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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the member of Parliament for Langley—Aldergrove. I hope I am serving his previous place of work well. I commend him for his public service as well.

I take that point very seriously and not just with respect to other English-speaking places with Commonwealth traits, although that obviously helps because our legal systems are very similar in the Commonwealth, including India, New Zealand and Australia. There are opportunities to grow our trade with those countries, and many in Africa, based on our similarities rather than our differences. That is key. Our government will always strive to create fair, responsible trade and open up markets for Canadians wherever we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, the agreement is important and it needs to be signed. We all agree on that.

I would like to ask my colleague how we could improve elected members' participation in the negotiation process for these agreements, so that they are not presented with a fait accompli. My colleague is a member of the government and might be able to enlighten us on that.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had the good fortune of being on the trade committee this year when it was hearing from Mr. Verheul and other trade negotiators for Canada.

In this case, it is a transitional agreement, so there is really not much new to it. It is really protecting what has already been debated in the House and existed previously with CETA. It is basically cutting and pasting that agreement and making sure there are legal compatibilities for the two countries to adhere to.

I think trade is one of those things that are very difficult to negotiate in a public forum when dealing with foreign countries, but there are very good ways in the future to create transparency where perhaps people from the trade committee or the trade critics of the opposition parties might be brought in to look at those trade deals to see if there are comments or suggestions they want to make before the trade agreements are negotiated. To some degree, transparency as a principle is always great, but as a practicality, when one is negotiating with other countries, it might be a lot more difficult than we think.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear on where the Liberals stand anymore. Maybe I was not clear before.

I would like to hear some clarification from the hon. member. He was talking about the amazing wonders of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, yet we had the Minister of International Trade work really hard to make sure that ISDS and ICS, which are ultimately the same thing, made it into CETA. Then she negotiated in CUSMA the removal of ISDS, and we heard what an incredible contribution that was to that trade agreement.

Therefore, it is very confusing to me where the Liberals stand, but that is usually the case. I wonder if the member could clarify the back and forth, and why they keep flip-flopping on this issue.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investor-state dispute mechanism and principle is, in my own opinion, actually a really great initiative. However, when they handicap governments for the purpose of just simply trade or their own personal interests, or they inhibit them from creating environmental laws or labour standards, that is where the challenge is. Many times, states have used the opposite to inhibit trade so that they can give advantage to local trade. That is where that challenge has been.

It is one of those things that has grown. As we have relationships with countries like the U.S. where we have had free trade for a long time, we have seen some of the negatives of perhaps the investor-state dispute settlement system. There has been a cry from the public, as well as industry, not to have it. In other cases, such as starting fresh with CETA being new or when we are doing new trade agreements, it is sometimes very important to have those benchmarks and those safeguards to ensure that it works well.

One of the reasons we are working with the U.K. to see where we can reduce this or change that is because the legal systems in the U.K. and Canada are very similar. Therefore, we are safeguarded. This is in opposition with the European Union, where it is a cosmopolitan mix of different frameworks and, therefore, we need more protective measures for when our investors go and invest in that space.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, that the motion be adopted on division or, for that matter, that it be carried, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote on this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 9, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-18.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this has happened for a second time. I thought my vote had counted last time, but now I just received notice that my vote did not count. I would have voted yea in the last vote, and I am voting yea in this one. I am not sure if I followed all the instructions.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We will count the member's vote on this one.