44th Parl. 1st Sess.

December 12, 2023 10:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23

Dec/12/23 1:03:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleague listen before he raises points of order. He might find that useful later on during question period. That brings me to the matter of returning to the agreement. I have consistently said that I oppose it. Let us keep in mind that all of the Conservatives' amendments were ruled out of order. I was against all of them. Some of what they contained was totally irresponsible and dangerous, such as including the sale of weapons in a trade agreement. We want this to be an agreement for reconstruction and peace, not for what its wording implies, an agreement for perpetual warfare. It made no sense. However, every time that the amendments brought forward were ruled out of order, I voted with the Conservatives so that the amendments could be debated and heard. The definition of trade agreements has a major transparency problem. Something makes no sense. I intend to talk about it. Ottawa is not being transparent with its own MPs even though they are the ones chosen by the people to represent them in the House. No matter the issue or the party in power, governments do not like their opponents scrutinizing their actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, Canada's monarchical culture demands secrecy. Canada clings to that monarchical tradition, keeping its trade agreements hidden in the shadows lest they perish like vampires in the sun. As an MP, I have experienced this on several occasions, including in November and December 2020, when the Standing Committee on International Trade was supposed to study the transitional Canada-UK free trade agreement without actually seeing it. It was a genuine theatre of the absurd. We heard witnesses, experts who told us what they liked and did not like, and who encouraged us to vote for or against certain parts of it. Not one of those people had seen the agreement, not even the MPs who were supposed to study it. What was the point? When Canada's Department of External Affairs was created in 1909, the Secretary of State presiding over it was required to provide an annual report to Parliament on the department's activities. Logically, this included a report on Canada's international discussions and commitments. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give it a freer hand by granting it jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The requirement for an annual report was abolished at that time. However, in 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating the following: ...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured. In actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements. My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois’s efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members. There is currently a policy in place, but no government has had the courage to create binding legislation. That is not the same thing. As a result, the government can act arbitrarily. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. Also, this process, while desirable in itself but ridiculously inadequate, consisting in asking members what they think after the fact, could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties’ position. Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector. It is written down. The European Union has members vote before starting negotiations. It asks them which mandates they wish to give negotiators. The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process. We might have hoped for progress when yet another agreement was reached between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in 2020. We would have thought there would be more transparency in the process. I remember that we were studying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in the Standing Committee on International Trade. Before CUSMA was adopted, the NDP reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, agreeing to accelerate the adoption of CUSMA in exchange for the government’s commitment to increase transparency in trade agreements. There would be less transparency at the time, because there was less time to study CUSMA but, in exchange, there would be more transparency in the future. What happened? The next agreement, with the United Kingdom, was referred for consideration for several weeks without us having any text. This tells us how successful the agreement was. Now, there are talks with Indonesia. There were talks with India until not long ago. There are talks with the whole Indo-Pacific region and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There are talks with the United Kingdom for a transitional agreement. Eventually, there will be talks with Mercosur. We know absolutely nothing about any of these. The meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, even when we hear from Canadian negotiators, tell us very little. That agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada yielded negligible results, which does not seem to have discouraged the NDP from continuing to forge alliances with them. Good for them, but when it comes to transparency, I wish them better luck next time. I would also like to talk about transparency toward the provinces. There is nothing in Canadian federalism—and this is a misnomer, since there is no longer any federalism; we are on the road to a centralized unitary state—that requires consultation with the provinces. There was one sole exception. It was for an agreement with Europe, when Quebec was allowed one negotiator. However, that negotiator had no seat at the negotiations table. The chief negotiator for Quebec, former premier Pierre Marc Johnson, has said that he was there just to be a cheerleader for the Canadian delegation, which essentially engaged in backroom negotiations. In contrast, Wallonia nearly scuttled that whole agreement, because it disagreed with one provision, and because that is how the Belgian system works. Perhaps there is something here for Canada to learn, in terms of how it operates. That would be showing real respect for the provinces. It is a proposal for reform, but it is not my preferred solution. My preference would be for Quebec to be at the negotiating table as an independent country. I would add that, if the federal government is to represent all Canadians in international agreements and we cannot even manage to enjoy the benefits, Quebec is becoming an increasingly negligible quantity in Parliament. How can we ever gain the smallest advantage if year after year, electoral reform after electoral reform, we are losing more and more ground? We are going to become a more and more insignificant minority in this Parliament. When I say “we”, I mean the Quebec nation. With the new electoral map coming into effect shortly, Quebec will have 70 seats out of 341 instead of out of 338. Since votes in Parliament are often close, Quebec’s political weight will be reduced, accounting for around 22% of the total number of members. The trend is clear. As Quebec’s demographic weight decreases, its power in the House of Commons will become increasingly insignificant. Beyond the numbers, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences, because Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is that not the real consequence of our presence in this regime, which seems to be designed to perpetually marginalize us? Before the creation of the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we had the right to equal representation. We were two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority. Once we became less numerous, the regime magically switched to proportional representation. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up. I will conclude my speech by repeating that we are in favour of the agreement, but that we would have preferred a much different process in which the provinces and elected members could have taken part in the negotiations.

1608 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 266