Linda Duncan

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed from Edmonton Strathcona and the proud representative of many Ukrainian Canadians. I like to brag that I come from the city with the most Canadian Ukrainians, and I duke it out all the time with Winnipeg and Toronto, but I am sure I am correct.

As others have shared, Canada and Ukraine have had a long friendly relationship, except for, as my colleague mentioned, a period of repression during the internment, which we still need to deal with.

I personally have had the great experience of Christmas eve dinners with the 12 courses of Christmas—and I am wondering how many in this place can reiterate what those 12 courses are—enjoying blueberry petahe brought back from Winnipeg by a Ukrainian Canadian friend for me to enjoy, and my father's many clients in Smoky Lake who were of Ukrainian descent. One cannot be an Albertan without having the experience of being Ukrainian by osmosis, even if I am a proud Scottish Irish Canadian.

Our two countries continue to enjoy a positive bilateral relationship with close historic ties of friendship that have been forged through many generations of Ukrainian immigration to Canada. Many of the Ukrainians who immigrated to Canada arrived in Alberta at the station in my constituency before heading off to establish successful farm operations. A beautiful display of this 125-year immigration story, crafted by the Kule Folklore Centre in my riding, has been travelling across Canada this past year. I would encourage anybody who has the opportunity to take a look at that. It is a beautiful memorial of the immigration of Ukrainians to Canada.

Along with my colleagues, I have been inspired by the determination of our Ukrainian interns, as well. It is very sad that this program has not continued. I would encourage the government, as it moves forward with a trade agreement, to try to come forward with the funding to bring back more of those interns, because I know they have gone back to Ukraine and are doing the hard work of restoring democracy to that country.

In December 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence. That was followed by the establishment of diplomatic relations, development assistance toward sustainable development for Ukraine, a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation, and a bilateral air transport agreement. There have been many initiatives over time by governments in support of better relations with Ukraine.

The proposed trade agreement would eliminate almost 100% of the trade duties on Ukrainian imports and 86% of Canadian imports into Ukraine, over approximately seven years. As my colleague mentioned, this is a good route to go because we are trying to even off the trade and give greater benefit to Ukraine as it tries to develop its struggling democracy and its economy.

It is important to keep in mind that, from what I understand, there is currently only $70 million in trade benefits to Ukraine from trading with Canada. Therefore, we are not talking about a sizeable economic benefit. Rather, this is more a gesture of friendship, to serve as a powerful message that Canada supports the economic development of Ukraine and is willing to trade with and work with this new government as it tries to develop economically. It is also a means to open up more opportunities for investment in trade between our countries. Many in my province export grains, pork, beef, and so forth. It is also intended to provide an incentive for Ukraine to institute further economic reforms for the benefit of the people of Ukraine and investors. There has been a long history in Ukraine, prior to the revolution of dignity, when the people of Ukraine were not the beneficiaries of economic development. It is important for us to keep that in perspective, as many members in this place have raised the issues and concerns of human rights.

As the government has said, in addition to generating commercial benefits for Canadian businesses, the deal would also help spur economic reform and development efforts of Ukraine and strengthen the Canada-Ukraine partnership for peace and prosperity. Many have mentioned the problems in eastern Ukraine, the perils that Ukrainians face with the intrusion of Russian troops, and the end of peace and any potential for economic prosperity. The deal would also pave the way for long-term security, stability, and broad-based economic development in Ukraine.

Hope has increased for democratic governance for Ukraine post the revolution of dignity led in the Maidan and the election of a new government. I was privileged to participate in international monitoring missions for several of the recent elections.

Prior to this change in the regime, Canada identified numerous concerns with the erosion of democracy and rule of law and the infringement of human rights. These concerns were documented in a report prepared by the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. Among the concerns we identified in 2012 were concerns expressed by chambers of commerce in Ukraine about the lack of legal protections for foreign investors.

