International Trade Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

The next one is NDP-6.

Ms. Ramsey, do you want to state your amendment?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes. This amendment is about who pays for certain things. It's about the remuneration and expenses.

What I am proposing here is to replace lines 14 to 16 with:

14 The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the costs of

(a) the remuneration and expenses payable to its mem-

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It's admissible.

If you have any more comments, go ahead.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Again, this is something I've discussed in other trade agreements, so I'm sure it's not a surprise for committee members to see it. I did have the support of the Conservatives previously on this issue, because we're talking about the public purse and an accounting of where money is going and who it's going to.

Again, we are just talking about transparency. This is about publishing Canada's share of the commission expenses. We think the government should be tabling a report to discuss these expenses, because often parliamentarians will have to dig around a little bit to find them.

It should be an open and transparent process. When we're spending public tax dollars, there should be an accounting of how we're doing it. I think Canadians have an expectation of us, and the expectation is that we're using their money wisely.

This would be a way for them to see how much money is being spent in international agreements. I think it is of interest to all of us to find out what exactly the administration of these trade agreements ends up costing Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Now we have NDP-7.

Go ahead. You have the floor again, Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

This amendment is really an addition. It begins adding after line 23. I'll read it out to you first:

14.1 The Government of Canada shall, as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report that

(a) identifies the members, members' assistants and independent experts and indicates the costs incurred by each member—and their assistants—of the panels, committees, subcommittees, working groups, expert groups and other bodies, as well as the costs incurred by independent experts;

(b) includes a gender impact assessment of the Agreement;

(c) includes an economic impact analysis with a detailed jobs analysis of the potential benefits and cost of the Agreement; and

(d) includes an analysis of the impact of the Act on human rights in Canada, in the State of Israel as it existed on June 4, 1967, and in the territories occupied by the State of Israel, including Palestinian territories.

(2) The Minister of Labour shall cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Minister receives it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It's admissible.

Are there any more comments on it?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes. There's quite a bit of comment on this, because at this trade committee we spend a lot of time talking about the impact of trade agreements, but we don't have the government doing its own analysis of trade agreements and their effectiveness, so we'll often see outside groups come forward. We just had the National Bank come forward on CETA, telling us that we've had a 46% decrease in exports over a 10-month period since signing the agreement, but again we don't have any government analysis on this.

If we had a government analysis, it would be helpful to our understanding. The first part of the amendment talks about the costs incurred, about being fiscally responsible, being accountable for the amount of money we're spending, whether we're seeing return on our investment for the money we're spending on these trade agreements. Each agreement would certainly be unique in that way.

In this particular agreement with Israel, we have quite a trade imbalance. We import a great deal more than we export to Israel. It would provide an understanding of how much we're spending to be able to see the benefits of the trade agreement.

The signing of the agreement doesn't end our obligations to it. They continue in costs, in committees, people having to meet, and the gender impact assessment. I just go back to this one because if this government, which professes to be feminist, is going to address gender issues in a meaningful way, then we have to do so in a way that reflects what is being asked for in international circles. The thing that's being asked for is a gender impact assessment of the whole agreement—not just this existing chapter, but a lens on the entire agreement. It's the only thing that will ever address the issue of gender in trade agreements.

Then there is the economic impact analysis. I think this is pretty self-explanatory, with a detailed jobs analysis. How is it that we keep signing trade agreements and not reflecting on their impact? Are we gaining jobs? In what sectors are we gaining jobs? Are we losing jobs? Who's being impacted?

There's a lot of talk out there about sectoral trade because of the way that trade is impacting different sectors in a very real way. Manufacturing and agriculture are often pitted against each other in trade agreements. If the government is professing that the trade agreements and the opening of markets will have an impact and that we will see some benefit to trade out of that, then the question is, how do we analyze that? How do we quantify that? How do we put that in a way Canadians can understand?

I think that having an economic impact analysis before we enter into trade agreements is also very beneficial to give us an understanding. We saw that in the CPTPP; the government didn't have the best economic forecasting included in their own analysis.

I was listening to my colleague talk about the job losses in Oshawa, about manufacturing and how they've been disadvantaged in trade agreements. If we have a way to understand how trade agreements are impacting jobs, then there's a conversation to be had on that impact with working people across our country. I think it's very important and should be a primary goal of this committee, to be honest.

