SoVote

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleague listen before he raises points of order. He might find that useful later on during question period. That brings me to the matter of returning to the agreement. I have consistently said that I oppose it. Let us keep in mind that all of the Conservatives' amendments were ruled out of order. I was against all of them. Some of what they contained was totally irresponsible and dangerous, such as including the sale of weapons in a trade agreement. We want this to be an agreement for reconstruction and peace, not for what its wording implies, an agreement for perpetual warfare. It made no sense. However, every time that the amendments brought forward were ruled out of order, I voted with the Conservatives so that the amendments could be debated and heard. The definition of trade agreements has a major transparency problem. Something makes no sense. I intend to talk about it. Ottawa is not being transparent with its own MPs even though they are the ones chosen by the people to represent them in the House. No matter the issue or the party in power, governments do not like their opponents scrutinizing their actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, Canada's monarchical culture demands secrecy. Canada clings to that monarchical tradition, keeping its trade agreements hidden in the shadows lest they perish like vampires in the sun. As an MP, I have experienced this on several occasions, including in November and December 2020, when the Standing Committee on International Trade was supposed to study the transitional Canada-UK free trade agreement without actually seeing it. It was a genuine theatre of the absurd. We heard witnesses, experts who told us what they liked and did not like, and who encouraged us to vote for or against certain parts of it. Not one of those people had seen the agreement, not even the MPs who were supposed to study it. What was the point? When Canada's Department of External Affairs was created in 1909, the Secretary of State presiding over it was required to provide an annual report to Parliament on the department's activities. Logically, this included a report on Canada's international discussions and commitments. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give it a freer hand by granting it jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The requirement for an annual report was abolished at that time. However, in 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating the following: ...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured. In actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements. My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois’s efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members. There is currently a policy in place, but no government has had the courage to create binding legislation. That is not the same thing. As a result, the government can act arbitrarily. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. Also, this process, while desirable in itself but ridiculously inadequate, consisting in asking members what they think after the fact, could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties’ position. Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector. It is written down. The European Union has members vote before starting negotiations. It asks them which mandates they wish to give negotiators. The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process. We might have hoped for progress when yet another agreement was reached between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in 2020. We would have thought there would be more transparency in the process. I remember that we were studying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in the Standing Committee on International Trade. Before CUSMA was adopted, the NDP reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, agreeing to accelerate the adoption of CUSMA in exchange for the government’s commitment to increase transparency in trade agreements. There would be less transparency at the time, because there was less time to study CUSMA but, in exchange, there would be more transparency in the future. What happened? The next agreement, with the United Kingdom, was referred for consideration for several weeks without us having any text. This tells us how successful the agreement was. Now, there are talks with Indonesia. There were talks with India until not long ago. There are talks with the whole Indo-Pacific region and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There are talks with the United Kingdom for a transitional agreement. Eventually, there will be talks with Mercosur. We know absolutely nothing about any of these. The meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, even when we hear from Canadian negotiators, tell us very little. That agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada yielded negligible results, which does not seem to have discouraged the NDP from continuing to forge alliances with them. Good for them, but when it comes to transparency, I wish them better luck next time. I would also like to talk about transparency toward the provinces. There is nothing in Canadian federalism—and this is a misnomer, since there is no longer any federalism; we are on the road to a centralized unitary state—that requires consultation with the provinces. There was one sole exception. It was for an agreement with Europe, when Quebec was allowed one negotiator. However, that negotiator had no seat at the negotiations table. The chief negotiator for Quebec, former premier Pierre Marc Johnson, has said that he was there just to be a cheerleader for the Canadian delegation, which essentially engaged in backroom negotiations. In contrast, Wallonia nearly scuttled that whole agreement, because it disagreed with one provision, and because that is how the Belgian system works. Perhaps there is something here for Canada to learn, in terms of how it operates. That would be showing real respect for the provinces. It is a proposal for reform, but it is not my preferred solution. My preference would be for Quebec to be at the negotiating table as an independent country. I would add that, if the federal government is to represent all Canadians in international agreements and we cannot even manage to enjoy the benefits, Quebec is becoming an increasingly negligible quantity in Parliament. How can we ever gain the smallest advantage if year after year, electoral reform after electoral reform, we are losing more and more ground? We are going to become a more and more insignificant minority in this Parliament. When I say “we”, I mean the Quebec nation. With the new electoral map coming into effect shortly, Quebec will have 70 seats out of 341 instead of out of 338. Since votes in Parliament are often close, Quebec’s political weight will be reduced, accounting for around 22% of the total number of members. The trend is clear. As Quebec’s demographic weight decreases, its power in the House of Commons will become increasingly insignificant. Beyond the numbers, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences, because Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is that not the real consequence of our presence in this regime, which seems to be designed to perpetually marginalize us? Before the creation of the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we had the right to equal representation. We were two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority. Once we became less numerous, the regime magically switched to proportional representation. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up. I will conclude my speech by repeating that we are in favour of the agreement, but that we would have preferred a much different process in which the provinces and elected members could have taken part in the negotiations.

