Debates of Dec. 12th, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is questions and comments on the member's speech.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke of the principled approach of the Conservative Party to the agreement, so let us talk about principles.

This is not about the carbon tax, but today the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. Today, President Zelenskyy is in Washington, D.C., desperate to get military support from the United States that is being blocked by the American far right. Today, more than ever, is a day when Ukraine needs the political support, and where is the Conservative Party? Conservatives voted against the free trade agreement today. On Friday, they voted against any military assistance to Ukraine. Today, of all days, is a day when Ukraine really needs political support around the world. Why do they continue to oppose support for Ukraine?

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

Madam Speaker, of course we support Ukraine; that is absolutely true. We voted against the fall economic statement because we have absolutely no confidence in the incompetent, corrupt Liberal government.

The member is talking about munitions. That is great; good for him. We had a motion at committee to support expanded munitions productions in Canada, increase munitions exports to Ukraine and support the delivery of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry. How did Liberal members of the committee vote? They voted against it. The member should perhaps get off of his PMO talking points that he just read to the House and actually understand what his party has done with respect to munitions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to the amendments to the treaty that the Conservative Party proposed in committee. We disagree with most of those amendments, but we still think that we should have had an opportunity to debate them, because we are in a parliamentary system and a democracy.

However, the way treaties are negotiated in Canada is unique. The government negotiates them behind Parliament's back in a way. The government decides on the content of the treaty, which means that parliamentarians are deprived of all their democratic tools and cannot debate or amend the treaty either in committee or in the House. The only thing they have a say in is the treaty's rules of application. That seems undemocratic to me and it is at odds with what is done in the United States and Europe. The Canadian approach seems very undemocratic to me.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the undemocratic way that Canada negotiates treaties and prevents Parliament from debating amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, coming to Parliament, table-dropping a 700-page trade agreement and expecting Parliament to just immediately rubber-stamp it is the kind of arrogance one gets with the Liberal government. It believes that, somehow, it is so infallible, so perfect, that it has brought to us, as we approach Christmas, something like the birth of Christ. Here it is: the perfect child.

In fact, we get to have real criticisms of the bill. Yes, the challenge is, of course, this: There is a process to bring treaties and trade agreements to members so they have an opportunity to have input. The Liberals did none of that. They brought it here and said it is perfect, and now they are criticizing people for criticizing it. It is an embarrassing way for them to behave.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our shadow minister for trade for his very thoughtful and well-articulated concerns about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I think he was very clear that Conservatives support Ukraine. Conservatives are the party of free trade.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have stuck carbon taxes into the trade agreement. This is the first time in history. It is unprecedented, and we cannot accept it when we are the party that is opposed to carbon taxes.

I know that the hon. member has already reflected on this, but we have been calling on the government since 2018 to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. It did not wait four weeks to send lethal weapons. It did not wait four months. It waited four years, until the hot, full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine. The member was very clear to say that we have been asking for the government to do more in support of Ukraine. The free trade agreement would not provide the opportunity for the Canadian defence industry to do business in Ukraine. There would be no war insurance provided.

Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces is decommissioning old light armoured vehicles: Bisons, Coyotes and tracked LAVs, the M113s. Why are the Liberals sitting around? We have been asking since March of last year to actually export the vehicles, to send them to Ukraine in the fight against Russia. They have not. Why have they not?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. This is actually where we get to where the rubber hits the road. There are real and concrete things that the Liberal government could have done and could be doing to help Ukraine. Instead, it has wrapped itself in the free trade agreement to somehow suggest that this is the only way one can support Ukraine. Of course, it put a poison pill in it. It knew that the Conservatives could not support carbon pricing and carbon leakage.

However, there are real, measurable things that would have made a difference. There was a motion on the exact issue that the member has just raised, to do that. Of course, it was defeated.

Exporting a gas turbine to Russia, the Canadian detonators in Russian mines, no wartime insurance, not sending the armoured vehicle and not increasing munitions production are things that are actually harming Ukraine. Our vote does not harm it. The Liberals should stop talking the way they are. It is disgraceful.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his remarks, the member spoke about why all Conservatives oppose the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. He cited two things. First, there is the mention of carbon pricing in it, which, of course, is not a legitimate reason, because Ukraine has already had carbon pricing since 2011 and needs carbon pricing to enter the EU, which it is desperately trying to do. The agreement would not even force Ukraine to do anything on carbon pricing, so that is not a reason to oppose the agreement. We already know that.

The other reason he gave was that the government is somehow imposing language about carbon pricing on Ukraine, or imposing something on it that it does not want. However, President Zelenskyy signed the agreement; he came to Canada to do that. He asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian ambassador asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Ukraine MPs who were visiting Canada asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Conservatives seem to believe that they know better than Ukrainians themselves do what Ukrainians want.

My question for the member is this: Why are Conservatives and Vladimir Putin the only people out there who seem to think they know better than Ukrainians themselves what Ukrainians want or need ?

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

Madam Speaker, the logical gymnastics the member just had to do are something that could probably have won him a gold medal at an Olympic gymnastics competition.

President Zelenskyy actually asked the Liberals to not send the gas turbine. Did the member stand up against his government and say that it should not happen? No, he did not. There are currently no export controls in place to stop Canadian detonators from getting into Russian land mines. Has he stood up to criticize his government for doing that? No, he has not. However, somehow, voting against a trade agreement is one of the cardinal sins, one of the seven deadly sins. It is ridiculous and pathetic.

The Liberals should be stopping the things I have raised. They should be including the things I have raised. That is how to show support for Ukraine, not this fake straw-man argument they are building up about voting against a trade agreement that includes language that we would never support, because in the next trade agreement, they will mandate a carbon price if we let them get away with it this time.

Canadians know the misery of the carbon tax. We are against it in Canada and we are against it in trade agreements. We will be against it forever.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we are in favour of Ukraine. I want to go back to December 2, 1991, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made us the first country in the world to recognize the independence of Ukraine.

I would ask my colleague to elaborate on the kind of dedication this country has provided to our Ukrainian cohorts, friends and families in Ukraine today, to justify some of the great comments my colleagues have made and to further denigrate what the Liberal government has done with respect to putting a carbon tax into a trade agreement with a country that is at war.

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

Madam Speaker, this could be a meme.

Liberals think that sending a gas turbine that Russia uses to pump gas and make money to fund the war is no big deal, that allowing Canadian detonators to end up in Russian land mines that are killing Ukrainian soldiers is no big deal and that not giving businesses war risk insurance is no big deal. None of that is a big deal, but if we vote against a free trade agreement that we think is a bad trade agreement, they say, “Oh my God, you are supporting Vladimir Putin.” Their arguments on this are pathetic and embarrassing.

Canadians have always supported Ukraine. Conservatives have always supported Ukraine, just like when we were almost the first country in the world to recognize an independent Ukraine. I think Poland beat us by something like 25 minutes. That is the Conservative record. We support Ukraine, so members should not listen to the misinformation and disinformation the despicable Liberals are trying to spread.

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

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member inadvertently referred to the Prime Minister by his name.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not know. I did not hear it.

Did the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mention the Prime Minister's name?

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

Madam Speaker, I did not mention the Prime Minister in my speech at all.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All right.

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

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.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

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.

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

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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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?

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

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.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

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.

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

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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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?