Bill C-18 (Historical)

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This enactment implements the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 10 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and contains a transitional provision.
Part 3 contains a coordinating amendment and the coming-into-force provision.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his vision and foresight. It is indeed interesting to ask the question. Has the United Kingdom not taught us a lesson about sovereignty? Why did such an important country decide to back out of the European Union? It did so to protect its interests. Sovereignty is about three things: signing your own agreements; passing your own laws and collecting your own taxes.

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is passionate about the French language. Another fundamental lesson from this agreement we learned from the European Union itself. The official language of the European Union is no longer English since the withdrawal of England. It is now French. Does anyone see this as an opportunity for Canada to look at what is happening elsewhere in the world and to strengthen the position of French in our own Parliament and in our relations with the provinces? Is this not an opportunity to ensure that every province, not just Quebec, has the mechanisms to protect its language? This is another lesson on sovereignty from the European Union and England.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I find it interesting to hear that England's exit from the European Union is a model for sovereignty, because I think one of the great lessons to be learned from Brexit relates more to the economic disaster it has caused in Great Britain.

I wonder whether the risks and the devastating economic repercussions for Great Britain projected by economists could also serve as a lesson for a sovereignty proposal.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, his comments and his awareness.

I will give an example. With regard to international trade, we have to be at the negotiating table to protect our interests. If Quebec could have been at the negotiating table, it would have imposed a veto. If the provinces really were listened to in this country, we could have imposed a veto and prevented another breach in supply management.

Quebec could have stood up, taken a firm stand, refused to give up another 3% and opposed the notion of sending a compensation cheque to producers under the pretext that it is all right to stop producing in exchange for a cheque, instead of having agricultural producers earn 100% of their income, which supply management used to protect.

With free trade agreements, we run the risk of limiting an individual's ability to earn their income even in their own country. That is what the federal government did in the context of supply management. It has opened three breaches in supply management. Trust in Canada has been undermined. Bill C-216 would establish a legislative mechanism to ensure that, in future, we will be able to protect our national interests and leave behind the concerns brought on by new forms of compensation.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of Bill C-18, the Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-18.

I would like to begin by saying that I was particularly interested in two aspects of the process for passing this bill. The first is the way the Standing Committee on International Trade had to do its work with regard to the bill to bring CUKTCA into force. The second part of my speech will focus more on the historic aspect of this new temporary agreement and the impact it could have on the scare tactics that are generally used on separatists when it comes time to talk about Quebec and the way it will conduct future negotiations when it becomes independent.

Yesterday, I had several opportunities to listen to my learned colleagues discuss how parliamentarians were informed of the results of the negotiations between the U.K. and Canada. In the words of my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, parliamentarians, through no fault of their own, became actors in a theatre of the absurd when they had to receive witnesses in committee without having seen the content of the agreement.

I heard some bizarre responses from the other side of the House to concerns expressed by parliamentarians seated to the left of the Speaker. I heard members say that complaints about how parliamentarians were kept in the dark were futile and petty because, ultimately, both Conservative and Bloc members intended to vote in favour of the agreement and the implementation bill.

With all due respect, our government colleagues are confusing two very distinct concepts: the ends and the means. Here is an example. Say I have to deliver a package at a specific time. I can leave late, drive 160 km/h on the highway, pass cars, cut them off and run red lights, and still arrive on time with a package in good condition that I can deliver like it is no big deal. I have achieved my end, but the means I employed were questionable at best. On the other hand, I could have left home on time, obeyed speed limits, got lost and backtracked, and even got stuck in traffic before finally arriving late with the package.

In both cases, the quality of the outcome in no way reflects the quality of the means used to achieve it. To make the comparison, one might agree with the contents of the deal and the legislation that it implements, but could still be justified in criticizing how parliamentarians were informed of its contents.

