Evidence of meeting #10 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was important.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Have you ever reached out to the Canada trade commissioner service for advice, and what were your experiences? Do you have any thoughts for any improvements in that particular organization?
1:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
We work pretty well with the Canadian trade commissioners based in the U.S. and headquartered in Ottawa. I'm not sure if that's the organization you're talking about.
1:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
They work really hard. I think they are strong advocates for Canadian businesses in the U.S. I don't have experience in other parts of the world with them, but I think they represent a very useful and helpful tool that Canadian businesses have when they come to the United States.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good afternoon, everyone.
My thanks to all the witnesses with us today.
I would like to turn to Mr. Pérez because of the critical importance of the environmental issue. I believe that we have to establish a link between that issue and the world in which we would like to live after the COVID-19 crisis. This is a long pandemic and we have not yet come out of it, but we are beginning to think about what will follow. If we want to avoid others, we must act accordingly. We know that a number of bacteria, viruses and microbes are presently frozen into the polar ice caps. Climate changes are multiplying, which will inevitably lead to the melting of the polar ice caps and the likely release of viruses, causing new diseases. We will probably have to face other pandemics like this one if we do not act as quickly as possible. That is the link that we can establish between these two issues.
When you came to testify about the CUSMA, as I recall, you advocated for the idea that trade agreements should be strictly linked to environmental agreements.
Aside from mentioning that in the text itself, should we establish binding mechanisms or legal mechanisms, for example? How could that all play out in the end?
1:30 p.m.
International Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada, Trade Justice Network
Thank you very much for your question, Mr. Savard-Tremblay. It is always a pleasure to have these discussions with you.
A very important observation must be made, in terms of including references to climate objectives in trade agreements: that was done in the four most recent, allegedly progressive, trade agreements that Canada signed. However, that did not bring the environmental agenda and the free-trade agenda any closer together.
In fact, it showed us the extent to which current free-trade rules are inadequate in addressing the environmental crisis in a number of ways. That is why we are not succeeding in settling the issue of subsidies for fossil fuels, as a specific example. We feel that border carbon adjustment mechanisms, as they are called, must be added, or perhaps a measure like CEPAM, for example. In addition, states do not apply environmental policies equally. That currently shows the disconnect between the free-trade agenda and the climate agenda. States themselves and their parliaments must focus on this issue and decide how they are going to address it.
I am still quite optimistic, given a new administration in the United States. In that context, I am pleased that Ms. Greenwood is here. First, there can be a discussion on the way in which trade rules can strengthen all the current treaties. Actually, I feel that Canada and the United States have similar approaches to strengthening environmental policies. Moreover, in the context of free trade, there can be discussions on sharing, which could lead to a decarbonization of the economy and thereby, an equitable transition for workers and for communities.
The first thing to do is to determine who can lead us to common trade rules. The United States and the European Union are reflecting on those policies. The second thing to do is to consider carbon blocks, as they are called today. In other words, countries that are ready to use free trade treaties as a way to having more ambitious climate policies.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You were saying that states are not applying environmental policies in the same way. In that context, can we talk about a form of unfair competition? Take as an example goods produced in less eco-responsible conditions than others and put on the market at a much lower price. That could definitely be called unfair competition, could it not?
1:35 p.m.
International Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada, Trade Justice Network
Absolutely. There is a complete lack of transparency on that. We are talking about border carbon adjustments precisely because of the total lack of transparency on everything behind a product.
One of Canada's major objectives, in fact, is specifically to assess not only the economic aspects of a free trade treaty but also the environmental aspects, as well as human rights and workers' rights.
That is the stage we have reached today. As you said, in the context of a pandemic, those factors are non-negotiable.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Pérez.
I'm sorry, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, but your time is up.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We will keep that for the next round, then.
December 4th, 2020 / 1:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
Ms. MacEwen, I understand that there's been a proposal at the WTO by India and South Africa to suspend the TRIPS provisions to allow countries not to have to observe some of the normal restrictions around intellectual property and things like that for the purposes of their domestic COVID response.
