Bill C-216 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is important in this agreement is that we have continued trade with the United Kingdom for our farmers and producers and can continue to open markets for them. While this is an important bill before us today that will help all sectors, including our supply-managed sectors, we need to make sure to continue to press for such access going forward for commodities such as beef, and even more so for canola in the U.K.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have had years to work on a new trade agreement with the United Kingdom and yet they waited until the last minute to restart trade talks and failed to negotiate any improvements in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement over CETA. What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau failed to negotiate this trade agreement with the U.K. He failed to take it seriously and waited until the eleventh hour, again putting people's livelihoods and our trade with the U.K. at risk, and potentially closing markets for the U.K. It was simple. We could have had something earlier and, unfortunately, he waited until the last hour.

It is important to point out that if the Prime Minister had not prorogued Parliament when he did, in the middle of the WE scandal, this bill would already be in the Senate. We have seen nothing but delays from the government, and this is just another example of Liberals not standing up for Canadian producers and farmers, as we have continually seen. They fail to stand up for farmers. This is just another example of where they are falling behind and hurting our agriculture sector.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member to reference other hon. members by their titles or ridings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She gave a very powerful speech about the incompetence of this government with respect to its foresight and reaction time.

She mentioned that she wants to protect supply-managed commodities. Yes, there are many commodities destined for export, but there are also some supply-managed commodities that should not be sacrificed. Does my colleague not think she should support our bill tomorrow?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always said, and the leader has been very clear, that the Conservative Party understands supply management and how important it is to our farmers in the supply-managed sectors of eggs, poultry, dairy and our feathered friends. Supply management is important and we will always stand up for it. We have shown that we will support our farmers and I have been very vocal in saying that I will support supply management. We will continue as a party to support our farmers and the supply-managed sector.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers on Vancouver Island are very concerned because every single time a trade deal is negotiated, it chips away at supply management. If we add up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, CETA and what has been happening in other trade deals that were negotiated under both Conservatives and Liberals, there is less protection for supply management than there used to be, just as there is with this adoption of the CETA rules for our dealings with the U.K.

I wonder how we are going to explain to dairy farmers the compensation they might receive down the road for the loss of supply management or how any member can say that we stand up to protect supply management when we enter into trade deals that chip away at it quite substantially.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that is very rich in agriculture, including many supply-managed farms. I will always stand up to protect supply management, as will the Conservative Party.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

On another practical housekeeping item, my kids are getting ready for bed right now, and so to Matthew and Emerson: Good night and love you guys. I will also tell them to listen to their mother.

It is just about 9 p.m. on a Tuesday, and generally the House would have adjourned hours ago, but Conservatives have made it clear that we are willing to work with the government when it is willing to be a good partner. I think that is demonstrated by us wanting to make sure that two things happen tonight. The first is that legislation before the House has the scrutiny that it deserves. As a legislator, I take seriously my obligation to review, debate, discuss and dialogue about the most serious issues facing our country. Tonight, we are talking about an important trading relationship, which is representative of how important it is that we have that dialogue. The second is that people, and their perspectives, from across our country have their voices heard.

I often am asked why there are so many empty seats in Parliament. Certainly during normal times there would be one explanation, but as of late there is a different reason, which is making sure that there is safe physical distancing so that we can stand together in the fight against COVID. However, for the first time in our history, we are seeing members of Parliament join in debate in this place virtually, which is a significant milestone. It is so important that we can have these very important discussions.

When it comes to trade overall, one of the most serious obligations of Canada's Parliament, as laid out in the founding documents of our country, is that this place would be responsible for navigating global trading relationships, whether 150-some years ago as a new country as part of the British Empire, or today. We share a system, and the first words of the British North America Act talked about how we have a structure similar to that of the United Kingdom. We share much of our history, legal systems and structures. In fact, the green carpet we have the honour of debating from represents the foundation of democracy, not just in Canada, but some of the earliest democratic structures in the modern world. It is within that context that we enter into debate here tonight, and it is good to be able to ensure that there is stability in one of Canada's very important trading partners. We will certainly work with the government.

I will get into the substance of the bill in a moment, but during question period today I heard about how the Liberals were blaming the Conservatives for all of these delays on different things. I find that ironic, because the Liberals control the agenda of the government. It seems that whenever it is inconvenient for them, they will simply blame the opposition. They are inserting tactics and politics into the debate, not to mention prorogation, when we lost approximately 35 legislative days. We have had to debate many bills multiple times to fix mistakes made in previous bills. As well, there were many months where the House did not sit in a substantive capacity, although there are practical reasons for that. Certainly, democracy is an essential service, and I was proud to stand and debate that coming up a year ago as we enter into the second year of COVID-19.

Regarding the debate at hand, I find it very interesting. Although just elected in 2019, I had spent a little bit of time in Ottawa and was a staffer prior to getting elected.

