International Trade Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those online, please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. If any technical issues arise, please inform me immediately, as we may need to suspend in order to deal with any of these issues. I ask that all participants be careful when handling the earpieces in order to prevent feedback.

Today we are meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

We have a budget that the committee needs to adopt. Is the committee in agreement to adopt the budget for Bill C-57 in the amount of $3,750?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Is it balanced?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's good.

It will balance for sure.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us to answer any questions we may have during the clause-by-clause consideration.

We have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Edith Laflamme, director, trade and anti-dumping program; and Marie-Hélène Dupont, senior counsel. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have David Mercier, deputy director, trade and labour affairs. From the Department of Finance, we have Karen LaHay, senior economist, international trade policy division, international trade and finance.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Dean Foster, director of trade negotiations for Africa, the Americas, Europe, India, and the Middle East; Adam Douglas, senior counsel and deputy director, investment and services law; Reuben East, deputy director, investment trade policy; and Judy Korecky, deputy director, export controls policy.

We could ask all kinds of questions of all of you, and I'm sure that you could all answer them today.

Finally, from the Department of Industry, we have Mehmet Karman, senior policy analyst, investment review branch.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

I now need to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-57.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee in both official languages.

I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of the adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We will start with this process.

Mr. Seeback, go ahead.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before we get started on the clause-by-clause review, I have a motion I would like to move that deals with our consideration of clause-by-clause. I sent a copy of this motion to the clerk, and the clerk could distribute it now.

I am going to make one small change to that motion. I will read the motion with the change: “That all amendments shall be considered in full, regardless of the chair's ruling on admissibility.” I'm moving this motion because there are a number of what I and my colleagues consider to be very important amendments we are trying to put into this free trade agreement. I fear, Madam Chair, that you are going to rule all of them inadmissible, therefore depriving us of the opportunity to debate or have these amendments considered.

For example, on CPC-1, what I'm trying to do is add, in the “Purpose” clause of the free trade agreement, which is the section this would go into, “strengthen cooperation on energy matters, including the export of Canadian energy to Ukraine”. In fact, the Ukrainian ambassador recently said that energy security is an issue they look forward to having more co-operation on. It would be a very important addition to the enabling legislation. It would allow this to be part of Canada's help to Ukraine.

Also, my amendment talks about strengthening “cooperation on matters relating to nuclear technology, including the export of Canadian nuclear equipment, expertise and uranium to Ukraine.” These are things that would be critically important to Ukraine, both currently and, of course, in the rebuilding process.

Madam Chair, I believe it would serve the committee well and it would serve the Ukrainian community well if we were allowed to fulsomely put forward these amendments to the legislation and have them debated, so Canadians know where we stand on these issues.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to speak briefly to this motion by my colleague as well and to acknowledge some of the context for this discussion of Bill C-57.

I think reasonable people can disagree on aspects of a trade deal. There's a lot of history in Parliament about constructive debates that have gone back and forth about different trade deals. What we have seen, sadly, is outrageous hyperbole from members of the government trying to say that constructive suggestions or disagreements about aspects of a trade deal are tantamount to not supporting Ukraine, and going even further to say that somehow our opposition to the carbon tax provisions in this bill is supporting Russia. These have been outrageous, offensive and wrong comments from the government, a government that is increasingly desperate and is trying to use these outlandish accusations to cover for its own general incompetence.

Conservatives have put forward many constructive proposals related to supporting Ukraine, which government members have rejected. On March 29 of last year, for example, we proposed visa-free travel for people from Ukraine, something that was supported by the NDP and the Bloc and that was the subject of a motion adopted by a majority of the House, but it was opposed by the Liberals and never implemented. Members across the way voted against our proposal for visa-free travel for Ukrainians.

We put forward a motion at this committee to expand the scope of the bill to include provisions that would facilitate increased weapons exports to Ukraine. Liberal members have opposed our efforts to add amendments that would support increased weapons exports to Ukraine.