The current Ukrainian government is committed to addressing improved investment law and corruption in the courts, but it will be very important, as we proceed with this trade agreement, which will be encouraging more Canadian investors to invest, that they must be careful. We were forewarned that, unless they had deep pockets, their investments might be at risk.

Nonetheless, since that date, we do have a new government. There is greater faith in its commitment to democracy and rule of law reform, but we still receive serious reports of corruption in the courts.

In this deal, there are some environmental measures but no evidence of equivalent actions on the part of Ukraine.

It would have been helpful, as I have mentioned on the CETA deal, and it would have been better to actually establish an independent secretariat, as was done under the NAFTA agreement, so that the Ukrainians could benefit by having an independent assessment of whether or not the government is moving forward and making sure that environmental considerations are factored in—as, for example, there may be Canadian investment in fracking in that country.

There is an additional area where Canada could offer extensive expertise and products in trade, including in conservation, ecological tourism, or pollution control.

Another area where Canada could offer its expertise is in energy efficiency. Ukraine was required to initiate a reform program toward ending substantial subsidies on gas as a condition to its IMF loan. As a contracting party to the European energy community, it must make reforms to comply with EU directives on energy efficiency. The country has consequently initiated measures to transform its outdated system of providing energy, including establishing a state agency of energy efficiency and energy saving. There, perhaps we could learn something from Ukraine. Canada could offer expertise in delivering the necessary programs at the national and local levels to increase the level of knowledge and public awareness and support for investments in improved energy efficiency.

Canadian municipalities could also share their experiences with Ukrainian cities that are interested in switching to use of biofuels.

We could also assist Ukrainian entrepreneurs in marketing their energy technologies in North America. I am delighted that one of my former Ukrainian interns is involved in marketing an award-winning energy-efficiency meter designed by a start-up Ukrainian technology company.

Canadian firms will be exploring the potential for developing energy reserves in Ukraine. It will be, as I mentioned, important that we also promote our technical expertise in alternative energy sources.

As I mentioned, there have been many concerns about the erosion of democracy and corruption in the courts. In fact, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress actually recommended to audit before it would sign on to a trade deal. It actually attached conditions on human rights, rule of law, and adherence to fundamental democratic principles

The UCC, as well as many of us here, now recognizes that there is a new government with more commitment to these reforms, but it is important that, in this trade deal, we watchdog for the purposes of Ukrainian benefit and also for Canadian investors, to make sure that these reforms are in place and so these investments are safeguarded.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the president of our Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group, and I enjoy working with him.

We have had a question about the human rights, but I would like to put a question for the member about broad-spread concerns about the erosion of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

I was part of the foreign affairs mission to Ukraine before the change in government. We met with many people, and they raised a lot of concerns. It was the Ukrainian Canadian Congress that advised Ottawa that negotiation should be conditional upon Ukrainian government agreeing to action on democracy and human rights, and that there should be provisions on human rights, rule of law, and adherence to fundamental democratic change. Now we know that there have been some reforms, but I am getting reports back that there are still concerns, including corruption in the courts.

Does the member think Canada should continue or step up our assistance to try to remove those barriers so Ukrainians themselves can benefit from any trade increase?

[The Environment, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous communities in northern Alberta are calling for action on toxic contamination of their traditional foods. Repeated studies have revealed that rising levels of toxins emitted by oil sands operations are contaminating the Athabasca River and Wood Buffalo National Park, despite the mandatory duty of the federal health minister to act on evidence that toxins may impact health.

All that the previous Conservative government did was initiate attacks on a brave doctor who revealed his concerns. Will the current health minister finally act?

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jonquière raises a very important point about local procurement. We are in a country right now where many are suffering from unemployment or just part-time jobs. We are also struggling to try to establish our renewable-energy and energy-efficiency sector.

At a time when I know my city is trying to move forward and take action on climate change, it would be really important if we could provide local employment on energy-efficiency programs. Does the member have concerns in her own community that this agreement may mean that local communities will actually have to compete with European entrepreneurs?