Let me give a very clear example of the situation. Parliamentarians were told repeatedly that it was no big deal that they could not see the contents of the agreement, since it was only meant to be transitional in any case. It was intended to bridge the gap between the previous agreement with the European Union and a new agreement to be renegotiated with the United Kingdom. If parliamentarians could have seen what was in the agreement, they would have noticed the missing sunset clause, in other words a deadline by which the two countries must have signed a final agreement. Such a clause, which would irrefutably confirm that the agreement before us is indeed only transitional, does not exist in the text.

We are required to negotiate within a certain time frame, but not required to reach an agreement within that time frame. It is unacceptable that parliamentarians were left in the dark, that the Standing Committee on International Trade received the text of the agreement the very day it was supposed to submit its report and recommendations on whether or not to approve its content.

The lesson in all this is that future negotiations for a final agreement not only could, but must offer more transparency to parliamentarians and all those who will be affected by the agreement. That was the approach during negotiations of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Members of both the European Union and the provinces were invited to at least express their position and demands in connection with the future agreement.

As far as the actual agreement is concerned, it should be noted that the British had the courtesy to at least admit that the negotiations were conducted a little late, at the last minute, something the Canadian government is still trying to refute.

With regard to the second aspect of my presentation on the issue of Quebec's independence, there is no denying the fearmongering we are subjected to when there are discussions on the future of an independent Quebec and any necessary future negotiations with other countries. The Brexit negotiations could have many similarities with the situation that will prevail right after a successful referendum.

The European Union is a customs union that provides for the free flow of goods and services within Europe with standardized rules for its trade relations with countries outside the EU. Member countries of the European Union do not negotiate directly with non-member countries. The European Union does so on their behalf, in the same way that Canada negotiates its international treaties with other countries instead of the provinces.

If Quebec were to leave Canada, it would do so the same way that the United Kingdom left the European Union. The U.K. withdrew itself from the agreements it held as part of the European Union and is seeking out new agreements as an independent state, relying on transitional agreements in the interim.

In the lead-up to the 1995 referendum, federalists sowed fear that an independent Quebec would be thrust into economic uncertainty and turmoil since, without agreements with other countries, it would undoubtedly sink into a dark hole, a legal vacuum with no trade partners. Federalists made it seem as though markets would start locking Quebec out as soon as the referendum was won and as though Quebec would be immediately removed from any Canadian agreements.

Professor Daniel Turp countered that argument by pointing out that countries party to agreements operate with the presumption of continuity. A new country popping up in the international community would therefore already have a connection to the trade partners of the country from which it seceded, and this would carry through until they negotiated a new agreement. However, at the time, Professor Turp's model applied only to multilateral treaties, in which the newly seceded party would be joining several other existing parties. It was unknown how the model would play out with bilateral trade agreements.

With Brexit, the United Kingdom just completed Professor Turp's analysis exercise regarding trade agreements, not just in theory but in very real and tangible terms. Leaving aside the issues of a lack of transparency and the last-minute work that I talked about at the beginning of my speech, one has to admit that the exercise is going relatively well, all things considered. The interim agreement that is about to be ratified maintains the status quo and ensures that there is no volatility or uncertainty in the trade relationship while the final agreement is being negotiated.

Even though Brexit put a nail in the coffin of the federalist argument that an independent Quebec would experience great economic uncertainty following a winning referendum, it is still interesting to see the extent to which Brexit itself is serving, for some, as a federalist scare tactic when it comes to Quebec's desire to become independent. Former Conservative minister Michael Fortier, who recently became a columnist for La Presse, gave his first article the title of “A Sneak Preview of Quexit”. In his article, Mr. Fortier painted a very sombre picture of the negotiations for the U.K.'s departure from the European Union. He talked about a cursory agreement that was also negotiated at the last minute and that failed to include many essential details, including financial services, that still need to be worked out. Mr. Fortier indicated that the people of Britain still do not really understand what their government negotiated. His article would have us believe that the people of Britain will one day regret voting in favour of Brexit.

