44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 12, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, we are already debating third reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, which the Standing Committee on International Trade had the opportunity to study. Several of my colleagues here were present during the committee study.
Fundamentally, not much has changed about the reasons for our support. This time, the agreement puts some meat on the bones. The old version was pretty skeletal. This agreement will not make Ukraine a major trading partner for Quebec and Canada, of course. I would say Ukraine will remain a minor, not to say marginal, partner. However, this agreement does put meat on the bones. It is a real trade agreement, whereas the previous version was essentially a declaration of friendship.
We note that there are some promising opportunities for Quebec. Our pork producers will be able to export more to that country. Also, since Quebec is home to many highly reputable engineering firms, there could be some very attractive contracts for them when Ukraine rebuilds. This will also benefit Ukraine economically, and we hope that the rebuilding takes place as soon as possible and that peace is restored quickly.
However, I do want to point out that there is one clause I voted against in committee. I asked that it not be agreed to on division, like most of the clauses, and that we proceed to a recorded division. It is the clause concerning investor-state dispute settlement. I do not understand why, after removing this from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, Canada would go back to negotiating agreements that include such provisions, which place multinationals on the same footing as governments.
Yes, it is written very cautiously. There are exceptions, and it is written far more cautiously than the infamous chapter 11 of the former NAFTA agreement, but the fact remains that this still allows multinationals to take states to court when government measures run counter to the company's right to make a profit.
Take the following case, for example. Ukraine seized property from Ukrainian citizens who were financing and supporting the Russian side. Under the guise of protecting foreign investors, this agreement would make it very difficult for Canada to do the same thing, that is, seize the assets and property of Ukrainian citizens here who support Russia. Our country could expose itself to lawsuits against public property, against the Canadian government, from these investors.
This is unacceptable. We do not understand why it is still in there. When I asked for a recorded vote on this clause, which is in itself undemocratic because it limits the power of the states to legislate and make political decisions, only my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, voted with me. The Liberals and Conservatives were quick to vote to keep this clause in the bill. The last thing they wanted to do was upset their buddies at the big multinational corporations, of course.
I should also point out that one chapter in the agreement is full of lofty principles that the government likes to brag about. These lofty principles include the fact that companies will now behave responsibly and Canadian companies will behave properly, so there is nothing to worry about. However, these are nothing but lofty principles. Of course, this refers to international concepts, and it is in no way binding. That is why I am very proud to say that the only amendment that was adopted was the one I proposed, the Bloc Québécois's amendment. I will read it:
That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 6 the following new clause:
“Compliance with principles and guidelines — Canadian companies
15.1 (1) The Minister must ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in article 15.14 of the Agreement.
(2) The Minister must establish a process for receiving and responding to complaints of non-compliance with those principles and guidelines.
(3) On or before January 1st of each year starting in 2025, the Minister must prepare a report that summarizes activities carried out in relation to the Minister’s obligations under this section.
(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.”
Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work in committee, there has been a shift from lofty principles to an obligation of political accountability that is written into the bill. I think that we can be very proud of the work we have done.
That being said, allow me to digress. The issue of Canadian companies respecting all human rights abroad is far from resolved. I want to read an excerpt from budget 2023. It is not partisan, I will read verbatim what is written:
Budget 2023 announces the federal government's intention to introduce legislation by 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains to strengthen the import ban on goods produced using forced labour. The government will also work to ensure existing legislation fits within the government's overall framework to safeguard our supply chains.
The budget was presented in March 2023. It says “by 2024”.
May I remind the government that it has three days left to keep its promise to introduce legislation before the House adjourns, three days from now? May I remind the government of this, or will it add this to its long list of broken promises?
At the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also moved a motion to send the Minister of Labour a letter to remind him of the commitment in his mandate letter. My motion was adopted, with all my colleagues, including the Liberals, voting in favour. The letter was sent. I am glad. I am looking forward to seeing the government's response. Perhaps we will get a nice surprise. Perhaps when we wake up tomorrow morning, the bill will miraculously be introduced and the government will keep its promise. I just want to remind it that it has three days left.
Of course, the government may say that there was Bill S-211. That bill requires Canadian companies to prepare an annual report. It does not have much to do with respecting human rights. It only deals with forced labour. It does not cover human rights, which, according to international conventions, are indivisible. We are far from that. Under Bill S‑211, a company could comply just by reporting that it took no due diligence measures. All it has to do is submit a report in which it says it did nothing, and it will meet the requirement. The only consequences, the only fines, are for companies that fail to submit a report or that make false statements. Therefore, if the company reports that it did no due diligence, the government would say, “That is fine, thank you, good night”, and move on to the next company. Only companies with more than 250 employees that generate significant active revenue are covered.
Instead, I urge the government to move forward with Bill C-262, which was introduced by the NDP, but which I am co-sponsoring and supporting. It covers companies of all sizes, gets the affected communities involved, encompasses all human rights and, above all, provides meaningful recourse for victims.
1255 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 1:15:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, this agreement will certainly be good for the economy. For Quebec, I think that there are interesting prospects in the sports and engineering industries. Of course, the agreement will also promote trade, which will also be good for Ukrainians and their country.
