Bill C-85 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act in order to implement the Canada – Israel Free Trade Amending Protocol 2018 signed on May 28, 2018.
In order to modernize the text of the Act and by that reflect the amendments brought about by the Protocol, this enactment repeals the preamble to that Act and amends the definition of Agreement, the provision setting out the purpose of the Act and the provisions related to the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement. It also amends that Act in order to confer on the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the amended Agreement.
Finally, the enactment amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations resulting from the amendments brought about by the Protocol.

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague proudly mentioned that the Stephen Harper government cut its entire funding to the United Nations agency for relief for Palestine refugees. Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump, a friend of Conservatives, also cut funding to the same agency. I am so proud that our government has restored funding to UNRWA, with specific help directed toward refugee women and children.

I ask the hon. member why he is so against funding for refugee women and children.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I need to put on the record here is that I feel very bad for the innocent Palestinian people who suffer every day under tyrannical regimes like Hamas and for those people who suffer under the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. I feel very bad for them and I hope for a peaceful solution to the situation that remains in the Middle East.

In respect to the UNRWA funding, Canada has a responsibility to make sure that we do everything possible not to fund or promote hate. What we discovered was that not only was UNRWA allowing curriculum into schools for young people to continue to have anti-Semitism flow into their minds, but also, in the case of Hamas in Gaza, that there was irrefutable evidence that they are actually housing the capability for Hamas to attack Israel.

I have been to Sderot. I have seen what happens after a decade and more of thousands of missiles from Hamas raining down on innocent Israeli heads. Believe me when I say that we need to do everything we can to make sure that we end that tyrannical regime and its capability to wreak havoc and terror, not only on the Israelis but on its own people.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has always given lip service to corporate responsibility standards. This new CIFTA includes a commitment to encourage the use of voluntary corporate social responsibility standards.

Does the member agree that it should not be voluntary, that we should behave as we say to the world that we will behave, and that the government should have a plan to ensure that companies that may be profiting from human rights violations do not receive benefits under this agreement or any agreement?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to corporate social responsibility, in fact it was the Conservative government that established the office of the CSR. I absolutely agree that it should be strengthened.

My understanding is that the present government is heading down that road. I have not seen any results yet. However, I agree that Canadian companies in foreign lands that mine or conduct whatever business they may do should be abiding by standards that would be typical here in Canada. I look forward to seeing some effort by the Liberal government to make that happen.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague shared some key information about the history and relationship between Canada and Israel. I thought he did a really good job, but I am concerned that he did not talk about issues that are very, very important to Canadians in this deal.

There are new chapters, and I wish he had touched on those. The first one is the gender piece. It is new. Our government brought forward something that was lagging 20 years behind, and here is an opportunity to put that in place. I wish he had spoken on that piece. Maybe he can add to it.

As well, there is the aspect of small and medium-sized businesses. Normally when there are trade deals, we focus on large companies. What about the medium-sized and small businesses? These are very important chapters in this deal. I wish he would make reference to that as well in his answers.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud any effort we can make to be more inclusive with any trade agreement, whether for women, minorities or those who are marginalized.

Also, in respect to small and medium-sized businesses, I remember being in Jordan at a business round table. I thought it was going to be a round table, but it actually required a conference room in the hotel in Jordan. I was shocked at how many small and medium-sized Canadian entrepreneurs were present at that time in Jordan and Israel. It continues to be that way, so if there is any way we can encourage small business, I would be glad to do that.

One of the things that concerns me in this regard is that three members of the Liberal caucus either voted no—that was the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler—or did not even show up for the vote for this very important deal, those being the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the member for Nepean. I wonder why there is a problem in their caucus with this free trade agreement.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and friend for his long-time passion and work on the Canada-Israel file. He has been there many times and has worked very hard, so I commend him for that.

We know this agreement began in 1997. In 2014, negotiations to update the agreement began under then prime minister Harper and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. In fact, former prime minister Harper is in Israel now and continues to work on Israel issues.

The Conservative Party has a record of strong trade agreements and has brought over 50 countries into free trade agreements.

This agreement was successfully concluded in 2015, but here we are in 2019. Four years after an agreement and renegotiation are concluded seems like a very long time, and it is probably not a very high priority by the Liberal government to see this thing completely through.

