SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23

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

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/12/23 1:40:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I think it was the wrong decision, for all of the reasons he mentioned.

17 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Dec/12/23 1:40:52 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I have always appreciated the hon. member's solidarity with indigenous peoples and the work that he does to meet the needs of his constituents. One of the things that seems quite important about this particular modernization of this free trade agreement is the chapter on indigenous peoples and trade. I think that these are important acknowledgements about what we need to do for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, we have been hearing about causes trumping these kinds of important issues. I wonder if the member can speak to what the difference is, in terms of advocating for human rights, indigenous rights, as well as how fighting for a cause might not be as effective as what we are seeing today.

120 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/12/23 1:41:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her important and wonderful voice here in this Parliament, constantly reminding us about the rights of indigenous people. It gives more than just words and thoughts to their rights, and actually puts those rights into action in our agreements and our laws. Yes, I am very happy that we have a chapter here on indigenous rights in this agreement. It speaks to the Tatar people of Ukraine, as well as the indigenous people here in Canada, and that these types of chapters will be in further agreements. We had the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have recognized here in Canada. British Columbia has laws. We have to make sure that, every day, we think of what those rights mean and how we make our laws and decisions here to uphold those rights.

150 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Dec/12/23 1:43:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a wonderful member of the international trade committee, who contributes very significantly to whatever the discussion or debate is in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way. I understand, after the next election, he is not going to be returning to the House, which I think is a real loss for the House of Commons, because he adds a tremendous amount in the House and at the committee level. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the concerns of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and so many other organizations that have echoed their support for this. President Zelenskyy sat right in front of me and urged us to pass this free trade agreement very quickly. Was my hon. colleague concerned with the amount of opposition that was led by the Conservative Party of Canada?

139 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/12/23 1:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Humber River—Black for those warm regards and for being a wonderful chair of the international trade committee. Yes, as I said before in answer to a previous question, I am surprised at the Conservative response to this agreement. The Conservatives seem to have reacted to a couple of words in the agreement and used that to vote against it when Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians have been very vocal in calling them out on this decision. We should be unanimous in our support for Ukraine. I was surprised that the Conservatives doubled down today and have done a couple more things to try to slow down this bill, when Ukraine wants it passed right now.

126 words

Ukrainian

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Dec/12/23 1:45:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point of this trade agreement, or part of it, is allegedly to help rebuild Ukraine. That is some of the rhetoric that we hear from the the Liberal Party. However, one thing that actually is a problem is that Canada is the only G7 country that has not offered wartime insurance to Canadian business operators who want to rebuild in Ukraine. That means that the projects that they undertake are subject to enormous risk because, of course, it is a war. Every other G7 country has recognized this risk and has provided wartime insurance to business operators. Canada has not. Was the member aware of that, and does he think that is another major failure of the current Liberal government?

123 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Dec/12/23 1:46:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is valuable member of the international trade committee. This issue of wartime insurance for Canadian companies is important. I do not believe it belongs in a free trade agreement, just as I do not believe that calls for more munitions to Ukraine or natural gas to Ukraine belong in a free trade agreement. These agreements are about taking tariffs off things and not about trying to promote one thing or the other. This is something that the government should be looking into. This is an agreement that is supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and right now we are talking about issues within the war experience.

109 words