1608 words

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Dec/12/23 1:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, his comments, and his and his party’s support for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I would like to ask him why he thinks this agreement is important for Canada and Ukraine.

46 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

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

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Dec/12/23 1:15:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech about the free trade agreement and the bill, which will implement it in Canada. I travelled with him several times to Washington, and I must say that he is a champion of workers’ interests in the labour and battery sectors. Every time we met with the Americans, he would talk about that, trying to convince them. I think there is something that is very difficult for us when it comes to free trade agreements, even with our closest allies, including the U.S. We need to convince them that Canada can bring something to the table to help them. I think that our trade in goods and services with Ukraine is worth about $1 billion. In committee, we Conservatives proposed eight amendments to the free trade agreement to try to broaden its scope. I will try to summarize the member’s statements. He says that he wants a free trade system to promote peace. However, Ukraine is at war, having been invaded by Russia under Vladimir Putin. It needs weapons and it needs to be able to manufacture weapons within its borders. Would it not be preferable to include that in the free trade agreement?

209 words

Putin
Goods

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/12/23 1:17:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who did travel with me. He also defended his region’s interests quite vigorously in meetings we had with U.S. elected officials. This being said, it is the prerogative of all sovereign states to sell or donate weapons. Of course, there are ways of doing so, and this is regulated by conventions. However, it is the prerogative of a state to support one of the parties in a conflict. Still, should this be included in an agreement that is intended to remain in effect for many years? That is where I have a problem. In the interest of transparency, I want to say something. Although I was radically opposed to every amendment proposed by the Conservatives, I agreed that they should have been ruled in order for debate. I find it sad to have an agreement thrust upon us and not be able to change it later.

158 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/12/23 1:18:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his speech. I would also like to thank him for his support at committee during the discussions on the investor-state dispute mechanism question. I would like to give him some more time to expand on that. He mentioned that the ISDS gives corporations the status of sovereign nations. It puts them above Canadian corporations here in Canada. It brings up the possibility that Ukraine would be on the hook for huge settlements if one of these disputes was made against Ukraine by a Canadian company. I am wondering if the member could comment on that and comment on why the world is moving away from ISDS agreements while Canada seems stuck in that lane.

132 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/12/23 1:19:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why this keeps getting brought up even though it was removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. It is a non-issue. That said, in terms of the general consequences, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms allow litigation based on the right to profit. Early on, in the old North American Free Trade Agreement, this was called “expropriation” or “equivalent to expropriation”. That is the vague term that opened the way to every possible kind of abuse. It justified countries being sued for increasing minimum wage, for cancelling certain offshore petroleum developments, and for banning the use of chemicals in certain lawn care products. It was really a step backwards for democracy. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, political will declined partly or completely in 60% of cases. In other words, it was a victory for multinationals or out-of-court settlements.

157 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/12/23 1:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the entire culture needs to be changed. We heard some pretty amazing things in the debate on our supply management bill, which my colleague and I sponsored and for which we toured Quebec twice, virtually in 2021 and in person this year. We heard some pretty amazing things, like Parliament should not have anything to say on the matter, because it would interfere with negotiators' methods. We live in a democracy. The first idea we need to adopt in our culture and our way of doing things is that debates should take place before the negotiators get to work. That is the first thing. Then, through legislation rather than policy, there should be time built in to make amendments to the agreement and to produce an explanatory memorandum. We do not need a policy, we need a law. I emphasize this point.

