International Trade Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Savard-Tremblay. Give me a minute.

I have Mr. Lobb and then Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

Go ahead, Mr. Lobb

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would suggest that we go forward with an interim report. That's just my own feeling. I feel that there's a lot of good information that we can include in this interim report. In my estimation, one would be that the U.K. is reporting that this is basically just a rollover of CETA. I think that would be important information to include in the interim report, that we basically have a rollover of CETA.

Another thing that might be interesting in an interim report is the difference between what the U.K. offered in the beginning, which was basically 95% no tariff versus 98%. That's for preferential access. It would be interesting to see what we gave up to gain the extra 3%.

The other thing we can include in this interim report is maybe the importance of more transparency in negotiations. This would be over a number of years, even before 2015. There needs to be more information, there needs to be more consultation, and it needs to be more open and transparent. In an interim report, we can include the importance of that.

I have the utmost respect for my Liberal colleagues, for sure, and when we were in government as well, it's very difficult to ask members of the government to defend an interim trade deal when they know 0% about it. If you at least have some information, it would be good. It would be good as a government to be able to defend that.

When I read in some of the U.K. publications that this trade deal is going to be good for Scottish beef and Scottish salmon, I raise a bit of an eyebrow, considering that we're supposed to be the beef exporting country in this deal. It's a good result for U.K. wine and U.K. spirits; we can see the spirit side of it. Then, in a bit of what I don't want to call a sovereignty issue, but in Ontario, I read in a U.K. paper that they're talking about more competitive access to the LCBO, which is a provincial regulator.

There's a lot of value in an interim report and it could give guidance to future deals. It could give guidance to the long-term deal between Canada and the U.K.

That's a long ramble, but that's a little about what's on my mind on the value of an interim report and another trade deal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, on the speaking list I have Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Savard-Tremblay and Ms. Gray.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I think that it was Mr. Savard-Tremblay's turn, Madam Chair.

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

Nevertheless, I'm giving you the floor, Ms. Bendayan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, please go ahead.

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

I gave my turn to Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Basically, I completely agree with my Conservative colleague. The negotiations ended just 48 hours ago, and the text should certainly be produced.

We must go through the normal process, which is very important. I'm an international trade lawyer, and I think that the lawyers must review the text. We have no choice but to go through the process. As soon as the text is available, we could study it properly.

I find it interesting that my Conservative colleague agrees with the idea of an interim report. Personally, I'm in favour of it. We've already heard several relevant presentations. I believe that the minister will be available next week. I emphasized that the committee members would want to ask the minister questions as soon as possible. This was clear based on our last meeting. I'm announcing that she will be here on Monday to answer our questions.

After her presentation on Monday evening, and depending on what she says, we'll have more information to include in an interim report, if that's what all the committee members want. That said, if my colleagues would rather wait for a more comprehensive report at a later date, I'm also open to the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

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

I want to focus primarily on the nature of the report. It's hard for us to comment on something that we're unfamiliar with. We've heard from several witnesses. However, they have mostly told us about their expectations, their hopes, their warnings and their fears. Once again, all this remains hypothetical. It's hard for us to write the report under these circumstances.

Madam Chair, you spoke about the possibility of doing this early next year, within the time frame provided, when the agreement will have already been ratified. I want to know more specifically what type of report we're talking about. It seems difficult to write the report at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

On my list I have Mr. Blaikie, and then Ms. Gray.

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

Thank you very much.

My understanding was that Ms. Gray was ahead of me on the speaking list, so if she would like to go ahead, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, I'm sorry. The speakers list is new and it's only partially current.

Ms. Gray, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to bring everybody back to what this study actually is. That's what our focus is. We're confusing and bringing other things into the conversation.

The study actually is no less than three meetings, and we've now had three meetings, to receive an update on the federal government's progress in negotiations of a Canada-United Kingdom transitional agreement; to hear from stakeholders affected by implementation of the new Canada-U.K. transitional agreement; and to study the impacts of a lack of a transitional agreement with the U.K. Then it goes on with the rest of the wording.

When we look at what the study was when we all mutually agreed to do this as the first study in the order of business for this committee, we also knew that in tandem there were negotiations going on. Therefore, I don't really see anything as changing here. All of us, as a committee, had agreed last week to an interim report, so here we are.

I'm unclear what the analysts mean that they don't have sufficient information, because we've actually had three meetings. The motion said a minimum of three meetings and we've heard from the primary groups that we were looking at hearing from. Regardless of the government's announcement and that we don't yet have any text or any details, I think we can still move forward with the work of this committee and just continue on with what the study was and what it is.