I have talked to a number of people who are up on what is happening in the U.K., and I have asked them if they, too, see Brexit as a bad thing and if the British might ultimately come to regret their decision to leave the EU. As a separatist, I found their answer interesting. Financial services, which are one of the United Kingdom's main exports, if not the main export, are not yet governed by a formal agreement, but uncertainty about their future has not caused bankers to flee London and The City in droves, as some catastrophic scenarios predicted.

As for the people who voted yes to Brexit, it would be odd if they came to regret their choice one day because that vote got them what they wanted, and one of the things they wanted was the power to control their borders. That is something Quebec is clearly lacking right now in COVID times.

All the same, Brexit negotiations in general and a future final agreement between Canada and the U.K. in particular will continue to be of interest to parliamentarians. Bloc members will be paying even closer attention to get a sense of what awaits Quebec one day. It is not perfect, but despite its wrinkles, the likely outcome seems much less catastrophic than some predicted. One lesson Quebec can learn from this process is the importance of diligence and transparency.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her well-written and well-thought-out speech. I do not share her view on some of the points he raised, but since we are in the heart of democracy, we must preserve this freedom of speech and differences of points of view.

Since we are talking about free trade and international trade, my colleague's speech reminded me that in 1988, under the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the United States. This achievement opened the door to an extraordinary market, in part thanks to the support of some prominent, career separatists such as Bernard Landry or Jacques Parizeau. The 1988 free trade agreement opened the door to many international agreements. It is therefore important to remember that even if we do not have the same vision for the future of Canada or Quebec, free trade invites a unity that must be preserved.

The member said earlier that a number of federalists were attacking the possibility of an independent Quebec becoming fully empowered and pointing out that independence could cause economic hardship. Does the hon. member recall when former Quebec premier and PQ leader Pauline Marois herself said that Quebec independence could lead to five years of economic turbulence? I am not the one saying so; it was the former PQ premier Pauline Marois.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I remember it well.

I would of course be surprised if someone told me the day after winning a referendum that absolutely nothing would change, that it would be as if the vote never happened and that no negotiations were needed. After all, if we want to make an omelette we have to break a few eggs.

However, I think it would be a case of just minor economic disruptions, not catastrophic scenarios like those that are raised in the context of Brexit. The City was supposed to lose 75,000 bankers, but only 7,500 ended up leaving, so just 2% of the 400,000 who work in that business sector. The British people are only 29 days into their country's exit from the European Union, and some people are already talking about the end of the British Empire. I would prefer to avoid those kinds of catastrophic scenarios.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of the sentiments raised by my Conservative colleague in his question, and I want to pick up on the discussion between him and our hon. colleague who spoke a few minutes ago.

She at least seems to be acknowledging that there would be some disruption. She said it would be minor. As the Conservative member pointed out, other people say it would perhaps be more than that: five years' worth of disruption.

Can she define what she would consider to be minor? What is acceptable? What is an acceptable level of economic disruption for Quebec to seek, as she is saying, that form of independence? What would be an acceptable amount? Rather than just saying “minor”, I would like her to quantify that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to give an answer in just 30 seconds.

I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the vagaries of the economy and the secession of Quebec from Canada should not be assessed in terms of the GDP alone. There are many other issues that must be taken into consideration such as border control and, as my colleague mentioned yesterday, supply management, which successive Conservatives and Liberal governments have weakened.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along these lines. We have been talking about the issues that an independent Quebec would face, but what about all the issues that Canada currently does not address in international agreements to the detriment of Quebec?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again take this opportunity to mention supply management, the jewel in our crown, which should ensure that agriculture is not negotiable in the different trade agreements.

We hope that is also the case for culture and certain services. Once it becomes independent after a successful referendum, Quebec will be able to have its way in future international negotiations.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me today.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, or TCA.