144 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/12/23 1:22:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, a great deal of interest goes well beyond this chamber, whether it is from the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or President Zelenskyy. A letter that I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. The letter says, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill”. I think that would be in our best interests. At one point, it seemed that everyone inside this chamber was behind Ukraine and showed Ukrainian solidarity given what is taking place in Europe. The trade agreement is sound and solid. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Conservative Party rethinking its position so we can get unanimous support for this trade agreement.

147 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Dec/12/23 1:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would also invite the Conservatives to rethink their position. I radically disagree with their arguments. I think a lot of them could easily be disproved by the facts. That being said, let us be clear about one thing: A trade agreement is not a religion. It is reasonable to raise questions and to disagree with certain aspects. If they are fundamentally opposed to most of them, they can oppose them. I do not want to send them to the stake for opposing those things. They are entitled to disagree. That being said, of course, their argument has obvious weaknesses. For that reason, I also invite them to rethink their position.

113 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/12/23 1:24:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to once again speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, this time at third reading, the final stage of debate. The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over one million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Shortly after that recognition, in 1995, Canada signed an early foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, with Ukraine, so we have always supported attempts to strengthen our trade with Ukraine. In 2017, Canada signed the first version of this free trade agreement. Let us remember that, at that time, Ukraine was already involved in conflicts with Russia. It was recognized that a broader, more complete agreement would be needed. The two countries agreed in 2019 to begin the process of creating this new agreement. That treaty was completed early in 2023 and signed at the end of September when President Zelenskyy visited Ottawa. The text of the treaty, however, was not released until this implementation bill, Bill C-57, was tabled on October 17. Debate on the bill began only a few days later. The compressed timeline of parliamentary debate on this agreement is problematic, and I will speak to that later. Ukraine is now literally fighting for its life in an illegal war instigated by the Russian invasion in 2022. Canada has been providing aid in many forms to Ukraine since that war began. With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply-managed products such as poultry to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but it is fair to say that most Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during this horrific time in their struggles. I mentioned the FIPA that predated the free trade agreements with Ukraine, an agreement signed in 1995. FIPAs allow foreign corporations to sue Canadian governments if they feel the new laws or regulations in Canada impact their profit. The most famous of these in Canada is the FIPA that Stephen Harper signed with China in 2012 without any debate in this place. That still haunts us to this day. FIPAs now find their way into broader free trade agreements in the form of investor-state dispute systems, or ISDS. It is no secret that New Democrats are not a fan of ISDS. When we have voted against free trade agreements in the past, whether it was the CETA with the EU or the CPTPP agreement with Pacific nations, it was almost always because those agreements included ISDS clauses. New Democrats were happy when the new CUSMA agreement with the United States and Mexico eliminated the ISDS provisions that had been included in the original NAFTA, so we are very disappointed that this new agreement with Ukraine has inserted ISDS provisions in its investment chapter. It basically rolls the old FIPA conditions into this treaty with some updated language. We joined the Bloc Québécois member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in committee to try to remove the ISDS implementation in this agreement, but we were voted down by the Liberals and Conservatives. The world is moving away from ISDS language in trade agreements. Canada should be at the forefront of that trend, not a laggard trying to catch up. Australia and New Zealand have negotiated side letters with the United Kingdom taking out ISDS language in the CPTPP agreement as part of the U.K.'s accession process to that agreement. The U.K. Parliament is actively debating whether it wants to include ISDS provisions in future trade deals. The European Union is moving away from ISDS, and Canada should do the same. Bill C-57 passed second reading on November 21. Surprisingly, the Conservatives voted against it. They voted against a trade agreement that Ukraine very much wanted full support for. Why? The Conservatives found very deep in the environment chapter the words “carbon pricing”. They concocted a scenario of Canada forcing Ukraine in its time of need to agree to support carbon pricing. The fact is that Ukraine has had carbon pricing since 2011, long before Canada put the carbon tax in place. Ukraine strengthened that resolve in 2018 as part of its efforts to join the European Union. If anything, Ukraine has been leading Canada in the carbon pricing scenario. The mention of carbon pricing in this agreement in no way obliges either Canada or Ukraine to implement or continue carbon pricing. Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians noticed that the Conservatives voted against the agreement. They pleaded for unanimity. What did the Conservatives do in response to Ukraine's concerns? Well, they voted against funding for Ukraine aid in the supplementary estimates last week. They voted against funding for Operation Unifier as well. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress commented online, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier and other support for Ukraine in the supplementary estimates. Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.” Just a few minutes ago, the Conservatives doubled-down and once again voted against the Ukraine free trade agreement at report stage. Then they added an amendment to send the bill back to committee, further delaying a bill that the Ukrainian government has asked us to pass without delay. We cannot make this stuff up. I would like to turn back to the issue of how we debate free trade agreements in this Parliament. Too often in the past, we have barely known that a trade agreement was being negotiated before it was presented with a signed agreement that we were asked to ratify, a fait accompli. The NDP thinks it is important that Parliament have input into trade negotiations before they begin. When the government negotiated CETA and CPTPP, Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deals were already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point. It is not too much to ask for input on these important policies. The United States Congress has the right and ability to debate what priorities its country will have before entering into free trade negotiations. The member for Elmwood—Transcona wrote a letter in December 2019 to the Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Finance, regarding increased transparency around the negotiations for the new Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. In response to that letter, the minister agreed, on February 19, 2020, to change the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. Those changes were to “require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” That is three months. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the committee on international trade. The second one was to “require that the objectives for negotiations toward the new free agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” Under normal parliamentary procedures, those objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade. As I mentioned previously, there were discussions with some stakeholders around the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but the international trade committee was only able to provide input well after negotiations had begun. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. We should know what the treaty contains as soon as it is signed. The standing policy of this place is there should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and the tabling of implementing legislation. At the same time, the government must table an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment. When the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was tabled in 2017, the government followed that policy, but that did not happen at all with this agreement. The treaty and the implementing legislation were tabled on the same day with the memorandum. On top of that, the minister tabled the legislation on a Tuesday, and we began debate the following Monday. As the Conservative member mentioned, it is hardly enough time to read a very large agreement, find out what it is all about and really make meaningful debate in this House to properly discuss the ramifications of these treaties that mean a lot to Canadian companies and Canadians. This has to change. MPs should have the opportunity to debate the priorities of free trade negotiations before they begin and should have ample opportunity to debate the implementation of treaties after they are signed. I urge the minister and her government to follow the standard policies on how to introduce treaties and implement legislation before Parliament. These are not minor details. They are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account. To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine in 2017. Our main caveat for free trade agreements in general is that they must be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs and protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment and promote the well-being of all citizens. The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian corporations. They must include measures of good labour agreements both here and in the countries we are making deals with and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well. These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved. This new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us which would implement this agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine and to prepare for the rebuilding of Ukraine after its victory over Russia.