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, time after time the dairy and milk producers in my riding have raised concerns about the fact that the management system may be eroded. Absolutely, this should be dealt with before we sign on to any agreement. I would like to thank the member for standing in defence of the dairy farms in her province.

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement does not even include the basic provisions that were in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, wherein if any decision is made that may impact the public of those three countries, there is the opportunity to receive notice and to comment. In that agreement, there was no mention of engaging indigenous peoples. There is some bare reference made in some of our legislation, but it is not enough.

The current government espouses that it endorses the UNDRIP, yet time after time it says that it will not abide by those provisions and refuses to support the enactment of the United Nations declaration, as my colleague has espoused.

Yes, indeed, first nations, Métis, and Inuit leaders should have been at the table, government-to-government, during the negotiations of this treaty. They certainly should have their say before this bill is signed off on and this agreement is signed and sealed.

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Jonquière for her continuing to step up and speak on behalf of the dairy industry in Quebec.

As I mentioned, this agreement falls far short of what one would have expected of a government that portrays itself as the great environmental defender. The side agreement on environment under NAFTA was groundbreaking, but the then president of the United States, Bill Clinton, said that he regretted not making it binding within the actual NAFTA trade agreement.

One would have thought if the government were the great defender of balancing environmental impacts to trade and economic development, it would have done exactly what Bill Clinton suggested. Instead, we do not even have the basic provisions that were in the side agreement to NAFTA. They are completely pared down and are simply modelled on the cuts made by the Conservative government on all of the trade deals for which they voted.

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, hats off for my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I want to second the comments he made, giving thanks to all his supporters and their work.

I am particularly grateful to my family, in particular, my brother. Now that it is 40 below with wind chill in Alberta, he graciously put my car in the garage, so I thank Peter Duncan.

I also want to thank all who support me in my work and, frankly, all in this place who do incredible work for the public every day we are here.

As my NDP colleagues have repeatedly stated, our party favours international trade agreements that are fair and reciprocal. During my tenure in this place, we have supported several that met these conditions. The previous government was quick to sign any agreement just to sign so-called free trade agreements. The current government promised better deals but instead signed off on the Conservative-negotiated deal with Europe, despite the unaddressed concerns expressed by many Canadians.

As has been mentioned, changes to intellectual properly rules will cause drug prices to skyrocket. Considering our aging population, mounting household debt, and the number of Canadians, in particular seniors, already struggling to pay for food, rent, and medicines, this deal will seriously impact affordability.

The government should have at least assessed and addressed this impact in advance of signing, particularly since it appears pharmacare is missing from the government's priority list for additional health transfers.

CETA also poses significant impacts to Alberta's agriculture and agrifood sectors. In particular, concerns have been expressed by our dairy and dairy processing sectors. While most attention has been focused on the impacts to the Quebec dairy sector, Alberta dairy will also be impacted.

We are told that Canadian manufacturing standards, combined with generous subsidies for European producers, make it almost impossible for cheese makers to compete, at least to compete fairly.

The government promised dairy farmers and processors a total $350 million investment fund over four years to help them modernize their operations, increase their productivity and efficiency, as well as diversify their range of products in order to capitalize new European markets. Unfortunately this is far less than the Conservatives promised.

I am deeply proud of the contribution to our economy by our Alberta dairy farmers. I meet regularly with them to try to address their concerns. One incredible multi-generational farm family, the Bococks, operated a dairy operation since its immigration from Ireland in 1921. It not only introduced many beneficial innovations for sustainable farming, on retirement the family donated 777 acres of their operation to the University of Alberta for dairy research. Its contribution has been recognized with the Dairy Industry Achievement Award. It is farm families like the Bococks that are being impacted.

While the program will, for the most part, benefit the largest processors, the amount is far from adequate, as has been shared often in the House on debate of this bill.

