International Trade Committee on Nov. 21st, 2023

[Stuart Trew]

Thank you again.

My thoughts are that there's nothing stopping the government from doing that, from putting any kind of chapter it wants in there—maybe through a committee as we've done in recent agreements on critical minerals and other aspects. There are a lot of things that could be done to put energy security into the treaty, even at this point.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Trew.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Fortier, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today to support us in our study of this bill.

Mr. Charlebois, your remarks are contributing a great deal to this study. You've previously said that, in invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin was using food as a weapon, and, again today, Ukraine was generally described as one of the breadbaskets of the world, and of Europe.

I'd like us to talk a little more about how Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine has affected food prices and food insecurity globally. You made three recommendations, and I'd like you to tell us a little more about the measures that need to be taken to implement them. What would you do to achieve that?

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Fortier.

The invasion has definitely had appalling consequences for agri-food markets. Russia still influences the markets, particularly for wheat. It's now selling wheat at low prices to undermine exports from Canada and the United States. So its influence is quite significant, and that will continue for some time. Food is still being used as a weapon several months after the invasion, and that's why we mustn't take the situation lightly and look ahead to reconstruction.

Furthermore, from what I've been hearing since earlier, people seem to believe there will be an end to this war. I'm not so sure about that. You have to think about developing an economy in wartime because, even if you want peace, there's no guarantee you'll get it. You have to think about developing the market, and the recommendations I've made today will help move the situation in that direction.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much.

My next question concerns climate change. We know it presents a threat to Canada's agricultural sector and the entire world.

Do you think that the risk will increase if no steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to fight climate change and to ensure, going forward, that businesses in all sectors contribute to reducing those emissions.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

That's a good question, Ms. Fortier.

We do have to act. Most businesses in the agri-food industry acknowledge that climate change is the greatest threat to the sector.

We also have to consider the various tools at our disposal, including carbon capture and storage. That technology was developed in Canada, particularly in western Canada. It's a tool that could help Ukraine decarbonize its economy, for example, especially in the agri-food sector.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

Canada continues to play a real role in decarbonizing our economy, which is quickly becoming a global priority.

Does the inclusion of environmental considerations in free trade agreements, such as the one we're discussing today, have an impact on decarbonization efforts around the world?

Would you also please tell us about specific solutions that Canada could contribute to strengthen the agreement based on its expertise?

You've discussed supply chain technologies and innovations in particular. Do you have any other suggestions?

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

I'm thinking of genetic engineering, for example. A lot of work is being done in that field in Canada. We innovate extensively for ourselves, but we should also do it for other countries. Once again, in the context of today's discussion, we have to think about Ukraine. International trade can definitely create a larger carbon footprint. So we have to pay attention to that aspect of the situation.

Twenty-seven countries around the world have a carbon tax. However, we don't really know if that approach is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we have to be very cautious and refrain from imposing our aspirations as a rich country, which you have to admit we are, on countries that have suffered greatly.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fortier.

We go now to Monsieur Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Vaillancourt and Mr. Trew, my next question is for you.

We've discussed the environment chapter and, more broadly, those concerning workers rights, for example, but the government has boasted about one chapter in particular. One chapter of the bill contains measures respecting responsible corporate behaviour, but they're voluntary measures, and nothing else is proposed, even though they're based on internationally recognized principles.

Instead don't you think we should have considered establishing more authoritative bodies that would be able to monitor those measures to ensure they're actually implemented?

[Claude Vaillancourt]

Thank you for your question.

The answer is, yes, that should have been done.

The free trade agreements signed to date have a dark past regarding labour and the environment.

With regard to labour, competition from workers in all countries has had a remarkable impact on working conditions. Consequently, measures really need to be taken to improve workers' rights and to make those measures binding, something that will require much more than good intentions.

However, the labour chapters in previous free trade agreements are full of good intentions but provide for absolutely nothing that might achieve actual results in this area. That's clearly unsatisfactory.

As for the environment, we know that this issue absolutely is not a concern in free trade agreements. On the other hand, most of the measures concerning tribunal proceedings, which are addressed in the chapters on the investor-state dispute settlement process, concern environmental issues. That tells you just how much more importance is attached to business interests than to environmental protection.

Furthermore, an interesting about-face has been made in the 2023 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which provides, for example, that the parties will contribute to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement, which is very important.

However, I believe we can go much further on this subject if we adopt a vision in which the environment is considered an absolute priority.

When it comes to global warming, we're really talking about the future of the planet. From one report on the subject to the next, we can see just how destructive failure on this issue may be. It all has a price. Consequently, it's very important to make the measures in free trade agreements binding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry but your time is up, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to turn to Monsieur Charlebois.

You talked about one of your recommendations being to have a comprehensive market-access strategy. I'm wondering if this might include a situation such as we got with CETA, when, in our negotiations, we gave up increased access to our supply-managed sectors and in return got more quota for things like beef and pork, but in reality what has happened is that we've exported almost no beef and pork to Europe because of non-tariff barriers.

I'm wondering if this comprehensive market-access strategy would address that and whether we need a bilateral agency just to keep communications open to address these matters.

How would you respond to that?

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

Obviously, when it comes to agri-food trades, there is always a slew of sensitivities between nations. All nations will be protective of some commodities in some way.

I think we need to look at different verticals in different ways, including the SM5. I think there are certainly issues there.

Over time I think with Ukraine I do see more exchanges related to IP, for example, and technologies in general, not necessarily just commodities per se. It is a faraway nation, but there are some interesting links that could be built. However, we would need to look at the entire sector in a strategic manner before making any sort of commitment at this point.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll leave it there.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Seeback, go ahead.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We've often talked about what's in this agreement. Conservatives have often talked about what's not in the agreement. Governments have a choice to make. They can put certain things in the agreement, and they can put other things not in the agreement. For example, we've talked about LNG, and people have said that's not normally in an agreement. When we talk about the carbon pricing, that's never been in a Canadian trade agreement, ever, in the history of Canadian trade agreements.

