44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague noted the more general aspect of relations between multinational corporations and the state and how they are put on an equal footing. We know that the Liberals and Conservatives are obsessed with exporting oil, the dirtiest oil in the world. When we put multinationals on an equal footing with governments, it is a bit like telling Ukraine and our other trade partners that we want to export to their country as much of the dirtiest oil in the world as we can, implying that if, some day, these countries impose environmental regulations that are good for the planet, they will be seen as enemies of free trade.
I would like to know whether my colleague has any thoughts to share on the right of countries to respect the environment, even in the context of free trade.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague for an excellent speech.
This is a good agreement, but the federal government negotiated it without consulting the provinces. Parliament is somewhat superfluous in this matter. As everyone knows, these agreements are temporarily in effect while we vote on implementing them.
We are obviously sovereignists, and there are a lot of sovereignists in Quebec. These people are told that if Quebec became a country, it would have to negotiate everything. It would have to negotiate free trade agreements. However, today we have proof that agreements can be negotiated, modified and renegotiated.
Does my colleague think that an independent Quebec could have negotiated a free trade agreement with Ukraine on its own?
I would also like to know if she thinks that Ukraine would have turned its back on us or if it would have wanted to trade with Quebec.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I can see that you have been enjoying listening to the debate on the proposed free trade agreement with Ukraine, so we will continue with that.
This is important. This is a free trade agreement. We have already announced our position, so no one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the implementation of this agreement. Today, we are not discussing the content of the agreement, but rather its implementation.
We know that Quebeckers are in favour of free trade. We have historically been in favour of free trade. Since the time of the free trade agreement with the United States, then NAFTA with Mexico, Quebeckers have always been leaders in trade with our friends and partners. Back in the day, Ontario was against NAFTA, and the auto industry was against it. We Quebeckers were for it because we believe that countries with smaller economies benefit from free trade. The day Quebec becomes independent, international trade will be part of the solution to our economic equation, just as it is for Canada, which is a very small economy.
We support this proposed agreement. Obviously, the timing is important; there is a war in Ukraine, and it is important to show our solidarity, so we support it.
Today, the government would have us believe that we are discussing the content of this free trade agreement among parliamentarians. However, it is very important to understand how a free trade agreement is negotiated. When two countries meet to negotiate a free trade agreement like this one, the first step is very easy. The countries sit down together and establish a certain number of key principles. For example, they may choose to be in favour of trade, freedom or what have you. Once they have agreed on the key principles, which is easy and takes about two hours, and that is hardly an exaggeration, they establish the exceptions. From that point on, the free trade agreement negotiations are focused on exceptions. We could be talking about cultural exceptions, since Quebec is the only francophone nation in North America, or agricultural exceptions that seek to protect supply management. We could be talking about all kinds of exceptions for our industries.
It is at these critical moments that Quebec usually gets sacrificed. Take, for example, supply management. We know that when the agreements were negotiated with the European Union, the United States and, right now, the United Kingdom, the government said that it would sacrifice Quebec aluminum and Quebec dairy farmers and that it would protect the auto industry. The devil is in the details.
Obviously, the problem is that we have no control over what the negotiators negotiate. We have absolutely no say in the matter. What we are currently discussing is the implementation of the agreement.
Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North, who is chatting with his colleagues across the way, told us that we Quebeckers are lucky because this time, supply management, our farmers and our dairy farmers were not sacrificed in any way. However, the truth is that the country in this particular case, Ukraine, did not have any surplus milk to export. When it comes to Wisconsin, which does have surplus milk to export, we are suddenly part of the exceptions that are set aside and supply management is sacrificed. When it comes to French cheese in the context of our negotiations with the European Union, supply management is sacrificed, just as it is in the case of British cheese.
In this case, apparently these irritants do not exist, because the major exceptions that Quebec typically calls for were not central to the negotiations.
The fact remains that we are sitting here like a bunch of puppets, discussing the implementation of something that was negotiated over our heads. In the U.S., Congress and elected officials give the mandate to negotiate treaties, whereas here in Canada, mandates come from the executive and ministers. Parliament has absolutely no say. That is the root of the issue, and that is why, in many cases, we disagree with certain provisions in these free trade agreements.
It is similar in Europe, where treaties are ratified with the European Union, and member states, even the smaller ones, have a strong voice. We saw this with Belgium's grievances in relation to the free trade agreement with the European Union, for example. In these cases, the smaller states are very involved in making decisions. In the present case, however, Quebec was not consulted.
