Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about the proposed trade agreement with Indonesia. Indeed, everyone is talking about diversifying markets and partners these days. There is a lot of talk about this. It is an idea that has become quite popular just in the past year. I wonder why that is.
We are in favour of free trade, but not at any cost. I will come back to that shortly as I dissect the agreement. It is like how people are always talking about returning to a rules-based international order. Rules are all well and good. We need rules. We cannot live in total chaos. However, it always depends on what rule we are talking about. Not every rule is legitimate in its own right either.
The same goes for free trade. It is an economic principle that, when properly defined, applied and regulated, can have very positive outcomes, particularly for a small economy like Quebec's. It allows Quebec to become part of a large market and to have access to many partners.
However, it is important to be mindful of certain types of free trade agreements, like the ones signed in the 1990s, which grew at lightning speed during the glory years of globalization, if we may call it that, during most of the aggressive years of neo-liberalism. During that time, free trade was incorrectly taken to mean regulatory agreements that imposed the sovereignty of multinationals on specific communities and states. I will come back to that shortly.
I want to start with some positive remarks about this agreement. As the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, I am delighted by what is in this agreement. The city of Saint‑Hyacinthe is the agri-food processing capital of Canada. Of course, the rest of the riding, like the Maskoutains and Acton regions, are highly agricultural as well. I am pleased to see that this agreement will be good for our farmers. The agreement talks a lot about grain. It will be excellent for that.
I am also pleased that I managed to get two amendments adopted. In fact, the only two amendments to the agreement implementation bill were mine. I used exactly the same formula that I got adopted a few years ago in the agreement with Ukraine. The minister responsible for the agreement must submit an annual report on the human rights situation in the partner country and the conduct of Canadian companies there, so that we can get a yearly update. That is one of the two amendments.
I also had the other amendment adopted in relation to the agreement with the United Kingdom. We will discuss this again tomorrow. This amendment provides for a three-year review to ensure that, if we commit to something like this, we can re-examine it. I think it is quite reasonable to put the agreement on the table after three years, carefully review it and look at the results. That seems quite reasonable to me.
That is known as sweetening the pill. Now let us talk about the less attractive aspects of this agreement. Unfortunately, it is an agreement from another era. Honestly, I do not understand why Canada, which always claims to be a progressive country, continues to sign and negotiate such agreements.
Let us start with the process. We are accustomed to this, because this is a monarchy and, once again, there is no transparency with regard to parliamentarians and the provinces. This agreement is completely opaque, as are all such negotiations. We often hear from senior officials and negotiators who say that they have spoken with their Quebec counterparts. Forgive me for doubting that there was any real consultation. Forgive me for thinking that it is more of a fait accompli. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Canadian Constitution that says that, if a province is against the implementation of an agreement, then it can withdraw from that agreement. There is nothing comparable to Belgian federalism, for example, where if one region of Belgium opposes something in an agreement, then the entire country does not sign it. That is true federalism that respects its member regions. We have nothing like that here.
There is also nothing that allows a province to say that it will send its own negotiators and representatives to negotiating tables abroad, because it wants to have a distinct voice and make its voice heard in such discussions. There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution that guarantees that, either.
Of course, transparency is just as elusive for parliamentarians. We are parliamentarians. We are elected by the people through a democratic process. We have constituents, people who give us a mandate to stand up for certain positions, values and interests. Why, then, are we kept out of the loop and given so little say in something as important as agreements with other countries?
On the surface, these agreements seem highly complex. In reality, their effects are anything but abstract; their impact on daily life is highly palpable. Why are we kept so far out of the loop?
In many other approaches used around the world, the opposite happens: Parliamentarians are involved, they take part in debates early in the process during which their thoughts on the issues are sought out even before the negotiators are called in. These parliamentarians are asked whether they want certain things to be pushed for and whether they are flexible on certain mattters. Nothing like that happens in Canada.
