International Trade Committee on Feb. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Make it a short question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You had talked about the value of NAFTA as being a global platform for Canada to access global markets, especially in light of CETA, especially in light of the CPTPP. Could you expand on that a little bit more?

[Kevin Jacobi]

Sure.

Maybe I'll start with an example. We have an American company that moved up here in the beginning of 2019. They made a proprietary fabric that was antimicrobial, anti-inflammable, so it doesn't burn very easily. They had developed these threads and they were doing it in the U.S. They were a U.S. company, but most of it was going to Europe. Because of some of the challenges with trade between the U.S. and Europe, they found that a lot of their contracts were being stalled or stopped. They found out that they could produce in Montreal and move up to Canada and, through CETA, have better access to that market again.

This is what we're seeing. It's a challenge. I wish we had more in NAFTA. I do agree with that. I am proud of what past governments have done. I'm also proud of what they tried to do with this here as well, because I think we're in an undocumented time with regard to how the U.S. negotiates based on their president.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Jacobi, I'm sorry but I have to interrupt you.

We'll go on to Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's a great discussion. We've been talking about American politics, Canadian politics and other comparisons. I've been 23 years in politics, with a majority of that time spent at the municipal level, so I understand when Mr. Tully or my friend from Niagara is talking about bidding on contracts and municipal processes and whatnot. One thing that's important to clarify is that a lot of the difference between the American and Canadian systems is when you talk about a buy local program—let's call it a buy local program, namely, buy America versus buy Canada—the vast majority of infrastructure programs are actually under the purview of the provincial and territorial governments where they exist.

In our federated system—I also studied political science at university in Michigan—it's quite different. Our federal government, through our historic infrastructure funding programs, transfers said dollars to the provinces and territories. The provinces then reach agreements with municipalities, etc., and it is implemented locally.

The reason I know this, too, is that I come from Sault Ste. Marie, where we make a whole bunch of steel. I'm always very interested to see the maximum amount of steel in the infrastructure program. In fact, I had a private member's motion I put forward on the floor to do this, and in doing so, I learned a whole bunch more. In fact, a vast majority of infrastructure programs are under provincial or territorial jurisdiction, so we need to work closely with our Ontario or Alberta or Northwest Territories counterparts to enact those provisions to see those local benefits. You would need to see a buy Ontario campaign for Ontario infrastructure programming. I know the previous Liberal government had put forward such a program, but it was undone by this current Ford government.

That is one of the issues at hand here. This is an important discussion to have, but this is a big difference between our governments. Sure, there is still federal programming, including around defence. In fact, Algoma Steel was successful in garnering a federal contract—a buy Canada program, if you will. Around things related to security, certain provisions can be instructed by the minister to said businesses involved in the contract process. They can't influence and say that Algoma Steel or Stelco or this engineering firm gets it, but they can say that special provisions, under national security advice, will be garnered towards a Canadian company.

Algoma Steel was...not lucky, but successful. The definition of luck is when planning meets opportunity. I remember hearing that once. They were successful in garnering the royal shipbuilding program for the current program. That's going to mean jobs. That's going to mean a whole bunch of engineers. Canadian engineers in Sault Ste. Marie are hard at work figuring out the—

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

They could be from British Columbia.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, British Columbia could bid on it, too.

That's what I think we need to underline and highlight. We don't want to leave this on the table. If we go forward—and I'm going to present the question to Mr. Tully—perhaps we could also put forward a recommendation, through to our analysts and to our clerk, to suggest that this committee recommend that provinces and territories instruct to have a buy Ontario or a buy Alberta program with this historic infrastructure funding that we're announcing.

Do you think that would be a worthwhile recommendation, Mr. Tully?

[Jim Tully]

Absolutely. I'm going to answer two different things. You talked about how a lot of the funding comes out of the provinces and the territories. The buy America ties back to federal funding, whether it flows through a state or through the municipal level. They put in that overriding thing. That would be the buy Canadian option.

You're absolutely right that there's also funding that comes out of Ontario or comes at a municipal level on certain projects. That's why we've spent so much time—and I've spend so much time—over the last few years with the FCM and at the municipal level, canvassing them to do that.