I think we can just continue on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Before I go to Mr. Blaikie, could I possibly ask the analysts about this?

It was the analysts who indicated that to put out an interim report at this point following today's meeting, there was insufficient information. Can the analysts make a comment on whether they feel that they have sufficient information following today to table an interim report, or do they have another suggestion?

[Bashar Abu Taleb, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, please.

[Bashar Abu Taleb]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We as analysts of course will be happy to assist the committee in any direction it chooses. Our proposal, based on the initial timeline, was that we could include testimony up to the meetings we'd have today by the committee. Of course, we can draft a report, but it's not just our drafting; it's also approval and translation. Therefore, if the committee wishes to include the testimony that's going to be received on Friday and Monday, maybe the timeline for our interim report would have to be pushed back a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much.

I think we are all just sorting through this. I apologize if my remarks aren't quite as cogent as they might like.

I think there is an issue that comes up with respect to the study in general. We have been setting the potential for a transitional trade agreement, what it might look like and what people would like to see in such an agreement.

The fact, though, that there is now an agreement signed—although we haven't seen it—means that we're at the end of the study of a potential trade agreement, and I think we could publish a final report on it, because what we don't know is just as important as what we do know.

We might report back to the House some of the things we don't know. Some of the open questions that have been raised are things that are important to consider. We could issue a report, wrap this up and then move on to the study of the actual agreement.

I'll be honest. I don't know that there's a lot of point in meeting with witnesses on the Canada-U.K. trade agreement until we have the text of the agreement, because we're going to be asking people to come to make presentations to committee, but nobody actually knows what's in the agreement.

We saw a little bit of that today, when we were pressing witnesses who don't know anything about what's in the agreement to give their opinion about something they don't know about. It's hard for me to imagine that we're going to get productive testimony, because everyone is going to want—and not wrongly—to defer until they know what is actually in the agreement before giving any real, meaty comment on what they think works and what they think doesn't.

Again, this isn't a considered position, given that the agreement was just announced on the weekend. We don't actually know when we're going to get it. If it takes four weeks to do the legal scrubbing and the translation....

Parliament isn't even supposed to be sitting in four weeks' time. I think that takes us to December 23 or thereabouts; I'm not exactly sure.

I don't know what the government is doing and I don't know how the committee is really supposed to respond within the context of a process that is completely unclear and in the context of studying a document we don't have access to.

I think what we could do, then, is wrap up what we've heard so far within the context of this study and report back on that: the things we know—not much—the things we don't know, which is even more, and then undertake the study that we would normally undertake anyway. There should be enabling legislation, and we'll call witnesses to hear about it.

How we get that done before December 31, I have no idea. I'd be interested to hear how the government thinks it could be accomplished, when they don't think they can even deliver the agreement to parliamentarians until at least two weeks from now.

From the point of view of what we do know as a committee, we could wrap up this potential future-oriented study and then begin again with witnesses once we have the text of the agreement.

I put that out for discussion.

I also hear what Ms. Gray is saying. We could just proceed with this study and roll it into a study of the legislation when it comes, but we may well want to hear from the very same witnesses again once we've seen the text of the agreement. I wonder about calling them now and then calling them two or three weeks from now. I ask whether it wouldn't be better just to wait until we actually know what the heck the government has committed the country to. Then we can ask for people's opinions on it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Those are very good points.

I now have Mr. Hoback and then Ms. Bendayan.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'll be very quick.

I'm thinking about this in a hundred different ways and trying to figure out what the best way to proceed is.

The reality is, I don't have an agreement. Until it's tabled in the House, even though it has supposedly been signed I don't have it. I have to report on what I have at hand today. I think that was our game plan. Translation requires this time frame, so they required this deadline.

I think we have to proceed with the interim report, table it in the House and then look, moving forward, at how we can proceed further. We can adapt an interim report. In the final report we can change things around and have our final report afterwards.

As for the implementation legislation, I'm not sure what it looks like either and how it's going to work through the House. I agree with Mr. Blaikie that the time frame is really very tight.

The other thing that I think is very important is that we're listening to witnesses right now who haven't seen the agreement and are laying out their expectations. I want to know what those expectations are so that when I look at the actual agreement I can weigh it and say: “Wait a minute. You were told in your consultations with these guys that this is what they expected, and here is what you delivered.”

I think we have to highlight some of the problems that happened in this agreement so that they are never repeated again, and the interim report will help us do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

It's on to Ms. Bendayan.