It is always great to see the legacies of good governments, and when it comes to what we are debating today, in substance it is actually a Conservative legacy. If we go back to the beginning of the CETA negotiations, we see that the signatures on the page took place after the 2015 election, but the substance of that agreement, one of the largest agreements signed in Canadian history, was negotiated by a Conservative government, acknowledging fair and free trade and how important that is for a resource-rich country with great expertise in products and manufacturing capacity, secure supply chains and technological innovation. Conservatives led the charge in ensuring that we had a wide variety of trading relationships. There was massive growth in the number of countries that Canada had trade agreements with over the close to 10 years that Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it is an honour to sit in caucus with the member for Abbotsford and hear some the war stories of some of those trade negotiations.

As for the substance of the bill we are talking about today, although the United Kingdom's position in the European Union has changed dramatically over a number of years, when we get into the nuts and bolts of the continuity and the recent history of that trade agreement, it really comes back to Conservative expertise in getting us to this point. Although I was not elected at the time, I saw news articles about how the Liberals almost dropped the ball on CETA, yet were able to get what is largely a Conservative legacy across the finish line. I am thankful for that. Good, strong, free and fair trade is the right thing for our nation.

What we are debating today is a little unfortunate, because it was a comedy of errors that got us to the point where we are now. It was about a year and a half ago that the negotiations broke down between Canada and the United Kingdom. The Liberals were quick to say that it was bandwidth issues with the United Kingdom, and in fairness, the United Kingdom is faced with a myriad of significant challenges associated with its exit from the European Union, but that did not stop the Australians or other jurisdictions from negotiating good, strong improvements to their trade deals.

It is unfortunate that negotiations broke down between our two countries and that it was not until the eleventh hour that this interim agreement was brought forward. The agreement lacks clarity. Trade and global investments and commerce depend on certainty, and that is what is required. This is a good step in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that the bill lacks a definitive timeline to ensure that there are concrete steps taken toward a long-term agreement. Some of the things that such an agreement should include are our tremendous expertise and tremendous resource capacity. I am proud to come from an area where net-zero oil comes from the region that I represent. It is a proud legacy that we have the most environmentally sustainable and ethically produced energy in the world. We have such a strong legacy of that, as well as so many opportunities to develop agriculture. I come from a strong agricultural region with so many opportunities.

As I see my time is almost up, I want to say that it should give Canadians pause to see that ideology seems to have got in the way of the Prime Minister and the Liberals negotiating with a Conservative government from another jurisdiction. It is unfortunate that it is truly Canadians who end up paying the price for the ideological blindness, I would suggest, that sometimes takes place on the Liberal side.

It is an honour to discuss this important bill and to support continuing the development of a strong trading relationship with the United Kingdom as it undergoes significant change. I am looking forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about trade and agriculture. I know that he will reiterate that he is here to defend supply management, but why refuse to do that through legislation, if only to protect ourselves from the negligence of certain leaders?

I would also like my colleague's perspective on ways to improve transparency and negotiations in these agreements, instead of presenting parliamentarians with the final agreement that they have to simply rubber-stamp.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer both parts of the member's question. I will answer the second part first.

I did not get a chance to talk about this in my speech, but it is interesting that the House, Canada's democratic institution, actually required the government to keep it informed of the status of negotiations. Certainly, there was not a lot of information provided, and that is a shame. In fact, it verges on contempt. Often, we see the government make grand statements about how it is the most transparent government in the history of the universe, but the evidence is certainly the opposite of that.

To the member's point on protecting our supply-managed sectors, that could be a valid discussion, but I would simply turn it around and ask the member this. He is worried about the agricultural industry in Quebec, but I certainly find it very, very troubling how the Liberals seem to be quick to target the energy industry in Alberta. It is unfortunate that there is no reciprocity in building a Canada that works for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the member had some comments about what this side of the House has been saying about the Conservatives holding up bills, the fact that they are very much interested in this bill and supported having it on the floor tonight. That is great to see and I am glad to see that we are able to make progress on this one.

One of the other bills that would really affect Canadians right now is Bill C-24, which deals with EI benefits, in particular for those who have been affected by the pandemic. If that bill does not receive royal assent by March 21, there will be a lot of Canadians without EI benefits.

Now the Conservatives will say, “Well, it's the Liberals' fault because they didn't set the agenda properly to allow that bill to be put on the floor and to have enough time for debate,” and so on and so forth. However, by saying that they are effectively saying to those people, “We are going to hold you hostage because we're upset with the Liberal government and their legislative agenda”.

We asked the member, all Conservatives, and everyone else in the House, to vote to have debate on that bill extended last night until midnight. The Conservatives voted against it. Does the member not think that Bill C-24 to support EI recipients is just as important as this free trade bill?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it bears pointing out a simple number and a simple word: 35 days of prorogation. We would be in a very, very different sort of scenario had the government not decided to try to cover up its scandalous ways. I think that is the unfortunate context. It is unfortunate for all Canadians, the context that we were in.