To Daniel's point earlier, as Canadians, we're too nice. We are. We roll over and we say that we have a free trade agreement and we shouldn't do anything about it. That's why my big push was reciprocity. Don't do it unless they're doing it to you. I agree with that, but do it if they're not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Tully, and the others, thank you all. It's very informative. We appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your thoughts with us today.

We will suspend for a few minutes while the other panel comes to the table.

Thank you all very much.

[Jim Tully]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference from Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are here to study Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

We have Brian P. McGuire, president and chief executive officer of Associated Equipment Distributors, by video conference from Illinois; and from Toronto, we have Greg Johnston, President of the Songwriters Association of Canada, by video conference as well.

Here with us at the committee are Garry Neil, cultural policy consultant from Neil Craig Associates, and from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Angella MacEwen, senior economist, national services.

We will start with Mr. McGuire via video conference.

The floor is yours, sir. Go ahead, please.

[Brian P. McGuire, President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated Equipment Distributors]

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee and fellow panellists.

I am honoured to bring remarks on behalf of the Associated Equipment Distributors, AED, to the committee this evening.

Madam Chair, I also want to publicly recognize your work on construction and infrastructure policy issues over many years and to, of course, thank you for taking the time to address our association's membership during their visit to Ottawa in the last Parliament. Your leadership is very appreciated by our members on both sides of the border.

AED is the international trade association representing companies that sell, rent, service and manufacture equipment used in construction, mining, forestry, power generation, agriculture and industrial applications—products essential to building and maintaining critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, pipes and waterways. Additionally, we provide equipment vital to natural resources and agricultural sectors across Canada.

Our member companies operate and have locations in Canada, the United States and Mexico. In Canada, our members have more than 420 locations that employ 27,000 hard-working men and women in rewarding careers. In North America, every year these predominantly small and medium-sized, family-owned businesses generate over $60 billion U.S. in revenue. While based in the United States, AED is truly an international trade association. In fact, in 2021, AED's board chair will be an executive from a Canadian-based company.

AED has been a leading advocate for modernizing a trilateral North American trade agreement both in Canada and the United States. As a pro-free trade organization, we made the accord's ratification a top policy priority in Washington. AED worked closely with congressional leaders in a bipartisan manner, and I was honoured to be present last month at the White House when the President signed the agreement into law.

I'd like to congratulate all parties for their efforts to deliver a trilateral trade agreement that will continue to align Canadian, American and Mexican interests. However, it's now time for Canada to join its partners in the United States and Mexico to complete ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement by swiftly approving the enabling legislation in the House of Commons, and ultimately the Senate of Canada, to provide much-needed trade certainty for the Canadian equipment sector.

The Canadian equipment sector, which relies on cross-border trade between the United States and Mexico, is particularly susceptible to economic uncertainty because essential goods and commerce flow across the southern Canadian border every day. This makes quick approval vital to our industry's prosperity. Efficient delivery of heavy equipment, machinery parts and services helps keep costs low for our customers—the farmers, the road builders, the contractors—and provincial and local governments across the country. Rising costs result in less capital to invest in businesses, employees and job creation. Delays in product delivery create inefficiencies and postpone major infrastructure projects that benefit Canadian citizens and commerce.

Ratification of CUSMA would be a win for all Canadians, and its prompt ratification is essential to the prosperity of the equipment sector. AED believes that CUSMA strikes the right balance between protecting Canada's interests and ensuring the free flow of commerce and goods in North America.

We have advocated for a quick resolution of these negotiations both in Ottawa and in Washington, D.C., and have promoted the benefits of reaching a deal quickly in both countries to deliver business confidence, which is a key driver of new investment in the construction, energy and agricultural sectors. We have made every effort to ensure that both Canada and the U.S. are aware of the difficulties that would come from a bad deal or a long, drawn-out process.

I am appearing before you today to appeal to your sense of urgency and to underscore the point that we need a resolution quickly. Mexico and the United States have ratified this agreement and are ready to proceed. AED is calling on parliamentarians to ratify the agreement promptly.

If amendments are suggested, the deal will have to be reopened. Businesses operating in natural resources, construction and agricultural sectors will be facing delays.

Stakeholders from across industries have been broadly supportive of concessions made in Canada and the U.S. to arrive at this agreement. It is time to move forward.