These pioneers, other Canadian dairy families and processors who continue to produce fine product should be factored first in considering any potential impacts of trade deals. While Alberta dairy producers and processors are grateful some compensation has been promised, they are only matching funds and limited to modernization investments. This support will be unavailable to those who have already invested in changes, yet, they may still be impacted.

Alberta cheese makers estimate a loss of 17,000 tonnes in cheese sales. They are concerned if the promised funds are to be allocated to producers and processors or if they will they be partly eaten up by administration of the fund. Also, they have expressed concern about how quickly the money will flow as they need to get out ahead of anticipated changes to the market.

CETA could also be problematic for our pork and beef industries. Although they potentially will benefit, there are European regulatory obstacles that must be addressed.

I wish to reiterate concerns expressed by many about the government's insistence on retaining the investor-state provisions.

Shifting authority to an independent court to rule on corporate complaints of what it deems unfair environmental or health provisions is reprehensible, certainly in a country that believes in rule of law. Surely such a measure contradicts the very principles the government claims to espouse, that the financial interests of investors should not be permitted to supersede the public interest, including environmental protections.

Successful industrial state-investor claims under the trade deals have already created a regulatory chill and, as some of my colleagues have shared, we have lost most of those cases brought against our country by investors.

It is the continued erosion of environmental protection prevailing over trade deals that troubles me the most. In the mid-1990s, when the North American Free Trade Agreement was entered into by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Canada also signed on to several side agreements. One of those was the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Every trade deal since has strayed from those foundational principles and institutions, including provision for independent assessment and reporting on the parties' adherence to the environmental commitments.

Yes, there are vague mentions of environment in CETA, but the measures fall far short of the bar set under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Absent is any independent environment secretariat or council of environment minsters to monitor and act on complaints of failed environmental enforcement or delivery on public rights of engagement in decisions that place economic considerations ahead of the environment. In place of these credible mechanisms, the parties will merely appoint some officer as a contact point, presumably low within their respective bureaucracies.

There is no provision for independent assessment and reporting. Gone is the commitment to prepare and make public a state of the environment report, a matter that has been raised with me a number of times in the last few weeks. Whatever happened to the state of environment reports?

Gone is commitment to ensure public notice and right to comment in advance of any decision impacting the environment, including trade deals and agreements negotiated among the provinces, territories, and the federal government on climate. Gone is the framework for effective environmental enforcement. These are necessary to hold the government accountable.

Finally, what will be the effect on Canadian local job creation through the burgeoning Canadian renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors of article 24.9? It requires removal of any obstacles to investments in goods and services for renewable energy goods and related services. Will there be barriers to local hiring and incentives? Has the government even examined that?

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what a remarkable idea, a trade agreement based on the environment and the new energy economy. That would be a remarkable feat.

My colleague mentioned concerns with the lack of due attention to the environment in these agreements, since the 1990s, when NAFTA was signed. There were two side agreements, one on labour and one environment, with that. I had the privilege of working at the secretariat under the environmental agreement.

When the Conservatives were in power, it was all erased. One might be hopeful that the government, which espouses that environment is on par with economic development, would again bring forward all those provisions under the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation.

Could the member speak a bit about how important it is to Canadians that we ensure we give due attention to environmental protection?

[Committees of the House, December 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the member across the way speak in the House. It has been a pleasure working with him for many years in this place.

There is one profound point that my constituents, and in fact, people from right across my province, have raised many times. It is that they are fed up with the process in which less than 40% of the vote receives an even larger majority government. That is what happened with this government. We again have a mass majority government that received less than 40% of the vote. It is clear and simple. People have told me there has to be a better way to do it.

We have had a lot of great discussions with groups like Fair Vote Canada. Professors have talked to me about systems in other countries. People were free to fill out, with no pressure, a questionnaire giving some of the options. The committee did a sensible review. What is so upsetting is that we now have the valuable information to simply make the decision at the right time, and yet we have this nonsensical survey that has people incensed.

Would the member agree with me that we should just proceed to begin making amendments?