Could the member comment on the long period of time that will have gone by before this is concluded?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to have a delay of this many years when most of the heavy lifting was already done is appalling, particularly when we have so much instability with our trading partners.

Let me touch on something domestically, since my colleague has opened this up. We continue to have these steel tariffs in place. My concern with the Liberal government presently is that it does not understand the magnitude of the effect. It has given some funding to steel mills, which is great. In fact, one of them is ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton. However, what it does not understand is the downstream effect this is having.

I will tell a story of a medium-sized business, whose owner came into my office. He had spent $60 million on an expansion just two years previously to be able to service his American clients. When he came into my office, the tariffs had lasted so long that he had actually had to cut his business to the United States. He had already paid over $2 million in tariffs and could not sustain that expense.

If there are any business people on the other side of the bench, they will know that once a business has lost a customer, it is hard as heck to get that customer back. This is the kind of thing the Liberal government continues to put in the way of our businesses, and it needs to take the removal of these tariffs seriously and work with the American administration to get them removed.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I would therefore like to know what he thinks about the fact that this bill on free trade between Canada and Israel encourages the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility standards. It seems to me that something like that should not be voluntary and that the Government of Canada should have a plan to ensure that businesses that are violating human rights do not benefit from this type of agreement.

Does he not agree?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has said it will bring in a corporate social responsibility ombudsperson. I have not seen the results of that yet. We need to strengthen that regime.

There was testimony at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and there is a willingness within the Canadian companies outside of Canada doing business to comply with that. A few companies are causing a bad reputation for the broader spectrum, and that is definitely something that needs to happen.

Something was brought up earlier with regard to Palestinians, the West Bank and Israeli businesses. One of the things we have to communicate to people is the need to make sure that Israeli businesses continue to be able to hire and bring in Palestinians from the West Bank without the crazy pressure from this Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement that does not understand that they actually employ and allow Palestinians to prosper, to have jobs that are not in the Palestinian Authority.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-85, an act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As New Democrats have pointed out in previous debates on this bill, we have serious concerns about the lack of human rights protections contained in the act, particularly relating to the rights of Palestinians in territories occupied by Israel. The NDP tried to address these concerns at committee, but all amendments were voted down.

That said, we are not opposed to a free trade agreement with Israel. New Democrats are in favour of international trade agreements that respect human rights, the rights of workers, the environment and all of our international obligations. In fact, we supported the bill at second reading and had proposed amendments that would have made Bill C-85 a truly progressive free trade agreement, the very sort of agreement the current government claims, with great bluster and swagger, to support, but never actually seems to sign.

Other parties like to say that the NDP does not support free trade and has never supported a free trade agreement. My response is that the NDP supports and actively encourages trade agreements that are fair and responsible, trade agreements that respect human rights, the rights of workers, the environment and all of our international obligations. Canada has yet to sign such an agreement, and if one judges by actions and interactions, is not particularly interested in doing so just yet.

I am quite proud of the amendments we proposed at committee for this bill. We brought forward amendments on human rights, gender rights, indigenous rights and labour rights—reasonable and achievable amendments, as proven by the advances made by the European Union in the update of its free trade agreement with Israel—to ensure that relations between Canada and Israel are based on respect for human rights and international law.

Our amendments, first and foremost, ensure this fundamental concept. They would ensure that the government undertakes an annual gender-based analysis and gender impact assessment that would be applied to the entire agreement, as well as enforceable corporate social responsibility and the standards and principles set out in the United Nations document entitled “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.

As well, we brought amendments to ensure the provisions of the agreement would respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that the rights of workers are protected through mandatory mechanisms laid out in the International Labour Organization's Decent Work Agenda, which lays out four pillars contained in the sustainable development goals. One mandatory mechanism is the creation of an independent labour secretariat with the power to oversee a dispute settlement process.

Another amendment was to ensure the creation of a framework for transnational bargaining to allow unions to represent workers in Canada and Israel.

Likewise, we brought forward amendments on environmental protections. These were brought forward in order to ensure a high level of environmental protection through comprehensive and legally binding commitments that meet Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement reached on December 12, 2015, and to protect against bulk water exports and ensure that water is not labelled as a commodity, which is profoundly important.

We also tabled amendments to include a gender impact assessment, along with an economic impact analysis, a detailed job analysis and an analysis on the impacts of the act on human rights in both countries, including the occupied Palestinian territories.