However, I will reiterate that I do not understand why Canada elevated multinationals to the status of sovereign powers. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was replaced by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, there is no reason for this. That is why I asked that we vote separately on that particular aspect. I voted against that aspect.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 1:20:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech and for his continued, meaningful defence of Quebec's interests.
I would like him to elaborate further because, before he arrived in the House earlier, I asked a question regarding that same issue. The parliamentary secretary replied that we were only approving the agreement and could not change it. That is exactly what my colleague has just demonstrated in his speech.
What must we do for this not to be the case in subsequent international agreements? How can we change the way that we reach international agreements?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:12:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this government, food, housing and gas prices have never been higher, and with the governing Bloc-Liberal coalition intent on drastically increasing the carbon tax, prices are only going to go up.
I am so sick and tired of hearing these two parties say that the carbon tax does not impact Quebec. The second carbon tax will increase the price of gasoline by 17¢ per litre. Quebeckers also have to pay higher prices on products brought in from other provinces, because the price of the carbon tax is passed on indirectly.
The Conservatives want the carbon tax to be eliminated in all provinces and territories. We knew right from the start that this was not an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Our party put forward motion after motion, but the Bloc-Liberal coalition opposed every single one.
Conservatives will continue to fight to remove the carbon tax on farmers and Canadian families, restore common sense in the next election and show these two parties what Canadians really want: affordable housing and a well-stocked fridge.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:27:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I tried to understand the government's new dental care program, but it is not simple. There are three types of dental insurance: private insurance for those who have it, the federal program and Quebec's program. However, there is only one jurisdiction, and that belongs to Quebec.
Since it should be easy to explain if it is simple, and since the Liberal government keeps compulsively tossing candy to the NDP to try to keep its government going a little longer, can the Prime Minister at least explain his hodgepodge of a dental program to us?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:29:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is pretty much what we were told about dental health back in grade three, but that does not explain the program. However, I get that it is hard to explain.
The government announced a slapdash program that puts the private sector front and centre, which is surprising coming from the NDP, and that interferes in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction, although that part is no shocker coming from either the Liberals or the NDP.
When the Prime Minister authorized the announcement of the dental care program, was it the health of Canadians he had in mind, or the strength, survival and ideology of his alliance with the NDP?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:47:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is especially painful to see my Conservative colleagues from Quebec show so much wilful blindness.
What many of them defended at the National Assembly, whether for the benefit of battered women or for environmental protection, among other things, is now taboo under their leader. They keep turning their backs on their values, turning their backs on Quebeckers, turning their backs on the measures that could help Canadians and Quebeckers.
It is incredibly sad.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:48:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering who is actually turning their back on who.
Recently, we learned that, next year, a family of four will have to pay $700 more just for groceries. That is the unfortunate consequence of the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition and its carbon tax, which is having a real impact in Quebec. This comes after the largest increase in grocery prices in 40 years.
Will the Prime Minister finally take action so that Quebeckers can have enough to eat, especially at Christmas?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:58:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, things are happening with the $460 million the federal government has to give back to Quebeckers for asylum seekers. Yesterday, the minister confirmed that the ball is in the Minister of Finance's court. That is why we are asking her about this today, but there is information she may be unaware of.
For starters, asylum seekers are a federal responsibility. Even so, Quebec takes in 48% of all those seeking asylum in Canada, at Quebeckers' expense, with no help from the provinces. Basically, we do all the work and we foot the bill. Will the government pay Quebeckers back?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member may be disappointed to learn that we have a good relationship with Quebec. Last week, we spoke in a reasoned and reasonable way about reasoned and reasonable immigration to Quebec within the context of the Canada-Quebec accord that gives Quebec more than $700 million to do the work that falls within its jurisdiction, which is to take in immigrants, especially French-speaking immigrants.
Asylum seekers are a shared responsibility. We have to work on this together, because it is a challenge for all western societies. Canada and Quebec are ready to take up the challenge.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 2:59:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the Minister of Finance, because right now, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is the problem. He is the one who is preventing this file from being resolved. We want a conversation between serious-minded people. Quebec takes in 48% of all asylum seekers across Canada as a whole and pays 100% of the bill. The Minister of Finance can clearly see that this is not fair or equitable. Quebec is simply asking for everyone to do their part.
Will the Minister of Finance do her fair share, take the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship off this file and pay Quebec back?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 3:00:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give the Bloc Québécois the time to speak. I think it has time to listen to my answer as well. First, I commend the hon. member for his superhuman effort to reinvent and rephrase his question. While I am at it, I will repeat the same answer: Canada is not an ATM for the provinces. It takes a reasoned and reasonable discussion, a good discussion like the one we are having with Quebec. I look forward to continuing that conversation.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 4:19:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the push on electoral reform. I think we are learning, as we choose our leaders and so many things on ranked ballots, that it is a good way to start in municipal politics. I have always thought, on electoral reform, that we have to start by having citizens understand it.
In 1993, Conservatives were able to get 20-something per cent of the vote and two members, and we see that we could get a separatist government in the Province of Quebec with really less than a majority, so I think there is a risk. We have to teach that first, and then we move on to what would be the best thing to do in this huge country, from coast to coast to coast, where the land and the people are important.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 5:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am confused. The Leader of the Opposition just said that the next election would be a carbon tax election, but I would like to know what will happen in Quebec, since the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec.
I want to know what—
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