I want to recognize that I am speaking from the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

I have many points that I want to make about the TCA, and I will begin by saying that it is time to demand fairness for the 150,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. During these trade negotiations, we must not forget about them.

U.K. pensioners in other countries, including the U.S., receive annual rate increases tied to the rate of inflation. U.K. pensioners in Canada do not. This is unacceptable. We end up providing financial support to U.K. pensioners because of this discriminatory policy. Meanwhile, Canadian pensioners living in the U.K. receive annual rate increases. We need to demand the same for U.K. pensioners, and now is the time to do it.

The Green Party supports fair and equitable international trade. We want to ensure that trade agreements have enforcement provisions to protect indigenous rights and workers' rights, as well as consumer, health and environmental standards.

We are opposed to any agreement that contains investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, provisions. Trade agreements should not be corporate rights agreements in disguise. We oppose a regulatory race to the bottom. We want to ensure that people and the planet are put before corporate profits. That is the kind of fair trade we support.

In February 2020, during the debate on CUSMA, the government made a commitment to be transparent and provide adequate support and notice for all new trade agreements. The government did not fulfill that commitment with this agreement.

For decades, there have been demands for increased transparency on how trade agreements are negotiated. I have followed trade agreement debates for many years, and it does not matter which party is in power. The opposition always complains that there is not enough transparency in the negotiations. That is why I tabled a private member's bill: the trade and foreign investment agreements transparency act, which is modelled on the European Union's process of transparent trade negotiations. The purpose of the proposed act is to create a transparent consultation and assessment process to ensure that Canada's trade, and foreign investment agreements, reflect the values and interests of Canada as a whole; take into account the perspectives of various groups, including local communities, civil society organizations and indigenous peoples; promote sustainable development and respect for the environment, and adhere to the principles of economic fairness, social justice and internationally recognized human rights. We need this kind of legislation in Canada to ensure a transparent process.

The TCA is a transitional trade agreement that replicates the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. The TCA has no end date or sunset clause. If negotiations for this new agreement fail, the TCA could become permanent and bring the worst parts of CETA into our new trade relationship with the U.K. This is not something we can allow to happen. The stakeholder consultations that occurred for the TCA are completely inadequate for a permanent agreement.

The international trade and investment agreements that Canada has signed affect all Canadians, all Canadian businesses and all levels of government. They affect how we govern ourselves all the way down to the local level. This is especially true of CETA, and now the Canada-U.K. TCA.

The rules of CETA have the potential to affect public procurement at all levels of government. For projects above a certain budget level, CETA prohibits favouring local bids, applying local content or hiring quotas, or setting aside contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises or minority-owned businesses. CETA could affect indigenous rights and indigenous control over traditional lands when those lands are targeted by foreign resource extraction companies. Public services supplied on a commercial basis are automatically included under CETA unless they have been expressly excluded, which limits the government's ability to regulate foreign service providers. If the government wants to provide public services or return a previously privatized service to the public sector, it will be open to challenges from foreign investors.

Canada's free trade agreements have hollowed out our manufacturing base. We focus on ripping and shipping raw resources, such as bitumen, logs and minerals, instead of prioritizing value-added domestic manufacturing and using our resources to maximize employment and diversify our economy.

We are vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity prices for raw resources. The downturn in oil prices and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline are both perfect examples of this vulnerability.

Canada's trade deficit with the EU has increased under CETA. EU companies have an easier time exporting to Canada than Canadian companies have exporting to the EU. A 2019 study shows that the only exports to the EU that have increased are fossil fuels and raw minerals, so CETA hurts value-added industries and benefits rip-and-ship resource extraction.

Canada made major concessions on intellectual property that hurt our pharmaceutical industry. Under CETA, Canada was forced to give drug companies patent extensions for innovative drugs. The EU was not bound by the same rules.