As members can see, these are basic common sense proposals that are designed to ensure that everyone, and not just our multinationals, benefits from the agreement.

As our party's critic for international human rights, I am gravely concerned about the impact these trade agreements have on human rights in the nations involved. Economic objectives, unfortunately, conflict with human rights obligations in many scenarios.

Canada, for instance, has free trade agreements with a number of countries with appalling human rights records, such as Honduras; Mexico, a country whose very state apparatus has come perilously close to collapsing due to corruption by and conflict with the largest narcotics trafficking enterprises in the world; and Colombia, where over 400 human rights defenders have been murdered over the last three years.

As for this Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, I am deeply concerned about the lack of human rights protections in the bill and the lack of recognition of the rights of Palestinians living in their sovereign territories occupied by Israel.

Canadians expect their government to sign trade deals that respect human rights, international law and our foreign affairs policies. This legislation does not conform to these expectations. Without these protections, the Canadian government is not respecting Canada's commitment to a peaceful and just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The European Union at least pushed for and received a human rights clause in its free trade agreement with Israel. Notably, since 2015, the EU, a member of the World Trade Organization, has required that products from the occupied territories be labelled as such. While the Israel government has opposed these measures, it has not challenged them at the World Trade Organization. This is important, as Canadians are concerned that Israeli wine, for instance, lacks proper labelling as to whether grapes were produced in the occupied territories.

In July of 2017, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ruled that wines made in the occupied West Bank could not be labelled as products of Israel. After the ruling, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario directed its vendors to pull the products from their shelves. The CFIA emphasized that Canada does not recognize the occupied territories as part of Israel and that labelling products produced there as made in Israel was misleading for consumers and in violation of Canada's Food and Drugs Act.

After a strong backlash, the CFIA said, “We did not fully consider the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement”, which applies to the territory where the customs laws of Israel are applied. This is not acceptable.

This updated iteration of this free trade agreement was a perfect opportunity for us to address and specifically articulate this problem. Let me explain. This trade agreement appears to fail to distinguish between the State of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The European Union has, since 2015, as mentioned, required products from the occupied territories to be labelled as such, yet article1.4.1(b) of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement stipulates instead that the agreement applies to “the territory where its customs laws are applied”.

Under the terms of the 1994 Paris protocol, Israel and Palestine are part of a customs union under which Israel collects duties on goods destined for the Palestinian territories. However, the existence of a customs union does not change the fact that the West Bank, where illegal Israeli settlements have proliferated, remains occupied territory. Bill C-85 appears to cover the products made in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Neither Canada nor the United Nations recognizes these settlements as part of Israel. These settlements are illegal. They clearly violate the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits the settlement of territories acquired by war and the movement of indigenous people in those territories, among other things.

In fact, there is virtual global unanimity that the territories seized and occupied by Israel since 1967, which are the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza, are not part of Israel. Indeed, those territories are a fraction of the land awarded to the Palestinian people by the United Nations partition of 1947.

As stated, Palestinians have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. That is 51 years. The Canadian government's own policy does not recognize permanent Israeli control over these territories, and stipulates that Israeli settlements, occupation and control violate the fourth Genera convention and many Security Council resolutions.

As stated as recently as 2016 at the United Nations Security Council:

[The Security Council] Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

It also goes on to call upon all states, including Canada, “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”. I would suggest to you that a trade instrument that respects international law would distinguish between the occupied territory and the State of Israel because a trade agreement is a relevant dealing.

I am gravely concerned that this agreement fails our international commitment. It fails its own international commitment to be a respected covenant of trade with another sovereign power. It puts us afoul of international law. Products made in the occupied territories in Palestine must be labelled as such. To fail to do so amounts to a countenance of illegal annexation of territory.

More broadly, I wish to speak for the millions of Canadians who want to see peace in this region and the creation of the secure and sovereign states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace.

Israel has not complied with its obligations under the Geneva convention. Over time, it has steadily and consistently increased its illegal settlements in Palestine.

In the end, most Canadians wish for a safe, secure, sovereign Israel and Palestine, living in peace and friendship and in mutual co-operation. We all want to see increased commercial, political, social and cultural relations with Israel. However, we also want to see these very same relationship benefits extended to the Palestinians. Trade agreements are important legal instruments that play an important role, along with diplomacy, in ensuring that internationally recognized human rights standards and laws are adhered to and maintained.

