any type of investor-state or any type of dispute resolution, just really laying out the fact that we still retain the ability to do what we need to do in Canada, and in Israel it's the same. There's the addition of this paragraph 4(a.1) that would follow right after proposed paragraph 4(a) at the bottom of page 1.
If you flip over the page, the next part of the amendment is replacing line 7 on page 2. What it currently has there is:
ensure a high level of environmental protection through comprehensive and legally-binding commitments;
It's always positive, I think, to see language on the environment in trade agreements, but what we do know is that, again, this is largely aspirational. We haven't really been able to address the issues of the environment in an enforceable way in trade agreements. An inclusion there about Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement that was reached really lays out exactly where Canada is at in terms of our international obligations and commitments so that there's nothing in the agreement that would challenge our ability to honour those commitments that Canada made in Paris in December 2015.
Again, this doesn't alter the spirit of the agreement whatsoever. This would really be something that would speak specifically to our commitment, which I think we all agree on. We know we've signed on to the Paris Agreement. Again, we don't want anything to ever come back on us for implementing our obligation to the Paris Agreement. It's a special nod and is very specific, which I think is very important in trade agreements. If we're not specific, things are open to interpretation. They may not be things that we can address at a later date if the need arises.
The third one that I have there is on lines 8 to 10. Again, what's there proposed paragraph 4(d) talks about the international commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour matters. Again, this is very thin language, and I think it could be fleshed out in a way that really indicates where Canada is at.
My amendment that I have put forward essentially reiterates our commitment. The amendment is to:
protect, enhance and enforce workers' rights through mandatory mechanisms recognized by the International Labour Organization's eight core conventions and adherence to its Decent Work Agenda, through the creation of an independent labour secretariat with the power to oversee a dispute-settlement process for violations of labour rights and to enforce penalties for any such violations and through strengthening cooperation between Canada and the State of Israel on labour matters;
This is really important. To date there haven't been any trade agreements that Canada has signed on to internationally, to be fair, that speak about labour matters or labour rights that have been enforceable and that have been a way to address the situations that exist for working people. Again, just fleshing this out and talking about the fact that we want these mandatory mechanisms in there, I think, is very key.
If we are to build upon trade agreements, we have to start improving the language in them. If we keep repeating the same language of the previous trade agreements, then essentially we know that there's nothing enforceable in terms of labour. There's been a case brought that was dismissed, so we really need something here so that if there is a labour issue that comes between our two countries, there's a meaningful way to address it, versus just saying that we build on these respective commitments. We need to honour our international commitments, not just build upon them. I bring that forward.
If we move on to paragraph (d) of NDP-1, which is on the second page of the amendment, it references an addition after line 10 that would read:
(d.1) to facilitate due diligence measures and ensure they are available for Canadian companies and funding agencies, and to create a framework for transnational bargaining to allow unions to represent workers in Canada and the State of Israel; and
We really agree with the CLC that the Government of Canada has to look at due diligence of Canadian companies and funding agencies if we're going to create this framework. This is something that is being called for as an addition to trade agreements, in terms of labour, to make sure that it's meaningful and enforceable. The Canadian Labour Congress is in agreement that this measure should be included in all trade agreements. It doesn't break the spirit of this agreement in any way.
If we go on to page 2 of the bill, lines 11 to 16, what we're looking for is a replacement. We would replace lines 12 to 16 with the following text:
economic empowerment and immediately undertake an annual gender-based analysis and gender impact assessment to be applied to the entire agreement, as well as to ensure the use of enforceable corporate social responsibility standards and principles as set out in the United Nations document entitled Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights published in 2011.
This is something we've heard pretty consistently at this committee around gender language: that if it's to be meaningful, it has to be applied throughout the entire text of the FTA, not just relegated to one chapter. We heard this from Oxfam and other groups around previous trade agreements, about the way forward and making sure that we are having a meaningful impact on the lives of women. The current way we're writing text doesn't actually ensure that, so this is a fleshing out of that text.
Gender equality shouldn't only be concerns of women entrepreneurs and business owners; it should actually help in regard to systemic discrimination against women who work, who are in the labour force. There's nothing actionable here about that either.
The other thing we strongly believe—and we've heard it at this committee too—is that when we're looking at improving language, we shouldn't have to wait five years for a review to see what the provision will yield or will not yield.
The nature of our trade is happening every single day. Why would we wait a whole five years to figure out whether something is working or not? It just seems a very lengthy period of time. I put that out there, that we need some concrete steps and some actions.