Last year as well, the Liberals granted a sanctions waiver to Russia allowing the export of turbines to Russia to facilitate the export of natural gas from Russia to Germany, which was bad for Canada's natural gas sector, of course, but also bad for Ukraine. At the time—this was at the foreign affairs committee—the ambassador from Ukraine came before the committee and denounced those permits.

If we go through, we see that the Liberals voted against visa-free travel from Ukraine; the Liberals granted sanctions permits to Russia to allow the export of Russian natural gas to fund the war machine; and, just in the last week, Liberals have been blocking our amendments on weapons manufacturing. These are clear examples of how the Liberals have not sided with what we believe to be the interests of Ukraine, and yet we haven't resorted to the kinds of hyperbolic accusations they have simply over a disagreement about a trade deal.

This shows, frankly, the divisiveness and the desperation of the government, a government that is unwilling to defend its failing energy policy and that is desperate for distractions.

On the motion specifically, here's why this motion is important. The process is that committees decide which amendments to consider or not. That's up to the committee to decide. There are cases, for instance, in which the chair may rule something inadmissible, but the committee may decide to consider it anyway. Ultimately, when the bill is tabled in the House, the Speaker looks at the version of the bill and if a member objects to certain amendments because they view those amendments as being out of scope, then at that point, the Speaker will make a ruling and can strike out certain amendments.

However, that issue comes up only if a member raises it in the House, so I'm calling on all members here today. If you believe that expanding weapons exports to Ukraine is important, I have six amendments that would constructively and effectively do that. I would like to move those amendments, and I would like to be able to add those amendments to this bill. Even if they are notionally out of scope, those amendments can proceed as long as no member objects to their inclusion. If, in the House at report stage, a member rises and objects to the inclusion of those amendments, then the Speaker will rule on their procedural admissibility, but the committee can, as per my colleague's motion, consider those amendments; it can adopt those amendments, and those amendments can proceed in the version of the bill that's referred to the House.

This is not an idle or an abstract consideration. I have before us—and they've been distributed to members—six different amendments that would give real effect to the need to get critical lethal weapons into the hands of the Ukrainian army to a greater extent than we have in the past. These amendments would matter. They would actually help Ukraine win the war against Russia.

For all the members who have been hyperbolic in their commentary over the last week, do the right thing. Support these amendments and support this motion, which will allow these amendments to go forward, because it is weapons and not a carbon tax...it is these amendments and changes that will concretely give life to efforts to get more weapons into Ukrainian hands and actually have a concrete and meaningful impact on the outcome. I encourage all colleagues to support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Gerretsen, and then Mr. Sidhu.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to correct a couple of things that I just heard Mr. Genuis mention.

The first is when he said that the Liberal Party, or the government, tried to slip a carbon tax into this agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no carbon tax implementation in this agreement. There is a reference made to the fact that both countries acknowledge that both have carbon pricing mechanisms and will continue to utilize them as they see fit in each country.

However, what's most important is a clause that is in the agreement, which I'll read out so that my Conservative colleagues can hear it, if they haven't read the agreement. It says, “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize a Party to enforce its environmental laws in the territory of the other Party.” Even if you were worried that there was some form of carbon pricing built into this agreement, it explicitly states that no party with jurisdiction in this agreement has the ability to enforce its own environmental policies in the other territory.

For Mr. Genuis and the Conservatives to, generally speaking, be making this claim ad nauseam.... By the way, they didn't even bring it up until there was about a week before the vote, as though they suddenly discovered their out. It's just absolutely untrue.

What the member is saying is categorically false. He made the comment earlier in his intervention that there is hyperbole coming from government members about Conservatives turning their back on Ukraine. I don't personally—and, yes, I am one of those people who have been calling Conservatives out on this—hold strictly the fact that they voted against this as my justification for telling Conservatives that they turned their back on Ukraine.

I weigh into the calculation the fact that President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of this, and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked us all to vote in favour of this. As of this morning, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is now actively encouraging Canadians to contact their members of Parliament to encourage them to vote in favour of this agreement.