How has CETA helped us procure vaccines for COVID-19? The EU is threatening to block exports of vaccines to Canada until it has enough supply for its own citizens. If we still had a robust pharmaceutical industry in Canada, we would not be in this position.

Canada is one of the most open countries for trade and foreign direct investment. There have been more investor-state challenges against Canada than against any other country in the OECD. This is not a record to brag about. We give far too much power to foreign investors. Foreign investment is destroying home affordability. Foreign investment in long-term care homes has resulted in seniors living in horrendous conditions. Foreign investors have ripped and shipped resources from this country and left an environmental mess for taxpayers to clean up.

The ISDS provisions in CETA have been suspended for three years with the TCA. Why were these provisions not completely removed? Do we not trust our justice systems to make fair rulings when corporations feel they are being treated unfairly? There is no justification for a private tribunal system to deal with trade disputes between our two countries. The TCA actually states that if we have not agreed to new investor-state provisions in three years, then the CETA ISDS rules apply. We need to remove ISDS permanently from this agreement and from all of our trade agreements.

The pandemic has made it clear that we need to support our local supply chains. We have seen how the hollowing out of our manufacturing base and the offshoring of jobs has left us short on personal protective equipment. The Greens are particularly concerned about protecting our food supply chain. This makes sense for food security and also makes sense for lowering the carbon footprint of the food we consume. Canada has vast areas of farmland and is a net exporter of food, but we have become too specialized and too dependent on imports of food that can be produced right here.

Since CETA, a provisional agreement, came into force, the agricultural sector has lost 10% of its exports to Europe, while imports from the EU have increased by 10%. The CETA, along with other trade agreements, has undermined our supply management system, which provides stability for farmers. We need enforceable labour and environmental standards in trade agreements. The labour provisions in CETA are not enforceable, and the compliance mechanism is non-binding. The environmental provisions are weak, with no concrete obligations.

The CETA does not protect regulations to address climate change, and leaves climate action on the part of the government subject to investor challenges through the ISDS provisions. This is unacceptable to the Green Party. We would hate to see the U.K.’s climate accountability laws attacked by Canadian corporations using ISDS provisions.

Since 2008, the U.K. has had a real climate accountability law, with five-year increments set to carbon budgets. The U.K. has currently reduced greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, with a target to be 69% below 1990 levels by 2030. Pathetically, Canada has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% above 1990 levels. This is one area where I would love to see Canada adopt U.K. standards.

In closing, CETA was disappointing and so is the Canada-U.K. TCA. Canadian governments need to do a better job of putting the interests of Canadians ahead of large corporations.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a lot of great claims about issues that I think are very important. We should be listening to them.

I want to highlight something regarding pensions. Some people from the U.K. who came to Canada are collecting U.K. pensions. They will not get any of the increases that those in the U.K. get, yet Canadians living in the U.K. will get them. This could be very costly to Canada, as we are actually subsidizing people from the U.K. through some of our programs because of low rates that are not keeping up with the cost of inflation.

Does the hon. member agree that this should be looked into and that the government should be taking a serious approach to it? This is not free trade at all. This has to be looked into.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Hamilton Mountain. This is an egregious situation for pensioners in Canada who are not getting indexed increases to their pensions. This has to stop, and the government needs to take this opportunity, when it is negotiating a trade agreement with the U.K., to make sure this ends.

The U.S. allows indexing. It has an agreement with the U.K. for indexed increases, as well as a with a whole bunch of other countries, but here we are, a Commonwealth country, being abused by the U.K. Where is the allyship in that? It needs to end.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party needs to acknowledge that Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. It is critical to our economy and supporting our middle class. The number of trade agreements we have achieved in the last five years is significant. At the same time, our employment prior to the pandemic grew by well over one million people, most of whom are full time.

The Green Party is always in opposition to all trade agreements. Can the member indicate any trade agreement that the Green Party has ever supported? Why does the Green Party not recognize the true value of trade and how Canada has benefited by it over the years? That is a reality.