International Trade Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, welcome to the committee.

Last year, leading to Brexit, there was a concern. Most of the goods that are exported from Canada to the U.K.—the goods that land in the U.K.—have their final destination elsewhere in Europe. There was a concern that with Brexit, having a separate CETA, and now with the U.K. and different agreements....

Have you heard from any Canadian companies that have faced any logistical problems in moving their goods after they are landed in U.K. and to other destinations in Europe?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I have not heard this directly from Canadian companies.

What I would say is that with the recent changes in the U.K., particularly following Brexit, our trade commissioners who operate in the U.K., in London and certainly elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but also throughout the European Union, are working very closely with Canadian exporters to mitigate any challenges and difficulties they may encounter. We have not heard directly from [Technical difficulty--Editor] orders to date, but I can assure you that in preparation for this [Technical difficulty--Editor] in continuing practice, our trade commissioners on the ground will continue to do top-rate service for our Canadian exporters, to make sure they are exporting with expediency and without issues so that we can keep our supply chains open. Of course, this work also continues with the European Union.

Keeping supply chains open, particularly during this time of COVID-19, has been something that our government has been very steadfast in doing.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

For Canadian companies that are part of the supply chain in a region like Europe, there will be a lot of back and forth in the movement of goods. When the U.K. was part of the European Union, that was not any issue at all—goods moving back and forth as part of the supply chain.

With this new situation, have you heard any concerns from any Canadian companies that have operations in the EU that are part of the supply chain? Are there any problems in the movement of goods and services or with the increase in paperwork that may be required?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

No, we have not. In fact, I think this speaks very highly to the excellent network of the trade commissioner service, whose sole mandate is to assist and support Canadian exporters and businesses that are operating abroad, in this case in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. Of course, the memorandum of understanding that we signed between Canada and the U.K. commits to no additional paperwork for our Canadian exporters who are exporting to the United Kingdom, and that trade continue to flow freely.

We continue to ensure that our commissioners on the ground and our officials who are on the ground in our missions, both in the EU and the U.K., are working collaboratively, and certainly very much hands-on with Canadian companies to ensure that they are able to export, and that they are working with them to mitigate any issues that would be encountered.

However, no, I have not heard of it, but I would also say that the trade commissioner service is doing an exceptional job of supporting our Canadian exporters and businesses.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Since the birth of our country, we've had a very strong relationship with the U.K. I think this is the longest-standing partnership, relationship, that we've all seen. I'm glad you mentioned in your speech further deepening our relationship with the U.K.

The U.K. has its own strengths that are different from those of the European Union. Are there any areas you can foresee that, when you start negotiating for a new agreement, you will focus on that can further increase the already good trade for both goods and services between the U.K. and Canada?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Canada and the United Kingdom have a shared set of values and a long history, a special relationship between the two countries. Of course, what I'm really looking forward to is listening to Canadians and getting the input from Canadians, from workers, from exporters, from businesses, on what they are looking for in a new trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Even in our early conversations between the trade secretary and myself, we've been looking forward to getting back to the negotiating table once this agreement is ratified.

We are looking forward to a discussion on a comprehensive, ambitious and inclusive economic partnership with the United Kingdom, one that has high standards on labour, high standards for protecting the environment, a focus on helping small businesses and women entrepreneurs getting into our respective markets, and pursuing digital trade as an area where I think both countries see opportunities. Of course, there will be conversations that we necessarily will have with Canadians so that we seek their input, which is really important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister.

I'm sorry, Mr. Arya, your time is up.

We now got Monsieur Savard-Tremblay for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Minister Ng.

You said that the real agreement would obviously be the permanent agreement, and that talks would undoubtedly begin soon. You also spoke about public consultations. However, I hope that there will also be consultations with parliamentarians.

To ensure greater transparency, what mechanism have you considered proactively putting in place to consult parliamentarians and the public? As duly elected members of Parliament and spokespersons for our constituents, we must inform you of certain requests or priorities and mandate you, so to speak, to advocate for certain industries, aspects or specific issues before you go to the negotiating table. What have you considered doing in this respect?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

That is an absolutely important question. It is our commitment to make sure that we consult with businesses and with workers, and that absolutely has to include those who represent them.

We intend to launch a transparent process. It will allow for input from the many stakeholders who will give the government input on what needs to be in that negotiating discussion. I can assure you that our government is very committed to ensuring that we do have a transparent and open process.

We are doing other consultations right now on a potential agreement in another jurisdiction. In that, we have notified the public, and we have convened, both at the ministerial level and official level, opportunities for input. Parliamentarians are very welcome to provide input. We also have trade mechanisms where the department engages the provinces and territories.

It is really important for us to hear from Canadians, so that we have their input. Our policy, with respect to tabling of treaties, has been recently amended. That can be found publicly on the Global Affairs website. I can assure you that our government intends to fulfill the obligations and the amendments to that policy.

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

What could be done to maintain this commitment to transparency?

As you know, before the holidays, we were asked to study an agreement without having seen the text. We understand that the timelines were tight. Nevertheless, we hope that this won't happen again, of course.

