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

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

Madam Speaker, I regret that I did not hear all of my colleague's speech. I wonder if I might have found even more to disagree with than in the part that I heard.

I do want to ask the member if he could respond to an observation that I think both of us had when we were part of a recent visit to the West Bank by the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group.

It was interesting for me to observe that everybody we talked to on that trip, if asked that question, expressed opposition to the idea of BDS. They recognized the interconnectedness of the economies between Israel and the Palestinian territory that more trade, more commercial opportunity benefits all the people living in that region. In the process of supporting a two-state solution, as I think all parties in the House do, we should not be shy about boldly moving forward with greater trade and investment because it would benefit Israel, it would benefit Canada and it would benefit the Palestinian people.

Would the member agree with me that this indeed was our observation on this trip and that BDS, because it does not advance anybody's interest, is really a non-starter when it comes to the region, and therefore we should move forward with greater trade relations?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do wish the member would have listened to my entire speech. He may have agreed with more than he may think.

He must have been talking to different people than I was. When I was talking to people in Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem and also in Jerusalem, I talked to people on both sides of this issue, from former members of the Knesset, who are working toward peace, to people that are working in the Palestinian government.

I do not think anybody really wants to see BDS applied, but the fact remains that we are talking about an occupation, unless the member and the Conservative Party break with international consensus and think there is no occupation of Palestinian land. People who have actually been to the West Bank have seen with their own eyes that there is a military occupation of Palestinian territory in full violation of the fourth Geneva Convention. The entire world recognizes that but I am not sure the Conservative Party does. If that is the case, then one has to ask what tools exist at our disposal to help persuade an occupying force to cease that occupation.

As I said in the case of Russia occupying Crimea, the Conservatives have no problem whatsoever calling for full sanctions on Russia, as they should, because Russia has violated the sovereignty of another country and is in illegal occupation of Crimea. Israel equally is in illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, but my friend in the Conservative Party does not seem to think that any steps need to be taken to put pressure on Israel.

If we do not want there to be violence, and nobody does, if we do not want a violent resolution to this, if we want the parties to sit down at a table, then a legitimate question arises as to how we can put pressure on the parties to do that when they clearly are not interested in doing that. I believe pressure needs to be put on the Palestinian side as well.

I did hear from the Palestinian authorities I spoke to that they were willing to meet any time, anywhere, and without preconditions. I would call upon them to honour that commitment and sit down with the Israelis so that there could be a peaceful resolution to this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, this legislation would modernize a trade agreement that is already in place between Canada and Israel. It will expand business opportunities. There are some fantastic gender issues that are being dealt with in this modernization of the agreement. Labour and environmental issues are also being dealt with.

My understanding is that a number of years ago the NDP did not support the original agreement. With the modernization aspect of this agreement, is the NDP inclined to support the trade agreement with Canada and Israel?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is the position of the New Democrats that we will be supporting this agreement at second reading, so that we can advance this agreement to committee where we can work on what we consider to be some of the shortcomings of this bill.

My hon. colleague is quite right that there are some very positive provisions in this agreement, including some novel and innovative chapters on gender, the environment and labour, as I pointed out in my speech.

Again, the fundamental problem with this bill, though, is that it still fails to distinguish between products and services that are made on the West Bank, that are made in occupied territories. If those products and services are permitted to be passed off as products and services from the State of Israel, then what we are doing is we are violating our own Canadian policy, which is that we do not recognize the occupation of those lands to be legitimate. We view those as part of sovereign Palestinian territory.

In that respect, by passing this bill without having those sections amended or cured, we run the risk of actually deepening the intractable problem between these parties instead of helping. That is something that New Democrats do not wish to do. We wish to use trade policy as a means to improve humanitarian, human rights, environmental, labour, and corporate and commercial conditions in the world. That is what we will be working to do at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the member actually disagree with what I said, that everybody we met in the Palestinian territories, if asked the question, expressed that they did not support BDS.

I do want to ask the member a particular question about his discussion of the concept of occupation. I ask this genuinely. It is an important question. Does the member think there is ever a case where international law ought to sanction the idea of occupation?