They absolutely must themselves comply with these laws and norms. The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement is not merely the technical construct of an economic relationship, with chapters and chapters on the exchange of goods and services and some voluntary feel-good promises; this is a political treatise that has profound influence on people. It is reckless to sign a free trade agreement that disregards the issue of occupied territory. This only exacerbates the situation, and for what?

I mentioned earlier that the NDP is in support of trade agreements that uphold our international commitments, human rights, the sustainable development goals, indigenous rights and gender rights, and that align with our own foreign policies. However, I would like to point out that a year on from the signing of CETA, our exports have decreased. It makes us question again a trade agreement that undermines human rights, that undermines social responsibility. Why would we sign a trade agreement with Israel that does not respect the position of Palestinian territory? It is reckless because it exacerbates the situation, and why? What is it all for?

We have other free trade agreements that were followed by a decrease in exports to the countries we have signed with. We have signed 14 trade agreements, and exports have decreased to those countries. There is a major fundamental issue, a major fundamental approach to the trade agreements that we have to address. There are underlying issues that have to be examined, and bolder steps have to be taken so that we align not only with our own foreign policies but with international law.

We covet a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and this is a perfect opportunity for this country to step up when it is updating this free trade agreement. In being so bold as to update it, we do not have to forge a path on our own. The European Union has articulated exactly the kinds of amendments that we see as putting us in alignment with our international commitments and our own domestic foreign policies that have been laid out.

We have fundamental issues that need to be addressed with the types of trade agreements that we are creating and signing, and if they are not actually creating opportunities for Canadians businesses, then that is a springboard. It is a definite impetus for us to delve in and see what is fundamentally wrong with these agreements. This is a perfect opportunity for the Government of Canada to change the trajectory.

Enough with the voluntary guidelines for corporate social responsibility. There need to be real, enforceable rules. We could have negotiated stronger language, just as the European Union did with Israel. We could take at least the astute step that the EU has taken on labelling the origin of a product for where it came from: occupied territory. Why mince words? Why not assert international law and human rights? Why not insist on it?

It is disappointing that with this iteration of the CIFTA, a valuable opportunity has been discarded with regard to Israel and Palestine. Canada's trade policy does not align with its foreign policy. The latter acknowledges the importance of international law and the fact that the settlements violate this law. By including settlement products in the provisions of the CIFTA, such treatment de facto legitimizes the settlements, encourages their economic growth and contributes to their permanence. In any free trade agreement, the question should always be “cui bono?”: who benefits?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal this morning. Trade is perceived as a positive thing overall. Canada is a trading nation. Over the last three years, we have had a government that recognizes the true value of expanding trade, which really helps Canada's middle class. The healthier the economy is, the healthier our middle class will be. There is no doubt that trade plays a very critical role in terms of Canada's future.

Would the member across the way not at the very least acknowledge that the way in which Canada can enhance and secure markets in the future is by having these formal trade agreements? To a certain degree there is always room for improvement. However, gaining that access is so critical, and that is something the government has strived to do over the last three years.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect our government to sign free trade agreements that respect human rights and that are in line with our own domestic foreign policies.

Therefore, we know that it is achievable. It is being articulated in other documents and other laws. When we have trade agreements, it is certainly reasonable to expect that we will align with the international laws that we recognize, and that we will use these international law instruments and our own domestic laws so that corporate social responsibility, for example, is not voluntary, or that human rights are not voluntary. As they are set out in this agreement, they actually fall short of what we have been achieving.

Therefore, it is not a trade agreement that has all of the promise to be as beneficial as we have seen in the past. We are not learning from the past right now. We have examples where our exports have decreased and where we have seen an increase in human rights strife and labour strife. We could be moving forward with very articulate examples on how to do this properly.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the discussion today about the free trade agreement.

The Conservatives have worked with trade agreements and signed many of those in the past years. The opportunity is in the signing of an agreement. In the constituency I am from, sometimes we find that when an agreement is signed, there may be opportunities, but maybe markets have changed, maybe the types of things grown are more advantageous in this particular agreement. Sometimes it changes. The cycles of economics and products produced go up and down. To use that, we can say that some things have gone down. The economics change.

However, signing an agreement makes opportunities possible.

Settlement is another thing. I know of “contested settlements” but not “illegal settlements”. That is another terminology that has been thrown out today. There are “contested” but they are not “illegal” settlements.