When it comes to Bill C-24 and a lot of other very important legislation, Conservatives have worked with the government. In the midst of a global crisis, we have seen that when we work together, things get done. It is unfortunate that the Liberals continue to play politics with this issue and blame the official opposition when, in many cases, they have had to bring legislation back numerous times to fix the errors that would have been remedied had the legislation been debated properly in the first place.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a first for me too. I have never shared time with a Conservative member of Parliament. I want to thank, in the spirit of co-operation, the Conservative member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. I will begin by emphasizing that maintaining the robust investment relationship Canada has with the U.K. is a top priority for our government. As we are all well aware, Canada and the U.K. have historically enjoyed a mutually advantageous trade and investment relationship. Our bilateral investment relationship, which was already strong, has grown rapidly under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement, or CETA.

The U.K. is Canada's largest market in Europe and is a key source of foreign direct investment. Indeed, the U.K. is Canada's fourth most important source of foreign direct investment. In 2019, the FDI stock from the U.K. was valued at over $62 billion. Canadians are also seeking investment opportunities in the U.K., with our FDI stocks in the U.K. valued at over $107 billion in 2019, making the United Kingdom Canada's second-largest direct investment destination.

The trade continuity agreement that was signed by Canada and the U.K. on December 9, 2020, would ensure that both parties can sustain and build upon this important relationship by preserving the benefits of CETA in a new bilateral agreement. More importantly, as this trade continuity agreement is based on CETA, an agreement Canadians are already familiar with, it provides continuity, predictability and stability for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and consumers. This stability is more important than ever as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Once the trade continuity agreement is ratified and fully implemented, it will continue to maintain predictability and protect Canadian investors as well as preserve CETA's high-standard provisions on dispute settlement. Canada's businesses have told us that what they want most at this time is stability, and the continuity agreement would provide that as we continue to work toward a new comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement with the U.K. that best serves Canada's interests over the longer term.

I will elaborate on two very important parts of the trade continuity agreement: the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism, the purpose of which is to protect Canadian investors.

As stated by my colleagues, the trade continuity agreement is an interim agreement that replicates CETA's provisions to ensure the stability of Canadian businesses during the unique situation Brexit has presented. As such, the comprehensive investment chapter of CETA was effectively replicated in the trade continuity agreement to ensure a smooth transition and provide predictability for Canadians. This will ensure that Canadian investors, as well as Canadian financial institutions with investments in the U.K., receive the same high standard of investor protection under this agreement that they were provided under CETA.

I will elaborate on the investment dispute resolution provision.

The trade continuity agreement replicates the CETA investment dispute resolution provisions, including CETA's permanent investment tribunal and appellate tribunal, with only minor technical changes to reflect the replacement of the 28 EU member states with the U.K. However, the investment dispute resolution provisions will be temporarily suspended upon entry into force of the trade continuity agreement, pending a review by parties. The purpose of this review is to consider the approach to investment dispute resolution that best reflects the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.K. The review would be set to commence within three months of entry into force of the trade continuity agreement and should be completed within three years, unless extended by agreement of both Canada and the U.K. If Canada and the U.K. do not agree on an approach to investment dispute resolution, or to extend the review process within three years, the CETA-like investment tribunal and appellate tribunal would apply, provided that equivalent CETA provisions have entered into force.

While this trade continuity agreement would protect Canadian investors, it would also maintain Canada's right to regulate in the public interest. As in CETA, the trade continuity agreement would require both Canadian and foreign investors to abide by Canada's laws and regulations in areas such as the environment, labour, health care and safety.

Through the unprecedented Brexit transition process our government strived to provide Canadians with certainty and security. This objective was made all the more important with the added economic consequences and uncertainty resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government takes great pride in achieving this trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. The objective in negotiating this agreement has always been to create a temporary measure to ensure stability for Canadian businesses during the Brexit transition process. To be clear, the trade continuity agreement is good for Canadian and U.K. investors and for the strong mutually beneficial trade and investment relationship our nations have built over 150 years.

While CETA will continue to govern Canada-EU trade, this trade continuity agreement will provide predictability and remove uncertainty for Canadians doing business with and in the U.K. This agreement is not only about ensuring continuity and maintaining the status quo, but is also essential in setting the stage for our future trade relations with the United Kingdom.

It is critical that the trade continuity agreement be ratified and implemented as soon as possible to ensure certainty for businesses. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-18 and allow the government to move ahead and implement the Canada-U.K. continuity agreement in a timely manner.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the member for Surrey Centre's riding, having spent my whole professional career working there.

Can the member comment on the significance of Canada's entering into a free trade agreement with a country with whom we share so many commonalities, such as common law, respect for the rule of law, our parliamentary traditions and so many other values? Is this a model that could be carried to other English-speaking, common-law tradition countries, like New Zealand and Australia?