1745 words

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Dec/12/23 1:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hear the member's points about the process in negotiating free trade agreements and have taken that under advisement and to heart. One of the things he did speak about was that the carbon tax purportedly is the reason the Conservative Party has voted against this agreement and does not support this agreement. I am wondering if he could share with the House and with Canadians what his point of view is on the Conservatives' rationale for opposing this free trade agreement.

85 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/12/23 1:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives, and I really cannot understand their position here. We have mentioned in this agreement carbon pricing in a way that would not hold either Canada or Ukraine to having a carbon price, or increasing it or promoting it. It simply talks about this in a broad list of environmental objectives. As I mentioned, Ukraine already has a carbon price. It has had one for 12 years, which is much longer than Canada. We heard in debate here today the Conservatives think that this is some kind of poison pill. I cannot imagine Volodymyr Zelenskyy would sign an agreement that had a poison pill in it. It is the height of illogical thinking that Canada would put a poison pill in a free trade agreement so the Conservatives would vote against it. It simply does not make any sense at all, and so I am baffled. The member should ask the Conservatives that question.

161 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Dec/12/23 1:39:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's fair criticism of the decisions that the Conservatives have made on this, unlike the hyperpartisan rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. He talked about how President Zelenskyy signed this agreement and wants Canada to go forward with it, so he accepts that what President Zelenskyy says means something. I am wondering if he wants to comment on President Zelenskyy's comments about how this Liberal government allowed a gas turbine to be exported from Canada to pump Russian gas, to actually help fund Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. President Zelenskyy said, “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also [dangerous] for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. The Canadian ambassador said, “Russia is using energy as a weapon, in Europe and all over the world. This money and fuel are going to support the war in Ukraine.” Does the member also agree with President Zelenskyy that this was a terrible decision by the Liberal government that actually helped fund Putin's war machine?

190 words