What concrete steps could be taken? For example, you spoke about negotiations with other countries. Could you come speak to our committee or consult with us before the negotiations are too far along? That way, we wouldn't get stuck studying the agreement after the fact and our work wouldn't be limited to rubber-stamping. Would you be willing to keep us informed of the negotiations from the start, so that we could do our research and mandate you to advocate for certain sectors or industries?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I appreciate the very good question and the very good perspective.

What I can say is, absolutely, our government will be transparent with Canadians through the upcoming consultations. Of course, we have to make sure we get this agreement ratified so that we can begin those negotiations. We have a year to begin them after this is ratified. We fully intend to be transparent with Canadians, to consult with them, with workers and with businesses, and we fully intend to also meet our obligations under the revised tabling of treaties policy. I'm looking forward to those very good perspectives and consultations with Canadians in the upcoming negotiations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Minister.

We go on to Mr. Blaikie for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

On October 1, 2018, Minister Freeland said:

The investor-state dispute resolution system that has allowed companies to sue the Canadian government is also gone between Canada and the United States. Known as ISDS, it has cost Canadian taxpayers more than $300 million in penalties and legal fees. ISDS elevates the rights of corporations over those of sovereign governments. In removing it, we have strengthened our government's right to regulate in the public interest, to protect public health and the environment, for example.

Then on June 11, 2019, she said, “Perhaps one of the achievements I'm most proud of is that the investor-state dispute resolution system, which in the past allowed foreign companies to sue Canada, will be gone. This means that Canada can make its own rules, about public health and safety, for example, without the risk of being sued....”

That sounds a lot to me like a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses. Would you agree with that?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I would agree with Minister Freeland's statement in both of those examples that you have just read. If the question is with respect to the future dialogue between Canada and the U.K., I'm looking forward to robust input from Canadians, from workers and businesses, on a future agreement with the United Kingdom, and their perspectives.

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

Based on Minister Freeland's remarks, and your own knowledge of the government, is it fair to say that those remarks indicate the government has a principled objection to including ISDS provisions in trade agreements?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I think what's important, and in front of us, is a ratification of C-18 as quickly as possible so that we can get back to the negotiating table. Of course, as part of that process, we need to take the time and the opportunity to speak to Canadians and businesses and workers on what is important.

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

Of course, Minister, you know that C-18 is about implementing the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement which, itself, is about a five-page document. Fully one page of that document is devoted to ISDS provisions and trying to massage the ISDS provisions of CETA. It struck me as strange that a government with a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses would have spent 20% of the effort drafting this trade agreement on investor-state dispute settlement clauses, which is why I ask the question: Does the government have a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I think for the TCA, it is a replication of CETA. ISDS, as you know, has not come into force yet in CETA and won't until that is all ratified by the member states. What you have in the TCA is, on a bilateral basis, a replication of CETA for Canada and the U.K. to continue its trade relationship in the context of a replication of CETA.

Going forward, there will absolutely be opportunity for Canadians, businesses, exporters and the government to be dialoguing on the various components of what would be in a new trade agreement; and ISDS, no question, will be an area that we will hear from, which I'm looking forward to.

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

Does the government have a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms being in trade agreements?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I think that in the statements you have read from Minister Freeland, with respect to our work on CUSMA, it is now no longer there.

As we pursue an agreement with the United Kingdom, we're going to listen to Canadians and we will be able to shape a mandate following that transparent dialogue with Canadians.

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

One of the things I find curious about this exchange is, if I were to ask: Does the government believe in low- or non-tariff trade? I suspect you would say yes, that it is the point of these agreements, which is to reduce tariffs going into other markets. That would be a principle that the government seeks to manifest in its trade agreements.

When I ask if you have a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, I can't get a similarly straight answer.

Why this is important to me is that I do have a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses. I agree, not just with the statements of Minister Freeland, but many others who have noticed that these kinds of clauses, whether in NAFTA or other agreements, have cost Canada a lot of money and tend to interfere with good public interest regulation.

I don't have a problem saying that. That's something I don't want to see.

I've heard that the government in the United Kingdom is not asking for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. I notice that fully 20% of the work of this agreement has gone into keeping ISDS provisions possible, and I am wondering who is driving that train.

Will Canada be proposing an ISDS mechanism in the subsequent round of negotiations, or will it make a point of fighting against having those kinds of clauses in the agreement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Minister, is it possible to get a short answer?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Yes, I will try.

Point number one, we will always negotiate in the interest of Canadians. Point number two, what is before us today—and I hope all colleagues will agree and I hope we will continue—is to accelerate this work as best we can to ratify Bill C-18 so we can get on and pursue new agreements. Point number three, the commitment to speaking to Canadians is very real and we intend to do that and I am looking forward to doing that in due course after the ratification of Bill C-18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

We will move on to Mrs. Gray for five minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

We know that the memorandum of understanding between Canada and the U.K. was to extend the time period for the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement to be ratified until the end of March. As we're at the committee stage, of course we don't want to do anything to delay that. It will then go for third reading in Parliament, and then go to the Senate.

I am wondering if you can let us know the timeline for Parliament and then for the Senate because we know a number of constituency weeks are coming up.