International Trade Committee on Feb. 26th, 2020

[Angella MacEwen]

This is a difficult issue. The United States has a much more transparent process that includes legislators. Canada doesn't have that. There's also a process in the United States whereby lobbyists, or people who want to be included in the consultation process, can get clearance to have information that the negotiators have but that isn't public. They can sign for it and then provide advice on how that might impact their particular area of expertise. Those are useful things that we might draw from the United States. I think it's an excellent move on the part of progressive trade to have more transparency, especially to include legislators early on. I think more transparency is useful.

We found that people who have the resources and the knowledge to be able to attend these meetings were able to go, and so you're less likely to hear from, say, anti-poverty groups than you are from the Cattlemen's Association. You often have negotiators surrounded by the more powerful interests and they're less likely to hear from less powerful interests. It's unbalanced in that sense. Canada and the United States especially have such an integrated economy that the dividing line isn't always on national grounds. The industry on both sides of the border can be on the same side.

It's between the public interest and corporate interest, and so the way the consultations are structured doesn't provide a balance to that effectively, as does not having an independent economic analysis. An economic analysis is useful. An independent one would be better because they would be using better choices. Right now you can make a lot of assumptions in a CGE model. If you make a few different assumptions, you'll end up with 3% growth instead of 2% growth. You want those choices to be made based on the best information available, not your political outcomes. You may want the Parliamentary Budget Officer making those assumptions.

I think that's useful for transparency and for the public debate because often people cater to the top line, so it's going to affect dairy farmers or trade across the border, slowing down lines at customs. It will have a significant impact on their lives, but we won't know until after it's been signed and is already affecting us.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Right on. Thank you very much.

Do I have a little more time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, you still have a minute and a half.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We had another witness—I think it might have been the CCPA—who said that if we wanted to leverage the most possible out of the state-to-state dispute resolution mechanism, it was important to have a domestic process that essentially allows intervenors to make a case there's a good reason to pursue one of our trading partners under CUSMA. That would be an independent process and if there were a finding that there was cause to pursue this, then there would be an obligation or resources to be able to do that so that it's not just up to government or to the people with the resources to pressure government to take on their cause.

Do you have an opinion on that kind of mechanism and would other aspects of the deal be assisted by having that kind of domestic process?

[Angella MacEwen]

Yes, that domestic process definitely needs to be strengthened. In many trade deals or under the OECD rules, we have a national contact point where they can offer good offices. If there's a disagreement, they can say they'll provide a neutral place to meet. However, there's no power of investigation; there's no mandate for them to take it on. When I was at the CLC, we brought forward a complaint under the labour chapter between Canada and Colombia. The labour department investigated. They took it on and produced a fantastic report, but nothing mandated them to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

[Angella MacEwen]

Because of the goodwill, it happened, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to follow up on Mr. Blaikie's question about process.

Mr. McGuire, do you recall when United States legislators, members of the House, received the economic impact assessment that was done with respect to this agreement?

[Brian P. McGuire]

No, I do not. I wouldn't be able to comment on that. I'd have to get back to you.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If I said that it was in April 2019 and that it was actually published publicly online in April of 2019, would that sound right?

[Brian P. McGuire]

I would trust your statement on that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's where the process question comes in. The impact assessment was done for American legislators many, many months ago, before the House of Representatives actually had to vote. In fact, the House of Representatives demanded changes to the agreement, got changes to the agreement—presumably based on their reading of not only of the agreement but also the economic impact assessment—and then the matter was in Canada's hands to ratify.

Are you aware that this is our last meeting to discuss this agreement here at committee before we go to clause by clause?

[Brian P. McGuire]

That is my understanding.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are you aware that the department's economic impact assessment was table-dropped today for parliamentarians to review?

[Brian P. McGuire]

Again, I would trust your statement on that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Well, you understand that the process on the two sides of the border is quite different. The one on the American side clearly provided decision-makers in the United States with an opportunity to look at the agreement, look at the impact assessment, suggest additional amendments, and then ratify it. Now it's placed in our care, and we have no opportunity, quite frankly, to make further amendments. You yourself said that you're encouraging urgency; you're encouraging us to act promptly.

Now, as my colleague, Mr. Carrie, said, we want to deal with this in a respectful but deliberate way, and do our due diligence to make sure that this agreement is actually in Canada's interest. I think your organization straddles the border. It has members on both sides of the border, correct?

[Brian P. McGuire]

That is correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I want to assure you that we are not in any way attempting to delay this agreement, but we are going to do our due diligence to the degree we're able to, based on our process here in Canada. I will tell you that, quite frankly, I'm very disappointed that it is only now, just before midnight, that we actually get the economic impact assessment from the federal government. It's shameful.

I'd like to now go to a question for Mr. Johnston, and perhaps Mr. Neil.

Michael Geist's name was mentioned, and Mr. Johnston, you have praised the extension of the copyright term from life plus 50 to life plus 70. As you probably know, Michael Geist might have a little different opinion from yours. He has said that this will be costly for Canadians, with little discernible benefit. I believe there was a Department of Industry report done a number of years ago to the same effect. The conclusion was that, ultimately, this will cost consumers more, as additional royalties are mostly sent out of country.

I'd love to have a fairly quick response from both of you, if you would.

[Garry Neil]

I will go first.

I want to underline that copyright is about the rights of artists. It's about the rights of the individuals who create the works that are then exploited economically by others. Any increased protection of the rights of those who create those works is positive.

There is an economic imbalance between artists on the one hand and cultural producers on the other hand. There's a solution to that, too, which would be to limit the ability of artists to sign away their copyright, but at the moment we don't have such a mechanism, and because of that economic imbalance, sometimes artists are forced to do it. Still, our copyright is fundamentally about the rights of artists, and additional royalties are fundamentally flowing to the creators of the artistic works.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Johnston, please give a short response, if possible.

[Greg Johnston]

I would agree with the statements of Mr. Neil. Sometimes I feel, when Dr. Geist says it's a cost to consumers, that somehow creators are supposed to bear all of the costs for consumers and are responsible for making sure that consumers don't spend more. That seems a little bit out of our wheelhouse. It is our right, and we deserve to be remunerated for it under copyright law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you very much Mr. Johnston.

We will move on to Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the presenters for their input on this.

My question is for Ms. MacEwen.

When Mr. Harper was in the House, I noticed that the approach was always either Mr. Harper's way or the highway.

I would like to get a little more clarity. What you saw previously under Mr. Harper when all of these agreements were negotiated was that there was zero input from your fellows, that they didn't include you at all.

[Angella MacEwen]

They would have calls, but there would be very little information in the call. It would be after the round, and there really would be no opportunity to give input until after the parliamentary process had happened.

The process still hasn't changed to allow input earlier on.