Mr. Speaker, I want to say hello to all my colleagues. Please excuse my hoarse voice. I seem to have caught a cold, probably from partying too hard over the holidays. My energy levels are still not back to normal, and neither is my voice. In any case, I am happy to be here. It lifts my spirits. I want to wish everyone a happy new year, although it is getting rather late to say that.
Today, we are talking about a bill to implement a new economic and trade agreement with Indonesia. I will start with the good before moving on to the bad.
Indonesia is a very large market. This bill provides a good opportunity for Quebec companies in a business environment that would be more stable and predictable, as is generally guaranteed by most agreements. It would support long-term investment and export development. The expansion of trade with Southeast Asia is also a great opportunity for green technologies, but not at any cost. I will talk about that in a moment. It is a good market. Of course, it will never replace the United States, which is something we will continue to point out. There is no easy fix.
It reminds me a little of that Indo-Pacific strategy that was announced with great fanfare a few years ago. I attended the briefing at the time, and later I asked a question. I said that Pierre Eliott Trudeau had announced a strategy, that Jean Chrétien had announced a strategy and that Stephen Harper had announced a strategy. Now it was Justin Trudeau's turn. I asked how this time would be any different. The answer I got was that there really would be a strategy this time and that we needed to have faith. A few months later, however, we found out that the Indo-Pacific strategy would be going ahead without India, because relations had broken down and negotiations had stalled. It was an Indo-Pacific strategy without India. My colleagues may make of that what they will.
However, we cannot say no to a good thing. We cannot be against the idea of an agreement with Indonesia in principle. I say “in principle” because we are very uncertain about supporting this all the way through. I will talk about our reservations.
I am going to start by talking about the method. It is nothing new: Parliament does not debate the actual agreement; it debates an implementation bill. Parliament passes laws according to a well-established process that involves conducting a detailed study in committee and holding public hearings. However, Parliament is largely excluded from the treaty-making process. Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-228, which was rejected about an hour or two before this debate right now. It is almost as though the parliamentarians here are unwilling to do their job as parliamentarians, and that is absolutely shameful. It amounts to saying that it is a lot easier to hand off all responsibility to the executive, let it do what it wants, engage in negotiations and then ratify the agreement. Ultimately, we will end up debating and studying it for the first time during the negotiation process, which is extremely secretive. In the end, debating and amending a bill allows little opportunity to change much of what is in the agreement.
We are mere elected representatives of the people. Let us not forget that Canada is a monarchy. We are mere elected representatives of the people sent here to argue positions and raise points. There are things we would like agreements to include, things we would prefer they not include, and things we would like to advance on, but our wishes neither count nor matter, so they get pushed aside. I thank all my Bloc Québécois colleagues for voting in favour of this bill. I also want to thank the two Conservatives who voted for our bill earlier.
What is even more worrisome now is the human rights situation in Indonesia, particularly with respect to goods being produced for the Canadian market. The agreement will primarily benefit mining companies and the fossil fuel industry, and it puts respect for human rights and sustainable industrial development on the back burner.
I also have to mention the notorious investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which I talk about every time this comes up, and I will come back to this point a little later. This agreement includes such a mechanism, and it serves as a bit of right to profit for multinationals. It gives them the right to sue the governments where they invest if they feel that their profits have been adversely affected. It allows them to be treated as true sovereign powers and to take states and governments to court. It allows a multinational corporation to effectively override the democratic will of elected officials who may have adopted a policy that, according to that multinational, would undermine its right to profit. There are plenty of examples, each more scandalous than the last. When this mechanism was removed from CUSMA, we thought that Canada had finally entered the 21st century, that it had finally listened to common sense. However, as we saw with the bill that was on the agenda earlier, parliamentarians here like to shirk their responsibilities.
As a result, they are still quite capable of living with the fact that multinationals are overturning their decisions, even if it means that it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues relating to social justice, the environment, labour conditions and public health.
According to a report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development dating from 2013, which does not take into account disputes initiated since then, 42% of cases were decided in favour of the state while 31% were in favour of the business. The remaining cases were settled. That means that, in 58% of cases, the claimants managed to completely or partially force the political leadership to backtrack.