What happens here is so different that it reaches absurd levels. I have been a member of the committee since 2019, and we have even been asked to study an agreement without having the text in front of us. That shows just how much of a joke Canada is when it comes to trade negotiations. The shocking lack of transparency is nothing but a big monarchical joke.
Furthermore, there is no law requiring a minimum waiting period. Agreements can be thousands of pages long and written in complex legal language, and there is no law or obligation requiring a fixed waiting period between the time the agreement is announced and the time it is presented to Parliament. Theoretically, this could happen the very next day, when absolutely no one would have had time to read the agreement, analyze it and understand its ins and outs. We know that the devil is often in the details. The devil is often in the misplaced commas in a bill.
The problem is that the agreement has already been signed. We have no say in the matter. Then we debate a bill to implement the agreement. We debate a bill to implement the agreement, not the agreement itself, so we cannot change or amend anything. When I propose amendments to such bills, one of the first things the committee chair tells me is that the amendments are inadmissible because they would alter the intent of the bill or because they would incur additional costs that were not initially provided for in the bill. I find it extremely unfortunate and detrimental that there is not more consideration for the democratic power of parliaments when it comes to debating something as important as this.
Now, let us talk about the substance of the agreement. This agreement is problematic on several levels. First, there is the issue of investor-state dispute settlement. Again, I do not understand. Canada loses a lot of lawsuits and a lot of money. There is a case currently under way because Quebec abandoned the GNL Québec project in Saguenay. As a result, we are being sued by the American company. How is it that Canada is still signing agreements that allow this to happen?
These clauses began to gain popularity with the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, but they are no longer part of North American free trade. Even the agreement that brought this into being on a global scale no longer includes it.
However, Canada's official position is still that it supports the right of multinationals to take governments to court if laws, measures or policies adopted by said government could harm a foreign investor's profits. It is that right to profit that elevates multinationals to the status of sovereign powers.
This can happen if, for example, a country decides to adopt health measures related to the environment and public property. Mexico was sued for taxing soft drinks. Australia was sued for placing restrictions on smoking. One country in the Middle East, I think it was Egypt, raised the minimum wage and was sued by a multinational corporation. Why is Ottawa still signing agreements that allow this?
The UN has published reports on this. One came from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, or UNCTAD. It is a bit dated. I think it was published in 2013.
It shows that, in 60% of cases, multinationals managed to thwart the democratic will of governments either entirely, by winning lawsuits against the state, or partially, by settling out of court.
Canada supports a complete surrender of political sovereignty every time it negotiates and pushes for investor-state dispute settlement, which is an unfair, outrageous and undemocratic mechanism. I gladly voted against that clause in the bill implementing the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement when we studied it at the Standing Committee on International Trade. In the end, I did not vote against the agreement. We passed it. I was the one who asked for it to be passed on division, but I still voted against that clause of the bill.
The other issue is human rights. Indonesia is not a model country in this regard, particularly when it comes to workers' rights. We know that there are certain regions where there is violence, where there are warlords, where there is a lot of unrest. I introduced Bill C-251, which is modelled on the American system, which works. The Canadian model does not work when it comes to screening out goods produced by forced labour. All in all, Canada has seized and kept about five shipments, if I am not mistaken. There were others that were seized but later released in most cases. Some were returned to the importer.
In some cases, shipments rejected at the U.S. border because the Americans suspect they contain products made with forced labour are simply sent to Canada afterwards. Canada stupidly takes them in. It is that easy. That is Canada's reputation. That is a serious problem, is it not? My esteemed colleagues are so right to be proud when they sing the national anthem on Wednesdays. There is a reason I do not enter the House at that time. That is Canada's reputation. It is tough.
Canada is unable to come up with a proper model, but all we have to do is copy the model of our neighbour to the south, which works. That would also help the Americans trust us more on this matter. Of course, a free trade agreement and lower tariffs on foreign products mean that more products will be coming in. In the case of the United Kingdom, which we will be talking about tomorrow, I am not too worried about forced labour. In the case of Indonesia, however, I am more worried. However, the agreement remains silent on this issue.