I ask that question because my grandmother lived under occupation when she was living in western Germany after the Second World War. The area was occupied by the allies, and despite the very real suffering that people experienced, she was glad for that occupation because it meant the end of Nazi rule.

There are many different cases which require subtlety in distinguishing. The member has tried to lump the occupation of Crimea with the situation in West Bank and Gaza. I wonder if the member thinks, based on some of the examples we have talked about, if there is ever a case where international law ought to permit occupation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very broad and hypothetical question that would be very difficult to answer in one minute.

I will say that the concept of occupation usually occurs when there is a military skirmish and territory has been gained or lost by one side or the other. I think the international order recognizes that could be the case.

The fourth Geneva Convention is crystal clear. A state is not allowed to annex territory acquired by war. A state is not permitted to move its own population into occupied territories and take over that territory. Finally, a state is not allowed to move indigenous people who are native to a land in mass form in the territories that they are occupying.

I think everybody of good faith and fair mind would agree that the concept of occupation is meant to be temporary, until conditions have been stabilized and a political solution can be reached. I do not think that could be said 51 years after 1967. Not too many occupations, including after World War II, lasted 51 years. The allies were occupying Germany. They stayed long enough until other institutions and sovereignty could be re-established in those areas, and the security and safety of institutions could be re-established, and then they left.

I do not know what my friend is saying. He seems to be making a case that one country can go into another country's territory, occupy it forever, and take over that territory. He does not seem to think there is a problem with that. If that is the case, we will just have to disagree.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member still has about a minute and 15 seconds left for questions and comments. We will be able to get back to it when the issue is before the House again.

The House resumed from October 29 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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Essex.

I am very proud to speak to Bill C-85. However, before I go into the bill itself, it is quite interesting to see the work our government has done in the last year. This is fourth trade deal on the table. That is very impressive, without a doubt, keeping in mind that 60% of our GDP is from trade deals, so no trade deals, no economy. That is pretty well how I would describe it. Therefore, they are extremely important.

The good thing about this as well is that small, medium and large Canadian companies are able to compete in the world, which is extremely important. There is nothing to fear, because we are among the best in the world and we can produce the best as well.

I would also like to share with members of the House, all 338 members, that in my opinion, it would be a good strategy, which I will focus on in the next few months, to meet with all business associations in our communities. For example, I have one in Sackville, one in Fall River, one in the Eastern Passage area and one in the Eastern Shore, the Porters Lake-Lake Echo area.

It is time to have some really strong conversations about the opportunities that have been created in the last year with these trade deals. People have to understand that these trade deals touch many sectors. As I go through my speech, they will hear about the 100% cut in tariffs. These are great opportunities. My question for all members is this. Are they communicating with our business communities? Are they aware of these changes? Are they aware of the potential opportunities? That is what is important.

I will talk about CIFTA, the Canada-Israel trade deal. This is not something new that has just come about. Last year, we agreed to amend and enhance this agreement. It had been 20 years. How much has this agreement brought to us? Over the last 20 years, we have seen two-way trade triple. It is now up to $1.7 billion, which is an enormous amount of money for two countries directly trading.

This trade deal, Bill C-85, has four amended chapters and seven new chapters. The amendments, as everyone will see, are very important to improving the trade deal, as well as the new chapters. Once again, our government is influencing major changes to enhance many areas of trade.

Let me start with dispute resolution and dispute settlement. As we know, that was crucial element in the USMCA deal and we were not going to sign any deal without it. That is how important it is. Not only is it in this trade deal, but in many chapters. This will make it that much stronger because there will be analysis and discussions on specific chapters and, therefore, over time, both countries will see the strengths and weaknesses and will be able to work through those processes.

This trade deal would provide more access to products, not just good products but all types of products. There will be almost 100% tariff reduction on fish, seafood and agriculture, which are major sectors in our economy.

We see improvement in the structure of the agreement. On the rules of origin, also very important, we were able to bring some relaxed focus to it, recognizing the global value chain and streamlining for tariff treatment. Again, it ensures the necessary conditions will be in place for greater success.

In the new chapters, we see the e-commerce, which is the online purchasing. Again, no tariff will be applied in any way, shape or form. It will also protect our intellectual properties, again because as Canadians, we have many areas where we have been number one. We have the best products and the best inventions. Therefore, we were able to ensure there would be relief on the copyright end.