Moreover, this quantitative data ignores an aspect that cannot be calculated: the pressure this puts on people responsible for establishing policy proactively. They might hesitate to pursue certain things for fear of being sued. There is clearly a deterrent effect in these mechanisms. Moreover, these disputes are very lucrative for large international law firms.
We have always opposed that, and I will continue to oppose it at committee. I do that all the time. Even when I vote in favour of certain trade agreements, I always vote against provisions that allow for investor-state dispute settlement under local law. After the committee reviews the bill being considered in the House, then I will decide whether I am ultimately for or against it. However, in either case, I will definitely vote against investor-state dispute settlement. I can give my word on that.
After all, Indonesia is a relatively poor country. Foreign investors should not be able to use the free trade agreement to dictate their will under threat of legal action. This would undermine the sovereignty of Indonesians, who already have so few rights. We will continue to oppose having this mechanism included in the agreement. If it were to be removed, we would undoubtedly be more favourable to the bill when it reaches the final stage.
Let us also talk about rights. During consultations on the agreement, working groups pointed out the prevalence of forced labour and human rights violations in Indonesian supply chains. They encouraged the government to include strong protections for workers, indigenous communities and the environment. Unfortunately, there is nothing about that in the agreement. There are no guarantees and no binding protections. The agreement even reverses the progress made on labour protections obtained by workers in some recent agreements, including the agreement with Ukraine. The only amendment that was retained in the agreement with Ukraine was mine. We were told that this needed to be monitored more closely, but that overall it was a real step forward.
However, after the Prime Minister signed agreements with Qatar and China, it became clear that human rights are not one of his top priorities. That is not the case for us. Human rights are important to us and we are committed to standing up for these values. The preamble of the agreement is totally ridiculous because it basically says that these are principles, period.
Indonesia is the largest manufacturing economy in Southeast Asia. The manufacturing economy accounts for more than 20% of its GDP. The manufacturing industry has really been a major part of Indonesia's modern economy. Unfortunately, Indonesia has gotten richer at the expense of human rights. That is putting it mildly. Although the Indonesian government requires all industries to comply with child labour laws, it has been reported that approximately 1.01 million children were involved in child labour in 2023. This is important and it must be taken into account. That will be coming our way before long.
There are many layers and subcontractors in the supply chains, which makes traceability challenging. This often makes it difficult to know the conditions under which certain products, like clothing, are manufactured.
There is no longer any doubt that the people who work in clothes manufacturing in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia—whether they are involved in cutting, sewing or bonding—often work in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without any social safety net and without a formal contract. These workers are often exposed to harmful chemicals and unsafe work environments.
That danger is also evident in the leather tanning industry. Workers, often migrants, handle hides and hazardous chemicals and are exposed to significant health risks, particularly from the chromium compounds used in tanning.
The rights of migrant workers, especially women, remain vulnerable in Indonesia. The United Nations Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families has indicated that 70% of migrant workers in Indonesia are women and it has emphasized the need for measures to protect these women from harassment and exploitation. The committee learned that these women are frequently victims of abuse and that those employed in the fishing industry, often in irregular situations, are particularly vulnerable to human trafficking.
If Canada is looking to increase imports of clothing, fishery products and leather from Indonesia, it is imperative that we strengthen worker protections and ensure that our fundamental values are upheld, particularly with regard to human rights, so that our trade is not conducted at the expense of ethics.
That is why I introduced Bill C-251, which essentially copies the American model that works quite well, whereas Canada has almost never seized anything in its entire history. The burden of proof is reversed, and when entities, regions or companies are presumed to be using forced labour, the onus is on the importer to prove otherwise. It works. It has proven its worth. Canada's model, which relies entirely on the goodwill of customs officers, does not work.
Twice, in the March 2023 budget and in the March 2024 budget, we read verbatim that such legislation was going to be introduced by the end of the year, whether it was 2023 or 2024. As far as I know, it is now 2026 and we have not seen anything yet. I should mention that it was not spoken of again in budget 2025, although I imagine that has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's kowtowing to China's dictatorship. There is probably no connection; it must be me who is crazy. In any case, we are going to have to get moving on that. In due course, I hope the House will pass this bill.
