House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ukraine.
Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member opposite. Let me assure him that we will work to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and proper treatment.
I would encourage members of the House, if there is an incident that they become aware of that causes them concern, to bring it to our attention. Obviously, a number of these issues are emerging. We will take a look at the situation. We will be happy to get back to the member. Again, I appreciate him bringing it to our attention.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the Prime Minister will do about it: not a thing.
This morning, against the backdrop of the Prime Minister's upcoming visit to Washington, Agropur expressed concern that our dairy producers could be used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Donald Trump. The co-operative has every reason to be concerned.
The government has been in power for over a year, but it has not settled any of these issues with the United States. Its strategy for defending our interests boils down to this: do nothing. Do nothing about diafiltered milk. Do nothing about softwood lumber.
Can the government confirm that it will keep doing what it has been doing since the start to protect us, in other words, nothing?
Andrew Leslie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)
Mr. Speaker, rest assured that our government will continue to stand up for Quebec farmers and producers and their families.
Our government will always protect the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers, their jobs, and our products. We will staunchly defend our national economic interests, and we will continue to promote Canadian values.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, an anti-democracy trial is being held in Spain.
Artur Mas, the former Catalan prime minister, could face a 10-year ban on holding public office for holding a referendum on independence, and the speaker of Catalan's parliament, Carme Forcadell, faces charges for allowing the parliament to vote on this issue. They are guilty of allowing debate.
Will the federal government remind the Spanish government that all peoples, including the Catalan people, have the right to self-determination and that it considers this political trial against Catalan separatists to be unacceptable?
Matt DeCourcey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
As in any situation, our officials are in contact with their counterparts around the world. This government remains firm in its position that we must promote human rights around the world and we make that known in every one of our conversations with our international counterparts.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The climate change accord was signed this past December by Nunavut's premier, Peter Taptuna. As a territory, Nunavut relies heavily on carbon fuel for air transportation and is 100% reliant on diesel energy. In addition, it is no secret that Nunavut has the highest cost of living, unemployment, and poverty in the country.
In recognition of Nunavut's unique circumstances, will the minister ensure that carbon pricing will not increase the cost of living for Nunavummiut and work with the territory to ensure cost neutrality?
Catherine McKenna LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Nunavut for his question and for his advocacy on behalf of Nunavummiut.
The Prime Minister was in Iqaluit this week. Our government is very committed to working with the Government of Nunavut to ensure we tackle climate change. In no place have we seen greater impacts of climate change than in the north, where hunters are falling through the ice because they can no longer tell the thickness.
We need to be doing more. We are committed to working with the government in pricing pollution to ensure that all revenues are returned to the Government of Nunavut, and that we design a solution that works for the people of the north.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we conclude question period for today, I would just like to remind all hon. members of the conventions we use in the House pertaining to directing members' questions, comments, and or remarks to the Chair.
This is a long-established convention that we use in the House and it avoids hon. members getting to the point of expressing their comments in the second person; that is to say using the word “you” and directing comments directly across the aisle. This helps to keep the comportment of the chamber on track. Let us say that there is enough controversy at times that we do not need to use those extra measures to provoke disorder in the House.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to offer the House an apology. During my question to the Minister of Justice, my iPad was in front of me, which has an “I support the oil sands” sticker. It was not meant as a prop, and I apologize to the House.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I thank the hon. member for his notice to the House in that regard. For the benefit of all other members, props are prohibited in the House for that purpose.
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report to the Canadian section of the ParlAmericas respecting its participation at the 41st board of directors meeting at the 13th plenary assembly of the ParlAmericas held in Mexico City, Mexico, from December 5 to 7, 2016.
Bill Casey Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
At this time, I want to thank all members of the health committee who worked diligently to get this through in an appropriate time. Although there were some philosophical differences, everyone appreciated the sense of urgency and helped to get the bill through. I want to thank all members from all parties for their co-operation on this bill. We think that this bill will save lives.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by dozens of people right across Canada. The petitioners recognize that only 26% of the seats in the House of Commons are held by women and that we are 64th in the world when it comes to electing women to Parliament.
