International Trade Committee on Feb. 18th, 2020

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

Yes, with pleasure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Blaikie

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

Thank you very much, Minister, for appearing here today. You probably [Technical difficulty—Editor] on the committee that the NDP has often been a critic of the model of free trade, in particular in the original NAFTA debate. The NDP led the charge against that. Within that agreement the items of particular concern, not exclusively but of focus, were the ISDS provisions in the original NAFTA and the proportionality clause.

We recognize that in this version those aren't there. That creates an opportunity for reflection on our part. We've certainly been deliberating on that, but you'll know also, from a letter that I sent you in December, that a concern of the NDP on the trade agenda has been, for a long time, the process by which Parliament, and by extension Canadians, are included in the trade process.

We heard earlier today the ways, depending on the deal, that can unfold. Parliament has been included in different ways at different times for different deals. In the last few weeks I've been talking about ways that we might come to some understanding about a meaningful first step we can make in this Parliament towards having a more codified trade process that would better articulate the role of Parliament and get Parliament involved a little earlier, which would address some of the concerns we heard earlier.

I wanted to share some proposals with you and get your feedback on those proposals.

In particular, as a good first step, we think it would make sense for the government to table a notice of intent, when it is intending to enter into negotiations, at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. It would be tabled in the House and then referred to this committee or its successor for study. Then within 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations, the government would table its objectives for the negotiations. We think it would introduce another level of accountability to have the government state its objectives clearly, so that the deal can be assessed in light of those. Also, an economic impact assessment would be tabled in the House of Commons coincident with the introduction of the implementing legislation so that parliamentarians would have the economic data at the same time at which they have the changes to the laws they're being asked to contemplate. We've heard some debate about this at this table already with respect to CUSMA.

I'm looking for your feedback on those measures as a first step towards having a more concrete trade process here in Canada.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much for those questions, Mr. Blaikie, and also for the very detailed, professional conversations you and I have been having in recent weeks, and that have also involved our excellent trade officials who, I believe, have forgotten more about trade than any of us will ever learn.

I'd like to respond in two parts, first, talking about overall trade and progressive Canadians, and then second, about your specific proposals.

One of my objectives from the outset of this negotiation has been to achieve a truly progressive trade agreement, a trade agreement that Canadians, who perhaps traditionally have had doubts about the virtues of free trade, could support. That is why, among other things, we made a real effort to include union leaders, and I'd like to single out Hassan Yussuff, who I know has been speaking with you a lot as well, for his participation in the NAFTA council and for the advice he has offered throughout the negotiation.

Mr. Blaikie, you've pointed out two issues that progressives in Canada...and actually Mr. Manley has long been concerned about one of the issues you mentioned, ISDS. However, you mentioned concerns that progressives have long had with free trade agreements in general, and the new NAFTA in particular: ISDS and the proportionality clause. Two of the things I am the proudest of with the new NAFTA is that we have gotten rid of ISDS completely—a huge victory, a real benefit to Canada and a powerful precedent—and we have gotten rid of the proportionality clause.

I would also mention, as an element of the progressive trade agenda that we have not only articulated but done in the new NAFTA, the unprecedented protections for labour. Mexico—and again thank you very much, Ambassador Seade—as part of this agreement, has implemented historic labour reforms giving Mexican workers the right to organize. This agreement critically makes that commitment by Mexico enforceable. That is a huge win for workers in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The same is true of labour value content provisions. It is also true with our unprecedented environmental protections and protections for indigenous people and on the basis of gender.

Now I want to get to the second part of your question. I also would like this agreement, the entire negotiation process, ultimately, the ratification, to give us certainty in our trade with the U.S. and Mexico, but also to solidify the national consensus around Canada as a trading nation. I agree with you that transparency is a good thing. In the process of the NAFTA negotiation we have sought to be very transparent and very consultative with Canadians, but I agree with you that it would be a good thing to seek to formalize some of the things we have done. When it comes to the 90-day notification, let me simply say that Canadians had far more time than that to know we would be entering into a NAFTA negotiation, but it's a good thing to let Canadians know when we're contemplating working toward a trade agreement.

