International Trade Committee on Feb. 26th, 2021

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

The interpreter is telling us that she was unable to interpret the last part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Kwan, the interpreters are having difficulty being able to interpret. Could you slow it down a bit please?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I can. I apologize.

Back to the amendment, just to put it on the record, the first subsection on the sunset provision would read:

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 (5)—passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (7).

The rest of the amendment related to the sunset provision has been provided to the clerk in both languages. Instead of reading each part into the record, I ask committee members to refer to that document. Effectively, it simply stipulates clearly what the sunset provision would look like and how it would apply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to speak again briefly on this point, because it is a very important one.

Adding a sunset clause would require us to go back to the negotiating table with the United Kingdom, leaving our business community, particularly our Canadian exporters, without the certainty that they need or, quite frankly, the access to the U.K. market that they require in this, the middle of a pandemic.

I would also mention that adding a sunset clause further reduces predictability and stability because we do not know how the negotiations will go with the United Kingdom on a comprehensive free trade agreement. I do not think that it is in the interest of Canadian businesses to have the possibility of a gap between the time when the sunset clause should end and when the negotiations should be finalized on a full free trade agreement. I would note that it would provide extra pressure on our negotiators to perhaps cede things that we wouldn't normally cede in negotiations were we to have a finite end date.

I would also like to add, with respect to the member's comments regarding the consultations that were done in advance of this transitional agreement, there were 10 years of negotiations under CETA. This is a rollover of CETA. It is what we have been saying for quite some time now. Members now have in front of them the text of the agreement and the enabling legislation, and they can see quite clearly that it is a reproduction of CETA until we have a full and comprehensive free trade agreement.

I would be remiss if I did not add that those consultations were commenced by the Conservative government at the time and that those consultations were very effective.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right.

Mr. Blaikie, you have your hand up. Ms. Kwan has spoken to your amendment.

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

Yes, thank you.

I just want to respond to the parliamentary secretary's comments. It is wrong to say that, because there were consultations on CETA, there have been consultations on this agreement. I think the process here was a train wreck, and it's really important to note that, if we don't end up with a successor agreement, this is not a transitional or temporary agreement. This is a permanent agreement. What kind of process was this, to have a permanent trade agreement with the United Kingdom, frankly?

Therefore, no, in terms of the consultations on CETA, which I maintain and the New Democratic Party maintains was a bad deal anyway, and we've heard testimony even in the hearings on this bill that there are serious problems with CETA, those consultations don't count for this agreement because this is about a permanent agreement with another country. This is only not permanent if we replace it.

The government has said that there are three things that are going to get the U.K. back to the table. One is a good faith commitment to a new agreement, which in no way means that we will conclude a successor agreement. Canada has had intentions to sign agreements with other countries that we haven't in fact signed agreements with. One is around rules of origin. There may be some substance to that. The other one is around cheese. They say, the U.K. will want to come back to the table and get a new agreement because the cheese TRQs under the WTO are going to expire, except that they also say that they're not going to make any concessions on cheese. Therefore, why would the U.K. be incentivized to come back to the table on the issue of cheese, if the Canadian government has no intention of making concessions on cheese?

Which is it? Are they prepared to create further access to the Canadian cheese market under a future agreement, in which case I could see the U.K. wanting to come back to the table for that, or are they not, in which case that's not a leverage point to come back?

One of the things we can do is sunset this legislation so that this is something that has to come back before Parliament, so that there's internal pressure on our government to make sure that we get back to the table, and so that we don't end up, by inertia, having created a permanent and long-lasting trade deal with the United Kingdom today, by passing this legislation, that doesn't ever get to the stuff that the government continues to say is going to come up in a successor deal, which we have no guarantee will actually be negotiated, never mind concluded.

I just find this whole idea of a transitional agreement, frankly, preposterous. I've said it many times, but the more the government brings it up, the more irritating I find it, because as this whole process has gone on, what we found is that in fact we're signing a permanent agreement. Nobody signed up for that. Nobody was consulted about that. The government didn't even let on that was what was going on until they had already signed the deal. It's preposterous.