I also want to talk about palm oil. Palm oil is already being imported into Canada. It is the most widely consumed vegetable oil in the world. Indonesia is a major palm oil producer. Palm oil imports into Canada are increasing at a startling rate. However, the production process is associated with a real environmental and human cost. Huge swaths of tropical forests are being destroyed, often by burning, to make way for plantations, resulting in a massive loss of biodiversity and threatening iconic species such as orangutans. This deforestation also contributes to air pollution and climate change. In terms of the social impact, the expansion of plantations, often carried out under the direction of warlords, frequently occurs at the expense of local and indigenous communities, in a context of abusive working conditions, exploitation and sometimes forced labour.
This agreement severely exacerbates the situation by stimulating the production and export of palm oil, without imposing any serious requirements, even though this would have been the perfect opportunity to do so. Some folks might wonder what I am talking about and whether this problem is really serious. The European Union created a panel on EU measures concerning palm oil and biofuels from Indonesia to address issues surrounding the production and import of these products into Canada. I think that shows the situation is quite serious.
It is also important to discuss any additional harms we might be causing there. Canada produces a large amount of plastic waste every year, but only a small portion of it is actually recycled here. A significant portion of what we think of as being recycled ends up in foreign countries for processing, particularly in the United States or Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, where recycling infrastructure cannot handle these kinds of volumes. Some of this waste, which is often hard to recycle and mixed with garbage, ends up in landfills or is burned in open air pits, polluting the local environment and exposing communities to health and environmental risks. Activists and experts argue that continuing to export plastic waste to countries that are not equipped to process it is not a sustainable solution. In addition, this goes against Canada's so-called targets for reducing plastic pollution and violates the principles of international law regarding waste management.
I also want to talk about mining and conflicts between mining investors and governments. Canada, incidentally, is a haven for mining companies. Canada is a flag of convenience, because these mining companies are often not actually Canadian at all. They are simply registered here. All they need is a post office box to be able to benefit from the advantages of the TSX. That is why most of the world's mining companies are registered here, because it gives them advantages.
Conflicts between mining investors and governments often begin as conflicts between investors and local communities, which are initially displaced from their lands or suffer environmental degradation, such as contaminated drinking water. I have seen this happen in Colombia and Chile. I have spoken with people who have been affected by air pollution, water pollution, the use of private security firms that have fired point-blank at locals. There are a number of documented cases today. We also know that in many of these cases, investigations revealed that Canadian embassies had an official line of pro-mining diplomacy, always supporting these companies. It is all well and good to go and talk about human rights in Davos in front of a bunch of people wearing shiny shoes and $2,000 suits, but we should really be taking concrete action on this, too.
These disputes are often caused or exacerbated by a lack of adequate consultation on the project. In Indonesia, the community on the small island of Sangihe is a case in point. This community has long been fighting to prevent the Canadian company Baru Gold from starting industrial gold mining operations. If the community succeeds in stopping the project, but the agreement is ratified in Canada and Indonesia, the company would have the option of suing Indonesia for lost profits. On what grounds? On the grounds of the investor-state dispute settlement I mentioned earlier. Is that not a wonderful thing? Well, that is what Canada is defending.
The current reconfiguration of trade partnerships and supply chains calls for severe and strict requirements for ethical consistency: no economic ties should be maintained with suppliers or states involved in human exploitation or trafficking, particularly to the detriment of the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples, in the case of China. Of course, we will never cut off economic ties with the regions that are affected, but we must nevertheless be firm with the states that are in charge.
Lastly, we also have to bear in mind that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for implementing the provisions of treaties within their areas of jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois demands respect for this sovereignty. Quebec has its own Indo-Pacific strategy—which pre-dates Canada's, if I am not mistaken—that aims to support Quebec exporters and attract foreign direct investors from that part of the world.
Yes, we are in favour of trade. The Bloc Québécois is the natural successor and supporter of the independence movement that was among the first to advocate for free trade with the United States in the 1980s. Free trade gave us a chance to breathe, to escape the confines of the Canadian market. We are still in favour of it, provided, of course, that the products we get are untainted by human rights abuses.