On the statement of objectives, we launched the NAFTA negotiation with a pretty long speech that I gave here in Ottawa, stating at some length what Canada's objectives would be. I think that was important for Canadians to hear. Again, I think that we would look very favourably at the notion of finding some way to codify that effort, likewise when it comes to sharing with Canadians our assessment of the economic impact of a particular deal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Do I have to stop? Okay.

Let me simply conclude by saying, I think those are very constructive, productive ideas, and I thank you for putting them forward in such a thoughtful way. I am confident that working together we can find a way to give Canadians even more transparency, and confidence in more transparency, in future trade agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Carrie for four minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'll try to get through this as quickly as I can.

Minister, I think we're all in agreement. You mentioned that there's a certain amount of risk and uncertainty as time passes. I just want to be clear that from this side we're going to do the best we can, use all the tools we can, to make sure we do this efficiently. However, you did promise that we'd be moving in lockstep with the Americans and the Mexicans, and we do have a constitutional obligation to review the agreement.

We're hearing from families, businesses and sectors that may be negatively affected, and we want to go through our obligation to do this study and give witnesses an opportunity to get their comments on the record.

Mr. Hoback was.... We didn't quite finish with that, the American process, but if we actually look at the timeline and the process in the U.S., we see that in April of 2019, the Americans were open and transparent. They gave an economic impact study to their legislators and lawmakers ahead of time so they could actually review it. As you quite rightly said, there were some amendments made, and I think around the table here we could say the amendments made the agreement better all around.

My concern is that, here on the Canadian side, we weren't given the same courtesy, and perhaps we could have made the agreement a little better, if it were considered by all parties.

We've been asking you in the House, over and over again, about economic impact studies. I'm hearing from people saying, “Well, what does she have to hide?” Basically, I'd like to give you the opportunity. Why has the government been so unco-operative? It is so frustrating that it hasn't given us any of the information about the economic impacts of the study, as we move forward on designing some supports for these families and businesses and sectors that are negatively impacted, yet that knowledge is out there.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carrie. Although we can't and we will never agree on everything, I am pleased to learn that we do agree that the changes that were codified in the protocol of amendment in December with the U.S. and Mexico make what I would characterize as a good deal even better. It's good we can agree on that.

I won't spend too much time comparing the U.S. process with the Canadian process, except to say that, certainly from my perspective, our process is different because we are a parliamentary democracy and I think our Parliament is fantastic. I love the Canadian system of representative democracy, but the reality is that, in the U.S. House, the time of the finalization of the protocol of amendment to the time of the U.S. House actually ratifying this deal was a matter of weeks. It was a very, very—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I agree with you, Minister, there, but—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

May I please finish? I listened to you without interruption.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You could, but I only have 40 seconds left and the question I asked you was—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

If you want to use the 40 seconds by talking, I'm happy to listen.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm just curious. What are you hiding? We want to have those economic impact studies so that we can do our due diligence as quickly as possible. Even your chief negotiator said that there were fundamental flaws in the American process, and they had, literally, a couple of inches to go through. We have a blank page, Minister. We have absolutely nothing, so if you really would like this to move forward as quickly as possible.... We're just getting very frustrated with asking you in the House. You're not providing the information for us to do our due diligence. That was the question. Could you answer that question, please?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I think there are actually a number of questions. When it comes to the economic analysis, if the chair would like me to answer that now I can, or I will just begin my answer to the next question with an answer to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They are four-minute rounds and the four minutes are up.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

We have absolutely nothing to hide. We are very confident that this is a good deal for Canada and Canadians, and I would also point out that this is not purely the judgment of our government. It is the judgment of the overwhelming number of Canadian businesses, Bay Street analysts, economists, labour leaders and business leaders across the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I would just like to say that, if the minister believes that, I would like to move a motion to ask the minister to provide an economic impact statement. Basically it reads like this. We don't have to debate it right now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you not have done that when you had your time? You don't have the floor now.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I tried to move it but the minister kept talking.

I'll be very quick.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I know you're very good at knowing how to make a point of order, Mr. Carrie.

I really have to get on to Mr. Dhaliwal and our other members before the minister has to leave. I'm sorry. I think it's important that we make sure other members get their four minutes.

You could have moved it right at the beginning, Mr. Carrie. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In regard to this, if you let him read it into the record we can park it until afterwards so that Mr. Dhaliwal can get into questions. At least let us get it on the record for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

He should have put it on the record when he had his four minutes. That's the issue.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

He tried.