It is also silent on the environment. We heard from the Minister of International Trade, who said there was a chapter on the environment. Yes, there is a chapter, but it contains no principles, no mechanisms or rules, nothing binding, nothing meaty. The minister told us that it would open up a conversation on the environment as it relates to trade. I ran out of time, but I would have liked to ask him what happened with previous agreements that included chapters on the environment. What conversation followed? Were there additional results? If we take the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement from six years ago, or the agreement with Ukraine from two years ago, was there any follow-up on them? It is all fine and good to say that there is a chapter on the environment, but what purpose does it serve?
In the case of Indonesia and Canada, we know that Canada is going to send its problematic products, its toxic products, to parts of the world like Indonesia allegedly for “recycling”. Some people may say that having some parts of the world generate wealth this way is normal, that these countries increase their GDP by taking care of toxic waste, for example. However, although these countries might see an immediate rise in their GDP, the hidden costs are troubling, quite apart from the environmental aspect. We need only consider water tables. Workers who handle this waste will end up with health problems. These countries pay an economic cost, especially in relation to their health care systems. These workers are going to need care. Something will have to be done with them. Water tables will have to be decontaminated. Sending them potentially toxic waste and products for recycling does nothing for these countries. I am also talking about plastic waste, since Canada's plastic waste is sent to Indonesia.
I will now address the specific case of Canadian mining companies, particularly Baru Gold, a so-called Canadian mining company. I say “so-called” because Canada and its mining companies have a lackluster reputation.
I went to Colombia and Chile and heard stories of private security firms shooting people at point-blank range and stories of people being evicted. Projects are being promised to the people there. Companies get support at first because they promise jobs, but in the end, they bring in their own workers and do not even hire locals. I have heard of cases of air pollution and water poisoning.
For example, Baru Gold mines for gold on Sangihe Island in Indonesia. I mentioned Canadian mining companies earlier, but whether it is accurate to call them that is open to debate, because Canada is a flag of convenience. More than half of the world's mining companies are Canadian. That alone should set off alarm bells. All a company needs is a post office box in Canada to claim to be Canadian. This allows these companies to benefit from the Toronto Stock Exchange. It allows them to enjoy tax benefits, speculative advantages and more. There are no consequences whatsoever.
If the Indonesian government tells a company that it is not interested in this Canadian mining project, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, that I was talking about earlier would suddenly allow the company to sue Indonesia. That is what Canada is supporting. This so-called human rights leader is supporting that through the ISDS mechanism.
My colleagues might argue that there is an ombudsperson. The ombudsperson can receive complaints if a mining company or any Canadian company behaves badly abroad. It is a joke, and the ombudsperson position has been vacant for a year anyway. Nobody has occupied this position for a year. The ombudsperson does not even have the power to call witnesses as part of the investigations. The ombudsperson does not have the power to compel the production of documents as part of the investigations. That does not look good. It is simply an empty shell that the Trudeau government decided to create to partially appease the civil society groups that were advocating for some form of accountability for companies abroad. It is useless because it is an empty shell.
In any case, since the position has been vacant for a year, I would not be surprised to see this government abolish it in the near future. I do not want that, because even though it does not amount to much, it is better to have something than nothing.
This is also the same government that shirked its obligation to introduce a bill on forced labour by the end of the year. This was a promise it made in the March 2023 and March 2024 budgets. Those two years have come and gone, and we have not seen this bill, nor was it mentioned at all in the 2025 budget. After breaking the promise for two years in a row, the government simply stopped making it. I have to say, the Chinese are going to love that, so there is that, too. That must have been the reason. That explains it. I would not be surprised if it were dropped entirely.
To wrap up my speech, I would say yes to free trade, yes to trade in general. However, I still find it extremely sad to see Canada continue to negotiate agreements that are outdated, that do not include any human rights or environmental obligations and that continue to elevate multinational corporations to the status of sovereign powers. This is unworthy of a country that claims to be progressive and a champion of human rights.
Diversification, however necessary it may be, does not excuse everything. I hope the situation will soon be rectified.