In closing, I wish to commend the efforts of Canada's negotiating team for its approach to working with its counterparts in the United States and Mexico. I also wish to express thanks to the members of this committee from all parties who are working to ensure that the agreement receives a comprehensive hearing while also taking measures to ensure that it can come into force quickly. By modernizing and strengthening the trade ties among the three countries, CUSMA will help restore predictability and trade certainty to North American equipment markets, creating an environment for greater investment, well-paying jobs and sustained growth.

I thank the committee for its time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. McGuire.

We go now to Mr. Johnston from the Songwriters Association of Canada.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Greg Johnston, President, Songwriters Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members. Apologies for not appearing in person today, but Mother Nature obviously had different plans for us. lt is a privilege to speak with you this afternoon, and, as always, I congratulate the committee for allowing and welcoming input from creators directly.

I would like to focus my remarks today specifically on copyright term extension and the benefits that immediate and unencumbered ratification would have for the creative community.

lt is important to note that term extension is widely supported by the creative community in both French and English Canada, in North America through Music Creators North America, and globally by CIAM—the International Council of Music Creators based in Paris, France, which represents some 500,000 professional music creators globally. Beyond the creator community, ratification is supported by the Canadian collectives SOCAN and CMRRA, and also by our publishing partners Music Publishers Canada in English Canada and APEM in Quebec. This is significant in and of itself, and I urge the committee to recognize this unanimity throughout the remainder of its deliberations.

The importance of copyright: Copyright is not an abstraction for us. lt is not merely the work product of policy experts or the musings of law professors. lt is also not a mechanism to punish consumers. Copyright is quite simply our currency, our lifeblood, our ability to feed our families and to pay our taxes. lt is our survival.

The reality: If I may be direct, Canadian creators are under threat. Digital disruption, safe harbours, and overreaching exemptions have all contributed to an environment that can be described only as precarious. ln an increasingly global marketplace, the dominance of American-owned streaming companies further exacerbates the problem due to lack of Canadian discoverability and the absence of investment towards the creation of domestic content. The government's recent Yale report, in addition to the EU copyright directive, provides solutions critical to creator sustainability and a much needed return to a more balanced digital marketplace, one that is sustainable for creators in Canada and globally.

Why term extension? Term extension is only one of many problems creators face, but it is one of vital importance. Over 60 nations, including France and the EU, the U.S., Australia and the U.K., have adopted the “life plus seventy” model. Harmonization with our trading partners eliminates market confusion, promotes international investment, and provides critical leadership on the importance of IP protection. Many creators struggle to achieve long-term financial stability. RRSPs and many other financial mechanisms are simply not possible for some members of our community. Term extension increases the worth of our copyrights, as their valuation is often calculated on the amount of time a catalogue may be monetized into the future, therefore increasing our ability to leave meaningful financial legacies to our heirs. One can simply look to the tragic and premature death of Stan Rogers, who left behind a widow in her twenties and a small child, to grasp the very human and moral implications term extension can have for our music community.

Our publishing partners: For many Canadian creators, music publishers provide important partnerships and sources of career investment. Term extension increases the window of monetization for publishers. This long-term financial predictability for our partners will provide critical support to invest in the careers of creators. This committee has heard arguments that term extension is of benefit to only publishers. This is a serious distortion. lt is critical to remember that every dollar a publisher makes is directly tied to a creator's work. We are also beneficiaries. ln most cases we music creators receive from 50% to 75% of the revenue generated from the uses of our works. Independent self-published Canadian music creators will often receive 100% of revenues. To omit the creator's involvement from the equation dehumanizes the process, excludes us from the discussion, and minimizes our already undervalued involvement in the value chain.

I'll turn to the burdens of registration. Through our collection societies, our works are already registered accurately and robustly. To add another level of bureaucracy is not only inefficient and wasteful but also onerous and prohibitive to our heirs and publishing partners. Extra layers of registration can only lead to confusion, redundancy and potential abuse.

In conclusion, progressive IP protection is a cornerstone to innovation and creativity. Healthy and fair copyright law promotes stable, sustainable and democratic ecosystems for creators. Currently, Canadian creators are better treated in many other territories than here in our own. Countries that have adopted the life plus 70 standard enable dynamic, cultural communities that benefit consumers and creators alike—without the dire and hyperbolic negative consequences some would mistakenly predict. I urge this committee to recognize the economic, cultural and moral benefits that unencumbered ratification would bring to our community and to the countless many who enjoy and are inspired by our works.