You can actually put things in trade agreements that you don't normally put in. Otherwise, how would you put a carbon tax in a trade agreement for the first time?

With that in mind, I'm just going to ask anyone this: If you've looked at the trade agreement, have you seen any language there that deals with munitions exports to Ukraine to help them during the war, or munitions production? It's okay if no one knows the answer to that. It's one of those questions I know the answer to.

[Stuart Trew]

If I can answer briefly, usually munitions, armaments and defence matters are excluded from coverage in these agreements. Nothing would discourage the sale of munitions, but they would generally be policy-related. Then they'd be excluded, yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I'm now going to move a motion. I've given a copy of the motion to the clerk. Could the clerk distribute that motion now?

I'm going to move:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, to expand the scope of the study of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

Madam Chair, as we have heard throughout the prestudy of this legislation, the government has choices to make on what it includes in trade agreements.

As I was saying in my question, you can add things into trade agreements that we've never seen before. For example, in this trade agreement, there are references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. There are references to the United Nations sustainable development goals. These are things that have never been put into a trade agreement between Canada and any of its trading partners.

Obviously, the government gets to make choices. The government can say that it is going to have this new type of trade agreement and that it's going to put certain things into this trade agreement that have never been put into a trade agreement before.

If you're doing that, Madam Chair, then you actually have the ability to put other things into a trade agreement that you've never put into a trade agreement. You can't have one or the other. If you're putting new things in, you can put other new things in.

What we've heard repeatedly at this committee from witnesses is that there are things that could have been included in this trade agreement that would have been beneficial to Ukraine during this time of war. For example, we've talked about LNG. Ukraine has the third-largest proven LNG reserves in Europe. The further development of those could certainly defund Putin's war machine.

Conservatives think that should absolutely have been included in the trade agreement. If you're including some things in a trade agreement, like carbon pricing and carbon leakage, you can include other things in a trade agreement, like the development of LNG reserves.

This government made a clear choice to put carbon taxes and carbon leakage into a trade agreement for a country in the middle of a war, as opposed to putting in something that could actually help them in the war, which is LNG development or—and I now turn to my motion—expanded munitions production in Canada and increased munitions exports to Ukraine.

In the course of this war, an incredible quantity of munitions is being expended by Ukraine in the defence of its country—a valiant defence, I might add. No one thought Ukraine would be able to stop the second-largest military in the world. They've done it heroically and they've done it with the challenge of having enough artillery munitions and other munitions to defend their country and in fact perform counterattacks.

Therefore, I say we should take the time at this committee to expand the scope of what we're doing to include not just.... I'm not going to go down the road of LNG, energy co-operation and other things which, quite frankly, I think we should expand the scope to look at. I'm going to narrowly focus this motion today on munitions production in Canada. We should be increasing munitions production so that we can export to Ukraine and increase those exports. We should also be thinking about how we could help Ukraine itself increase its munitions production.

I think this is something we should be doing at the committee. We should expand the scope of what we're studying to add things like this into our study.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at the trade committee on this important motion to support our allies in Ukraine in their fight for freedom and victory, which undertakes to allow amendments to this bill that would support the expansion of munitions exports to Ukraine.

When it comes to discussions about Ukraine, we see a lot of instances of what has come to be called “performative allyship”—people wanting to show they're on Ukraine's side but not actually focusing on the things Ukraine needs most. Ukrainians are not asking for a carbon tax. Ukrainians are asking for weapons. Ukraine needs to win this war. That means they need the munitions and equipment that, in many cases, Canada could make available, in order to allow them to secure victory.

There is nothing currently in Bill C-57 that deals with munitions exports. Conservatives are preparing substantial, serious amendments to this legislation that would make the sale of vital munitions to Ukraine much easier. This would have a concrete impact in terms of helping the Ukrainian people win this war. Again, we need to put aside the performative allyship and focus instead on the things Ukraine really needs, which are weapons, munitions and materiel that will concretely allow them to achieve victory as soon as possible.

I would like to see the same review standards for arms exports that apply to our existing NATO partners applied to Ukraine. This is currently not the case. There are different review standards subject to so-called “open-policy” countries—easier review standards than those applied to Ukraine. We should be applying as little red tape as possible to munitions exports to Ukraine, so weapons get there as quickly as possible. We can be supplying surplus military equipment that we're not using here in Canada to Ukraine and, in the process, use this as an opportunity to modernize our own equipment.

We should be encouraging EDC and BDC to support efforts by Canadian defence manufacturers to partner with Ukraine's defence industry. We should be making long-term commitments to defence productions that will allow us not only to develop the munitions vital for our own security here but also to support Ukraine.

Let's focus on victory for Ukraine. Victory for Ukraine means weapons. It means munitions. It means helping Ukraine get the equipment it needs. This motion would allow us to expand the scope of amendments that can be made to Bill C-57, so we can include that critical content around munitions development and exports to help Ukraine win the war.

This is what matters for Ukraine. This is where the rubber hits the road. This will be an important test if the committee is prepared to focus on meeting Ukraine's needs instead of simply using a trade deal to talk about the carbon tax. Let's focus on what Ukraine really needs, which is urgently getting munitions in the hands of the Ukrainian people, so they can effectively continue to defend themselves.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

We will go to Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

While the intention to expand munitions production in Canada so we can provide them to Ukraine in its immediate need is good, it is not part of the free trade agreement that this bill is envisioning, which has a very long-term impact. To change a bill that has already come to this late stage in order to solve immediate needs is not recommended.

I'm not in favour of this motion.