44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. When it comes to international agreements, Quebec and the Canadian provinces are rarely consulted, if at all. I would like to know if my colleague knows whether this agreement has any impact on the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces.
If so, were Quebec and the provinces consulted on these provisions?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, since he is so brilliant and knowledgeable on this subject.
To begin with, I want to recall the historical context of the agreement, which Bill C-57 will implement without actually modifying. It was first negotiated under the Harper government and finally signed in 2017 by the current government. In 2023, various aspects of the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were improved. That is what I am going to cover in my speech.
Essentially, the 2023 agreement codifies in a treaty the idea that the territory of Ukraine also includes the Donbass and Crimea, two regions that have been invaded by Russia over almost the entire past decade. The 2023 agreement is more comprehensive than the one signed in 2017. The latest agreement was signed by President Zelenskyy on September 22, during his visit to Canada.
Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, is about 15 pages long. It is an implementation bill, not the agreement itself. It essentially contains provisions that change the names of certain references, from 2017 to 2023, for consistency. The bill authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority, and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement signed on September 22, For example, it creates a secretariat responsible for the smooth running of this trade agreement.
How can anyone be against apple pie? How can any Quebecker be against poutine? Generally speaking, trade agreements are good. However, the agreement we are talking about is 1,000 pages and 30 chapters long. It is more than apple pie. It is more complicated than making a really good poutine.
This agreement covers goods and services, investments, government contracts, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and labour and environmental law. There are even provisions that favour small businesses, women and indigenous entrepreneurs. There really is a lot of complexity to this agreement, and it calls for a close look. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, Bill C‑57 should take a much deeper dive into the substance of the agreement than it does.
Not only are there questions about supply management, but we have already seen in the past that Quebec aluminum was not protected under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, while Ontario steel was. Is that still the case? That is why we have to take the time to carefully study agreements before signing them. That is just one of many examples.
The 2023 agreement contains 11 new chapters, relative to the 2017 agreement. It addresses cross-border trade in services by specifying the rules applicable to services. Measures are being developed and administered to ensure predictability and consistency in administrative practices. That is important. Entrepreneurs often talk to us about the predictability of future events. This agreement clarifies that. The 1994 agreement on investment protection is being improved, particularly with respect to the definition of direct or indirect expropriation. The definition has been tightened up to ensure that there is no unjustified expropriation.
Then again, the current agreement opens the door to a rather serious problem by allowing investors to sue a foreign state. This is a problem, because an international agreement is an agreement between nations, and now corporations are being put on the same footing as states. This is not a good precedent to set. We can certainly discuss ways of protecting our states in committee. We are negotiating nation to nation, not investor to nation. Is there a solution? As I said, we can discuss this in committee, but the simplest solution is to bring multinationals back under the state umbrella, rather than putting them on an equal footing.
With regard to trade, this agreement completes the chapter on cross-border trade in services. I have already talked about this. It clarifies how it is to be applied in various areas, as well as the exceptions that Canada and Ukraine want to preserve. There is also a chapter on including business people and one on telecommunications. The agreement guarantees access to infrastructure, but does not affect broadcasting and cultural policies, which is great. While we may share certain similarities with various aspects of Ukrainian culture, their culture is quite different from ours. Even within Canada, we have cultures that are very different from one another and that we want to protect, particularly francophone culture and indigenous cultures.
The current agreement defines the rules applicable to financial services by immediately establishing rules that facilitate the use of financial services and the simple flow of capital in both countries. There are three chapters on the participation of SMEs, women and indigenous peoples that make it possible to implement preferential measures. Finally, the agreement codifies the regulations adopted to ensure that they are transparent and predictable. Those are two important things for both the public and business people.
The new 2023 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement amends eight chapters of the 2017 CUFTA, including “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures”, “Digital Trade”, “Competition Policy”, “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” and “Government Procurement”. The “Environment” and “Labour” chapters, which used to be statements of intent, will now be binding, so these chapters represent progress. Finally, the chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct” is amended and improved.