Other measures we see in these new chapters are around food safety and environmental protection, which are extremely important, as well as labour standards. We have removed technical barriers to trade. These are very important points.

I want to touch on two areas in the added features where Canada has lead once again. The first is applying a gender lens to the trade deal. It is extremely important that we are able to apply that lens to ensure that both genders are able to contribute directly to the economy and these trade issues. We have shown how we can ensure greater success in the economy with direct contributions. It will benefit all Canadians, not just a certain group of Canadians. It is wide open in that sense.

The second area where we have really made some improvement is in the small and medium-sized businesses. As we know, small and medium-sized businesses in Canada are the backbone of our economy. We must ensure that they are successful and that we give them the tools to ensure that success. That is exactly what we have with this deal.

Let us look at how this this deal will affect my province of Nova Scotia. We can look at the CETA deal, for example. Ninety-six per cent of tariffs on fish and seafood are eliminated. In manufacturing, tires had a tariff of 4.5%, and that is gone. It is now zero percent. Machinery and equipment had tariffs of up to 8%. That is gone. Agriculture and agrifood, such as blueberries, had tariffs of up to 9.6% and now have zero tariffs. Maple syrup, which we are extremely well known for in Canada, now has zero tariffs.

These trade deals are extremely important. Our government has been a leader from day one. We are continuing on that. We have signed the CPTPP, with access to over 500 million people. Through both the CETA and the CPTPP, we now have access to a billion people. Again, in the CPTPP we are seeing major benefits to financial services, food, seafood, agriculture and variety of sectors.

Let me finish with a quote. A mining industry representative said, “We can’t afford to be outside of this trading bloc...It would put as at a huge disadvantage.”

It is obvious that this government is focused on the middle class and the economy. We know that 60% of our GDP is based on trade deals and these trade deals will continue to allow middle-class Canadians to prosper.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the new CIFTA includes a commitment to encourage the use of voluntary corporate social responsibility standards. I want to ask the member why this is voluntary in CIFTA.

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

Madam Speaker, it is because their business community has good citizens. Both countries have agreed to work with the business community so its members can be good citizens in protecting the economy, the environment and our communities. Those are major things, and it is a step in working together to ensure we will get to where we need to go.

We do not have to write it in black and white all the time. We, as two countries, can agree to work together to share the innovative principles that can be used to make those things we want to accomplish happen.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly, on this side of the House we are all in favour of trade. We have shown that many times throughout our time in government, and before. However, one of the comments my colleague made was about the support for small and medium-sized businesses. We certainly have shown our support for SMEs on this side. I would like to ask my colleague this: If they are so supportive of small business, why last summer did they take the approach of attacking small business and creating obstacles for small business to be able to succeed? Then finally, the Liberals reduced the small business tax after pressure from Canadians, small businesses and this side of the House. If they are so supportive of small business, why did it take all that pressure and why are they being so hard on small business owners?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, these trade deals are extremely important for the business community. This will allow it opportunities to continue to grow and prosper. That is extremely important. My job and his job and the job of the 338 MPs is to work closely with our business community to make that happen.

Let me just remind my colleague across the floor that it is this government that has lowered the small business tax from 11% to 10.5% to 10% and in April it is going down to 9%, which will be among the lowest in the world.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his speech, which once again was dynamic and passionate.

I would like to ask him if, to his knowledge, with respect to the agreement between Canada and Israel, the bill distinguishes between the territory of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967, as called for by the UN Security Council.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I saw nothing to that effect in the agreement. Perhaps my colleague found something.

Let us remember that this agreement is the fourth in the space of a year, and, as members, it is our job to communicate. We frequently make changes to policies to improve the lives of middle-class Canadians, but people on the ground are not always kept in the loop. It is our job to keep them informed.

Next week, we will be back in our constituencies. It will be a good opportunity to communicate directly or indirectly with small and medium-sized businesses. For example, if they are not aware of certain budget cuts, that will be the time to tell them about it. There might also be opportunities, so I will be in touch with them to find out what they want. I will be readily available to help them as their representative.