Ms. Bendayan.
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.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to start off, because I will be referring to some of the important testimony that we've heard, including the very important testimony today relating to the importance of moving forward with Bill C-18 and not going back to the negotiating table, which, unfortunately, the amendment proposed by our colleague from Green Party would require us to do.
It comes back, of course, to his initial opening statement that he is not present at committee. Just speaking for myself personally, I think that is unfortunate, and I certainly would have welcomed, and I believe all the committee members on this committee would have welcomed, his participation through our the debate and witness testimony period of this study.
In order to complete the point on the reason why I will be voting against this amendment, to sum up, we have heard very convincing testimony from business community leaders and from civil society as well, that this transitional agreement needs to move forward in order to provide predictability and certainty to Canadians, especially Canadian exporters.
We've also heard from officials and others that there are many incentives to bring the United Kingdom back to the negotiating table. The United Kingdom has also indicated that it is looking forward to coming back to the negotiating table, and there is a clause in the TCA that requires the parties to come back to the negotiating table.
We will, in the context of negotiating that free trade agreement, be conducting extensive negotiations. We've already had exchanges with witnesses on how they would like to see those negotiations move forward. We have already indicated, as has the minister, that she plans on making this as broad a consultation as possible, and that is something entirely within the control of Canada. It does not need to be added into the agreement itself.
I would invite the colleague opposite to contact me if he has specific civil society organizations that he would like us to consult prior to the negotiation of the comprehensive free trade agreement.
For all of the above reasons, I will be voting against the proposed amendment.
February 26th, 2021 / 3 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to say that we do share concerns about not having a sunset clause in this. However, we right now absolutely do not want to be punishing exporters.
The last thing that businesses and workers need is any kind of uncertainty. We are still in a pandemic.
When we look at the wording that is in the agreement getting back to the table and having negotiations within a timeline, the government of the day, which would be three to four years from now, will be held to account at that time. We don't know what the implications of this are. We did want to get on record that it is a concern as well. However, we don't want to do anything that could jeopardize our exporters right now.
3 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The NDP will be supporting the amendment. We have a similar amendment to move should this one fail.
I think it is very important to actually have a sunset clause in the deal, because without a sunset clause it is not a temporary or a transitional agreement. It actually, in effect, becomes a permanent trade deal.
That's really what it means to not have a sunset clause within the trade deal, so we are going to be supporting this amendment.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to acknowledge that our Green Party colleague is joining us.
We have heard your message and, if we have the opportunity to invite you again, we will certainly do so. Thank you also for your contribution with the proposed amendment.
I want you to know that I fully agree with a number of points in your proposal, including the need for transparency. The lack of transparency in reaching this agreement has caused a real scandal. However, I'm afraid of the sunset clause for the sole reason that we don't know what will happen next. I am immensely afraid, especially for our farmers. As we know, we managed to save supply management at the last minute in this agreement, with no breach opened. But we know that British cheese manufacturers want more exports. I feel that we narrowly escaped this time, but I wouldn't want us to impose an end date and be forced to accept a lesser agreement in three years.
Even if I completely agree with the other considerations, since I see pros and cons, I will abstain from voting for the proposal.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
If there's no further discussion, we will call the vote on PV-1.
Are we getting a recorded vote on this one as well?
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
A recorded vote will be clearer.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go on to PV-2.
Mr. Manly, did you want to speak to PV-2, briefly?
3:05 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes, please, Madam Chair.
This amendment ensures that there will be full public consultations before negotiations begin on the new agreement during that negotiation process and after the agreement has been signed. Again, this amendment is modelled on the European Union's process for trade negotiations and the transparency that is provided to elected representatives in civil society. This is not going to affect this agreement, but it is the process for going forward to negotiate this next deal.
It's important that we build transparency into our process. This was something that was promised in the House when we were negotiating the CUSMA. At the time, the minister said that we would have full transparency in our trade agreements and more transparency going forward.