Obviously, we aren't living up to our international commitments on human rights in this agreement. There's a path there for us to do that. We could have simply put in the language that the EU included. It hasn't been controversial, it didn't cause any major ripples across Israel or in their relationship with them, and I think it was the responsible thing to do to be a leader on human rights.

This is something that Canada aspires to do, but it's also something that Canada has committed to do this and to recognize, so to not see that included....

I think we should have an analysis of the impact of this act, of trade, on human rights, because it's often being held up by the Liberal government as something they would like to see addressed in trade agreements. My experience here is that they have yet to do so meaningfully or, quite frankly, at all.

We've seen in other agreements as well an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role in the way that they—that we—know Canadians want us to do globally. Certainly human rights issues in China and in ASEAN countries really should be addressed. At the very least, if we're not addressing them in the trade agreements, as the Liberals have failed to do here, that's a reflection on how we are doing.

What is the human rights condition in the country? Has trade had any impact on that? It simply calls on that, and on the Minister of Labour specifically to do that.

I think this amendment speaks to a lot of the work we do here, and a lot of the things that we hear from our witnesses on a consistent basis in the public space. If we as a trade committee are to try to find a way to address them, this amendment is an opportunity to do so. I would invite my colleagues to support the work and efforts that we've had here.

I don't think this amendment goes against the spirit of the agreement in any way. I don't think it's something that would harm our relationship. Again, it's just a domestic thing for Canada, to understand trade in a more meaningful way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are there any more comments or questions on this amendment?

That being said, let's bring it to a vote.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're going to go to the last amendment from the NDP. We have here NDP-8.

Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Did you move that last...? Oh, we're still in clause 5. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Yes, we're still on clause 5. It's NDP-8.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

All right. I'll read this out, then. This is again an addition after line 2 on page 4.

This is the addition:

15.1(1) This Act ceases to have effect on the day that is two years after the day on which this section comes into force unless, before the end of that day, the operation of the Act is extended by resolution — whose text is established under subsection (2) — passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution that provides for the extension of the operation of this Act and that specifies the period of the extension, which may not exceed two years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Well, it's admissible, so if you have any more comments, go ahead.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Again, there's been a lot of conversation about dispute resolution here and certainly across the globe. In every agreement—most recently, the USMCA—we're looking at the transparency of that process, and what Canadians know or understand. Of course, we're very happy in the NDP to see that the ISDS is removed in the new USMCA. Chapter 11 was a secret tribunal and panel that wasn't accessible to Canadians.

This amendment is an attempt to provide transparency and to insist that the final report of the panels be published, in contrast to the language of “if they wish to publish”. When we provide an opportunity for people to not be transparent, unfortunately, the result most often is that they aren't. They don't provide the information, because it's not actually a requirement.

If we're to continue the conversation around dispute resolution, whether we're talking ISDS, member to member, or all the different ones that can occur in trade agreements, I think it's very important that we see an accounting of it, and that instead of having an option, there is an actual publication of the dispute panels and of the disputes.

I would say too that being able to see and understand what disputes have been brought, and the ruling on those disputes, is also very helpful to companies, small businesses and labour. It really creates a path forward to meaningfully address the issues we have.

I can tell you that I just came back from the U.S., and there was a lot of discussion there about our chapter 19. There was a lot of discussion about dairy, about diafiltered milk and issues that have been brought forward. Softwood lumber is still being discussed down there. It is a very serious issue for them.

These things have been brought to dispute resolution panels or have gone through a dispute resolution process, but again, it's hidden. No one really knows or understands, unless you're a lawyer who's presiding over these things or you're part of those arbitration panels. There isn't a great understanding in the public of what dispute resolution is. Over the summer, a lot of people were asking me in my riding, “Why is it important to have chapter 19?” It was a recurring theme in the new NAFTA that we had to have some form of dispute resolution. “Why is that?” People are now asking, “What is that?”

If we were able to share and have a publication, this would be an attempt to have transparency so that there's a general understanding in the public. It would also be a benefit to our businesses and our SMEs. If they see a similar case and know that other things have been brought or have an interest in something that's being brought, it would be a way to bring this to light and to have a national conversation about how we address issues and resolve them in a trade agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Are there any more comments or questions on this amendment?

Seeing none, let's bring it to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That's it for the amendments.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(Clauses 6 to 12 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedule agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?