International Trade Committee on May 5th, 2016

Evidence of meeting #15 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 tpp.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Pre-Study of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jim Balsillie Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual

Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Lawrence Herman Counsel , Herman and Associates, As an Individual

Barry Sookman Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual

10:45 a.m.

Counsel , Herman and Associates, As an Individual

Lawrence Herman

Because the provinces were involved, yes, I was consulted.

The provinces were involved, and so that changed the dynamics, but there was broad consultation in the negotiating process in the TPP. A lot of stakeholders were engaged in the process.

By the way, if I didn't say this earlier, I think it has to be said that our trade negotiators are the best in the world. The suggestion that they are not I think is unfortunate. They are among the top tier of trade negotiators anywhere. I would stack a Canadian negotiating team on trade against any country anywhere, including the United States.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

On the dispute mechanism in CETA as compared to the TPP, which is better for Canada?

10:45 a.m.

Counsel , Herman and Associates, As an Individual

Lawrence Herman

CETA is an improvement over the model. There's no doubt about it because it provides for a panel, a permanent roster of arbitrators and an appellate mechanism. So that is a better model in my view. It couldn't be negotiated in the TPP, which follows, if I can say it, the standard investor protection treaty model. It's hard to compare the two. The dynamics were different.

My preference would be to have an appellate body, but we don't have that in the TPP.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you.

10:45 a.m.

Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual

Barry Sookman

My. Chairman, on the point about loss of sovereignty, there are two ways to think about these dispute resolution provisions. One is it restricts what governments can do so that they act legally, the other is it prevents governments from acting illegally and protects those who would suffer when governments act illegally.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming. A good dialogue here.

If you have any more comments that you think you didn't get across to us, we will accept them and we would welcome them.

Thank you to everybody.

We're going to be travelling next week.

The meeting is adjourned.