The job of implementing free trade agreements is left to provincial legislatures like the Quebec National Assembly. They are told that they are going to have to change their laws to implement a free trade agreement about which Parliament was never consulted. The same thing is happening today. We are being forced to vote on the mechanics of a car without having chosen its make, colour or options. Still, it is up to us to legislate on the spark plug about to be replaced inside the car. That is essentially what is happening and it is obviously problematic.
Not everything in this treaty is perfect. My colleague with the fantastic tie, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked about the fact that our Liberal colleague was unable to answer the question about relations between states and multinationals. There is the matter of multinationals suing states for what could amount to expropriation, depending on how it is defined in the free trade agreements. This has always been a problem. We saw it with NAFTA. At the time, the multilateral agreement on investment was derailed because of that.
These are the kinds of provisions that say, for instance, that if Canada decides to apply environmental policies that are not strict, but modern, a Ukrainian investor who invests here and feels affected by these policies could sue the Canadian government, the Canadian taxpayer and the Quebec taxpayer because they felt aggrieved by these environmental policies. This is a major problem.
Earlier, the Liberal member was unable to answer the question on this subject. He did not even understand the question, because he confused the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, which exists in an agreement like this and is an arbitration mechanism that works relatively well in most cases, with the dispute settlement mechanism between a multinational corporation and a state, which involves the courts. This denies Canada its sovereignty. It denies our state its sovereignty. It is highly problematic and should no longer be included in free trade agreements.
I will also come back to how it is negotiated. Parliament does not grant negotiating mandates. It is the government and the ministers who, following discussions behind closed doors, decide to grant a negotiating mandate. Cabinet solidarity keeps them mum. Then this all comes before us and we have nothing to say about it. Parliament needs to get in the habit of restricting the power of the executive branch in advance, before it negotiates these agreements.
That is precisely the objective of Bill C-282, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Since we were never asked our opinion, we decided to introduce a bill that requires the government to respect our supply management system and preserve it in its entirety when negotiating free trade agreements. Why do we have to take this unique approach, which involves locking the government into something ahead of time? The reason is that Parliament is never asked to have its say, and that is a big problem.
I would like to add that there are obviously good things about the bill to implement the 2023 free trade agreement. There is a chapter about corruption, transparency and responsible business conduct. The provisions on responsible conduct propose voluntary, non-binding codes of conduct.
I would like to remind the government that, this week, we will be debating Bill C-290, which deals with the protection of whistleblowers. It is a bill that the government itself should have introduced a long time ago. All of the wonderful principles of transparency and respect for institutions that are set out in this bill are found in Bill C-290. The government will have to put its money where its mouth is. If it is good for the Canada-Ukraine agreement, then the government must support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-290 at third reading.
In closing, this is an important free trade agreement that builds diplomatic ties. It is symbolic and an expression of goodwill toward Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine is a small trading partner.
The effect this agreement will have on our economy will therefore be minor, but it is important to express our solidarity with Ukraine at this time.
I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.
1484 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like begin by reiterating to my colleague that free trade is, indeed, important. Free trade agreements can help create jobs, but the gains from free trade must be properly distributed among the citizens of the countries involved. There are always winners and losers.
Of course, the parliamentary secretary is aware that Ukraine is a minor trading partner for Canada. It is a very small trading partner in terms of volume. As I said, it is a country at war, and we must express our solidarity. If the parliamentary secretary is trying to get me to say—as the Conservatives and his own government are saying—that we need to hurry up and produce dirty hydrogen and extract more gas to export to Ukraine, I think I will leave it to the Conservatives and Liberals to share that message. They are very good at it.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the issue of multinationals suing states still features in free trade agreements. They are more likely to be found in bilateral free trade agreements such as these. We could say that this is a Canadian mistake because the government had the opportunity to have this removed from the agreement.
To answer my colleague's very good question, when this bill is studied in committee, we certainly will not be supporting this part of the agreement implementation bill. We will not be in favour of these clauses. This reminds us that we must think more broadly about the impact of these clauses. In the 1990s, there was the whole issue of environmental policies. However, as my colleague, the international trade critic, said, the reality is that today a Russian oligarch with one foot in Ukraine could make an investment in Canada. By imposing a sanctions regime, we could be liable to be sued by a Russian oligarch because we have allowed these multinationals to sue the state.
I think this is one of those types of clauses that go well beyond what was originally intended. We will have to think about removing them sooner or later.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are still people here, including my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who believe in the work of parliamentarians, who believe in the work of MPs and who believe in the legislative process. That is why it bothers my colleague when members of the party in power joke around and talk and play on their computers and do not listen to opposition members.
When they read the blues, because they were not listening in the House, they will see that I agree with my colleague 100%. In committee, we will have absolutely no qualms about voting against these provisions, which deserve much more in-depth consideration because Canada is party to a lot of bilateral agreements.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