I want to speak a bit about the corporate social responsibility chapter—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Can I encourage you to minimize it? We have a lot of amendments to do today. I can't cut you off—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
—but I'd like to go through the other ones and make sure you have a say.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Corporate social responsibility is something that we all agree needs to be part of our trading relationships with other countries. The problem is that if we make this voluntary, the system isn't working; it's not addressing the issues we have. The OECD already agreed with the UN on these principles and they are looking at ways to make them enforceable, so this really is something that we have to do.
Just as an aside, we have the corporate social responsibility ombudsperson, who hasn't been appointed yet, so I know it's something that the government is working on, but we really need someone in that role. At this point, we really don't have anything or anyone overseeing and making sure that the corporations are being held responsible.
However, again, if it were something mandatory as opposed to voluntary for corporations, we wouldn't need an ombudsperson to oversee it. We need an ombudsperson currently because it's up to them whether they want to honour the obligations and commitments that Canada has globally. This really is a space for us to remove the voluntary aspect so that we're putting some responsibility on corporations instead of just saying some aspirational things that they could do if they feel like it. Therefore, I put that forward in my first amendment.
All the things I've raised are really things we've discussed here at this committee and have heard consistently from witnesses, and I don't believe they violate the spirit of the agreement.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay.
My recommendation here is that it's inadmissible, because it requires a royal recommendation. It requires a royal recommendation because there's a cost to it. This is not admissible to even put forward.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Just let me finish, if I may.
On the following amendments, the way we do it is that the MP says the amendment and then I say if it's admissible. If it's admissible, then the MP can speak on it.
From now on, whichever MP wants to make an amendment, state it. If it's admissible, we go forward.
That's the ruling on this first one.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I want to ask a question, though. Which part specifically is inadmissible in the amendment? Can I get some clarification? Are all of the additions or changes I have put in here inadmissible, or are there specific ones that are inadmissible?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Technically, yes; I think when you read it, you ask for the creation of an independent labour secretariat.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That requires money, which then makes the whole amendment inadmissible.
Let's move on to NDP-2, your next amendment on clause 3.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm seeking the following addition:
4.1 (1) The provisions of this Act and the Agreement must comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
(2) Relations between the Government of Canada and the State of Israel, as well as the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and international law.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you.
This one is also inadmissible, because it could create new obligations on the Government of Canada, subjecting the treaty to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That one will not go forward.
We will move on to NDP-3.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
This is the addition I'm proposing, as follows:
4.1 In the interests of transparency, product labelling must accurately reflect the precise place of origin of any product that originates in an area that is occupied by the State of Israel but that is outside the territory of the State of Israel as it existed on June 4, 1967. In particular, labelling must indicate whether the product was made in an illegal settlement, and whether it was made in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights or Gaza.
Again, this is from the EU language.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I have to again rule that it's inadmissible, as it's beyond the scope of the bill, since it addresses details of regulations related to labelling of goods not envisioned in the bill.
That said on those three, should clause 3 carry?
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(On clause 4)
Mr. Ste-Marie from the Bloc has some short comments on his amendment.
Again, sir, welcome.
November 29th, 2018 / 12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'll talk about the admissibility of my amendment. I believe that it meets all the criteria listed in pages 770 to 775 of Bosc and Gagnon. You'll agree that my amendment doesn't expand the scope of the act. In fact, the opposite is true.
My amendment doesn't violate the principles of the act either. The House has adopted the principle of a Canada-Israel free trade agreement. My amendment seeks to ensure that a free trade agreement with Israel is established. However, the agreement must fully but exclusively cover the territory of the State of Israel.
My amendment does add a new paragraph, but it doesn't expand the scope of the act. At the report stage, we can only delete clauses. In short, the clause that I'm proposing doesn't expand the scope of the act. It simply clarifies the scope.
My amendment also doesn't amend the treaty. We all know that a treaty is negotiated by two parties. Therefore, it can only be amended by two parties. That said, the treaty can be interpreted, and it's even a fairly common practice to do so.
On that note, I'll provide two clear examples. The first example concerns subsection 7(1) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except Article 302 of the Agreement, applies to water.
The NAFTA text didn't mention water. Since water wasn't specifically excluded from the agreement, it could be concluded that water was...
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Excuse me. As I just stated, you were only supposed to speak of your amendment, say your amendment—