Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 11 of 11
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
This clause doesn't change the agreement. It changes the way the committee reports on the agreement.
Given the debate I've heard in the House of Commons about this agreement, there has been a lot of discussion about transparency. I've heard from the Conservatives that they want to see economic reports. I've heard from the Liberals that in the past they weren't happy with the way agreements were negotiated because they felt they were left out. I think this just adds a level of transparency to reviewing the agreement after it's been signed and ratified and that we can see the socio-economic benefits or drawbacks of the agreement.
Proposed clause 212.1 reads:
(1) Within two years after the day on which this section comes into force and every two years after that, a review of the socio-economic impacts of the Agreement on Canadians and on the Canadian economy, broken down by industry sector, is to be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of the review. (2) The committee is to submit a report containing any findings or recommendations that it considers appropriate to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee.
As we move forward into the review of the agreement, this will help Parliament understand the impacts of the agreement. As we move towards that 16-year renegotiation period, we're going to have a better understanding of the impacts for Canadians and Canadian industry.
Thank you.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you very much for letting me share your time to ask some questions.
My first question is for Mr. Trew. It's just about mitigating and enhancing the agreement, and whether you have some other suggestions. I'm wondering what kinds of processes and reporting you'd like to see on how the agreement is working for Canadians so that we can determine what the socio-economic impacts of the agreement are as we work towards these six-year review processes.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Okay.
My second question is for Mr. Leblanc. I know that in Montreal you probably represent a lot of cultural industries. I know in my riding there are cultural workers who have to apply six months in advance to be able to do a tour in the United States, and they pay $600 to get their work permits. The American cultural workers who come to our border can bring their work permit to the border and pay a $10 fee and cross the border, and there isn't this kind of delay.
I'm just wondering if you have any comments on that and also on the processes for CBSA for implementing the agreement and the kinds of regulations for importers and exporters in implementing the agreement, and trying to make that a seamless process in terms of training.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
I would like to request that this motion be turned down, because before this motion became a regular motion for committees, it's my understanding that independent members were able to put forward amendments up to the report stage. It's onerous on independent members. We don't have the same resources as the official parties do to do research and get amendments written. This would require that amendments be put forward while we're still hearing from expert witnesses.
Results: 1 - 11 of 11

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data