When I say that Mr. Genuis and other Conservatives have turned their backs on Ukraine, I'm saying this due to the way they have treated the advice and the call from the President of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian community throughout this country. It is unfortunate for them that their plan to try very quietly, without giving explanation in advance until a couple of days before.... They tried to see if they could just slip their vote in without there being much attention paid to it. Well, attention is being paid to it now.

The good news is that Conservatives have an opportunity to change that vote, Madam Chair, when this committee reports the bill back and it goes back to the House for a final vote. I would encourage them at that point to listen to President Zelenskyy, to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and to listen to Ukrainian Canadians—the two million-plus of them in this country—who are demanding that they vote in favour of this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Sidhu.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it outrageous that, again, the Conservatives are using delay tactics, so I suggest we just go to a vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, but I have a list here.

I have Mr. Genuis and Mr. Seeback, and then I will make a ruling.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll be extremely brief, because I want us to get to a vote on this motion.

Mr. Gerretsen's comments, though baffling and absurd in many ways, were not on the motion itself.

He should take note of the fact that the agreement refers directly to the obligation of parties to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. The fact, as he correctly pointed out, that the particular environmental laws of one country will not be enforced in another country doesn't take away from the fact that the agreement obliges parties to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. That's in the agreement.

That said, let's park the fact that there are different points of view about the carbon tax around this table. My colleague has put forward a motion that would allow us to adopt amendments related to weapons and make it easier for us to adopt amendments related to weapons. Put aside the debate about the carbon tax. I encourage colleagues, if they're serious about supporting Ukraine, to support my colleague's motion, which would allow us to consider and make it easier for us to adopt amendments that would get weapons to Ukraine.

Let's work together on the things that I hope we agree on—one of which is the weapons issue—by adopting my colleague's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback, briefly.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Suggesting that Conservatives, who have an objection to things like promoting carbon pricing and carbon leakage.... Carbon leakage is a far more insidious tool. It would mean that you can't have your carbon price so low as to attract investment into your country. This is exactly what Ukraine does not need. They are going to need investment. Suggesting that this is somehow turning our backs on Ukraine.... The bill is here at committee, and it's about to go back to the House. This is irrelevant.

There are things that have actually been done by the government that have significantly harmed Ukraine, for example the export of a gas turbine that was used by Russia to pump gas, when pumping and selling gas funds Putin's war machine. That is actually hurting Ukraine, and is not a Conservative vote on the trade agreement.

There is now a report out that Canadian detonators are finding their way into Russian land mines and are actually being used in the war. I'm not an expert on war, because I've never served, but I would suggest that the issue of Canadian detonators being in land mines is far more of a betrayal of Ukraine than a Conservative principled opposition vote in the House of Commons.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next, we have Mr. Savard-Tremblay, and then I will give a ruling on Mr. Seeback's motion.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like all the other members, I have read most of the proposed amendments. Quite frankly, I am opposed to every single Conservative amendment proposal. I'm very transparent about that.

However, I find the government's lack of transparency when it comes to trade agreements unfortunate. Each time, we are presented with a finished product; take it or leave it. We have very little space and influence to change it. In addition, we are told that amendment attempts will be ruled out of order. I find that unfortunate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

I am going to suspend for two minutes to consult with legislative counsel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

I have consulted with legislative counsel. Under Standing Order 117, your motion, Mr. Seeback, would be contrary to the Standing Orders.

As we go through these motions, you will still have an opportunity to speak to them before I rule on each individual motion that is before us.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

Are you ruling a motion that was already moved and debated to have been retrospectively out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I was being very polite in giving you an opportunity to address the motion that Mr. Seeback moved. I could have ruled earlier than that, because it's contrary to the Standing Orders.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Which standing order? Is it Standing Order 117?

What does the standing order say that would suggest that this is contrary to the Standing Orders?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's the chair's prerogative to rule on the admissibility, and I'm ruling that it is not admissible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, again, I have a point of order.

To clarify, the motion doesn't dispute your ability to rule on the admissibility. It merely says the amendments will be considered regardless of that ruling. It doesn't deny your right to consider the admissibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm suggesting that it's not admissible.