I'm wondering if you could talk to the committee a bit about that, if it's something you're familiar with, and could let us know whether or not you think that's an important initiative for the committee to endorse as part of our study on the effects of COVID on Canada's global trade position.
1:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Trade Justice Network
Absolutely, Mr. Blaikie, and if you haven't already, you and other critics will probably soon be getting a letter from CUPE, where I work, and the Trade Justice Network on supporting this goal of making sure that lower-income nations have the ability to afford to make vaccines without paying exorbitant prices.
We absolutely support that. We think it's consistent with Canada's goal in terms of.... I know that the meeting is coming up very soon. It's on December 10. I think it would be fantastic if the trade committee could itself endorse the waiver for certain provisions of the TRIPS agreement, because we know that without this waiver, pharmaceutical companies will be able to prevent manufacturers from producing these vaccines and medicines and scaling up the production.
Since it's a global pandemic, we really need all hands on deck. I think it's a very special moment for us to extend this solidarity to countries that can't afford to pay the pharmaceutical companies, and to make sure they're able to vaccinate.
Through the Doha declaration on public health, I think governments have recognized that it's important to have flexibility in terms of serious public health crises, so I think it's both consistent with our positions in other areas and an important part of our role and responsibility as a global citizen.
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
Just to summarize, this would be a really meaningful way that Canada could assist other countries in the global response to COVID.
1:40 p.m.
Co-Chair, Trade Justice Network
Yes. Thank you for being concise and summarizing. That's exactly what it means.
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
Could you confirm what the cost to Canadian taxpayer would be of Canada endorsing this? Would there be any direct cost to the Canadian treasury in order to endorse this?
1:40 p.m.
Co-Chair, Trade Justice Network
No. This is something where pharmaceutical companies will forgo profit, but as there's been much discussion about, Canada doesn't have manufacturing capacity for any of those, so there is absolutely no cost to the Canadian treasury or the Canadian people.
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it.
I also understand that there's been a considerable movement—I know we've received a lot of correspondence about it—of people calling for at least a temporary suspension of investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements in order to help facilitate government responses to COVID, understanding that some flexibility will be required as states undertake to rebuild their national economies.
I'm wondering if you could speak a bit to that movement, of which I know the Trade Justice Network has been a part, and to the importance of that, and whether you'd like to see this committee endorse that initiative as well.
1:40 p.m.
Co-Chair, Trade Justice Network
Yes, that's something we support. In fact, we think that in modern trade agreements, like the new NAFTA that was negotiated, we should be moving away from ISDS in those agreements. It prioritizes one thing above a whole host of other considerations that we think include government's responsibility in terms of public health and being able to respond in crises in ways that make sense without being afraid that they're on the hook for frivolous lawsuits from other companies.
We think that for both. It makes sense right now to temporarily suspend any ISDS measures, but also, as we move forward in negotiations, we were quite upset to see that the U.K. agreement still had something around an investment court in it, when that hasn't actually even been finalized in CETA yet.
We think the way forward in trade agreements is to move away from ISDS, because it's proven to be so much of a barrier to progress on climate, human rights and indigenous rights that there's no excuse for keeping it anymore.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I would say that I shared your disappointment to learn that there would be an ISDS provision in the Canada-U.K. agreement. We're still, of course, waiting for the details of that, because we haven't seen the text of the agreement. I wonder if you shared my surprise, given the positive comments that Minister Freeland made during the CUSMA debate about removing ISDS and how that was one of the things she was most proud of in the CUSMA negotiation.
1:40 p.m.
Co-Chair, Trade Justice Network
Yes, I have to say that I was quite surprised. We worked closely with Minister Freeland as part of the CETA negotiations and Trans-Pacific Partnership when she was the trade minister responsible for those things. Given her personal position on it, which she had voiced repeatedly, I was quite surprised to see that Canada's still pushing forward with this in lots of other agreements like Mercosur and the U.K. deal.