Last year, the government joined with the Conservatives to vote down my private member's bill that would have incentivized political parties to elect more women in Parliament. I noticed that the electoral reform committee also recommended that these kinds of measures be brought in.
The petitioners are asking that the Liberals move ahead with these petitions and prove that they are not fake feminists.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if a supplementary response to Question No. 648, originally tabled on January 30, 2017, could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
With regard to appointments to federal boards, agencies, and associations since November 4, 2015, for each appointment: what is the name, province, and position of the appointee?
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the third time and passed.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.
The NDP is pleased to support the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because it is actually about trade. Canada currently runs a modest trade surplus with Ukraine, and we see a real potential for this deal, by removing tariffs to build upon that trade relationship to create jobs in Canada, and to make a contribution to the economy of the Ukraine as well. This is exactly the kind of agreement that the NDP is happy to support.
As members know, we are opposed to the agreement between Canada and the European Union. With the European Union, Canada currently runs a massive trade deficit, which would likely be enlarged by the agreement that would be a detraction from our economy and from employment in our country. That trade deficit is even larger, if we assume that the United Kingdom will be removed from the agreement as a result of Brexit.
There is a real contrast between these two agreements, in terms of the trade relationships that exist and that the agreements would likely amplify. However, an even bigger distinction has to do with the non-trade aspects of the Canada-Europe deal. The Canada-Europe agreement would extend the duration of pharmaceutical patents, which would drive up the price of prescription drugs for provincial health care systems, as well as for individual Canadians.
We are very pleased to note that those provisions are not present in the Canada-Ukraine deal, which gives us comfort in supporting it. We also note that the Canada-Europe agreement includes investor-state provisions, which empower foreign investors to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations, and public policies, not in the regular court system, but in a special set of commercial tribunals to which most other sectors of society do not have access.
Again, we are very pleased with the fact that the Canada-Ukraine agreement does not include these pernicious investor-state provisions. Again, this makes us quite comfortable in supporting it.
Before question period, I asked the member for Calgary Nose Hill about why the Conservatives believe it is so important to have investor-state provisions in the Canada-Europe agreement. Given that Canada and Europe both have well functioning court systems, it is not obvious to me why we would need to set up these special tribunals for Canadian investors in Europe, or European investors in Canada. I did not get much of an answer to this question from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. There really was not an explanation as to why the Conservatives, or the Liberal government, for that matter, feel it is important to have investor-state provisions in the Canada-Europe deal.
However, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, in response, did suggest that the NDP not reflexively supporting anything and everything called a free trade agreement somehow puts us in the same camp as the Trump administration, and challenged me to explain our positions on trade vis-à-vis those of President Trump. I would like to take the opportunity to address that.
Mr. Trump has identified several real problems that exist with American trade. He has called attention to the problem of Chinese steel, produced in violation of internationally recognized environmental and labour standards, being dumped into the U.S. market, to the detriment of the American steel industry and American steelworkers.
We have exactly the same problem here in Canada with Chinese steel being dumped into our markets. My sense is that we need to work with the United States, and indeed with the Trump administration, to formulate a North America solution for this problem. If we do not do that, if the United States acts alone against Chinese steel dumping, a lot of that steel will be diverted into the Canadian market, which would hurt our industry and our steelworkers even more.
Worse yet, if Canada allows itself to be a conduit for dumped Chinese steel, we could make ourselves a target for American trade retaliation. That would be disastrous, given that our steel industries are quite integrated across the Canada-U.S. border, and given that the steel trade is quite large and balanced between our two countries.
As someone who serves on the all-party steel caucus, I am going to try to work toward a North American solution to the problem of Chinese steel dumping rather than running the risk of Canada falling victim to the Trump administration's efforts to address this quite real and serious problem.
Now, on the topic of steel dumping, this is an issue with Ukraine as well. Ukraine has quite a significant steel industry, but, unfortunately, it does not have the kind of labour and environmental standards that all countries should respect. There is a problem with the dumping of Ukrainian steel as well. A few months ago, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal renewed anti-dumping duties on Ukrainian steel in recognition that the problem persists.