I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the honourable members again for the opportunity to speak directly to creator concerns. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston.

We'll go on to Angella MacEwen, senior economist, national services, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Welcome to the committee.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me here to speak on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE. CUPE is the largest union in Canada. We represent over 700,000 workers across the country in about 2,000 different local unions working in diverse sectors for both public and private sector employers.

CUPE welcomes the improvements to the updated NAFTA, but we believe that some flaws remain, ones that create barriers, for example, to effective climate action and for protection of public services. Furthermore, one that we don't think there's enough information about is the language on regulatory co-operation.

In our view, the agreement falls short of a progressive deal. Instead, it could be better thought of as moderate improvements to an outdated and ineffective model of trade and investment treaties.

We do applaud the changes to the intellectual property chapter that House Democrats in the United States were able to negotiate in December. That will avoid projected cost increases to medicines. Under the initial text, we would have been required to extend data protection periods on biologic medicines from the current eight years to 10 years. Those longer data periods extend the time it takes for cheaper generic versions of biologics to be available. That will be helpful when we introduce a universal national pharmacare program, making it more affordable to do that. The IP chapter also allows for domestic regulation of evergreening now, which was a practice where drug companies made small and medically inconsequential changes to medicines to obtain a new patent. The previous version had not allowed regulations to prevent that, but now we will be able to regulate against that practice, which inflates drug prices at no benefit to patients. We're really glad to see those particular changes, as we think that a national pharmacare program is really important.

Labour rights have been strengthened through the new rapid-response mechanism between Canada and Mexico. As you know, if a specific workplace is suspected of violating freedom of association or collective bargaining rights, which are constitutional labour rights in Canada, an independent panel of labour experts can investigate. One gap in this mechanism is that it's restricted in terms of what work it covers. The facilities that are covered don't include agriculture, forestry and fisheries, which are where a lot of labour rights violations involving migrant workers would occur. This rapid-response mechanism basically leaves out migrant workers, even though migrant workers rights are in the full chapter on labour rights.

We're encouraged that the burden of proof for labour and environmental violations has shifted; all violations are now assumed to impact trade and investment unless proven otherwise. What had been shown in United States history is that in including that little clause, you had to prove it was connected to trade violations. That made it virtually impossible to ever meet that burden of proof. Removing that gives the potential for the labour chapter to be enforceable. We'll have to see how that plays out, but it's definitely encouraging. It's a significant improvement over the original NAFTA labour side deal. It includes clear language that commits each country to implement policies that protect workers against wage and employment discrimination on the basis of sex, including with regard to pregnancy, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, gender identity and caregiving responsibilities, which is really important. This mainstreams a gender lens into the labour chapter.

We're encouraged that the environmental chapter now recognizes the obligations that nations may have from some international environment treaties. We think that what often tends to happen is that we sign these international treaties, but we can't be held to them; they're not as binding as a trade treaty and so a trade treaty always trumps the environmental treaty. If we can include references in our trade treaties to the importance of these environmental treaties or labour treaties that we've signed onto, that would help balance the playing field. It's problematic that the Paris climate agreement is not one of the recognized treaties. That means that NAFTA continues to ignore the threat of climate change and limits government responses to deal with the crisis.

We know that Canada has to act quickly to respond to the climate crisis and that transitioning the economy in a fair and rapid manner will require expanded public services, increased public ownership and revitalized not-for-profit sectors. There would also be benefits to a much stronger role in government regulating the economy and providing direction through green industrial strategies, for example, as Ontario tried to do but was not able to because of trade deal restrictions in procurement.

We definitely think that, for a new generation of trade to transition quickly, we need to look at how trade agreements are putting barriers in place.

The regulatory co-operation chapter locks in Canada's current approach to regulating. It gives multinational industrial interests several entry points into Canada's regulatory system. One of the key issues is the focus on regulating based on scientific evidence. This sounds like it's good but limits your ability to use the precautionary principle, which is what Europe uses in order to regulate health and safety. If you can imagine, make a case for why something could possibly cause harm if you can't regulate it until you've let it out into the marketplace and it has actually caused harm. We think that's problematic.