In short, Bill C-57 implements an agreement that is more comprehensive than both the 2017 and 1994 agreements. However, as with every other free trade agreement, we had practically nothing to do with the content of this 1,000-page agreement, even though it will impact ordinary people, since they are the ones producing the goods and services. We, who represent the people, have almost no say in the matter, except to indicate whether the agreement should be implemented or not. Basically, that is what Bill C-57 does. We did not have much say in regard to the content of the 1,000-page agreement. This is problematic, but it does not have to be this way. The government could hold consultations with the provinces, businesses and parliamentarians.
What is more, we are rather limited in the amendments we could propose for Bill C‑57. We can amend the bill, but not the agreement. That is why we are limited in what we can amend. As I was saying, the provinces are not really involved in the process, which means the agreement can affect the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, given that they were not consulted. Quebec and the Canadian provinces will essentially suffer the consequences, when it is their jurisdictions that are involved and it would be up to the provinces to manage them. That is something that needs improvement.
We will vote in favour of this bill because this free trade agreement is good not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine, essentially because it will contribute to the economic and physical rebuilding of Ukraine.
1199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the negotiating skills of our professionals, in that they speak for Canada. That being said, sometimes there are some blind spots. I would point to what happened with aluminum during CUSMA. We had to fight for it in the House. We were told that it was protected just as much as steel was, only to realize later that it was not. A letter had to be added in a schedule. I would also mention supply management, which is essentially our farmers' income pool, and that gets dipped into a bit more time after time.
The negotiators are indeed skilled, but there are blind spots. That is what I am talking about. Those blind spots include the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces because “federal” seems to be the default mindset, and the details are not necessarily considered.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. In an independent Quebec, Quebec would negotiate for itself.
Some might say that Quebec is far too small to negotiate for itself, that it is not big enough or important enough. Quebec is never “enough”. It is always too small for someone.
Geographically speaking, Quebec is bigger than Ukraine. Demographically, it has roughly the same population. If Ukraine is capable of negotiating on its own, like a big country does, an independent Quebec would be very capable of doing so too.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when we enter into free trade agreements, the ultimate goal should be not only to come out ahead as a country but also to help another country come out ahead. We cannot come out ahead if we do not protect our own economy and if we allow another country, any other country, to get the upper hand. A free trade agreement has to be equitable and egalitarian. It has to protect the jobs and economic resources of both countries. Elements of the trade relationship have to be complementary.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague said that we need the political will and the infrastructure to export oil and gas. Even if the political will had been there, it would have taken 10 years to put the necessary infrastructure in place. In Quebec, building the necessary infrastructure would have meant running pipelines on, beside or under 800 waterways, including the St. Lawrence River, which supplies drinking water to the majority of Quebeckers.
Pipelines are relatively safe, but accidents happen. What would we do if an accident deprived a population of its water supply?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, sometimes, especially when treaties are involved, partisan politics needs to be left at the door. A treaty is usually the outcome of lengthy negotiations. A government of a certain stripe negotiates the treaty, but a government of another stripe signs it. Sometimes this happens for the best, sometimes, for the worse. One example of the worse is Phoenix, which was negotiated by one government and implemented by another.
That said, Canada has a wide range of exportable resources aside from oil and gas. I would like my colleague to name a few of the resources that we can export that would be of major assistance to Ukraine. When I say resources, I am also referring to knowledge, not only material resources.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, contrary to what has been said over and over again in the House since this morning, we are not debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement or its content. We are debating Bill C‑57, which simply implements that agreement.
Basically, it is a 1,000-page, 30-chapter agreement, which parliamentarians have not voted, and will not be voting, on. We will be voting on whether to implement it.
This opens the door to another problem. Is there any chance that future agreements could also be reviewed by a parliamentary committee? What does my colleague think about that?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