This is an issue that gives me some pause with the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. However, I am still confident in supporting it, because this deal importantly allows Canada to continue with trade remedy policies. This agreement does not impair our ability to apply anti-dumping and countervailing duties when necessary against Ukrainian steel. I think this agreement safeguards our industry and allows the Canadian government to continue to offset unfair competitive advantages achieved in Ukraine by violating internationally recognized labour and environmental standards. That is an important thing.
On the topic of dealing with the Trump administration on trade policy, in a much broader way, Trump has suggested renegotiating NAFTA. This is clearly a threat to Canada in some ways, but it is also an opportunity. I would note that there are aspects of NAFTA that are problematic, that do not work well for Canada, and that we should seek to fix in any potential renegotiation.
I spoke earlier about investor-state provisions and the problems created when we empower foreign investors to directly challenge policies that allegedly deprive them of some potential profit. We have seen a lot of those problems play out under NAFTA. We have the famous AbitibiBowater case. That company shut down its last pulp and paper mill in Newfoundland and Labrador. In response, the provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate those mills. The company turned around and sued Canada under NAFTA for the loss of those water rights, even though it was not using them anymore to produce pulp and paper in that province.
The former Conservative government ended up paying AbitibiBowater millions of dollars to settle that. Clearly, investor-state provisions are a problem, and clearly chapter 11 is a part of NAFTA that is not working. I think very high on the Canadian agenda in any renegotiation of NAFTA needs to be to remove chapter 11.
We have also had a lot of debates in the House about pipelines, about being able to export Canadian resources to different markets. NAFTA actually restricts that through the proportionality clause. It locks Canada in to making a certain proportion of our energy resources, not just oil and gas, but also electricity, available to the United States. Removing the proportionality clause from NAFTA is another thing that Canada needs to be pushing for in our negotiations with the Trump administration.
A lot of Canadians are fearful of this whole idea of renegotiation of NAFTA. There is a sense that if it does not work out, if Trump tears up NAFTA, then we will not have anything, that our whole trade relationship with the United States will be at risk. Happily, if we get into that eventuality, we still have the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which is a deal that is much more similar to the agreement we are currently debating with Ukraine. It is an agreement that removes tariffs. It is an agreement that gives us tariff-free access to the U.S. market without including these pernicious investor-state provisions.
Given that we can fall back on the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, Canada should be quite bold and should push quite hard in renegotiating NAFTA to fix it and remove those elements we do not like, because as I said, the alternative is something much better.
Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, because it is healthy for both Ukraine and Canada.
I was so pleased that the President of Ukraine gave a speech in this beautiful chamber. In his speech he talked about building on the relationship between our two countries. He also made reference to the idea of a trade agreement.
One could be proud that we have this legislation before us today. Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, all Canadians, in fact, will be quite pleased with the passage of this legislation.
The member is trying to justify why he is voting for this agreement but not for the European trade agreement. I would remind the member that the NDP has voted against other trade agreements that did not have what he referenced, which is the ability to sue.
I am going to take this at face value. The reason New Democrats are going to vote for this legislation is much in the same way as I just indicated. Would the member not agree with that?
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would note that NDP members have said very clearly and consistently for a long time that we object to investor-state provisions in trade agreements. When we are presented with trade agreements that do not include those provisions, we are much more likely to be able to support them. There are other provisions in trade agreements we would also look at and that would also affect our decision.
Whereas the Liberals and the Conservatives will automatically and reflexively support anything that is called a free trade agreement without weighing the pros and cons, how it will affect different sectors, or what other elements it includes, the NDP takes a very cautious, case-by-case approach. We try to evaluate the specific provisions of an agreement. We look at how it will affect different parts of our economy. We make the decision that way.
That is how middle-class Canadians, who the member references, would want our government to consider trade agreements. That is the approach we have taken in this case. Based on those types of careful deliberations, we are pleased to support the Canada-Ukraine agreement.