We think that, overall, our approach toward trade and investment should be to view it as means to enhance our financial and social well-being, not as an end in its own right. We think that proposals for a progressive trade agenda, as we're going forward, should be judged against principles such as human rights—including social, cultural and environmental human rights—and that people's rights and their environmental rights should have primacy over corporate and investor rights. There need to be legally binding obligations on transnational corporations. These treaties should not just be about the rights of transnational corporations; they should also enforce their responsibilities.

Democratic governments need to maintain their policy space to pursue and prioritize acting in the public interest. We're often told that we're able to, but again and again we come up against governments that say they cannot do something because they've signed a trade deal and are restricted. When that is the case, there's a conflict there. A climate friendly approach should be adopted whenever we're pursuing trade and investment. That's absolutely unquestionable from this point forward.

We're also disappointed that there will not be a full and transparent public process of consultations prior to the federal government's ratifying the deal. We recommend that, in the future, the committee's deliberations should be informed by an independent analysis of the deal's impact on our economy. The analysis should look at the critiques of the current CGE model for economic assessment, and it should look at, as was pointed out in the previous section of the panel, what you are comparing it to. Are you comparing it to no NAFTA or to what we had before?

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. MacEwen.

We will now hear from Mr. Neil from Neil Craig Associates.

[Garry Neil, Cultural Policy Consultant, Neil Craig Associates]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, honourable members of the committee.

This is at least the fourth time I've had the pleasure of appearing before this committee, following appearances in April 1999, December 2002 and May 2018. I think I appeared a couple of other times earlier in the 1990s, but I can't find a record. Each time I've been here to talk about the cultural exemption, l'exception culturelle, to discuss why it is essential to preserve Canada's sovereignty to implement the public policies we need to support Canadian artists; film, television and record producers; publishers of books and magazines; musicians; actors; visual artists; and others who are so vital to nation building.

I want to note that each political party that's with us today has played an important role in ensuring that our cultural policies are more or less exempt from the provisions of our international trade obligations. The original exemption in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was negotiated by Brian Mulroney's Conservative government. I served on the arts and culture SAGIT when John Crosbie was trade minister and the FTA became NAFTA.

Successive Liberal governments have continued the exemption and supported Canada's lead role in negotiating the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Quebec played a critical role in negotiating the UNESCO convention, and the Bloc Québécois has been an outspoken advocate of l'exception culturelle. The NDP has been a strong supporter of Canadian arts and culture, and the cultural exemption. I also want to note that in the room today is the Honourable Ed Fast. When he was trade minister, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement was negotiated, and it includes the a cultural exemption.

I want to leave the committee with three key messages today. One, the committee should endorse the earliest possible ratification of CUSMA. CUSMA's cultural exemption is far stronger than the original NAFTA and, given the weakness of the cultural provisions in the CPTPP, it's critical for Canada to have an exemption in its most contemporary trade agreement.

Two, please understand the limitations of CUSMA's cultural exemption. It's not perfect. It has an antiquated and problematic definition. It comes with obligations to change policies, and it has other limitations.

Three, this committee needs to address the link between CUSMA and other trade agreements, particularly as we continue to deal with our powerful southern neighbour on cultural matters.

Why is it important to ratify CUSMA? While it surprises many people, the reality is there is no cultural exemption in the original NAFTA. Instead, it incorporates the cultural provisions of the Canada-U.S. FTA by reference. Since CUSFTA was a bottom-up agreement, its scope was narrow. NAFTA is a top-down agreement, meaning it covers every economic sector, including those that develop in the future.

Arguably, the cultural exemption, then, related only to the limited number of economic sectors in CUSFTA, putting at risk more contemporary policies related, for example, to online, on-demand services like Netflix. This significant problem is solved in CUSMA, and I congratulate Steve Verheul and his team for understanding this, because the cultural exemption is direct and comprehensive. Measures adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry are exempt. This includes the chapter on digital trade.

While it's important to ratify CUSMA, please do so fully understanding the limitations of its cultural exemption. In all of our important trade agreements concluded since 1987, we've done the same thing. In theory we have a cultural exemption. In practice we trade away some cultural policies and limit our capacity to implement new ones. This is the case with CUSMA.