Let's stop pretending that somehow we have this temporary transitional agreement. It's a permanent agreement until another one is concluded, and there's no guarantee of that happening. Parliamentarians should be doing what they can to ensure that we get back to the table in a meaningful process that issues something other than CETA, which has not been great for Canada.

We've heard in many different sectors how our trade deficit has increased as result of CETA and that Canadian producers and Canadian manufacturers continue to struggle to get entry into markets that they might have access to on paper, but they don't actually have any real access to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

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

That's why we should be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you. That was well done.

Ms. Gray.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just reiterate what I had mentioned earlier, that we also have concerns that there is not a sunset clause and that the wording that is in here is not binding. However, that said, now is not the time to be punishing exporters. We've heard very clearly from within the business community and from labour and workers that it's really important to have stability and certainty, and we are still in a pandemic. There is wording in here that can be utilized to get back to the table and it will be up to the government of the day, at that time, to be held to account in order to fulfill the obligations that are in the agreement.

I just want to get that on record.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

We'll go back to Ms. Bendayan, and then I'm going to call the vote.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't mean to belabour the point, but there are a few corrections to be made to my colleague Mr. Blaikie.

The witnesses who testified regarding CETA's implementation and the consequences of CETA on their businesses were specifically referring to technical barriers to trade and not to the text of CETA. I could pull up the quotes from our witnesses.

Today we heard from the manufacturers association, from the Business Council of Canada and from the CFIB, which represents an enormous portion of our business community here in Canada. They have all told us that going back to the negotiating table is not in the interests of Canadian businesses at this time and that we need the stability in order to move forward. I would remind all members that we have a duty to our Canadian entrepreneurs to provide them with that stability. It is reckless to ask the United Kingdom to come back to the negotiating table in order to add a sunset clause, when what we want is to continue our productive relationship and return to the negotiating table for a full and comprehensive trade agreement.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, your hand is up now. It was not up before, but please go ahead.

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

I will be very brief.

Once again, as with the Green Party's proposal earlier, I will have to abstain. I think it is a good idea, and I understand the idea behind the sunset clause. I agree with most of the criticisms made by my NDP colleague. But, for the same reason I mentioned earlier, I am more concerned about the potential aftermath.

I would, however, like to point out that I am very surprised to hear today from our Liberal colleagues that the idea is not to reopen the negotiations. We were assured that having an agreement that would be renegotiated in the next year was enough and that there was no need for binding provisions. I think it's actually quite a flip-flop of the official message.

My position stays the same on that, but I would like to know whether there will be a return to the negotiating table within the year or not. We had that guarantee and, in the end, we are being told that it is not in the interest of Canadians.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, I know you want to proceed with the vote, but can I respond to my colleague?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, go ahead, Ms. Bendayan. That's important.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was saying that it's important to be able to provide our entrepreneurs and our exporters with predictability and stability at this time. We are going back to the negotiating table for a comprehensive agreement.

If we go back to the negotiating table with this transitional agreement, we will have nothing to protect our exporters and to ensure that 98% of tariffs are eliminated. That's the difference. We will return to the negotiating table within the year, as the agreement calls for, but we absolutely must ratify this agreement or we will really be putting at risk the exporters who depend on the UK market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

I will call the vote on NDP-2.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could I get a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll do a recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We're on now to BQ-1.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, would you like to speak to your amendment, please?

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

Yes. You have the text. It is very short. I will not read it.

It's simply a proposal that is also along the lines of having more transparency and encouraging a level of accountability and explanation to be able to look at what we want to put forward in a future permanent agreement. It is simply a call for transparency and accountability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

Before we go any further, it's 3:32. Do I have permission from the committee to complete the agenda we have for today?

Is everybody good? Okay. Thank you.

Madam Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Has my colleague finished introducing his amendment?