International Trade Committee on Feb. 18th, 2020

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to make a friendly amendment to Mr. Carrie's motion. I think it's a really good compromise. If we did that, that might mean that you don't even require your motion. If we want to deal with Mr. Carrie's motion, if you don't like it you can vote it down and we can deal with your motion.

I'd like to do a friendly amendment. Then once you see that, maybe you'd be okay. Maybe you would, maybe not—I don't know—but at least then you could deal with it.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, can I make a suggestion that we suspend? That way you could thank our witnesses, and perhaps my colleagues and I can step outside to speak for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Before we dismiss our witnesses—and I do apologize, as I had to step out because I had to speak in the House—have we completed the first round of questions for our witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No, we haven't.

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

I think it would be unfortunate.... I don't know if my Bloc colleague has had an opportunity to ask these witnesses any questions either. I think it would be unfortunate if we were in a position where we weren't able to ask any questions of the witnesses at all.

I just want to put that out there. I recognize that the witnesses only have so much time, and I'm grateful for their patience. I don't know if we're going to be able to dispense with these motions quickly, but if we can, it would be very nice to be able to ask them some questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Bendayan, can I suggest to the committee that we allow Mr. Savard-Tremblay his five minutes of questioning, and Mr. Blaikie, and then we will go back to trying to solve this challenge that we have?

Would that be all right?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

If we have to stay longer, I'm willing to stay longer to get this solved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, it's your six minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

So I've just ceded my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You were very generous there in trying to resolve this.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm okay with you taking your time. It's just a matter of process in learning how we work together. If you want to take your five minutes and then proceed on to the other ones, I'm happy with that.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

That's fine.

Madam Chair, we only have six minutes left. I feel that my colleagues opposite, Mr. Blaikie and perhaps Mr. Savard-Tremblay, have questions, so I'm happy to cede my time to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are scheduled to meet until 1:45.

Okay, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

First of all, my thanks to the three witnesses.

My question goes to Ms. Dey, who can see and hear us. Your presentation was very enlightening. Earlier, I told Minister Freeland that we are going to have to study the two agreements, the current NAFTA and the NAFTA that might replace it, to determine which is better. We are going to do that work and do a study on the matter.

In general, you showed us that we need to consider much higher standards. The times are not the same. You said that, previously, the agreements contained no environmental standards for climate matters. There are few mechanisms that allow those cases to be decided, except the classic dispute settlement mechanism, which has never been terribly effective either.

Could you tell me more about good regulatory practices and about chapter 28 of the agreement. You see it as an attack on Canada's sovereignty. There was a similar chapter in the agreement with Europe. Today, Canada is in the process of doing the same thing to Europe. Are you really afraid that the agreement may be a genuine threat to sovereignty? Is that what you are saying?

[Sujata Dey]

Yes. I believe that, fortunately, reforming the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, system will ensure that corporations have little opportunity to weaken state policies and regulations. However, in the wake of the agreement, committees have been established. Their members discuss regulations in various countries amongst themselves. These discussions take place outside of Parliament and all public consultation platforms. This creates a somewhat secretive space where corporations and regulators can weaken standards. A lot of people say that standards could be tightened as well, but in reality, those kinds of discussions behind closed doors do not allow that to happen. These committees claim that they want to eliminate red tape, but they really want to get rid of the regulations that protect us.

It is worth noting that, in this agreement, regulators should be advocates for policy. Every time there is a new policy, a whole process is set in motion. They should consult and engage people from various industries before they create a new regulation. There are also all kinds of barriers: a lot of studies have to be done and they have to prove that regulations are based on the latest science. We cannot simply implement a measure; we have to make sure that it will not cause any harm. You have to ensure that key values are maintained. We really need to operate on scientific principles, not just the precautionary principle.

Another issue is that there is a challenge mechanism that allows a state to use the dispute settlement system when it is not satisfied with what is happening on a regulatory committee set up by corporations. The mechanism adopted in CETA is much less stringent than the one set out in the new agreement, CUSMA. The Government of Canada lobbied a great deal to make sure that Europe lowered its standards for glyphosate and pesticides. These agreements and the WTO are truly putting constraints on the precautionary principle in Europe.

Here's our concern. We have social protections. Through parliamentarians and the public, we can define our standards and regulations. But now there's another process, a secret process, that allows a lot of corporations to weaken what we have put in place.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

How much time do I have left? Good grief, only 30 seconds?

Is there no fairness factor behind this? The aim is to harmonize so that everyone is subject to the same rules and standards. Instead, you seem to clearly see this as a way to limit the ability to act politically. Is that correct?

[Sujata Dey]

Yes. We talk about having international standards that are the same for everyone. But the decision makers, those who determine these standards, do not come from civil society. They are neither us nor parliamentarians. These are people who work on rather technical aspects. In a way, what is in the treaties is above the Constitution. If it is a process where a real effort is made to protect our regulations, where people from civil society are involved and where we can resolve all kinds of issues, that's one thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Dey.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much for making arrangements to be in touch remotely. I know you are out of the country right now, and we appreciate your being here.

I want to pick up on one of the themes of your opening remarks, which is the process by which Canada comes to conclude trade deals. Oftentimes Parliament really only gets involved in a substantial way once a deal is already signed, which precludes the possibility of impacting the outcome. In some cases negotiations can go on for some time without Canadians necessarily being aware that they are.

I wonder if you could speak to some of the elements that could be brought in to have a proper trade process here in Canada that involves civil society and Parliament earlier on and ensures we have the kind of public and open debate that we ought to have when we're considering deals of this magnitude.

[Sujata Dey]

Thank you for that question.

It's very important, not just for people who believe in the values of the Council of Canadians, but this is a process that makes our trade agreements better. We can all agree that the more people are involved, and the more democratic and transparent our process is, the better our agreements will be.

Within the U.S. process, we saw a process where Congress was very involved from the very beginning, from the negotiating mandate, to being consulted during the negotiation process, having the negotiating texts, having economic studies on time and having hearings with civil society and other participants. That resulted in a much richer debate, not just during this NAFTA process, but even during the TPP process.

This is a common-sense approach on how we can do better, and this approach is not just in the United States; it's within Europe. When we started CETA, they had done economic impact studies right from the beginning. They had planned a negotiating round with civil society. They had gone in and had several points where the EU Parliament and the EU council were involved with the agreement. There were times when the negotiating texts were made public.

I think those processes would make Canada have a much more balanced and better process, because then we would be able to actually evaluate it: How is this agreement actually helping us? Are our exports going lower as a result of this trade agreement? Is it actually benefiting us? I think those questions would give us a lot more rigour and a lot more democracy in how we approach trade and would make all Canadians feel more a part of the trade process.

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

Canada had provisions that to some extent mirrored U.S. provisions, where the executive gives Congress 90 days' notice that they're intending to bargain. Their negotiating objectives are tabled prior to beginning those negotiations, so they're public and Parliament is able to study them, and by extension civil society as well. Also, having a policy that ensures that we're not in the situation we find ourselves in now, where we have the ratification legislation but no economic impact analysis to support that document, and the study of that document, would be a meaningful step towards a better trade process here in Canada.

Is that a fair conclusion coming out of your remarks?

[Sujata Dey]

I think that's a very good way of summing up what we believe should be the next step going forward and how we make the next deal better.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.

To our witnesses, sorry for the interruption. Thank you all very much for your time and your contribution to making this the best agreement that it possibly can be.

We will suspend for a moment to excuse the witnesses.