Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #17 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #17 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm moving clauses 2 to 6.
Are there any comments?
(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division)
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Chair, I'd like to move that amendment for clause 6.1, which I believe all the committee members have a copy of. The amendment is to add, after line 20 on page two, the following new clause 6.1:
This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.
The reason I would like to propose this amendment is that I think it is important for Canada's trading partners to know and understand the inherent treaty rights of Canada's indigenous peoples. I believe we have a moral and legal obligation to respect those rights. The AFN has asked for clauses like this to be included in trade deals, and this is part of what reconciliation means.
The NDP, of course, are disappointed to see that the Liberals voted down a similar amendment for the CUSMA trade deal, but with that being said, I hope we can learn from that situation and move forward. I hope that committee members will support this amendment.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Kwan for moving this proposed amendment, but I believe that she and all members understand that the Constitution holds primacy over all other domestic legislation that we implement, including Bill C-18, and that the Constitution does recognize exactly what is being proposed in this amendment, so it is unnecessary. I would mention as well the importance of not including unnecessary additions into our agreements, because at that point, you can ask yourself the question, “Why aren't other constitutional rights, which are similarly important to all Canadians, not also mentioned specifically?”
I would also note that I did just this week speak to the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. I am working hand in hand with indigenous groups in order to ensure that their voices are heard in all trade negotiations, and have specific requests from that association to move forward on our negotiation of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and while I appreciate the intent of my colleague's proposed amendment, I will not be voting in favour of it.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We definitely have heard from the business community that is affected by trade that it is very important for them to have this agreement move forward. They absolutely want certainty and stability, and reopening up negotiations in this agreement could hinder that. There are a number of other amendments that we have copies of here that would require fulsome study, so in order to move this forward—as we have heard, it is really important to Canadians in the business community—we wouldn't be looking at supporting them.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'll be very quick.
It is just to say that, as we know from Canada's history, the Constitution explicitly recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples, but it hasn't quite worked out for them very well. Has it? We don't have to look very far with the most recent situation in respect to the Mi’kmaq and the fishing issue.
In any event, I do think that this language is important to make clear to our trading partners where we stand as Canadians with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
As a result of this amendment, the many commitments to First Nations listed in many speeches would have a real and legal impact. At first glance, I see no legal problems with such a small addition that maintains the recognized and confirmed rights of indigenous peoples; it does no harm.
I will therefore be voting in favour of the amendment.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there any further discussion?
I think at this point I'm going to ask the departmental officials if they have any comment before I call for a vote, or further discussion.
2:50 p.m.
Doug Forsyth Director General for Market Access and Chief Negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement , Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't think we have a comment, unless you're looking for our opinion on it, but I think we have indicated that it's legally unnecessary due to the fact that the Constitution is always upheld and the proposed clause appears to add an additional legal requirement where none is required.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Forsyth.
Not seeing any other hands up, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-1.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes. There will be a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2)
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I am going to group clauses 7 to 15. Do I have unanimous consent from the committee to group clauses 7 to 15 on division?
Is everybody okay with that?
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I vote against on division.
(Clauses 7 to 15 inclusive agreed to on division)
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Manly, welcome to the committee. We are glad to have you here.
Would you like to speak to your proposed amendment, PV-1?
February 26th, 2021 / 2:55 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to briefly put on the record that the Green Party MPs object to the larger parties in this House reducing our rights. The motion passed by this committee under the terms of which I appear today is not a favour to us. It is not an opportunity we requested. But for this motion, we would have the right under House of Commons procedures to move substantive amendments at report stage, subject to a vote of the House as a whole. The motion passed here and in every committee is the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament that large, recognized parties acted to reduce the rights of a national party with fewer than 12 seats.
Further, we are the only Westminster-style Parliament that sets a minimum number of seats for a party to be recognized as a party in the Parliament. Our rights are restricted by this motion that this committee has passed. That motion obliges us to bring amendments here with no right to move the amendments, vote on the amendments nor speak to our own amendments other than in a proscribed and limited fashion.
With that, I will bring forward my amendment.
This amendment to Bill C-18 adds a sunset clause to ensure that the new agreement is negotiated and that the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement does not just continue on with all of the provisions of the EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, or CETA. In the view of the Green Party, there are many flaws in the EU CETA that we would not like to see carried over in this Canada-U.K. agreement. If this agreement is extended by resolution, then a comprehensive and transparent review will be triggered and must include local communities, indigenous peoples and civil society organizations.
I propose that Bill C-18 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following new clause, clause 15.1:
(1) Sections 1 to 15 cease to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this subsection unless, before the end of that day, the operation of those sections is extended by resolution—whose text is established under subsection (6)—passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (8).
(2) The related amendments enacted by sections 16 to 49 also cease to have effect upon sections 1 to 15 ceasing to have effect.
(3) A comprehensive review of sections 1 to 15 and their operation must be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.
(4) The comprehensive review of sections 1 to 15 and their operations must
(a) take into account the perspectives of various groups, including local communities, Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations such as registered charities, non-governmental development organizations, labour unions, environmental organizations, community groups, human rights organizations and advocacy groups; and
(b) include an assessment of their impact in relation to Canada's sovereignty, the economy, jobs, trade balances, regulatory capacity, human rights, labour and environmental standards, the conduct of foreign investors in Canada and of Canadian investors in the United Kingdom, as well as on the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(5) The committee referred to in subsection (3) must, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to both Houses of Parliament, including its recommendation with respect to extending the operation of sections 1 to 15.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Manly, excuse me for interrupting. The committee does have a copy in its entirety, so it's not necessary to read it all out. The committee does have all that information.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Okay. Basically I'm asking for the same thing as the way that the European Union does trade agreements by including civil society and all levels of government and ensuring that there is transparency in the process. This is something that we don't have in Canada, and I've seen both parties when they're in opposition, the Liberals and the Conservatives, complaining about a lack of transparency in the debates.
I would find it humorous except that it undermines our democracy, and I think that the people in civil society organizations I've mentioned should be involved more thoroughly in our trade agreements. We need a much more transparent process that involves parliamentarians and the levels of government that are affected by these agreements.
I'll leave it at that.