I think that's what we need to be doing, so I'm moving this one.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I think this proposal is full of common sense. We have to be consistent and, if we are committed to being more transparent, we have to take action. I think that goes without saying. Honestly, I don't understand why we would reject something that makes so much sense.
I'm going to vote in favour of it.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I think I need to make a ruling before we get into this. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 770 says, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order”. Therefore, I will call this amendment inadmissible and we will move on.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Manly, do you want to speak to PV-3, briefly?
3:10 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The purpose of this amendment is to provide transparency in the negotiating process by holding meetings to promote dialogue between trade officials and representatives of civil society organizations. Again, this amendment is modelled on the European Union's process for trade negotiations and the transparency that is provided to elected representatives and civil society.
This is, again, something that the Deputy Prime Minister had promised during the CUSMA agreement in the House of Commons and said very clearly that we would have a transparent process going forward.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Manly.
It's the same issue as in the previous amendment, PV-2. It's an amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading. It would be out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill, and I would rule that the amendment is again inadmissible.
The next one is amendment PV-4.
Mr. Manly, again, if you want to speak briefly.... It's the same issue as previously. It will be ruled inadmissible, as it is an amendment to the bill that was referred to the committee after second reading. It's out of order because it's beyond the scope and principle of the bill, but if you want to speak to it briefly, please go ahead.
3:10 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide transparency in the negotiating process by publishing the negotiation mandate and the initial agreement text. This amendment is modelled, again, on the European Union's process for trade negotiations and the transparency that is provided to elected representatives and civil society, something that's been promised in the House of Commons and something I would like to see, going forward.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Manly.
Again, an amendment to a bill that was referred to the committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. Therefore, I rule that the amendment is inadmissible.
Thank you, Mr. Manly.
We move on to amendment NDP-2.
3:10 p.m.
The Clerk
It's amendment PV-5. We need to do PV-5.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Did I miss PV-5? I thought I just did it.
I'm sorry. I have to go back to amendment PV-5, to Mr. Manly, again.
3:10 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this and then to reiterate, again, that the purpose of this amendment is to provide transparency in the negotiating process for the new agreement by publishing assessments of the economic, social, human rights and environmental impacts of any new agreement.
This amendment is modelled on the European Union's process of trade negotiations and the transparency that is provided to elected representatives and to civil society—something that was promised in the House of Commons during the CUSMA negotiations and the debate in the House of Commons on the new CUSMA agreement, and in a commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the government to transparency.
Thank you.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Manly. As I indicated earlier, I believe that your amendment goes beyond the scope and the principle of the bill, and I rule it inadmissible.
We go on now to amendment NDP-2.
Ms. Kwan.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Chair, it's too bad that all the other amendments were ruled inadmissible. The NDP would have supported that scheme.
Notwithstanding, I'd like to bring back the issue surrounding the importance of a sunset clause. I think all members will understand that without the sunset clause, the trade deal in effect is not really a temporary or a transitional one.
The public and parliamentary process around the deal has really been a bit of a train wreck. The government's opinions, of course, change, and we should recognize that. We need to ensure that future U.K. and Canadian governments do not decide to walk away from talks for a successor agreement and leave us with this deal as our permanent trading framework.
One reason, the government has said, that we can be certain that the U.K. will come back to the table is that access to the Canadian cheese market will expire in 2023. They have said, however, that they won't provide any more access to our cheese market in future agreements. Either the Liberal government is misleading Canadians and Canadian dairy producers again, as they did in the CUSMA negotiations, or we need stronger assurance that Canada and the U.K. will be compelled to supersede this agreement.
To that end, Madam Chair, I'm moving an amendment with a sunset clause provision under proposed section 15.1. It would add the language that has been provided to the clerk after line 2 on page 6, a new clause, which is the sunset provision.
There are 10 parts to the sunset clause provision that I'm proposing by way of an amendment. I will only put on the public record, Madam Chair, subclause 15.1(1) with respect to that, and then committee members can follow with respect to the other nine subclauses.
It would amend the bill by adding a sunset provision, clause 15.1, which reads, “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”—