Debates of March 9th, 2021

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement is important and it needs to be signed. We all agree on that.

I would like to ask my colleague how we could improve elected members' participation in the negotiation process for these agreements, so that they are not presented with a fait accompli. My colleague is a member of the government and might be able to enlighten us on that.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had the good fortune of being on the trade committee this year when it was hearing from Mr. Verheul and other trade negotiators for Canada.

In this case, it is a transitional agreement, so there is really not much new to it. It is really protecting what has already been debated in the House and existed previously with CETA. It is basically cutting and pasting that agreement and making sure there are legal compatibilities for the two countries to adhere to.

I think trade is one of those things that are very difficult to negotiate in a public forum when dealing with foreign countries, but there are very good ways in the future to create transparency where perhaps people from the trade committee or the trade critics of the opposition parties might be brought in to look at those trade deals to see if there are comments or suggestions they want to make before the trade agreements are negotiated. To some degree, transparency as a principle is always great, but as a practicality, when one is negotiating with other countries, it might be a lot more difficult than we think.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear on where the Liberals stand anymore. Maybe I was not clear before.

I would like to hear some clarification from the hon. member. He was talking about the amazing wonders of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, yet we had the Minister of International Trade work really hard to make sure that ISDS and ICS, which are ultimately the same thing, made it into CETA. Then she negotiated in CUSMA the removal of ISDS, and we heard what an incredible contribution that was to that trade agreement.

Therefore, it is very confusing to me where the Liberals stand, but that is usually the case. I wonder if the member could clarify the back and forth, and why they keep flip-flopping on this issue.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investor-state dispute mechanism and principle is, in my own opinion, actually a really great initiative. However, when they handicap governments for the purpose of just simply trade or their own personal interests, or they inhibit them from creating environmental laws or labour standards, that is where the challenge is. Many times, states have used the opposite to inhibit trade so that they can give advantage to local trade. That is where that challenge has been.

It is one of those things that has grown. As we have relationships with countries like the U.S. where we have had free trade for a long time, we have seen some of the negatives of perhaps the investor-state dispute settlement system. There has been a cry from the public, as well as industry, not to have it. In other cases, such as starting fresh with CETA being new or when we are doing new trade agreements, it is sometimes very important to have those benchmarks and those safeguards to ensure that it works well.

One of the reasons we are working with the U.K. to see where we can reduce this or change that is because the legal systems in the U.K. and Canada are very similar. Therefore, we are safeguarded. This is in opposition with the European Union, where it is a cosmopolitan mix of different frameworks and, therefore, we need more protective measures for when our investors go and invest in that space.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, that the motion be adopted on division or, for that matter, that it be carried, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote on this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)