The definition of “cultural industries” is unchanged from the original NAFTA. This is a 1987 definition that does not cover visual arts, performing arts and crafts. Most of you around the table are too young to even know what the antiquated term “machine readable form” is, but you'll find it in the definition. Such a definition is unlikely to sustain policies and programs Canadians will need for a medium future artists will use to create their works.

The notwithstanding clause is continued. This is a clause authorizing retaliation of equivalent commercial effect against any measure supporting the cultural industries that Canada should implement in future.

There's a new dispute settlement provision. While it's good that Canada could now challenge a retaliatory measure, the powers of the arbitrator include determining if Canada's measure properly falls under the cultural exemption in the first place.

There is incredibly convoluted and obtuse language in article 32.6.3 that would seem to permit the U.S. to retaliate against Canadian cultural industry firms in a greater amount than the standard of equivalent commercial effect.

CUSMA contains a number of specific broadcasting policy changes. These include a requirement to overturn the CRTC's Super Bowl simultaneous substitution decision. I'd love it if somebody asked me about that, because I could tell you the secret story of the simsub ruling. This is a good thing, by the way. It includes expansion of the rights of U.S. border stations under our retransmission rules, and it guarantees U.S. home shopping services will be carried by Canadian cable, satellite and Internet protocol television distributers.

CUSMA also requires Canada to make changes to the Copyright Act, as you've already heard. Some of these are very positive, as my colleague Greg Johnston has pointed out about the increase in the term of copyright protection, but some of them are a little bit more problematic. For example, while the changes respecting technological protection measures and rights management information are minor, the detailed rules concerning civil and criminal remedies for tampering with digital locks and watermarks are likely to put pressure on Canada's system to implement stronger penalties.

The agreement also allows us to maintain our notice and notice system of liability when an Internet service provider is advised of a copyright infringement, but it establishes the U.S. notice and takedown system as the standard. This too will limit Canada's ability to evolve its own laws.

Finally—and I'd urge my colleague Greg to take a look at this one—there is a new provision in the agreement that requires national treatment, a national treatment obligation for all copyright measures. This will overturn our existing ability to distribute royalties only to Canadians unless there is a reciprocal right in the partner country, and this will erode payments to Canadian artists. Although it's not a huge amount of money, it will erode some payments.

Given all of these issues and challenges with CUSMA, why am I still recommending urgent ratification? The answer, quite simply, is CPTPP. Put bluntly, that agreement is by far the worst trade deal for culture that Canada has ever negotiated. CPTPP, of course, started life as the trans-Pacific partnership and most TPP terms are included in CPTPP by reference.

TPP's treatment of culture is atrocious. There is no cultural exemption, and the preamble provision recognizing the importance of cultural diversity is simply factually incorrect when it says “that trade and investment can expand opportunities to enrich cultural identity and diversity at home and abroad”. I tell you that, left unregulated, trade and cross-border investment bring cultural homogenization and not cultural diversity.

Canada tried weakly to protect cultural policy-making space by taking a reservation against commitments in a number of TPP chapters, but it's critical to understand that a reservation is not an exemption. It's one-way. It's not mutual, and in international trade law it's subject to the principles of standstill and rollback. If you change a policy reserved in an agreement, you cannot make it stronger, only weaker, and it is assumed by all parties that the reservation will eventually be eliminated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you please close your comments, Mr. Neil?

[Garry Neil]

Okay.

The reason I'm raising CPTPP as an important issue here is that it's related to CUSMA. We all know it's inevitable that the United States will seek to rejoin CPTPP, and there is another principle in international trade law that Canada must enforce against what will be tremendous pressure from our allies. It says that the latest agreement reached by two parties on any particular topic prevails when there are contradictory rules, because that is their most contemporary understanding of the relevant issues.

With respect to Canadian cultural issues—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Neil, I have to cut you off.

[Garry Neil]

One sentence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go right ahead.

[Garry Neil]

With respect to Canadian culture, that would be the CPTPP, if we fail to ratify CUSMA. If we move expeditiously to ratify CUSMA, the far stronger culture provisions of CUSMA would prevail.

Thank you.